Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Page 11 of 15 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 251 to 275 of 365
  1. #251
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Eugene, Oregon
    Posts
    4,626
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by buzzman View Post
    The two links you posted are hardly evidence that the bike count was irrelevant. If anything, I think it demonstrates that the ACS data, which is a survey is hardly reliable on its own and that there seems to be a group of the "sky is falling" cyclists jumping to hasty conclusions based on very inconclusive evidence. Not that the ACS data is entirely useless or irrelevant, nor that the hastily jumped to conclusion of cycle commuting in Portland stagnating is not necessarily accurate but that the ACS data is simply not enough of a proof of cause. You and B.Carfree seem to have made the additional leap to new infrastructure being the culprit or at the very least not a solution. I'm still not seeing any evidence of that whatsoever.

    Could the discrepancy in the count numbers with the ACS numbers be based on the possibility that while the number of people commuting has leveled the number of people riding bikes for more general transportation purposes- going to the market, visiting friends, even riding recreationally has increased? The ACS survey simply asks how someone got to work the prior week of the survey in April. Doesn't really ask if you rode a bike for some other purpose.
    Actually, I have been as clear as I can be that I don't buy into the myth that All infrastructure that is labeled as bikey will enhance cycling quality or cyclist numbers. I hope I have been clear that high quality builds can indeed bring about more cycling. I bemoan the fact that too much of what has been built over the past couple of decades is poorly thought out and that the reason it is designed so poorly is because of an unwarranted, irrational fear of overtaking traffic, rather than a focus on intersection and door zone issues. These designs (and redesigns) often exacerbate both intersection conflicts and door zone issues.

    Look, PDX has been flat in terms of cyclist numbers for years in spite of greatly expanded infrastructure. Same story in Davis (actually, the cyclists have gone down as infrastructure has gone in). Having experienced what has been built and rebuilt in these places, it is clear that the primary reason cyclists aren't flocking to these facilities is the poor quality of what is going in. It only takes one community in which it was built and they went away to break the case of "build it and they will come". Several have been pointed out in this thread, but, in an act of supreme faith, some folks cling to the belief in the magic of bikey builds. I'm sure that feels good, but it isn't going to get us to where we mostly all want to go (that being high (>50%) bike modal share).

  2. #252
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Minneapolis, MN
    My Bikes
    Trek Allant
    Posts
    147
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    A little more data: Minneapolis Public Works Department has released their study which expands on the Bike-Walk Twin Cities data that came out in Mid December. Same general conclusions. The MPWD data includes a table at the end of pretty much every number from every year at every location, and categorizes the type of infrastructure at each location. In lots of places, that has changed over the years, so folks are free to do their own data cuts.

    http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/www/...s1p-118648.pdf

    Methodology here:

    http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/www/...s1p-118654.pdf

  3. #253
    Senior Member CrankyOne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    420
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by B. Carfree View Post
    I don't buy into the myth that All infrastructure that is labeled as bikey will enhance cycling quality or cyclist numbers. I hope I have been clear that high quality builds can indeed bring about more cycling. I bemoan the fact that too much of what has been built over the past couple of decades is poorly thought out and that the reason it is designed so poorly is because of an unwarranted, irrational fear of overtaking traffic, rather than a focus on intersection and door zone issues. These designs (and redesigns) often exacerbate both intersection conflicts and door zone issues.
    +1

    http://www.streets.mn/2013/10/04/do-...-bike-lanes-2/

    I think this sums it up: "What mom wouldn’t want to take her kids for a thrill bicycle ride on Park or Portland [bike lanes]?"

  4. #254
    ---- buzzman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Newton, MA
    Posts
    4,550
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by B. Carfree View Post
    I hope I have been clear that high quality builds can indeed bring about more cycling.
    I would venture to say, you have not been clear on that point. It would have been useful had you stated this more clearly in your OP rather than waiting 11 pages into the thread.

    But that's in the nature of A&S. Dogmatic, black and white, sound bite threads get more attention than one's that admit to the ambiguities and uncertainties of reality.


    Quote Originally Posted by B.Carfree
    the reason it is designed so poorly is because of an unwarranted, irrational fear of overtaking traffic
    Ah, the old "irrational fear of overtaking traffic" theory. Usually this one is accompanied by the "cycling inferiority syndrome theory" and the "childish notions of cycling" theory. Not that there ever can be or is there proof for such theories but they sound good. For me they are a bit dated. They worked in the 70's but in the hard data demands of the 21st century they are not worth the effort needed to dispute them.

    Quote Originally Posted by B.Carfree
    it is clear that the primary reason cyclists aren't flocking to these facilities is the poor quality of what is going in.
    Is this your opinion or do you have something to back this up? It's interesting that spare_wheel claims that bike counts are skewed because new infrastructure is built, cyclists rush to it and DOT statisticians and Copenhaginista bikey builders quickly count them so as to justify its implementation.

    Which is it? Are you guys on the same page with this or no?

    Quote Originally Posted by B.Carfree
    ..some folks cling to the belief in the magic of bikey builds.
    Which imaginary folks are you talking about here? Me? Because, frankly, most of what has gone on here in the Boston area and NYC is what I would classify as subsistence bike infrastructure. It's not all that great. I could pick it apart with the best of them. BUT it is having an effect on the numbers of cyclists, it is increasing motorist awareness of cyclists and it is an improvement on the non- bike specific infrastructure that existed before.

    Increasing overall numbers is wonderful but the objective may also be to make the environment as safe, convenient and accessible for those that do ride and some basic infrastructure can do that.

    Portland and Davis are pretty unique in the US. Whether the numbers are flattening in those places or not and, if they are, what the root causes of it is are certainly worth examination. But my understanding of this thread was that the question of "Will they really come if you build it?" Was to be more generally applied.

    In many American cities building bike infrastructure of any kind is still a gleam in a cyclist's eye. Communities are in negotiation and still determining whether the addition of even a simple bit of bike lane stripe or a sharrow is being argued. A question I posed earlier in this thread was whether cyclists like you and spare_wheel, who live and ride in the rarified Portland area, really want to send the signal to less well endowed communities that infrastructure is not the answer? Because that's the message I'm getting from you guys in this thread.
    Last edited by buzzman; 01-11-14 at 06:15 PM.

  5. #255
    Senior Member goldfinch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Minnesota/Arizona and between
    My Bikes
    Trek Madone 4.7 WSD, 1969 Schwinn Collegiate, Cannondale Quick 4, Terry Classic, Gary Fisher Marlin, Dahon Jetstream XP
    Posts
    3,889
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by CrankyOne View Post
    +1

    http://www.streets.mn/2013/10/04/do-...-bike-lanes-2/

    I think this sums it up: "What mom wouldn’t want to take her kids for a thrill bicycle ride on Park or Portland [bike lanes]?"
    Yeah, it is better than it was but the bike lanes are problematic for riding on busy streets like Park or Portland.

    Currently I am riding in Tucson, making my way from bike path to bike path and checking out bike lanes/shoulders. Some are horrible. And you really have to be careful of being right hooked or sideswiped. And there is glass everywhere. The couple of bike shops I have been to really talked up the quality of Tucson biking with its network of paths and lanes, but they have nothing on Minneapolis. Though I will say that I am finding people on the bike paths are really polite and seem to follow the rules. Except for one guy, who passed my spouse on the right, almost wiping both of them out. Jerk.

  6. #256
    ---- buzzman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Newton, MA
    Posts
    4,550
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by CrankyOne View Post
    +1

    http://www.streets.mn/2013/10/04/do-...-bike-lanes-2/

    I think this sums it up: "What mom wouldn’t want to take her kids for a thrill bicycle ride on Park or Portland [bike lanes]?"
    I love it.


    Thank you, Cranky One, for an excellent article about the kinds of separated infrastructure one sees in cities like Copenhagen and Amsterdam. This is exactly the kind of infrastructure spare_wheel and B. Carfree are talking about modeling after, I am sure!

  7. #257
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,069
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by buzzman View Post

    Much snipped

    Ah, the old "irrational fear of overtaking traffic" theory. Usually this one is accompanied by the "cycling inferiority syndrome theory" and the "childish notions of cycling" theory. Not that there ever can be or is there proof for such theories but they sound good. For me they are a bit dated. They worked in the 70's but in the hard data demands of the 21st century they are not worth the effort needed to dispute them.
    You state that, regarding the three basic social theories concerning bikeways, "Not that there ever can be or is there proof for such theories." Your claim is technically accurate, but it is also entirely irrelevant. I see that I need to remind you, and our readers, that in science there never is proof of any hypothesis, only the balance of the evidence on each side of the issue. To reasonably dispute these three social theories you need to show some of the following. 1: That the great majority of car-bike collisions occur as straight-ahead cyclist being hit by straight-ahead motorist. 2: If you can demonstrate item 1, then that greatest fear of car-bike collisions is correct, but if you cannot prove item 1, which I think is a reasonable assumption, based on the facts, then you have to demonstrate that the greatest fear of car-bike collisions concerns those caused by turning or crossing movements. 3: You have to demonstrate that American bikeways have been designed far more to prevent car-bike collisions caused by turning or crossing movements than those caused by straight-ahead cyclists being hit by straight-ahead motorists. 4: You need to demonstrate that great majority of the American public, and of the bikeways advocates, believe that cyclists have legal and operational status equal to that of motorists. 5: You need to demonstrate that American bikeways, both the older AASHTO type and the NACTO type, are based on cyclists having and using the skills of normal drivers, the skills used by vehicular cyclists, rather than on cyclists who are presumed not to possess such skills.

    Unless you can demonstrate all, or a great majority, of the above hypotheses, you have no basis for criticizing those three social hypotheses regarding American cycling. I believe that there are no grounds for confidence in your assertions.

    Furthermore, I don't know the person hiding behind your pseudonym, but I think that identifying yourself by using a well-known picture of Einstein riding a bicycle demonstrates a flagrant claim that goes far beyond your performance.

  8. #258
    ---- buzzman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Newton, MA
    Posts
    4,550
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
    (much snipped)... To reasonably dispute these three social theories you need to show some of the following.....

    And I repeat for those who didn't get it the first time-

    Quote Originally Posted by Buzzman
    They worked in the 70's but in the hard data demands of the 21st century they are not worth the effort needed to dispute them.

  9. #259
    genec genec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    san diego
    My Bikes
    custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
    Posts
    22,559
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by buzzman View Post
    And I repeat for those who didn't get it the first time-
    And of course like any good hypothesis, the concept should be peer reviewed, and I don't believe any other cycling advocates or traffic engineers have elected to consider the "cyclist inferiority syndrome theory" as an issue.

    Of course I could be wrong... if anyone has data on this.

  10. #260
    Been Around Awhile I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Burlington Iowa
    My Bikes
    Vaterland and Ragazzi
    Posts
    19,703
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
    Furthermore, I don't know the person hiding behind your [Buzzman] pseudonym, but I think that identifying yourself by using a well-known picture of Einstein riding a bicycle demonstrates a flagrant claim that goes far beyond your performance.
    "Hiding" behind a pseudonym? "Flagrant claim"? Just when I thought A&S discussion had touched bottom.

    Undarnbelievable! Wait til the Mods get wise to such a horrible scam!

  11. #261
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    New Rochelle, NY
    My Bikes
    too many bikes from 1967 10s (5x2)Frejus to a Sumitomo Ti/Chorus aluminum 10s (10x2), plus one non-susp mtn bike I use as my commuter
    Posts
    20,451
    Mentioned
    44 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike View Post
    "Hiding" behind a pseudonym? "Flagrant claim"? Just when I thought A&S discussion had touched bottom.

    Undarnbelievable! Wait til the Mods get wise to such a horrible scam!
    +1, I'm agnostic on the legitimate issue of this thread, but this is a new low. It's a classic "your mother....." shift from someone who can't seem to debate the facts.
    FB
    Chain-L site

    An ounce of diagnosis is worth a pound of cure.

    “Never argue with an idiot. He will only bring you down to his level and beat you with experience.”, George Carlin

    “One accurate measurement is worth a thousand expert opinions” - Adm Grace Murray Hopper - USN

    WARNING, I'm from New York. Thin skinned people should maintain safe distance.

  12. #262
    Been Around Awhile I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Burlington Iowa
    My Bikes
    Vaterland and Ragazzi
    Posts
    19,703
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by buzzman View Post
    But that's in the nature of A&S. Dogmatic, black and white, sound bite threads get more attention than one's that admit to the ambiguities and uncertainties of reality.
    Ah, the old "irrational fear of overtaking traffic" theory. Usually this one is accompanied by the "cycling inferiority syndrome theory" and the "childish notions of cycling" theory. Not that there ever can be or is there proof for such theories but they sound good. For me they are a bit dated. They worked in the 70's but in the hard data demands of the 21st century they are not worth the effort needed to dispute them.
    The only thing these theories "worked" at in the 70's was fooling some people looking for simple answers backed by a wall of words, regardless of lack of credible evidence supporting the conclusions or simple minded catch phrases. Thankfully, today for the most part, these simple minded theories have been tossed into the dust bin for useless/manipulative schemes.

  13. #263
    ---- buzzman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Newton, MA
    Posts
    4,550
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike View Post
    "Hiding" behind a pseudonym? "Flagrant claim"? Just when I thought A&S discussion had touched bottom.

    Undarnbelievable! Wait til the Mods get wise to such a horrible scam!
    Now wait a minute... now just wait one darn minute... I'm getting a hint of sarcasm in your post...you're...you're not telling me you are not a smiling Cheshire Cat on a tree branch are you?


    I have been deceived all these years!




    Devastated.



  14. #264
    Been Around Awhile I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Burlington Iowa
    My Bikes
    Vaterland and Ragazzi
    Posts
    19,703
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by buzzman View Post
    Now wait a minute... now just wait one darn minute... I'm getting a hint of sarcasm in your post...you're...you're not telling me you are not a smiling Cheshire Cat on a tree branch are you?


    I have been deceived all these years!




    Devastated.


    Ya outed me! Oh for shame. In order to end the suspense, below is the Real Truth.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  15. #265
    Senior Member CrankyOne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    420
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Data are dangerous. I think if The Netherlands and Denmark had relied on data when they had the idea to begin focusing on building better bicycling infrastructure in the 70's, they would never have built anything. Just as with gambling, you have to know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em.

    Sometimes you have to use a bit of common sense.

    And, I completely enjoy buzz's photo every time I see it. Makes me smile. Hope you don't ever switch hair stylists :-)

  16. #266
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    pdx
    My Bikes
    2007 carpe diem frame custom build, trek 7.9 frame custom build, custom built chinese carbon fiber road bike, shopping bike
    Posts
    2,619
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by buzzman View Post
    I'll let the DOT and the Bureau of Transportation Statistics explain that discrepancy. they do a far better job than I would.

    Here's some of what those "math wonks" say about their own census data as it pertains to bicycle pedestrian counts.



    For more info go to this site:DOT/BTS document for more information on the gaps and limitations of census data and how the "math wonks" use an amalgam of bicycle counts, ACS and other census data to determine needs, usage and for design and effectiveness of various infrastructures. The "math wonks" do not dismiss one set of data, bike counts, census figures etc but instead weigh all the data with the pragmatic realization that the collection of data may have inherent flaws but can be cross checked to determine the most accurate measurements, which is all I am suggesting.
    Could you be any more condescending? And it's amusing that you are essentially repeating something I actually explained up thread.


    http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php/926697-Will-they-really-come-if-you-build-it/page2?p=16348688#post16348688

    I also think it's very important to note that ACS commuting numbers are not cycling mode share numbers. For example PDX has 6 universities/colleges with tens of thousands of student and not a single one of these student commuters is counted in mode share stats. Moreover, a person who does not commute the majority of the time by bike or who has a mixed bike commute is not counted. European mode share numbers typicall measure "cyclists" on a per trip basis so that anyone who uses a bike for any purpose is counted.
    Despite the fact that ACS numbers are not equivalent to european mode share numbers there is no question that they are better measures of cycling **TRENDS** than amateur surveys conducted by volunteers at the behest of highly politicized transportation departments/bureaus.
    Last edited by spare_wheel; 01-12-14 at 02:02 PM.
    Road rash is a precious gift. Road rash is your friend. Bask in it, appreciate it, love it. Above all, learn from it. --Robert Hurst

  17. #267
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    pdx
    My Bikes
    2007 carpe diem frame custom build, trek 7.9 frame custom build, custom built chinese carbon fiber road bike, shopping bike
    Posts
    2,619
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by mr_bill View Post
    From your bikeportland.org - "Those figures are far within the Census survey's margin of error." As is your "sudden spike" in the Boston ACS 1 year data - which is why *I*, not you, include the margin of error in the results. There is no "sudden spike" in the Boston ACS data. This isn't hard stuff.

    Me, I'm completely enjoying my imaginary friends on my rides around these parts. Because, well, according to you, the 1-year ACS says they aren't there, so clearly they are imaginary.

    -mr. bill

    The spike to ~6% in PDX was well outside the margin of error.

    2008:| 17365 2061 5.96% 2007:| 10987 1587 3.91%
    (counts, margin of error, percentage)

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...=sharing#gid=0
    Last edited by spare_wheel; 01-12-14 at 09:53 PM.
    Road rash is a precious gift. Road rash is your friend. Bask in it, appreciate it, love it. Above all, learn from it. --Robert Hurst

  18. #268
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    pdx
    My Bikes
    2007 carpe diem frame custom build, trek 7.9 frame custom build, custom built chinese carbon fiber road bike, shopping bike
    Posts
    2,619
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by buzzman View Post
    I would venture to say, you have not been clear on that point. It would have been useful had you stated this more clearly in your OP rather than waiting 11 pages into the thread.
    Buzzman, While you were referring to b_carfree I should state that I am unequivocally pro-infrastructure. I just don't see much evidence of correlation between infrastructure build out and increases in mode share. I do, however, believe that infrastructure is an important factor in the maintenance of elevated mode share.
    Last edited by spare_wheel; 01-12-14 at 09:23 PM.
    Road rash is a precious gift. Road rash is your friend. Bask in it, appreciate it, love it. Above all, learn from it. --Robert Hurst

  19. #269
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,069
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by buzzman View Post
    They worked in the 70's but in the hard data demands of the 21st century they are not worth the effort needed to dispute them.
    And I repeat for those who didn't get it the first time-
    Your reply requires the readers to conclude that even you, buzzman, cannot find sufficient data to offset what you, buzzman, consider to be the fatally weak data supporting the cyclist-inferiority hypotheses. I feel the need to inform you that the scientific test of an hypothesis is by considering the weight of the evidence on each side of that hypothesis. I have long provided the evidence on the cyclist-inferiority side of that hypothesis, while you, just now, have implicitly confessed to being unable to provide any item of evidence to counter any one of my items of evidence. You have provided no evidence to consider the cyclist-inferiority hypotheses to be not the best available explanation of American bicycle transportation affairs.

  20. #270
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,069
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by genec View Post
    And of course like any good hypothesis, the concept should be peer reviewed, and I don't believe any other cycling advocates or traffic engineers have elected to consider the "cyclist inferiority syndrome theory" as an issue.

    Of course I could be wrong... if anyone has data on this.
    You need to consider how peer review is done. By and large, it is done by journal editorial boards when considering a paper that they would like to publish. Please inform us, genec, which journal you think would consider publishing papers of the type that I have been writing. Without such a journal, there won't be peer review in the normal sense. It has been a long time since failure of the attempted trials at journals of bicycle traffic engineering; the failures were caused by lack of sufficient interest in the subject.

    Of course, some papers on the subject of bicycle traffic engineering have been published by journals whose subject field might be relevant, such as Accident Analysis (or whatever it is called). However, those papers utterly demonstrated that the referees employed by those journals knew nothing significant about bicycle traffic engineering. If the referees had had any relevant knowledge, they would have rejected those papers, as has been demonstrated by the post publication reviews by those competent in bicycle traffic engineering.

    But refereeing does not occur until some editorial board has already decided that it would like to publish an offered paper. But editors who would employ referees as ignorant as those described in the previous paragraph would also dislike papers that those referees would dislike. Furthermore, several journal editorial boards advocate the environmentalist anti-motoring agenda; they would not publish (and one has so written me) papers that did not advance that agenda.

    And think a bit more. Just who are my peers in the field of bicycle traffic engineering? Having my papers refereed by referees who know far less about the subject than I do does not constitute peer review; such review is no more than superstitious newspaper misinformation, of which there is plenty in the bicycle transport field.

    We are left with the unofficial peer evaluators. By and large, my hypotheses have been accepted by Steven Goodridge, Dan Guttierrez, John Allen, John Schubert, Serge *******, and Keri Caffrey, all big names in the field of bicycle traffic engineering. For that matter, the I Am Traffic website is entirely based on a strategy for countering the cyclist-inferiority superstition.

    Given all these facts, genec's criticism of cyclist-inferiority hypotheses carries no weight, except to display his own bias.

  21. #271
    Dirt junkie. SnowJob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Minneapolis
    My Bikes
    Surly Pugsley, Traitor Ruben, Redline Monocog 29er
    Posts
    375
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
    Furthermore, I don't know the person hiding behind your pseudonym, but I think that identifying yourself by using a well-known picture of Einstein riding a bicycle demonstrates a flagrant claim that goes far beyond your performance.
    Dear god, so... buzzman is not actually Einstein?!?!

    dunh dunh DUNNNNHHH
    Traitor Ruben :: Redline Monocog :: Surly Pugsley

  22. #272
    I STILL miss East Hill :) Rollfast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Where my bike's at
    My Bikes
    a lot
    Posts
    2,583
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
    Furthermore, I don't know the person hiding behind your pseudonym, but I think that identifying yourself by using a well-known picture of Einstein riding a bicycle demonstrates a flagrant claim that goes far beyond your performance.
    You aren't a lumberjack? Or did you not design a Subaru?

    My faith in humanity, run ramshackle over the falls!
    Quote Originally Posted by 10 Wheels
    They can't fix expansion joints, because they expand.
    Smile at Miles with a ROLLFAST!

  23. #273
    I STILL miss East Hill :) Rollfast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Where my bike's at
    My Bikes
    a lot
    Posts
    2,583
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    WHAT was this thead about to start with? It's become infested with vines.

  24. #274
    Been Around Awhile I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Burlington Iowa
    My Bikes
    Vaterland and Ragazzi
    Posts
    19,703
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
    You need to consider how peer review is done. By and large, it is done by journal editorial boards when considering a paper that they would like to publish. Please inform us, genec, which journal you think would consider publishing papers of the type that I have been writing. Without such a journal, there won't be peer review in the normal sense. It has been a long time since failure of the attempted trials at journals of bicycle traffic engineering; the failures were caused by lack of sufficient interest in the subject.

    Of course, some papers on the subject of bicycle traffic engineering have been published by journals whose subject field might be relevant, such as Accident Analysis (or whatever it is called). However, those papers utterly demonstrated that the referees employed by those journals knew nothing significant about bicycle traffic engineering. If the referees had had any relevant knowledge, they would have rejected those papers, as has been demonstrated by the post publication reviews by those competent in bicycle traffic engineering.

    But refereeing does not occur until some editorial board has already decided that it would like to publish an offered paper. But editors who would employ referees as ignorant as those described in the previous paragraph would also dislike papers that those referees would dislike. Furthermore, several journal editorial boards advocate the environmentalist anti-motoring agenda; they would not publish (and one has so written me) papers that did not advance that agenda.

    And think a bit more. Just who are my peers in the field of bicycle traffic engineering? Having my papers refereed by referees who know far less about the subject than I do does not constitute peer review; such review is no more than superstitious newspaper misinformation, of which there is plenty in the bicycle transport field.

    We are left with the unofficial peer evaluators. By and large, my hypotheses have been accepted by Steven Goodridge, Dan Guttierrez, John Allen, John Schubert, Serge *******, and Keri Caffrey, all big names in the field of bicycle traffic engineering. For that matter, the I Am Traffic website is entirely based on a strategy for countering the cyclist-inferiority superstition.

    Given all these facts, genec's criticism of cyclist-inferiority hypotheses carries no weight, except to display his own bias.
    Too funny! The best of the silliness being, My theories have been accepted by the Usual Suspects, all the big names in the field of John Forester Brand Vehicular Cycling Sycophancy.

  25. #275
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Eugene, Oregon
    Posts
    4,626
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by buzzman View Post

    ...In many American cities building bike infrastructure of any kind is still a gleam in a cyclist's eye. Communities are in negotiation and still determining whether the addition of even a simple bit of bike lane stripe or a sharrow is being argued. A question I posed earlier in this thread was whether cyclists like you and spare_wheel, who live and ride in the rarified Portland area, really want to send the signal to less well endowed communities that infrastructure is not the answer? Because that's the message I'm getting from you guys in this thread.
    When the "infrastructure" is based on what I consider to be an irrational fear of same-direction traffic and is shoe-horned into spaces where it both adds peculiar dangers (door zones, right-hooks) and is discontinuous (on-again-off-again), then I would recommend passing on it until something better can be built. If we're talking about communities that have the courage and wisdom to put in two meter wide bike lanes totally clear of the door zone, even if that means removing some car storage facilities and even some travel lanes, then there's some potential there. Sure, there's still intersection issues to be hammered out. (If they want to slow all the traffic down by banning right turn on red for automobiles and using separate signals for bikes and other traffic I would be interested to see how that works in an American environment.)

    Perhaps our longer experience with segregated facilities and poorly done bike lanes out here in the west can explain some of our objections to things that seem fresh and wonderful back east. After "infrastructure" WILL come mandatory use laws. These laws will likely become more and more severe as infrastructure is added. Eventually, cyclists will be fighting for the right to use roads that are even parallel to something that has been officially designated as a bike route (that's where the fight is currently in Oregon).

    Seeing this handwriting on the wall, some of us are now, belatedly, insisting that if it's going to be built and we're going to have to use it, we want it done right. We sure wish we had been insisting on this forty years ago when some of this stuff was first being done, because it's a lot harder to get dangerous, inconvenient things removed after the fact than it would have been to force them to be done well at the outset. Unfortunately, cycling advocates were just too giddy over getting something "bikey" to see the unintended consequences of what we got.

    However, in the end, I don't think the lines and concrete are the biggest factors. (Note: I'm not saying they are unimportant.) When I have been in times/places where traffic laws are vigorously enforced, I rarely have any issues. In those times/places where everyone knows there are no consequences for uncivilized behavior, then things aren't quite as pleasant. Police departments don't operate in a vacuum. They will do the bidding of the elected officials, who in turn will do what they see as in their interests. So, we're back to that positive feedback loop of more cyclists leads to more demands for a better cycling environment, leads to more cyclists...with the twist that we shouldn't ignore the social/legal environment.

Page 11 of 15 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •