Bekologist

please. your credibility is shot.

pucher does write about bicycling.

gosmsgo

Ah, your simplist last statement is hard to argue.

Your right on target if by bike paths you mean separate roads completely separated from cars. Sidepaths are not that at all. Around here the are simply sidewalks that no one uses at all.

John Forester

Only when you define the subject as only what you are interested in, instead of what is necessary for reasonable discussion of the issues.

Allister

Built it, and they will come.

It's the same reason building roads generates traffic.

markhr

ummmm, O. K.


Warrington cycle campaign facility of the month - https://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.c...y-of-the-month

markhr

as someone else (more intelligent than me) pointed out

let's substitute

rail

"Some might assume that rail levels in Europe have been consistently high. In fact, railways fell sharply during the 1950's and 1960's, when car ownership surged and cities started spreading out. From 1950 to 1975, the rail share of trips fell by roughly two thirds in a sample of dutch. danish and german cities...."

pedestrian

"Some might assume that pedestrian levels in Europe have been consistently high. In fact, walking fell sharply during the 1950's and 1960's, when car ownership surged and cities started spreading out. From 1950 to 1975, the pedestrian share of trips fell by roughly two thirds in a sample of dutch. danish and german cities...."

motorbike

"Some might assume that motorbike levels in Europe have been consistently high. In fact, motorbikes fell sharply during the 1950's and 1960's, when car ownership surged and cities started spreading out. From 1950 to 1975, the motorbike share of trips fell by roughly two thirds in a sample of dutch. danish and german cities...."

genec

Fair enough... how about if we start building roads like bike facilities... think that might get some attention?


All "facilities people" are asking is that the same care be put into designing proper bike facilities as goes into making decent roads. As long as no one cares, you are going to get the crap shown on that site.

You would not live in a house built in such a poor fashion... why settle for facilities built in that manner?

genec

And in the US, the number of trains, pedestrians, and regular cyclists has fallen... so what is your solution...

Embrace the motor car???

Bekologist

mark, at least you're smart enough to realize those substituted statements are actually about the subjects they describe!~!!!!!!

john f, on the other hand, has shot his credibility repeatedly in this thread alone.

Allister

It was only a theory.

genec

Interesting... and Pucher is mentioned three times as a reference... Forester, none. And they cite an 8% increase in cycling.

Of course Forester will jump in and decry the whole thing as childish...

John Forester

You think that you are advancing your argument by citing these correlations, which are to some extent valid. But, unfortunately, you are merely demonstrating the scientific weakness of your argument. It is a standard scientific cliche that "Correlation does not demonstrate Causation." The statement that motor transportation has taken the place of considerable portions of other transportation modes does not explain why that occurred. It could be, for instance, that the diminution in rail transport was produced by strikes of rail workers, practically forcing passenger rail users to motor instead. Of course, the real answer probably has more to do with convenience than anything else, but the correlation says nothing about that. Without a reasonable cause and effect relationship, correlation says nothing at all beyond the fact of the correlation. This is even more pertinent because the essence of the bicycle advocates' argument is that the resurgence in bicycle transportation was caused by building bikeways, and their corollary argument that building bikeways in America will produce similar results. There are no reasonable explanations for how bikeways produced the European result, and absolutely no explanations for how American bikeways would produce the European result.

markhr

I realise I'm an idiot but I only care that

cyclists are not compelled to use "cycle facilities" where provided
cyclists, pedestrians and drivers should have more training from an early age on road users rights and responsibilities
if there's a need for "cycle facilities" on perfectly good roads then they should be designed for integration and not segregation
patience and common courtesy, backed up by extremely harsh penalities, returns to the roads

markhr

I agree but my stating the obvious wasn't aimed at you nor was it to prove anything regarding transportation.

I merely felt that, in my own simplistic way and as pointed out earlier by you and others (I think), the statement could apply to almost anything. Except cabbages - I couldn't get cabbages to work.

genec

I understood what you were trying to do... but John just demonstrated his inherent curmudgeoness by jumping on your commentary.

Typical... fails to actually think about what is being said, just responds in a cut and paste fashion to anything that remotely appears to be something he is staunchly against.

John is long past actively evaluating a real idea.

Indyv8a

I make no pretense to understand as deeply as the great thinkers on this forum the value of VC or bikeways. I do understand, however, that what these threads are about is arrogantly shouting to the moon, in the most juvenile and offensive ways, that what is believed by either side is right, the other is wrong and blood will be drawn if an inch is given. I literally deal with this crap on a daily basis. I am a teacher. I usually just tell the involved individuals, in all seriousness, that I could not care less the rightness of either party, and they should just get back in order.

Stop spewing cliched rhetoric and faulty logic that shows no understanding or willingness to understand the other side's point. It is sophmoric and silly at best. It is counter-productive.

You still sound to outsiders like children arguing over the rules to Calvin-ball in the playground. I will now return to my normally scheduled life.

John Forester

The issue that I think was being discussed is the extent to which correlations demonstrate causation. They don't. They only indicate a possible line of investigation to see if a causal relationship exists. No amount of listing other correlations changes the point. If that is the issue that was being discussed, I kept to it. If it was not, but was some real idea that I failed to evaluate because I missed it, then please provide me with a more comprehensive description of this new real idea.

MarkS

Well, I haven't got through all of the "irresistible" paper, but its enough to see that more people on bikes leads to better bike safety. And that government programs can play a major part in encouraging people to bike and walk more. And that when well designed facilities are available even the elderly will cycle.

And that its not a superstition: Biking is more dangerous here in Automerica.

markhr

+1

If you're going to argue a point back it up, clearly, comprehensively and be open to constructive criticism. Yes, bike lane people that means you.

Bekologist

OKAY, Mark...

lets' see: you start a thread about your hero, another poster mentions a current and respected bicycling transportation researcher, and john forster loses all credibility as he repeatedly tries to claim John Pucher doesn't write about bicycling.

simple enough? john forestor loses credibility as he erronously claims a referenced and contemporary bicycling transportation researcher doesn't write about bicycling.

Indyv8a

Bek, he didn't talk about bicycling and the special skills needed to ride a bicycle in traffic. The quote you used, as I tried to point out, was about the usage of bikes for transportation. John somehow transmogrified that into a correlational argument, which obscured my point. (I however concur with his conclusion, just cuz it happened at the same time doesn't mean one caused the other.) You two are still arguing about different aspects of cycling as transportation and not paying any attention to the point of the other writer. Both of you may have good points, but to myself and Mark, we can't tell. You are so busy insisting you're right, you've stopped paying attention.

markhr

+1

Bekologist

-1.

maybe you don't see MY point cleary, indy v8.

Indyv8a

Bek, the current dispute between you and John is related to aspects of cycling. You are making a point of bike usage. He is making a point about biking skills. You can be angry with me, you can stamp your feet, you can quote John again and again, but it doesn't change the fact that you are both using different definitions. One of the reasons you find yourselfs locked in this cage match is you don't stop and say, "define your terms." Once terms are defined you can agree or not.

I'll still stick to my original point. You're not talking to each other you're talking at each other. And the whole argument makes non-cyclists want nothing more than for you both to stop.

John Forester

No, we are not talking at, or past, each other, without understanding the other. I understand exactly Bekologist's tactics; whether or not he understands mine is behind some kind of curtain.

Pucher quotes governmental statistics on bicycle transportation volume, accident rates, and such in some European nations. Pucher claims, and Bekologist amplifies his claim, that bikeways produced the conditions which they desire, and would produce those conditions in America. I state the standard caution that correlation does not demonstrate causation, that one should not conclude that bikeways produced the other conditions unless there is a reasonable mechanism by which bikeways would produce those conditions. Pucher makes no attempt to demonstrate such reasonable mechanisms. With respect to car-bike collision reduction, no such effect has been demonstrated and analysis of known data shows it most unlikely. With respect to bicycle transportation volume, other conditions appear to be much stronger than the presence of bikeways.

To analyze the connection, if any, between bikeways and car-bike collisions requires a detailed knowledge of cycling in traffic. To analyze the connection, if any, between bikeways and bicycle transportation volume requires a detailed knowledge of urban patterns and the travel within them, as these affect bicycle trips. Pucher has made no such analyses. Furthermore, Pucher's own statements about cycling in traffic, made in public correspondence, show that he knows little about it but parrots the more extreme anti-motoring superstitions.

For these reasons I stated that Pucher writes about governmental reports, but not about cycling, in a field in which detailed knowledge of cycling is necessary to reach conclusions.

This allows Bekologist, who admits that he is nothing more than a nasty irritant, to claim that I am wrong because writing about governmental reports of bicycle transportation volume is writing about cycling. It is deplorable that such an obvious, and self-admitted, irritant is given credence for such a transparent misuse of words to produce irritation.