Roads were Not built for cars
03-21-15, 02:03 PM
#51
Been Around Awhile
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,974
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,536 Times
in
1,045 Posts
That is a common, but untrue belief of simpletons. Many of our most basic rights and freedoms are protections from the will of the majority. Freedom of speech is needed in order for people to be able to express unpopular ideas. Similarly for religion, etc. Do you really believe that if a majority of people wanted to legalize slavery again, or deny Asian-Americans the right to vote, that this would be OK?
03-21-15, 02:19 PM
#52
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 4,530
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2112 Post(s)
Liked 663 Times
in
443 Posts
(They do have a different word for sidewalk - pavement.)
-mr. bill
03-21-15, 03:34 PM
#53
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NA
Posts: 4,267
Bikes: NA
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times
in
7 Posts
There are no jaywalking laws in most of europe and in large swathes of the USA. (And none of these places descended into lawlessness and barbarism.)
Last edited by spare_wheel; 03-21-15 at 03:42 PM.
03-21-15, 04:58 PM
#55
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Is it my turn to comment?
I will wait until I read the book before I dispute it's credibility. Maybe it has a Bibliography, with due credit to it's sources...
It is true that the Bicycle was invented first, the car came later...
I believe that the Bicycle Industry could use some Automotive technology, to make safer Bicycles:
1) Bumpers and and Dashboards could make safer Bikes, Although they would then be Velomobiles , but the UCI prohibits Aerodynamic Devices (Fairings) from UCI sanctioned races. I have built an experimental Velomobile or two, and they are actually very Practical. You get a higher top speed, plus crash protection, and your cargo stays dry in a rain storm...
2) Rear View Mirrors would indicate when a faster vehicle is approaching from behind, but the Mirror needs to be slightly Convex, to avoid having a blind spot... It seems the Camcorder was invented first, then a decent Mirror...
3) GPS and WiFi will make all vehicles aware of the location of every other vehicle. My belief based on my knowledge as a Rail-fan , is that a system used by railroads, called Central Traffic Control (CTC) , will eventually make it's way onto the Roads, to make sure no two vehicles are in the same "Block" at the same time, also an indication of whether the NEXT Signal will be Red, Green, or Slow (or the cars will drive themselves "Autonomously", we put the "Auto" in "Automobile").
4) I don't believe in Bike Lanes. The existing Road Shoulder works for me. Every Road should have a Sidewalk, in my opinion, with mandatory "Wheelchair Ramps" at each corner. Any time you chicken-out , you can get off the Road and onto the Sidewalk (unless you are Downtown in a city with a population of over one million).
5) Citi Bike, and Bike Share coöps in general are a good way to bring quality bicycles to the masses. These public bikes are sturdy and have good brakes, and LED Lights...
Maybe I'm going OT, but I'm the OP...
Plastics make it possible. I think the Velomobile of the future will be a Plastic Pod, to protect People... The Engineering Universities need to Teach Human Powered Vehicle Technology. 3D Printing will replace hand-laid Fiberglass, and several other innovations are already taking place.
I will wait until I read the book before I dispute it's credibility. Maybe it has a Bibliography, with due credit to it's sources...
It is true that the Bicycle was invented first, the car came later...
I believe that the Bicycle Industry could use some Automotive technology, to make safer Bicycles:
1) Bumpers and and Dashboards could make safer Bikes, Although they would then be Velomobiles , but the UCI prohibits Aerodynamic Devices (Fairings) from UCI sanctioned races. I have built an experimental Velomobile or two, and they are actually very Practical. You get a higher top speed, plus crash protection, and your cargo stays dry in a rain storm...
2) Rear View Mirrors would indicate when a faster vehicle is approaching from behind, but the Mirror needs to be slightly Convex, to avoid having a blind spot... It seems the Camcorder was invented first, then a decent Mirror...
3) GPS and WiFi will make all vehicles aware of the location of every other vehicle. My belief based on my knowledge as a Rail-fan , is that a system used by railroads, called Central Traffic Control (CTC) , will eventually make it's way onto the Roads, to make sure no two vehicles are in the same "Block" at the same time, also an indication of whether the NEXT Signal will be Red, Green, or Slow (or the cars will drive themselves "Autonomously", we put the "Auto" in "Automobile").
4) I don't believe in Bike Lanes. The existing Road Shoulder works for me. Every Road should have a Sidewalk, in my opinion, with mandatory "Wheelchair Ramps" at each corner. Any time you chicken-out , you can get off the Road and onto the Sidewalk (unless you are Downtown in a city with a population of over one million).
5) Citi Bike, and Bike Share coöps in general are a good way to bring quality bicycles to the masses. These public bikes are sturdy and have good brakes, and LED Lights...
Maybe I'm going OT, but I'm the OP...
Plastics make it possible. I think the Velomobile of the future will be a Plastic Pod, to protect People... The Engineering Universities need to Teach Human Powered Vehicle Technology. 3D Printing will replace hand-laid Fiberglass, and several other innovations are already taking place.
03-21-15, 05:19 PM
#56
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Kent Wa.
Posts: 5,332
Bikes: 2005 Gazelle Golfo, 1935 Raleigh Sport, 1970 Robin Hood sport, 1974 Schwinn Continental, 1984 Ross MTB/porteur, 2013 Flying Piegon path racer, 2014 Gazelle Toer Populair T8
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 396 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 8 Times
in
7 Posts
Fairy tales, high horses, chicken little, and righteous indignation have no place in responsible, productive advocacy.
03-21-15, 06:18 PM
#57
Not quite there yet
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Monkey Bottom, NC
Posts: 999
Bikes: A bunch of old steel bikes + an ICE trike
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
So where do we go from here? Sooner or later the next-big-thing in transportation will supplant our current MV model. What will it be and how will cycles fit in? In fifty years, I don't know if I will still be able to cycle, but I will still be a strategic jaywalker.
03-21-15, 07:09 PM
#58
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Kent Wa.
Posts: 5,332
Bikes: 2005 Gazelle Golfo, 1935 Raleigh Sport, 1970 Robin Hood sport, 1974 Schwinn Continental, 1984 Ross MTB/porteur, 2013 Flying Piegon path racer, 2014 Gazelle Toer Populair T8
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 396 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 8 Times
in
7 Posts
I suspect bicycles will continue to grow in popularity in locations conducive to their use, but seriously doubt they will become a significant form of transportation in general.
03-21-15, 08:38 PM
#59
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Chicago Western 'burbs
Posts: 1,065
Bikes: 1993 NOS Mt Shasta Tempest, Motobecane Fantom Cross CX, Dahon Speed D7, Dahon Vector P8, Bullitt Superfly
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
03-21-15, 09:00 PM
#60
Been Around Awhile
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,974
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,536 Times
in
1,045 Posts
03-21-15, 09:14 PM
#61
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 555
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times
in
8 Posts
The NY Times search on their website is my starting point. The vehicle code was originally only for motor vehicles. Bicycles and pedestrians were not subject to it. The effort to restrict bicycle and pedestrian road access by extending the vehicle code to include them started in the 1930's.
It was a pivotal time for the automobile industry. The Great Depression was on and auto sales had tanked. There was a bicycle boom in many cities. Bicycles offered an inexpensive alternative for many with very little additional travel time. The automobile industry was worried.
A June 3rd 1934 NY Times article reported on the National Conference of Street and Highway Safety. The following was among the recommendations for headlights and turn signals, "Adoption of a regulation making bicycles and animal-drawn vehicles broadly subject to the rules of the road as they apply to other traffic."
The clear inference is that only motor vehicles were subject to the rules of the road at that time. There are several other Times articles that support this conjecture in NYC. Bicycle riders were not subject to the vehicle laws in New York State until 1937.
Pedestrians were not subject to the restrictions on their street use in New York City until 1958. That's within my lifetime. I remember when those anti-jaywalking laws were passed. The June 23rd 1958 Times has an article that reads, "The city's effort to reverse the rising trend of pedestrian traffic deaths enters its third phase today, when anti-jaywalking regulations become effective."
Which history is false and created becomes clear, once anyone does a little armchair research from original sources.
03-21-15, 10:43 PM
#62
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: D'uh... I am a Cutter
Posts: 6,139
Bikes: '17 Access Old Turnpike Gravel bike, '14 Trek 1.1, '13 Cannondale CAAD 10, '98 CAD 2, R300
Mentioned: 62 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1571 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 12 Times
in
9 Posts
But the real question is: Who will be the cyclists of the future? Will children re-enter the cycling community that they've seem to have abandoned. Will the growing non-working poor become the bicycle mobile of the future? Or... will most cyclist be old men with fat wallets and too much spare time.
03-22-15, 09:14 AM
#63
genec
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
It does not take much effort these days to determine which people create false histories. All that's required is an internet search to find and read contemporary documents to judge whether such histories are false and created. It's something that can be done even from a recliner.
The NY Times search on their website is my starting point. The vehicle code was originally only for motor vehicles. Bicycles and pedestrians were not subject to it. The effort to restrict bicycle and pedestrian road access by extending the vehicle code to include them started in the 1930's.
It was a pivotal time for the automobile industry. The Great Depression was on and auto sales had tanked. There was a bicycle boom in many cities. Bicycles offered an inexpensive alternative for many with very little additional travel time. The automobile industry was worried.
A June 3rd 1934 NY Times article reported on the National Conference of Street and Highway Safety. The following was among the recommendations for headlights and turn signals, "Adoption of a regulation making bicycles and animal-drawn vehicles broadly subject to the rules of the road as they apply to other traffic."
The clear inference is that only motor vehicles were subject to the rules of the road at that time. There are several other Times articles that support this conjecture in NYC. Bicycle riders were not subject to the vehicle laws in New York State until 1937.
Pedestrians were not subject to the restrictions on their street use in New York City until 1958. That's within my lifetime. I remember when those anti-jaywalking laws were passed. The June 23rd 1958 Times has an article that reads, "The city's effort to reverse the rising trend of pedestrian traffic deaths enters its third phase today, when anti-jaywalking regulations become effective."
Which history is false and created becomes clear, once anyone does a little armchair research from original sources.
The NY Times search on their website is my starting point. The vehicle code was originally only for motor vehicles. Bicycles and pedestrians were not subject to it. The effort to restrict bicycle and pedestrian road access by extending the vehicle code to include them started in the 1930's.
It was a pivotal time for the automobile industry. The Great Depression was on and auto sales had tanked. There was a bicycle boom in many cities. Bicycles offered an inexpensive alternative for many with very little additional travel time. The automobile industry was worried.
A June 3rd 1934 NY Times article reported on the National Conference of Street and Highway Safety. The following was among the recommendations for headlights and turn signals, "Adoption of a regulation making bicycles and animal-drawn vehicles broadly subject to the rules of the road as they apply to other traffic."
The clear inference is that only motor vehicles were subject to the rules of the road at that time. There are several other Times articles that support this conjecture in NYC. Bicycle riders were not subject to the vehicle laws in New York State until 1937.
Pedestrians were not subject to the restrictions on their street use in New York City until 1958. That's within my lifetime. I remember when those anti-jaywalking laws were passed. The June 23rd 1958 Times has an article that reads, "The city's effort to reverse the rising trend of pedestrian traffic deaths enters its third phase today, when anti-jaywalking regulations become effective."
Which history is false and created becomes clear, once anyone does a little armchair research from original sources.
Four states adopted RTOR in 1973 (Illinois, Indiana, North Dakota, and Texas). In the next three years, 26 additional states adopted generally-permissive RTOR laws (eight in 1974, six in 1975, and 12 in 1976). Four states adopted generally-permissive RTOR in 1977.
Here in San Diego the response has been to add these signs to busy intersections... to convince motorists of laws they should know, but fail to heed...
While some may deny the jaywalking tale... the history and reality of RTOR is still recent and fresh on our minds... roads made easier for motorists at the apparent detriment for others.
03-22-15, 09:53 AM
#64
Senior Member
Thread Starter
It does not take much effort these days to determine which people create false histories. All that's required is an internet search to find and read contemporary documents to judge whether such histories are false and created. It's something that can be done even from a recliner.
The NY Times search on their website is my starting point. The vehicle code was originally only for motor vehicles. Bicycles and pedestrians were not subject to it. The effort to restrict bicycle and pedestrian road access by extending the vehicle code to include them started in the 1930's.
It was a pivotal time for the automobile industry. The Great Depression was on and auto sales had tanked. There was a bicycle boom in many cities. Bicycles offered an inexpensive alternative for many with very little additional travel time. The automobile industry was worried.
A June 3rd 1934 NY Times article reported on the National Conference of Street and Highway Safety. The following was among the recommendations for headlights and turn signals, "Adoption of a regulation making bicycles and animal-drawn vehicles broadly subject to the rules of the road as they apply to other traffic."
The clear inference is that only motor vehicles were subject to the rules of the road at that time. There are several other Times articles that support this conjecture in NYC. Bicycle riders were not subject to the vehicle laws in New York State until 1937.
Pedestrians were not subject to the restrictions on their street use in New York City until 1958. That's within my lifetime. I remember when those anti-jaywalking laws were passed. The June 23rd 1958 Times has an article that reads, "The city's effort to reverse the rising trend of pedestrian traffic deaths enters its third phase today, when anti-jaywalking regulations become effective."
Which history is false and created becomes clear, once anyone does a little armchair research from original sources.
The NY Times search on their website is my starting point. The vehicle code was originally only for motor vehicles. Bicycles and pedestrians were not subject to it. The effort to restrict bicycle and pedestrian road access by extending the vehicle code to include them started in the 1930's.
It was a pivotal time for the automobile industry. The Great Depression was on and auto sales had tanked. There was a bicycle boom in many cities. Bicycles offered an inexpensive alternative for many with very little additional travel time. The automobile industry was worried.
A June 3rd 1934 NY Times article reported on the National Conference of Street and Highway Safety. The following was among the recommendations for headlights and turn signals, "Adoption of a regulation making bicycles and animal-drawn vehicles broadly subject to the rules of the road as they apply to other traffic."
The clear inference is that only motor vehicles were subject to the rules of the road at that time. There are several other Times articles that support this conjecture in NYC. Bicycle riders were not subject to the vehicle laws in New York State until 1937.
Pedestrians were not subject to the restrictions on their street use in New York City until 1958. That's within my lifetime. I remember when those anti-jaywalking laws were passed. The June 23rd 1958 Times has an article that reads, "The city's effort to reverse the rising trend of pedestrian traffic deaths enters its third phase today, when anti-jaywalking regulations become effective."
Which history is false and created becomes clear, once anyone does a little armchair research from original sources.
That's why I say , I will wait until I read the book before I criticize . The author may have a lot of NY Times Articles listed in his bibliography.
03-23-15, 12:16 PM
#67
Been Around Awhile
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,974
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,536 Times
in
1,045 Posts
03-23-15, 02:29 PM
#68
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NA
Posts: 4,267
Bikes: NA
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times
in
7 Posts
I'm sure that cyclists did push for paving but whether or not they were a major factor is hard to determine from a few newspaper clippings.
03-23-15, 05:02 PM
#69
Been Around Awhile
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,974
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,536 Times
in
1,045 Posts
"Hard to determine"? More like cannot be determined at all by the clippings posted on this thread. In addition there is absolutely zero relationship between the jaywalking/Right Turn on Red babble and cyclists' actual influence on getting anything accomplished.
03-23-15, 06:08 PM
#70
genec
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
So in your mind, that motorists have been "granted" more and more free reign (and no, I am not misusing the word "reign") over the roads, is not an issue of advocacy for cyclists or pedestrians?
03-23-15, 06:36 PM
#71
Been Around Awhile
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,974
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,536 Times
in
1,045 Posts
Note: it is not about every hot button issue hyped on A&S. Not even "Take the Lane" or Evil Cell Phones.
03-23-15, 06:56 PM
#72
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 4,530
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2112 Post(s)
Liked 663 Times
in
443 Posts
A poster who nearly single-handedly derails topic after topic in bikeforums, highhandedly complaining about a topic being derailed. That's rich.
(And there *still* are no jaywalking laws in jolly old england.)
-mr. bill
(And there *still* are no jaywalking laws in jolly old england.)
-mr. bill
03-23-15, 08:27 PM
#73
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Kent Wa.
Posts: 5,332
Bikes: 2005 Gazelle Golfo, 1935 Raleigh Sport, 1970 Robin Hood sport, 1974 Schwinn Continental, 1984 Ross MTB/porteur, 2013 Flying Piegon path racer, 2014 Gazelle Toer Populair T8
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 396 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 8 Times
in
7 Posts
Roads were built by people for people, its just simple logic they will evolve to accommodate whatever the primary mode happens to be, for the past 80 years its been the motor vehicle....by popular demand.
Advocacy should be about ensuring secondary users regain what they have lost, and are part of the future equation simply because its the right thing to do. Staking claims based on fabricated "history" is nothing more than a distraction, and embarrassment.
Advocacy should be about ensuring secondary users regain what they have lost, and are part of the future equation simply because its the right thing to do. Staking claims based on fabricated "history" is nothing more than a distraction, and embarrassment.
03-23-15, 08:46 PM
#74
20+mph Commuter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Greenville. SC USA
Posts: 7,517
Bikes: Surly LHT, Surly Lowside, a folding bike, and a beater.
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1434 Post(s)
Liked 331 Times
in
219 Posts
I am not sure why road building intent a hundred years ago is relevant to ANYTHING right now. Used to be only royalty could afford certain colored ink for their wardrobes. I think red and purple where two colors almost impossible to make at one time. This, along with literally THOUSANDS of intended uses of items of antiquity have zero application in 2015.
Who bloody cares? Why?
Who bloody cares? Why?
03-24-15, 07:44 AM
#75
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Chicago Western 'burbs
Posts: 1,065
Bikes: 1993 NOS Mt Shasta Tempest, Motobecane Fantom Cross CX, Dahon Speed D7, Dahon Vector P8, Bullitt Superfly
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Roads were built by people for people, its just simple logic they will evolve to accommodate whatever the primary mode happens to be, for the past 80 years its been the motor vehicle....by popular demand.
Advocacy should be about ensuring secondary users regain what they have lost, and are part of the future equation simply because its the right thing to do. Staking claims based on fabricated "history" is nothing more than a distraction, and embarrassment.
Advocacy should be about ensuring secondary users regain what they have lost, and are part of the future equation simply because its the right thing to do. Staking claims based on fabricated "history" is nothing more than a distraction, and embarrassment.