Originally Posted by LittleBigMan

Here is the LAB-reform's stated vision on their website:

Vision for a Cyclist Friendly America
LAB Reform promotes the following goals for Cyclists Advocacy:

• Everyone knows that bicycles are vehicles used on the same roads, under the same rules, with the same rights and duties
• Everyone understands the best practices of Vehicular Cycling
• All bicycle traffic laws are fair and promote safety
• Law enforcement officials enforce the laws fairly to promote safety
• Road rage and other crimes against cyclists are not tolerated
• Parents understand that a bike is a child's first vehicle
• Driving a bicycle is a grown up activity that children are allowed to do
• Traffic engineers treat bicycles as design vehicles
• Every road is regarded as a bicycle facility and every lane a bike lane

Of course, stating a vision and implementing it are two different things, but they seem like good goals.

Originally Posted by randya

Why doncha go hit on some schoolgirls, aqualung?

Originally Posted by Helmet Head

The lobsters in a pot metaphor is a common way to describe a situation that seems comfortable at the moment, but is imperceptibly getting worse a tiny little bit at a time; by the time everyone notices, it will be too late.

There is no implied conspiracy or master plan. The fact that people with a plan (cook and eat the lobsters) put the lobsters in the pot is not necessarily relevant to the metaphor, nor is the fact that east coast lobsters have claws, but Pacific Coast lobsters do not.

Originally Posted by Cyclaholic

Perhaps the changing attitudes by society as a whole towards the place of the bicycle and towards the automobille has something to do with the increasing trend towards segregated and other 'special' facilities for cycling. It's not a change that many of us are happy with but the reality of the situation is that we (utility cyclists) are a very small minority of the total road using population and accordingly have a very small, virtually insignificant say in the matter. that's just the inevitable outcome of being heavily outnumbered within a democracy.

Rest assured that this situation will change in our favor, but not for our advocacy efforts. It will take fundamental and cataclysmic shifts in society as a whole for such change to happen and we simply do not have the power to impact society in such a way. Perhaps if peak oil predictions are correct and affordable crude oil goes into decline, or if global warming has the worst-case impact some are predicting then maybe we'll see the end of society's love affair with the automobille. Untill then we are the mouse in a cage full of angry gorillas and as such I'll take whatever I can get, if that means some segregated facilities then so be it.

Originally Posted by Helmet Head

There are some really nice recreational bikepaths in the Black Forest and other parts of Germany and Europe. They go around lakes, through forests, up and down hills, to vista points, to beer huts, etc. And it's certainly nicer to ride on those paths than sharing twisty narrow roads with motorists. But it's mostly for the relatively slow family/recreational style of biking. Nothing wrong with that, but it's not a solution for serious utility cycling, sport cycling, or commuting of distances longer than a few km, and where speed matters.

Originally Posted by chipcom

Just because they might not be suitable to YOUR needs, does not mean they do not meet the needs of others.

Originally Posted by Cyclaholic

Can I assume that by not addressing the rest of my post (the bit I quoted above) that you essentially agree with what I said?

Originally Posted by chipcom

Horsepucky - many such facilities get used by not only family/recreational cyclists, but also utility cyclists, sport cyclists and commuters. They are not 'the' solution, but are certainly 'part' of any solution where the goal is a hybrid system. Just because they might not be suitable to YOUR needs, does not mean they do not meet the needs of others.

Originally Posted by randya

Your opinion may be valid but unfortunately is made worthless by your sucky attitude. I find it quite ironic that the VCers are driving potentially sympathetic cyclists away with their lousy attitudes. Y'all should (1) be embarassed, and (2) STFU. KMA dude, KMA!

Originally Posted by Helmet Head

The "chip" in chipcom must refer to the chip permanently glued to your shoulder. You will find an argument where none exists, every time.

You said "YOUR needs". Why? I said nothing about MY needs.
You say "many such facilities" also get used by "utility cyclists, sport cyclists and commuters". Did I say they're not? Well, I did say they're not used by sport cyclists. Are you sure you're talking about the Black Forest facilities (and those like it), where I saw zero sports cyclists using them?

If you're talking about the occasional urban waterfront or shortcut path that is used as part of many cyclists routes and commutes, I'm not disagreeing. Why are you picking a fight with me? Why are you so argumentative?

Originally Posted by randya

I'm sure they would suit his needs just fine, except maybe for the 'must play in traffic, breath exhaust fumes...' habit he's got.

Originally Posted by chipcom

Define 'those like it' and I'll cite you some examples.

Originally Posted by Helmet Head

...personal attack...

Originally Posted by Helmet Head

Well, the ones I'm thinking of in the Black Forest are in parks that have no non-recreational transportation purpose, so that rules out utility and commuting right there. Further, the sport cyclists just don't use them... too many family/recreational cyclists clogging them up, I guess. So those "like it" would have the following characteristics:

• In parks far from places that people live or work ("They go around lakes, through forests, up and down hills, to vista points, to beer huts, etc.")
• Often crowded with family-recreational cyclists.

Originally Posted by LittleBigMan

The division that exists among cyclists today seems to be not so much about vehicular cycling techniques, but about the controversy over bike facilities vs. road use.

Originally Posted by sbhikes

The funny thing is, when there are nice bike facilities there are hoards of people on them. But the facilities haters poo-poo such popularity and in the same breath will say such ridiculous stuff about these facilities being too inconvenient for anybody to use.

Originally Posted by chipcom

You gotta remember, Diane, those aren't 'real' or 'serious' cyclists.

Originally Posted by Horse

I get the impression no multi user paths exist where a lot of the people who participated in this thread live... Imagine a wide sidewalk made of asphalt. Now make it a buzzy sidewalk, add a few cyclists. Now distribute most of the users in groups of a handful of people, most of the groups using most of that path's width. Now let's focus on the users: there's people walking 4 wide holding each other by the hand, people walking baby strollers, roller blade users, people riding bikes that mostly top out around 15 km/h when it's clear, they sometimes back pedal. There's also pedestrians sprinkled all over the place, dog walkers, the occasional jogger. Sometimes you'll see an oddball on a bike going maybe 25 km/h, squeezing through where they can. This setup isn't static, most of the users move at least a little, the mass loosely follows one side of the path or another depending on the direction they're going. Sometimes one of these users swerves to a side with no warning.

It's accurate to say the majority of these users are not "real" or "serious" cyclists, to be a cyclist one must operate a cycle... The ones that do probably use about as much energy as the pedestrians. So as a cyclist, MUP's with hoards of people on them are cool if your goal is to spend a few hours cruising around aimlessly while avoiding obstacles and using your bell a lot. But in day to day life, virtually every time I see a person riding a bike, they seem more concerned with trying to go somewhere. Getting slowed down a lot is counter productive to this goal.

Right, so not using the MUP is the easy way to avoid these problems, but new problems happen when they install these MUP's next to a road. It almost always means they've shrunk the road's width to acomodate the MUP, I've found that riding on the side of the lane often becomes impractical in these cases, so using the road means getting stuck holding up traffic by using the whole lane, it's not exactly pleasant. Compared to taking the lane in a street without a MUP, cars are certainly more likely to horn / yell things / point me to the MUP as if I have no right to the road...

As I understand it, these MUP's are what got fruited from the mergers between cyclist and pedestrian advocacy associations, a catch 22 for cyclists.

The exception I know of would be the Route Verte, at least the non-urban segments. The parts in the city act like the other MUPs, as described above. Dunno what these people are thinking "We have nothing to do today... Wait I know, let's go clog up the MUP's for the fun of beeing annoyances!" I wonder why people are tempted to do it, though.
http://www.routeverte.com/ang/

Originally Posted by Helmet Head

Are you sure you're talking about the Black Forest facilities (and those like it), where I saw zero sports cyclists using them?

Originally Posted by Horse

It's accurate to say the majority of these users are not "real" or "serious" cyclists,...


The exception I know of would be the non-urban parts of the Route Verte, where you see mostly cyclists.

Originally Posted by HelmetHead

On the other side of the Division, we have logic and reason based on experience, and expressed with intelligence and clarity:

Originally Posted by Horse

I-Like-To-Bike, why the insults and intellectual dishonesty?