Digital_Cowboy

No, Bek, the "problem" is that for whatever reason that you seem to think that besides the lane being of a substandard width that a cyclist needs another reason not to be riding FRAP. Even though the laws of various states make it very clear to everyone other than you, the OP and one or two others earlier in this thread that the ONLY condition that needs to exist is that the road consist of lanes that are a substandard width.

On a road with substandard width lanes the most REASONABLE position for a cyclist is to be riding either in the center of the travel lane or in the left hand tire track. To expect a cyclist to ride either FRAP or in the right hand tire track on a road with substandard width lanes is NOT reasonable. And is in fact very dangerous.

Likewise it is dangerous to expect a cyclist to ride FRAP or in the right tire track and then to "pop" out into the center or left hand tire track when they hear a car approaching from behind. It is safer, more predictable and LEGAL for a cyclist to already be controlling the lane long before they hear a car approaching them from behind.

Digital_Cowboy

No, Hagen the "problem" is that you think that because something works there in Copenhagen, that they'll work everywhere. That just isn't true as a number of people have tried to tell you. Copenhagen/Europe is VASTLY different to the USA and the rest of the world.

hagen2456

This is too silly.

No, I do emphatically NOT think what you think I do, or at least not in a way that is remotely relevant to the discussion I was having at the time with mr. Forester.

Please don't let him brainwash you all with his nonsensical use of language.

Digital_Cowboy

Hagen,

In most of your posts you have made it very clear that you think that because "segregated" bicycle infrastructure works where you live that it should work "everywhere." Even though a number of people have tried to tell/explain to you why they won't work in most US cities.

One of the key IF not major differences between Copenhagen/Europe and the USA is that over in Europe that the bicycle IS seen as a legitimate means of transportation. Whereas here in the USA the bicycle is STILL seen as "just" a "child's toy" or as a piece of recreation/exercise equipment to be ridden in the parks and on the trails on the weekend.

Sadly, most Americans cannot fathom using a bicycle as their primary mode of transportation. Until that mindset changes we cyclists in America will ALWAYS be treated as a "second class citizen."

hagen2456

These are certainly legimitate reasons for telling us Europeans that implementing bike infrastructure is not as easy as it may seem from a European perspective.

However. That is not what the discussion was about. Mr. Forester and I discussed lane taking under certain conditions. These conditions reflect general problems of traffic, which are the same all over the world: sight lines; why accidents happen; etc. Robert Hurst chimed in with some very vital facts, and that silenced mr. Forester - for a while. But then he tried to argue with me, mixing up the difference between Danish, Dutch or American conditions with general traffic problems. Since then, his posts on the issue have become increasingly ridiculous, illogical and confusing, as I've pointed out.

dynodonn 

Agree, plus when a number of European countries have the responsibility of a collision defaulting towards the larger/heavier vehicle unless proven otherwise, this type of traffic law makes motorists give considerably more thought on how they should take more care when operating a motor vehicle around non motorized road users.

hagen2456

Though the above is completely irrelevant to the question being discussed, I feel that I must add a little piece of information: Neither in Holland nor in Denmark did legislation about liability change untill after the fact of the great bicycle renaissance of the 80's, which was mostly brought about with the help of bike infrastructure. The legislation is nice, though, and might of course help changing the attitude of American and British drivers.

I-Like-To-Bike

Bringing facts to the table has that effect on the responses of Mr. Forester and his acolytes.

John Forester

If you will note, I am not the only one who considered that Hagen's essays were directed at the difference between the traffic conditions of different nations. If Hagen had chosen to limit his essays to one particular situation he should have provided a written description of the specific situation which he was discussing. As it is, there was confusion; several of us took Hagen's words as being addressed to national differences, while Hagen thought that he was discussing one particular situation.

hagen2456

No.

That confusion only occured when you started mixing up local conditions with general traffic problems. You may remember that the discussion at the time concerned how one should place oneself in a blind curve, on a hill near the crest etc. - all of which has nothing to do with whether Holland has a lot of bike paths or the USA does not.

There is no way anybody could think that I was addressing national differences. I explicitly mentioned general traffic problems.

"I simply go by what generally will cause accidents, and how one can minimize the risk of being hit by cars. Those conditions are basically universal."

"The cyclist I mentioned who was killed while taking the lane uphill on a narrow country lane north of Copenhagen a couple weeks ago would not have been killed on a similar American road?"

"Are the basical problems that road designers face different from place to place? Really?"

'Nuff said.

John Forester

If you wished to limit the discussion to the specific one of lateral placement on a two-lane rural road in America you should not have referred to it as a general traffic problem. It is a rather specific situation. When people discuss general traffic problems they usually mean the range of problems that occur in some specific area. That's where your phrasing misled several of us.

hagen2456

*sigh*

https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...1#post14371675
https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...1#post14371772
https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...1#post14371803

I'll stop here, as mr. Forester either can't understand plain language, or is trying to confuse us further.

Digital_Cowboy

Actually Hagen, that is what just about every discussion about cycling in the USA is about.

You may think that it's just about lane position but as I just said, sadly just about every discussion about cycling in the USA is about how the bicycle is seen here in the USA. And that is as a "child's toy," or as a piece of "exercise or recreational equipment" to only be used on the weekend in the park or on the trails.

As I and others have said the average American (motorist) does NOT see the bicycle as a legitimate mode of transportation. And until that mindset is changed then just about every conversation about bike riding in the USA will be about how the bicycle is perceived.

I am glad that you live in a veritable bicycling utopia, but that is NOT how it is for everyone who rides. And sadly as many of us here have tried to tell you in the past. Just because things work where you and others live does NOT mean it's going to work everywhere else.

That is due largely to the fact that traffic IS different here in the USA compared to other countries. And just because something works in other places does not mean that it'll work everywhere.

And here in America until the average American (motorist) accepts bicycles and bicyclists on the road as a normal part of traffic we cyclists will continue to have an uphill battle in our choice of lane position.

Digital_Cowboy

Agreed, as others here have said most of us have been honked at and buzzed even in the bike lane.

And despite a certain members fondness for quoting studies that show that communities with bike lanes have fewer cyclists riding on the sidewalks or riding the wrong way. This past week when I had to go out to the VA I encountered about 7 other people on bicycles (not counting myself) they were ALL riding on the sidewalk about half of them were riding the wrong way. The first few that I encountered were riding on a sidewalk that is right next to a bike lane.

Just a few days ago when I was out riding as I crossed a bridge I encountered two cyclists riding the WRONG way in the bike lane.

John Forester

I agree with Digital Cowboy, and I add a bit more. Considering that Hagen has described his cycling experience as basically North European and has described his feelings about cycling under what he considers to be American conditions, he is no more qualified to discuss American bicycle traffic problems than is the typically uninformed American bikeway advocate. We have plenty of them around, and we know how erroneous their advice is.

Digital_Cowboy

No, it is not. How the bicycle and bicyclists are perceived in America is the root of the problem. And not until such a time as the average American (motorist) accepts the bicycle as a legitimate and fully authorized part of traffic things will not change here.

Yes, we are making inroads and there are positive changes being made but they're really just token efforts. As most Americans would rather drive their car to the convince store at the end of the block/street vs. riding their bicycle or walking. They do not understand why we would rather ride our bikes as opposed to driving a car. To them it just doesn't make sense

The changes that you have may have only happened since the 1980's but they have happened. I suggest that you read the comments at the end of the various articles that have been linked to here. Even when the motorist is clearly at fault, i.e. a hit and run that there are too many people blaming the victims. Saying things like "Bicycles do not belong on the roads," or "the roads are designed for cars not bicycles," or "cyclists are rude and inconsiderate and do not follow the laws," ignoring the fact that many more motorists are engaging in the exact same things that cyclists are doing but it's "okay" because they have someplace to get to.

Also as has been asked before, how many other road users have to explain/defend their lane position? The Amish and farmers operating farm equipment on public roads get more respect than do cyclists.

hagen2456

I could have snipped, but didn't as I agree with most of what you say, not least because such attacks on cyclists are quite the norm here, too - despite the generally fine conditions for cyclists. This is definitely not Holland!

But - and there IS a but: However you twist and turn it, you cannot look through a hill, whether it's an American or European hill. As I have hinted at before, VC is not without its followers here, and the cyclist I told about who died taking the lane near the crest of a hill outside Copenhagen, would have died just as surely had that been in America. Just as the woman "taking the lane" who was run down in Yokohama in that other thread would have been run down anywhere in the world. There IS such a thing as basical problems of traffic.

And that's what my discussion with mr. Forester was about.


Oh, and please notice that I actually agree that strict liability in one form or another might change the attitude of "Anglo-Saxon" car cultures.

hagen2456

More attempts to escape the evident truth. This man doesn't understand basic problems of sight lines etc. I give him up. He's hopeless.

Edit (for the sake of those who might believe this former guru's words): Here's a quote from one of my posts in the discussions I had with the bewildered gentleman:

"I simply go by what generally will cause accidents, and how one can minimize the risk of being hit by cars. Those conditions are basically universal"

John Forester

The evidence from America, rather similar to that recorded with less detail in other locations, is that about 95% of car-bike collisions are caused by turning or crossing movements by either or both parties. Nothing that Hagen has written indicates that he is aware of, and writes with consideration of, this rather well-established fact.

Hagen claims that I do not understand basic problems of sight lines. I learned about sight lines and sight distances, and some formulas for determining sight distance, when working on the first bikeway design standards in California about 1974, the standards which became the AASHTO Guide for Bicycle Facilities. I published instructions about how to handle some sight distance problems as early as the first editions of my books Effective Cycling and Bicycle Transportation in 1976 and 1977.

I have concluded that Hagen, being so bound up in his Northern European experience, and with his poor command of English, ends up writing statements that simply mislead us Americans. It's happened time after time, while Hagen responds with, first, verbal arguments that do not clarify matters and, now, with factually inaccurate, easily disproved, claims of my supposed ignorance.

Digital_Cowboy

Wow, I have to admit to being a little surprised that we are in agreement on something.

No, one cannot “look through” a hill, but I would think that even you will admit that a cyclist who is “taking the lane” as opposed to riding FRAP has a better chance of being seen sooner then the rider who is riding FRAP. Thus giving motorists approaching from behind a better chance of seeing and reacting to them.

If you think about it, as has been said before VCers in reality are not asking for anything that the basic traffic laws do not already provide for. As I understand it, the basic “tenant of the VC philosophy” is that the operator of a bicycle follows all of the same laws and rules of the road as the operator of any other vehicle that is intended to and authorized to use the public roads.

I would like to know how and why the idea that the operators of bicycles “required” a set of laws/rules that is/was “radically” different from those of just about every other road user? Yes, I know and understand that truck drivers (18-wheeled long distance truckers, and “short distance” truckers) as well as motorcycles have laws/rules that further define their operation, but unless I am mistaken they do not have to defend why they used a particular road nor do they have to defend their lane position, nor do they need a list of exceptions to “give” them the right not to have to ride FRAP.

As I said, even the Amish and farmers are treated with more respect then cyclists are when they use the public roads.

In your example of the woman who was hit while taking the lane and I presume climbing a hill. What would her chances of survival have been if she had been riding FRAP? Would the car that hit her had seen her any sooner and been able to have avoided hitting her?

Why wasn’t the motorist knowing that sightlines were limited slowing down in anticipation of the unexpected?

As I’ve said the main thing that needs to change in the average American (motorists) mindset is that the bicycle IS a legitimate mode of transportation, and that it isn’t “just” a “child’s toy” nor is it “just” a piece of “exercise/recreation equipment” to be uses on the weekend in the park or on the trails.

Once that mindset is changed then the ideal of strict liability can enter the picture. As motorists will not only have learned, and accepted the bicycle as a legitimate mode of transportation, but as with the Amish, and farmers operating farm equipment on the public roads cyclists will be given the same respect. And motorists will know and accept that they have to give cyclists room when passing. Or that they have to slow down and wait until such time that they can safely pass.

WildcatRx

I am new to cycling and was wondering why this is? can someone expand on this?

Hoshnasi

Chance to eat it on the shoulder is much higher. Just a little deviation and you're in curb land.

hagen2456

First, the woman who was killed on that hill, was killed by an oncoming car that overtook another car coming up from the opposite side of the hill. Had she been FRAP, she would have lived. (I know that piece of road)

I don't wish to appear rude, but your objections have allready been discussed extensively. In short, examples like those I cite show that though "taking the lane" will probably mostly be beneficial when you interact with sane and alert drivers, it won't help you when it comes to the reckless and stupid drivers - and those are the ones that in any case constitute the major danger on the roads. I think it's pretty logical that this should give any VC'er second thoughts about taking the lane in blind curves or near the crest of a hill. The lane-taking simply doesn't take into account the greatest dangers. It's like crossing on green without for one moment pausing to watch out for some ***hat who might blow a red right into you.

I know that VC'ers like to think that bicycles should be regarded as vehicles on a par with cars, with the same privileges and responsibilities. But I really think that the Dutch way of separating traffic according to weight, speed and direction: https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/20...inable-safety/ is a much better way of doing things. I know that such an approach is not exactly round the corner in the USA (nor in most of the world), but actually seing VC as an ideal is incomprehensible to me, as that will definitely never lead to any change.

hagen2456

Oh, so you know about them? About time you start applying that knowledge to your approach to traffic. Like how one should place oneself near the crest of a hill.

But right, I forgot: American hills are different from European hills.

As for the severity of the collisions you mention, go back and check the material supplied by Robert Hurst. Or look for a recent paper from Holland, also showing that those turning/crossing collisions are not the ones that kill most cyclists. But we've been through that one before. Somehow you manage to think that there are fates one can meet on the roads that are worse than death.

As for my poor command of English, you're right. I'm probably not allways as clear as I'd like to be. But somehow, most people seem to understand what I say, after all. Your problem with it seems to be a lack of mental flexibility which also shows in your rigid, idealist approach to traffic and traffic laws (as pointed out by Robert Hurst).

hagen2456

Depends on the width of the shoulder. Nuance, please.