chipcom 

So you're saying that my pointed questions and participation in debate on these subjects while holding public office were useless and we all should have just kept our mouth's shut and went by our city engineer's recommendations? John, having a technical background myself, plus experience in other areas, including politics, I have learned that even 'technical' subjects are rarely only technical. Every subject has multiple aspects that must be considered when making decisions that address the big picture for the long term, rather than the short-sighted point decisions that seem to be the norm these days, and indeed have gotten us to the point we are at concerning cycling (I know we both agree on that, based on your writings). Indeed, you bring politics into these technical subjects quite often - to the point that vehicular cycling is both technical AND political. So far I am not impressed with your political savvy, yet I am engaging with you in these discussions anyway...so I'm sure you can bear with those of us who don't have your transportation engineering background and perhaps even educate us, right?

randya

I'm sorry, but you don't disabuse motorists of their belief in the 'cyclist inferiority complex' by putting cyclists in their path - that's just suicidal - rather, you do it through motorist education. The motorists who truly believe in what I would prefer to call the 'motorist superiority complex' are going to tell you to 'get on the sidewalk' regardless of whether the sidewalk in question is a designated sidepath or not.

skanking biker

Well that is all fine and dandy and I would probably agree with that statement; but that doesn't necessitate or justify labelling anyone who is a bikeway proponent part of the "cyclist-inferiority complex." That is a classic nonsequitur given the above.

chipcom 

Only when I'm feeling molested by you and HH....or the entire roadie forum.

Bruce Rosar

What percentage of facilities which serve the public (trains, buses, water fountains, colleges, lunch counters, etc.) were dismantled as a result of removing segregation?

kalliergo 

Given the obvious confusion here over the issue, it is probably worthwhile emphasizing this.

Neither Forester nor any other VC proponent with whom I'm familiar, has ever asserted that "bike paths" (Class I facilities in more formal terms) ought never to be built, are not sometimes useful and appropriate for cyclists, or anything even remotely approaching such arguments.

Many of us have argued against mandatory use of such facilities, against construction of a particular form of the bike path, the sidepath, and so on. No one I know has condemned bike paths per se, although we often have strong criticisms of specific path designs, implementations, etc.

Even the most VC of the VC often use and approve of particular paths.

Paul L.

I think at least pertaining to these forums, the constant turning of Cyling death threads over to speculation on it being caused by a bike path has lead to the perception of VC as anti-bike lane. I know I have gotten this impression from past threads whether it was specifically stated or not.

chipcom 

I believe we debunked 'cycling inferiority complex' pretty well in another thread, though it would be fun to go through the exercise again with the feller who coined the wacky term. But this thread isn't exactly a title bout that's going to influence JF to change his views any more than it will change mine. It's more like an exhibition bout, where all the folks outside the ring get to size up the participants and make up their own minds who they think should get the belt - and the participants in the ring get a better understanding of their opponents for that day when there might just be a title bout. (unless of course one prefers to sandbag)

John Forester

Interesting suggestion that the issues of bicycle transportation should be resolved by superstition. Of course, that is what has been done, and that superstition is exactly what vehicular cyclists oppose.

In answer to your question, I first answer that the conditions postulated in your hypothetical question are most unlikely to exist. Please note that all my discussions are based on transportational cycling. Recreational cycling is an entirely different issue. Transportational cycling needs to be evaluated in accordance with the safety, convenience, and travel time required to get from anywhere in town to anywhere else in town. (Well, maybe not from one den of iniquity to another, but you get the idea.) You postulate conditions in which the majority rules according to its belief that bikeways make cycling safe for unskilled bicyclists (that is the reason most often given) but they are willing to allow a minority to ride on the roadways in a vehicular manner. One thing wrong about that is that no bikeway system can provide safe travel throughout town for people without vehicular cycling skills. That is the opposite of the conditions that you postulate. In other words, are you willing to advocate that people without the proper skills ride around town? I say that that is immoral.

Urban sidepaths are extremely dangerous, except in the few topographically favorable situations that cannot provide much transportation. Are you willing to have people use these at the increased rate of car-bike collision that they create? The statistics for that are in Wachtel's paper.

Bike lanes are somewhat different, in that competent cyclists can ride on roadways under social conditions in which the cyclist can ignore the presence of the stripe. However, when the majority says that the stripe makes cycling safe, it is more difficult socially to ignore the stripe, and the stripe makes cycling more difficult, and therefore more dangerous, for those who do not recognize the importance of ignoring the stripe but, instead, follow the majority opinion, enforced by the governmental action in painting the stripe, of obeying the stripe. It takes more skill to know when and how to disobey the stripe than it does to ride properly without the stripe.

Furthermore, any society that puts its faith in bikeways will also put its money into bikeways. The chances of getting good roads in a bikeway-believing society are rather small.

chipcom 

JF uses the term 'bikeway', which the definitions I've found seem to indicate that the term includes bike paths. Are you saying that JF does not include bike paths when he says bikeways? (or 'cycling-inferiority bikeways')

"Bikeway" means a vehicle way, paved or unpaved, upon which bicycles, unicycles or other vehicles propelled by human power may be pedaled. The bikeway may be part of a road or highway or it may be adjacent to a road or highway. A bikeway is a right-of-way under the jurisdiction and control of the State or a local subdivision of the State for use primarily by bicyclists and pedestrians. [1999, c. 331, §1 (new).]
janus.state.me.us/legis/statutes/29-A/title29-Asec2322.html

A generic term encompassing all types of facilities aiding bicycle movement.
www.tdot.state.tn.us/bikeroutes/definitions.htm

A generic term for any road, street, path, trail or way, that in some manner, is specifically designated for bicycle travel, regardless of whether such facilities are designated for the exclusive use of bicycles or are to be shared with other transportation modes.
www.loudoun.gov/compplan/bikegloss.htm

A street specially treated to provide a bicycle-friendly environment.
https://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/engs...t/glossary.htm

A thoroughfare reserved for bicycles either exclusively or during specially assigned periods.
https://www.ci.norman.ok.us/planning/...t/glossary.htm

John Forester

Ah, yes, the argument that our highway system should be built for use by four-year-olds. And you think that a bike-lane stripe makes a four-year-old safe against the dangers of traffic?

kalliergo 

One must distinguish between "bike lanes" (Type II facilities) and "bike paths" (Type I facilities).

John Forester

So, "we all should have just kept our mouth's shut and went by our city engineer's recommendations?"

Well, no, because in the case of bicycle transportation your city engineer is at least as likely to be misinformed as the general public. Bicycle transportation is one of those rare cases in which the official opinion is nothing more than superstition, and is actually even less than that. In the case of bicycle transportation, the city engineer is likely to consider the AASHTO Guide to Bicycle Facilities (or your state's equivalent) and, possibly, the FHWA's implementation guide titled Selecting Roadway Design Treatments to Accommodate Bicycles. In doing so he would be building a system that was designed by motorists to make motoring more convenient, regardless of the harm done to cyclists. Is that what you would like to have done?

Paul L.

Well, first, I don't believe I stated it was a highway. The second one was if it makes a difference. As for making it safer, it gives the kids a boundary or guide to help them hold their line. What age do you think you cannot teach a cyclist to ride better than most adults? I recall you mentioning 8. I wish only to point out that with a clearly marked border in some cases (I do not advocate 4 year olds on the side of 55 mph highways) that age could be lowered. I realize you probably don't care about folks with crazy ideas about riding with their children on roads and not pushed back onto MUPs but some of us do. Some of us see the statistics about Bicycle Inferiority complexes and believe that perhaps the road isn't as dangerous as everyone thinks it is for bicyclists as long as they ride predictably. I find that bike lanes help my 4 year olds to do this. Question for you John, is a 4 year old who rides predictably with an adult present just as safe from rear end collisions? Seems like if the statistics work they either work or don't don't they?


Oh, and is that a truck I see giving us some extra room? hmmmm
And also, you don't need to be snide about it. If you can't see this as a reason for bike lanes just say so. It makes perfect sense to me. I don't know if you have any 4 year olds but something tangible they can see constantly is much easer to follow than some inane piece of logic that will slide out of their minds with the next butterfly. Come to think of it I know a few adults who are like this too.

Aw crap, well if you can be snide I will too. Is Vehicular Cycling for the cyclists or cyclists for the Vehicular Cycling? Are only people who are capable of understanding the concept of VC to be allowed on the streets? Do we expulse all other users who may have similar desires but desire to use them in a different way (of course this concept has been stated repeatedly only to be called superstitious and rot so I don't know why I am repeating it)? I can tell you that as my kids grow older they will see me avoiding garbage outside of bikelanes at high speeds and will even stray onto the forbidden narrow 2 lane highway as we find those lonely highways of the western deserts but for now, a line is most helpful. Why can't we just use all the resources at our disposal and admit there are riders of differing ability out there and always will be? Not every driver is nascar certified, not even every driver has been through drivers ed. Would it be good if they were? yes. Would they be able to understand the concepts of traffic better and how to drive in it more efficiently? Yes. Do they? No.. Ok, I am good and done now. Belittle me at your leisure.

Incidentally the logic about lines making people safe seems to hold true for cars. Does a double yellow line keep a motorist safe from head on collisions? Does a fog line establish the edge of the road where asphalt and natural earth are the same color?

I-Like-To-Bike

Not really, all you'll get in return is constant repetition of the same wacky ideas and bunk (perhaps reworded, perhaps not) followed by the inevitable ad hominem arguments, if you continue not to be impressed by repeated doses of bunk (and if the moderators permit it.) Trust me, I've been there.

bmike

I wasn't discussing the removal of segregation. I was discussing the removal of a facility. Forcing bikes (and cyclists) to act as vehicles (in the fossil fuel powered sense of the word) seems silly to me. Bicycles and cyclists are different beasts from cars and trucks - it just happens that the two overlap and cause friction on pavement. Rules should be flexible that play to the strengths of each. Interstates (and some highways) are car and truck only (in most cases, in most states). I don't shout obsceneities at drivers telling them to "Get on the interstate - thats what its there for!" - yet people will do this to cyclists in the presence of a bike path.

The street is a public right of way. Early on this was the domain of people, then horses and carriages, bicycles, and now the auto. Our use of the facility has changed - and the auto now reigns supreme in the domain that was once open for all. Pedestrians (who once ruled the street) have been given their own semi-domain on the street - the sidewalk - through no fault of their own... but for "their own safety".

Our streets should be open sourced. Without the street people would constantly be trespassing getting to the corner store and back. It seems that we should be able to figure out how to get bikes and peds and cars and delivery trucks interacting safely in the same space.


I see alot of comments on training cyclists... and wishes that drivers were better trained. Currently its on me (the cyclist) to ride in a predictable and safe manner - (VC or not, LAB certified or not... etc). If a cyclist gets killed - they had it coming. Yet a vehicle can attain more speed, carry more weight, and lost control with far greater circumstances. Drivers should be required to have more training based on their vehicles and usage - much like pilots (of boats and planes). You can't get your license and immediately fly a 747... yet you can get your license and jump behind the wheel of a light truck. (or RV!). Seems a graduated system would better serve all road users.

I-Like-To-Bike

Don't keep us all in suspense. Let's hear it from the horse's mouth. Who IS properly "informed" about bicycle transportation and what makes that person/organization properly "informed" to make decisions for the general public?

skanking biker

That seems to be one of the underlying disagreements here. I don't think anyone disputes that there are cyclists who do not know how to safely ride on the roads (although some would probably disagree with your wording given that we can't come to a consensus on the definition of VC). The question is, having recognized that fact, what do we as a society do about that. I agree that in an ideal world the most efficient option would be to educate everyone as to those skills needed to ride in the roadways safely. However worthy of a goal that is, it is not reality and not going to happen anytime soon.--That is not to say I oppose education efforts; but it seems there will always be a group of cyclists who don't meet your definition of "competent" VC'ers. I would rather have such people commute to work via a properly constructed bikepath or bike lane rather than sit in their car in traffic.

randya

Why not? They really can't do much harm to anyone but themselves, and the safer and more convenient you make it for them, the more likely they are to try cycling. The more likely they are to try cycling the more likely they are to continue cycling if their initial experiences are without incident. The more they continue cycling the better their skills will become. That's called building a constituency. In any event, a lot of people don't want to go out and play in traffic on their bike, regardless of their level of training and experience. Besides, we let people without any training pretty much walk anywhere they want, and there are plenty of motorists out on the roads who appear to lack the appropriate skills and training, and they are the most dangerous road users of all. The annual highway death toll caused by motorists is what's really immoral.

Bruce Rosar

Perhaps in Newspeak, but not in English. A dictionary definition of 'bicycle' begins with the words: a vehicle...
A definition for vehicle is a means of carrying or transporting something <planes, trains, and other vehicles>

In other words, cyclists are allowed to use some of the Interstate system already.

Some of us already have; some others just refuse to believe it.

cooker

Come on, ILTB: If your life's work was being crticized on some other forum, wouldn't you consider it perfectly appropriate for some friend or supporter to let you know about it?

skanking biker

1. Every freeway i've ever seen has a sign that says no bikes allowed. Others also ban mopeds and other slow moving vehicles.

2. Your argument here is a simple syllogism which can easily be proven false.
a. All vehciles have the right to use any roadway
b. A bicycle is a vehcile
c. therefore, all bicycles have the right to use any roadway
--Logically, then, the following must also be true
a. All vehciles have the right to use any roadway
b. A (plane/train) is a vehicle.
c. Therefore all (planes/trains) have the right to use any roadway

Paul L.

I actually think it is kind of cool to be hearing all this from the source. I also find it amusing to see certain similarities between apples and trees.

Assuming it actually is Forester behind that user name of course.

zeytoun

The purpose of newspeak was to eliminate the "grey area" and have people think only in terms of either/or.

Like either separated bike paths, or bicyclists in the middle of the lane.

Paul L.

In Arizona all non-metro interstates are open for bicycle travel, but that is mostly because there are so few paved roads out here you would literally add hundreds of miles to your trip if that weren't the case.