chipcom 

There's the fly in the vc ointment, pal - the most experienced transportational cyclists use whatever venue and riding style suits their purpose the best, unhindered by dogma and politics.

John Forester

Transportational refers to travel for the purpose of reaching a specific destination for some particular purpose at that location. Recreational refers to travel for the fun of traveling. The type of bicycle is irrelevant, although the reference to Amsterdam's three-speeds shows that the author hasn't been there. The Dutch utility bicycle is typically single-speed.

Bruce Rosar

Doesn't have to be a bikeway; a public way where heavy motor vehicle operation was prohibited would provide those benefits without the segregation.

It would be better if the government regulation for access to that public way was in compliance with the equal protection clause.

John Forester

The type of facilities that happen to occur in such locations that some cyclists can have pleasant rides in light traffic does not mean that society can provide such service to all parts of town. That should be easily understood.

bmike

+1, but I can't comment specifically about Hurst.


this thread is starting to remind me of art school... there were those instructors, artists, professors that never seemed to be able to leave the 'good ole days' - in art everything that wasn't grounded in whatevertheygrewup-ism was crap, in grad school for architecture and planning it was the same... getting in with the prof was as simple as copying a style, venerating the masters of his or her day...

the folks i learned the most from set aside particular styles and realized that the ideas behind the art or architecture were far more important than the actual work itself. often times these ideas were cocktails of the social status of the artist, the political leanings of the establishment that the artist may have agreed or disagreed with, the access the artist had to materials and education, the location of the artist and the language and culture that informed his or her life. much is the same in indigenous architecture - igloos do not work in the dessert - but in our modern way of dealing with the world we limit ourselves by applying universal, technical solutions to local problems - forgetting about all those things that inform our everyday world. cycling for recreational transportation (or whatever we are calling it) is more than the sum of cyclists + bikes + roads + facilities. the idea that a man or woman can freely move about covering great distance with relative ease unencumbered by motors and fuel and heavy infrasturcture is inspiring... how do we seize it and take it to the next level, the next era - while honoring that all cycling, like politics, is local?

from what i understand many of the works that are criticized here are outdated, trapped in a time when cracks in the modernist solutions to life were just beginning to show. the superblock, urban "renewal", technology as progress and savior, the auto as liberator, the garden city as ideal... and on and on. we are seeing what this leap informed us about and what does and doesn't work - it is time to move on and address the realities of the day. we should map these realities, measure them, study them, react to them and steer them with a vision of what we want the future to be. if that future is facilities and roads, mixing and overlaying traffic patterns and classifications - so be it. it seems to be in sync with the rest of our lives - a street just isnt a road anymore - its a bike path, a meeting place, a town hall, a demonstration zone, a place to workout, and a place to drive. much like all technology roads and bike paths should adapt to their uses. they are merely means to an end. if the path gets me to work... then morph the path to work. if the road at the end of the path leads to greener pastures then that tool should be adapted to its uses. form does follows function in these cases. a road or street or path is really a simple thing - a bit of hard surface placed on the earth. what we do with it (and argue about how we do it) is the really interesting part of the equation.

chipcom 

This is typical outdated superstition. Due to increased congestion, freeway driving in urban areas and their outlying bedroom communities is, on average, at least as dangerous and definitely more stressful that driving the same distance on normal surface roads, that enjoy less congestion due to the same outdated superstition.

chipcom 

By your definition, my weekend day tours are transportational, since I am traveling with for the purpose of reaching a specific destination (a park, restaurant, shop, B&B, etc) for some particular purpose (swimming, dining, shopping, lodging) at a location.

chipcom 

You mean just as those less dangerous, less stressful freeways cannot provide such service to all parts of town?

catatonic

Very true.

There is a bit more to that though when the planners know there are only two routes to or from a certain section of a city, but refuse to add anymore. That just amplifies the traffic that those two routes see with every trip generator added.

In that instance, the answer was to plan ahead, and to add more throughroutes than needed. That's the biggest problem in Florida city layout it seems....a massive lack of foresight when laying out the roads.

Bruce Rosar

IMHO, what happens prior to construction is even more interesting. In another forum, Peter Sayer once wrote:

John Forester

Bigpedaler provided the following in a form that the quotation system did not forward. Therefore, I copied and pasted it myself.


Originally Posted by 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.I DO BELIEVE I SAID THAT MYSELF, VERY NEXT LINE, WHICH YOU CONVENIENTLY IGNORE.

"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.AMSTERDAM; PORTLAND, OR; MADISON, WI; PARIS; COPENHAGEN; SAN DIEGO, according to your own fella, HH.

"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. MY STATEMENT IS A QUOTE YOU WROTE AND PUBLISHED!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.YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN IT, SO IT'S A PHOBIA?

"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.I DIDN'T HAVE A BIT OF A PROBLEM UNDERSTANDING HIS POINT.

"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.AMSTERDAM; PORTLAND, OR; MADISON, WI; PARIS; COPENHAGEN; SAN DIEGO, according to your own fella, HH."

The Dutch sidepath system typically used in central Amsterdam does not make cycling either safer or more convenient. However, it is patronized still (though less than before) because motoring is so inconvenient in central Amsterdam. In the newer areas of Amsterdam, motoring holds sway, much as in America. Same goes for Copenhagen. Paris I am unsure about, but those who have been there tell me that their bikeway system, rather rudimentary, is a pain. Portland: no evidence at all; I've cycled there several times, and cyclists could always go anywhere safely and conveniently. However, the blue bikelanes in Portland were painted blue to indicate how dangerous they were, a clear demonstration of the opposite of what you argue. Madison: the best test of comparable bikeways, as I wrote I think yesterday, and the result was inconclusive, good on one street, worse on the comparable street. San Diego: Nowhere about town have bike lanes improved conditions; didn't need improving. The two bike paths that were mentioned, by HH and by me, parallel what are essentially rural (though inside the city limits) freeways from which cyclists are prohibited and alongside which are no surface streets. Not much here to support your argument.

"That's a bit more accurate than your statement, and more conclusive. MY STATEMENT IS A QUOTE YOU WROTE AND PUBLISHED!"
Don't get your knickers in a twist just because I improved to make more specific the example you chose from my writing. I was doing you a favor.

"The existence of a cyclist-inferiority phobia is the most reasonable explanation for activities that otherwise defy explanation.YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN IT, SO IT'S A PHOBIA?"

Not at all. The phobia explanation is not picked out of the air. After all, if that were the criterion, I could explain it as a devious plot by General Motors (like the streetcar legend, though GM seems to have lost much of its awesome power these days). I chose the phobia explanation because it is the best explanation for the events and situation, which fit the official definition of phobia in all ways except that this is widespread.

John Forester

Your answer confirms my point. You choose to take a less convenient and slower way to make a trip because society has not made all areas pleasant. That's what I said, only I added that society does not feel justified to, and probably cannot, make all areas as pleasant as might be desired.

chipcom 

You would enjoy Hurst. Not only is his style non-lecturing and non-confrontational, most of what he writes makes perfect sense to anyone who is an experienced transportational cyclist. The only time you see big debates about his work is when some BF member decides to take exerpts of his writing, without the context before and after, to prove some wacky theory of their own. He has no trouble admitting that the plans for a vehicular cycling utopia from the 70s has been rendered pretty much dead by the realities of today, that much of the facilities of today are much better than the crappy facilities of the 70s and that vehicular cycling is just one style of riding, not the one-true way, and indeed can make you less safe in many real-life situations by trying to follow it rather than using your experience and common sense. In a nutshell, Hurst represents experience and reality while John Forester, with all due respect, represents techniques that are valid at their core, but distorted by dogma, psuedo-scientific theories and politics.

John Forester

The hard facts about this matter are that joe sixpack pays for bikeways because he believes that they make motoring easier, in two ways. First, he sees the obvious, and the only demonstrated result, that bikeways shove cyclists out of his way. Second, he believes your argument, though it has never proved correct, that bikeways make motoring easier by making other motorists, not his kind, of course, switch to bicycling.

John Forester

Of course. So what?

John Forester

That is very true about Florida, although it is a problem in all of the Old South because of the political systems extant there.

galen_52657

Don't confuse them with the hard facts. That might burst their little Utopian dream bubble where a bike path runs directly from their front door to every conceivable location...just for them!

bbunk

Originally Posted by sbhikes
You just don't get it. There isn't a freeway from your front door to your every destiation, why do you think that people expect bikeways from their front doors to every destination?

Bikeways can make it nicer and quicker to get from one point A to another point B. That's all they have to do. They don't have to replace every single stretch of pavement. If I can take a bikeway to work, avoid 30 intersections and 10 traffic signals, avoid pollution and noise, dangerous school zones, and breathe clean air for 5 out of 7 of the miles to my office, you better believe I'm going to opt for that.

It's not about a superstion or whatever. It's about finding pleasant, safe, speedy passage from here to there. Just like you get on the freeway to go to your destinations quickly, I ride a couple of miles to the bikeway to get to mine quickly. It's the BEST option out of all that are available to me.




How does her answer confirm your point? She states it is quicker for her and you say it is slower and less convenient.

chipcom 

Or perhaps Joe Sixpack rides a bike and has a family that also ride bikes and likes the idea of bikeways to enjoy cycling as recreation with his family? Despite your wish to keep this discussion limited to transportational cycling in urban areas, matters of public policy are not confined to the same narrow scope.

chipcom 

Ironic, because I consider that recreation...so perhaps the notion of a recreational-transportation cyclist, as another poster mentioned, is not so far-fetched.

bmike

+1 and many more on that.

chipcom 

Because that is the usual tactic to deflect the discussion, ignoring or ruling out an integrated system that consists of both roadways and bikeways and making it seem like facilities advocates are asking for blanket coverage by bikeways, thereby making them look foolish. Remember Diane, part of the strategy outlined by JF himself consists of discrediting facilities advocates, which means muddying and distorting their goals. Whether you realize it or not, this debate has more to do with politics than science or engineering, so expect everything you say that has any potential credibility to be distorted and manipulated behind a facade of friendly helpful words.

bmike

to be as serious about life as a child is at play... that would make a recreational transporational cyclist.

i'm darned serious about my recreating - even if it happens to be on my way to work. *
if only most folks in cars would feel the same way.


*just want to footnote that my current commute is merely 10-12 steps from the bedroom to my home office. i only practice VC when the dog and cat are in the hallway and the wife is heading for the kitchen. it can get mighty crowded then and i typically take the lane.

bigpedaler

well, i see that after a few hours out to eat and play with my daughter & nephew did nothing to ease the contentious nature of this thread. i'm bored -- think i'll see what else is out there. knock yourselves out. (JF, HH, Kall -- literally)

skanking biker

And then there are the thousand of Joe six-packs like myself who took up cycling, found out they loved it, found it healthier and more convenient than driving, started cyclo-commuting, and then started to try and persuade others (friends/family/co-workers) to do the same. There are those, like myself who were too intimidated to hop right on the road for commuting purposes and found the availablility of bikeways served BOTH a recreational and a "transportational" purpose.

Notice that in the post you qouted from me, I was not referring to "making motoring easier"--where did that come from? I was quite clear I was referring to getting more people off their duffs and into the saddle for purposes other than recreation. However, to most Joe Sixpacks, recreational cycling is the gateway to transportational cycling, to use your false dichotomy.

I consider myself to be pretty Joe Sixpack--came from a blue collar family, worked in factories for to save enough for college, etc. Like most "ordinary" people I have no agenda other than that I want to live in cleaner, healthier cities. I don't hate cars and before I got into cycling I didn't hate cylists or want to "shove them off the road."

And the first time I saw a well-integrated bikeway/road system my first reaction was not to drum my fingers together and think "ooohhh yes, now we shall stick it to those pesky cylists and get them out of the way so we can have more road space .... and more cars .... and more traffic, congestion and pollution, mmmuuhaaaaaa"

Rather, my first reaction was "wow, isn't that something .... all these people riding bikes into work on a beautiful day while I'm stuck in a mile of traffic sucking exhaust. And lo and behold .....they don't all look like extras from "Tron" riding 4000 carbon a$$ hatchets--they look like me---hey---i could do that---in fact, next week I am going to give that a try."

[edit: the bikeway is not some endgame---it is 1 of many means to get more people out of their cars and onto their bikes, which, if enough do so, will result in more cyclists being able to utilize the roadways. Again, its about building a culture of cycling ---not seeking to pave the world]