zeytoun

No, I don't have any data on that.

I think that slower speed roads should be bike lane free. And that fast roads with few intersections should have good bike lanes that negotiate the few intersections well. I don't think fast roads and frequent intersections should be mixed (as they are in San Diego). I'm undecided about bike lanes in this scenario. I use them, but leave them before main intersections, and check my rear view/act carefully at minor intersections (driveways).

For example, Bike Lanes did not get me off sidewalks (it was a class that our elementary school put on). However, with that knowledge in hand, Bike Lanes encouraged me to go on roads that I would not have gone on had there not been a Bike Lane (like Pacific Coast Highway in San Diego).

Currently, if I have to face 45 mph traffic on level or uphill road with no shoulder, bike lane, or bail out area for more then a short distance... I will try hard to find an alternate route.

John Forester

Whence came the idea that some immigrant cyclists ride the way that they do because they have death wishes? The truth is more like the reverse, they ride the way that they do because they believe that this is the safer way, fallacious though that belief is. It is insufficient to teach the local laws; I suspect that the type of immigrant to which you refer has little respect for laws as such, particularly for traffic laws. They are also probably not very familiar with organized safety training. Probably the best way to interest them in cycling better is, as you write, teach them in ways that match their life. However, I also suggest that many of these people are interested in getting a car as soon as they can. Not all, of course, for some don't intend to stay and send much of their money homeward.

However, what proportion of those who cycle badly in the USA are recent immigrants? I don't know, but I suggest that it is not greatly different from the proportion of those who cycle badly in the USA in any case. Our problem is America-wide, and throughout American society.

Helmet Head

No I mean "large" as in "enough to be seen as significant". I'm not sure what percentage that has to be, or even if it's a function of percentage.

If someone sees some significant number (5?) cyclists a week doing it, maybe it doesn't matter if he sees 10, 100, or 500 cyclists not doing it, before he decides to try it too.

John Forester

You advocate for fast roads "good bike lanes that negotiate the few intersections well." No such bike lanes have been invented. I suppose that the nearest attempt has been the intersection with multiple bike lanes, one for each direction in which the cyclist might go (U-turn, left turn, straight ahead, right turn). Typically there's no room for such, and the bike lanes are too short for the proper lane changing movements.

You say that you try very hard not to ride on roads with 45 mph traffic that do not have part of their width allocated to cyclists. Why not? Are you concerned that motorists will just drive over you? There are many greater dangers than that rare one.

zeytoun

I probably wouldn't disagree, but I don't know the data. And we are also talking about several overlapping categories, recent immigrants, hispanic cyclists, etc. etc. so that does make the issue less clear.

However Helmet Head says that the biggest factor in determining how you are treated is your own behavior. So I would take it that when he looks at the fact that hispanic cyclists are killed out of proportion with their numbers an mileage, he would say that it is likely their behavior that caused this increase.

zeytoun

I mean, for example Bike Lanes that gradually position the cyclist to the left of RTOL. I find these to be pretty acceptable when intersections are few and far between. I had no problems with the ones on faster stretches of Pacific Coast Highway, even on a 3 speed.

Whereas riding vehicularly on a Bike Lane free road with a 25mph limit near my house (where I take the lane most of the time) takes more concentration then those stretches of PCH. Granted, it's safer, and probably takes less concentration then not taking the lane, but it does require more frequent and attentive concentration then those stretches of PCH.

And a bike laned road with a driveway every 50 feet, and 45mph traffic... no fun in my book. Cars have no tolerance for a cyclist outside of the Bike Lane, and dangers in the bike lane abound.

There's just less room for error, and it makes cycling less enjoyable to me. I've seen it done. I do it on some roads. There's one on my commute, but I also have the advantage of a downhill that reduces our speed differential and makes negotiation a breeze.

I prefer driving in calm traffic, as opposed to fast and heavy freeway traffic. So when I drive, I plan to drive where I can take it easier.

Helmet Head

Why does it take more concentration to ride on a 25 mph street than on a 50 mph road? Are you paying enough attention on PCH?

Miramar Road, westbound.


Less room for error between you and who else? Faster same direction traffic? Or you and crossing traffic?

genec

No, the line of argument is not worthless and not meant to discredit vehicular cycling... therein lies the rub. I simply mean to discredit the specious arguments that arise from some vehicular cycling advocates, not the style of cycling which has merit. There is a vast difference. I wish to kill the messenger, but not the message.

While you disagree with the terms I use, you do in fact give their use crediblity by acknowledging that the current road designs are done in a manner giving motorists "their way;" thus in my terms, "auto-centric."

Perhaps the issue which I decry the loudest in auto-centric design is the ability of the users to (through a process) push up the speed limit, in spite of the other users of the road.

The next issue that makes the road difficult for other users (peds and cyclists alike) are sweeping turns... while these work quite well at lower speeds, at higher speeds the solution for cyclists (even vehicular cyclists) breaks down to acting like a pedestrian.

The problem of speed and poorly designed roads (where "motorists have their way") are the two issues I see as problems for vehicular cyclists.

Beyond that are the more subtle issues of training all the users of the road... good luck herding cats.

genec

This is especially important and made even more difficult when every group except a few isolated cyclists are doing it "the wrong way," and yet every one thinks they are doing it right... even the motorists... who in many cases believe that vehicular cycling is wrong and that cyclists should be riding "the other style." (as I have been directly told)

Helmet Head

The fact that roads have some features which favor the vast majority of the drivers that use them should not be a surprise. We vehicular cycling advocates work to correct these issues where they are particularly problematic for cyclists (like getting intersections squared off, etc.). As has been noted on our local list, the 85th percentile rule is also used to lower speed limits.

Now, what exactly is the specious argument that you think you are discrediting?

genec

That roads are NOT auto-centric.

John disliked my terms, but agreed that roads are designed so that "motorists get their way." Thus are auto centric. He also felt that the whole argument was a waste of electrons... so be it.

Helmet Head

Gene, Mr. Forester said your argument was a waste of electrons because the terms were meaningless.

Put some meaning in your terms.

What is the definition of "auto centric"?

1. Designed to advantage auto users to the exclusion of other others.
2. Designed to favor needs of auto users over some other users in some isolated situations.

If (a), I disagree roads are auto-centric.
If (b), I agree roads are auto-centric.

natelutkjohn

ah yes, with us or against us - you are truly a uniter HH, not even close to a divider.

John Forester

I specifically stated that bike lanes were what you might mean by an auto-centric feature, specifically because they are designed to discriminate against cyclists in favor of motorists, as I have been writing since time began. That does not mean that roads in general are auto-centric. Your assertion is just bad logic, whatever auto-centric actually means.

zeytoun

Yep, and yep. I'm vigilant.

On the 25mph street (rush hour Adams Avenue) I take the lane. There is heavy traffic that tends to go from 0-20mph. There are many non-signalling right turners, sudden parkers, same or opposite direction left turners, sudden lurchers from driveways. Taking the lane is no guarantee against these, and often you have to react quickly. I keep up with traffic to discourage passing while I'm taking the lane, which means I have to be careful to also watch out for rear ending the unpredictable cars in front of me. I enjoy it because there is little speed differential, so I feel very in control, but it requires me to focus. I accellerate, I brake, I change gears.

Compare that to stretches on PCH where there are only on-ramps and off-ramps (and at longer intervals then Adams Avenue). In between I just need to watch the conditions of the bike lane, and check my mirror every few seconds to make sure the cars passing me are doing so safely. When I reach an onramp I glance back/right for mergers to negotiate, when I reach an off-ramp I glance in my mirror and back/left for exiters. Fewer variables, much simpler. I don't hardly need to change gears, never need to brake, and usually can maintain a steady cadence.

You mean near Black Mountain Road? Good example of a road I dislike. No matter, since I hate the area, and stay out of it anyways. And with a NOL and no shoulder or bike lane, I imagine I'd like it even less.

Same direction traffic mostly. Less room for me to make a mistake, and still turn out ok. I'm no Lance. and I don't have his bike. If I throw my chain off my chainring, have a blowout, sneeze and wobble, I don't have much faith in the car behind me to be able to react in time, and I don't have much room to bail out. Besides, when I take the lane on roads like this, I generally get buzzed and yelled at more often. And then I get confrontational, start reciting the vehicle code at the top of my lungs, and ruin a perfectly good bike ride.

LittleBigMan

Beautiful pic.

(How about a pic of you, Pete?)

randya

If you actually find that modern roads are designed and safe for all uses except in 'some isolated situations' you are clearly delusional, and it's pointless to continue this conversation any further.

As usual, you offer two extremes with no middle ground. This is the chief problem with both you and AJ.

Helmet Head

I can't speak for Portland, but I can't think of a single (non-freeway) road in all of San Diego County that is not reasonably safe for bicycling. Certainly, some are more "challenging" than others. On the vast majority even a bicyclist with only a modicum of traffic skills can be reasonably safe. On some roads with high speed diverges/converges, etc., more advanced skills are probably required.

There is middle ground. There are other possible definitions of "auto-centric". Gene offered none. I offered two. Given the two that I offered, I indicated what my position would be on the issue at question. Gene offers his position without defining "auto-centric". Mr. Forester has explained why this is meaningless, but Gene still does not offer a definition. Yet you chastise me for offering only "two extremes" (by the way, neither definition offered is an extreme).

You, Gene or anyone else can offer other definitions of "auto-centric", and I will be happy to let you know my position on the issue with respect to them.

Perhaps there is a way I could be even more reasonable, but I'm doing my best. Not sure what your issue is.

chipcom 

Pete, this kind of crap is uncalled for - right up there with Forester's gleeful attempt to 'out' ILTB. I thought you had a little class and common sense...was I wrong?

genec

B.

the problem is that "some isolated situations" are the norm, where road engineers et al do not even consider cycling as part of the trasportation network. Further the laws favor roadways for motorists by allowing such things such as the 85 percentile rule... the latter which can change more roads into "isolated situations."

genec

If your grandma can't ride it at 10MPH using standard Road II techniques... then it is NOT a bike friendly road... If JF wouldn't let his grandkids ride it at 10MPH, then there are problems with the design... most likely that it is auto centric.

natelutkjohn

Yet another reason not to listen to you. You obviously live in a sheltered area. Come out here to my neck of the woods and ride some of these roads. I have ridden the hairiest roads here with multiple interstate ramps, 55mph limits and no where to go in case of an emergency. I ride them and feel safe because I am a strong enough rider who can accelerate to 30mph in a pinch and hold it for a short while to reduce the speed difference and work around the on/off ramps. One area in particular is NOT safe for anyone but the strongest riders due to the length of road requiring INSANE manuvering and speed maintainance. Most people do not race (myself included) and many have a hard enough time holding 12mph for a short distance - to say that 12mph is a safe velocity in some of these areas, just requiring more skills is just stupid.
So since all your roads are safe for even the weakest yet skilled rider tells me you need to get out more before you continue to preach your gospel.

zeytoun

I'm torn. What's the right thing here?

I agree that it's wrong to reveal the identity of an anonymous forum user. However, when a forum user formerly posted under their real name, and openly referred to that fact, and when that user has a webpage that is easily found on google, and pictures like above are found on that user's own public webpage, do they still have a reasonable expectation of privacy (regarding those items that they themselves made publicly available only, of course)?

Like I said, I'm torn, and want to know your opinion (as well as from other members). Feel free to PM if you do not want to discuss this on the forum (I'm not trying to debate, just want to be corrected if my idea on the reasonable expectation of privacy is off-base).

Helmet Head

You think we don't have roads like that in San Diego? What you describe is my typical commute route.


Just yesterday I had the manager of a bike racing team tell me he "feels" for me, because he knows the Interstate-5 freeway overpass that I have to cross every day. I told him it's not big deal, because it isn't, if you know what you're doing. And no, I cannot accelerate to 30 and hold it. But I do know about right of way and how to negotiate for it.

Helmet Head

When the moderators change a user's user name from his real name to an anonymous name in order to protect his real identity, the decision has been made (in this case, by the owner of this forum). There is nothing to be torn about.