It's sad. Your commitment and passion is admirable but your tone and need to "teach" others by forcing your ideas is untenable in my view.

Much of our current roadway system is completely in service to the automobile and the industrial complex built around the automobile. To see it as functioning, equitable and serviceable for bicyclists, pedestrians and other non-motorized or alternative means of transport requires a kind of blindness I simply do not have. Fortunately, I am not alone.

Judging from the tenor of your responses to some very reasonable posts by some obviously well-informed contributors it's pointless to expect anything but the same old tired arguments I have seen time and again in BF and have watched grow more shrill, more desperate and more out of step with reality in my more than 36 years of being around bike advocacy. These are arguments that are finally at the point that they have had their day.

As soon as you turn it into the "good guys" and the "bad guys". As soon as you make statements that imply that one party is absolutely "right" and that the other party is utterly "wrong" you have engaged in the old paradigm that simply must fall in order for any progress to really be made. Especially in the fundamental area of how we live and how we move about in the world.

Be honest. You "infrastructure" advocate types do the same thing. AND to top it off, not only do you want to force your ideas on others, you want to reach right into their wallets and force them to pay for the things you want!

I will be honest and say, "no, I do not do the same thing." I not only advocate for infrastructure but also advocate for our right to the road and see nothing mutually exclusive about such a position. I do not live in a black and white world.

To label me as an "infrastructure advocate" is just as inaccurate as to label me as a "VC advocate" even though I have promoted both strategies as part of a comprehensive and wholistic approach to cycling issues. I just don't adhere to the VC moniker and vernacular with the kind of rabid and exclusive enthusiasm of some of those who post in BF.

I've been paying for highways and infrastructure that favors the automobile for years all the while using a bicycle to get around with scant resources being granted that favor bikes over automobiles or even provide mutually beneficial roadways and streets. The miniscule amount being tossed towards bicycle infrastructure is hardly much to get into too much of twist about in comparison to some of the amounts being portioned out in this country to lots of things we don't really need or want. Here in Boston we'll be paying for the "Big Dig" for years (to the tune of $15 Billion dollars), which will accommodate only automobiles- fact of life, I don't like it but I'm going to have to live with it.

Uh, this is exactly what we have been discussing regarding a new paradigm.

The fact that we try to continue to build roads to support primarily the auto, is part of the problem. We do not have unlimited resources, nor unlimited fuel, nor unlimited space... the fact is, we DO need to "emphasize walking and public mass transit such that bicycles become a logical part of daily transportation."

Check out the last paragraph (made parenthetical) in my post #189 of this thread that addresses exactly those points.

This is exactly what I am talking about - these lines represent bad education. VC riding is not some hard and fast _position_. It is situation dependendant _behavior_. That can't be painted onto the roadway.

You be honest. You can't distinguish between Buzzman's reasonable arguments about bicycling in the world as it exists, and the rigid approach of our new friend who drones on about the foolish "culture" that must be re-educated and relocated to fit his extreme dogmatic views of the future?

I tend to agree... we won't see any actual "dismantling," but changes in zoning that over time will shift these isolated suburbs into mixed use neighborhoods... unfortunately the roadway infrastructure will go through many changes, perhaps not all positive, in an effort to reflect these changes. Such bandaids as bike lanes might be installed in areas where far too many driveways and entrances to commercial centers are shoehorned into the former isolated neighborhoods. This sort of lack of future planning has resulted in the sort of strip mall modifications of many areas that were also once isolated residential suburbs.

Only if mass transit replaces the freeway like arterial roads and alternative forms of transit are emphasized will any real change in these neighborhood come about in a positive way... and this will only happen when local government has the foresight to ensure that the zoning changes come about in manner to support village like improvements of these isolated branch residential communities, vice the haphazard changes that tend to occur and lead to the unbridled "strip malling" of America.

I note you have just about the same amount of strength in the first part of the above as I had in the email where I used the word "utterly" in response to a claim that the road is built "exclusively" for motorists

==========


>>Then try understanding this... VC is a coping mechanism for roadway designs that are designed exclusively for motorists.<<

My primary education effort is to teach people: roadways are designed for _vehicle_drivers_ and if you act as a vehicle driver on your bicycle you will get great use and fun from your bicycle on all roadways now, and on the hopefully better set of roadway that make up our future. Since I have spent a good chunk of my 49 years working through and examining these ideas and have come to recognize my view on this as right - and the thing you want me to understand as utterly wrong - I don't see me coming to your understanding.

Note: I called no one a bad guy.

I was responding to what I felt walked right up to - maybe even crossed into - doing that against me. I already noted the place in your earlier email where I felt it isn't much of a extrapolation to say you implied me a "bad guy" - in the sense that I perhaps bully when I won't pander to what you described as your wife's belief that the VC 'agenda' tells her she needs to 'race'.

With no ambiguity, jurisdictions with mandatory bikelane laws, and bad law that turn destination positioning principles on their head, hog tie you into taking an either/or mutually exclusive position on this.

I agree with much of what you write, but surely this is an overstatement?

As an example, suppose I want to go from my house in Ridley Park, PA to Bridgeport, NJ.

If I drive, I take I-95 South and use the Commodore Barry Bridge to cross the Delaware River. The total distance is 9.3 miles. The Commodore Barry Bridge, however, does not permit bicycles or pedestrians. Nor does the Walt Whitman Bridge, which is the closest bridge to the north. So, in order to bike from my house to Bridgeport, NJ, I would need to ride north to the Ben Franklin Bridge, cross over to New Jersey, and then ride south to Bridgeport.

The net result is that I would need to ride 45 miles on a bike to reach a destination that I can reach in 9.3 miles by car.

I see little hope that overreaching micro-managing zoning will ever be anything more than what it has been for the last many decades: just another tool for promoting inequitable sprawl development. I also see a greater potential for the debate around zoning to devolve into noisy go-nowhere talk-show radio folding chair throwing distraction entertainment - compared to a policy that depends on debate over the public's transportation facility design and expenditures.

** Full disclosure alert: I spent ages 3-17 growing up in Mt. Laurel NJ, in and among the people attempting to use zoning power in a particularly ugly manner, in a situation with _just_ enough cover to hide that from themselves. I suspect I will never be comfortable with relying on zoning power to get to a better place, when what I've seen it used for mostly in my life is social ugliness and promoting sprawl.***

The original writer meant it as a primary characterization of the system. Therefore _that_ is the overstatement. In general for the vast majority of people in this country for the strong majority of low carry-weight trips they would considering taking, getting on their bikes and riding can be fun and useful.

I don't yet have a history here at BF to point you back at to give you a feel for my full view, but reversing bicyclist roadway bans, especially many bridge bans, has always bumped near the top of emphasis on list for advocacy targets.

Please note that the greatest level of 'force' being applied here is by extremist bikelane advocates pushing bikelanes in jurisdictions with mandatory bikelane laws and laws that turn destination positioning principles on their head.

+1000

Thank you for providing a great example of the issues of our infrastructure in a car culture.

No doubt there is nothing actually wrong with the bridges you mentioned... other then the requirement that one MUST use a car on those structures.

Not hardly. Roadways are designed for motorized vehicle drivers.

That is an example of a vehicle-class ban that should be removed.

Note that my non-segregationist/each-and-every-corridor viewpoint is a sounder philosophical base from which to launch ban-removal advocacy.

Great, so removing the cycling ban from a high speed freeway is obviously "the solution."

People will no doubt arrive in droves to cycle upon high speed freeways... riiiiiiight.

Well first of all, you were the one who said nice things about freeways as part of the public's infrastructure just recently, where I have been the one saying that the interstate highway system and freeways have been one of the worse parts of the inequitable history of US transportation the last 60+ years.

But, yes, opening any public roadway now closed to use by individuals because of their vehicle class choice - especially when their vehicle class choice is at the low end of the impact spectrum - would be a positive element in moving in the right direction and eliminating existing inequities.

Yes, everybody working together solving the same problems on the same facilities, along each and every public corridor, is a sounder political path to a more equitable future.

Again, 'droves' of bicyclist aren't the path to better future.... That would be through 'droves' of walkers, 'droves' of mass transit users, and 'droves' of commercial goods shifting from long haul trucking to mass modes.

Graphs :rolleyes:

Thank you for proving my point better than I could concerning your worldliness...or lack thereof. If you have indeed traveled, you have done so as a blind man and have no understanding of the places you have been too or the people who live there...or you've never traveled to anything but a city. The fact that you can't distinguish between normal people, who have managed to survive and thrive for centuries by living well outside cities and towns, and Ted Kaczynski, speaks volumes about your ignorance and tunnel vision. Thanks for playing, enjoy your view from the wacko seats.

No that was not what I was saying...once again highlighting your inability to understand simple concepts.
The does not have to look like the past...but those who actually understand and learn from the past will survive just fine in the future without having to adopt your wacky theories of where/how they must live.

No real argument from me. By my view, the only real argument for a bike lane is on high speed roads where a high variance in lateral passing distance is particularly troublesome. But given that I live in a community where others support bike lanes I'd rather be reasonable and simply block the perverse designs.

I think HC's point -- paraphrasing here -- that we should pick our battles is an important one. Moreover, in reference to my point about empirical evidence, even through we can identify specific effects of say a bikeway, I thought that there was some evidence suggesting that the total effect of certain projects reduced collisions. It appears to me that there is enough noise regarding human interaction with traffic engineering that some "illogical" ideas end up being improvements and vice versa. Making a big stink on matters with little conclusive empirical evidence -- you should be able to reverse the null hypothesis and come to the same meaningful conclusion -- or that least strong theoretical concerns with some weak empirical evidence when viewed on a grand scale just reduces one's credibility and ability to communicate effectively over the long haul, IMO.

Anyway, we don't agree on one of your main assumptions regarding demise of suburbia ... at least in the reasonable future -- say 20/30 years. As always, there will be some adjustments and cyclical changes perhaps linked to economic and demographic phenomenon, but there is a lot of wiggle room in how society adjusts to some global concerns.

Whether one drives or not, he benefits from the existence of roads that are efficient for car/truck travel. Unless he grows his own food, manufacturers his own products, provides all his own services, etc. But what infrastructure advocates are doing is wanting to ask people who are not interested in bicycling to pay for additional items that will mainly benefit bicycles (though even many current bicyclists don't want these things and would not see them as a benefit)

It seems much more logical to me to simply promote the use the existing infrastructure for bicycles as well as cars. This costs basically nothing. Simply promote the "share the road" concept that we used to have.

The bikelane/bikepath advocates will claim that roads are dangerous and it is fear that is keeping Americans off bikes. They can claim that all they want but if they took two seconds to look around them, they'd realize how ridiculous that is. Safety is well down the list of things prevent Americans from cycling. Higher up on the list are: laziness (for short trips around the neighborhood); time constraints on our lifestyles for traveling the longer distances; the geography we live on (even though I like cycling, I'm not interested in cycling up the 10-20% grade hills between my house and my job 10 miles away and getting there in 1hr. when i can drive there in 12 minutes); and probably many other factors before we get to "fear for my own safety" being a reason people don't travel more by human power (bikes, skateboards, rollerskates, walking).

If your goal is simply to have more cyclists on the road for cycling sake - because you sell or make bikes, or want to be seen as a leader of men, or whatever - then you should be willing to have cyclists only pay for the infrastructure you are advocating.

If your goal is to promote cycling as something that benefits the world in general as lower environmental impact travel, then you'd do better to make mass transit your focus. Place bike parking lots at stations and allow bikes on the trains/buses and you will increase bike ridership as well since lazy people will choose bikes over walking for the non-train/bus portions of their journey (as we did in Japan). This may have the side effect of fewer cars on the roads, making it easier for cyclists to rule the roads - without any significant changes to their design. After all, if the roads were entirely for bikes, what changes would you really make to them? Keeping the surface smoother is about the only thing I can think of - otherwise the way roads are laid out for cars seems perfectly fine for bicycles as well to me.

But overall, the main issue those of us who don't mind riding in the roads have with bike lane people is that the existence of bike lanes limit our ability to ride how we find most safe and most efficient. In many communities there is a legal requirement to stay in the bike lane. In some places we are given legal "outs" but with the burden of proof on us to show a safety reason why we aren't in the lane. But in all places the existence of bike lanes changes the mindset of other vehicle drivers about sharing the road: they paid for bike lanes, and they expect bikes to stay over there in them. This is a major negative to those of us who prefer the road and its only natural we declare bike lane/path advocates responsible for messing up our rides and putting us at odds with cars and making us more prone to road rage and generally just less safe (cars also will not be looking for bikes in other places if they see a bike lane since they think all bikes will be in there).

In other words, it's no secret why these debates get a little heated.

American society is substantially composed of such 'wiggle room.' We have huge 'untapped reserves' of superfluous luxury, frivolous personal travel, carpooling and telecommuting potential, leg power, etc. There is a Saudi Arabia in American society just waiting to be discovered. I imagine we'll get around to discovering it if and when it becomes clear we have no other choice. That's the optimistic view. Alternatively, we could stubbornly refuse to discover these remedies in the face of impending doom. Was it the vikings who supposedly extincted themselves because they didn't like eating fish?

Lots of experienced riders don't really give a hoot about bike lanes one way or the other, and wonder why some riders seem so stymied and obsessed by them.

Eventually you realize that the line on the street doesn't really have any measurable practical effect or alter the way you would ride on the same street with no line. But for some reason inexperienced riders focus on the line: some feel safer because of it and some feel angered by it. An interesting subject for psychologists.

I _have_ used care by picking my battle against bikelanes, at times and places where bikelanes are pushed.

That is because in the grand scale of things you mention, the bad education that bikelanes represent - a good concrete-example/official-manifestation of all that is incorrect about thinking on bicyclist use of roadways - has much greater impact beyond the 'noise level' of existing safety numbers, and the all but certain fact that the acute impact of just that piece of paint on the road stays within that 'noise level.'

However getting the public to understand _why_ their belief this painted line is important is incorrect, and why this painted line IS NOT an improvement, and why the thinking behind this line is a good example of all that is wrong in common misperceptions about roadway bicycling, will impact wide ranges of existing bicyclist behavior and cultural thinking on the subject, making changes FAR outside the noise level.

Like I have said, I choose bikelane opposition because it is a twofer: 1) It fights stupid design; 2) it provides a jarring and focused specific to hang some education on (the education the population needs right now on bicycling is jarring; no way around that... might as well work with that fact.)

When the bad education of bikelanes moves into the realm of bikelanes placed in jurisdictions with mandatory bikelane usage laws and laws that turn the principle of destination positioning on its head... I don't see how you folks think this still stays nothing but a marketing device that all of us who know better can ignore. We can and we should continue to ride in the manner that keeps us safe even when the foolish bikelane line has been painted, but this makes proper/safest bicycling illegal. I do not find that a small thing in an environment where we are already at some risk of official harassment even without it actually being outright labeled illegal.

Yes, I am helped in choosing to oppose bikelanes because of the pressure these represent towards providing wider swathes of pavement as part of roadways (with the wider paved width foolishly delimited being salt rubbed into that wound.)