Originally Posted by
buzzman
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
... it's the "bike advocates" who hold Amsterdam, downtown Portland or some other OPAC as the "ideal" round hole into which they wish to pound their segregated cycling square peg, while they (if they cycle at all) basically practice what they denigrate (vehicular cycling) during the times they are present in reality.
#1- while some of us may take issue with your or JF's very particular definitions of (vehicular cycling) I don't necessarily see the basic concept of riding as a vehicle and following the rules of the road and local traffic law being denigrated.
I do see the vehicular cycling "ideal", which has no models anywhere in the world to even remotely demonstrate it's effectiveness*,
being denigrated as a one size fits all solution.
You are distorting again. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt this time and presume it is not intentional. No one, certainly not Forester or I, have claimed vehicular cycling is the "ideal". Any denigration of
that is wasted time and energy fighting a straw man.
Originally Posted by
buzzman
#2. Having visions of improvements to transportation infrastructure is just as realistic as riding one's bike everyday in whatever fashion safely gets one from point A to B.
You're assuming the visions are realistic.
It is my opinion that a vision of transforming a modern city that was mostly developed since the advent of personalized motoring by adding an Amsterdam-like totally segregated cycling system is not realistic. My idea, by the way, is to underground all motor traffic, leaving the surface to human power. Yeah, that would be nice, but not realistic, not in my lifetime.
Originally Posted by
buzzman
Do you imagine those of us who cycle regularly but advocate for bikeways as part of an integrated system of transportation by bike ride on sidewalks and the wrong way down highways or not at all until such a system is available?
I imagine some "bike advocates" are traffic cycling novices, but not most of you that are regulars here. That's why I wrote,
bike advocates practice vehicular cycling above.
Originally Posted by
buzzman
*edit: I'm sure this will get a rather strident response. But what I mean here is- I have ridden in Amsterdam and cities with extensive bike infrastructures I see how those systems work they are demonstrable in their environments. Please tell me of a city anywhere, particularly in America where I can ride and see vehicular cycling promoted and practiced by a large percentage of cyclists and supported by law enforcement encouraged by the municipality devoid of any other special facilities for cyclists.
There is no such city that I know of. That does not mean it can't be done. People are working on it, and new high tech training materials appear to be very promising. Stop fighting it, and join the campaign. I nominate San Diego to be the first.
You know, if you pick up any parenting book or speak with just about any expert you will find many of the same themes. For examples, there will almost certainly be emphasis on the value of being authoritative but not authoritarian with children, yet the vast majority of parents continue to raise kids pretty much the same way they were raised: treating the kids in an authoritarian way. There are people who are trying to change this, even though there is not one city in the U.S. in which non-authoritarian parenting is promoted and practiced by a large percentage of the parents. So what? They should just give in to authoritarian parenting and endorse it?
Just because segregated bike way systems seem to work in OPAC cities like Amsterdam does not mean that a vision of implementing something like that in a modern city is realistic.