Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Advocacy & Safety > Vehicular Cycling (VC)
Reload this Page >

I'm a little confused as to why the 'VC' subforum exists.

Notices
Vehicular Cycling (VC) No other subject has polarized the A&S members like VC has. Here's a place to share, debate, and educate.

I'm a little confused as to why the 'VC' subforum exists.

Old 05-14-10, 09:21 AM
  #51  
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023

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 9 Times in 8 Posts
oh, bike forums is a very frequent google hit. a popular site. lots of traffic. john and i can talk about it in another thread,

Bike forums being such a popular site is the reason the forum moderators created the VC subforum, to put lane positioning discussions and such not away from the main safety and advocacy discussion.

Last edited by Bekologist; 05-14-10 at 10:40 AM.
Bekologist is offline  
Old 05-14-10, 08:34 PM
  #52  
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 Bekologist
Will you confirm for the record, john forester, that you have previously opined in bike forums that cyclists, in all 50 states are prohibited from leaving the edge of the roadway unless a legal excuse is demonstrated?

did you or did you not make that erroneous proclamation about cyclists rights, john forester? because you did, you have, and it is not just misleading but grossly incorrect. there are several states that have no lateral lane positioning restriction on bicyclists. Additionally, laws regulating cyclists riding riding safely right do not often apply on multiple lane roads or when there is no overtaking traffic.

we can discuss this in another thread, john forester, if you'd care to.
Yes, I did so state about all states, and I was incorrect. The proper quantity is most states, or nearly all states.
John Forester is offline  
Old 05-14-10, 11:35 PM
  #53  
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023

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 9 Times in 8 Posts
cyclists need not demonstrate anything to anyone to ride away from the edge of the road when there is no overtaking traffic either. this is the case in most states.

Please refrain from marginalizing cyclists rights to the extent you have previously with your misleading and incorrect statements.

Actually, we should discuss this in another thread, as you do admit you made this statement. I'm confident the discussion can be genteel.
Bekologist is offline  
Old 05-15-10, 03:34 PM
  #54  
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 Bekologist
cyclists need not demonstrate anything to anyone to ride away from the edge of the road when there is no overtaking traffic either. this is the case in most states.

Please refrain from marginalizing cyclists rights to the extent you have previously with your misleading and incorrect statements.

Actually, we should discuss this in another thread, as you do admit you made this statement. I'm confident the discussion can be genteel.
This discussion has been covered at length for years. You and I disagree about the meaning of the word practicable as used in the FTR law. As I have previously written, I have had extensive experience in this matter, and I am confident in two things. First, that your view of the meaning of practicable is not that held by the three branches of government. Second, that my view is a much more accurate depiction of the view of the meaning of practicable as understood by the three branches of government. Considering the cases that have been reported, I see several that reflect my view and none that reflect your view. Unless you have cases to advance in which your view is supported over my view, I see no point in continuing the discussion.
John Forester is offline  
Old 05-15-10, 07:57 PM
  #55  
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023

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 9 Times in 8 Posts
john,

your misleading, repeated, marginalizing diminuation of cyclists rights is not simply you and i disagreeing on the meaning of the word practicable.

you're confident practicable does not legally mean what it legally means to the three branches of government? what a nonsequitur! states determine traffic codes and in many states, the requirement cyclists even have to ride right safely is predicated on the presence of traffic. no other traffic, no frap positioning is mandated.

since this is the case, why do you insist to the contrary? Many states only require FRAP in the presence of overtaking traffic.... when there is no overtaking traffic, cyclists are not burdened with your incorrect interpretation of the law.

John foresters' interpretations are misleading, incorrect and a smear on modern bicycling advocacy.

John, if you know better, why continue to opine that cyclists in most states are prohibited from leaving the edge of the roadway unless they demonstrate a legal excuse? That is a gross misstatement of cyclists legally allowed road position.

john forester stands by his statement that "cyclists in most every state are prohibited from travelling away from the edge of the roadway unless a legal excuse is demonstrated"

Not only is that a prejudicial, lazy and grossly incorrect interpretation of state laws about bicycling, it is bad bicycling advice.

Last edited by Bekologist; 05-15-10 at 09:55 PM.
Bekologist is offline  
Old 05-16-10, 04:41 PM
  #56  
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 Bekologist
john,

your misleading, repeated, marginalizing diminuation of cyclists rights is not simply you and i disagreeing on the meaning of the word practicable.

you're confident practicable does not legally mean what it legally means to the three branches of government? what a nonsequitur! states determine traffic codes and in many states, the requirement cyclists even have to ride right safely is predicated on the presence of traffic. no other traffic, no frap positioning is mandated.

since this is the case, why do you insist to the contrary? Many states only require FRAP in the presence of overtaking traffic.... when there is no overtaking traffic, cyclists are not burdened with your incorrect interpretation of the law.

John foresters' interpretations are misleading, incorrect and a smear on modern bicycling advocacy.

John, if you know better, why continue to opine that cyclists in most states are prohibited from leaving the edge of the roadway unless they demonstrate a legal excuse? That is a gross misstatement of cyclists legally allowed road position.

john forester stands by his statement that "cyclists in most every state are prohibited from travelling away from the edge of the roadway unless a legal excuse is demonstrated"

Not only is that a prejudicial, lazy and grossly incorrect interpretation of state laws about bicycling, it is bad bicycling advice.
I think that many of us know how the FTR laws have been enforced in many locations, and some of us recognize why they were initiated. Bekologist has a rather different view of the FTR laws. Law is defined both by its wording, by the way it is enforced, and by the opinions of courts as to what its words mean. Until Bekologist can advance court opinions that support his view over against the conventional view held by most of us, his words are worthless. That's the fact of the matter; there is no point in continuing the discussion until there has been some split in the official legal opinions.
John Forester is offline  
Old 05-16-10, 08:23 PM
  #57  
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023

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 9 Times in 8 Posts
john,

there is no 'edge of the roadway' wording in the UVC or any state law i have read. the wording is "as far right as practicable".

John's pithy "the edge of the roadway" is in and of itself a misleading interpretation of what as far right as practicable legally means in courtrooms. Perhaps john would secretly like cyclists constrained to the edge, and is willing to perpetuate a misleading interpretation of traffic laws, the prejudice that he apparently condemns above as " how the FTR laws have been enforced in many locations".

ADDITIONALLY to that point, in many states it is only required in the presence of overtaking traffic. Absent the conditions of overtaking traffic, cyclists suffer no onerous burden to operate as far right as is practicable. Only 13 states require a cyclist stay stay safely right with no other traffic overtaking.

about a dozen states is a far cry from 'nearly all states' requiring this default road position of cyclists, john forester.

This irrefutable reality of state traffic laws fundamentally exposes john foresters' fraudulent interpretation of traffic laws as they apply to bicyclists.



let's continue this debate in another thread, john forester, as the reasons this thread was started was not to debate your fallacious and misleading interpretations of traffic laws.

Last edited by Bekologist; 05-17-10 at 12:09 AM.
Bekologist is offline  
Old 05-17-10, 09:03 AM
  #58  
Sophomoric Member
 
Roody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Dancing in Lansing
Posts: 24,221
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 711 Post(s)
Liked 13 Times in 13 Posts
I opposed the creation of this sub-subforum. I thought it would be better to censure (not censor) individuals when they broke the existing guidelines.

The helmet discussion on A&S is becoming as tedious as the old VC discussions, but so far it's more civil.
__________________

"Think Outside the Cage"
Roody is offline  
Old 05-17-10, 09:11 PM
  #59  
Kaffee Nazi
 
danarnold's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Richland, WA
Posts: 1,374

Bikes: 2009 Kestrel RT800, 2007 Roubaix, 1976 Lambert-Viscount

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
This discussion has been covered at length for years. You and I disagree about the meaning of the word practicable as used in the FTR law. As I have previously written, I have had extensive experience in this matter, and I am confident in two things. First, that your view of the meaning of practicable is not that held by the three branches of government. Second, that my view is a much more accurate depiction of the view of the meaning of practicable as understood by the three branches of government. Considering the cases that have been reported, I see several that reflect my view and none that reflect your view. Unless you have cases to advance in which your view is supported over my view, I see no point in continuing the discussion.
Bek takes the Lewis Carrol/Humpty Dumpty view of words. To Bek a word means whatever he wants it to mean. As Humpty said, it's a matter of who's in charge:

' “I don’t know what you mean by ‘glory,’ ” Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. “Of course you don’t—till I tell you. I meant ‘there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!’ ”
“But ‘glory’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knock-down argument’,” Alice objected.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master that’s all.”
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. “They’ve a temper, some of them—particularly verbs, they’re the proudest—adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs—however, I can manage the whole lot! Impenetrability! That’s what I say!”'
danarnold is offline  
Old 05-17-10, 09:16 PM
  #60  
Kaffee Nazi
 
danarnold's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Richland, WA
Posts: 1,374

Bikes: 2009 Kestrel RT800, 2007 Roubaix, 1976 Lambert-Viscount

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
This discussion has been covered at length for years. You and I disagree about the meaning of the word practicable as used in the FTR law. As I have previously written, I have had extensive experience in this matter, and I am confident in two things. First, that your view of the meaning of practicable is not that held by the three branches of government. Second, that my view is a much more accurate depiction of the view of the meaning of practicable as understood by the three branches of government. Considering the cases that have been reported, I see several that reflect my view and none that reflect your view. Unless you have cases to advance in which your view is supported over my view, I see no point in continuing the discussion.
Bek takes the Lewis Carrol/Humpty Dumpty view of words. To Bek a word means whatever he wants it to mean. As Humpty said, it's a matter of who's in charge:

' “I don’t know what you mean by ‘glory,’ ” Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. “Of course you don’t—till I tell you. I meant ‘there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!’ ”
“But ‘glory’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knock-down argument’,” Alice objected.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master that’s all.”
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. “They’ve a temper, some of them—particularly verbs, they’re the proudest—adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs—however, I can manage the whole lot! Impenetrability! That’s what I say!”'
danarnold is offline  
Old 05-17-10, 11:08 PM
  #61  
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023

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 9 Times in 8 Posts
that's entertaining.

Ignoring the disrespectful aside for a moment, none of danarnolds juvenile skit negates john foresters wildly prejudicial interpretation of bicyclists rights.

Perhaps john forester would secretly like cyclists constrained to the edge, and is willing to perpetuate a misleading interpretation of traffic laws, the prejudice that he paradoxically condemns above as " how the FTR laws have been enforced in many locations".

Last edited by Bekologist; 05-17-10 at 11:39 PM.
Bekologist is offline  
Old 05-17-10, 11:57 PM
  #62  
Kaffee Nazi
 
danarnold's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Richland, WA
Posts: 1,374

Bikes: 2009 Kestrel RT800, 2007 Roubaix, 1976 Lambert-Viscount

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
" I believe that much of this contentiousness and division (and sub, sub divisions) comes from the same quality that makes some people ardent cyclists. There is as psychological component to their motivation, some kind of need for exclusivity, of ownership of 'cycling,' as if it were their private domain, their own invention. They guard this neurotic belief jealously. Some of these folk are simply bigots. They advocate cycling as an end in itself and put cycling and bicycles above any other form of transportation or machine. Then they launch themselves from there to the notion that there is some ideal way to cycle: THEIR way. "

Some of these people announce themselves in obvious ways. The call themselves by various macho, egomaniacal titles such as 'Caveman Biker.'
danarnold is offline  
Old 05-17-10, 11:59 PM
  #63  
Kaffee Nazi
 
danarnold's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Richland, WA
Posts: 1,374

Bikes: 2009 Kestrel RT800, 2007 Roubaix, 1976 Lambert-Viscount

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
" I believe that much of this contentiousness and division (and sub, sub divisions) comes from the same quality that makes some people ardent cyclists. There is as psychological component to their motivation, some kind of need for exclusivity, of ownership of 'cycling,' as if it were their private domain, their own invention. They guard this neurotic belief jealously. Some of these folk are simply bigots. They advocate cycling as an end in itself and put cycling and bicycles above any other form of transportation or machine. Then they launch themselves from there to the notion that there is some ideal way to cycle: THEIR way. "

Some of these people announce themselves in obvious ways. The call themselves by various macho, egomaniacal titles such as 'Caveman Biker.'
danarnold is offline  
Old 05-18-10, 12:14 AM
  #64  
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023

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 9 Times in 8 Posts
yes, dan arnold. Childish juvenile disparagements like your last two(or is it four?) attempts illustrate exactly why this subforum was created !

Last edited by Bekologist; 05-18-10 at 12:49 AM.
Bekologist is offline  
Old 06-24-10, 02:16 PM
  #65  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 107
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I think I understand now.

Originally Posted by Raiden
Its my (American; primarily Californian) perspective that most roads are in place for all forms of transportation. Few roads have specific accommodations for any specific type of vehicle- the basic 'road' is a bare strip of pavement (I'm not sure if a white line on either side is even a legal requirement for a road). Sometimes, there are posted limits to follow- lines to pilot your vehicle between, speed limits to obey, maximum height and weight allowances- but not always, and in an absence of posted limits (and in addition to them), all rules default to the vehicle code.

Of course, in many places, there are bike lanes and separated bike paths- but they're not everywhere (in fact, they're only on a tiny percentage of roads in the US). I'm assuming a non-'vehicular cyclist' would default to the shoulder of a road in the absence of a designated bike lane, which would increase the percentage of roads usable to non-'vehicular cyclists', but would not be 100%. This means that its (currently) impossible to be a non-'vehicular cyclist' on all roads. Also, a non-'vehicular cyclist' on a road, with or without specific accommodations for a bicycle will always be a vehicle and subject to the vehicle code.

My point is that I think this part of the forum is organized backwards, and that the separation is bizarre. I realize that it sounds like I'm taking the term 'vehicular cycling' too literally, but I think splitting cyclists into specific camps is unnecessary. I consider myself a 'vehicular cyclist' because I ride on the roads with everyone else- but you'll typically (not always) find me on the shoulder or bike lane if there was a separated bike path that was faster or safer than the road, I'd use that too. By the typical definitions, I'm not a hardcore 'vehicular cyclist', nor am I whatever the other school of thought calls itself.

Bike lanes and bike paths are tools, just like the law is a tool and my bike is a tool. When I ride, I try to use the best tool for the job. I feel that vehicular cycling is the norm, and the use of additional cycling infrastructure is a bonus, but not the default method of cycling.

Sorry if that was long-winded, redundant, and/or pedantic.

Forum suggestion: If a separation in the forum is truly needed, eliminate 'VC' and install 'Grandma, Not Lycra' or, uhh, 'Progress Toward the European-Style Cycling Utopia' in its place.
Let me see if I got this right. The "VC" subforum exists to keep the unpleasant and unpopular savages away from the decent folk. This is not what I thought it was, about cycling in traffic--it is a religious war that is out of control! I must say, the vehicular cyclist views are pretty hard to stomach--what are you trying to protect? I don't think it is cyclists. Bikes and cars are not alike. People have the same rights, but when they do different things those rights are affected. Bikes and cars is not an apples to apples conversation. All vehicles are not the same. I agree with Raiden for the most part. I am confused by the VC folks. However, I see bike infrastructure as a policy being done to cyclists, not for cyclists or by them. Consequently, I wonder what is the end and where it will end?

I take intersections very seriously, but I do not feel any need to stop and go when motorists do--it just doesn't apply. It doesn't apply because 99% of the time a cyclist usually isn't a danger to others. I stop and wait if necessary, but if it's not I don't. Bike lanes on the other hand, lead to bike lights and other efforts at management, which I think screw both motorists and cyclists. They can keep Copenhagen right where it is as far as I'm concerned. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Bike lanes can't fix it, so I think drivers just need to learn to share. Cyclists need to learn some graceful handling on the road. Now which forum is a good place to take that up?
elihu23 is offline  
Old 06-30-10, 08:30 AM
  #66  
Kaffee Nazi
 
danarnold's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Richland, WA
Posts: 1,374

Bikes: 2009 Kestrel RT800, 2007 Roubaix, 1976 Lambert-Viscount

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
One of the reasons people who cycle in the street have strong opinions about it is the fear that the sidewalk 'cyclists' and bike lane purists, well meaning tho they may be, constitute a force that makes it easier to take away our right to ride in the street. The fear is not just that the rules of the road may change to our disadvantage, but that the higher the percentage of cyclists who only ride on sidewalks, MUPS, and bike lanes, the more fuel it gives to the motorist to see a vehicular cyclist as infringing on 'THEIR' roads. We have enough of those ignorant drivers as it is, without encouraging them.
danarnold is offline  
Old 06-30-10, 08:54 AM
  #67  
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023

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 9 Times in 8 Posts
for all the wide ranging social benefits attendant with bicycling, its' not a mistaken belief in the superior value to be gained from normalizing bicycling as transportation for more of the american public.

Benefits that are as far reaching as senior mobility, environmental quality and mental health benefits to the public in addition to the more obvious benefits from encouraging and normalizing bicycling as a viable mode of personal transportation by planning for and encouraging bicyclists use of the public roads.

well considered regional transportation plans that include bicycle specific preferred class lanes along select transportation corridors will lead to greater ridership on ALL roads in a region.

more bikes on all roads in communities somehow creates "a force to take away our rights to ride in the street?" please.
Bekologist is offline  
Old 06-30-10, 09:30 AM
  #68  
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 Bekologist
for all the wide ranging social benefits attendant with bicycling, its' not a mistaken belief in the superior value to be gained from normalizing bicycling as transportation for more of the american public.

Benefits that are as far reaching as senior mobility, environmental quality and mental health benefits to the public in addition to the more obvious benefits from encouraging and normalizing bicycling as a viable mode of personal transportation by planning for and encouraging bicyclists use of the public roads.

well considered regional transportation plans that include bicycle specific preferred class lanes along select transportation corridors will lead to greater ridership on ALL roads in a region.

more bikes on all roads in communities somehow creates "a force to take away our rights to ride in the street?" please.
Cycling, either for recreation or for transportation, when chosen freely, and when done lawfully and competently, is clearly a beneficial activity. However, such is rare and is not that which is being promoted by society and by government, although Bek falls into the mistake of thinking so.

Bek maintains (by making rhetorical question) that a greater proportion of bicycle traffic will not reduce cyclists' right to ride in the street or, he fails to suggest, reduce cyclists' right to operate safely and effectively. There is no evidence of that claim, and several opposing examples. Take the Netherlands and Denmark, where cyclists are forbidden to ride on many streets and forbidden to make normal left turns, precisely because of the high proportion of bicycle traffic. And, much closer to home, is the American case. As long as cycling was seen as dying, American motorists didn't bother about it, but as soon as an increase in adult cycling materialized, in the later 1960s, American motorists created the bikeway system, with its restrictive facilities and laws, to keep the roads clear for motorists.

And that bikeway system, designed to keep the roads clear for motorists, is precisely what Bek advocates. It is Bek's belief that the presence of bikeways will persuade many American motorists to switch a transportationally significant number of motor trips to bicycle trips. That's his belief, which he is free to state as a hope, but for which there is no evidence whatsoever.
John Forester is offline  
Old 06-30-10, 10:15 AM
  #69  
Kaffee Nazi
 
danarnold's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Richland, WA
Posts: 1,374

Bikes: 2009 Kestrel RT800, 2007 Roubaix, 1976 Lambert-Viscount

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Bekologist
more bikes on all roads in communities somehow creates "a force to take away our rights to ride in the street?" please.
You state the exact opposite of what I said, then ridicule that opinion you made up. What is the purpose of such rhetoric?

I stated that that IF MUPS, sidewalk riding and bike lanes results in fewer cyclists on the roads in regular traffic, that will only encourage motorists in their mistaken belief that the roads are for them only. What is it about unintended consequences you do not understand?
danarnold is offline  
Old 06-30-10, 10:23 AM
  #70  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,241
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4222 Post(s)
Liked 1,322 Times in 916 Posts
Originally Posted by John Forester
Bek maintains (by making rhetorical question) that a greater proportion of bicycle traffic will not reduce cyclists' right to ride in the street or, he fails to suggest, reduce cyclists' right to operate safely and effectively. There is no evidence of that claim, and several opposing examples. Take the Netherlands and Denmark
You don't have to go that far for an opposing example.

In Nyack/Piermont, NY, very popular local destinations for cyclists in the area (including NYC), you can't get away with doing things that people generally ignore just a few miles away.
njkayaker is offline  
Old 06-30-10, 10:23 AM
  #71  
Kaffee Nazi
 
danarnold's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Richland, WA
Posts: 1,374

Bikes: 2009 Kestrel RT800, 2007 Roubaix, 1976 Lambert-Viscount

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Bekologist
more bikes on all roads in communities somehow creates "a force to take away our rights to ride in the street?" please.
You state the exact opposite of what I said, then ridicule that opinion you made up. What is the purpose of such rhetoric?

I stated that that IF MUPS, sidewalk riding and bike lanes results in fewer cyclists on the roads in regular traffic, that will only encourage motorists in their mistaken belief that the roads are for them only. What is it about unintended consequences you do not understand?
danarnold is offline  
Old 06-30-10, 10:35 AM
  #72  
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079

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

Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times in 3,158 Posts
Originally Posted by danarnold
You state the exact opposite of what I said, then ridicule that opinion you made up. What is the purpose of such rhetoric?

I stated that that IF MUPS, sidewalk riding and bike lanes results in fewer cyclists on the roads in regular traffic, that will only encourage motorists in their mistaken belief that the roads are for them only. What is it about unintended consequences you do not understand?

OK I have not been a part of this conversation, but I wish to interject something here... motorists already feel that bikes don't belong and the roadway designers tend to reinforce that mindset by continuing to design roadways as if pedestrian and cyclist traffic doesn't matter. The unintended consequences are already there... so how about when such designs are made (such as 50+MPH roads with high speed merges) they should also include provisions for cyclists. Otherwise... such roads do not belong anywhere except for limited access freeways.

The more a roadway resembles a freeway, the less the general cycling public is going to feel comfortable using it. Yes, I agree that this all perpetuates the myth that cyclists don't belong, but "forcing" cyclists to use such roadways is NOT going to foster good will with either motorists nor the general cycling public... only the boldest and bravest cyclists will use such roads.... thus limiting cycling to "the choir," while eliminating "the congregation."
genec is offline  
Old 06-30-10, 10:52 AM
  #73  
High Roller
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Mentioned: Post(s)
Tagged: Thread(s)
Quoted: Post(s)
Some other examples of unintended consequences, compliments of Wikipedia, to assist with Bek’s reading comprehension issues:

In Hanoi, under French colonial rule, a program paying people a bounty for each rat pelt handed in was intended to exterminate rats. Instead, it led to the farming of rats.

Funding fire departments by the number of fire calls made is intended to reward the fire departments that do the most work. However, it may discourage them from fire-prevention activities, which reduce the number of fires.

19th century palaeontologists traveling to China used to pay peasants for each fragment of dinosaur bone (dinosaur fossils) that they produced. They later discovered that peasants dug up the bones and then smashed them into multiple pieces to maximize their payments.

Paying architects and engineers according to what is spent on a project leads to excessively costly projects.

Paying medical professionals and reimbursing insured patients for treatment but not for prevention.

The NFL Draft gives the earliest draft picks to the teams with the worst records in the previous season, encouraging teams no longer eligible for the playoffs in a given season to lose as many games as possible so that they can obtain better draft picks the following season.

Last edited by High Roller; 07-01-10 at 09:10 AM.
 
Old 06-30-10, 09:05 PM
  #74  
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023

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 9 Times in 8 Posts
actually, danarnold, design of select road corridors with preferred class infrastructure as part of a dedicated, well considered bike route network leads to MORE bicyclists on ALL roads in a community.

your big "IF" is not a worry. your fears are overblown, its not a worry. I reiterated the reasons it is not a worry. Yes.

Regional bike networks with on road bike infrastructure does not lead to less bicyclists on the roads. where in the world do you get this impression? this impression of yours is misguided, and wildly incorrect when looking at cities that plan for bicyclists in the transportation mix with on road, bicyclist specific roadscaping.


sure, maybe some motorists would still think bicyclists have to use bike lanes (YAWN)

Build in bike infrastructure, cities get bicyclsts ALL OVER THE PLACE! like rats courtesy of wikipedia

Last edited by Bekologist; 06-30-10 at 09:13 PM.
Bekologist is offline  
Old 06-30-10, 11:15 PM
  #75  
Kaffee Nazi
 
danarnold's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Richland, WA
Posts: 1,374

Bikes: 2009 Kestrel RT800, 2007 Roubaix, 1976 Lambert-Viscount

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by genec
OK I have not been a part of this conversation, but I wish to interject something here... motorists already feel that bikes don't belong and the roadway designers tend to reinforce that mindset by continuing to design roadways as if pedestrian and cyclist traffic doesn't matter. The unintended consequences are already there... so how about when such designs are made (such as 50+MPH roads with high speed merges) they should also include provisions for cyclists. Otherwise... such roads do not belong anywhere except for limited access freeways.

The more a roadway resembles a freeway, the less the general cycling public is going to feel comfortable using it. Yes, I agree that this all perpetuates the myth that cyclists don't belong, but "forcing" cyclists to use such roadways is NOT going to foster good will with either motorists nor the general cycling public... only the boldest and bravest cyclists will use such roads.... thus limiting cycling to "the choir," while eliminating "the congregation."
There's much to what you say, Gene, particularly when you point out road features in addition to high speed. There are many 50 mph roads with wide lanes that appear to me to be safe for cycling. I ride them regularly. But I certainly wouldn't ride on a freeway. My main issue is that all but limited access freeways SHOULD be designed for bicycle travel and part of such design should be features that communicate to all that the cyclist has equal and sometimes superior rights to the road. I have nothing against a well designed bike lane that does not inadvertently or otherwise signal bikes should stay off.

Sharrows and other signs may not be the entire answer, but at least they do not proclaim that cyclists should ride in a proscribed path and no where else. I agree with those who say that frequently bike lanes are simply designed, and often poorly so, to simply keep cyclists off the roads. Couldn't most of us agree that most streets could use more signs and sharrows and other indicators that bikes belong? I would like to see more publicity along those lines, including the need for the three foot rule, with presumptions that favor cyclists. But the law is of little help unless it is publicized.
danarnold is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.