Originally Posted by Bekologist

this thread is shockingly obtuse. wow.

Some are stuck in an auto-centric dystopia.
Some recognize the value in redesign of public space to foster nonmotorized travel.

one hundred twenty years ago, conditions of the roads were poor for bicycling, and bicyclists demanded improvements.
One hundred twenty years later, conditions on the roods are poor for bicycling, and bicyclists demand improvments.

There are cities across the world that have vastly improved conditions for bicyclists, increasing bike use while decreasing indexed accident rates, and other cities see the value in redesign of public space to foster nonmotorized use of public rights of way.

and some are stuck with dated, auto-centric dystopian visions of public space, that will leave cycling in the dark ages of the 20th century.

Originally Posted by chipcom

Despite what the minority view is, the will of the majority usually dictates public policy.

Originally Posted by galen_52657

How many is 'a lot' Robert? I ride thousands of miles a year and have for 20 years and have never been in a bike/car collision. I know a few people who have, but when you hear the story, 9 times out of 10 the cyclist was doing something not-to-smart: Blowing stop sign or signal, passing on the right, riding with ear-buds, riding at night with no lights...just the regular dumb stuff cyclists do all the time.

Originally Posted by Bruce Rosar

Regardless of policy, a government regulation that violates an individual's right to equal protection still isn't constitutional.

Originally Posted by John Forester

The official and ostensible justifications for bikeways are that they reduce motoring and that they make it unnecessary to know how to ride a bicycle in traffic. Please don't hold me responsible for these official policy statements. However, if one believes them, then the necessary conclusion is that a bicycle transportation system must consist of a very dense network of bikeways, maybe not down every residential street, but reachable from every residential street and connecting into all centers of employment, commerce, and culture.

And, chipcom, I don't have to muddy or distort anything. The activity of anti-motoring bicycle advocates getting so tied into advocating the system designed by motorists to make motoring more convenient is so muddy and distorted that all I have to do is to tell the truth. If you want to encourage bicycle transportation, then you should be advocating what is good for cyclists.

Originally Posted by RobertHurst

You might ask one of the veteran practitioners of urban industrialized cycling in your city by the bay, as they will have far more experience in traffic than any other group, tend not to follow vehicular rules, and achieve accident rates far lower than those touted as evidence that VC works so well.

Robert

Originally Posted by dewaday

Why shouldn't bicycles be allowed unfettered access to all roadways? Isn't a minimum speed limit exclusionary/discriminatory?

Originally Posted by John Forester

The only study that I know that correlates the rates of injury with severity of injury is that by Kaplan. By his analysis, car-bike collisions did not produce a significantly greater proportion of severe injuries than did other accidents to cyclists.

Originally Posted by John Forester

Except maybe attending would have provided me with information about its activities, which information comes to me through other routes.

Originally Posted by sbhikes

So then you are saying that you did not come to Santa Barbara to speak at an event that was sponsored by Santa Barbara Safe Streets, which is an offshoot of Cars Are Basic, an organization that believe the roads are made for cars and everything that isn't related to making transportation easier for motoring is "social engineering" and should be stopped.

Interesting.

Originally Posted by chipcom

... assuming that somebody wants to take OUR right to ride the roads ...

Originally Posted by chipcom

From the standpoint of state/county/local governance, the words of a document published by a Federal bureaucracy are only something to be used in drafting funding/grant requests in the hopes that they might have a better chance of approval by parroting their pet phrases, definitions and mission statements.

I find it interesting that you place so much weight on these documents, but not so much weight on actual laws, such as those that require a stop at signs and signals when you advocate 'California stops' as part of 'lawful operation' of a bicycle. What is your methodology for choosing which 'official' words are to be taken seriously and which can be dismissed?

Originally Posted by John Forester

I don't know on what basis you assume that the realities of road use have changed greatly in recent years.

Originally Posted by KnhoJ

How on earth do you uninvite John Forester? It just doesn't seem possible!
I'm still wondering how he won't attend this event, because the LAB had something to do with it; while at the same time being nominated for a regional LAB position, and accepting that nomination...This is on your permanent record: everyone who looks you up for years to come here or on Google will find these unkind discussions. How does this represent you and what you're doing?...I think it's funny that you're throwing a tantrum in front of the entire world...

Cost: Discredit yourself, and by extension, your life's work for years to come in a Google searchable, archived format.

Originally Posted by chipcom

I spent 4 years in local elected office, John, as well as time lobbying at the state and federal levels. EVERY decision by a governing body takes into account the wants and needs of multiple interest groups. Does this basic political reality baffle you?

One example from my personal experience that was not a happy ending for cyclists was a project to rebuild the entire main street in the small town I lived in and served on the governing body. In this case, despite me being on that governing body, all the bickering and unwillingness to compromise worked counter to all the cyclists involved. In the end, the minority who were the most vocal, using many of your views, convinced the commission that cycling facilities were so dangerous, that the majority (me being the lone dissenting vote) decided not only that no cycling facilites - including the wide outside lanes I tried to advance as a compromise - would be included in the project, but also recommened that local cyclists USE THE SIDEWALK. The folks that wanted wider medians and landscaping won that battle, cyclists lost. Later, the Mayor tried to introduce an ordinance to ban cycling on that road totally...but I was able to gather a majority for that vote and defeat him.

The moral of the story - lack of unity, caused by a lack of willingness to compromise, spelled defeat for local cyclists. THAT is my biggest problem with vehicular cycling and its politics...it divides the cycling community and enables those with interests other than cycling...the motorists being one of them, to win. Yes, John, you have made some great contributions to cycling, but your dogged refusal to compromise on the issue of facilities has and is hurting us all.

Originally Posted by chipcom

There you go again, assuming that somebody wants to take OUR right to ride the roads away just because they want to ride elsewhere. I assume this is part of the strategy to muddy up the debate by throwing in issues that are not being considered or advocated by the opposition. It's getting rather old and stale, don't you think?

Originally Posted by Bruce Rosar

Regardless of policy, a government regulation that violates an individual's right to equal protection still isn't constitutional.

Originally Posted by Bruce Rosar

Gee, I almost didn't see your response with all this activity!

To be fair (and constitutional), a government regulation (especially when a fundamental right such as travel is affected) must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances. A bicyclist ban isn't fair because it treats an individual who's cycling in a different manner compared to others. A minimum speed limit, on the other hand, can be fair as long as it treats every individual in the same manner (i.e., the rule's the same for everyone).

Whether or not minimum speed limits are a good idea in the first place is another matter.

Originally Posted by Bruce Rosar

There's direct advocacy for cyclists, and then there's advocacy for those who profit from influencing how our federal tax dollars are spent. LAB's summit is focused on the latter. IMHO, it's a waste of time and money (LAB charges a fee) to attend the summit until after the League corrects their Misplaced Advocacy.

Originally Posted by bigpedaler

like to see where it's been said that the bikeways make traffic riding skills unnecessary; bikeways make it possible for less-skilled riders get experience and skill at their own pace, without having to worry about the REAL 'joe-six-pack' (a term for the average citizen i find insulting, as i haven't had a six pack total over the last six years -- bottles of wine, a little different; six-pack of wine bottles, three years) giving them a hood-ornament suppository.

what is good for cylists is making the drivers aware of them, respectful of them, and making the cyclists aware of their own need to act responsibly. touting your 'vc' bit is too exclusionary -- THAT is its flaw, as i've said here before.

Originally Posted by Bruce Rosar

Regardless of policy, a government regulation that violates an individual's right to equal protection still isn't constitutional.

Originally Posted by chipcom

... assuming that somebody wants to take OUR right to ride the roads away just because they want to ride elsewhere.

Originally Posted by Bruce Rosar

Gee, I almost didn't see your response with all this activity!

To be fair (and constitutional), a government regulation (especially when a fundamental right such as travel is affected) must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances. A bicyclist ban isn't fair because it treats an individual in a different manner compared to others just on the basis of a classification (bicyclist). A minimum speed limit, on the other hand, can be fair as long as it treats every individual in the same manner (i.e., the rule's the same for everyone).

Whether or not minimum speed limits are a good idea in the first place is another matter.