View Poll Results: Do you still ride in the manner you learned as a child?
YES
14
21.54%
NO
51
78.46%
Voters: 65. You may not vote on this poll
Calling a Forester statement into question.
02-27-08 | 10:57 PM
#151
You question my characterizations of cities:
No, I questioned your concept of a "typical American city". As you've very graciously pointed out yourself there seem to be more exceptions to the idea of a "typical American city" than cities that fit might any such description.
Cyclists have no more needs in one place than in the other, either.
Really? So those of us in the snowy Northeast have the same needs of transportation infrastructure as southern Florida? So ₤em in Pa, who once lived in Vermont, has no change in needs in cycling infrastructure in West Palm Beach? Well, you're the expert...
You remark that NYC is very large and very dense, so that what it does will influence the rest of the nation's cities. You evidently do not know that Los Angeles area has higher population density than does NYC area.
Yes, you're right- I pointed out that New York City was densely populated. I made no comparison between NYC population density to that of LA's. So you are incorrect that I "do not know that Los Angeles area has higher population density than does NYC area". Rather than assuming you do not know that there is a difference between the LA/NYC areas and the comparison of the cities I'll assume you do know, of course, that the actual population densities of the cities themselves (not the areas surrounding the cities) show NYC to have a much greater population density. What you are describing is the density of urban "sprawl" not a comparison of urban center density.
You claim that NYC has a bicycle component of its transportation plan. Again, so what? Since that is a requirement to obtain federal funds in the transportation area, every major area has such. You also claim that this bicycle component is being strongly supported to accommodate a larger modal share of cyclists and you speculate that "If cycling becomes a mainstay of NYC transportation" then the rest of the nation will be affected.
Bicycling a mainstay of NYC transportation? Most unlikely. People quitting using the subway to ride a bicycle? Rather unusual, that, in NYC.
Hey, whatever you say...but here comes the future, John, and I don't see anything about "VC" in the Master Plan.
No, I questioned your concept of a "typical American city". As you've very graciously pointed out yourself there seem to be more exceptions to the idea of a "typical American city" than cities that fit might any such description.
Cyclists have no more needs in one place than in the other, either.
Really? So those of us in the snowy Northeast have the same needs of transportation infrastructure as southern Florida? So ₤em in Pa, who once lived in Vermont, has no change in needs in cycling infrastructure in West Palm Beach? Well, you're the expert...
You remark that NYC is very large and very dense, so that what it does will influence the rest of the nation's cities. You evidently do not know that Los Angeles area has higher population density than does NYC area.
Yes, you're right- I pointed out that New York City was densely populated. I made no comparison between NYC population density to that of LA's. So you are incorrect that I "do not know that Los Angeles area has higher population density than does NYC area". Rather than assuming you do not know that there is a difference between the LA/NYC areas and the comparison of the cities I'll assume you do know, of course, that the actual population densities of the cities themselves (not the areas surrounding the cities) show NYC to have a much greater population density. What you are describing is the density of urban "sprawl" not a comparison of urban center density.
Originally Posted by 2006 UCLA Urban Planning Study
Comparing The City of Los Angeles to New York City:
The City of Los Angeles is approximately 472 square miles in size, with a population of 3,694,820. The City of New York is 304 square miles in size, and has a population of 8,008,278. Based on this data, the City of New York is more than 3 times as dense as the City of Los Angeles, with population densities of 26,343 and 7,828 people per square mile, respectively.
New York, particularly Manhattan, is crowded. While, Los Angeles does have a few areas of its own with higher population concentrations (particularly in the Macarthur Park area just west of downtown Los Angeles), these concentrations are not even half as large as those found in New York.
The City of Los Angeles simply does not exhibit the high-density patterns that one associates with the City of New York.
New York has more square miles of high density than Los Angeles
If we look only at the land area within each city that has a population density greater than 15,000, New
York wins again. More than half of the land area of New York City exhibits a population density greater
than 15,000. In the City of Los Angeles, only about 15 percent of the area meets this density level.
The City of Los Angeles is approximately 472 square miles in size, with a population of 3,694,820. The City of New York is 304 square miles in size, and has a population of 8,008,278. Based on this data, the City of New York is more than 3 times as dense as the City of Los Angeles, with population densities of 26,343 and 7,828 people per square mile, respectively.
New York, particularly Manhattan, is crowded. While, Los Angeles does have a few areas of its own with higher population concentrations (particularly in the Macarthur Park area just west of downtown Los Angeles), these concentrations are not even half as large as those found in New York.
The City of Los Angeles simply does not exhibit the high-density patterns that one associates with the City of New York.
New York has more square miles of high density than Los Angeles
If we look only at the land area within each city that has a population density greater than 15,000, New
York wins again. More than half of the land area of New York City exhibits a population density greater
than 15,000. In the City of Los Angeles, only about 15 percent of the area meets this density level.
You claim that NYC has a bicycle component of its transportation plan. Again, so what? Since that is a requirement to obtain federal funds in the transportation area, every major area has such. You also claim that this bicycle component is being strongly supported to accommodate a larger modal share of cyclists and you speculate that "If cycling becomes a mainstay of NYC transportation" then the rest of the nation will be affected.
Bicycling a mainstay of NYC transportation? Most unlikely. People quitting using the subway to ride a bicycle? Rather unusual, that, in NYC.
Hey, whatever you say...but here comes the future, John, and I don't see anything about "VC" in the Master Plan.
Originally Posted by Transportation Alternatives
The City’s official “Bicycle Master Plan” by 2010 with the goal of putting every New Yorker within a half-mile of the bike network. Adopt and apply stronger design principles (e.g. more protected street space and time at intersections for cyclists, more visibly buffered and physically separated bike lanes) for routes making up the network, starting with access to bridge and greenway paths and improved stenciling and signage. Publicly review the progress of and update all projects and policies described in Plan by June of 2006.
Originally Posted by John Forester
You remark that NYC is very large and very dense, so that what it does will influence the rest of the nation's cities.
Last edited by buzzman; 02-27-08 at 11:11 PM. Reason: name spelled wrong
02-28-08 | 04:18 PM
#152
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,071
Likes: 0
You question my characterizations of cities:
No, I questioned your concept of a "typical American city". As you've very graciously pointed out yourself there seem to be more exceptions to the idea of a "typical American city" than cities that fit might any such description.
Cyclists have no more needs in one place than in the other, either.
Really? So those of us in the snowy Northeast have the same needs of transportation infrastructure as southern Florida? So ₤em in Pa, who once lived in Vermont, has no change in needs in cycling infrastructure in West Palm Beach? Well, you're the expert...
You remark that NYC is very large and very dense, so that what it does will influence the rest of the nation's cities. You evidently do not know that Los Angeles area has higher population density than does NYC area.
Yes, you're right- I pointed out that New York City was densely populated. I made no comparison between NYC population density to that of LA's. So you are incorrect that I "do not know that Los Angeles area has higher population density than does NYC area". Rather than assuming you do not know that there is a difference between the LA/NYC areas and the comparison of the cities I'll assume you do know, of course, that the actual population densities of the cities themselves (not the areas surrounding the cities) show NYC to have a much greater population density. What you are describing is the density of urban "sprawl" not a comparison of urban center density.
Originally Posted by 2006 UCLA Urban Planning Study
Comparing The City of Los Angeles to New York City:
The City of Los Angeles is approximately 472 square miles in size, with a population of 3,694,820. The City of New York is 304 square miles in size, and has a population of 8,008,278. Based on this data, the City of New York is more than 3 times as dense as the City of Los Angeles, with population densities of 26,343 and 7,828 people per square mile, respectively.
New York, particularly Manhattan, is crowded. While, Los Angeles does have a few areas of its own with higher population concentrations (particularly in the Macarthur Park area just west of downtown Los Angeles), these concentrations are not even half as large as those found in New York.
The City of Los Angeles simply does not exhibit the high-density patterns that one associates with the City of New York.
New York has more square miles of high density than Los Angeles
If we look only at the land area within each city that has a population density greater than 15,000, New
York wins again. More than half of the land area of New York City exhibits a population density greater
than 15,000. In the City of Los Angeles, only about 15 percent of the area meets this density level.
You claim that NYC has a bicycle component of its transportation plan. Again, so what? Since that is a requirement to obtain federal funds in the transportation area, every major area has such. You also claim that this bicycle component is being strongly supported to accommodate a larger modal share of cyclists and you speculate that "If cycling becomes a mainstay of NYC transportation" then the rest of the nation will be affected.
Bicycling a mainstay of NYC transportation? Most unlikely. People quitting using the subway to ride a bicycle? Rather unusual, that, in NYC.
Hey, whatever you say...but here comes the future, John, and I don't see anything about "VC" in the Master Plan.
Originally Posted by Transportation Alternatives
The City’s official “Bicycle Master Plan” by 2010 with the goal of putting every New Yorker within a half-mile of the bike network. Adopt and apply stronger design principles (e.g. more protected street space and time at intersections for cyclists, more visibly buffered and physically separated bike lanes) for routes making up the network, starting with access to bridge and greenway paths and improved stenciling and signage. Publicly review the progress of and update all projects and policies described in Plan by June of 2006.
Originally Posted by John Forester
You remark that NYC is very large and very dense, so that what it does will influence the rest of the nation's cities.
Only a very few American cities are still characterized by the streetcar pattern of growth and remaining dependence on rail mode. I did not provide a complete list, but Chicago has always been so considered. Try some other attack, buzzman.
You are trying to assert without seeming to assert that the road needs of cyclists in Vermont are different than the road needs of cyclists in Florida because of the difference in climate. Certainly the road authorities in Vermont have need of snow removal equipment, while those in Florida probably do not possess any such, but the equipment needed by the highway departments is not the subject of this discussion. The discussion concerns different designs for cycling on the road, if there is any material in that subject.
As for densities, I carefully quoted not the areas within the city limits but the metro areas, using the phrases NYC area and LA area. As far as transportation is concerned from the user's viewpoint, the city limits are relative unimportant.
You criticize me for not seeing the future. However, I never suggested that NYC would not carry out much of its bicycle plan; I don't know enough about NYC politics to predict its future. What I did criticize is your belief that implementing that plan will cause bicycle transportation to become a mainstay of NYC transportation and markedly reduce motoring. After all, there have been many great planning disasters before this. All that I suggested is that I do not see that many of the existing motorists will find it advantageous to switch to bicycle transportation. And I think much the same of those now using the subway system. I base my opinion on the existing, and long standing, patterns of transportation in the NYC area.
No, I questioned your concept of a "typical American city". As you've very graciously pointed out yourself there seem to be more exceptions to the idea of a "typical American city" than cities that fit might any such description.
Cyclists have no more needs in one place than in the other, either.
Really? So those of us in the snowy Northeast have the same needs of transportation infrastructure as southern Florida? So ₤em in Pa, who once lived in Vermont, has no change in needs in cycling infrastructure in West Palm Beach? Well, you're the expert...
You remark that NYC is very large and very dense, so that what it does will influence the rest of the nation's cities. You evidently do not know that Los Angeles area has higher population density than does NYC area.
Yes, you're right- I pointed out that New York City was densely populated. I made no comparison between NYC population density to that of LA's. So you are incorrect that I "do not know that Los Angeles area has higher population density than does NYC area". Rather than assuming you do not know that there is a difference between the LA/NYC areas and the comparison of the cities I'll assume you do know, of course, that the actual population densities of the cities themselves (not the areas surrounding the cities) show NYC to have a much greater population density. What you are describing is the density of urban "sprawl" not a comparison of urban center density.
Originally Posted by 2006 UCLA Urban Planning Study
Comparing The City of Los Angeles to New York City:
The City of Los Angeles is approximately 472 square miles in size, with a population of 3,694,820. The City of New York is 304 square miles in size, and has a population of 8,008,278. Based on this data, the City of New York is more than 3 times as dense as the City of Los Angeles, with population densities of 26,343 and 7,828 people per square mile, respectively.
New York, particularly Manhattan, is crowded. While, Los Angeles does have a few areas of its own with higher population concentrations (particularly in the Macarthur Park area just west of downtown Los Angeles), these concentrations are not even half as large as those found in New York.
The City of Los Angeles simply does not exhibit the high-density patterns that one associates with the City of New York.
New York has more square miles of high density than Los Angeles
If we look only at the land area within each city that has a population density greater than 15,000, New
York wins again. More than half of the land area of New York City exhibits a population density greater
than 15,000. In the City of Los Angeles, only about 15 percent of the area meets this density level.
You claim that NYC has a bicycle component of its transportation plan. Again, so what? Since that is a requirement to obtain federal funds in the transportation area, every major area has such. You also claim that this bicycle component is being strongly supported to accommodate a larger modal share of cyclists and you speculate that "If cycling becomes a mainstay of NYC transportation" then the rest of the nation will be affected.
Bicycling a mainstay of NYC transportation? Most unlikely. People quitting using the subway to ride a bicycle? Rather unusual, that, in NYC.
Hey, whatever you say...but here comes the future, John, and I don't see anything about "VC" in the Master Plan.
Originally Posted by Transportation Alternatives
The City’s official “Bicycle Master Plan” by 2010 with the goal of putting every New Yorker within a half-mile of the bike network. Adopt and apply stronger design principles (e.g. more protected street space and time at intersections for cyclists, more visibly buffered and physically separated bike lanes) for routes making up the network, starting with access to bridge and greenway paths and improved stenciling and signage. Publicly review the progress of and update all projects and policies described in Plan by June of 2006.
Originally Posted by John Forester
You remark that NYC is very large and very dense, so that what it does will influence the rest of the nation's cities.
In addition to the 8 million inhabitants of New York City it is visited by 45 million tourists each year. A functional bicycling infrastructure will very much influence every other city in America. A vast array of trends in the arts, fashion, lifestyles, commercial products etc. originate in NYC. Scores of NYC cyclists will have a dramatic affect on other cities- of this I have no doubt.
You are trying to assert without seeming to assert that the road needs of cyclists in Vermont are different than the road needs of cyclists in Florida because of the difference in climate. Certainly the road authorities in Vermont have need of snow removal equipment, while those in Florida probably do not possess any such, but the equipment needed by the highway departments is not the subject of this discussion. The discussion concerns different designs for cycling on the road, if there is any material in that subject.
As for densities, I carefully quoted not the areas within the city limits but the metro areas, using the phrases NYC area and LA area. As far as transportation is concerned from the user's viewpoint, the city limits are relative unimportant.
You criticize me for not seeing the future. However, I never suggested that NYC would not carry out much of its bicycle plan; I don't know enough about NYC politics to predict its future. What I did criticize is your belief that implementing that plan will cause bicycle transportation to become a mainstay of NYC transportation and markedly reduce motoring. After all, there have been many great planning disasters before this. All that I suggested is that I do not see that many of the existing motorists will find it advantageous to switch to bicycle transportation. And I think much the same of those now using the subway system. I base my opinion on the existing, and long standing, patterns of transportation in the NYC area.
02-28-08 | 04:28 PM
#153
Dances With Cars
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 10,527
Likes: 0
From: Toronto, Canada
Bikes: TBL Onyx Pro(ss converted), Pake SS (starting to look kinda pimped)
just can't be flat out wrong can you? You slice up cities into little segments so that it fits your erroneous blathering. Stop trying to make everyone inferior to you, and get on with the debate that could have a large effect on all of us and our kids in the next 50-100 years. Seriously.... forget glories of 40 years ago.... move on... it's ALL different now. This isn't the same place as in the 70's. A planner/analyst needs to stay current, put down the slide rule.
Last edited by TRaffic Jammer; 02-28-08 at 04:39 PM.
02-28-08 | 05:36 PM
#155
Dances With Cars
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 10,527
Likes: 0
From: Toronto, Canada
Bikes: TBL Onyx Pro(ss converted), Pake SS (starting to look kinda pimped)
indeedy I do believe turn signals are very expensive options. I always foolishly assumed they came with the car, but I was wrong.
02-28-08 | 05:50 PM
#156
Banned.
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,075
Likes: 0
From: San Diego
Since we know we can't rely on any given driver using his turn signal correctly even if he has one and it works, why does everyone care so much about drivers who don't signal? How does that even affect you? Hint: if it does affect you, you could be doing something better.
02-28-08 | 05:55 PM
#157
Dances With Cars
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 10,527
Likes: 0
From: Toronto, Canada
Bikes: TBL Onyx Pro(ss converted), Pake SS (starting to look kinda pimped)
Foolishness, that way folks would know which way they intended to turn. If signals were consistently used some cycling right hook fatalities might still be alive. (save it please, we've all heard it 100 times) I know to you VC lot the fact that signaling is a law of driving is a moot point, I think to many others it's a valid area motorists could be educated in. I'll be willing to venture that there might even be less automotive fatalities if signals were used. I wonder if a signal can be rigged to auto engage with turning the wheel?
I bet the insurance industry has something to say about turn signals.
I bet the insurance industry has something to say about turn signals.
Last edited by TRaffic Jammer; 02-28-08 at 06:06 PM.
02-28-08 | 05:58 PM
#158
genec
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 27,072
Likes: 4,533
From: West Coast
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
This one baffles me too.
Since we know we can't rely on any given driver using his turn signal correctly even if he has one and it works, why does everyone care so much about drivers who don't signal? How does that even affect you? Hint: if it does affect you, you could be doing something better.
Since we know we can't rely on any given driver using his turn signal correctly even if he has one and it works, why does everyone care so much about drivers who don't signal? How does that even affect you? Hint: if it does affect you, you could be doing something better.
Oh... can't expect that predictability... Oh well.
02-28-08 | 06:06 PM
#159
LHT Commuter
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 467
Likes: 0
From: Anaheim, CA
Bikes: Surly Long Haul Trucker & Motobecane Le Champion
And if JF is referring to the "US Census Ubanized Area" as explained in https://lewis.spa.ucla.edu/GIScontest...ity_report.pdf then that is a rather silly boundry to use to measure the population density of the Los Angeles "area". Then again, I counldn't figure out why the hell he even brought LA into the discussion. What is the relevance?
02-28-08 | 06:08 PM
#160
Dances With Cars
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 10,527
Likes: 0
From: Toronto, Canada
Bikes: TBL Onyx Pro(ss converted), Pake SS (starting to look kinda pimped)
Genec , don't you know it's all our fault? Fair's fair is no fair, can't upset the motoring public or the automotive industry. God forbid both sides of an equation get worked on, we might actually be able to solve it.
He's from California, I believe, and may still live there. As for his boundary choices, if he could have he'd have chosen a three square block area in Compton to prove his hypothesis and extrapolate his national data from that he'd do it, but only as long as it supported his claim. If it didn't we obviously misread or failed to grasp his meaning.
He's from California, I believe, and may still live there. As for his boundary choices, if he could have he'd have chosen a three square block area in Compton to prove his hypothesis and extrapolate his national data from that he'd do it, but only as long as it supported his claim. If it didn't we obviously misread or failed to grasp his meaning.
Last edited by TRaffic Jammer; 02-28-08 at 06:17 PM.
02-28-08 | 06:15 PM
#161
LHT Commuter
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 467
Likes: 0
From: Anaheim, CA
Bikes: Surly Long Haul Trucker & Motobecane Le Champion
02-28-08 | 06:16 PM
#162
genec
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 27,072
Likes: 4,533
From: West Coast
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Genec , don't you know it's all our fault? Fair's fair is no fair, can't upset the motoring public or the automotive industry. God forbid both sides of an equation get worked on, we might actually be able to solve it.
He's from California, I believe, and may still live there.
He's from California, I believe, and may still live there.
He currently lives in Lemon Grove CA... not far from where I lived for some 15 years. Sadly, I never went and visited in spite of the fact that he was probably no more than a mile or 2 away. I moved away some 7 years ago...
I am now about 18 or 19 miles away.
The real irony is that when I lived in Lemon Grove, there was not a single bike lane in that small town. Now however... very different story.
02-28-08 | 06:20 PM
#163
LHT Commuter
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 467
Likes: 0
From: Anaheim, CA
Bikes: Surly Long Haul Trucker & Motobecane Le Champion
That wouldn't really improve the situation, would it? It isn't like we need a flashing light to know that they are in the middle of a turn. I would, however, like to know that they intend to turn or change lanes in the near future.
02-28-08 | 06:38 PM
#165
Devilmaycare Cycling Fool
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 3,819
Likes: 0
This one baffles me too.
Since we know we can't rely on any given driver using his turn signal correctly even if he has one and it works, why does everyone care so much about drivers who don't signal? How does that even affect you? Hint: if it does affect you, you could be doing something better.
Since we know we can't rely on any given driver using his turn signal correctly even if he has one and it works, why does everyone care so much about drivers who don't signal? How does that even affect you? Hint: if it does affect you, you could be doing something better.
02-28-08 | 07:01 PM
#166
This one baffles me too.
Since we know we can't rely on any given driver using his turn signal correctly even if he has one and it works, why does everyone care so much about drivers who don't signal? How does that even affect you? Hint: if it does affect you, you could be doing something better.
Since we know we can't rely on any given driver using his turn signal correctly even if he has one and it works, why does everyone care so much about drivers who don't signal? How does that even affect you? Hint: if it does affect you, you could be doing something better.
02-28-08 | 07:54 PM
#167
Arizona Dessert
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 15,029
Likes: 2,170
From: AZ
Bikes: Cannondale SuperSix, Lemond Poprad. Retired: Jamis Sputnik, Centurion LeMans Fixed, Diamond Back ascent ex
Since we know we can't rely on any given driver using his turn signal correctly even if he has one and it works, why does everyone care so much about drivers who don't signal? How does that even affect you? Hint: if it does affect you, you could be doing something better.
But not everyone will use them nor will they always use them correctly so they can not be used as a sole factor in predicting the actual movement of a vehicle.
02-28-08 | 08:13 PM
#168
Banned.
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,075
Likes: 0
From: San Diego
That's right Al.
Don't get me wrong, bmike. Turn signals are very useful.
What's not useful is relying on them.
That is, if you need others to yield to you, a signal is great for getting that.
But don't signal and go... make sure they've yielded first. That's why I sometimes don't bother with a signal... if I look back and they immediately yield, why take the time to take one hand off to signal when I can just go?
But if you see someone signaling, you should not assume that they will turn, nor be upset if they don't.
And just because they're not signaling does not mean it's safe to assume that they won't turn. Expect that motorists might turn at any place where they can or might turn, whether their signals are on, and ride accordingly.
Don't get me wrong, bmike. Turn signals are very useful.
What's not useful is relying on them.
That is, if you need others to yield to you, a signal is great for getting that.
But don't signal and go... make sure they've yielded first. That's why I sometimes don't bother with a signal... if I look back and they immediately yield, why take the time to take one hand off to signal when I can just go?
But if you see someone signaling, you should not assume that they will turn, nor be upset if they don't.
And just because they're not signaling does not mean it's safe to assume that they won't turn. Expect that motorists might turn at any place where they can or might turn, whether their signals are on, and ride accordingly.
02-29-08 | 05:51 PM
#169
I had to learn to stop using bike lanes (usually insisted on by my parents) and ride in a safe VC manner. The process was slow and involved accidents that I feel were as a direct result of blindly assuming bike lanes are there to help cyclists. Eventually I also bought the books (cyclecraft and effective cycling) which taught me more about VC especially the less obvious stuff for someone who's never owned a car.
__________________
shameless POWERCRANK plug
Recommended reading for all cyclists - Cyclecraft - Effective Cycling
Condor Cycles - quite possibly the best bike shop in London
Don't run red lights, wear a helmet, use hand signals, get some cycle lights(front and rear) and, FFS, don't run red lights!
shameless POWERCRANK plug
Recommended reading for all cyclists - Cyclecraft - Effective Cycling
Condor Cycles - quite possibly the best bike shop in London
Don't run red lights, wear a helmet, use hand signals, get some cycle lights(front and rear) and, FFS, don't run red lights!
03-03-08 | 08:28 AM
#170
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 3,077
Likes: 4
From: Cary, NC
Bikes: 1983 Trek 500, 2002 Lemond Zurich, 2023 Litespeed Watia
Me too. I did not operate my bike on public rights of way until I was 9. My parents' instruction was minimalist: follow the rules of the road just like other drivers. They never cycled with me; I was self-taught by emulating other drivers, and I closely watched those adult cyclists who seemed to be succeeding at following the traffic laws. Note that I grew up in an area without sidewalks, so there was one less incentive to act like a pedestrian on wheels. I rode a lot in my teens for basic transportation, such as riding across town to the orthodontist's office after school.
When I moved to North Carolina for grad school, I was frequently chastised by non-cyclist natives for operating according to vehicular rules, and was encouraged to act as a pedestrian on wheels, such as using sidewalks or even riding on rough or unpaved shoulders. I tried this for a while but found it much more frightening and perilous than acting as a driver. I found some roads that I liked better than others, but I learned to dislike engineering and people that suggested that I should operate my bike in a way other than according to vehicular rules.
I was around 30 years old before I learned that other cyclists were actively advocating in favor of protecting vehicular cycling. For me, until then, it just seemed to work better.
When I moved to North Carolina for grad school, I was frequently chastised by non-cyclist natives for operating according to vehicular rules, and was encouraged to act as a pedestrian on wheels, such as using sidewalks or even riding on rough or unpaved shoulders. I tried this for a while but found it much more frightening and perilous than acting as a driver. I found some roads that I liked better than others, but I learned to dislike engineering and people that suggested that I should operate my bike in a way other than according to vehicular rules.
I was around 30 years old before I learned that other cyclists were actively advocating in favor of protecting vehicular cycling. For me, until then, it just seemed to work better.
