Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Advocacy & Safety > Vehicular Cycling (VC)
Reload this Page >

Are you happier without bike facilities?

Vehicular Cycling (VC) No other subject has polarized the A&S members like VC has. Here's a place to share, debate, and educate.

Are you happier without bike facilities?

Old 03-14-08, 09:56 AM
  #301  
noisebeam
Al
 
noisebeam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: AZ
Posts: 14,612

Bikes: Cannondale SuperSix, Lemond Poprad. Retired: Jamis Sputnik, Centurion LeMans Fixed, Diamond Back ascent ex

Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3328 Post(s)
Liked 31 Times in 22 Posts
Originally Posted by Allister View Post
You don't think they're doing both? Do you think cyclists are so stupid as to accept sub-standard facilities without a fight, or at least a lengthy complaint? You're pointing your finger at the wrong people.
Locally the bike lane advocates in the strongest positions push for bike lanes even when the are minimal or even sub-standard. They would much rather have door zone bike lanes than none at all. Seven lane (three lanes each way, one center turn lane) arterials are being turned into 5 lane arterials with added on street parking and a bike lane squeezed between the parking and outside lane. This is considered a great success. Bike lanes that meet AASTHO 4' minimum width are added to 45mph arterials, but in places (mostly in the 20' just after intersections) are squeezed into 3' of space. Also considered a success as 90% of the bike lane meets AASTHO and that was a compromise that was considered acceptable as it resulted in a bike lane where before there was none.

Al
noisebeam is offline  
Old 03-14-08, 10:13 AM
  #302  
MarkS
Avatar out of order.
 
MarkS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: North of the border, just
Posts: 895

Bikes: Fuji Absolut '04 / Fuji 'Marlboro' Folder

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
Dotted lines don't do the required job. The problem with bike lanes is that they contradict the rules of the road. The problem with bike-lane advocacy is that it contradicts the principle of the rules of the road. There is no political way to get only good bike lanes as long as bike-lane advocacy is based on superstition, and if it were not based on superstition there would be very few bike lanes. When you advocate unreason, you necessarily produce unreasonable results. There is no way to correct that problem.
And you'll never get a unified front as long as you insist on calling people with a different point of view "superstitious".

I actually ride the roads, and I know that when I have a bike lane (or any lane strip) I'm at least one foot to two feet further from traffic. Its not superstition. Its reality that I see every day. Why don't you come down to National City and ride Harbor Drive (South, not North). The road is terrible, but if you don't get over, the vehicles will whiz by you just a foot away.

Over the course of Summer 2007 I got to try Olympic Parkway, Otay Lakes, and other East-bound roads with and without bike lanes. It wasn't superstition -- it was observation -- that people coming up behind me did not want to give adequate clearance. But perhaps you consider it superstitious to worry about 50mph traffic whizzing less than 18 inches away.

You've already expressed disdain for getting "more butts on bikes". I don't know anyone who advocates for a cause that doesn't want more people to participate in that cause.
__________________
Cars kill 45,000 Americans every year.
This is like losing a war every year, except without the parades.
MarkS is offline  
Old 03-14-08, 11:22 AM
  #303  
invisiblehand
Part-time epistemologist
 
invisiblehand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 5,867

Bikes: Jamis Nova, Bike Friday NWT, STRIDA, Austro Daimler Vent Noir, Haluzak Horizon, Salsa La Raza, Hollands Tourer, Bike Friday tikit

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 120 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by MarkS View Post
You've already expressed disdain for getting "more butts on bikes". I don't know anyone who advocates for a cause that doesn't want more people to participate in that cause.
Hmmm ... I doubt that John objects to more people cycling. If I understand correctly, his objections are that the popular methods for attracting cyclists are unproven and that facilities mislead new riders into thinking that they are safer than empirically/theoretically suggested.

It also just occurred to me that I may be misinterpreting your use of disdain. If so, my apologies.
__________________
A narrative on bicycle driving.
invisiblehand is offline  
Old 03-14-08, 11:30 AM
  #304  
ChipSeal
www.chipsea.blogspot.com
 
ChipSeal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: South of Dallas, Texas
Posts: 1,026

Bikes: Giant OCR C0 road

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by MarkS View Post
And you'll never get a unified front as long as you insist on calling people with a different point of view "superstitious".
That is not fair to JF. He is using the term he has coined to reference the concept of people's out-sized fear of the risk of overtaking traffic. Because of the idea's seemingly imperviousness to reason and data, it may be accurately descriptive. You err if you think it is a word used, especially in this context, to demean people.

Originally Posted by MarkS View Post
I actually ride the roads, and I know that when I have a bike lane (or any lane strip) I'm at least one foot to two feet further from traffic. Its not superstition. Its reality that I see every day. Why don't you come down to National City and ride Harbor Drive (South, not North). The road is terrible, but if you don't get over, the vehicles will whiz by you just a foot away.

Over the course of Summer 2007 I got to try Olympic Parkway, Otay Lakes, and other East-bound roads with and without bike lanes. It wasn't superstition -- it was observation -- that people coming up behind me did not want to give adequate clearance. But perhaps you consider it superstitious to worry about 50mph traffic whizzing less than 18 inches away.

If you are continually getting buzzed, you need to move laterally further out into the lane. The greater the speed differential, the imperative this is.

When you move left, you become more conspicuous, and you are less likely to be overlooked. Motorist will not deliberately run someone down if they are not in a impaired state. View the video found at this link to see how it works in practice:
http://www.cyclistview.com/ITC-Intro/slide10.htm

I practice this nearly daily on streets with a PSL of 45 MPH or greater, and I have lived to tell you about it! I get buzzed only once in thousands of safe passes. If you are directly in motorists path, they either give you plenty of room when they pass you at 50 MPH, (because they change lanes) or they will pass you with plenty of room at a slow speed. (Because they had to wait for a gap in traffic to overtake you in the next lane.) It plays itself out without fuss and in an orderly and rather elegant way.
ChipSeal is offline  
Old 03-14-08, 11:49 AM
  #305  
genec
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 26,298

Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2

Mentioned: 28 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6341 Post(s)
Liked 62 Times in 42 Posts
Originally Posted by ChipSeal View Post
That is not fair to JF. He is using the term he has coined to reference the concept of people's out-sized fear of the risk of overtaking traffic. Because of the idea's seemingly imperviousness to reason and data, it may be accurately descriptive. You err if you think it is a word used, especially in this context, to demean people.




If you are continually getting buzzed, you need to move laterally further out into the lane. The greater the speed differential, the imperative this is.

When you move left, you become more conspicuous, and you are less likely to be overlooked. Motorist will not deliberately run someone down if they are not in a impaired state. View the video found at this link to see how it works in practice:
http://www.cyclistview.com/ITC-Intro/slide10.htm

I practice this nearly daily on streets with a PSL of 45 MPH or greater, and I have lived to tell you about it! I get buzzed only once in thousands of safe passes. If you are directly in motorists path, they either give you plenty of room when they pass you at 50 MPH, (because they change lanes) or they will pass you with plenty of room at a slow speed. (Because they had to wait for a gap in traffic to overtake you in the next lane.) It plays itself out without fuss and in an orderly and rather elegant way.
Gee, when I do the exact same thing on roads with PSL of only 35 MPH, I can count on being tailgated, honked at and yelled at...

But hey, if that is your idea of a good time...

I have even had motorists behind me yell while the passenger in the car in the immediate lane to my left joined in the fun and yelled right in my ear. No, indeed, they did not hit me. (oh joy.)
genec is offline  
Old 03-14-08, 11:59 AM
  #306  
Ed Holland
8speed DinoSORAs
 
Ed Holland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Oxford, UK or Mountain View, Ca
Posts: 2,749
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by ChipSeal View Post
If you are continually getting buzzed, you need to move laterally further out into the lane. The greater the speed differential, the imperative this is.
This can work, however, it is not the behaviour that an inexperienced cyclist will adopt. It takes confidence and experience to know how to ride in situations like this. Not to mention the will power to gain that experience and keep cycling before the initial fears subside.

These are good reasons why cycle advocacy and riding technique advocacy struggles

Incidentally, I ride daily and still get "buzzed" on occasion Should I blame me or the impatient motorist who passed me on a blind curve last evening?

Ed
__________________
Get a bicycle. You will certainly not regret it, if you live.
Ed Holland is offline  
Old 03-14-08, 01:28 PM
  #307  
The Human Car
-=Barry=-
 
The Human Car's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Baltimore, MD +/- ~100 miles
Posts: 4,077
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
You are wrong, genec. Either you don't understand, or you are deliberately pretending that you don't. The VC principles are not based on the traffic laws, but on the physical and human-factors realities that are expressed in the principles of the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles and in the traffic laws which are legislators' best effort at expressing the physical principles.
When dealing with the human-factor, we look at what is intuitive in the design of the physical and both bike lanes and roads without bike lanes have their non-intuitive components. Both introduce a certain amount of complexity on how to deal with situations safely. The question that seems to be raised is do bike lanes introduces a more complex system.

Well lets first look at another mode of transportation, walking. Which has a system rules and one could argue that using stairs is more intuitive, safe and follows the basic principles of walking then introducing the complexity of an elevator and that the very design of the elevator is in violation of the basic principles of walking. The increased complexity of the elevator increases safety concerns of what if the elevator breaks down. One could in theory launch a anti-elevator campaign using the same logic as the anti-bike lane crowd but such a campaign would be silly, why? Because elevators have not been shown to be more hazardous then stairs, because the increased complexity is still well within human-nature to deal with.

The whole premise of anti-bike lanes rests on blowing the lack of safety out of proportion as well as the amount of complexity that is introduced and neither is of any significant value. Driving a bike or car is complex thing. Some can argue that ether roundabouts or intersections are more dangerous, more complex and/or less intuitive but the fact is each in their proper place can work well and nether has a complexity that is outside a drivers capacity to handle. Calling a difference in complexity not following the rules of the road for drivers is extremely unfair as any VC can safely handle the vehicular nature of a bike lane. If bike lanes were truly not following the rules of the road for drivers then they would be presenting significant problems to the VC crowd, which they do not.
__________________
Cycling Advocate
http://BaltimoreSpokes.org
. . . o
. . /L
=()>()
The Human Car is offline  
Old 03-14-08, 01:43 PM
  #308  
The Human Car
-=Barry=-
 
The Human Car's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Baltimore, MD +/- ~100 miles
Posts: 4,077
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by ChipSeal View Post
That is not fair to JF. He is using the term he has coined to reference the concept of people's out-sized fear of the risk of overtaking traffic. Because of the idea's seemingly imperviousness to reason and data, it may be accurately descriptive. You err if you think it is a word used, especially in this context, to demean people.
I'm sorry but JF's knee jerk reaction to call any bike lane advocate superstitious is flat out rude and uncalled for as it attacks the persons reasons for wanting bike lanes even though the person has not expressed those reasons. My reasons for wanting (more accurately not against) bike lanes is the exact same reason why JF wants WOLs and shoulders. JF's use of the word superstitious is name calling plain and simple. Because if there was an error in facts or beliefs he should point out the specifics of the error and engage in a logical discourse but instead he choses to insult.
__________________
Cycling Advocate
http://BaltimoreSpokes.org
. . . o
. . /L
=()>()
The Human Car is offline  
Old 03-14-08, 02:20 PM
  #309  
John Forester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by The Human Car View Post
When dealing with the human-factor, we look at what is intuitive in the design of the physical and both bike lanes and roads without bike lanes have their non-intuitive components. Both introduce a certain amount of complexity on how to deal with situations safely. The question that seems to be raised is do bike lanes introduces a more complex system.

Well lets first look at another mode of transportation, walking. Which has a system rules and one could argue that using stairs is more intuitive, safe and follows the basic principles of walking then introducing the complexity of an elevator and that the very design of the elevator is in violation of the basic principles of walking. The increased complexity of the elevator increases safety concerns of what if the elevator breaks down. One could in theory launch a anti-elevator campaign using the same logic as the anti-bike lane crowd but such a campaign would be silly, why? Because elevators have not been shown to be more hazardous then stairs, because the increased complexity is still well within human-nature to deal with.

The whole premise of anti-bike lanes rests on blowing the lack of safety out of proportion as well as the amount of complexity that is introduced and neither is of any significant value. Driving a bike or car is complex thing. Some can argue that ether roundabouts or intersections are more dangerous, more complex and/or less intuitive but the fact is each in their proper place can work well and nether has a complexity that is outside a drivers capacity to handle. Calling a difference in complexity not following the rules of the road for drivers is extremely unfair as any VC can safely handle the vehicular nature of a bike lane. If bike lanes were truly not following the rules of the road for drivers then they would be presenting significant problems to the VC crowd, which they do not.
I find it difficult to consider the malarkey in your post without expressing strong disdain.

The attempt to compare bike lanes with elevators is just plain absurd. Elevators make possible high rise buildings, which could never operate commercially without them. The issue of complexity is irrelevant in their case.

Furthermore, no part of roadway traffic operation depends on intuition. If intuition were a significant part of traffic operation, we would never have had need to formalize the rules of the road and we would not need any driver training.

You make the following argument regarding complexity: "Some can argue that ether roundabouts or intersections are more dangerous, more complex and/or less intuitive but the fact is each in their proper place can work well and nether has a complexity that is outside a drivers capacity to handle." The issue of complexity is largely irrelevant because driving through both facilities requires obeying the same rules. Indeed, the roundabout is less complex than the typical intersection, because it is merely a succession of right-side-only T intersections branching off a protected arterial. No driver has to choose between two sets of conflicting rules.

You argue that bike lanes are fine because well-trained vehicular cyclists have the skill to know when to disobey the impression produced by the bike lane. Here is your argument: "Calling a difference in complexity not following the rules of the road for drivers is extremely unfair as any VC can safely handle the vehicular nature of a bike lane. If bike lanes were truly not following the rules of the road for drivers then they would be presenting significant problems to the VC crowd, which they do not."

That argument is more illogical malarkey. Claiming that the operating instructions produced in drivers' minds by the bike-lane stripe agree with the rules of the road, when simultaneously arguing that vehicular cyclists have to disobey those instructions, is clear proof that bike-lane stripes contradict the rules of the road.

Now, consider where your own argument has led you. You have just demonstrated that bike lanes are suited only for use by well-trained vehicular cyclists, and are unsuitable for both typical cyclists and all motorists (with the possible exception of those motorists who are also well-trained vehicular cyclists,.

This is just another example of the intellectual quagmire that is bikeway advocacy. Such illogicality can appeal only on the basis of the coarsest superstition, or, for motorists, of their supposed convenience.
John Forester is offline  
Old 03-14-08, 02:35 PM
  #310  
John Forester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by The Human Car View Post
I'm sorry but JF's knee jerk reaction to call any bike lane advocate superstitious is flat out rude and uncalled for as it attacks the persons reasons for wanting bike lanes even though the person has not expressed those reasons. My reasons for wanting (more accurately not against) bike lanes is the exact same reason why JF wants WOLs and shoulders. JF's use of the word superstitious is name calling plain and simple. Because if there was an error in facts or beliefs he should point out the specifics of the error and engage in a logical discourse but instead he choses to insult.
Calling bikeway advocacy superstitious nonsense is an accurate description. Its accuracy has been demonstrated, time after time, by the failure of bikeway advocates to advance evidence that bikeways produce any significant benefit to cyclists making transportational trips over and above that provided by using the roads in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. Bike-lane stripes have never been shown to produce a significant reduction in the car-bike collision rate, while analysis shows that the greatest effect can only be minor, and is probably countered by the increase in collisions produced by contradicting the rules of the road. Bike-lane stripes have never been shown to make safe cycling easier, to require a lower level of cyclist skill; indeed, the most cursory analysis shows that they make safe cycling harder to understand. Bike lanes have never been shown to make bicycle transportation more convenient; indeed, they cannot because they are integral parts of the existing road system. Bike paths have been shown to make bicycle transportation more convenient in only a very few instances, compared to the existing road system.

The fact that bikeway advocates continue to advance illogical arguments for bikeways, despite the facts stated above, is pretty clear evidence of the accuracy of this discussion. It is very clear that their arguments must be based on some kind of irrational mental state, ideology, superstition or what-have-you. It is not necessary to specifically describe the form of that irrational mental state, just state the unequivocal evidence that some such state is the most likely explanation for the facts.
John Forester is offline  
Old 03-14-08, 02:49 PM
  #311  
genec
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 26,298

Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2

Mentioned: 28 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6341 Post(s)
Liked 62 Times in 42 Posts
Originally Posted by gosmsgo View Post
Come to my town. Give me a call. I will have you meet the dozens of people who VC changed their life last year.

Or you could just keep talking and not listening. : )
gosmsgo... you are so funny... I have been riding for well over 30 years... have done several long distance tours, have taken road 1 and road 2... and while VC does work, it fails at higher speeds and we are never going to see any sort of uptake of cycling as long as we keep telling people... "just get out there and ride with the cars... "

Cycling will always remain a marginalized activity for a unique few in the US under those terms.

VC has not "changed my life" as much as seeing what well designed facilities can do.

I see and use vehicular cycling as a "coping mechanism" in a very "auto oriented" society.

I happen to believe that the US can do a far far better job of dealing positively with cyclists and encouraging cycling as an alternate means of transportation that ultimately can help clean the air, improve general fitness, and reduce our addiction to oil.
genec is offline  
Old 03-14-08, 02:52 PM
  #312  
genec
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 26,298

Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2

Mentioned: 28 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6341 Post(s)
Liked 62 Times in 42 Posts
Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
You are wrong, genec. Either you don't understand, or you are deliberately pretending that you don't. The VC principles are not based on the traffic laws, but on the physical and human-factors realities that are expressed in the principles of the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles and in the traffic laws which are legislators' best effort at expressing the physical principles. You, genec, are expressing the view that, in the physical sphere, if a legislature passed a law that G = 1000 cm/sec/sec the universe would comply. Just as, apparently a true account, some rural legislature in the American heartland passed a statute that the ratio between the diameter and the circumference of a circle was 3.0.

We in the VC field know only too well what happens when legislatures enact bicycle traffic statutes that contradict the real physical principles of traffic operation: trouble, that's what.
And you John Forester expect that when legislation proclaims that cyclists have rights to the road, that motorists will gain that knowledge by osmosis, and will then very willingly slow down from 50-60MPH to 8MPH "to share the road."
genec is offline  
Old 03-14-08, 03:00 PM
  #313  
ChipSeal
www.chipsea.blogspot.com
 
ChipSeal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: South of Dallas, Texas
Posts: 1,026

Bikes: Giant OCR C0 road

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Ed Holland View Post
This can work, however, it is not the behavior that an inexperienced cyclist will adopt. It takes confidence and experience to know how to ride in situations like this. Not to mention the will power to gain that experience and keep cycling before the initial fears subside.

These are good reasons why cycle advocacy and riding technique advocacy struggles
Perhaps the inexperienced should seek out those with confidence so that they can overcome their trepidation. Bicycle clubs can be more than simply a social outlet. I make offers to ride with all sorts of folks. As more cyclists take up best practices, the example made will make "taking the lane" more common.

Statistically, I am safer in traffic on my bicycle, than in my bathtub at home. But the popular perception is that cycling anywhere is inherent risky behavior. Why do you suppose that is? Do you suppose that bike helmet campaigns, ghost bikes and agitation for bikes to be separated from traffic play a part in that?


Originally Posted by Ed Holland View Post
Incidentally, I ride daily and still get "buzzed" on occasion Should I blame me or the impatient motorist who passed me on a blind curve last evening?
If you caused that driver to pass you on that curve, then yes, it would be your fault. Did you make the decision to pass there or did he?
ChipSeal is offline  
Old 03-14-08, 03:06 PM
  #314  
Script
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Script's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Florida,Indiana,Pennsylvania
Posts: 179

Bikes: Seven (brand, not number....

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
The fact that bikeway advocates continue to advance illogical arguments for bikeways, despite the facts stated above, is pretty clear evidence of the accuracy of this discussion. It is very clear that their arguments must be based on some kind of irrational mental state, ideology, superstition or what-have-you. It is not necessary to specifically describe the form of that irrational mental state, just state the unequivocal evidence that some such state is the most likely explanation for the facts.
The above is really helpful when trying to reach some kind of consensus about how to improve and invite more bicycling.

Is it not possible to find some common ground? If not, it's pretty much a guarantee that we can continue to stand firm on either side and nothing will change. Bad bikeways will be built. Cyclists will continue to be 'afraid' to ride on the roads 'owned' by the motorists. And BF will continue to provide a forum to waste time claiming that 'My way is the only way!'.

I'm an advocate of progress. In some instances, that may mean WOL's and in some, bikeways.

Anybody out there willing to try compromise?

Script is offline  
Old 03-14-08, 03:09 PM
  #315  
ChipSeal
www.chipsea.blogspot.com
 
ChipSeal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: South of Dallas, Texas
Posts: 1,026

Bikes: Giant OCR C0 road

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by genec View Post
Gee, when I do the exact same thing on roads with PSL of only 35 MPH, I can count on being tailgated, honked at and yelled at...

But hey, if that is your idea of a good time...
Sure, but are you being buzzed?

My experience is different than yours.

But hey, you are welcome to cower in the gutter...
ChipSeal is offline  
Old 03-14-08, 03:14 PM
  #316  
maddyfish
Senior Member
 
maddyfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ky. and FL.
Posts: 3,944

Bikes: KHS steel SS

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
To the original question, yes I am happy without bike lanes. I have no troubles riding anywhere. Have ridden all over the country, including places with bike lanes, I just ignore them, and have no troubles.
maddyfish is offline  
Old 03-14-08, 03:24 PM
  #317  
ChipSeal
www.chipsea.blogspot.com
 
ChipSeal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: South of Dallas, Texas
Posts: 1,026

Bikes: Giant OCR C0 road

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Script View Post
BF will continue to provide a forum to waste time claiming that 'My way is the only way!'.

I'm an advocate of progress. In some instances, that may mean WOL's and in some, bikeways.

Anybody out there willing to try compromise?
Progress, even if it is counter productive to cycling and cycling safety? That wouldn't be compromise, it would be capitulation!

Very few here are advocating all or nothing. For example, bike paths (MUP) have almost no objections from folks like me. Even JF just a few posts up pointed to places he had no objection to bike lanes. There is compromise everywhere you look.
ChipSeal is offline  
Old 03-14-08, 04:25 PM
  #318  
Ed Holland
8speed DinoSORAs
 
Ed Holland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Oxford, UK or Mountain View, Ca
Posts: 2,749
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by ChipSeal View Post
Perhaps the inexperienced should seek out those with confidence so that they can overcome their trepidation. Bicycle clubs can be more than simply a social outlet. I make offers to ride with all sorts of folks. As more cyclists take up best practices, the example made will make "taking the lane" more common.

Statistically, I am safer in traffic on my bicycle, than in my bathtub at home. But the popular perception is that cycling anywhere is inherent risky behavior. Why do you suppose that is? Do you suppose that bike helmet campaigns, ghost bikes and agitation for bikes to be separated from traffic play a part in that?
]
Bicycle clubs - great, but what about the average Jane or Joe in the street (pardon the pun) who just wants to use a bike to get around. Perhaps some are disuaded very easily by a few near misses (or worse) with traffic. I feel they are unlikely to seek out practical help with riding technique. sporting/Hobby/recreational cyclists are a different story perhaps.

Take Oxford (UK) as an example. Lots of students, easiest, often quickest way to travel is by bicycle. Nobody teaches them how to ride, and a good proportion never seek the basic info on bike use e.g. requirements for lights after dark, hand signals etc. Some are "vehicularly conscious" but still choose to ride within marked bike lanes, or an edge biased position, allowing cars to pass where safe.

Originally Posted by ChipSeal View Post
If you caused that driver to pass you on that curve, then yes, it would be your fault. Did you make the decision to pass there or did he?
That was a rhetorical question , but since you placed the ball in my court, how could I possibly "cause" a driver to cross the double yellow line AND squeeze past the cyclist on a blind bend, when a safe straight section for passing lay moments beyond. Very firmly the drivers responsibility to pass safely and considerately - and a failure on both counts.

Ed
__________________
Get a bicycle. You will certainly not regret it, if you live.
Ed Holland is offline  
Old 03-14-08, 04:53 PM
  #319  
Ed Holland
8speed DinoSORAs
 
Ed Holland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Oxford, UK or Mountain View, Ca
Posts: 2,749
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Script View Post
Anybody out there willing to try compromise?


yes!

What I have been trying to do in recent posts is get behind the reasoning for how a cyclist learns their individual "road method" based on experience and practice. I think individual is the key word here, since everyone adapts to riding differently - we see differing behaviour between drivers after all. This is the root of much disagreement.

Even if VC could be distilled perfectly into an idealised way to operate a bicycle, few would be confident enough to ride using some of the techniques described on these forums before gaining some level of experience. Cars CAN BE intimidating to cycists, to a greater or lesser degree.

Ed
__________________
Get a bicycle. You will certainly not regret it, if you live.
Ed Holland is offline  
Old 03-14-08, 05:00 PM
  #320  
John Forester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Script View Post
The above is really helpful when trying to reach some kind of consensus about how to improve and invite more bicycling.

Is it not possible to find some common ground? If not, it's pretty much a guarantee that we can continue to stand firm on either side and nothing will change. Bad bikeways will be built. Cyclists will continue to be 'afraid' to ride on the roads 'owned' by the motorists. And BF will continue to provide a forum to waste time claiming that 'My way is the only way!'.

I'm an advocate of progress. In some instances, that may mean WOL's and in some, bikeways.

Anybody out there willing to try compromise?

What compromise would you suggest? Compromise between what and what? I have stated, accurately I think, that there are facts and reason on the vehicular-cycling side and only superstition on the side of the bikeway advocates.

First, consider compromises in general, rather than this specific one. Compromises are accommodations to different points of view; they do not change facts that are in those views. The facts remain that facts and reason are on the vehicular-cycling side while only superstition is on the side of the bikeway advocates.

A compromise has been suggested by Dan Gutierrez that has my support. The end result of the compromise, of course, must have two sides. The operational side is to be that all cyclists be allowed to operate according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, without the bicyclist only restrictions that now apply to the side-of-the-road, to bike lanes, and to side paths. Equally for motorists; they must be allowed to cross or enter bike lanes whenever required by the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. The facilities side of the compromise is that bike lanes be permitted in accordance with guiding standards such as AASHTO's Guide for Bicycle Facilities.

To achieve this compromise, both bicyclist sides must work together to persuade the motorists and others who control traffic law. Motorists and others who control traffic law will not be persuaded to this compromise unless (and maybe this won't be sufficient) they are forced to recognize that there is no scientific basis for bike-lane stripes or side paths, that in many aspects they contradict the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, and that the only basis for them is "popular desire" or "popular superstition". Once it is recognized that there is no scientific or engineering basis for bike-lane stripes or side paths, then there is justification for repealing the traffic laws that require cyclists to use them, even when that is contrary to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. I repeat, in my judgment repeal of the restrictive laws will be impossible just so long as legislators believe that bike-lane stripes make cycling safer, and they will continue to believe this superstition as long as they can. and can be persuaded otherwise only when the bicycle activists themselves declare that there is no safety justification for bike-lane stripes.

There you are, the compromise laid out. To accomplish the desired end, the bicycle activists have to not only admit, but to proclaim, that their supposed safety justifications for bike-lane stripes have no basis beyond superstition, but they can say that that same public superstition might result in a considerable increase in bicycle transportation if bikeways are built.

Bicycle activists get their bikeways, while lawful, competent cyclists get legitimization of vehicular cycling.
John Forester is offline  
Old 03-14-08, 05:21 PM
  #321  
The Human Car
-=Barry=-
 
The Human Car's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Baltimore, MD +/- ~100 miles
Posts: 4,077
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
Furthermore, no part of roadway traffic operation depends on intuition. If intuition were a significant part of traffic operation, we would never have had need to formalize the rules of the road and we would not need any driver training.
And you call yourself an engineer? We can design things like commuters so their use is intuitive with a graphical interface or we could design them with just a command line prompt and give them an instructional manual as thick as Effective Cycling. Good engineering is about the safe use being intuitive in the design. While intuitive designs can only go so far, they are very much a part of the roadway. The whole MUTCD is about making the roadway as intuitive as possible.

Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
The issue of complexity is largely irrelevant because driving through both facilities requires obeying the same rules. Indeed, the roundabout is less complex than the typical intersection, because it is merely a succession of right-side-only T intersections branching off a protected arterial. No driver has to choose between two sets of conflicting rules.
And you forgot to mention that roundabouts have fewer potential conflict points then intersections. Forgive me if I have your position wrong but I though part of your arguments against bike lanes was the increased complexity and the increased potential conflict points. If increased complexity and conflicts points are "bad." then we should be against intersections as well as bike lanes. Ah, but it is argued that intersections and shoulders do not violate the rules of the road so they are ok. But in trying to articulate how a bike lane violates the rules of the road and a shoulder does not, you conveniently jump tracks avoid saying anything about the rules of the road in your arguments.

Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
That argument is more illogical malarkey. Claiming that the operating instructions produced in drivers' minds by the bike-lane stripe agree with the rules of the road, when simultaneously arguing that vehicular cyclists have to disobey [disobey is John's assertion not mine] those instructions, is clear proof that bike-lane stripes contradict the rules of the road.
Situation 1) I'm riding on the right of a WOL and am approaching an intersection. Using destination positioning I do not want to be to the right so I signal and merge with thru traffic.

Situation 2) I'm riding in a bike lane and am approaching an intersection. Using destination positioning I do not want to be to the right so I signal and merge with thru traffic.

How am I contradicting/disobeying the rules of the road in the second case just because a extra travel (bike) lane is involved? I'll even assert that if you want to nitpick that WOL's are in violation of the rules of the road by allowing two vehicles to share the same lane. I'll strongly assert that the principle of allowing two vehicles to share the same lane is largely responsible for right-hook crashes being dominant in the first place.

You use a lot of abstract words but no real life examples, that is fundamental to illogical malarkey.

Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
Now, consider where your own argument has led you. You have just demonstrated that bike lanes and roadways without bike lanes are suited only for use by well-trained vehicular cyclists, and are unsuitable for both typical cyclists and all motorists (with the possible exception of those motorists who are also well-trained vehicular cyclists,.

This is just another example of the intellectual quagmire that is bikeway VC advocacy. Such illogicality can appeal only on the basis of the coarsest superstition, or, for motorists, of their supposed convenience.
Thanks John for summing things up so nicely.
__________________
Cycling Advocate
http://BaltimoreSpokes.org
. . . o
. . /L
=()>()
The Human Car is offline  
Old 03-14-08, 05:34 PM
  #322  
genec
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 26,298

Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2

Mentioned: 28 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6341 Post(s)
Liked 62 Times in 42 Posts
Originally Posted by ChipSeal View Post
Sure, but are you being buzzed?

My experience is different than yours.

But hey, you are welcome to cower in the gutter...
I stay as far from the gutter as I can... probably haven't ridden in one since the 5th grade... back in the '60s. Would be awful difficult to do the tours I have done while riding in the gutter... especially touring Baja, as they generally don't have gutters, or curbs, or bike lanes, or even center stripes.



Yeah our experience is different, but only because I take note of how our general society does treat cyclists.

I know a few "strict" VC cyclists and it is amazing how their responses tend to boil down to "oh just ignore the honking... " Even Forester has mentioned that... while ignoring that the honking is symptom of a larger problem.
genec is offline  
Old 03-14-08, 05:35 PM
  #323  
genec
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 26,298

Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2

Mentioned: 28 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6341 Post(s)
Liked 62 Times in 42 Posts
Originally Posted by ChipSeal View Post


If you caused that driver to pass you on that curve, then yes, it would be your fault. Did you make the decision to pass there or did he?


LOL... if I had the power to control motorists in that manner... there is a lot more I would do with it than simply ride a bike.
genec is offline  
Old 03-14-08, 05:41 PM
  #324  
Ed Holland
8speed DinoSORAs
 
Ed Holland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Oxford, UK or Mountain View, Ca
Posts: 2,749
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by genec View Post
LOL... if I had the power to control motorists in that manner... there is a lot more I would do with it than simply ride a bike.
Would that be Vehicular Psychicling?

__________________
Get a bicycle. You will certainly not regret it, if you live.
Ed Holland is offline  
Old 03-14-08, 05:44 PM
  #325  
The Human Car
-=Barry=-
 
The Human Car's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Baltimore, MD +/- ~100 miles
Posts: 4,077
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
A compromise has been suggested by Dan Gutierrez that has my support. The end result of the compromise, of course, must have two sides. The operational side is to be that all cyclists be allowed to operate according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, without the bicyclist only restrictions that now apply to the side-of-the-road, to bike lanes, and to side paths. Equally for motorists; they must be allowed to cross or enter bike lanes whenever required by the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. The facilities side of the compromise is that bike lanes be permitted in accordance with guiding standards such as AASHTO's Guide for Bicycle Facilities.
Let me get this straight, under your distorted view of the world, the bikeway advocates are advocating for bike lanes that violate AASHTO standards and have somehow universally got into law that motorists are no longer required to be to the right most portion of the roadway when making a right hand turn.

Talk about illogical malarkey.
__________________
Cycling Advocate
http://BaltimoreSpokes.org
. . . o
. . /L
=()>()
The Human Car is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.