3. Galen and his merry band of swilly sewious sycwilsts!

we aint that sewious.....

In reality, I think there are plenty of shades of gray in that picture.

I commute on a bike path every day. I see dozens of others doing the same. I get passed by the same people on my way to work and on the way home. I've bumped into friends I haven't seen in a while, too. It's a friendly, enjoyable way to commute. A bike path creates bike commuters like no other thing can.

Even before, when I rode my bike on the bike path by the beach, the one that often is too choked with people to be of much use (and yet I still used it), I still saw dozens of other commuters every day. The same ones every day, often wearing McDonalds or Vons uniforms, so I know they were commuters. The "serious" cyclists rode on the parallel street and I'd see the same ones of them every day, too. Some of them were probably commuters (had a backpack or pannier) and others of them were probably getting in a morning workout before work.

Why insult people for using a facility provided for the purpose they are using it for? It's their choice. Cyclists would do better to argue for their being a choice rather than imposing one single choice on everyone. And I don't believe that cyclists who live somewhere where they see less than a dozen other cycle commuters each day should have any say in "how things ought to be" for anybody, unless they are asking for a change to the status quo.

Seattle voters approved, by a majority vote, funding to include bike infrastructure in city planning.

the majority feels they want bike infrastructure to reduce auto congestion and make it easier to cycle in a community. Vehicular cyclists can use a bike lane. NO division here, except by the chestbeaters like galen that think cycling is encouraged by a lack of bike infrastructure.

the division is between rational people who recognize the value of facilties and enhancements to the urban environment that encourage bicycling, and the chestbeaters that seek to limit the popularity of bicycling thru the continuance of auto-centric urban planning.

In Seattle, the MAJORITY of voters approved the funding package to improve alternate transportation enhancements, not the autocentrisim notions the fosterites continue to foster.

I'm starting to think the division is more about idealogues and non-idealogues. extremists and moderates. OK, so I'm a little slow.

So, The "rational people" are all that is stopping the "chestbeaters" from their plot to make cycling unpopular.

Granted, Bekologist's rhetoric is a tad over the top but I don't understand how anyone could read this thread and not see the division that he is referring to.

Jalopy

You mean the one between the "cheastbeaters" (and their unholy alliance with the "gashuffers") and the "rational people?"

And then of course, we have this gem.

And this.

I think we should start a new subforum called, "Bloopers."

Poll:

Galen:
1. just likes to troll
2. is inherently rude
3. is a narcissistic egomaniac
3. never got enough love
4. all of the above

why don't you two crazy kids just admit it-- you're in love!

It seems to me, that both sides have more in common than they think.
The VC people should wan't MUP trails.
Nothing will out-law riding in the street faster than the wanabee bike riders that normally ride the MUPs having to ride in the street because they have no other options.

In my area you can't get very far just using the bike trails {they are designed more for recreation than transportation} so I ride the streets and have very few problems doing so.
I don't use the scarce, poorly designed bike lanes, that seem to be there only to collect trash swept off the car lanes.
However I really enjoy the weekend rides with the family on the bike trail, sight seeing, visiting and eating at the sandwich shops.

I think there is room for everyone in this world of bicycles.

No it's the hyper-masculine, mouth-frothing, kool-aid drinking Forester bible thumpers on one side and regular people who ride bicycles on the other.

Did you ever notice that every group that forms around a book starts to become quite rigidly zealous?

No.

I've read very reasonable, flexible opinions from people that don't demonize John Forester. They just do not all fit into the same rigid definition. But that's true of most people, they just don't fit a convenient mold.

But to be honest, I have noticed some vigorous attempts to categorize all vehicular cyclists as "VC zealots" who can't think for themselves.

Zombies, you know.

Zombies eat human flesh. as far as I know, VC advocates don't, although they might have other qualities in common.

I see frothing all around.

I am a proponent of cycling vehicularly and a proponent for only very limited use of the bike lane stripe.

Perhaps I need to reconsider if I'm a regular guy who likes to ride a bicycle.

Al

Well, Hollywood zombies eat human flesh. Haitian zombies just obey without question.

Mindless, you know.

Please let's not get into the age-old Hollywood vs. Haitian Zombies debate. it's all been said before!

whatever you say

I suspect there are really three groups, with overlap between them.

(1) Those who believe that any facility labeled as being bicycle-specific is inherently good.

(2) Those who believe that cycling facilities should be designed consistent with normal vehicular rules such as destination positioning at intersections and safe clearance from hazards like opening car doors, and that bicycle-specific facilities should be judged on their operational merits.

(3) Those who believe that any facility labeled as bicycle-specific is inherently bad.

I think you are incorrectly categorizing everyone not in group (1) as belonging to group (3). I know very few people in group (3); most people who claim support of vehicular cycling are in group (2) and claim mixed/opposition support for bike lane striping and bike paths based on the specific operational context.

Advocates for vehicular cycling do not resemble bible followers, because they disagree so frequently and vocally with John Forester. Most formed their preference for following the rules for drivers when cycling long before they heard of Forester's work. Forester simply gave them useful terminology with which to describe the paradigm. Some of us have tried to use other terminology, such as "bicycle driving" to describe the same paradigm. But popular support for the vehicular cycling paradigm is based on individual experience, not social reinforcement.

Steve always writes so well and cuts to the matter.
Yes, I would agree and would put myself in catagory (2). I also started cycling vehicularly long before I heard of Forester (and have yet to read any of his non-electronically published work).
Al

IMO (1) is your straw man argument.

How many people do you know that actually state they believe that any facility labeled as being bicycle-specific is inherently good? I don't know any. Nor have I read any post on BF where that belief was stated.

you've got a point, ILTB. and maybe very few if any believe #3. Even the evil one thinks mups are OK, right?