sbhikes

And why should I NOT support them when they are all so nice where I live.

sbhikes

Let me make this clearer. It is a false dichotomy that one must EITHER support or NOT support bike lanes and be a vehicular cyclist. The two are actually not related.

So express your support or don't. It does not matter either way to the practice of Vehicular Cycling as something you do. Maybe it matters if it's something you pray to, but not if it's something you do.

noisebeam

Who said you shouldn't?
Al

Bekologist

...better get those bike lanes fixed, then. sounds like you and steve goodridge in NC have similar, auto-centric traffic engineers.

boy, how remarkably easy it is to restripe roads. just paint on the road.


who cares, actually, i'm sure you'll spin it that all bike lanes are bad within 200 feet of all intersections, although bike lanes striped to the left of right turn traffic are much better.

does VC rest on a false dichotomy, that VC and advocating for bike infrastructure like bike lanes are mutually exclusive? YES.


does AZ have a turning traffic yield to bikes signage, etc along these types of roads, al?

noisebeam

Where BLs are striped to the left of RTOL the striping and signage meet AASTHO to the letter. This means there is the sign:


Where there is no RTOL and the road is BL striped, the stripes always go fully to the intersection and there is no such sign.

Al

noisebeam

I have repeatedly shown you images and video of bike lanes that meet AASTHO guildelines and asked you what is wrong with them (i.e. needs to be fixed) and you have never responded.
Al

sbhikes

You're all still stuck in the dichotomy. Vehicular cycling has nothing to do with good bike lanes, bad bike lanes or whatever else.

Bekologist

..aside from the fact that vehicular cyclists can ride vehicularily in a bike lane, not stuck in any false dichotomy here. I ride VC and realize vehicular cyclists can advocate for bike specific infrastructure in their communities.

the two (bike infrastructure, bike lanes) and vehicular cycling ARE NOT mutually exclusive. john f. admits vehicular cyclists can ride, vehicularily, in a bike lane.

John Forester

Bekologist, you have consistently failed to realize, or have deliberately ignored, the issue beyond the physical facilities themselves, despite the fact that the participants on this list have been so informed time after time. Every public governmental system, such as bikeways are, informs the public of government's, and hence society's, policy about the subject that is being expressed. Of course, you know this; you advocate bikeways because of one of their effects on the public, that of enticing unskilled people into traffic because they believe that bikeways make cycling safe. That's what you want, so you advocate bikeways to get more butts on bikes.

However, you utterly ignore the other side of your advocacy, that because bikeways do exactly what you want, you refuse to acknowledge the defects of those results. Bikeways reinforce motorists' view of cyclists as inferior beings who need to be kept aside. Bikeways entice unskilled people into undertaking an activity for which safety requires that they possess traffic skills. Bikeways further reinforce the public's aversion to learning traffic-cycling skills as being unnecessary. These defects I consider make bikeway advocacy unethical, even immoral, and certainly bad for society.

The other Inane

I keep reading this same spiel again and again but I just don't see it happening in the real world. I live in a city/country that is trying to increase cycling through a number of measures, one of which is the building of bike lanes and paths.

Every indicator suggests that it is succeeding in increasing the number of cyclists yet the accident and fatality data for cyclists has not similarly increased (it is actually pretty constant). How could this be? Shouldn't the streets be running red with the blood of all the new, incompetent cyclists using these facilities?

John Forester

Consider all the other acts that might well be reducing the cyclist accident rate, rather than the facilities for which there is no reason to believe that they do.

The other Inane

Off the top of my head most of the things that could make cyling obviously safer have been around for a while now:
RBT's have been in (and effective) for more years than I can remember
Red light camers ditto
Roadside speed camera's ditto
Helmet use has been at around 80% for years
60km/hr to 50km/hr residential speed reduction is about the only significant thing to have come in recently.
The road rules have not changed
Drivers licenses are becoming tougher to get, but have always been pretty strict.
Bike technology has not made them safer (unlike cars)

There are not too many road factors that have changed that I can remember

However since 1999 a concerted effort has been made to increase people cycling through a wide variety of measures of which bike lanes and paths are just one (and the most enticing to non-cyclists). It is more than just painting some lines on the road, but it shows that you can both increase cycling and not make it any more dangerous if you are willing to try and that facilities can be part of the plan.

sbhikes

You can show all the evidence you like, but semantic, pedantic arguments are all that matters to the VC-advocates, and only if they prove the points they've already decided are true.