sbhikes

I played. Do I get a prize?

Helmet Head

Ha, you are the prize!

John Forester

I forgot my original intention to not compete in this contest. I request that my posting not be considered as a competition entry.

Bekologist

maybe ol' mossy and helemt could both be judges for the contest!

bike lanes and vehicular cycling are not mutually exclusive, i think the contest is invalid.

However, here's MY entry.

PRO bike lane: Vehicular cyclists can use and advocate for bike lanes.

.

I-Like-To-Bike

Oh, The Rhetoric! A real bellringer.

natelutkjohn

you sound a bit flustered there

JRA

Nice. I'm prohibited by forum rules from saying what I think you are.

JRA

Finally a post from John Forester I can relate to.

JRA

The anti-bike lane stance is based on a belief in a conspiracy (bike lanes are a plot by motorists to get cyclists out of the way), a victim mentality (bike lanes are Jim Crow), fear mongering (riding in a bike lane is near-certain death), a disdain for others (anyone who doesn't oppose bike lanes must have a low IQ, reading comprehension problems and some kind of phobia or syndrome) and superstition (bike lanes are evil). Anti-bike lane propagandists are well organized and motivated although not particularly astute.

The pro-bike lane stance is less well-defined. It's main precept seems to be that bike lanes make cycling more popular. It's main advantages seem to be that it is supported by government policy and that the favorite sport of anti-bike lane propagandists appears to be shooting themselves in the foot.

Personally, I think both sides are pretty messed up. Bike lanes aren't evil, nor are they the solution.

Tom Stormcrowe

Ah, but that's the nature of this forum, HH!

I-Like-To-Bike

As well as creating straw man arguments and imaginary enemies and demons. AND over reacting to 'em all.

sggoodri

In a wide outside lane, the cyclist operating leftward during intersection approach has chosen a position in his lane. On a bike lane striped street, the cyclist operating leftward has chosen to operate contrary to the traffic control marking indicating where cyclists are expected to operate; he is operating outside of "his lane."

I have had a lot of experience on local roads before and after bike lane striping was added to convert 16' lanes into 12' lanes plus 4' bike lanes. I never experienced any harassment from motorists when operating more than 4' from the gutter on these 16' lane roads until the bicycle-specific stripes and stencils were added, indicating to motorists where I as a bicyclist was supposed to operate.

This is the direct, measurable result of the striping and space designations where I live- increased social friction when operating according to vehicular cycling and defensive driving principles whenever they require operating farther from the gutter. Cyclists are not advocating that cyclists stay in the bike lane. Motorists are, as a result of the stripes being marked and subsequently "disobeyed" by cyclists.

Helmet Head

Well said. When some people read this (and similar analyses of bike lanes), what they see is:

Bekologist

bikes allowed full use of lane.

Helmet Head

JRA (or anyone who agrees with the above),

What makes you think that anti-BLers believe bike lanes are evil? Without interpreting blatant hyperbole literally, how do you see that evil belief manifested?

More importantly, what do you think causes that belief? What do you think are the reasons that cause anti-BLers to believe bike lanes are evil?

Bekologist

you ride in bike lanes while vehicular bicycling, right, head? that is, WHEN and IF you bicycle.... and there's a bike lane and there's traffic..... isn't your commute- again, on the rare occasion you do bike commute- along mostly bike laned arterials?

Your diatribe against bike infrastructure rings pretty hollow on a tin drum .

Bekologist

it's funny. head sees the word 'pedant' and he uses it. he sees 'hyperbole' and uses it.

scurrilious.

rando

jesus, head, do you have nothing else to do?

wait a minute. I have stuff to do. why am I on here.

John Forester

A very inaccurate description, that above. It would be better to understand the controversy than to provide inaccurate descriptions of it.

Bike lanes were invented, promoted, and designed by motorists, against the opposition of cyclists. That is historical fact.

Victim mentality? I think that this is the wrong phrase that conveys the attitude that there is no victim. In inventing, promoting, and designing bikeways, motorists intended to discriminate against cyclists in favor of motorists. In that respect, cyclists are victims of discrimination, as a matter of historical fact.

"Fear mongering, (riding in a bike lane is near-certain death)". Utterly inaccurate. Nobody maintains that as a general proposition, although there are particular locations where bike lanes markedly increase the dangers.

"Disdain for others (anyone who doesn't oppose bike lanes must have a low IQ, reading comprehension problems and some kind of phobia or syndrome)" ? Well, considering that bike lanes have never been demonstrated to produce the three main benefits that are claimed for them (car-bike collision reduction, reduction in required skill, reduction of motoring), the fact that bike-lane advocates are so certain in their advocacy cries out for explanation. That is as if a person kept claiming that California was east of Maine.

"Superstition (bike lanes are evil)"? Nobody claims any such thing. The nearest to this claim is the argument that bike lanes are the physical embodiment of the American policy of incompetent cycling on bikeways, which is not an argument about good and evil, but about a harmful policy.


"The pro-bike lane stance is less well-defined. It's main precept seems to be that bike lanes make cycling more popular." That is the current argument. With the failure of the original arguments (that bike lanes reduce car-bike collisions, bike lanes reduce the level of skill required, and bike lanes reduce motoring), this is the argument left for bike-lane advocates. Not a very good argument, considering what should be done for the welfare of cyclists.

"Its main advantages seem to be that it is supported by government policy." Yes, that is so, but the real issue is whether or not that policy is good for cyclists, which is an entirely different issue.

"And [its other advantage is] that the favorite sport of anti-bike lane propagandists appears to be shooting themselves in the foot."? This is certainly both entirely inaccurate and evidence of major bias. Bike-lane advocates appear to see the opposition as shooting themselves in their feet, but that is false. The opposition to the bike-lane program is based on the fact that it contradicts the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, and nobody has ever shown that this is a false position. Rather, the bike-lane advocates seen their opposition as shooting themselves in their feet only because the bike-lane advocates find themselves incapable of understanding the facts and reasoning that supports their opposition, while being unable also to provide equivalent support for their own position. For them, emotions rule facts.

Helmet Head

Since the earth is round...

zeytoun

Who's in the lead HH?

How soon after the deadline will you be announcing the winner(s)?

zeytoun

Bump.

Just a reminder to everyone, the deadline is less then a day-and-a-half away!

Good luck! and may the best post win!

natelutkjohn

I'm betting that JF won it, even though he doesn't want to be judged for it.

The other Inane

Just to keep it simple

Pro Bike Lanes:


Anti Bike Lanes:

rando