John Forester

I take it that you do not consider Traffic Laws Annotated, written and published by the National Committee for Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances, to be an authoritative statement about American traffic laws? If you don't, why don't you?

John Forester

One can be riding in a bike lane while obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, as if the bike-lane stripe were not there. That cycling becomes unvehicular when the rider obeys the stripe while contradicting the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles.

Square & Compas

Then you are wrong. I do consider it an authoritative source. But only if it is a direct quote. Not an interpretation from you. I do not take anything you say, in your words, definitions or interpretations as an authoritative source.

Because of a certain fraternity I belong to I have taken an obligation to conform to the law. But that does not mean I can not work to change the law. You do not make the law, someone higher then you does, thankfully.

I know you have tried to change the law and your attempt has been ignored and it seems you have been blown off by the law makers. yet you keep trying. Do you think it could be because of your methods? You come across as crass, arrogant and egotistical and in no way are you diplomatic. In your writting you accuse the law makers at being incompetent and inferior not to mention cyclists. Perhpas if you changed your tactics the law makers would listen to you. Why do you act this way when it comes to cycling and what how you think things should be? If I didn't know any better I'd say you're passive aggressive, or purposly setting yourself up for failure.

Square & Compas

Ok, I think I know where you're going with this. So let me try this. You do realize that the painted strip is in no way a physical barrier with the purpose of keeping a cyclist in the bike lane, correct? Even if there is a mandatory bike lane law that says cyclists have to ride in the bike lane, if there is some reason the cyclist has to exit the bike lane, merge into the travel lane to avoid a obstacle then entering back into the bike lane they are not breaking the law because they are keeping themselves safe. Even if a LEO sees it and issues a citation it would likely not hold up in a court of law.

invisiblehand

Why does only one have to be correct?

John Forester

I believe that the term the psychologists apply is projection, the act of attributing to others one's own attitudes.

Arrogance? Thirty years of dealing with people who have such enormous faith in their own erroneous superstitions that they keep repeating them ad infinitum does get a bit tiresome. Equally so with those who apparently know better but keep repeating nonsense for ideological reasons.

I have provided quotations from Traffic Laws Annotated.

However, you are entirely incorrect when you claim that I treat legislators in the same way that I treat you. And, I have created bits of traffic law, although not the three bits that you recognize, the anti-cyclist discriminatory laws. Repealing the mandatory sidepath law has been a partial success, made possible because so many of the sidepaths were so obviously almost unusable, and the AASHTO recommendation against them uses many of my traffic criticisms. But repealing the mandatory bike-lane law, in those jurisdictions that adopted it, has rarely been successful, and there has been no success in repealing the far right law. The problem is not, as you state, "law makers at [as?] being incompetent and inferior not to mention cyclists," but the complete opposite. The legislators insist in mentioning cyclists so that they can discriminate against them. That doesn't make legislators either incompetent or inferior; they have reasons that they believe to be good for their decisions. One reason is quite obvious: motorists have political power and bicycle traffic should be kept out of motorists' way as much as practically possible. But, of course, they don't say it that way. They argue that their method of discriminating against cyclists makes cycling safe, particularly for children. That argument, of course, has no support in scientific knowledge, but that is what the people believe, as do so many who participate in supposedly enlightened discussions about bicycling affairs.

Square & Compas

Tell you what let's leave it at this: We agree to disagree. You believe what you know to be true, I'll believe what I know to be true. We will both live and let live and leave each other alone on the matter. Ok?

John Forester

Mr Square, you may do as you please. This discussion was created by someone, not me, to discuss my particular subject, and I will continue to provide my knowledge when appropriate. You, on the contrary, jumped into the discussion at a recent date and demonstrated that you had particular views although almost zero knowledge of the background and subject.

Square & Compas

I'll take that as an agreement from you and put you back on ignore.

njkayaker

Because, otherwise, people just spin around in a drunken haze arguing in circles!!

I think it makes some sense to settle on one definition of what "vehicular cycling" means and it's reasonable to settle on the definition provided by the person who created the term.

At the very least, settling on one definition is easier to figure out what the heck people are arguing about.


That doesn't mean that there aren't other kinds of cycling or that it's the only valid/correct kind of cycling. Those discussions are different discussions.

If you have some other kind of cycling you want to promote, do everybody a favor and call it something else!

===================

This is just a case of different people creating different definitions for the same term. It's just confusing. Pick one bloody definition and then argue its merits.

Technically, as far as I can tell, "crass" does not apply!

invisiblehand

No argument here. But after reading what Forester means by VC, considering that S&C is belaboring the issue of Forester and VC, I just thought that pursuing the "right" definition is a waste of time.

Bekologist

just the facts now. I see a lot of fallacies in the positions of some.

The whole 'anti-cyclist discriminatory laws' talk is really quite a transparent ruse. the vast majority of states have neither mandatory bikelane or mandatory sidepath laws.In the remaining half dozen or ten states, either of these laws only apply to a very small minority of roads in those states. There are very few miles of sidepath or bikelane relative to roadway miles.

Additionally, there are no 'far right' laws. the phraseology 'far right' law is a bankrupt proposition of the Vehikular Cyklists'. the laws in most states uses the common UVC phrasing 'as far right as practicable, which can encompass controlling wide outside lanes, inside lanes of roads, the center of the lane, etc -most explicitly NOT 'far right'. my state substituted 'safe' for 'practicable' a few years ago, other states have done the same.

As far right as practicable is, quite possibly, the simplest embodiment of vehicular cycling. ride only as far to the right as is safe at a given time and place dependent on traffic and roadway conditions.


Anyway, i wonder how the OP is doing with his research??

sudo bike

At least in California, while bicycles are acknowledged separately from other vehicles, they are generally supposed to be treated in the exact same way as a vehicle. As a matter of fact, it states explicitly in the vehicle code...

So, under California Law, I take it as bicycles must abide by the same laws as vehicles with few exceptions, and keeping in mind there are laws that apply to bicycles only (all are easily found online).

Pertaining to bike lanes however, I'm not sure why bike lanes are contradictory to this or why it's considered an extraordinary segregation of traffic. We have car pool lanes, bus lanes, etc - this does not make them "lesser" or take their rights as a vehicle away, it simply is a tool to increase the flow of traffic.

One thing I will agree with, though, is that often times little thought is put into implementation, especially at intersections, many times forcing an unsafe merge as the lane ends. However, I don't think this makes bike lanes inherently bad. Just a few thoughts on the bike lane matter...

Bekologist

yes, well, I'd say!

the rules of the road do not contradict vehicular use of a bikelane by bicyclists.

Excuse me, WHAT? that's a fallacy. Legislators currently entertain and pass bills that are endorsed by bicycling and transportation safety advocates like vulnerable user bills, funds for bicycle transportation infrastructure, etc. there's no 'discrimination' going on!!!


Fallacy. space for bikes on public roads and funding for bike projects is fought against by motorists and business lobbies. no one argues there is an absolute 'safe' to be obtained, just that roads can be more amenable for use by basic and child cyclists. Safe routes to school programs definetly consider childrens' safety, one would be hard pressed to make false claims like john has. fallacy.


Fallacy. What argument? that 'safe' strawman, or better planning for bikes has no scientific basis?

Haven't been keeping up on research into bicycle transportation, eh?

there is a quite sound engineering basis for accomodating bicyclists via bikeways planning. one term that springs obviously to mind is 'speed differential'.

FHWA bikeways policy guidelines have been developed thru a quite sound process, most definetly scientific and engineering based.

John Forester

The most pertinent answer to all of the above refers to the purpose and quality of the investigations that have been done. There has never been a reasoned, fact-based program for making cycling safer. The investigations that have been done are directed at other purposes than ameliorating specific known types of car-bike collision, and, in most cases, have very dubious scientific credentials. In addition to that, there are efforts directed at producing items that quite clearly produce additional dangers, such as bike boxes and cycle tracks.

Bek, you make many claims, but you have failed to demonstrate most of them.

Bekologist

really?

yes, john. bike lanes and vehicular bicycling are not mutually exclusive. arterial roadway bikelanes, as part of a thoughtful bikeways plan to create roadway conditions more amenable to vehicular roadway use by bicyclists, generally do not contradict vehicular bicycling practice.

the majority of roads in a community with a bikeways plan will remain wholly unmodified for bicyclists; 'vehicular' roadway operation is a prime directive of bikeways planning. obeyance of the rules of the road is definetly part and parcel of federal bikeway guidelines.

vacuous complaints about 'cycletracks' and 'bikeboxes' fail to demonstrate much of anything, john.

I can direct you to scads of reasoned, fact based engineering standards to determine how best to facilitate bicycling on public rights of way, dependent on many factors like ADT, intersection density, type of development, sightlines, etc......

but thanks for explaining to the forum once again that cyclists can ride in a bikelane vehicularily and in accordance with the rules of the road.

maybe john would like to explain to the forum his 'road sneak', inferiority-laden method of NOT claiming lanes of traffic when the speed differnential exceeds 15MPH. this would provide a clearer picture of foresterian vehicular cycling. also, how a vehicular cyclist can ride in a bikelane or on a shoulder of a road in a vehicular manner and in accordance with the rules of the road....

what say, john?

John Forester

Bek: "yes, john. bike lanes and vehicular bicycling are not mutually exclusive. arterial roadway bikelanes, as part of a thoughtful bikeways plan to create roadway conditions more amenable to vehicular roadway use by bicyclists, generally do not contradict vehicular bicycling practice."

Here Bek argues that if some cycling in bike lanes is vehicular, all bike-lane cycling must be. That's defective logic.

Bek: "the majority of roads in a community with a bikeways plan will remain wholly unmodified for bicyclists; 'vehicular' roadway operation is a prime directive of bikeways planning. obeyance of the rules of the road is definetly part and parcel of federal bikeway guidelines."

I have seen no such directive, and Bek has never, so far as I know, demonstrated its existence. Surely, if this is a "prime directive", it must be quite prominent.

Bek: "vacuous complaints about 'cycletracks' and 'bikeboxes' fail to demonstrate much of anything, john."

The charge of "vacuous"ness might refer to either the non-existence of designs for such facilities, or to their traffic-operational defects. Bek makes nothing but a noisy complaint without substance. Both cycletracks and bikeboxes exist and are the subject of serious official consideration. They present serious and dangerous operational defects when evaluated against the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles.

Bek: "I can direct you to scads of reasoned, fact based engineering standards to determine how best to facilitate bicycling on public rights of way, dependent on many factors like ADT, intersection density, type of development, sightlines, etc......"

It is correct that we have had, for thirty five years, design standards specifying what to do about bicycle traffic, which actions Bek usually describes as "accommodating" but here describes as "facilitating" bicycle traffic. However, I have never argued that these don't exist; that would be just as absurd as Bek claiming that I argue they don't exist. My argument has always been that these standards have almost nothing to do with reducing car-bike collisions and they are not part of any substantial, coherent, official program for reducing car-bike collisions, for no such program exists.

Bek: "maybe john would like to explain to the forum his 'road sneak', inferiority-laden method of NOT claiming lanes of traffic when the speed differnential exceeds 15MPH. this would provide a clearer picture of foresterian vehicular cycling."

Bek makes this claim frequently, but it is not one that I have ever made. All that I have said is that such speed differential makes negotiating for a lane change difficult.

njkayaker

Bek, you can't be this dishonest. You are either supremely dishonest or supremely stupid.

Why are you cherry picking parts of quote out of context changing the meaning of what other people say? This is disgusting.


How can you lie so boldly?

Maybe, you'd like to explain your weird and obvious dishonesty?

Are you on crack?

===========================================

Here is the full quote that Bek distorted.

Bekologist

excuse me?

there's nothing outrageous about distilling johns' quote into its more core constituents.

fallacious complaints like johns deserve scrutiny.

so fine, john says

that doesn't invalidate


because, indeed, cyclists can and do use bike lanes vehicularily in accordance with the rules of the road of drivers of vehicles. riding FRAP as a vehicular cyclist sometimes requires leaving the bikelane intermittently but a cyclist does not move from 'vehicular' to 'unvehicular' cycling choosing either side of the stripe.

really, accusing me of being on crack cocaine? really, that type of a personal attack? how lowbrow.

njkayaker

You changed his meaning. That is outrageous, dispicable, and dishonest. You are "distilling" (ie, distorting) his comment to indicate a support of bike lanes (which the complete statement clearly does not do)!

Feel free to argue for bike lanes but don't lie to do it.

No, other vehicles can't travel in bike lanes. Otherwise, they would not be bike lanes.

Bekologist

didn't argue that. I do agree that bicyclists can ride vehicularily in bikelanes in accordance with the rules of the road.


Bikeways planning standards recognize and are designed in accordance with expected roadway bicycling in obeyance with the rules of the road. MUP 'highways' have their own rules but roadway bicycling bikeway standards are definetly intended in accordance with rules of the road bicycling.


this is a federal directive in transportation policy. I can go find the reference to this, once again, if needed. but really? do i need to source this prime directive in federal bikeways planning.....again?





hmm. 'almost nothing to do with reducing car-bike collisions, not part of any substantial, coherent, official program for reducing car-bike collisions, for no such program exists.'

This reflects an extremely narrow view of the broader issues of bicycling in society, bicycling as transportation, transportation modality and bikeways planning.


As to John's 'road sneak' method of sharing lanes between two lines of faster traffic, of riding like a 'road sneak' is a forester technique. i believe he got a ticket while doing it. regardless. it's a very inferior method of vehicular cycling in my opinion.

Bekologist

john's

"One can be riding in a bike lane while obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, (riding like the stripe is not there'

is synonymous with my 'cyclists can and do use bike lanes vehicularily in accordance with the rules of the road of drivers of vehicles.'

cyclists can and do use bike lanes vehicularily in accordance with the rules of the road of drivers of vehicles. riding FRAP as a vehicular cyclist sometimes requires leaving the bikelane intermittently, absolutely. riding as far right as is safe dependent on traffic and roadway conditions at time and place.


this is all a bit far afield from the original poster. round and round about concepts we all broadly agree with, like bicyclists riding vehicularly in bikelanes while obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles.

njkayaker

No, because Forester's basic idea is that bicycles and other vehicles are (should be) exchangeable. Since other vehicles can't drive in bicycle lanes, bicycle lanes contradict that exchangeability.

In some situations, like with sidepath laws, bicycles are not allowed to use the road. It's also his position that bike lanes convey to motorists and bicyclists, that bicyclists can't use the traffic lane. Also, Forester, whether you agree or not, disapproves of FRAP laws as being unnecessary and discriminatory.

You could argue that your notions about bike lanes is "close enough" (and you'd get a large number of people to agree with you) but they clearly aren't Forester's notions.

John Forester

JF: "Here Bek argues that if some cycling in bike lanes is vehicular, all bike-lane cycling must be. That's defective logic."

Bek: "I didn't argue that. I do agree with you that bicyclists can ride vehicularily in bikelanes in accordance with the rules of the road."

Bek's argument has no relevance to any discussion of which I am aware. It makes sense only as a reply to a claim that all riding in bike lanes has to violate the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, and nobody, so far as I am aware, has ever made that claim. That argument is so absurd that I couldn't guess that that was the argument that Bek thought that he was countering.

Bek: "john, bikeways planning standards recognize and are designed in accordance with expected roadway bicycling in obeyance with the rules of the road. MUP 'highways' have their own rules but roadway bicycling bikeway standards are definetly intended in accordance with rules of the road bicycling."

JF: However, that does not answer my charge that bikeways planning standards are not designed in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. I repeat, I have never seen such a statement in any governmental document, either as a design aim or as an operating instruction. The bikeways planning standards are designed to encourage incompetent cycling for two reasons: motorists like that, and bicycle advocates believe it is popular.

JF: I stated that the governmental bicycle program has 'almost nothing to do with reducing car-bike collisions, not part of any substantial, coherent, official program for reducing car-bike collisions, for no such program exists.'

To which Bek replied: "This reflects an extremely narrow view of the broader issues of bicycling in society, bicycling as transportation, transportation modality and bikeways planning."

This is of the type of the standard reply by bicycle advocates. We don't care just how dangerous cycling is, as long as we get more of it by managing to persuade the public that we have made it safe for them. This is precisely the immoral attitude that I, and many others, have criticized for so long.

Bek: "As to John's 'road sneak' method of sharing lanes between two lines of faster traffic, of riding like a 'road sneak' is a forester technique. i think you got a ticket for it, yes? regardless. it's a very inferior method of vehicular cycling in my opinion."

That's not what I labelled as "road sneak", which was waiting for a platoon of traffic to pass before changing lanes. And I never got a ticket for it; nobody I know has ever got a ticket for that practice.

Bekologist

ANYHOO<

riding a bicycle As far right as practicable is, quite possibly, the simplest, most basic embodiment of vehicular cycling practice.

Ride only as far to the right as is safe at a given time and place dependent on traffic and roadway conditions.


Anyway, i wonder how the OP is doing with his paper??