Originally Posted by
Bekologist
why is john forester even posting to this thread? the insults merely denigrate the discussion and serve as a thread derail.
its a fact the LAB choose to drop the EC like a hot potato and calls their basic bike ed 'traffic skills 101'. this is indisputable. john calls it a factiod, but then denigrates me for mentioning the truth?
what gall.
john forester is clearly not understanding the threads he responds to and is posting boilerplate screed to advance his faulty dogma.
if john wants to ruin every discussion with his accusations of superstitions and with such acrimony maybe this forum should be called 'john forester's addled soapbox'
time to move beyond the bikelane arguments, to recognize that
yes, john forester, the design guidance of the FHWA green book has been expanded substantially since the mid 90's. there is no need to explain this in detail. one word - sharrows - is simple and abundant.
Regarding significant bikeway design changes, my statement was: "Your second claim is unsupported by evidence, because the AASHTO Guide, used by FHWA, has not changed in any significant extent since it was first written." You, Bek, now argue that I am wrong because "the design guidance of the FHWA green book has been expanded substantially since the mid 90s." The FHWA (and AASHTO) Green Book is the policy book on geometric highway design, but it does not control bikeways, which are controlled by the AASHTO Guide to Bicycle Facilities, which has been adopted by the FHWA and to which the Green Book refers. You have tried to surreptitiously change the subject, Bek.
But you say that sharrows represent a significant change in policy. I think that sharrows are used only when other bikeways could not be produced. I'm pretty sure that there are no sharrows alongside bike lanes, and I estimate that there are no sharrows alongside side paths. Therefore, since you, cyclist, cannot ride in a bike lane or on a side path, we show you the lateral position that we think you should occupy. However, since it is impossible for any bicycle planner to accurately state the lateral position that cyclists ought to occupy, I think that sharrows represent no significant change in the policy of incompetent cycling on bikeways.
I have stated before, and repeat, that your statements about why LAB is no longer using the title Effective Cycling are false, yet you keep on repeating them. What is your evidence that supports your argument?