Bekologist

i disagree with foresster and the foressterites that think the best way communities need to accomodate cyclists are to build in wider lanes on high speed roads and offer classes that reach less than a fraction of one percent of local bikers.

the 'mossy john' forresstene paradigm serves as a ******ing effect on popularizing bicycling as transportation in communities.

Helmet Head

DISCLAIMER: THIS POST IS A PARODY. DO NOT QUOTE WITHOUT THIS DISCLAIMER.

i disagree with brikhead and the brikhedites that think the best way communities need to accomodate cyclists are to build in segregated facilities on all roads and put up "cars suck" billboards all over town.

the 'brikhead' paradigm serves as a ******ing effect on popularizing bicycling as transportation in communities by encouraging facilities that inevitably evolve into running streams of cyclist blood.

DISCLAIMER: THIS POST IS A PARODY. DO NOT QUOTE WITHOUT THIS DISCLAIMER.

(is this type of post helpful? i think not.)

saraflux

^^ This is just as useful as posts along the lines of "this just shows how ignorant you are".
IMHO some of you guys need to get over yourselves.

Brian Ratliff

Ah, you are full of ***** too!

sggoodri

I wasn't talking about bike lanes. I'm talking about bike path advocates who want to convert sidewalks into bike paths, or in other words, want bike paths wherever they can get them, including putting them in sidewalk locations in exchange for narrower outside lanes. Understand, the path advocates here don't want bike lanes; they want paths for the sake of paths, contiguous with other paths: an implementation-specific goal that rejects roadway cycling wholesale. They are path advocates, and anti-roadway advocates, not bicyclist advocates. Combine their influence with statements like Randya's against wide outside lanes, and we get sidewalk bikeways next to narrow outside lanes, and police pulling over cyclists for using the narrow lanes. By comparison, the vast majority of bicycling miles in my community are cycled by self-described "avid" cyclists who, in repeated polls, have described a preference for wider outside lanes on the busy roads. So, somebody has to stand up for their interests against the sidewalk-cycling proponents and the narrow-lane proponents to provide them a more pleasant, wide, clean area of roadway in which to operate. That's my job as elected advocacy officer for my bike club, and also reflects my preferences as a bike commuter and family cyclist.

The only way to create more local support for on-roadway accommodation is for our local transportation planners to gain a greater understanding of vehicular cycling principles, and for those cyclists who understand vehicular cycling to become more politically active, countering the path advocates who have tried to co-opt bicycle transportation via the pedestrian-on-wheels paragm as justification for designating sidepaths everywhere.

This isn't to say I object to off-road short-cut paths, rail trails, and other greenways in their own right of way - I like such facilities. It's just that when dealing with public road rights of way, there is an influential segment of the population here who believes that the appropriate default position for the cyclist is on the sidewalk. That is where the paradigm issue becomes the most apparent.

sbhikes

I'm still waiting to see the statistics from the city that did away with, reduced or otherwise refused to put in on- or off-street cycling facilities that had a corresponding increase in cycling...

invisiblehand

I did not read this in Steve's post.

EDIT: Whoops, I see his later post now.

sggoodri

It depends on what you call "facilities."

While I attended, NC State University installed many bike racks around campus. Bicycling had increased prior to that, and increased even more afterward.

It is difficult to tell how much this increase in cycling in and around the campus was a result of the improved bicycle parking, versus worsening shortages of car parking, increased fees for parking, and increased numbers of students living beyond easy walking distance of campus.

No roadway or bike path projects were implemented during this time. The only bikeway in the area was a sidewalk signed as a bike path on one of the area roads; that hazardous facility dated back years before I attended.

The Human Car

+1

John Forester

Don't bother. Motoring has increased all over the world.

John Forester

You have stated the problem, but you have not considered the reason. When our society has been committed to a policy of cyclist inferiority for decades, it is very difficult to "turn the ship around". However, that is no reason for continuing with the policy of cyclist inferiority, and it is good reason for working as is possible to make a change to cyclist equality, to vehicular cycling.

randya

John, you're never going to increase the mode split of cycling if you continue to expect cyclists to just go out and mix it up with motorists on America's arterial streets without (1) significant design changes to the streetscape, (2) a motorist reeducation campaign and (3) 'vulnerable roadway user' legislation, which protects cyclists from aggressive and malicious motorists. Without at least these three elements, you're just pissing into the wind, and cycling will continue to remain a marginal activity practiced only by a few VC elitists.

John Forester

This message contains two rather vividly contrasting views. The first is the view of motorists as being horrible aggressive towards cyclists. The second is advocating exactly what the motorists want, being shoved off to the side of the road. Randya argues that acquiescing to motorists' aggression is the best means of making bicycle transportation more than a marginal transportational activity. The best answer to that argument is that those who advocate acquiescence have had thirty years to demonstrate that their policy has made bicycle transportation more than a marginal transportational activity have failed to make that demonstration. Motoring has increased, bicycle transportation remains marginal, in many places has become more marginal, the world over.

It is time to think about fighting back instead of acquiescing to motorists' desires.

Randya says that we need "significant design changes to the streetscape". To some extent, yes, but, in general, these are not difficult and are easier than producing bicycle facilities. One reason that these have not been done from the beginning is the view of both motorists and bicycle advocates that bicycle traffic does not really belong on many streets, but should be shoved aside wherever it can be done. That's what happens with the policy of acquiescence. If, on the other hand, we got government to agree that cyclists have the right to use the roadways with the rights and duties of drivers of vehicles, then government would see that it is advantageous to both motorists and cyclists to accommodate them in the way that reduces conflicts as much as is practical.

I think that randya's views about the aggressiveness of individual motorists are exaggerated. I haven't noticed much of this in my lifetime. The fact that I don't notice much of this is probably due to two factors: I ride properly, so there is less to complain about, and I feel confident in myself, so I thereby do not think of normal traffic operations as being aggressive.

Of course, it would be nicer if the great majority of non-aggressive motorists recognized that cyclists have the right to use the roadways with the rights and duties of drivers of vehicles. But consider why this attitude exists. It exists, today, not only because of the sixty-year history of this attitude in a weaker form, but because bicycle advocates have been advancing this for the last thirty years in a much stronger form. Bicycle advocates can hardly make correcting this attitude a precondition for stopping their advocacy; they have to stop advocating the policy that is a primary cause of the attitude.

As for real aggression, we have laws about that. We don't need new laws, though we do need better enforcement of the laws that we do have. But that weak enforcement is just one more result of the policy that cyclists don't have the rights of drivers of vehicles, but have a rather lower status. Correct the attitude, and the laws will be better enforced.

randya

If you can't recognize inattentive, impatient and aggressive motorists for the safety hazard they truly represent, too bad for you. This is certainly a problem that has gotten worse for cyclists over the last 25 years.

Nor did I suggest anything about acquiescing to motorists desires. But unsignalized slip lanes, exit ramps on local streets and right-turn-on-red should not exist on local streets utlized by bicyclists. Too many street designs, traffic regulations and their enforcement favor motorists to the detriment of other users.

I have no desire to be a human speed bump just to make the obscure political point that right-of-way is PUBLIC space, and is not reserved exclusively for motorists.

JRA

I disagree with Forester simply because he's wrong in some very fundamental ways. Some of his psychological theories are absurd. I suppose that's not suprising considering that he apparently has no qualifications in that field. What is also not surprising is that there are some followers of The Great One gullible enough to give credence to his psychological ramblings (human gullibility has been demonstrated many times).

Forester admittedly has significant knowledge of some technical and practical aspects of cycling, but he seemingly has chosen to stake his reputation on the supposed validity and importance of some of his more wacky theories. As unfortunate as that may be, it is his choice.

Forester will likely be remembered more for his far-out and unsubstantiated theories, and for his divisiveness and attacks on those who disagree with him, than for any positive contributions he may have made.

It's not the first time in history that such a thing has happened. It won't be the last. Those who don't learn from history are destined to repeat it.

John Forester

I recognized that you did not specifically suggest anything about acquiescing to motorists' desires; you never admit to such. However, you advocate road designs that were invented by motorists to push cyclists aside, and which they actually do. That is the problem with bicycle advocacy instead of what should be advocacy for cyclists.

You complain about the following conditions:
"unsignalized slip lanes, exit ramps on local streets and right-turn-on-red ... Too many street designs, traffic regulations and their enforcement favor motorists to the detriment of other users."

Your view of these conditions is partly because you do not recognize cyclists as drivers of vehicles, and partly because society also fails to do so. This same view by both parties is one strong cause of the design deficiencies about which you complain. If both parties switched to the view that cyclists are drivers of vehicles, they would be more susceptible to working out the better solutions.

John Forester

Oh, that's it, is it? Cycling in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles is something to disagree about? If you agree about that, what do you see the divisiveness about? If you disagree about that, upon which your message appears to be based, then what theory explains why that disagreement is so deep as to divide the cycling world? Some theory is required, but none of the bicycle advocates have advanced such a theory. You might suggest improvements in the theory that I have advanced, but to suggest that it has no basis because I am not professional psychologist clearly denies the fact that some such theory is required.

JRA

Oh, gimme a break! I've been cycling according to the vehicular rules of the road as a primary means of transportation (by choice) for decades, you arrogant, insulting, condescending know-it-all. You don't know jack about psychology and you know it. Why don't you just admit it and save us all a lot of arguing?

John Forester

I congratulate you on your choice of cycling method. However, have you not noticed that most of the people you know, and most of the people quoted in the newspapers (letter writers, reporters, editors, columnists) do not agree with vehicular cycling? What explanation do you propose for the governments' practices and policy that are based on shoving cyclists off to the side with the excuse that most cyclists are incompetent to operate in the vehicular manner? How do you explain the attitude of the bicycle advocates who praise this system that contradicts the rules of the road by which you cycle?

This societal situation would have occurred only if society as a whole considered cyclists to be inferior to motorists, either in legal status or in capability. You obviously do not feel inferior, but most of the other people in society do so, in one way or another.

What are you doing to advance social acceptance of vehicular cycling?

Tom Stormcrowe

John, I think fuel prices are going to help with that in the near future.

SingingSabre 

+1.

Plus, I tend to disagree with any person who presents information as fact when it's simply conjecture. There is no basis for even basic trust, much less sound ideas.

SingingSabre 

I'm glad I wasn't drinking hot tea while reading this. It would have ruined my monitor and burnt the inside of my nose.

Putting professional ethics above financial gain is not indicated by inventing fake mental conditions.

Please respond to my post, dance around my allegation, and attempt to justify what you did while denying what you did all around. I know this song, I know this dance.

sbhikes

You get it. There are drivers who get the willies thinking about the inattentive, impatient and aggressive motorists out there. Drivers scared of other drivers!

Of course, I find when I cycle that the drivers aren't nearly as horrible to me as they are to each other, but until you address this problem of the high-speed, high-stress nature of driving to other drivers you aren't going to get them to think about cycling.

Have you noticed that John Forester's insults about the fear of cycling are not directed at drivers considering cycling? Of course not! What good would that do? It would only look like he was a raving irrelevant lunatic.

Nope, his insults are reserved solely for people who would advocate for bike lanes and bike paths. And what good can that do? Only to serve as a lame attempt to make John Forester and his VC theories look superior. That is all. Just a lame ploy.

John Forester

People who take reasonable criticism as insults need to consider their own biases. People who provide insults instead of considering facts and reason need also to consider their own biases.

SingingSabre 

John! You completely ignored my post.

We need you to respond and enlighten us as to how creating a fake disease is ethical by your standards. Please do.