Cycling and bicycle discussion forums. 
   Click here to join our community Log in to access your Control Panel  


Go Back   > > >

Vehicular Cycling (VC) No other subject has polarized the A&S members like VC has. Here's a place to share, debate, and educate.

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-04-13, 05:54 PM   #376
genec
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Posts: 24,967
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 852 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
Originally Posted by John Forester
You should quit trolling with such ridiculous bait. Try some reasonable discussion instead.


He is merely citing reality... such bike paths exist in places along the hiway 56 bike path, along Seaworld drive, along the Strand... Hmmm local examples exist and yet you call discussing such examples "trolling."

Of course the difference here is there is no local law prohibiting the use of the higher speed road... thus making the comment:
Originally Posted by John Forester
The problem is not that some facilities require slow speeds, but that some of those slow-speed facilities are adjacent to prohibited roads where the cyclist is limited only by his own physique. It is being forced to ride slowly when facilities safely suitable for higher speeds are available.







It is well known that situations exist, depending on the location and its laws, in which cyclists are required to use bikeways that require slow speeds for safety when nearby roadways exist which the cyclist could, but for the law, use safely at higher speed. Genec, the discussion was never limited to California. Indeed, the title of the discussion is the facts about cycling in Holland, which seems to have been long avoided.

The original respondent to my statement asserted that I must be describing a situation in which my criticism does not apply, as if this type were the only type of such situation. That's why I claim that he was trolling with rotten bait rather than having a meaningful discussion of the situation where it does apply.
So you've been to Holland and actually ridden there recently, and have seen how "poorly" it works? If not, your views are largely localized and your opinions regarding cycling in Holland are not worth rotten bait.
genec is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-13, 07:22 PM   #377
John Forester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by genec View Post
So you've been to Holland and actually ridden there recently, and have seen how "poorly" it works? If not, your views are largely localized and your opinions regarding cycling in Holland are not worth rotten bait.
That statement unethically and illogically claims a personal defect about a matter completely outside the subject of discussion. The subject of discussion was the existence of bikeways so dangerous that they require slow cycling but are adjacent to a roadway which the cyclist could safely use at more nearly his desired speed. Genec has neither discussed the problem raised by such facilities nor has he proved that such facilities do not exist. The latter proof would be difficult indeed, because so many of us know of such facilities.

Instead of entering into a polite and rational discussion of the issue, Genec has dodged the issue by advancing the irrelevant and personal argument that since I have not cycled in Holland my opinions on this issue "are not worth rotten bait". Genec has taken this not relevant opportunity to argue his personal animosity instead of reasonable discussion.
John Forester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-13, 08:53 AM   #378
genec
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Posts: 24,967
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 852 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
That statement unethically and illogically claims a personal defect about a matter completely outside the subject of discussion. The subject of discussion was the existence of bikeways so dangerous that they require slow cycling but are adjacent to a roadway which the cyclist could safely use at more nearly his desired speed. Genec has neither discussed the problem raised by such facilities nor has he proved that such facilities do not exist. The latter proof would be difficult indeed, because so many of us know of such facilities.

Instead of entering into a polite and rational discussion of the issue, Genec has dodged the issue by advancing the irrelevant and personal argument that since I have not cycled in Holland my opinions on this issue "are not worth rotten bait". Genec has taken this not relevant opportunity to argue his personal animosity instead of reasonable discussion.
Right. As if I have not responded at all to this thread...
genec is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-13, 08:58 AM   #379
I-Like-To-Bike
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Posts: 24,099
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
entering into a polite and rational discussion of the issue,
Genec or anyone else might like to enter into a polite and rational discussion of the issue but:

Conducting a two way polite and rational discussion with a few Vehicular Cycling advocates is an impossibility if the issue, observation or opinion expressed is not in line with the VC advocate's version of the issue, observation, opinion or dogma.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-13, 01:54 PM   #380
John Forester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike View Post
Genec or anyone else might like to enter into a polite and rational discussion of the issue but:

Conducting a two way polite and rational discussion with a few Vehicular Cycling advocates is an impossibility if the issue, observation or opinion expressed is not in line with the VC advocate's version of the issue, observation, opinion or dogma.
The issue under discussion is that raised by the presence of a mandatory-use, slow-speed and additional delay bikeway that runs alongside a roadway which the cyclist could safely use at more nearly his desired speed. That is the issue that has been raised, and I defined it. Not one of you has written a sentence on this subject, but some have presented impolite statements. Since I have not yet presented any opinion on this subject, the claim of the person hiding behind the ILTB screen, that I have been issuing opinion or dogma, is entirely without foundation.

I have expressed no opinion about this situation.
John Forester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-13, 02:19 PM   #381
Bekologist
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Posts: 18,025
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Is john telling the forum the Dutch object to their cycletracks?



hardly! the dutch ride in droves, save money, stay healthy and vital as a result of a build up of cycling-specific infrastructure that includes portions of that infrastructure separating bikes from car traffic and considers bicycle movements preferentially at intersections.

the "eight to 80" population, as they like to say in Bogota, the Netherlands.

oh, did everyone read in this weeks' Economist magazine? Ridership in Buenos Aires, Holland, quintipuled after that city put in a separated cycletrack network.


Let me check my geography though, i'm not sure either of those cities are actually in Holland.

-------------------- as counter to the Dutch and their accursed anti-cycling cycletracks, no one frames the derision more eloquently then BikeSnob NYC in today's blog.....

Quote:
Originally Posted by bikesnob NYC
Though that's clearly an absurd notion, since every North American knows the best course of action is strapping on a helment and pretending to be a car.

Last edited by Bekologist; 03-05-13 at 02:48 PM.
Bekologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-13, 03:13 PM   #382
John Forester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
Is john telling the forum the Dutch object to their cycletracks?



hardly! the dutch ride in droves, save money, stay healthy and vital as a result of a build up of cycling-specific infrastructure that includes portions of that infrastructure separating bikes from car traffic and considers bicycle movements preferentially at intersections.

the "eight to 80" population, as they like to say in Bogota, the Netherlands.

oh, did everyone read in this weeks' Economist magazine? Ridership in Buenos Aires, Holland, quintipuled after that city put in a separated cycletrack network.


Let me check my geography though, i'm not sure either of those cities are actually in Holland.

-------------------- as counter to the Dutch and their accursed anti-cycling cycletracks, no one frames the derision more eloquently then BikeSnob NYC in today's blog.....
Bek makes clear, through both his rolling laughter icon and his tone, that he believes, or that he chooses to insinuate, that I have been discussing the Dutch attitude to their traffic system. Neither I nor most of the recent contributors have been doing so; the discussion has concentrated on situations in the USA.
John Forester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-13, 04:34 AM   #383
Bekologist
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Posts: 18,025
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
Bek makes clear, through both his rolling laughter icon and his tone, that he believes, or that he chooses to insinuate, that I have been discussing the Dutch attitude to their traffic system. Neither I nor most of the recent contributors have been doing so; the discussion has concentrated on situations in the USA.


Quote:
Originally Posted by bekologist
the dutch ride in droves, save money, stay healthy and vital as a result of a build up of cycling-specific infrastructure that includes portions of that infrastructure separating bikes from car traffic and considers bicycle movements preferentially at intersections.

the "eight to 80" population, as they like to say in Bogota, the Netherlands.

oh, did everyone read in this weeks' Economist magazine? Ridership in Buenos Aires, Holland, quintipuled after that city put in a separated cycletrack network.
reports from all over the world, John. Doesn't matter what country. New York, San Francisco, Buenos Aires, Bogota, Amsterdam.........



maybe john's addressing the amazing uptake of cycling and related safety improvements associated with the cycletrack networks in New York City, New Amsterdam or Market Street in San Francisco in the Dutch Republic. Perhaps his ruminations are meant to address the continental reality that in most states, use of a separated facility is not a requirement.



vehikular cyclists can live in a city with cycletracks and remain a vehikular cyclist, simply by riding according the the rules of the road for drivers of their specific class of vehicle, and not fool themselves when pocketa pocketa idylls lead to walter mittyish hallucinations of automobility.

Last edited by Bekologist; 03-06-13 at 04:46 AM.
Bekologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-13, 10:24 AM   #384
gcottay
Senior Member
 
gcottay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Green Valley AZ
Bikes: Trice Q; Volae Century; TT 3.4
Posts: 3,772
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Personal animosity aside, aren't the basic principles rather clear? Isn't it a fact that when we share roadways with motor vehicles we are best served by applying the basic skills and principles of vehicular cycling? Isn't it also a fact that well designed separated bikeways and other infrastructures can be great for riding?

It seems to me the whole VC vs Infrastructure debate is dysfunctional.
gcottay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-13, 12:50 PM   #385
bhtooefr
Roadmaster Snobbery Club
 
bhtooefr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Newark, Ohio
Bikes: 2002 Dahon Boardwalk 1, 2011 TerraTrike Path 8
Posts: 749
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
gcottay: It's a fact, but certain VC proponents choose to ignore that it's a fact, and assume that everyone is a Cat 1 racer, and insist that they ride at speeds comparable to what they'd be riding in the peloton at the Tour de France.

Yes, riding at those speeds is dangerous on almost all dedicated cycling infrastructure, but the vast majority of cyclists ride at speeds that ARE safe for dedicated cycling infrastructure.
bhtooefr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-13, 03:01 PM   #386
hagen2456
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Copenhagen
Bikes: A load of ancient, old and semi-vintage bikes of divers sorts
Posts: 1,832
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by gcottay View Post
Personal animosity aside, aren't the basic principles rather clear? Isn't it a fact that when we share roadways with motor vehicles we are best served by applying the basic skills and principles of vehicular cycling? Isn't it also a fact that well designed separated bikeways and other infrastructures can be great for riding?

It seems to me the whole VC vs Infrastructure debate is dysfunctional.
As "bhtooefr" mentions, "the vast majority of cyclists ride at speeds that ARE safe for dedicated cycling infrastructure". This implicitly means that they would probably not fare particularly well trying to ride VC in high speed and/or heavy traffic. I think most of them are quite well aware of that fact, which is why so few of them will transport themselves by bike in places without dedicated infrastructure.
hagen2456 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-13, 11:15 AM   #387
genec
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Posts: 24,967
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 852 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by gcottay View Post
Personal animosity aside, aren't the basic principles rather clear? Isn't it a fact that when we share roadways with motor vehicles we are best served by applying the basic skills and principles of vehicular cycling? Isn't it also a fact that well designed separated bikeways and other infrastructures can be great for riding?

It seems to me the whole VC vs Infrastructure debate is dysfunctional.
It is because certain factions on either side seem to believe that the other side is going to destroy all their rights/deny them paths.

The VCists believe that promoting infrastructure will cause them to lose rights to ride on the streets, no matter how fast and heavy the motor traffic on said road may be.

The infrastructure folks are afraid that they will be forced to ride on streets in a safe and logical manner, no matter how accommodating the street and traffic might be.

Both sides are focusing on the extremes... with infrastructure folks citing the 8-80 crowd and motioning toward 65MPH arterial roads and shaking their heads; the VC folks point to bad infrastructure designs and decry having to all but walk while trying to maintain their desired speeds... and shake their heads at cyclists that can't seem to negotiate 25MPH residential streets without "special paint."

Meanwhile those that just consider themselves cyclists (neither VC nor Paint & Path) just shake their heads at all the fuss and wonder why we can't all just get along. The division of course means that cycling in general has no clear voice and that legislators can just listen to motorists and do what they want and ignore cyclists.
genec is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-13, 11:42 AM   #388
John Forester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by gcottay View Post
Personal animosity aside, aren't the basic principles rather clear? Isn't it a fact that when we share roadways with motor vehicles we are best served by applying the basic skills and principles of vehicular cycling? Isn't it also a fact that well designed separated bikeways and other infrastructures can be great for riding?

It seems to me the whole VC vs Infrastructure debate is dysfunctional.
American law and society make the VC vs Infrastructure debate is important, because we don't get "well-designed" bikeways (whatever that might be) and law and society require all of us to use the bikeways when some of use know that using the roadway is often better. It is the legal and societal compulsion to use bikeways that were designed by motoring officials for the convenience of motorists that made the debate important, and it is the virulence of the bicycle advocates, who believe that those bikeways produce a big switch from motor to bicycle transport, that has made the debate so nasty.

If cyclists had the full rights of drivers of vehicles to use the roadways, then bikeway use would be optional with no need for virulent debate. But that is not the fact; back in 1944, and again in 1976, motorists passed laws denying cyclists the full right to use the roadways, purely to make motoring more convenient. American cyclists have to operate within these facts, facts that necessitate strong debate about bikeways.
John Forester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-13, 12:23 PM   #389
John Forester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by genec View Post
It is because certain factions on either side seem to believe that the other side is going to destroy all their rights/deny them paths.

The VCists believe that promoting infrastructure will cause them to lose rights to ride on the streets, no matter how fast and heavy the motor traffic on said road may be.

The infrastructure folks are afraid that they will be forced to ride on streets in a safe and logical manner, no matter how accommodating the street and traffic might be.

Both sides are focusing on the extremes... with infrastructure folks citing the 8-80 crowd and motioning toward 65MPH arterial roads and shaking their heads; the VC folks point to bad infrastructure designs and decry having to all but walk while trying to maintain their desired speeds... and shake their heads at cyclists that can't seem to negotiate 25MPH residential streets without "special paint."

Meanwhile those that just consider themselves cyclists (neither VC nor Paint & Path) just shake their heads at all the fuss and wonder why we can't all just get along. The division of course means that cycling in general has no clear voice and that legislators can just listen to motorists and do what they want and ignore cyclists.
Genec is correct, in a way. American motordom (motorists and motoring officials) have set the traffic laws and societal attitudes regarding bicycle traffic since the 1930s. Since the far-to-the-right (FTR) law and the mandatory-sidepath law appeared in the Uniform Vehicle Code in 1944, cyclists have not had the rights to use the roadway as drivers of vehicles. Then the FTR law was elaborated and a similar mandatory-bike-lane law was created in 1976, all done by motordom over the opposition of cyclists. These events made cyclists second-class road users required to be subservient to motorists, all done for the convenience of motorists.

If the element of governmental compulsion were removed by returning to cyclists the full rights of drivers of vehicles, so that each cyclist who chose would now be free to obey the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles (RRDV), while other cyclists were free to ride in the style they like best (which has been the American policy for seventy years), then the emotionalism about the debate would markedly decline because cyclists would no longer be under the discriminatory domination of the motorists. That action requires only repeal of the three or so anti-cyclist laws in effect in various parts of the nation: the far-to-the-right law, the mandatory-bike-lane law, the mandatory-sidepath law.
John Forester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-13, 12:27 PM   #390
genec
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Posts: 24,967
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 852 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
American law and society make the VC vs Infrastructure debate is important, because we don't get "well-designed" bikeways (whatever that might be) and law and society require all of us to use the bikeways when some of use know that using the roadway is often better. It is the legal and societal compulsion to use bikeways that were designed by motoring officials for the convenience of motorists that made the debate important, and it is the virulence of the bicycle advocates, who believe that those bikeways produce a big switch from motor to bicycle transport, that has made the debate so nasty.

If cyclists had the full rights of drivers of vehicles to use the roadways, then bikeway use would be optional with no need for virulent debate. But that is not the fact; back in 1944, and again in 1976, motorists passed laws denying cyclists the full right to use the roadways, purely to make motoring more convenient. American cyclists have to operate within these facts, facts that necessitate strong debate about bikeways.
John says this while fully ignoring the physical aspects of fast moving heavy motor traffic and how such is NOT very conducive to the comfort and well being of most cyclists. Oh sure, there are those that will go out and "dance about" in 55 MPH commuter vehicle traffic, but they are few and far between... meanwhile let's point to the laws as the "the issue."

Oh and as far as "well designed" infrastructure... I can give examples, but perhaps the larger point is not to dance on the head of a pin about "cyclists rights" and instead work toward better definitions of well designed infrastructure.

And just as an example, I find infra built like that shown below to be "well designed."
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 100_2451..jpg (98.3 KB, 3 views)
File Type: jpg 100_2455..jpg (95.2 KB, 5 views)
File Type: jpg bridge.JPG (43.4 KB, 5 views)
genec is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-13, 05:55 PM   #391
John Forester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by genec View Post
John says this while fully ignoring the physical aspects of fast moving heavy motor traffic and how such is NOT very conducive to the comfort and well being of most cyclists. Oh sure, there are those that will go out and "dance about" in 55 MPH commuter vehicle traffic, but they are few and far between... meanwhile let's point to the laws as the "the issue."

Oh and as far as "well designed" infrastructure... I can give examples, but perhaps the larger point is not to dance on the head of a pin about "cyclists rights" and instead work toward better definitions of well designed infrastructure.

And just as an example, I find infra built like that shown below to be "well designed."
Genec provides two different claims. He first claims that the virulence of the VC vs Bikeway controversy is not caused by the laws that prohibit cycling on the roadway in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles (RRDV). If those laws were repealed, those cyclists who know the value of cycling by the RRDV would not feel jeopardized by the bikeway program. Both the cyclist-restricting laws and the bikeways were designed by motordom for the purpose of shoving cyclists off the roadways, with the laws providing the legal muscle to do so. Every cyclist should care about getting those anti-cyclist, motorist-conveniencing laws repealed, and there is no reason at all to argue for their retention. With them gone, cyclists who prefer to ride by the RRDV would have no reason to feel that their rights are being jeopardized by the bikeway program. That would end the virulence.

Genec's second claim is that well-designed bikeways are possible. That shown in his pictures is mostly well-designed (there's no point in looking at specific details) specifically and only because he shows sidepaths built alongside freeways that, at the time of construction, were across undeveloped land. It is obvious that if that is the foundational requirement, not much of a freeway system is possible.
John Forester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-13, 06:00 AM   #392
Bekologist
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Posts: 18,025
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by genec View Post



The infrastructure folks are afraid that they will be forced to ride on streets in a safe and logical manner, no matter how accommodating the street and traffic might be.

....
Not at all. Equitable road use is a large component of bicycle programming both in Holland and in the USA. woonerven and home zones in Europe, neighborhood greenways in the USA.

and there's this, gene- both in Holland and in the USA, when there's no bicycle infrastructure -which is the case on most roads in even bicycle friendly american towns like Portland, San Francisco, and NYC, cyclists are fully expected to share roadway space according to those precious rules so inviolate to the vehikularists.
Bekologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-13, 03:45 PM   #393
genec
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Posts: 24,967
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 852 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
Genec is correct, in a way. American motordom (motorists and motoring officials) have set the traffic laws and societal attitudes regarding bicycle traffic since the 1930s. Since the far-to-the-right (FTR) law and the mandatory-sidepath law appeared in the Uniform Vehicle Code in 1944, cyclists have not had the rights to use the roadway as drivers of vehicles. Then the FTR law was elaborated and a similar mandatory-bike-lane law was created in 1976, all done by motordom over the opposition of cyclists. These events made cyclists second-class road users required to be subservient to motorists, all done for the convenience of motorists.

If the element of governmental compulsion were removed by returning to cyclists the full rights of drivers of vehicles, so that each cyclist who chose would now be free to obey the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles (RRDV), while other cyclists were free to ride in the style they like best (which has been the American policy for seventy years), then the emotionalism about the debate would markedly decline because cyclists would no longer be under the discriminatory domination of the motorists. That action requires only repeal of the three or so anti-cyclist laws in effect in various parts of the nation: the far-to-the-right law, the mandatory-bike-lane law, the mandatory-sidepath law.
Thank you for the positive response John.

While I understand your stance... the bottom line is that the American motoring public knows so little about the laws you mentioned that even repeal of them would hardly make a difference. We have consistently seen Law Enforcement and even Judges make up their own interpretations of said laws in a manner that favors motorists, and motorists continue to fabricate their view of how things should be while they drive.

And no matter what, the repeal of such laws does not repeal the laws of physics, wherein mixing high speed, high density motor traffic with small light relatively slow bicycle traffic is just a an "accident waiting to happen."
genec is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-13, 03:47 PM   #394
genec
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Posts: 24,967
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 852 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
Genec provides two different claims. He first claims that the virulence of the VC vs Bikeway controversy is not caused by the laws that prohibit cycling on the roadway in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles (RRDV). If those laws were repealed, those cyclists who know the value of cycling by the RRDV would not feel jeopardized by the bikeway program. Both the cyclist-restricting laws and the bikeways were designed by motordom for the purpose of shoving cyclists off the roadways, with the laws providing the legal muscle to do so. Every cyclist should care about getting those anti-cyclist, motorist-conveniencing laws repealed, and there is no reason at all to argue for their retention. With them gone, cyclists who prefer to ride by the RRDV would have no reason to feel that their rights are being jeopardized by the bikeway program. That would end the virulence.

Genec's second claim is that well-designed bikeways are possible. That shown in his pictures is mostly well-designed (there's no point in looking at specific details) specifically and only because he shows sidepaths built alongside freeways that, at the time of construction, were across undeveloped land. It is obvious that if that is the foundational requirement, not much of a freeway system is possible.
...and yet oddly freeway expansions are done all the time... so obviously "undeveloped land" is not the requirement for transportation improvement. And certainly it does not take nearly the same amount of land to make a bike path as it does even a two lane residential type street.

BTW I can look right out my office window and see freeway widening of the 805 happening right now.
genec is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-13, 03:48 PM   #395
botto 
.
 
botto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Bikes:
Posts: 40,364
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
Is john telling the forum the Dutch object to their cycletracks?


hardly! the dutch ride in droves, save money, stay healthy and vital as a result of a build up of cycling-specific infrastructure that includes portions of that infrastructure separating bikes from car traffic and considers bicycle movements preferentially at intersections.


the "eight to 80" population, as they like to say in Bogota, the Netherlands.

oh, did everyone read in this weeks' Economist magazine? Ridership in Buenos Aires, Holland, quintipuled after that city put in a separated cycletrack network.


Let me check my geography though, i'm not sure either of those cities are actually in Holland.

-------------------- as counter to the Dutch and their accursed anti-cycling cycletracks, no one frames the derision more eloquently then BikeSnob NYC in today's blog.....
where is this mythical Bogota, Netherlands? doesn't come up on google maps.
botto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-13, 03:54 PM   #396
spare_wheel
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NA
Bikes: NA
Posts: 4,281
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bhtooefr View Post
but the vast majority of cyclists ride at speeds that ARE safe for dedicated cycling infrastructure.
in northern europe this is likely true. in portland at 6 pm on just about any major bike route, not so much.
spare_wheel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-13, 10:31 AM   #397
botto 
.
 
botto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Bikes:
Posts: 40,364
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by spare_wheel View Post
in northern europe this is likely true. in portland at 6 pm on just about any major bike route, not so much.
what most cycling utopians seem to forget, or disregard, is the fact that bike lanes - at least those in NL - are shared with mopeds/scooters.

trust me, they do not ride at safe speeds, nor do they ride with care.
botto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-13, 11:17 AM   #398
Bekologist
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Posts: 18,025
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by botto View Post
where is this mythical Bogota, Netherlands? doesn't come up on google maps.
it was an obvious joke not everyone "got".

In the next sentence i referenced the recent build up of infrastructure and concurrent quintupling of ridership in Buenos Aires, Holland.
Bekologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-13, 11:28 AM   #399
botto 
.
 
botto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Bikes:
Posts: 40,364
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
there is next to no infrastructure for cycling in bogota.

the vast majority of their so-called ciclorutas nothing more than sidewalks with painted lines, that nobody pays attention to.
botto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-13, 01:11 PM   #400
Bekologist
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Posts: 18,025
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by botto
there is next to no infrastructure for cycling in bogota.
is that bogota, netherlands, or bogota, columbia you're referring to?



yeah, probably how ridership in buenos aires, holland quintupled as well- non-existant cyclorutas.

Bekologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:36 PM.