danarnold

BTW, Bek, since you've expressed concern about legal ethics, I'm teaching a Continuing Legal Education course tomorrow morning on legal ethics. We will have a Washington Court of Appeals Judge present, as well as two Superior Court Judges, and a dozen lawyers. You are welcome to attend. Since I am presenting the discussion, I'll guarantee you five minutes to address the group on your opinions on the subject.

Friday morning, 7:00 am sharp at the Red Lion in Richland, WA. I'll buy you breakfast.

Bekologist

MY apologies, Robert, i seemed to think you took a too-critical view of class II bikeways myself.

I didn't recall you were pro- class I bikeway.

what's a class I separated bikeway in sprawling suburban Denver is a Class I cycletrack in New York City, much more built in over existing street grids.

There has got to be a blend in a consideration of facility to run the gamut from unmodified neighborhood streets, sharrowed low speed connector and downtown streets, bikelaned high speed arterial serving greater distances for bicyclists in a metropolis, and bonifide MUP networks like minneapolis and denver exemplify so well.

A well thought out, localized blend of all these enhancements will bring greater ridership to american roads and highways of america. this is indisputable.

gcottay

I'd bet my quarter dollar that Bek is a no show.

Bekologist

why the heck would I even care? 5 hours drive time to go eat breakfast with a bunch of judges and lawyers because they need recurrent education on their ethical duties?

Richland and the quad cities are developing bike infrastructure that will increase on road bicycling in dan arnold's community. th bicyclists he sees in ever increasing numbers will likely increase HIS road safety, an indirect result of on road bike infrastructure.

dan arnold makes it clear a bicycling lawyer can still suffer serious anti-cycling bias.

danarnold

Yes. I confess it was a rhetorical offer. I just thought I'd give Bek another chance to respond to a gracious offer with a Beckism.

danarnold

Bek, you are priceless and so predictable. I thought you'd bicycle over. It's only 3.5 hours by car.

I should point out, lawyers are required to get 15 hours of continuing legal education per year, including ethics credits. The law keeps changing. dammit. Each week the courts of appeal and Supreme Court of Washington churn out dozens of new opinions, and those are only the appellate cases that are published.

Our group meets every Friday morning, about 50 weeks a year to discuss the latest cases. Tomorrow's my week in the barrel.

BTW, I've been pro bicycle longer than you've been alive. Of course, I'm always ready to listen to the rantings of Johnny-come-Lately's that know everything.

Bekologist

is this thread about you, or about finding common ground in the bicycling community?

seems you are a blowhard.

gcottay

Bek, you seem to confuse cycling advocacy with the denigration of those who may disagree with you in any way no matter how trivial. I happen to agree with many of your substantial comments, but your invective is highly dysfunctional. It suggests you care less about cycling than you do your own posturing.

Pscyclepath

Of course, he's a blowhard... that's how lawyers make their living ;-)

Bekologist

.....Nice and fair contributions from a lawyer heading off to an ethics roundtable this morning, all boasts and putdowns!

We can get back to common ground in the advocacy community in a bit,

Bikeways on arterials are going in in Dan Arnolds community, and he is vigorously opposed to on road arterial architecture for bicyclists. 'reasoning' against better roadway space for bicycling is guaranteed to stunt ridership. Bikeways are going in to improve riding conditions for all, and nonethless some stand opossed to on road architecture that will build and increase road ridership while enhancing safety.

the FHWA holds seriously its duties to the american road user thru bikeways planning. Federal transportation policies regarding bicycling are sound. federal bike transportation policies are backed by the weight and ethical integrity of american traffic engineers: Design better roadways for bicycling that will aid an increase on road ridership while enhancing safety.

the original poster conflates two seemingly opposite ends of the bicycling spectrum into near synonymous camps. grouping those that understand community planning for bicycling aids rider share with the camp that are vigorously, vehemently opposed to any bike specificity of pavement, or is he just grouping the vocal on both sides of the issue against the follow-sheep?

Nowhere in Robert Hursts' essay did HE conflate the motives of the obstructionists' 'every bike is a vehicle, drive it like a car, DAMMIT" and those that he thinks are exemplified by idealism that seperated cycling facilities are key to building ridership. Robert Hurst states neither extreme is very effective or realistic. More importantly , his essay discussed by the OP is to beware those that claim a fight for 'equality' on the roads as they may calling for a diminishment of bicyclists rights.

This issue is crystalline: a fight for greater 'equality' under specious beliefs that a bike is a vehicle just like a car and should be treated with no special statutory considerations is a call for a diminishment of bicyclists rights in america.


It's interesting how Robert dismisses greater separated cycletrack architecture but then lauds dedicated path networks. a contradictory claim from a guy seemingly so critical of both schools of community bike planning.

when it comes down to community bike planning, i fall into neither of the gross groupings robert seems to think accurately describes the state of bicycling advocacy in america.

I find the juvenile groupings into 'cycletrack promoters' and 'vehicular cyclists' overly simplistic, an unrealistic view of cycling advocacy.

there already IS much middle ground. What truly needs to be tempered in america is the blatant obstructionism of bikeways planning on the part of 'vehicular' bicyclists.

Dan arnold is a good example of a bicyclists wirh well intentioned but specious beliefs if he stands vigorously against bikeways networks on the arterials where he lives.


Common ground? vehicular cyclists need to recognize roadway networks, particularily arterial roadway networks in communities, can be redeisgned to MUTCD arterial standards and built in with bicycle specific infrastructure so as to make these arterial roads more conducive to on road, vehicular bicycling.

there are NO bright eyed and bushy tailed cycling advocates that think bicyclists need separated tracks on every street in a community. Fair enough, there should be no push by frosh bicycling advocates pushing for a system of wholly separate bikeways.

how would that even work?


BUT why SHOULDN'T NEW YORK CITY or Portland design and build some class I cycletracks? Seems robert likes Class I architecture in denver....

I think there needs to be greater common ground and a bigger nod from the 'seasoned bicyclist' towards effective community bikeways planning.

Experienced cyclists like Robert, Dan, myself, and most of the posters to A&S need to recognize the young, the old, and the mamachari, not the bike messsengers, are the bicyclists that cities are trying to bring to ride on the roads.

Not every community will be well served by a western states sprawl-opolis system of class I bikeways and sharrows..... diversity of roadway architecture as part of a well considered bikeways plan including class ii arterial bikeways.

And to the obstructionsists? guys like john forester are the laughingstock of bicycling advocacy nowadays.

with his ridiculously incorrect and marginalizing 'bicyclists in all 50 states are prohibited from leaving the edge of the roadway unless a legal excuse is demonstrated' john forester abundantly showcases his extremely negative, inaccurate and denigratory attitude towards roadway bicycling. he can be summarily dismissed as having nothing substantive to bring to the table.

RobertHurst

Not contradictory at all.

There is no such thing as 'separated cycletrack architecture.' That's the whole point. Cycletracks are sidepaths which are part of the street and sidewalk grid. They are only separated in peoples' minds. I believe that much of the attraction to these cycletracks that we're seeing stems from a basic MISUNDERSTANDING of what these facilities really mean. Honestly, when folks imagine a 'European style cycletrack network' I think most of them imagine a fully-separated system, not the reality of a sidepath system that is part of the grid and must come to terms with the grid. There is a lot of confusion about 'cycletracks.' People are going to get suckered.

Class I bikeways, in stark contrast, are completely separated from the street grid, and provide virtually non-stop transportation for bicyclists through crowded urban areas. Obviously there aren't a whole lot of places where Class I bikeways can be installed (beside rivers, canals, rails, highways, etc.). The beauty of it is these things are so effective and helpful that communities only need install a few of them to make a serious and obvious improvement for bicyclists.

So no, not a contradiction, and let's keep it straight. We're talking about two completely different types of facilities here. 'Cycletracks' represent a step backward, and transportationally-useful Class I bikeways (aka fully-separated MUPs) represent a step forward.

Bekologist

I'm with you on the potential dangers of placing seperated class i bikeway architecture in closs proximity to existing street grids, but also suggest it can be done quite well. I recall the Embarcadero in SF had some kind of cycletrack, a recently opened Class I 'cycletrack' in NYC has been lauded by locals there, is it by the george washington parkway?


I don't think theres' a 'one size fits all solution' for cities on how to better mesh class I architecture in cities with existing street grids, but think there will be more effective examples of this roadway architecture developing in cities in america.

these cycletracks would always represent an extreme minority of road miles in any community and even a minority of bikeway miles.

when does a 'cycletrack' become a class II bikeway? how much seperation is needed for a cycletrack to become a class I bikeway? the copenhagen system seems to be able to integrate vast cycletracks in close proximity to motor vehicle traffic and STILL integrate bikes and cars quite well on the street grid and intersections, how come these work?

I rather like buffer delienated bikeways on higher speed arterials. I'll take hashmark emphasized buffers between me and the bliviots pushing freeway speeds between traffic signals, absolutely. this is preferable to watching ones 180 in the traffic lane to assure theres no bliviot driving their TV enabled SUV right up your saddlebag.

squirtdad

The majority of people here are familiar with MUP....which are generally nice scenery, often direct paths, but in general often miserable to cycle on because of the mix of pedestrians, strollers, dogs, runners, rollerbladers, skateboarders, and cyclists in a wide mix of skills, courtesy and obliviousness. I find I am at a much higher level of concentration and go much slower on these than I do on streets.

How in the world do you keep non cyclists off a class 1 bikeway? (I am assuming that this is the meaning, not just another word for MUP...please correct if that assumption is wrong) I simply don't see this as an option that is going to be implmented much if at all for a number of reasons.

invisiblehand

Relative to the entire population, I think it is clear that most people on A&S share a lot of common beliefs and support similar proposals.

I read the different emphasis described above by Robert H and agreed to by John F in their books. My guess is that what most people care about in the final equation is the level of risk or utility from executing the strategy in either book. By that standard, it seems to me that the two are very similar using either absolute or relative measures.

Without knowing Bek's corporeal persona, I think most people are more polite in person than on the web. My casual observation is in line with yours, people who needlessly antagonize others get little done in the end.



Very true. Although there are people that are willing to carefully consider and (attempt to) measure the costs and benefits too. Unless it becomes politically hot -- in which case, all bets are off -- my casual observation is that liberals and conservatives alike will listen and consider a thoughtful/rational analysis more than a passionate/"wacko" diatribe.

I'm surprised you would dismiss the opportunity to speak with such a group. Based on my own experience with lawyers around the Treasury and White House, if you care about the law -- how it is supposed to work, how it actually works, and so on -- talking to lawyers is helpful.

Bekologist

i doubt they would have wanted to talk to me about bicycling. the very invitation was a lame, misleading aside by someone antagonistic to my advocacy positions.

American bicyclists need no false rifts between maligned facilities advocates, bicyclists that seek to block all bike specificity in infrastructure & statute, and a third, illusory group of seasoned, road weary, cynical bicyclists with a cautious distrust of motorists.

I-Like-To-Bike

Exactly, and I challenge anyone on list to reference a thoughtful/rational analysis that makes a case that ANY U.S. forward looking cities spent a "disproportionate" amount of public funding on various infrastructure items to encourage riding, in comparison to the public funding spent on all forms of roads, sidewalks and public transportation in the same municipality.


Overreacting to the rants and diatribes of passionate wackos and zealots is a waste of time.

squirtdad

ILTB.....darn it your making me agree with you again! Of course I think are points are the same, just worded differently

the point is that rational people understand the benefits of (what in the total picture are inexpensive) cycling projects, but the non rational complain about everything (bicyles, mass tranist, etc). However this can be an obstacle as the non rational oftne yell louder.

randya

I believe the reason many in the US get confused about the difference between cycletracks/sidepaths and Class 1 bikeways is because the street grid in Amsterdam, where cycle tracks have been successful, is a lot different than the street grid in most US cities. The most significant difference is that the Amsterdam cycle tracks often run alongside one of the many canals that crisscross the city, and the presence of the canals limit the number of intersections along the cycle track, making it more closely resemble a Class 1 bikeway. The other difference is that the Dutch provide separate signal phases for cyclists, which is more expensive to design and build, and causes longer delays for motorists, and thus is less likely to be a feature of US cycle tracks.

invisiblehand

Maybe it would be a chance for you to ask questions and do a lot of listening. If there are a bunch of respected lawyers, I think you could be confident that you were getting a real answer.

randya

Robert's point is that 'cycle tracks' are not Class 1 bikeways.

The only real Class 1 Bikeways in Portland are the Eastside Esplanade and the Springwater trail from SE Ivon to SE Spokane; the cycle tracks the city is proposing along arterial streets like Broadway will not be Class 1 Bikeways, as there will be countless intersections and driveways with the potential for hooking and other types of cyclist-motorist crashes along these cycle tracks.

John Forester

Class 1 bikeway is a legal definition embodied in the standards. Both side paths and other spatially separated bike paths are Class 1 bikeways in the terms of the law and the standards.

Bekologist

Randya- I understand what a MUP is. I understand how cities are designed.

a cycletrack is a class I bikeway (although that class I,II,III,IV system may have been officially dropped). but how far are the distinctions blurred between an urban Class I MUP and an american Class I cycletrack? And what are the defining characteristics that will differentiate a Class I cycletrack with a Class II bikeway?

there are now space separated Class II, or 'buffered' bikelanes. how will these differ from a Class I space separated near-road cycletrack?

there's going to be a hybridization. raised curbs or no, parked cars outboard of travel lanes, all sorts of nuance.

how far does the cycletrack need to be away from the street to be considered a MUP in your mind? and when does a seperated cycletrack become a stripe seperated class II bikeway?

this type of integrated cycletrack systems are all over copenhagen and not just alongisde the canals, they integrate bikes and cars at likely hundreds if not a thousand plus intersections across their city.

Adding substantial bike infrastructure to american cityscape is going blend different characteristics of all classes of bikeway to make bikeways system of every variety more effective transportation tools.

Every cross town bikeway is not going to be a sharrow or a MUP, there's going to be accomodating bicyclists on roadways or in close proximity to motor vehicle traffic with a variety in style and significance of integration/separation methods.

randya

cycle track is just a new name for a sidepath, or a MUP, or whatever you want to call it; you can obfuscate all you want by changing the name but the basic concept remains the same

randya

Well, Robert is making an obvious distinction which I agree with, regardless of the legal definition you claim. where is the citation for that definition, btw?

pacificaslim

Again, you're all doing it wrong.

It's so easy a little kid can do it. Put a leg over the top tube, foot on pedal, push down, repeat...