kickstart, The confusion for many on this point comes in when VC cyclist point out problems created by separated bicycle infrastructure when they intersect with roadways. What rules should be put in place: signs, traffic light, just a crosswalk, should cyclist be forced to dismount and act like pedestrians? This is perceived as VCers wanting to eliminate all such facilities.
Originally Posted by John Forester
The other point of confusion occurs in states/cities that have mandatory use laws. VC cyclist who prefer to ride the road as they always have, will oppose any bicycle facility they are FORCED to use. That is where the paint and path crowd has made their biggest mistake, by not working with VC cyclist to eliminate mandatory use laws and write laws at state levels which would prevent any county or city enacting mandatory use laws or laws that prohibit cyclist from using some roadways with the exception of freeways with reasonable alternatives, they then receive opposition for the paint and paths they desire, forcing the divided front from cyclist. Without mandatory laws or the potential for them, VCers would mostly remain neutral when paint and most path project are proposed. The path projects that John, myself and many other VCers strongly support, are cut through paths.
The final problem is, even when there are no mandatory use laws, VCers get harassed by too many motorist and police to get in the bike lane. I have had more than one motorist use their vehicle to force me (squeeze) into a bike lane or get side swiped.
The entire idea of mandatory use laws is the big sticking point for me. It absolutely flies in the face of the "rights" vs. "privileges" status of the legal position of public right of way users based on the risk the method of transportation they are using has for the very lives of others.
Most cyclists including many predominantly VC cyclists will gladly use good infrastructure. Thus the only reason mandatory use laws exist is as vicious violation of basic human rights in an attempt to force some citizens into "ghettos". Without a compulsory control mechanism you cannot force people into ghettos and if you eliminate that hold on people you eliminate or at the very least reduce ghetto-ization of society to an absolute minimum that is achievable. That's not just a statement about cycling infrastructure that is a statement about any and all types of ghettos on every level of human society. It's just like poverty, if you want to eliminate that or at least reduce it to as small as possible you don't attack it directly you attack the control mechanism that forces people into it.
This is turning into an esoteric academic debate about the definition rights and privileges that has no practical application for me when I'm operating a vehicle on a public road. I don't want to waste my time discussing preposterous utopian ideals that will never work in the real world, and I'm not interested in vilifying all who choose to drive cars because of a few bad apples.
If you want someone to listen to your ideas, please don't pontificate your ideologies.
I don't ride in the gutter, or in bike lanes. I 'take the lane'. I assert my road position under AFRAP, and the state's ACAP code. Because, A bike lane just satisfies the motorized public who doesn't want a cyclist in front of them. So, It is like, if a cyclist just happens' to be going faster than a car, the driver of the car gets' terribly insulted. Yet motorists' can go whatever speed they choose within the speed limit. Really fair!!!!
Sure I don't want to ride on the freeways. But I don't like, being shoved aside. When I have a legal right to be on the road.