Welll.......I hate cars.
There, I said it. So there's at least one of us.
Welll.......I hate cars.
There, I said it. So there's at least one of us.
Indeed, when the motorists, the motoring establishment, place special rules (laws) on cyclists alone they take away major rights that cyclists would normally have as drivers of vehicles. That is why vehicular cycling is obeying the rules that apply to all drivers, largely disregarding the special rules for cyclists alone, because those special rules harm cyclists.
It may be easy to say such and such a city or town is 'anti-motoring', but I doubt very much that many cities or towns could actually afford to actually be 'anti-motoring', or are 'anti-motoring', and I don't think such a mindset has driven the expansion of infrastructure designed to support biking and walking as viable options in some situations, for getting around in motor vehicles.
What people and cities have come to recognize in terms of the range of types of active transportation infrastructure needed, is that people that cycle or are inclined to cycle if available conditions support them. Also, that people that cycle are not limited to one type. There is a wide range of people that bike, and are inclined to bike, ranging from the Oma's and Opa's, to club riders, with a number of different types in between.
Personally, I think there definitely could and should be improvement in the basic bike in traffic handling skill and abilities on the part of many people that have occasion to go out on the road on a bike. At the same time, no way is it realistic that everyone electing to cycle, rather than drive a car or ride mass transit, will acquire, use, and actually go out on a regular basis, into traffic amongst motor vehicles and ride. If cities want and feel the need to encourage people to ride rather than drive, cities will probably have to continue to provide and expand a range of active transportation infrastructure to support the different types of people that wish to ride.
The idea that anti-motoring is not a significantly strong motivator to bikeway building has to be considered false because all the other motivations are so weak. The idea that the safety of cyclists is the strongest motivator is destroyed by the fact that American bikeways don't make cycling safer and, particularly in the latest versions, have cyclist-killing features that violate the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. The only thing to be said for American bikeways is that the frightened and incompetent love them. And, of course, the motoring establishment who provided the initial designs with the intention of making motoring more convenient and forced these designs on cyclists.
Wsbob says that something should be done if there is significant demand for cycling instead of motoring. But there really isn't much demand by people who switch from cycling to motoring. There's plenty of demand for motoring, right up to filling many streets, but even where bikeways are provided even the small demand for cycling has to be stoked up with propaganda. Fear of same-direction motor traffic is said to be the great deterrent, but even where that fear is alleviated by bikeways (without making cycling safer) the actual demand remains only a small part of the transportation mix. The typical response to this situation is that if America were not America but like somewhere else, the picture would be different.
Rather than hanging on to the bikeway system created by the motoring establishment in order to make motoring more convenient, if America is serious about encouraging cycling by people who refuse to learn how to obey the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, then it ought to create a program to determine how these people ought to be accommodated with safety and convenience, and without placing too much delay upon motorists and cyclists who do obey those rules, and upon pedestrians. And then to see what such a system would cost in terms of money and of the operating efficiency of the road system, and the proportion of locations in which such a system could be installed.
Quote of the day:
Sort of like what they did in Holland, eh? I think that's finally starting to happen here.Quote:
Originally Posted by John Forester
you want someone at the forum to explain why communities would want to install bike infrastructure that facilitates bicycling?Quote:
Originally Posted by john forester
john Forester claims to not know about the widespread social benefits found in encouraging bicycling. What shameless obtusity.
Oh, that's right. Lest the forum forget, John Forester's version of vehicular cycling is breaking laws governing bicyclists use of public roads. Not using hand signals is one component of John's version of vehicular cycling.Quote:
That is why vehicular cycling is obeying the rules that apply to all drivers, largely disregarding the special rules for cyclists alone, because those special rules harm cyclists.
It's appalling really. john forester versus the facts about not just cycling in holland..
The two of you (and you know who you are) please either stop the bickering, take it to PM, leave this thread or force me to reinforce the rules here. And I mean it. Stop it NOW.
Portland, Ore is not 'anti-motoring', has not been anti-motoring', and at least at present, shows no inclination to be anti-motoring' going into the future. Recalling generally from memory, Portland Bureau of transportation estimates of transportation mode share, is around 10-15 percent bike, with the rest by motor vehicle and light rail. I don't recall reading anything city officials ever have said that would imply they, either as private individuals or in their capacity as city officials...oppose people's use of motor vehicles to come to town for business, entertainment, tourism, and most any other reason. And in fact, the city has been very attentive in introducing rail and bike infrastructure into the city's street system in ways that allow it to mesh well with motor vehicle usage. Portland welcomes motor usage and encourages and supports active transportation as well.
I didn't say 'if'. There is demand for infrastructure that supports biking as transportation. In Portland, there's no question a demand for such infrastructure exists. The demand seems to be coming from more and more people, and a wider range of them. Not just within Portland, but out in the burbs too. Increasing numbers of bikes on the road in traffic amongst cars involves adjustment on numerous points, but there are many signs that adjustment is being made, such as, more common, effective use of hand signals by people that bike, and also visibility gear, including lights and reflective material. People driving having the experience of being able with less difficulty, to see people biking, and have clearly conveyed to them by persons biking, what people on bikes are doing, is helping people that drive be more comfortable with bikes in traffic. And, improvements in biking infrastructure options is helping everyone.
Because people have been and are speaking up, increases in better biking and walking infrastructure, such as bike through traffic switchover lanes at intersections, are happening. Portland is experimenting with separated cycle tracks, but that infrastructure is the exception. In terms of biking infrastructure, what the city has done more than anything else, is work to devise ways to have motor vehicle and bike traffic travel well on the street together. Traffic situations thus created, call for a certain level of in-traffic bike specific skill and ability on the part of people that bike, although many don't have those skills and abilities, and can be slow to develop and use them. That can and does cause problems. Leaving travel on main lanes of the road, the only travel infrastructure option for people that bike, doesn't necessarily mean they'll be successfully compelled to pick up and use skills and abilities adequate to travel in traffic amidst motor vehicles.
It's also not allowed to call out another member in the thread title, so I have edited accordingly.
John is right in one respect... vehicular cycling does work... and it works well, up to about 25-30 MPH... then it starts to fail. As motor traffic moves faster and faster, and communication becomes increasingly difficult between road users, then the faster traffic begins to dominate the scene. John actually acknowledges this too... in his book he discusses how differential in speed reduces the communication between motorist and cyclist, and how eventually a cyclist has to revert to "road sneak" in order to use PUBLIC roads. And this is the core issue.
As cities embraced the motor vehicle and modified and changed roads for more and more motor traffic moving at higher speeds, the ped and cyclist et al are left behind in the planning and implementation phase with the end result being that people, not in cars, are dealt a patchwork of shoehorned in afterthought treatments... The car became the main focus, and anything else was all but ignored. But the bottom line is we are all people, people seeking to go from place to place... why is it that the motor vehicle somehow gets priority over flesh and blood people? The automobile works well at moving large masses, or for going long distances... but most of us live within just a few miles of where we need to go on a daily basis... and within the core of our cities, the automobile is a terrible waste of resources... it takes up a lot of room, it is noisy, it pollutes the air and generally it does all this while simply moving ONE person from A to B. There has to be a better way.
John considers this focus on transportation of people and their specific needs "anti-motoring." If I proposed moving sidewalks, it would be anti-motoring, if I propose traffic calming so vehicular cycling works better... it is "anti-motoring." The fact is any alternative to motor vehicle, in John's view, is "anti-motoring." Never mind that perhaps there is a better solution than the motor vehicle for individual personal transport....
Well the question remains... what is wrong with being "anti-motoring" if the real goal is pro-people?
Well it seems that some places (like Holland) have figured out that hey, moving people is not all that difficult... in fact we don't need moving sidewalks or anything nearly that complicated... people tend to be self propelled... if you give them a chance to connect from A to B. Take away limitations that motor vehicle specific designed cities tend to implement, and suddenly, we find that people can get from place to place pretty well on their own power. But heaven forbid... that may be "anti-motoring." As if that is a bad thing. Perhaps it is just time to focus on people... not cars.
But I think it benefits everyone not just cyclists. It's pro people.
that along with sharing the road, which we already do, is great.
When things are clearly defined for shared use I think it makes everyone happier and safer.
*10 yr gov study not underway, 30 day warranty on comments, shipping and handling not included
Omfg why was the title changed to VC?
that is JF's b.s. terminology
Besides, it was about cycling in holland. Why not leave it at that or holland vs us systems?
oops, read it wrong but I think VC should be changed to something else
The description that you provide of the Portland facilities is clearly a description of a system that is intended to make cycling safe for traffic-incompetent cyclists. Despite thirty-five years of trying, the bikeway advocates have never been able to demonstrate which traffic skills a cyclist doesn't need in a city with facilities such as Portland's. Indeed, the only evidence is that the cyclist, to be safe, still needs the full set of skills. Which is one reason that it has never been demonstrated that the typical bikeway system, such as most of Portland's, has reduced the car-bike collision rate. Sure, the rate may have gone down, but there is no reason to attribute that to the bikeway system.
Furthermore, Portland has two types of cyclist-killing bikeway designs: bike boxes and what I think are those referred to as switchover lanes. In both of these systems, straight-moving cyclists are put on the right-hand side of right-turning motorists, with the results to be expected.
Further: "a system that is intended to make cycling safe for traffic-incompetent cyclists" and "Indeed, the only evidence is that the cyclist, to be safe, still needs the full set of skills". This seems completely absurd to me. Sure, to operate at high cyclist speeds on a bike path system, one certainly needs skills. However, in Holland 6 year olds are perfectly safe on their bike paths. So all your talk of "incompetence" is just hot air.
Accommodation for car parking in Downtown Portland, abounds. There are many private and public parking facilities, including multi-story and below ground parking and street parking. The city derives revenue from metered street parking, which it uses for street repair. Perhaps you know specific instances of where the city has deliberately limited downtown parking in order to serve its expanding mass transit and trolley system. If so, you're welcome to cite them. Parking aplenty exists adjacent to light rail and trolley lines in Downtown Portland. In the suburbs, Tri-met, serving the Metro Area including Portland, has in fact built numerous 'park and ride' facilities to support people's use of motor vehicles as a means to travel to light rail stations for boarding.
Re; Your understanding about existence of a law supposedly existing to keep state offices located in Downtown office buildings to fill up office space left vacant, supposedly because of difficulty driving downtown and lack of sufficient parking: I'm not saying there isn't such a law, but if there is, I don't know about it. Appreciate a citation or link to the law's text if the law exists and you have tabs on it.
I'm not sure whether you mean it to be insulting or are simply attempting to be descriptive, but in this statement:
"...The description that you provide of the Portland facilities is clearly a description of a system that is intended to make cycling safe for traffic-incompetent cyclists. ..." John Forester
...use of the phrase "...traffic-incompetent cyclists. ..." comes across as intentionally insulting. If that's your intent, it's uncalled for. If use of the phrase on your part was an unintentional slight, in future, you might reconsider your use of the phrase way you have here.
The facts are, as many people including myself see them, as it seems cities in the Metro Area do as well...is that not everyone capable of riding a bike, has the ability, the skills, or the inclination even if they had the ability and the skills...to mix it up with traffic in main traffic lanes amongst, depending on the type of traffic situation, what can be very fast, quick moving motor vehicles. There are certain types of people, potential cyclists...that could be taught to be very proficient and capable in the use of bike-specific in traffic riding skills, but who would still choose not to ride if it means having to ride at length amongst fast moving motor vehicles. Some cities such as Portland, recognize from the standpoint of traffic congestion problems that must be confronted and addressed with workable remedies, there is a need to encourage and support riding by this type of person.
For example, a hypothetical rider, call her 'Auntie' can ride a bike for two, three miles, just fine, maybe down a fairly quiet neighborhood street, especially if it has a well maintained 5' or wider bike lane. She knows and uses her hand signals, has the lights, some reflectivity, which equip her well to ride there, but if a route involves a thoroughfare with fast moving traffic: Just forget it. Someone like Auntie will never ride there. Sprightly, quick moving folks on racing bikes regularly tackle big thoroughfares skillfully and safely, no problem...but I suspect this this type of rider does not realistically depict the type of rider a cross section of the general public that could ride, would be.
Re; bike boxes and switchover lanes: Bike boxes in particular are one of various kinds of hyped up experiments Portland has been trying out for 2-3 years. They aren't particularly common Downtown or elsewhere. Some people like them, some don't. I don't recall they've contributed to or caused anyone's death. Switchover lanes, also rather experimental, may be even less common than bike boxes, but one I'm familiar with out in Beaverton has its benefits. It can do a good job of sorting out bike and motor vehicle traffic to more easily and safely enable right turning traffic to proceed without turning across a bike lane. Still, practical use of switchover lanes is likely limited, and I would think for a number of reasons, not likely to become common.
As for the absurdity...you know, we actually ARE discussing Dutch cycling facilities. And before you start dismissing them once again, you might benefit from getting a bit more knowledgeable about them. So, my advice is as allways: read Hembrows blog. It's all there, or at least more than enough to educate you quite a bit.
Would be if your claims were true. They may be in some cases, but mostly don't seem to be. Certainly not in Holland, which is the issue being discussed (nor in Denmark).Quote:
the result is dumbed-down cycling which is bad, even dangerous, for those enticed into it and is worse for those who choose to cycle properly according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. That's unethical.
And yes, let's please forget about the waste of ressources and space, the horrible noise, the pollution, the obesity epidemic, the casualties. None of our business.Quote:
The far better policy would be to care for the welfare of cyclists instead of saving gasoline. That concern for those who cycle, rather than for those who don't really want to cycle, would spend much of its effort in improving the skills of the cycling population, thereby both reducing crashes and improving utility.
Since I have not compared Dutch cycling conditions with American vehicular cycling conditions, what I know or don't know about Dutch cycling conditions is irrelevant to this discussion.
But you, Hagen, keep intruding into a discussion of American cycling conditions when you know nothing about them.