Oh please. I realize all these restrictions exist. I am insulted that you think I might "fail to realize" they exist. Do you think I'm stupid or live on another planet or something? Certain specific restrictions for specifc reasons is very different from the general principle of separatism that many seem to think applies to cyclists, and which is exemplified by the proliferation of mandatory (with exceptions) bike lanes.


I know, Gene. This fact is accounted for in my argument, and has been since I started this thread, and earlier. Why you feel compelled to point out the obvious and irrelevant, I cannot understand.


Yes, I quoted your question and addressed it, pointing out why it was irrelevant. 40 minutes later you felt compelled to suggest that I might have missed it, despite the fact that I explicitly quoted it.


Gosh. Instead of answering the question, I pointed out why I felt it was irrelevant. And yet you thought I "missed it".


That's your answer? My question was about separate water fountain facilities, and what's wrong with that. Your answer is about drivers and vehicles. Let the record show that you have not provided any reason for anyone to see that you really thought about what's wrong with separate but equal water fountain facilities. As a reminder as to the relevance to this discussion: a keen understanding of what's wrong with separate but equal facilities, like water fountains, is necessary to appreciate the insidious nature of bike lane separatism.


You need to stop think I'm equating "the rights of humans" with the machines they use. That is the flaw in your thinking.


No, but cyclists on bicycles can effectively use much more of the roadway than the bike lane, and restricting their right from doing so is an unnecessary restriction, with or without technical exceptions.

Most importantly (and a point you cannot appreciate until you understand what's wrong with "separate but equal" mentality), the separatism mentality underlying bike lanes damages cyclists' self-esteem (with respect to traffic cycling) and creates a discriminatory attitude against the notion that cyclists should have the same rights and responsibilities on roadways (on which they are allowed) as do vehicle drivers.


Frankly, I didn't know or care to find out that even ONE state had a full strict mandatory BL non-exemption law. That's how irrelevant this point is to this discussion. I have been arguing against mandatory (with exception) laws from the beginning. Obviously, any argument that applies against mandatory (with exception) laws also applies to mandatory non exemption laws. Only 2 people even voted for the non exemption (first) option. I can't remember any posts in this thread debating mandatory (with exception) vs. mandatory non-exemption. It's not a point of contention. It's not an issue. Practically everyone here agrees that there should be no such laws. The issue is aobut mandatory (with exception) laws. Why you're bringing it up now, and contending that "this whole 'mandatory bike lane use' thread only applies to one state: Alabama", I still can't understand.


I enjoy some debates. I do not enjoy pointless debates.
I don't even understand what pointing out there is only one state with such a law brings to the table to debate about.

Yes you did address in your earlier post where you claimed that, "For me personally to accept such a [separtism] premise I would have to feel like the facilities that I was being offered were inferior to the roads that everyone else is using." Then you proceeded to explain why the facilities you were being offered were not inferior to the roads that everyone else is using. So I asked you if that was really your position, the separate-but-equal doctrine, since it was the basis of your entire post, and you come back with "I addressed [your false analogy] in a previous post".

So, yeah, you addressed it, based on the premise thats separate-but-equal is acceptable. Pardon me but I don't think you really believe that, so I must discount that entire previous post. Which brings us to the rest of this most recent one:


No, that would not have to be true for my comparison to hold true. As long as we assume comparable exceptions in the water fountain usage restriction (such as you're allowed to use the other water fountain if you have a good reason, like "yours" is broken), and even with such exceptions we would not find the water fountain separatism acceptable (which I assume you agree with me it is not), then the analogy continues to hold.


So if some enlightened whites found a loophole in the water fountain restriction laws that essentially allowed them to use the blacks' water fountains, you would be okay with the separatism, since it does not have any real legal teeth? My point is that just because it is possible to find a legal way around the law and the associated restrictions with the separate facility does not make it okay. Need I remind you that you were just recently pulled over by an officer who has obviously been infected with separatism mentality with respect to cyclists and vehicular lane usage? That is an glaring example of the insidious effect of separatism thinking that is underlying bike lanes, their advocacy, and which they foster. It goes beyond bike lanes, true, just like racism went beyond "separate but equal" facilities in the segregated South, but bike lanes and water fountains are a big part of it.


Hmm. Like telling a black guy in the segregated south, "if you don't like separate facilities, don't use them", would solve the issue for him? It's not the facilities themselves that are the problem. It's not the water fountains. It's not the bike lanes. It's the mentality that goes along with them. It's the mentality that causes cops for pulling over you men for DWB (driving while black). It's the mentality that caused officer to pull you over for riding a "car" lane. It's the mentality that calls for bike lanes... It's separatism mentality, and it is the enemy.


I'm really trying not to be inflammatory. Have I been? Gene did get to me with his "which state has strictly mandatory BL laws" question a bit, but I don't think I got inflammatory. With you I just pointed out the basis of your previous post, and brought it to your attention. I would have done that had you been agreeing with me or not.

I'm still waiting for you and/or Gene to explain in your own words what's wrong with "separate but equal". I really think you need to go through that process to understand what I'm trying to say.


I'm willing to concede that BLs have some minor benefits. But fewer negative interactions with motorists isn't one of them, because I know for a fact from my own riding that the presence and/or use of a BL has no relevance to the incidence of negative interactions with motorists. I will also challenge the "more room to safely maneuver" contention (I can go into it again if you want me to). As to "devoid of potholes", it's not my experience, but I won't dispute it. My point, however, is that whatever the "benefits" of BLs, they are dwarfed by the harm to cyclists of the separatism mentality upon which they are based, and which they foster.


Jeez, Treespeed. This could comprise an entire thread in and of itself! It's a great and fair question, but it's off topic and I'm going to hope you're okay with me not addressing it, at least for now.

First, I've been saying separatism, mostly, not segregation, but I think we mean the same thing.


And any street (on which cyclists are allowed to travel) is an accomodation for both. This is a simple truth. Think about it. It's critical that you understand and appreciate this point (whether you agree with it or not) in order to understand my perspective. So I'll say it again. Every road (where cyclists are not prohibited) is an accomodation for both high-speed traffic and low-speed traffic (like cyclists). There is not need to add a bike lane to accomodate either. They are already both accomodated. One might argue that they are not ideally accomodated - fine, no facility is ideal. The main point here is that bike lanes are not about providing accomodation (because it's already there without the bike lane), but, at most, bike lanes are about (allegedly) improving accomodation.


There is no need to keep up with traffic to operate vehicularly on a roadway. I do it all the time pulling my child in a trailer, and, believe me, with 55+ lbs back there, plus another 25 lbs mountain bike, I'm not keeping up with motorized traffic! Never-the-less, I ride vehicularly... That is, I assert my right-of-way (only as much as necessary for safety and reasonable use) in the main travel lane, and proceed. Faster traffic has to slow down and adjust to pass me (us). When the lane is wide enough to have a bike lane, but lacks the BL stripe, all the better - they don't have to move into the adjacent lane to pass.

Also remember that when we're talking about bike lanes vs. no bike lanes, it's not a pavement issue. It's only apples to apples if we assume the same amount of pavement is available, and the only issue is striping. I say cyclists are better off without the separatist BL stripe, and everything else stays the same.


That's true for a freeway. On any other roadway, motorists must be prepared for other motorists stopping to park or let out a passenger, a passenger crossing at an intersection, slow vehicles, and, yes, cyclists. How freeway mentality has creeped into our expectations for urban traffic is really sad. Luckily we cyclists can slow the spread of the disease. By the way, bike lanes are part of feeding that frenzy - because motorists love to blow by cyclists as if they are not even there, which they can mostly only do when the cyclists are riding in a separate facility, like a bike lane.


Your statement is based on the assumption that bike lanes make travel safer for cyclists, for which there is absolutely no evidence. Some studies arguably show the opposite, though not conclusively. We would all love to see more definitive studies on this topic, but there have been quite a few that have tried to show that bike lanes make cycling safer, and all have failed.

The idea of motorists traveling at 50 in lanes adjacent to cyclists traveling at 15, which is largely the point of bike lanes, is not a good one. What's much better is that motorists slow down, at least a bit, and adjust their lane position, at least a bit, when they're passing cyclists. The idea that they should blow by cyclists as if they're not even there does not make anything safer for anyone. But you're right. This is exactly what bike lanes are designed to do (and a big reason why I'm against them).


Ah, yes, the separate-but-equal doctrine. No good.


The separatism analogy still works, because we would still find it unacceptable to designate only a portion of water fountains as white/black only.


Honestly. I believe that what's you believe, and what most cyclists believe. Heck, that's what I believe after 30 years of cycling experience. And I didn't change my mind in one day! It wasn't the problems with bike lanes per se that changed my mind, it was the understanding of the appropriateness of integrated traffic cycling (which does not require keeping up with traffic), and how bike lanes are based on the opposite separatism paradigm. All I'm mainly trying to do here is at least make other cyclists aware of this other paradigm and perspective, and to give it a lot of thought. I appreciate your efforts in that regard.


Good! Seriously, I'd rather they stress and take a little extra care (by slowing down and adjusting their lane position) when they pass a cyclist, then blowing by one as if she is not even there.


Actually, not all motor vehicles are capable of keeping up with each other (ever drive a '63 VW bus? a moving van? ). Besides, the ability to "keep up" is related but not key to vehicular cycling. Again, I successfully navigate vehicularly in traffic towing 55 lbs of kid and trailer...


Now you're getting into the false sense of security problem associated with bike lanes. That is, nervous and/or novice riders who are not yet confident enough to ride on a certain road because of the speed/volume of traffic on it, feel safe riding there because of the bike lane. But the main issue with cycling safety occurs at intersections, and bike lanes do nothing to make intersections safer. In fact, they arguably make things more dangerous, and the novice/nervous rider is particularly prone to running into these problems.


I agree it's not a human rights issue. The analogy was meant only to relate the insidiousness of separatism thinking between racist separatism and cyclist separatism: how separatist mentality is the underlying presumption of separate facilities (be they water fountains or bike lanes), and how such facilities foster further separatist mentality (be it racial discrimination in hiring, or motorists being less accepting of cyclists merging across multiple lanes to get into a left turn lane). The analogy also works in comparing how self-esteem is affected by separatist facilities: the effect on self-esteem due to racist separatism is hopefully obvious (now - 50 years ago... not so much), but the effect of bike lanes on a cyclist's self-esteem, with respect to how "appropriate" he or she may feel riding integrated with other vehicle drivers in traffic is probably more subtle. But I contend it's there, and is analogous (though obviously not as serious because racial separatism affects one's entire self-esteem, and cyclist separatism only affects one's self-esteem not even as a cyclist, but only as a traffic cyclist).

In the U.S.A., there are many forms of public segregation that have already been explicitly declared to be in violation of the constitutional rights of each and every individual. An example; segregated public education facilities. Public schools weren't allowed to remain segregated, even voluntarily; integration was compulsory. Why? Because of the dehumanizing effects of segregation.

The following was derived from a U.S. Supreme Court opinion)

Well in reality we are not talking about "separate water fountains," but bike lanes and the mandatory use thereof. Bike lanes are on the same roadways as auto lanes; they are hardly separate, and are parallel.

You keep trying to equate the "rights of users" of the roadway to human rights, but in reality, the use of the roadway is based on the characteristics of the vehicles used. Bicycles do not have the same vehicle characteristics as automobiles. If you wish to persist on equating the rights of the operators of the vehicles, then skateboarders, inline roller skaters, push scooter users should also have the same rights as other human powered vehicle users... They do not, and for the well recognized reason that the characteristics of those "vehicles" is simply not equal to the characteristics of the major users of the roadway: automobiles.

Segregated water fountains were usually quite separated, and often not equal.

Equating bike lanes to segregated water fountains is not even a close analogy because in fact, I DO have rights to the entire road; bike lanes simply enable me to use a part of the road that might otherwise not be available, such as during bumper to bumper traffic. Bike lanes also allow me to enjoy moving along a busy roadway at the speed I can comfortably maintain, vice trying to negotiate with fast moving traffic in their lanes.

Now if you do want to discuss water fountains, this is more like the situation we have: http://edweb.tusd.k12.az.us/sped/ima...20Fountain.jpg

Different facilities for the capabilities of different types of vehicles.

Not to be combative, but you have been using the term 'segregation' a lot since I joined the discussion.

This isn't entirely accurate, Serge. A city contains many types of roads: residential, low-speed roads, main roads (low-speed), secondary roads (moderate-speed) and primary arteries (high-speed) that may serve as routes to and from the suburbs. These are not freeways, but higher-speed, often multi-lane parkways, expressways, etc. It is unlikely you will encounter mandatory bike lanes on low-speed or moderate-speed roads unless they have very high volume. It is on arteries (high-speed) that serve as routes to major business centres, industrial areas, etc. and handle large volumes of traffic where MBL's would most often be found. The concern of traffic engineers is that they must allow traffic flow along these routes and that is where they design BL's and MBL's, so that both vehiclular and bicycle ttraffic can operate efficiently without impeding one another. It's a very fair and democratic compromise.

It's also fair to state that our cities are different and without knowing how they are designed and facilitated, etc. we may be confusing one another.

On most city streets, that is correct, but on primary arteries a slow vehicle does impede traffic. I see it virtually every day where a main route to the business core of my city is directly outside my office window and cars all brake and move to the left when passing cyclists.

I'll admit I have never searched for nor read any studies, nor do I intend to. From my own experience, I can conclude that bike lanes are safer. I have fewer close-calls in bike-lanes and I am afforded greater space. While I haven't had an accident in 26 years (because I ride lawfully and safely) I have an average of five potential accits with each 5 kilometer commute and 4 out of the 5 are where there are no bike lanes.

I am impressed that you have managed to read all the reports ever published on this issue. That would certainly qualify you as an expert. But, could you cite the reports you refer to above? I might want to look them over myself. Thanks.

Motorists slowing down and adjusting lane-position on ARTERIES (here they are 50-80km/h) is both very dangerous for motor-vehicle traffic and counter-productive to keeping the traffic flowing. On all other regular streets (20-40km/h) that is precisely what should happen.

All I can say, Serge, is that I KNOW I am safer in a bike-lane and after discussing the issue (without expressing my opinion) with many cyclist friends last night in a bar (pre St. Patrick's Day warming-up), not one of nine cyclists disagreed and a few of them are into racing.

It's all a matter of opinion. I'm not interested in converting anyone to my idea. I just express it.

And, I DO understand and appreciate your perception of the issue. It is unique and compelling.

In my opinion, crossing the solid white line SHOULD be discouraged, whether motor vehicle or bike lane, for whatever reason the line was installed in the first place, or else it has no meaning. My point is that it is not IMPOSSIBLE to cross the line to avoid obstacles.

I agree motorist expectations are important, in fact, maybe it is the whole ballgame, with regard to cycling on the streets. I'd be very leery of passing on the right, in a BL or otherwise.

I have enjoyed the discussion about mandatory BL and I apologize for the flame-type remarks I have made. Of course, I respect those cyclists who disagree with me. Maybe I have not understood all the arguments against mandatory BL, let me summarize:

1. BL restrict proper lateral positioning.
2. BL are often not well maintained in the real world (eg. debris), therefore dangerous when have to leave them.
3. BL violate my right to use all of the public way.
4. BL put cyclists out of the cone of vision both for same direction and 90 degree turning motorists.
5. Mandatory BL laws may be used by authorities to harrass cyclists.

Have I forgotten any? This is just off the top of my head.

On my recent vacation in Cuba, I learned (and observed) that cyclists always have the right-of-way, on every street in the country. If a cyclist is on the road, a car will slow down to their speed until it's safe to pass. This is perhaps because there are more cyclists on the road than cars, but it was great fun to watch the cars take backseat to bikes. This system is so effective that bike transport is safer than any other mode of travel, according to the tour guide.

Now, I realize this doesn't help this debate too much, but I thought I'd mention it because anyway. Leave it to a communist country to have the safest cycling in the world. ;)

Definitely off-thread, but the whole motor culture is all about individualism and consumption, ie. American to the core. Cars cost much more than bicycles to manufacture and maintain; therefore, capitalists stand to make much more $$$. All they have to do is create the need. And it is an easy sell: faster, bigger, better. Bicycles, the most efficient form of transportation in the world, don't stand a chance in this culture.

The funny thing is, technically, the laws in most states say effectively the same thing. The problem is cyclists don't know it, and don't assert their rights. Vehicular cyclists know this, and many of us ride probably very similarly to what you saw in Cuba (only not in those numbers). The amazing thing is that the motoristists naturally fall into line.

Bottom line is that if you're riding down a road, anyone coming up from behind MUST yield the right-of-way to you, unless and until you yield it to them (like by riding along the right side of the road).

The pro-motorist lawmakers know this, and they intimidate cyclists by writing laws that essentially require them to yield the right-of-way (by riding to the right, or in the bike lane), except for all the exceptions that make the laws essentially moot. The problem is that most cyclists are not even aware of these exceptions, much less have a good understanding of them, and know how to use them to ride with "Cuban assertiveness", if you will.

I like that term, can we change VC to Cuban Assertiveness Cycling?

The Cubans aren't really assertive, but they also don't move onto the shoulder for anything. They usually didn't even look back to see what was behind them, though most of the cars in Cuba are in a state in which you can easily hear that they're there! It's like a year-round 50's and 60's car show down there.

Well that's pretty assertive compared to most American cyclists... On narrow roads where mostly only experienced cyclists ride, if there is a shoulder almost all of them will be on it - and not only temporarily to let faster traffic past - they typically ride in the shoulder on such a road even when there is no other same-direction traffic.

Gene, you still have not answered my question. Forget bike lanes for just a moment, and please explain to me what's WRONG with separate but equal water fountain facilities. Amuse me. Convince me that you've really thought about this.

Good point, Serge. I have shocked a few motorists who have aggressively crowded my rear fender and honked for me to get out of their way that I am entitled to the entire lane and that it is only as a courtesy that I keep to the right when it is safe to do so.

For more insight about the Cuban so-called preference for old American cars see: "Nurtured but not Loved"
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/27/au...48a0ca&ei=5070

Also found in the Automobile Section of last Sundays' NYT with a slide show:
http://www.nytimes.com/pages/automobiles/index.html
"Cubans do not love old American cars. Cubans love new American cars. But the newest ones that they can get their hands on are 45 years"

Free registration required.

EnigManiac, you may want to read Serge's posting history before continuing further. I decided it wasn't productive for me to reply to him on this issue.

As to the term 'segregation': this has to be the most silly, offencive, and baseless anti-bike lane argument I have ever heard. Now I could, at most, stretch the term to mandatory bike lane use, but largely I think these people need to go out into the real world and get a clue.

There have been several bike-lane related threads lately. If you read them, they do contain a great deal of info but mostly they contain hot air from people trying to be argumentative. They are also heavily US-centric, making them less useful for those of us in other countries. Frankly I feel these threads have largely been a waste of my time, and I regret mos of my involvement in them. Clearly some of the contributors are blind dogmatists, and others just here for the entertainment net-trolling.

Viva La Velorucion!!!

Why?

Why should I try to reason something that does not have any relationship to the reality of bike lanes and their use, as I already explained in post: http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.p...&postcount=505

You want me to put up some straw man reasoning simply so you can spend time trying to tear it down. No thanks. I don't have time for those games, and I and many others have also already pointed out that your analogy "doesn't hold water."

BTW, the whole issue of "water fountains" was not about water fountains, but about equal rights for equal humans. I already made that point in post: http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.p...&postcount=494

Have a nice day.

Thanks Pat. I usually avoid getting embroiled in heated topics and am not sure why I succumbed to this one, but while there is a certain adamancy and strained analogies in some of the opinions, I haven't found them too argumentative or antagonistic. If it degenerates to that level, I gracefully withdraw.

Good to see a fellow canuck on the forum...even if you are probably a Sens fan ;)

The point I'm trying to make is how separatism mentality is insidious. I've illustrated how this works with "separate but equal" water fountains. I'm contending that the insidious nature of separatism mentality also applies to separate bike lanes. I AM NOT contending that racist separatism and cyclist separatism are the same in all respects.

If you want to argue that cyclist separatism is justified, then say that, and explain the argument. But don't deny that it's separatism.


Gene, sometimes you say the silliest things. BL proponents themselves reference the alleged need for cyclists to have "separate" space. Trying to deny the separtist nature of bike lanes is bordering on being disingenuous.


Do you think I'm some kind of idiot? Did anything I ever say indicate that I do not recognize that bicycles have different characteristics from motor vehicles (you know, like a motor)? Duh! There is no denial that there are differences. The issue is regarding the significance of the differences, and, specifically, whether the differences are substantial enough to prevent cyclists from operating bicycles according to the vehicular rules of the road, and whether the differences are significant enough to justify separatist treatment of cyclists on the roadway. You won't answer my question about water fountains. Will you answer this?

1. Do the differences in vehicle characteristics between bicycles and motor vehicles prevent cyclists from being able to operate bicycles on roadways according to the vehicular rules of the road (which, by the way, does not require cyclists to keep up with the speed of traffic - so don't even go there)?
2. Do the differences in vehicle characteristics between bicycles and motor vehicles justify separatist treatment of cyclists on the roadway (and all the insidious ramifications - such as pervasive separtist mentality that includes causing many cyclists and motorists to believe that cyclists cannot and/or should not operate their bicycles on the roadway according to the vehicular rules of the road)?

Is this a trick question?

Would you like an honest opinion? Maybe you should start a new poll. If not, don't ask.

More expression of your contempt, Stanley?