Bekologist

forestor is a curbhugging hypocrite with an engineering prejudice and a motorists' vision, gene. John's a bankrupt ideologue vainly attempting to deny infrastructure's benefits to bicycling worldwide.

randya

Thank you, Robert!

randya

Portland cyclists are extremely well-lit, too, I might add.

Move to Portland, ride yer bike!

John Forester

That is incorrect. I am not an elitist cyclist, not by any means. Yes, it is correct that the current American social situation shuts the door to most, but that is the fault of the current American social situation and has nothing at all to do with the actual skill of traffic-safe cycling, which is not difficult, is easy to learn, and can be done by quite young people. (2-lane residential roads for 8 year olds; 4-lane roads for 10 year olds). There are several reasons why Americans don't bother to learn traffic-safe cycling: they don't think that bicycle transportation would be particularly useful for them; they believe the motorists' discriminatory propaganda that traffic-safe cycling is so difficult that cyclists must not use it, but hug the curbs or ride on paths instead; they believe the motorists' discriminatory propaganda that traffic-safe cycling is very dangerous; they believe the bicycle advocates' vociferous repetition of the motorists' propaganda along with the bicycle advocates' propaganda that bikeways make cycling safe for those who do not obey the rules of the road; they believe the government's propaganda that its bikeways make cycling safe for those who do not obey the rules of the road. In short, there are many false official and near official arguments presented against riding according to the rules of the road, and the poor man in the street has no means of determining otherwise.

If the bicycle advocates would start advocating for the good of cyclists instead of pursuing their anti-motoring agenda, the public pressure against traffic-safe cycling would be significantly lessened.

randya

genec

Starting with the last paragraph first... I have to point out that cycling advocates seem to have been quite successful with programs that include bikeways and education, whereas cycle advocates that do not use a program of bikeways have only resulted in a decline of active cyclists in any area. As yet, an advocacy of vehicular cycling alone has not resulted in public acceptance of cycling in any significant way anywhere. And even in England, which you typically cite as an example, transportational cycling has declined per capita.

Since you chose to only focus on vehicular cycling, and there does not appear to be any large scale uptake of cycling anywhere based on vehicular cycling, ergo the result appears to be that regular transportation cycling is limited to a unique very small sector of the population, which by definition would make those cyclists an elite portion of the population.

Sorry professor, as long as vehicular cycling is the only means advocated, transportational cycling appears to segregated to "a relatively small dominant group within a larger society," thus making it "elite."

No one has yet to show that vehicular cycling alone can increase the uptake of cycling anywhere, thus making vehicular cycling just as discriminatory as any perceived motorists' propaganda.

iltb-2

Genec,
The bottom line is that NO ONE has demonstrated by ANY method (other than hot air WAG's and anecdotes) that promotion of vehicular cycling has done ANYTHING for ANYBODY. Ever!

Vehicular Cyclists Fare Best? Fare Worst? Fare the Same? Its anybody's guess when none of the terms or metrics are defined, let alone measured.

genec

Well... it does work at low speeds on narrow roads... which pretty much defines residential streets and dense urban environments... but then pretty much there is hardly any other way, except sidewalk riding, (if sidewalks exist) that would work in those environments.

iltb-2

Yeah I guess if vehicular cycling is the only method, and there is no other defined method to ride in certain scenarios, vehicular cycling (which includes any and all methods) is the best way. And of course, by definition, the worst way, Something for everyone! Vehicular cyclists fare best and worst, simultaneously!


And who is to say that sidewalk cyclists would not "fare best" if sidewalks or equivalent existed in those environments ?

John Forester

Genec, you don't even know the meaning of the words that you think you are discussing. And I fail to see that obeying the rules of the road makes vehicular cyclists "a relatively small dominant group within a larger society." Dominant over whom?

And you continually fail to observe the obvious difference between the anti-motoring goal of getting motorists to cycle and the pro-cyclist goal of doing best for cyclists. I can't help that you have an ideological tunnel vision; all that I can do is to note that that's your defect.

randya

unbelievable arrogance

iltb-2

It would be really unbelievable and surprising if Forester defended his sophistry and psycho babble with any other tone to his rhetoric. Never seen any other facet from this jewel except when he is replying to a toadying sycophant (like you know who.)

genec

And apparently sir, you have no vision.


London
February 10, 2008

LONDON is likely to become one of the more cycle-friendly cities, with a series of two-wheeler superhighways cutting through traffic and congestion.

Plans for the super-cycleways will be unveiled next week as part of an initiative to stimulate a 400% increase in the number of people pedalling round the capital by 2025.

At a cost of £400 million ($A870 million), the 12 routes are intended to be the motorways of cycling and are likely to be emulated by other British cities.

Londoners without bikes will be able to use the city's free bicycles.

"We want nothing short of a cycling transformation in London," said Mayor Ken Livingstone.

"We are announcing the biggest investment in cycling in London's history, which will mean that thousands more Londoners can cycle in confidence."

John Forester

London's a big place. I was associated with the design and estimated effect of a bicycle freeway that was proposed in Los Angeles, so I know something about the subject. It will be interesting to see the proposed designs and the proposed routes when those are presented. It will be even more interesting to see what gets built.

John Forester

The following appears to be the source of the posting here. It appears to be a more reasonable report of what is being planned.

pounds 42m for cycleways
Independent, The (London), Sep 10, 1995

BRITAIN is to get a 6,000-mile traffic-free national cycle network thanks to the National Lottery, viewers of the lottery draw on BBC1 learned last night.

The scheme, brainchild of the Bristol-based civil engineering charity Sustrans, has been awarded pounds 42.5m of lottery cash by the Millennium Commission, the quango sponsoring projects to mark the arrival of the year 2000. It will cost pounds 100m in all.

The first group of 30 projects to be awarded funds from the commission's pounds 1.6bn will be announced tomorrow, but the BBC jumped the gun last night to reveal what is expected to be one of the largest awards. Viewers saw a cycle-shaped cheque for pounds 42.5m handed to the director of Sustrans, John Grimshaw, by the rock singer Meatloaf. The rest of the money will come from local authorities and donations.
Most Popular Articles
in News

The network of traffic-free cycle paths, traffic-calmed minor roads and carefully engineered urban cycle lanes will pass through almost every major population centre in the country. Its supporters believe it could have a huge beneficial impact on health, pollution, and road safety. The Department of Transport has promised special help to enable it to cross trunk roads.

randya

sounds like good news to me

JRA

Naw. That article is 13 years old.

Try these:

theage.com.au
£400m bike plan for London

The Guardian
City's two-wheel transformation
Saturday February 9, 2008

John Forester

Yes, of course. The Guardian's article is the more informative. I wonder what "dedicated junctions" means when discussing streets with cycle lanes?

randya

just a guess but probably a separate signal phase for cyclists and no left on red (if it's even allowed in London)

Bekologist

john, aren't you a so-called "transportation engineer"? and you DON'T know what is being discussed for London?

Don't tell me you're not only a curbhugger, but ignorant of the very topic you fallaciously declare yourself an 'engineer' in?

Allister

LOl. You'd like to think your writing is on a par with a geometry text book, wouldn't you? Not even close, little man, not even close.

Bekologist

Well, Scout, the curbhugger got it wrong. cyclists DON'T 'fare best' when they act and are treated just like any other vehicle......

The correct statement is "Cyclists FARE BEST in communities where they act and are given treatment as drivers of human powered vehicles."

invisiblehand

Sorry for the delay Randya. Fatherhood is taking its toll from bikeforums!!!

You did not write what is unfounded about the statements.

I think that my language is open and general enough to encompass quite a bit of wiggle room and still be an honest and empirically based statement.

Fundamentally, there is a lot of driving done in the US ... ~2,989,807,000,000 miles in 2005 ... with ~6,159,000 accidents and ~43,400 people killed. I just don't think that people could have a poor understanding of what they are supposed to do and have so few accidents and deaths. Note that you can break this down a few ways to change the relevant ratios by quite a bit -- focus on passenger cars. And there are some specific questions that remain unanswered (for instance, inner city versus suburban versus rural). But this should still give the right context to consider the issue.

https://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd...005/810623.pdf

Note that this does not mean that the relative risk of driving is insignificant. Nor does it mean that the figures are acceptable to society. I am just writing that people would be constantly crashing all over the place if most drivers failed to understand what they are supposed to do in most situations.

In all seriousness, have you ever ridden around and counted the number of acceptable interactions with drivers? I have attempted to estimate the number a few times while commuting. Obviously this is all based on my own perceptions of "acceptable" which -- even with strict rules such as 3-feet of distance during a pass -- is still subject to my own potentially significant errors of measurement. But I still get figures that are quite high; ratios above 90%.

If 10% of drivers acted erratically or really aggressively towards cyclists, it would be a pretty hair-raising ride for most people. But it would still mean that there were a lot of drivers behaving acceptably.

genec

How about the flip side issue... that motorists know the laws and yet refuse to obey them... Perhaps that is more likely. Although I have serious doubts about motorists knowing about the laws pertaining to cyclists' rights.

The classic illustration of motorists knowing the laws and simply not obeying them is to watch what happens on a highway when a Patrol Car shows up... suddenly the speeds lower, traffic opens up a bit, and folks become downright orderly. As soon as the Patrol Car (CHP in my neck of the woods) drives off... hell breaks out.

But regarding motorists and cyclists... when I talk to motorists (and they can be anywhere... lined up at the movie, at a friends' wedding, at the office... etc) I generally hear that there are some strong misconceptions regarding cyclists on the road.

Since Vehicular Cycling depends on road users adhering to the rules of the road, voluntary disobedience of the rules by the majority users of the road can make VC difficult.

invisiblehand

I can believe that. I think many drivers, like most cyclists, "fudge" the laws often. I just think that they do it, like most cyclists, in a responsible way.

Quickly addressing your conclusion Gene, "difficult" is tough for me to get a hold on. While I am certain that it takes effort, I don't think that I have a good grasp on how much effort it takes an ordinary person to get the hang of it.

-G