Helmet Head

Well, Randy did say "e.g." (for example), not i.e., (specifically).

But the implication was there.

Helmet Head

No one said or implied that.

Any thoughts about post #734?

zeytoun

Thanks for you efforts, HH. I especially appreciated how the letter protesting the ban was not asking for an either/or outcome, but rather, the right to a choice.
I'll stand up for the rights of any cyclist to ride on any road, and I hope VC-advocates will respond by supporting similar rights-of-choice for others, like in this case. Was JF actively involved in this one?

skanking biker

+1. I found those videos very interesting and informative. I have certainly been on roads similar to that and have taken the lane and survived, but I didn't like it for one second. In fact, if I had to commute on a road like that into work everyday, I would drive my car. While I am capable of riding in that type of traffic, and have done so when I needed to, to me the stress and anxiety of riding in that type of traffic travelling at those speeds is not worth it. Someone as high strung and easily agitated as myself would go insane doing that day in an day out. I know how to shoot a gun but that doesn't mean I am gonna volunteer for duty in Iraq.

Yeah, when I ride in traffic like that I'm worried about getting clipped as I'm passed or run over by a soccer mom doing her eyeliner as she is driving with 2 venti-mocha lattes in her system and suffering from an ambien hangover. Also, accidents do happen---there are potholes, glass, and other debris that could send you tumbling If that makes me "cyclephoebic" or whatever---so be it. I know I'd rather take my chances on a 25 mph city street doing an endo or getting clipped than in traffic like that. And if there were a dreaded "bikeway" available, you bet I'd use it. I like my chances of surviving a cycle to cycle accident at 10-15 mph better than one with a mack truck at 40+ mph.

As to these repeated claims that users of bikeways, MUPS, segregated facilities--or whatever else you want to call them--are unskilled, I respond as follows: Where I have lived, the only people using such facilities at 6:00am are either 1) people like myself commuting into work who know what the rules are or 2) the local college team doing an early morning training ride, who, again, know what the rules are. Sorry, if there were a "bikeway" running parellel with that highway in the video, damn straight I'd use it. If that makes me a coward I'm a coward.

I certainly think learning the skills demonstrated in those videos improve safety and should be learned. However, just because I know how to ride in 40+ mph traffic doesn't mean I want to or should have to do so.

Helmet Head

I don't know if JF was directly involved. He was there in spirit, at the least.

My only involvement was to participate in some videos that we did to show the dangers of riding on the bike path at 25 mph. Using two cameras, 3 guys going one way at 25 mph, another guy (me) going the other way at 25, on a 5' wide path, we were able to show how scary that 50 mph closing speed was. I heard it was very effective when shown a the subcommittee meeting that eventually recommended to lift the ban.

By the way, this is an example of real bicyclist advocacy, in my book.

skanking biker

I disagree. The very fact that many on these forums and many who aren't commute on a daily basis using a combination of roads/streets/facilities without riding in traffic like that indicates it is not "impractical." While I don't disagree that cycling in a highway as shown in the vidoes is possible for some and can be done safely by some, I hardley think the guy I pass every morning with the cargo trailer, two sets of panniers and searchlight on his handlbars is going to be willing (or able) to do that. I'm not knocking the skills in the video. I'm just saying why subject yourself to those conditions if you don't have to?

zeytoun

Some might call this a phobia or taboo of cyclist inferiority. The truth is, however, that many of us avoid certain roads, even in our cars. I avoid some of the less-well-engineered roads when I am driving, simply because I don't want the extra stress of the near misses that regularly happen on certain stretches of road (you know, those brilliant transportational engineers' work ). Some responsible car drivers, who feel that their reaction times aren't quite as quick as they used to be sometimes make the choice to avoid Freeways. They aren't crazy. And their opinions matter. And their vote is important.

John Forester

It is true that the motoring establishment created the cyclist-inferiority superstition and used that to justify the bikeway system for making motoring more convenient. However, that does not mean that we have to accept that. We might be able to change it, since it is so opposite to scientific knowledg about cycling and traffic. And even if it you think that opposing it is a "pipe dream", we should stand up for ourselves and our rights and scientific validity as long as we are able, instead of cringing down into beaten acceptance of it.

"THIS is why he cannot 'stretch' it and still be credible. there's not a bit of misunderstanding -- JF, in his own words, states that bikeways are not in the best interests of cyclists. there are cities around the country and the world whose track record proves him wrong, yet he continues to espouse it."

Which are these cities around the world where bikeways have made cycling safer and faster and more convenient? I know of none. You make the assertion. Then back it up with facts and figures.

"i have yet to see anything to lend weight to the notion of 'rear-collision phobia' (his words). particularly when HIS OWN statements indicate that 3/4 of bike-involved collisions are 'blind-side' types of encounters." The statistics indicate that only about 2% of daytime, urban car-bike collisions occur when a straight-ahead cyclist is hit by a nominally straight-ahead motorist. That's a bit more accurate than your statement, and more conclusive. So why the puzzlement about the rear-collision phobia? Precisely because practically all of our society's activities regarding bicycle transportation are supposedly intended to deal with this minor problem, to the detriment of all the other things that ought to be done. And, also, because this system for dealing with the supposed rear-collision problem was invented, designed, and paid for by motorists because they understood that it would clear bicycles from their path. The existence of a cyclist-inferiority phobia is the most reasonable explanation for activities that otherwise defy explanation.

"JF also says that the bicycle is the only threat to the supremacy of the auto on the road (aside -- what about the motorcycle, itself an object of very similar advocacy?);"
Motorcycles do not present a problem for automobile drivers because they move as fast as cars. If there is any threat to the supremacy of the auto on the road it is in the form of trucks. But, in general, discussions such as we have been having lump all motor vehicles into one category.

"then he tells another poster that the statement of bicycles being second-place to cars "has no meaning, is not even English"."
Well, it's not my fault that some people try to convey thoughts in a language that is not English. If they used English they would be better understood.

Helmet Head

If it's the only way to get from A to B, you have no choice but to ride on it, or drive.

If there is no space to create a separate route for cyclists, then that's the way it's going to stay. Welcome to Long Beach (or so I understand).

In many case the only alternative to vehicular cycling is walking or driving or public transportation.
If we do not preserve our vc rights, if we do not work against efforts that contribute to the eroding of our vc rights, then we are going to end up with more and more situations where there is no reasonable/legal way to get from A to B by bicycle. That is not cycling advocacy; that is anti-cycling advocacy.

skanking biker

And et al. has no period after the "et"

kalliergo 

That's correct. How is it relevant here?

John Forester

As a practical matter, if you can make your necessary and desired journeys under nice conditions, OK, but that limits your travel to those routes, and hence the destinations reachable by those routes. If you want to generally travel throughout all of the area within reachable distance, then you will have to accept some unpleasant conditions because society cannot provide for pleasant travel everywhere.

catatonic

The only places I know of that bike paths have made safer lack roads that have traffic slow enough to be safe on.

Usually roads here like Ulmerton and US19, which have no shoulder at all, and 45-55mph traffic, along with high traffic density. Those roads are basically pure hell to try to ride, and I've been using a bike as my sole form of transit for years now....so if it bothers me, it probably will scare a new rider away from cycle-commuting or any other utility cycling at all.

Given, those areas are usually uncommon, as urban sprawl has tended to create lots of "residential roads" that are lower speed....but in areas where dead-end roads are the norm (to reduce through-traffic), people end up relying on two or three roads, which end up losing shoulders or wide outer lanes in an effort to expand it to accept the massive traffic caused by poor city planning.

zeytoun

There, I fixed it for you

bigpedaler

yes -- i DO wish for that to happen, to be riding in the lane with full acceptance of motor traffic around me. and as far as you doing it daily, HH, i can only say: count your blessings! you see green RR's about as often as you get cussed at? i see clouds in the sky about as often as i get cussed at -- for being on the road! when i'm on the road, i take the lane, because i fully accept that cars are less likely to pancake a rider taking that much space.

different cities, different worlds, pal.

zeytoun

He just called you a lame-o nitpicker.

John Forester

This is typical popular superstition. Freeway driving is, on average, less stressful and less dangerous than driving the same distance on normal surface streets.

skanking biker

So because I would choose to use a bikeway if available than the highway in the videos, that makes me "anti-cycling." I didnt say that i want to stop people from doing so or even that people shouldn't be taught how to. I just don't want to if I don't have to.

Two more points:

1. I really think a lot of the disagreement here is due to differences in geography. If, as you say, there is no room to put in facilities in areas like the one shown in the video and that some people HAVE TO use highways like that, I can see your perspective. But many of us live in places with a lot of green space where it is possible to integrate bicycle facilities. Thus, I our different individual experiences are probably to blame for some of the heated debate.

catatonic

Depends....I prefer city roads over freeways for one reason: if the traffic does get backed up, there is usually an alternate route you can take, instead of being stuck there until teh next exit (if it's not backed up by then either).

Yeah, I've dealt with Silicon Valley rush hour traffic for years....it's just nuts.

kalliergo 

I see. However, my purpose in citing the difference was not nitpicking, but was intended to elucidate a real and important difference in meaning. "He" could try reading the relevant series of posts again... or not.

skanking biker

I can agree with most of that, and, like I said, I am certainly capable of safely riding in unpleasant conditions.

I just disagree with the extent to which society can provide more pleasant conditions. Maybe I got spoiled from living in Madison for two years, but I think society can do a lot more.

Bruce Rosar

And I, for one, don't want to have the government sponsoring facilities intended to separate indivduals by classification. The good news is that we can just switch paradigms; from transportation facilities for bicyclists to transportation facilities where activities that pose an extraordinary danger to others (such as driving a heavy motor vehicle) are prohibited.

skanking biker

please dont make me do it a second time---anything but that.

Bruce Rosar

Here's a less specific alternative for describing what, IMHO, is the root cause: a social challenge.

kalliergo 

OK, I won't make you. But you should note that "don't" is a contraction of the two words "do" and "not" and is properly spelled with a comma between the "n" and the "t."

Can we stop being silly and mean, now?