Bekologist

I'm having an Andy Kaufmann flashback right now... "Here I come, to save the day..."

little big man, admit it, you just don't like me, and don't like the idea of public space redesigned to support greater numbers of bicyclists in this country. you'd rather, like jhon, demand better bicycling skills to operate a bike along increasingly auto-centric roads.

who's really the elitist?

my point of view, that rights of way can be redesigned to benefit bicycling in communities, is much more populist and pro-bicycling than jhons and yours, in case you hadn't noticed.

joejack951

Am I supposed to be more knowledgeable about the subject than the authors' in order to understand their conclusions? There was no mention of road diets, Bek. That's a huge stretch to think that the authors' implied a road diet by recommending "installing bicycle lanes next to on-street parking."

For the record, I'm intelligent enough to know that a cyclist not riding in the door zone of a vehicle will not get doored.

LittleBigMan

You need to tell the difference between disliking you and disagreeing with your comments.


Since you're relatively new to these forums, let me tell you my age-old stance on that: build all the bike facilities you want, but build them with excellence, and with the same dedication that cyclists and motorists expect from all roadways. Nothing less will do.

(Where did you get the "you don't want more bicyclists" idea? )

There are no bicycling skills for operating a bike on the road that are more complex than bicycling skills for operating a bike elsewhere. If you can ride a bike and drive a car, you can master road riding.

Some people prefer bike facilities, which I support. I guess you conveniently "forgot" that.

Since you have gotten my point of view about bicycling wrong in the first place, you can't even make that statement accurately.

You can call me, "phete."

Bekologist

3 years versus your six is 'relatively new' to the forums? what about jhon, the subject of this thread?

lilbig, how do you feel about the banning of lepers on bicycles from freeway speed roads?

LittleBigMan

You mean Jhon Frosterer? Your obsession with him is old news.

Around here, I am banned from riding on freeways. In my case, freeways would take me so far out of the way that I would never ride on them anyway.

But I would support the right of cyclists to ride wherever they need to to get where they need to go (yes, even the sidwalk though it's second-rate pavement.)

Bekologist

oh well. out here we can ride on the interstates.

i've read in this very thread jhon wants bicyclists, lepers or not, banned from 'freeways' when there's a slower speed alternative. banned for the conveinence of motorists.

someday soon, i predict jhon will support banning bicycles from arterials if there's slow speed roads for bicyclists. the dude has turned into a real car loving anti-bicyclist. must be his affiliation with the american dream coalition.

oh yeah, this thread is about where had jhon gone. he's busy scheming up ways to erode bicycling participation in this country using pledges of competancy over infrastructure.

however, if fully 40 percent of all trips in america are less than two miles, it's apparant infrastructure improvements to public space that encourage non-motorized travel for short trips would be of much greater benefit than a few chestbeaters claiming the lane on increasingly auto-centric byways.

infrastructure is working to increase bicycling, sometimes to amazing rates, in cities around the world. jhon's little motorist superiority system predicated onto bicyclists, not so much.

LittleBigMan

I don't know if you're right or not about "...bicycling infrastructure increasing bicycling, sometimes to amazing rates, in cities around the world." You haven't provided any proof of that whatsoever, to my knowledge.

But when I told you of my experiences in Atlanta of hassle-free cycling without facilities, you told me over and over again I was lying. Funny how you don't need evidence to support your point, and you also don't need any evidence to call me a liar.

I would greatly prefer a pro-facility advocate who lacked any hidden anti-Forester agenda to promote a clearer view of the benefits of bicycling infrastructure than you have done, however I patiently wait for a positive vision to emerge from your posts, rather than unrelated attacks against John Forester.

Bekologist

naw, that can be the focus of yet another thread. (why are you bringing up your Atlanta idylls again?) and BTW, this thread IS about the Forestorist.

i'm justified (regarding the original post) to focus on jhon's admittances - in this very thread - he supports banning bicyclists, for the benefit of motorists, from 'freeways' if a slow speed road is available as an alternative.

bans on bikes along public rights of way. for the convienence of motorists.

when will jhon begin to lobby to ban bikes from high speed arterials too?

how far can jhon push his anti-bicycling agenda under the guise of bicycling 'advocacy?'

zeytoun

TheWheelman:
"You are obviously an idiot. Bears are much better cyclists then Bekologists. And, btw, I am happy to be called a simpleton for having my calculator in jello, because it means that I do math in my head."

pj7

Nice .sig
After all this time it's nice to know someone actually got the old joke.

Allister

That guy's a fraud! Note the calculator watch.

Tom Stormcrowe

Doesn't everyone do their math in their head? It's much simpler for me to calculate a Polynomial in my head than program in the variables to a statistical calculator.

joejack951

"blah blah blah bike lanes. blah blah blah bike lanes."

Ok, so I exagerrated a little. But good grief, you'd think that if they went through so much trouble to put together this study that they would have done so with an open mind, not a predetermined conclusion that the city needs more bike lanes.

Here are some real quotes:

"The fact that many cyclists do not take steps to make themselves more visible at night suggests that they may not be fully aware of how inconspicuous they can be to drivers....Increasing cyclists conspicuity can be achieved in several ways. Bicycle lanes can provide a consistent and predictable space for cyclists, making them somewhat easier to detect. Some cities use special markings and/or coloured pavement to highlight conflict zones and to remind drivers to look out for cyclists."

"One of the key components of the Toronto Bike Plan is a 1,000-kilometre bikeway network, which is to be implemented over the next decade. The network will include various types of facilities and spot improvements to make travel by bicycle easier and safer. The impact of bicycle lanes and paths on overall safety is the subject of debate, but it is clear that the cities with the highest levels of bicycle use and the lowest injury rates are those that have provided plenty of bicycle-friendly infrastructure."

"However, the presence of bicycle lanes can serve to remind motorists to be alert for cyclists, and they can also channel cyclists into a more predictable and visible position on the road. For cyclists not comfortable mixing with traffic, they provide a better alternative than the sidewalk, and thus may reduce the incidence of sidewalk cycling and its associated problems."

Ok, I think I'm done now. The credibility of the authors' of this study is completely gone as soon as they even begin to imply that riding in a bike lane means that the cyclist is no longer riding in traffic. I have said that this is a common mistake proponents of bike lanes often make and sometimes disingenuously use to promote bike lanes. Many bike lane advocates on this forum have told me time and again that that is not true. Well, here it is again.

Brian Ratliff

Haven't you seen the kids these days? Do they even teach the multiplication table anymore, or does it stress their wee wettle brains too much and make them feel inferior?

But... that being said...

I'd be impressed if you calculate a quadratic in your head (though less impressed if you used paper). And even more so if you could calculate a cubic...

joejack951

Only if X=1

Brian Ratliff

Funny, this limus test on traffic cycling research you have. What would suit your sensibilities? I mean, seriously, WOLs are also for the purpose to avoid mixing with traffic too, though this be your preferred facility, if I remember correctly. Would you prefer that the authors not say up straight what we all mean by wanting "extra space"?

Why not call it what it is. You have an issue with any report, any study, any research, which would suggest that the answer you know is wrong, has merit. You have access to the back of the book, so you know the answer, and any research which is contrary to your answer is invalid.

That's okay. Just know that this is the mark of an ideology and a closed mind. I hate to say it, but you are sounding more and more like John Forester by the day. You used to have some originality to your postings, but now you seem to have adopted the ideas of Mr. Forester wholesale and without thought. Didn't you, in another thread, just ask about "cyclist advocacy" vs. "bicycle advocacy". I thought it was Mr. Forester wrote that reply, until I saw the name beside it.

Brian Ratliff

Or zero...

joejack951

WOLs aren't for the purpose of avoiding mixing with traffic. They are there to help faster traffic pass slow traffic, just like an extra lane on the road would. For the record, I'd prefer WOLs only where intersections are infrequent. With frequent intersections, I'd prefer multiple narrow lanes.

I know that it is wrong to promote bike lanes as a way to remove cyclists from traffic, because they aren't capable of doing that. Do you disagree?

I adopted those ideas of Forester (and whoever else) when they sounded logical and were proven by testing them out myself. I'm sorry to say it, but you sound more and more like Bek these days where anything that sounds like a JF idea is immediately dismissed.

RobertHurst

JJ, I think in your haste you misread the statement in question. It does not claim that bike lanes remove riders from traffic. The statement was that, for riders who are uncomfortable riding in the street, luring them out there with bike lanes is a better option than leaving them on the sidewalk, where they would otherwise be. I'm not sure I entirely agree with that myself, but I don't see any magical properties ascribed to bike lanes there.

Haste is really important for the continued survival of the bike lane debate. Without it, people would step back and realize how small potatoes the whole issue is.

Robert

Spokebreaker

Ok, now we know you're capable of personal attacks, but you still haven't answered my question - WHY do you think that's silly?

I'm not an idiot, I just happen to have different ideas than you.

Not at all - I claimed they "do" kill people. They do - fact. Do they kill all people? Of course not, and I never said anything of the sort. They kill 40,000 - 45,000 people per year. Since the number of drivers increases every year, that does mean they are getting safer, but they still kill an awful lot of people.

And high speeds are a major culprit - the 55 mph speed limit seriously reduced highway deaths.

Wow - I'm glad your wife is ok. Sadly, that is the exception rather than the rule - injuries are common at speeds above 35 mph. I'm not saying that deaths are common above 35, but deaths below 35 mph are rare for motorists. Deaths of cyclists and pedestrians at those speeds are still common, but that can be reduced if we can somehow make everyone more aware of each other and not wrapped up in their own little world while driving / riding.

You're right, though I was speaking of 'excessive' speed in general (i.e. don't get hung up on the number). That's probably only 10-12k deaths.

As a side note, I don't expect those types of changes ever to happen - too many people think that traveling at speeds in excess of 35 mph is their God-given right. It's merely a convenience, and one we all accept because we are mostly insulated from the direct consequences of it.

I just question the wisdom of putting a bike lane immediately adjacent to a motorist lane where the traffic is going 3-4 times the average speed of the bicycle. If the bike lane is properly separated (or the width of a motorist lane, 12-14' wide), then I would consider it "safe" - but how many of those do we see here in the US?

And why SHOULD we have 40-45 mph streets in the city that aren't limited access? Is convenience really worth the extra stress it puts into everyone's lives? (Yeah, I know - that one's a value judgement, totally subjective, and not based in anything resembling fact)

ghettocruiser

These don't sound like the words of a study author who has predetermined anything.

csr

It is not difficult to bicycle safely on roads with speed limits higher than this. I know this, and I'm a noob. The key is to avoid hugging the right. When you are visible, it is much easier for cars to handle the situation correctly. In accident summary studies, the issues normally involve human error, not speed. The errors are easy to avoid for a cyclist, and that, plus wearing a helmet, greatly reduces our chances of death by collision, and injury as well of course.

John Forester

The fact that I have some sympathy for motorists does not mean that I am not an advocate for cyclists. I simply believe that both need to exist and can reasonably co-exist. All that you bicycle advocates can see is anti-motoring; that is the only standard by which you measure transportation.

Bekologist

what a crock.

joejack951

Ok, so bike lanes may lure riders from the sidewalk onto the street according to the authors. How do they accomplish this? By making riders feel as though they aren't riding in traffic, just like on the sidewalk (at least in between intersections)?