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, 05:46 PM
  #326  
genec
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 26,310

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

Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6383 Post(s)
Liked 73 Times in 51 Posts
Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
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.
Good compromise... I like it.

But in the end you only addressed the responsibilities of the cyclists... yet in an earlier paragraph you included motorists ("Motorists and others who control traffic law")... so you need to add them to the bottom line too, and get them to "go along."

I am as willing to "get rid of the stripes and sidepaths" the moment that motorists are willing to agree that I don't have to ride to the side and can use any lane, at any speed, as equally as they.

In fact I'll go you one further... I say let's get ride of all the speed limit signs and other signs and all the road stripes, stop lights and stop signs and everyone should just act in a safe responsible manner. Does that sound reasonable? I'm all for it.
genec is offline  
Old 03-14-08, 05:57 PM
  #327  
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
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.
Great!

You are the inspiration for why so many decide to advocate bikeways even if they only marginally think they are of value.

Have you even considered that most people like to be treated with some respect for their beliefs. you may think they are illogical 'superstitions'..but they don't.

The arrogance with which you demean, what I believe to be, the majority of cyclists who think there is some balance between the need for bikeways and open road cycling is unbelievable.

Just to speak for myself....bikeways can be of value regardless of what you perceive as a confirmation of the 'conspiracy'. Conversely, I know that there are circumstances where they may not make sense. But that is not owing to some grand plan by 'them' to get bicycles off the road. It has to do with engineering, topography, traffic density, speed limits, corridor useage, etc.

I do not intend to inflame. It just would be nice to see a little flexibility.

Nothing is more true than TINOBWAY.
Script is offline  
Old 03-14-08, 05:57 PM
  #328  
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 genec View Post
In fact I'll go you one further... I say let's get ride of all the speed limit signs and other signs and all the road stripes, stop lights and stop signs and everyone should just act in a safe responsible manner. Does that sound reasonable? I'm all for it.
Okey Dokey.

I've always dreamed of opening an auto body repair shop.
Script is offline  
Old 03-14-08, 06:17 PM
  #329  
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 Ed Holland View Post
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
Agree completely.

The challenge remains...how to get some kind of consensus within the cycling community and then advance. We appear to spend a lot of time and energy proclaiming our positions while the world just keeps turning. This is a lot like politics. Let's you and him(her) fight. While thats going on, I'll just do whatever suits.

I've been riding for a long time, posting for a short. My riding style never required bikeways. But there have been many occasions when I've enjoyed having them. As I said in some earlier post, even to the point of planning rides by them. (That applies part of the year I spend where there are many)

When there are none, that's okay. Doesn't really change the basic way I ride. Done a lot of miles in a lot of places for a lot of years and have not had a serious incident.

Should I say thanks to VC advocates, or bikeways advocates?
Script is offline  
Old 03-14-08, 06:29 PM
  #330  
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 genec View Post
Good compromise... I like it.

But in the end you only addressed the responsibilities of the cyclists... yet in an earlier paragraph you included motorists ("Motorists and others who control traffic law")... so you need to add them to the bottom line too, and get them to "go along."

I am as willing to "get rid of the stripes and sidepaths" the moment that motorists are willing to agree that I don't have to ride to the side and can use any lane, at any speed, as equally as they.

In fact I'll go you one further... I say let's get ride of all the speed limit signs and other signs and all the road stripes, stop lights and stop signs and everyone should just act in a safe responsible manner. Does that sound reasonable? I'm all for it.
I think that your comment that I have failed to bring the motorists into it, failed to get them to "go along", is incorrect. They have an explicit part in the compromise, in that they, who have the major part in controlling traffic law, have to explicitly renounce the laws restricting cyclists on the spurious ground of safety. They do so by getting those restrictive anti-cyclist laws, which they created for their own interest, repealed. Nothing could be more convincing than that.

I disapprove of your suggestion for turning streets into woohnerven. That is just lowering both cyclists and motorists to the level of pedestrians, to the disadvantage of everybody, recreating the chaos that was the incentive for the creation of the first formal traffic code.
John Forester is offline  
Old 03-14-08, 06:53 PM
  #331  
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
Great!

You are the inspiration for why so many decide to advocate bikeways even if they only marginally think they are of value.

Have you even considered that most people like to be treated with some respect for their beliefs. you may think they are illogical 'superstitions'..but they don't.

The arrogance with which you demean, what I believe to be, the majority of cyclists who think there is some balance between the need for bikeways and open road cycling is unbelievable.

Just to speak for myself....bikeways can be of value regardless of what you perceive as a confirmation of the 'conspiracy'. Conversely, I know that there are circumstances where they may not make sense. But that is not owing to some grand plan by 'them' to get bicycles off the road. It has to do with engineering, topography, traffic density, speed limits, corridor useage, etc.

I do not intend to inflame. It just would be nice to see a little flexibility.

Nothing is more true than TINOBWAY.
Please, this is a technical discussion, not one of aesthetic values or emotional beliefs. If people make repeated claims for which they never produce supporting evidence, it is appropriate to designate those beliefs as superstition that should not be granted credence in the discussion. We have to maintain some level of technical evidence in order to be able to make any progress at all. If that pains those who make claims without being able to support those claims, that's just too bad, because that is the normal standard for technical discussion.

I make the same point regarding your belief about the intent of the designers of the bikeway standards. They designed the bikeway standards to push cyclists aside, and to do nothing else. Their original designs were much more dangerous than the final result; we cyclists forced them to discard the original designs because they were so dangerous that the governments that built them would be exposed to obvious personal injury liabilities. In fact, the only modifications that we managed to get made were of that nature, removing items that were so obviously dangerous that juries would find against the government.

However, this was not a conspiracy. Conspiracies are hidden because they cannot stand the light of day. All of this went on, after the original designs by UCLA, right out in public with news coverage by the cycling press. The bikeway standard designers managed to do what they did because they were carrying out the superstitious belief by motorists and the public, and the orders of politicians, that same-direction motor traffic is the greatest danger to cyclists. That superstition had no supporting evidence at the start of the design effort, and it was thoroughly disproved by the first Cross study half-way through the design program.

The appropriate analogy might be for a ship design program that, halfway through, was confronted with undoubted evidence that the ship could displace water equal to only 2% of its mass. Despite having such evidence before them, the designers continued without change.

Later detailed implementation of those design standards does involve the characteristics that you mention, but that doesn't change the design intent of the program as a whole and what it actually does. It shoves cyclists aside; can't you see that?
John Forester is offline  
Old 03-14-08, 07:12 PM
  #332  
genec
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 26,310

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

Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6383 Post(s)
Liked 73 Times in 51 Posts
Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
I think that your comment that I have failed to bring the motorists into it, failed to get them to "go along", is incorrect. They have an explicit part in the compromise, in that they, who have the major part in controlling traffic law, have to explicitly renounce the laws restricting cyclists on the spurious ground of safety. They do so by getting those restrictive anti-cyclist laws, which they created for their own interest, repealed. Nothing could be more convincing than that.
Yes, but does this really get the motorists to give us true equality? I don't mind being handed the keys to the kingdom as long as the dragon truly stays at bay.




Originally Posted by John Forester View Post

I disapprove of your suggestion for turning streets into woohnerven. That is just lowering both cyclists and motorists to the level of pedestrians, to the disadvantage of everybody, recreating the chaos that was the incentive for the creation of the first formal traffic code.
OK, I don't want this to get mixed up with your first "proposal..." this is a totally different tack... for academic discussion.

Hmmm... so adding more formal code to take care of the situation as it exists now is simply not workable? Seems to me that we have added so much code to deal with everything from speed to ped crossing, what is wrong with more code to deal with cyclists... which is the situation we have now. Why is the "line" of "too much traffic code" being drawn at bike lanes? Seems to me we can complicate the rules as much as we want... as long as we make the rules well known.
genec is offline  
Old 03-14-08, 07:37 PM
  #333  
WaltPoutine
GNU Cyclist
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: La Belle Province
Posts: 185
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
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
Bad, unsupported analogy genec. Neither the CLI nor GUIs are intuitive. Both make large assumptions about the user plonked in front of them and those proficient with one can be remarkably unproductive with the other without training in their specific semiotics. They each have their appropriate domain in which they provide an optimal interface for the task at hand but are remarkably inappropriate for other tasks. Try administering a server solely with GUIs and for all but the most trivial tasks you'll be damn inefficient due to the lack of scripting. Conversely I wouldn't want to draw a picture on the command line (although it's possible with some horrible old markup languages.)

Neal Stephenson's famous essay _In The Beginning Was The Command Line_ [1] suggests that such thinking is because: "We want GUIs largely because they are convenient and because they are easy-- or at least the GUI makes it seem that way Of course, nothing is really easy and simple, and putting a nice interface on top of it does not change that fact. A car controlled through a GUI would be easier to drive than one controlled through pedals and steering wheel, but it would be incredibly dangerous.
By using GUIs all the time we have insensibly bought into a premise that few people would have accepted if it were presented to them bluntly: namely, that hard things can be made easy, and complicated things simple, by putting the right interface on them.
"

Ironically it seems that this is somewhat parallel to the thinking about bike facilities which sees them as a way to pander to the unrealistic fear of some people who don't currently bicycle and may never do so: cover up the basic responsibilities and rules, tell them that it's scary and difficult and then give something that is actually inappropriate in many situations. All this contortion on the hope that they might start cycling even though cycling is presented as a childish, difficult and scary exercise in American popular culture.

We can start chipping away at the "scary" bit by not playing it up and creating a distorted perception of risk.

1. http://artlung.com/smorgasborg/C_R_Y..._I_C_O_N.shtml
WaltPoutine is offline  
Old 03-14-08, 08:36 PM
  #334  
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 WaltPoutine View Post
Bad, unsupported analogy genec. Neither the CLI nor GUIs are intuitive. Both make large assumptions about the user plonked in front of them and those proficient with one can be remarkably unproductive with the other without training in their specific semiotics. They each have their appropriate domain in which they provide an optimal interface for the task at hand but are remarkably inappropriate for other tasks. Try administering a server solely with GUIs and for all but the most trivial tasks you'll be damn inefficient due to the lack of scripting. Conversely I wouldn't want to draw a picture on the command line (although it's possible with some horrible old markup languages.)

Neal Stephenson's famous essay _In The Beginning Was The Command Line_ [1] suggests that such thinking is because: "We want GUIs largely because they are convenient and because they are easy-- or at least the GUI makes it seem that way Of course, nothing is really easy and simple, and putting a nice interface on top of it does not change that fact. A car controlled through a GUI would be easier to drive than one controlled through pedals and steering wheel, but it would be incredibly dangerous.
By using GUIs all the time we have insensibly bought into a premise that few people would have accepted if it were presented to them bluntly: namely, that hard things can be made easy, and complicated things simple, by putting the right interface on them.
"

Ironically it seems that this is somewhat parallel to the thinking about bike facilities which sees them as a way to pander to the unrealistic fear of some people who don't currently bicycle and may never do so: cover up the basic responsibilities and rules, tell them that it's scary and difficult and then give something that is actually inappropriate in many situations. All this contortion on the hope that they might start cycling even though cycling is presented as a childish, difficult and scary exercise in American popular culture.

We can start chipping away at the "scary" bit by not playing it up and creating a distorted perception of risk.

1. http://artlung.com/smorgasborg/C_R_Y..._I_C_O_N.shtml
Very valid point, the engineer is challenged to make the interface to be appropriate for the task at hand to make it as intuitive and as functional as possible without the user having to consult the manual every time. My point is and still remains that (good) engineering is very much about designs that are intuitive.
__________________
Cycling Advocate
http://BaltimoreSpokes.org
. . . o
. . /L
=()>()
The Human Car is offline  
Old 03-14-08, 08:57 PM
  #335  
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
An after thought on Walt's post. What if for a particular task it makes no difference if it is CLI or GUI. What's the argument for picking one or the other? Perhaps if marketing comes in and says we think we can sell more if its a GUI. Would that be reason to fight tooth and nail to have the task as a CLI? And what if marketing was wrong and sales did not increase? Is that proof that the CLI was better? No it's just proof that there is really no difference between the two UIs.

All I am saying is I see no functional difference of roadways with bike lane and roadways without bike lanes.
__________________
Cycling Advocate
http://BaltimoreSpokes.org
. . . o
. . /L
=()>()

Last edited by The Human Car; 03-14-08 at 08:58 PM. Reason: Grammar
The Human Car is offline  
Old 03-14-08, 10:01 PM
  #336  
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 genec View Post
Yes, but does this really get the motorists to give us true equality? I don't mind being handed the keys to the kingdom as long as the dragon truly stays at bay.






OK, I don't want this to get mixed up with your first "proposal..." this is a totally different tack... for academic discussion.

Hmmm... so adding more formal code to take care of the situation as it exists now is simply not workable? Seems to me that we have added so much code to deal with everything from speed to ped crossing, what is wrong with more code to deal with cyclists... which is the situation we have now. Why is the "line" of "too much traffic code" being drawn at bike lanes? Seems to me we can complicate the rules as much as we want... as long as we make the rules well known.
As long as cyclists have to obey only the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, which is what we are asking the motorists to help us enact because it will never be enacted without their consent, they have granted us legal equality without question. That statement of equality will not extinguish discrimination by individual motorists, but it will remove the societal permission for such discrimination, and, over time, will reduce it to a socially unacceptable practice.

As for additional code, whether this is computer code or legal code, your argument does not agree with reality. The human mind when operating in the driving mode does not operate either like a computer nor as a legal analyst. It operates according to general principles that it understands. The driver who yields to another as the principles require, or the driver who accepts that he has the right of way because the principles give it to him, are not using words, whether words compiled in C++ or in the California Vehicle Code. Only beginners do that, and that is one reason why beginners make so many mistakes. The typical driver obeys the principles. The trouble with bike-lane stripes is that they introduce a new principle that contradicts, or sometimes contradicts, or sometimes agrees with, the standard principles. It is no wonder that people get confused, and confused drivers make mistakes that too often lead to collisions.

How many more silly arguments are going to be floated before the bikeway promoters give up?
John Forester is offline  
Old 03-15-08, 05:03 AM
  #337  
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
Please, this is a technical discussion, not one of aesthetic values or emotional beliefs. If people make repeated claims for which they never produce supporting evidence, it is appropriate to designate those beliefs as superstition that should not be granted credence in the discussion. We have to maintain some level of technical evidence in order to be able to make any progress at all. If that pains those who make claims without being able to support those claims, that's just too bad, because that is the normal standard for technical discussion.
Good to know.

So, given your expertise and technical skill, why is there a continuing movement for bikeways?

You demonstrate the prototypical frailty of the technocrat. "Let's dismiss the opinions and feelings of the 'commoners' since they are obviously wrong." Instead, you just keep on insisting that you are right and will prevail.

If there was any value in dismissing emotional beliefs, this would be a different world. Not better, but surely different.

Keep it up!
Script is offline  
Old 03-15-08, 07:05 AM
  #338  
Bekologist
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,025

Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
john's rationale for crashes- occuring because motorists 'get confused' about bike lanes is far off the mark! Isn't JOHN'S entire argument itself built on his OWN superstitions he continually reiterates?

what groundless superstitions.

Last edited by Bekologist; 03-15-08 at 07:12 AM.
Bekologist is offline  
Old 03-15-08, 07:19 AM
  #339  
WaltPoutine
GNU Cyclist
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: La Belle Province
Posts: 185
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
Good to know.

So, given your expertise and technical skill, why is there a continuing movement for bikeways?
Because there are radical, utopian, wannabe-technocrats that ignore reality in favour of their idee fixe: that motorists are crazed, hostile, non-humans intent on massacring cyclists and that the fix to this is to paint a confusing stripe on the road. These zealots dismiss all logical argument and evidence and continue pounding away on this same idea even when thirty years of following it has produced none of what they claimed would follow and many thousands of miles of what even they admit are dangerous facilities.

Originally Posted by Script View Post
If there was any value in dismissing emotional beliefs, this would be a different world. Not better, but surely different.
Yeah. :headswivelsroundandexplodesduetopostersinanityandotherchildishstuff:

Much better to pander to "emotional beliefs" even if the result is to harm all of us.
WaltPoutine is offline  
Old 03-15-08, 07:21 AM
  #340  
-=(8)=-
♋ ☮♂ ☭ ☯
 
-=(8)=-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 40205 'ViLLeBiLLie
Posts: 7,902

Bikes: Sngl Spd's, 70's- 80's vintage, D-tube 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
How many more silly arguments are going to be floated before the bikeway promoters give up?
I would suppose as many as you continue to post.........

I do often wonder why we dignify this nonsense by replying to it for pages.
__________________
-ADVOCACY-☜ Radical VC = Car people on bikes. Just say "NO"
-=(8)=- is offline  
Old 03-15-08, 07:22 AM
  #341  
WaltPoutine
GNU Cyclist
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: La Belle Province
Posts: 185
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
An after thought on Walt's post. What if for a particular task it makes no difference if it is CLI or GUI. What's the argument for picking one or the other?.
I can't think of any which are not more suited to one or the other, but just for the sake of argument if I accept the premise then the result is fairly clear. GUIs in general impose a much higher cost in terms of code complexity. I think that this analogy is pretty dead and useless though.
WaltPoutine is offline  
Old 03-15-08, 09:03 AM
  #342  
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
As for additional code, whether this is computer code or legal code, your argument does not agree with reality. The human mind when operating in the driving mode does not operate either like a computer nor as a legal analyst. It operates according to general principles that it understands. The driver who yields to another as the principles require, or the driver who accepts that he has the right of way because the principles give it to him, are not using words, whether words compiled in C++ or in the California Vehicle Code. Only beginners do that, and that is one reason why beginners make so many mistakes. The typical driver obeys the principles. The trouble with bike-lane stripes is that they introduce a new principle that contradicts, or sometimes contradicts, or sometimes agrees with, the standard principles. It is no wonder that people get confused, and confused drivers make mistakes that too often lead to collisions.

How many more silly arguments are going to be floated before the bikeway promoters give up?
THC's basic principles:
Reality can be proven.
Arguments that rely on pontifications, exaggerations and abstractions are highly suspect of being just superstitions.


Despite how many principles you pontificate the reality is bike lanes do not increase accidents. You can try all you want to make up some fantasy world where bike lanes might, maybe, possibly be something different but it comes down to it is you that are selling silly arguments that are full of superstitions.

I don't even know where to begin in answering the above, there is an implication that over "coding" who has the right-of-way is bad especially if you are a beginning driver. What has led traffic engineers to "over "code right-of-way, because studies have shown that it works. Your proof has nothing to do with the coding of the roadways it is just a statement about the problem of beginning drivers applied to something it should not be applied to. And worst of all what are you implying as the remedy? Removal of roadway codes that clarify right-of-way? There is some serious disconnects of logic going on here. Show me case A where beginning driver does better and case B where beginning driver does worse because of road coding and I'll listen but till then you are just making things up.

I will ask this again since it has not been answered:
Originally Posted by The Human Car View Post
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?
__________________
Cycling Advocate
http://BaltimoreSpokes.org
. . . o
. . /L
=()>()
The Human Car is offline  
Old 03-15-08, 09:30 AM
  #343  
genec
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 26,310

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

Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6383 Post(s)
Liked 73 Times in 51 Posts
Originally Posted by WaltPoutine View Post
Bad, unsupported analogy genec. Neither the CLI nor GUIs are intuitive.
Not me Walt. I have my own opinion about computers and it is not a nice one.

But I did not introduce that analogy, nor discuss anything about computers... you need to go back and read again.

Last edited by genec; 03-15-08 at 09:37 AM.
genec is offline  
Old 03-15-08, 09:35 AM
  #344  
genec
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 26,310

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

Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6383 Post(s)
Liked 73 Times in 51 Posts
Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
As long as cyclists have to obey only the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, which is what we are asking the motorists to help us enact because it will never be enacted without their consent, they have granted us legal equality without question. That statement of equality will not extinguish discrimination by individual motorists, but it will remove the societal permission for such discrimination, and, over time, will reduce it to a socially unacceptable practice.

As for additional code, whether this is computer code or legal code, your argument does not agree with reality. The human mind when operating in the driving mode does not operate either like a computer nor as a legal analyst. It operates according to general principles that it understands. The driver who yields to another as the principles require, or the driver who accepts that he has the right of way because the principles give it to him, are not using words, whether words compiled in C++ or in the California Vehicle Code. Only beginners do that, and that is one reason why beginners make so many mistakes. The typical driver obeys the principles. The trouble with bike-lane stripes is that they introduce a new principle that contradicts, or sometimes contradicts, or sometimes agrees with, the standard principles. It is no wonder that people get confused, and confused drivers make mistakes that too often lead to collisions.

How many more silly arguments are going to be floated before the bikeway promoters give up?
Both you and Walt have me confused with someone else... I have NOT offered any analogy regarding driving and computing, nor one dealing with computer code. I don't write C++ or anything similar.

Go back and please read again.

I simply suggested that the traffic law that has already been enacted is complex... and asked why not add more rules... what real difference does it make, and why does the "line" for no more laws have to end at bike lanes. It seems to me that we can add all the laws we want... as long as we make the motorist aware of them.
genec is offline  
Old 03-15-08, 11:58 AM
  #345  
WaltPoutine
GNU Cyclist
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: La Belle Province
Posts: 185
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
Both you and Walt have me confused with someone else... I have NOT offered any analogy regarding driving and computing, nor one dealing with computer code. I don't write C++ or anything similar.

Go back and please read again.
I'm sorry Genec, I mixed you up with Barry "TheHumanCar". Apologies to both of you and for the resulting confusion.
WaltPoutine is offline  
Old 03-15-08, 12:53 PM
  #346  
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 genec View Post
Both you and Walt have me confused with someone else... I have NOT offered any analogy regarding driving and computing, nor one dealing with computer code. I don't write C++ or anything similar.

Go back and please read again.

I simply suggested that the traffic law that has already been enacted is complex... and asked why not add more rules... what real difference does it make, and why does the "line" for no more laws have to end at bike lanes. It seems to me that we can add all the laws we want... as long as we make the motorist aware of them.
I was referring to your own words: "Hmmm... so adding more formal code to take care of the situation as it exists now is simply not workable? Seems to me that we have added so much code to deal with everything from speed to ped crossing, what is wrong with more code to deal with cyclists... which is the situation we have now. Why is the "line" of "too much traffic code" being drawn at bike lanes? Seems to me we can complicate the rules as much as we want... as long as we make the rules well known." My reply to those said that drivers do not operate either as writers of C++ or as legal analysts, but follow the principles of driving. My reply simply allows for either sense in which you used the word code.

I think that any person familiar with operating instructions for procedures performed by the general public knows that the procedures need to be as simple as possible and that they should not contain conflicting instructions. Don't create more complexity than necessary, and don't built conflicts into the instructions. If you debate that, you are going contrary to the recognized principles in the field.
John Forester is offline  
Old 03-15-08, 01:18 PM
  #347  
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
THC's basic principles:
Reality can be proven.
Arguments that rely on pontifications, exaggerations and abstractions are highly suspect of being just superstitions.


Despite how many principles you pontificate the reality is bike lanes do not increase accidents. You can try all you want to make up some fantasy world where bike lanes might, maybe, possibly be something different but it comes down to it is you that are selling silly arguments that are full of superstitions.

I don't even know where to begin in answering the above, there is an implication that over "coding" who has the right-of-way is bad especially if you are a beginning driver. What has led traffic engineers to "over "code right-of-way, because studies have shown that it works. Your proof has nothing to do with the coding of the roadways it is just a statement about the problem of beginning drivers applied to something it should not be applied to. And worst of all what are you implying as the remedy? Removal of roadway codes that clarify right-of-way? There is some serious disconnects of logic going on here. Show me case A where beginning driver does better and case B where beginning driver does worse because of road coding and I'll listen but till then you are just making things up.

I will ask this again since it has not been answered:
"This again" refers to the following:
"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 do not know why you either don't understand what has been written several times in these discussions, or pretend you don't understand for reasons of your own.

I have written time and again that well-informed vehicular cyclists familiar with this controversy know when to stay in a bike lane and when to leave it. As I have written time and again, obey the rules of the road no matter what the bike-lan stripe appears to tell you. But well-informed vehicular cyclists do not cause the problems. The problems are caused by motorists, who really care little about devoting attention to the intricacies of bike-lane stripes, and by the general bicycling public, who, for whatever reasons, exercise almost no traffic skill when cycling. These people believe that bike-lane stripes make cycling safe by keeping cyclists to the right of the stripe and keeping motorists to the left of the stripe. And how can one blame them, when the public support for the government's bikeway program is generated by playing on this superstition? The contradiction is between what the bike-lane stripe tells the public and the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles.

Many of you participants keep saying that the general bicycle-riding public will never accept vehicular cycling. But you advocate this bike lane system that will only be used properly by cyclists who know vehicular cycling so well that they know when and how to leave bike lanes, and by motorists who have a similar sophisticated understanding of the errors of bike-lane superstition. This is absurd.
John Forester is offline  
Old 03-15-08, 01:58 PM
  #348  
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 genec View Post
It seems to me that we can add all the laws we want... as long as we make the motorist aware of them.
Yeah, but CA's year-round legislature passes 1000 laws a year! I wonder how many people know its illegal to drive with your parking lights on? (don't understand that one, but there it is) To run your headlights when its misting? To not have tinted front windows?

You know, they should pass a law that says they can't pass a law without an associated education campaign. What we need is full-time educators and part-time legislators
__________________
Cars kill 45,000 Americans every year.
This is like losing a war every year, except without the parades.

Last edited by MarkS; 03-15-08 at 02:15 PM.
MarkS is offline  
Old 03-15-08, 02:03 PM
  #349  
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
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?"
A well-designed bike lane will put you in the same place. With the lines in place, drivers will have a greater tendency stay between lines rather than, as I often see, straddling some imaginary position between the RTL and the through-lane.
__________________
Cars kill 45,000 Americans every year.
This is like losing a war every year, except without the parades.
MarkS is offline  
Old 03-15-08, 02:06 PM
  #350  
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

So, given your expertise and technical skill, why is there a continuing movement for bikeways?
"Never underestimate the difficulty of changing false beliefs by facts." -Henry Rosovski

Originally Posted by Script View Post
You demonstrate the prototypical frailty of the technocrat. "Let's dismiss the opinions and feelings of the 'commoners' since they are obviously wrong." Instead, you just keep on insisting that you are right and will prevail.
Facts are stubborn things. Perhaps you think it would be prudent to abandon what we know to be factually true and embrace contrary emotional beliefs? Do you think through your position before you post?

Originally Posted by Script View Post
If there was any value in dismissing emotional beliefs, this would be a different world. Not better, but surely different.
"Some things are believed because they are demonstrably true. But many other things are are believed because they are consistent with a widely held vision of the world-- and this vision is accepted as a substitute for facts." Thomas Sowell; Economic Facts and Fallacies

It would be a wise man who made sure his vision of the world corresponded with how the world actually works. There is a value in dismissing false emotional beliefs. If those beliefs are demonstrably false, why keep them? To what end would you cling to them? We all have enough difficulties without that too.
ChipSeal 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.