genec

OK first and foremost I am not 100% on board with this report, due in part to the way things are presented and some of the hyperbole they are using to get a certain message across... also due to the fact that quite frankly some bike lanes really suck and we all know that. This report however is attempting to connect well designed bike lanes with positive growth in local businesses and current trends in youth driving and population movement toward perceived bike friendly cityscapes. (cities or areas within cities)

https://www.peoplepoweredmovement.org...n_Business.pdf

I offer this to this advocacy group for discussion. Below are some samples from the report:

buzzman

Thanks for the link. This kind of perspective is the new wave of urban planning- and it's working. I do a lot of work with the arts and areas of Boston have been completely revitalized by adding theaters and gallery's for much the same reasons as bike lanes. Mayor Menino's famous, "the cah is no longuh king in Boston" speech is part of a larger urban planning model that involves arts, pedestrian walkways etc.

Paris has done this, NYC has done this. It is a world wide movement to making cites more livable and thus more economically viable.

genec

We've seen the same thing in a couple of separate areas of San Diego... One area in south La Jolla was put on a road diet with the end result being lower speeds and an area more friendly to peds and cyclists.

The North Park area is adding bike corals in an effort to provide bike parking in an older area that due to density and grade somewhat favors cycling.

So baby steps.

WebFootFreak

buzzman rattled a memory loose for me...

I was up in the Quincy, MA area with my now ex (thus the repressed memory), who happened to be a native. The couple of days that we were there saw us going all over the area using the transit system (The "T"). Being from outside of Seattle originally, and in Memphis for most of the last 22 years, I never saw public transport on a level like that. A lot of the areas we went through (on foot) had bicycles seemingly everywhere. Also, all the busses had bike carriers, and we even saw 1 guy on the subway with his bike... It's really easy to see what the article is trying to get across (to me anyways)...

Dahon.Steve

I think the only way to combat the Walmarts of the world is to close off city streets and create carfree festivals. It's amazing how much foot traffic these create yet towns like mine whose urban center was hurt by Walmart will not even consider this.

spare_wheel

While I don't disagree that cycling can promote business dynamism this brochure is "green lane project" propaganda. The green lane project is a lobbying organization that advocates for segregated infrastructure as the default position. IMO, this uncompromising position is just as divisive as the VCers of yore.

buzzman

I know this group does advocate for separated structures but what exactly do you mean by the "default position" and can you please direct me to a link or statement made by a representative of the organization that makes this claim?

spare_wheel

as the title of the brochure suggests, this organization believes that protected lanes are always preferable to bike lanes. the director is also known for dismissing bike lanes as mere paint on the road. what's amusing is that some of the locations used as evidence in this brochure are mere paint on the road.

https://www.peopleforbikes.org/blog/e...at-people-like
https://www.peopleforbikes.org/blog/e...ter-bike-lanes

buzzman

I read through these links and saw nothing saying that the organization specifically states that "separated structures should be the default for all bike lanes". They do seem to have an agenda to some degree and who knows who they survey for their preferences but it all seems pretty benign to me.

In fact they don't even really seem to be proposing fully separated lanes in all cases. Often it is simply the addition of plastic pylons that run along with the bike lane stripes.

If you see organizations like this as an enormous threat to cycling I'd suggest you choose your enemies more carefully. As for me, when I am part of what is admittedly a minuscule mode share nationally I'll take all the allies I can get.

spare_wheel

your words, not mine. i see the monomaniacal focus of "bikes belong/green lane project" on protected lanes as something that has and is hampering cycling connectivity in the usa.

buzzman

We spend hours in here arguing about exactly how pathetically small our numbers are (as people who get around by bicycle in North
America). I really doubt it serves us to paint one another with such broad brushes. I fear we paint ourselves into a corner by so doing. I do think we are our own worst enemy when we fracture as a community. If, as you claim, this organization is truly as dogmatic as the old VC crowd then shame on them but in all honesty their website appears upbeat, positive, enthusiastic and well organized. I am sorry if you've had a negative experience with them but I just don't see anything in their posts or site that is overly troubling.

John Forester

Allies, you desire? Allies in what project, what aim? The goals of those whom you praise as allies are increasing both the number of and the pressure of social conformity for treating cyclists as incapable children, using fear as the driving mechanism. That's bad for both the safety and the social status of those cyclists who understand the value of obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. As I have written before, to improve even your version of American bicycle transportation you need to support both the fearfully incapable (they are not inherently incapable, as the motorists argued; it is their fear [social and physical] that reduces their capability) and those who best use bicycle transportation by operating in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles.

buzzman

Really. It's just so futile to engage in any discussion wth you because you are so well practiced at obfuscating any topic with time worn jargon, heavily biased and condescending social theories and dogmatic adeherence to your own narrow point of view. We could lock horns on several points in your post but time would wind on and the landscape continue to change under under our feet without us having altered one another's opinion in the least.

When I first came on BF's, and Serge was still holding court as Helmet Head, the disputes were largely about lane positioning and vehicular strategies. Now HH, long since banned, VC moved to its own sub-forum, and any hint of VC gets a thread relegated to the rarified atmosphere of said sub-forum.

In other words, the reality is that discussions of this type have been severely marginalized. Why? Because they are counter productive at best. The wrangling goes on but threads tend to be less and less about lane position and more and more about types of infrastructure and what serves us best.

I have no desire to allow myself to be marginalized out of the discussion and creating allies, even among those with whom I may not always agree, is just good politics. And bike advocacy is, like it or not, a political game.


Now it's a wonderful wish that those of us who ride according to the rules of the road fare best but personal experience tells me that while I may adhere to the rules of the road the drivers around me may not. On my daily commute I much prefer my somewhat longer bike path ride along the river to my "on streets route", in large part I prefer this route because I have the least interactions with automobiles. But when I take the streets route I am reminded as I look over at passing automobiles or as I pass them alongside in the bike lane how many are texting, "Multi-tasking" (cell phone in hand, lap top in lap, coffee in other hand and steering wheel manipulated by the knees or other wise distracted by some form of technology or other. How do those changes in the landscape of driving since the 1970's alter your perception of the "fear of overtaking traffic"- or do you simply dismiss this new reality because it doesn't serve the theory?

And if cyclists like me, with hundreds of thousands of miles of cycling under his belt, having ridden in all but two of all the states in the US, in every Canadian Province, lived, cycled and toured in several European countries and cities is dumped in the bin of those with childish notions of cycling and an irrational fear of overtaking traffic because I've grown fond of certain bike facilities and am open to the possibilities of new designs then I am only too happy to count them as my allies.

In the meantime, the great irony of A&S is that those who post most frequently in opposition to separated facilities and with the most fervor as to our rights to the road also create threads like those I have linked below. Or like Eli Damon ride with cameras to catch every poor motorist interaction and yet regale us with claims that "cyclists fare best..."

Not that I have not had my own battles with motorists, some of which I take no pride in, but if being separated from traffic reduces these kinds of incidents then I much prefer it.


https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...-with-motorist

https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...3-USPS-drivers

https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...rant-motorists

https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php/920325-Hmmmmm


https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...-Rude-Motorist

genec

Hence my disclaimer up front. Anybody that declares they have the magic wand to fix all ills usually isn't fully aware of all the ills. There are some interesting numbers in the promotion, but clearly these folks have cherry picked for their presentation.

howsteepisit

By the way John, you have been virulently supporting your version of effective cycling since the 1970s, I have not seen that much growth. Perhaps your ideas, although technically sound, just don't resonate with the general population, I call it engineeritits. OR more simple put, you think you are so muck smarter not only than the population at large but other engineer (especially traffic engineers) that you cannot conceive of alternative theories that may surpass your own.

genec

Very nicely stated... I especially like the part in bold above. I too have to ask if cyclists like me with 10s of thousands of miles under my belt (perhaps 100 thousand... but I have not kept accurate record) also seek separated paths over "sharing the road" then perhaps there is some other underlying reason besides the psychological aspect so often thrown out by some here.

John Forester

I do not know what case you think that you are arguing, but the substance of the above post is that many cyclists recognize that there are different routes to accomplish the same trip, some being more pleasant while some are more efficient. That's really a commonplace. But you appear to be arguing that I am advocating that cyclists should use one or the other. I have never done so.

You don't like being lumped in with those who cycle in a childish manner and with the exaggerated fear of same-direction motor traffic. I have long noticed, from your writing, that you are not one of those people. However, you have chosen to advocate their point of view; that's been your choice. Since, as you recognize, this discussion concerns politics, you cannot help being tarred with the same brush that is suitable for your chosen allies.

The result of your chosen style of advocacy is that you support the American legal and social discrimination against cyclists who obey the rules of the road and you also support childish and incompetent cycling, regardless of your own personal beliefs and, I must presume, behavior. That's the result of your choice of allies. To carry on your beliefs, the least that you ought to be doing is to work just as hard to repeal the American legal discrimination against cyclists as drivers of vehicles and to counter the American social discrimination against those cyclists.

John Forester

There has been growth in my ideas. Specifically, the seventh edition of Effective Cycling contains a much improved engineering analysis of the motorist overtaking cyclist situation and its effect on lane control.

You suggest that I am so imbued with my own theories "that [I] cannot conceive of alternative theories that may surpass [my] own." Well, my theories, such as they are, are those of the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. Do you question the accuracy of those theories? If so, provide reasonable facts and arguments. Furthermore, the bikeway advocates inherited two assumptions from the motorists, that same-direction motor traffic is by far the greatest danger to cyclists and that cyclists are not capable of obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. Both of those assumptions have long been proved to be false. But note the following. Those bikeway advocates, either amateur or professional, have never developed from those assumptions (true or false) a reasonable theory of traffic operations. They just have never done so. If you know of such, then please inform us all of where this is written down and presented. So, regardless of whether you consider the evidence favoring obedience to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles to be strong or weak, there is no contrary evidence whatever.

The only point you can make is that the general public believes the two assumptions that motordom has propagated for eighty years by fear-creating propaganda, so that employed traffic engineers obey their employers in carrying out motordom's program. That's not a very satisfactory situation.

spare_wheel

imo, both VCers and the cycletrack-obsessed are far too concerned with the emotional state and/or desires of low occupancy motorists. my primary goal as a cycling advocate is not accomodation of motoring. i do not give a fart about "the rules of the road" written by and for motorists. moreover, i am not opposed to separated facilities at all. i simply believe that instead of focusing on segregation of active transport the focus should be on segregation/calming of motorists.

as i stated in that post, my last altercation was many years ago. i posted not because i was upset by this incident but because i wanted to provide an example of assertion of a right to the road even in the face of aggression.

mr_bill

John, again. Years ago we WON in Massachusetts. I can't take credit for it, it's a legacy we enjoy. We simply do *NOT* have legal discrimination against cyclists in Massachusetts. Neither Buzzman nor I are "allies" of motordom. Please, can you not understand this?

It's just another lane.

-mr. bill

B. Carfree

This blaming of the cycling dark ages (roughly 1983-2003 where I have lived) on JF is rather common here on BF. From my saddle, it looked more like the relative drop in inflation-adjusted gasoline prices and the corresponding increase in huge, wide personal motor vehicles, coupled with the impact of the post-Prop 13 tax revolt, led to such a squeezing out of cyclists that many quit riding and few joined to replace them. (Even genec, one of my favorite posters, has apparently stopped commuting to work by bicycle, though he claims the distracted motorists as the cause. Was the one who hit him on his/her phone at the time or was his/her "car" just too big for the driver's skill level?)

As gasoline prices began to recover back to their inflation-corrected level of the late '70s during the Bush years, we began to see an increase in cycling, decrease in vehicle size and decrease in driving. The relative impoverishment/indebtedness of young people sure looks like the cause of the peaking of per capita miles driven (due to cohort replacement) in 2004 and, a few years later, the peak of total miles driven.

However, the increase has been small, about 0.2% more of the population are riding. Not surprisingly, the segregationists claim this increase in almost entirely due to their efforts. While that may be possible, it sure doesn't look to be the case in the face of so many other factors.

John Forester

You need to learn that the first edition of the American rules of the road was written by Eno in 1903, his purpose being to provide for orderly operation for, and without collisions between, vehicles of any kind, before motoring became a significant part of traffic, and which is a situation from which you, as a cyclist, benefit greatly. You may disparage the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, but if you don't like them in what way do you think that you would benefit by disobeying them? Would disobedience make you safer? Or provide much more convenience?

I notice that you use the phrase "the rules of the road", while I use the phrase "the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles." For cyclists there is an enormous difference. The rules of the road for drivers of vehicles are the rules that all drivers of vehicles must obey, be they driving motor vehicles, bicycles, or horses. But the rules of the road, as stated by you, include the few nasty rules enacted by motorists to discriminate against cyclists for the convenience of motorists. These are the rules (statutes, ordinances, or whatever) that limit cyclists to the edge of the roadway or to bikeways where present. It is right for cyclists to support the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, because they promote safe and orderly operation of traffic of all types. But cyclists should oppose those rules of the road that apply to cyclists alone, because they were enacted by motorists to frighten cyclists off the roads and to legally force them off the roads or, at least when that can't quite be done, to force them into a legal position subordinate to motorists with the prime duty of staying out of the way of motorists, just for motorist convenience. Learn the difference between these two sets of traffic laws, and then decide what cyclists should do.

John Forester

Then in that case you really ought to explicitly limit all your discussion to the area of Massachusetts, instead of writing so that the rest of us think that it applies nationwide. I don't see that either you or Buzzman have ever done that. Without such an explicit limitation in practically every post, you are going to be stuck with being allied with motordom's anti-cyclist program and with the cyclist incompetence advocacy of bikeways advocates.

mr_bill

Done. So, when will you limit your discussion to California? (There are no nationwide bicycle laws.)

-mr. bill

John Forester

Your claim is just plain wrong; you apparently know just about nothing on the subject.