What happened to John Forester?
11-15-07 | 08:05 PM
#351
53 miles per burrito
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,489
Likes: 0
From: Dallas, TX
Bikes: Land Shark, Trek 1000, Iron Horse Rogue, Novara Randonee
The average one of your bikeway-cycling (_and_ bikeway-designing) buddies _should_ "think that they can't also use the road", because they _can't_! This fact is made abundantly clear by their cluelessness about how to even _cross_ a road when they get to where their beloved bikeway must cross a road. Us Foresterians have _been_ "inclusive" enough to do several percent of our cycling miles on such farce-sillities just to be sociable with your faction, but our patience with which to do so wore thin after a while when we had to, at too high of a percentage of trail/road intersections, waste time dismounting and walking hundreds of feet to avoid having our accident rate go up astronomically due to pea-brained trail/road interface design. If that's not an "inferior" facility/maneuver, then I don't know what you _do_ call inferior!
All righty, I am beginning to understand now. This debate has nothing to do with cycling.
Back to the preaching...
11-15-07 | 08:05 PM
#352
Banned.
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,075
Likes: 0
From: San Diego
I guess I'd better explain it in small words for you then.
For the most part, lane position is not governed by transient conditions. Most of the time, it's lane width - the static condition of the road. If there's enough room to share, hold a line just outside the car traffic lane (whether it's marked or not), otherwise, hold a line somewhere inside it. All those transient conditions you mention can possibly result in a need to adjust it, but not all that often, and when you do, do so gradually and predictably.
For the most part, lane position is not governed by transient conditions. Most of the time, it's lane width - the static condition of the road. If there's enough room to share, hold a line just outside the car traffic lane (whether it's marked or not), otherwise, hold a line somewhere inside it. All those transient conditions you mention can possibly result in a need to adjust it, but not all that often, and when you do, do so gradually and predictably.
In particular, holding a sharable position (just outside the car traffic lane - what I call "the margin") is problematic whenever the current transient conditions do not include the presence of faster traffic at that time. That's probably our primary area of difference. I have learned it to be problematic by adopting John Franklin's "primary riding position" as my default, and experience in a marked reduction in undesirable situations with motorists.
Now, while being passed by a stream of traffic? Yes, sure, of course, by all means, maintain, for the most part, a static position in the margin. No argument there. But bike lanes reinforce the notion that where cyclists belong on the road is largely a static proposition independent of current conditions, even when the current conditions do not include any faster same direction traffic.
If it reinforces anything, it's the idea that you pick your line, and hold it, unless it's necessary to change lanes. Just like you do in a car, if you're riding/driving vehicularly. Or do you change lanes on a whim in your car as well?
Your absurd notion that it marginalises cycling to an inferior position makes no more sense than saying a right turn only lane marginalises right turners.
Your absurd notion that it marginalises cycling to an inferior position makes no more sense than saying a right turn only lane marginalises right turners.
I never said anything about bike lanes marginalizing cycling to an inferior position.
I will say that bike lanes encourage cyclists to use an inferior position when the space they demarcate happens to coincide with inferior positioning given the current conditions.
Other marked lanes do not direct through traffic to travel in roadway space that is normally used only by right turning traffic.
EDIT/correction:
Other marked lanes do not direct through traffic to travel in roadway space that is to the right of right turning traffic.
Last edited by Helmet Head; 11-15-07 at 10:57 PM.
11-15-07 | 08:37 PM
#353
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,063
Likes: 1
From: Toronto
11-15-07 | 08:53 PM
#354
Senior Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,914
Likes: 1
From: Beaverton, Oregon
Bikes: Rans Stratus, Trek 1420, Rivendell Rambouillet
Well, there is noisebeam's answer about the system of bike lanes being contradictory, but there is more. What Forester wrote was:
That's one big inherent problem with bike lanes. They, being static demarcations of supposedly appropriate lateral positioning for cyclists, are based on the assumption that proper lateral positioning for cyclists is largely determined independent of current conditions. But, actually, the opposite is true: cyclists should be adjusting laterally all the time. It is a very dynamic process, based on current conditions (including but not limited to: weather, surface conditions, cyclist speed, cyclist's intended destination, speed, volume and location of other traffic, presence of parked cars and other potential hazards, lighting conditions, etc.).
This is not just a tenet of vehicular cycling, but is even endorsed by scofflaw-cycling rationalizers like Robert Hurst, whose book returns and returns to this theme. It is a great disservice to cyclists, especially to the relatively inexperienced ones that bike lanes are often touted to be mostly for, to create facilities that reinforce the notion that where cyclists belong on the road is largely a static proposition independent of current conditions.
"If the bike lane is in the place where proper cycling behavior would put me, then that is where I ride. If the bike lane is not designed to be in the place where proper cycling behavior would put me, then I ride properly, even if that is outside the bike lane."
At any given time, for the current conditions, "proper cycling behavior" may put a cyclist in one particular lateral position, while it may put him several feet away (laterally) some other time under very different conditions. Under some of those conditions, the "proper cycling behavior" may put him in space that happens to be demarcated by the bike lane; at other times it puts him outside of the exact same bike lane.That's one big inherent problem with bike lanes. They, being static demarcations of supposedly appropriate lateral positioning for cyclists, are based on the assumption that proper lateral positioning for cyclists is largely determined independent of current conditions. But, actually, the opposite is true: cyclists should be adjusting laterally all the time. It is a very dynamic process, based on current conditions (including but not limited to: weather, surface conditions, cyclist speed, cyclist's intended destination, speed, volume and location of other traffic, presence of parked cars and other potential hazards, lighting conditions, etc.).
This is not just a tenet of vehicular cycling, but is even endorsed by scofflaw-cycling rationalizers like Robert Hurst, whose book returns and returns to this theme. It is a great disservice to cyclists, especially to the relatively inexperienced ones that bike lanes are often touted to be mostly for, to create facilities that reinforce the notion that where cyclists belong on the road is largely a static proposition independent of current conditions.
There is a potential flaw in your reasoning here. You are making an argument that auto drivers could use for their "weaving" technique of cutting into lanes. It's basically the same argument. Look at how it reads:
"If the traffic lane is in the place where proper driving behavior would put me, then that is where I ride. If the traffic lane is not designed to be in the place where proper driving behavior would put me, then I drive properly, even if that is outside the drive lane."
At any given time, for the current conditions, "proper driving behavior" may put a driver in one particular lateral position, while it may put him several feet away (laterally) some other time under very different conditions. Under some of those conditions, the "proper driving behavior" may put him in space that happens to be demarcated by the drive lane; at other times it puts him outside of the exact same drive lane.That's one big inherent problem with drive lanes. They, being static demarcations of supposedly appropriate lateral positioning for drivers, are based on the assumption that proper lateral positioning for drivers are largely determined independent of current conditions. But, actually, the opposite is true: drivers should be adjusting laterally all the time. It is a very dynamic process, based on current conditions (including but not limited to: weather, surface conditions, auto's speed, auto's intended destination, speed, volume and location of other traffic, presence of parked cars and other potential hazards, lighting conditions, etc.).
John
11-15-07 | 10:41 PM
#355
Banned.
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,075
Likes: 0
From: San Diego
Edit: Never mind. I used poor wording in the original post, which I now fixed. Sorry about that and thanks to you and PF (yes, I peaked) for pointing it out.
Last edited by Helmet Head; 11-15-07 at 10:57 PM.
11-15-07 | 10:51 PM
#356
Banned.
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,075
Likes: 0
From: San Diego
Helmet Head,
There is a potential flaw in your reasoning here. You are making an argument that auto drivers could use for their "weaving" technique of cutting into lanes. It's basically the same argument. Look at how it reads:
At any given time, for the current conditions, "proper driving behavior" may put a driver in one particular lateral position, while it may put him several feet away (laterally) some other time under very different conditions. Under some of those conditions, the "proper driving behavior" may put him in space that happens to be demarcated by the drive lane; at other times it puts him outside of the exact same drive lane.
That's one big inherent problem with drive lanes. They, being static demarcations of supposedly appropriate lateral positioning for drivers, are based on the assumption that proper lateral positioning for drivers are largely determined independent of current conditions. But, actually, the opposite is true: drivers should be adjusting laterally all the time. It is a very dynamic process, based on current conditions (including but not limited to: weather, surface conditions, auto's speed, auto's intended destination, speed, volume and location of other traffic, presence of parked cars and other potential hazards, lighting conditions, etc.).
If you are truly a "vehicular cyclist," wouldn't substituting "auto" and "driver" for "bicycle" and "cyclist" be appropriate? If that's not appropriate for drivers of autos, or motorcycles, why is it appropriate for bicycles?
John
There is a potential flaw in your reasoning here. You are making an argument that auto drivers could use for their "weaving" technique of cutting into lanes. It's basically the same argument. Look at how it reads:
"If the traffic lane is in the place where proper driving behavior would put me, then that is where I ride. If the traffic lane is not designed to be in the place where proper driving behavior would put me, then I drive properly, even if that is outside the drive lane."
That's one big inherent problem with drive lanes. They, being static demarcations of supposedly appropriate lateral positioning for drivers, are based on the assumption that proper lateral positioning for drivers are largely determined independent of current conditions. But, actually, the opposite is true: drivers should be adjusting laterally all the time. It is a very dynamic process, based on current conditions (including but not limited to: weather, surface conditions, auto's speed, auto's intended destination, speed, volume and location of other traffic, presence of parked cars and other potential hazards, lighting conditions, etc.).
John
I don't see how it is "making an argument that auto drivers could use for their 'weaving' technique of cutting into lanes."
Obviously any lateral change (for motorists as well as cyclists) must be preceded with a rearward/blindspot check, appropriate signaling and yielding to any relevant traffic. No "cutting into lanes" because that would be blatantly violating the rules of the road.
Last edited by Helmet Head; 11-15-07 at 11:02 PM.
11-16-07 | 02:31 PM
#357
Banned.
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,075
Likes: 0
From: San Diego
The graph on the police report sums it up pretty well.
Basically, I was cruising through a green, and a pickup failed to yield.
He got cited.
I got taken to the hospital by paramedics.
My bike is done. My jeans are done. My tibial plateau is broken.
I scraped up my arms pretty well, lost enough blood on scene that the cops used hydroxide on the cement. I bruised more or less everything. I was flipped upside down and went flying. It was crazy.
But, other than that, I'm ok.
His fender is broken. I dented his hood/grill. I broke in his windshield.
Just thought I'd share for discussion.
Basically, I was cruising through a green, and a pickup failed to yield.
He got cited.
I got taken to the hospital by paramedics.
My bike is done. My jeans are done. My tibial plateau is broken.
I scraped up my arms pretty well, lost enough blood on scene that the cops used hydroxide on the cement. I bruised more or less everything. I was flipped upside down and went flying. It was crazy.
But, other than that, I'm ok.
His fender is broken. I dented his hood/grill. I broke in his windshield.
Just thought I'd share for discussion.
It was 100% the motorists fault. No question about it.
Left crosses are to me the most concerning possibility in similar driving conditions/road layout as Tucson.
You had a headlight. That helps. I bought the brightest one reasonable for my budget a 10W HID and have it aimed near parallel to road surface, not pointing down for a spot 15' in front of me on the road as most other set-ups I've seen.
When riding thru intersections like this I stay away from the right most thru lane edge unless there are faster vehicles going with me thru the intersection. These faster vehicles act as the visual deterrent from the potential left turning vehicle.
When there are not faster vehicles I do not ride in the far right bike lane. I ride left biased in the right most thru lane.
The combination of being where motorists tend to look and higher than normal cyclist visibility help to reduce the chance of a left cross. Nothing can eliminate it, a common accident for car/car collisions is the left cross here in Phx-metro, drivers are too eager to jump a gap and make errors in assessing the conditions.
Wishes for the best recovery and in receiving fair honest compensation for your actual losses.
Al
Left crosses are to me the most concerning possibility in similar driving conditions/road layout as Tucson.
You had a headlight. That helps. I bought the brightest one reasonable for my budget a 10W HID and have it aimed near parallel to road surface, not pointing down for a spot 15' in front of me on the road as most other set-ups I've seen.
When riding thru intersections like this I stay away from the right most thru lane edge unless there are faster vehicles going with me thru the intersection. These faster vehicles act as the visual deterrent from the potential left turning vehicle.
When there are not faster vehicles I do not ride in the far right bike lane. I ride left biased in the right most thru lane.
The combination of being where motorists tend to look and higher than normal cyclist visibility help to reduce the chance of a left cross. Nothing can eliminate it, a common accident for car/car collisions is the left cross here in Phx-metro, drivers are too eager to jump a gap and make errors in assessing the conditions.
Wishes for the best recovery and in receiving fair honest compensation for your actual losses.
Al
