Originally Posted by genec
When I learned to ride and perhaps as well you... there were no bike lanes... it was an unheard of concept...
It still seems a little novel.
Originally Posted by genec
Along the same lines...June Cleaver wore pearls to dinner at night and the TV was black and white and had 3 or 4 channels. The whole family sat down together on Sunday evenings and watched the Wonderful World of Disney. Bicycles had single speeds and most were labeled Schwinn.
A little later, some bikes had three speeds and were labeled Raleigh.
Movie theatres advertised, "It's COOL inside".
A lot has changed since the days of Wally and the Beav.
I suspect that people will someday look back on the bike lane debate and wonder what all the fuss was about.
It's a fallacy that bike lanes are safe for inexperienced cyclists. It takes as much skill to ride safely on a road with a BL as it does to ride on one without one (that's one thing the VC-ists have right). Nonetheless, many experienced cyclists find BLs useful.
The anti-bike lane extremists are tilting at windmills. Bike lanes exist. Bike lanes will exist.
All cyclists should be working to make BLs safer, not holding cycling to some ridiculous ideal.
Now the rant:
Many VC-ists are living in a dream world. Few cyclists, including many who claim to be VC, ride VC all the time. Many VC-ists ride in violation of vehicular principles when it fits their purposes. (If the posts on bikeforums are any indication, nobody rides VC all the time) I may be as close as anybody in riding style but I totally reject VC ideology - an ideology with a foundation built on quicksand (the VC riding style is great because it works most of the time - the VC ideology sucks big time because it doesn't work). It may be a little harsh, but I think of VC dogmatists as a cancer on cycling advocacy.
end of rant