Vehicular Cycling: Cycling's Secret Sect
07-10-10, 07:07 AM
#76
totally louche
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 10 Times
in
9 Posts
Utopia's a town in Erehwon, isn't it?
a community that gets 30 percent of its daily trips outside the home done by bike is qualitatively a healthier, happier society than any american petrograd despite the Danish proclivity for ennui and dissatisfaction.
a community that gets 30 percent of its daily trips outside the home done by bike is qualitatively a healthier, happier society than any american petrograd despite the Danish proclivity for ennui and dissatisfaction.
07-12-10, 10:00 AM
#77
Senior Member
Even when promoting greenway MUPS, wide lanes, shoulders, bike lanes, bike boulevards, and such, care must be taken to describe these facilities as supplementing use of the existing roadways, for the purpose of reducing social friction, improving cyclists comfort, improving convenience, etc.
Note that it's not just motoring interests who are tempted to treat bikeways as the only legitimate infrastructure for bicycling. Those planning and engineering firms (and even some government departments) that specialize in bicycle-specific engineering will sometimes try to get their product defined as THE system for bicycle transportation, in order to maximize their funding. Some cities have equated their bicycle plan to their greenway plan, with no consideration of on-roadway cycling.
If cyclists want money to be spent on education, enforcement, and maintenance issues related to use of the existing streets, and see all streets become better places for cycling, they should start with a comprehensive approach that treats them as entitled to use those streets.
07-12-10, 11:10 AM
#78
Part-time epistemologist
Look ... I'm trying to help you make a better argument. I think we all understand that the people that visit the A&S VC subforum have developed pretty strong points of view. So the only point of discussing something here is if you turn around and talk to other people. If you make the "urban" argument as presented below and someone else understands what those figures represent -- I think it is pretty clear that what the Census Bureau calls urban deviates pretty far from what people envision when using the word -- then you need a better response. Often you only get one crack at changing someone's mind.
For instance, look back at the past 10 years of the global warming debate. I bet that a bunch of scientists wish that they could change their presentations over that period.
__________________
A narrative on bicycle driving.
A narrative on bicycle driving.
07-12-10, 12:24 PM
#79
totally louche
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 10 Times
in
9 Posts
yes. you think 'stylized' depictions of urban living somehow presents too large a stumbling block for a discussion of the obstructionists sometimes characterized as 'vehicular cyclists' and how there is a cadre of these mongers out there stunting designs to increase roadway bicycling in america.
'more obstacles than opportunities'
we're talking how to plan for bikes as transportation, invisiblehand.
how it is done, and in which 'urban' or 'rural' environment is really a bit of a doubting thomas dodge when the discussion is about a group of people dedicated to thwarting federally recognized guidelines for increasing roadway bicycling while enhancing overall roadway safety.
playing the doubting thomas has been repeatedly shown to be your M.O. and the discussion is not about how best to put a bike facility in bismark and the outliers into rural north dakota compared to cook county illinois.
sure, wow. wild, america looks different. what? towns are different than the big city? flabbergasting. the roads are a bit different in different places, you don't say? i'm taken aback. and people sometimes live further than other people from work? how facile. i mean, fascinating.
'more obstacles than opportunities'
we're talking how to plan for bikes as transportation, invisiblehand. how it is done, and in which 'urban' or 'rural' environment is really a bit of a doubting thomas dodge when the discussion is about a group of people dedicated to thwarting federally recognized guidelines for increasing roadway bicycling while enhancing overall roadway safety.
playing the doubting thomas has been repeatedly shown to be your M.O. and the discussion is not about how best to put a bike facility in bismark and the outliers into rural north dakota compared to cook county illinois.
sure, wow. wild, america looks different. what? towns are different than the big city? flabbergasting. the roads are a bit different in different places, you don't say? i'm taken aback. and people sometimes live further than other people from work? how facile. i mean, fascinating.
Last edited by Bekologist; 07-12-10 at 12:30 PM.
07-12-10, 01:03 PM
#80
Infamous Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 24,360
Bikes: Surly Big Dummy, Fuji World, 80ish Bianchi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
3 Posts
__________________
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
07-12-10, 01:10 PM
#81
genec
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
Sometimes a solid description of cyclists' roadway rights is necessary to properly frame the issue of infrastructure improvements even when promoting them. Too many motoring interests involved in transportation issues will seize on the opportunity to use bicycle-specific facilities as a means to cast "plain" streets as car-only places where no cyclists should be, through either exaggerated claims of danger or groupthink.
Even when promoting greenway MUPS, wide lanes, shoulders, bike lanes, bike boulevards, and such, care must be taken to describe these facilities as supplementing use of the existing roadways, for the purpose of reducing social friction, improving cyclists comfort, improving convenience, etc.
Note that it's not just motoring interests who are tempted to treat bikeways as the only legitimate infrastructure for bicycling. Those planning and engineering firms (and even some government departments) that specialize in bicycle-specific engineering will sometimes try to get their product defined as THE system for bicycle transportation, in order to maximize their funding. Some cities have equated their bicycle plan to their greenway plan, with no consideration of on-roadway cycling.
If cyclists want money to be spent on education, enforcement, and maintenance issues related to use of the existing streets, and see all streets become better places for cycling, they should start with a comprehensive approach that treats them as entitled to use those streets.
Even when promoting greenway MUPS, wide lanes, shoulders, bike lanes, bike boulevards, and such, care must be taken to describe these facilities as supplementing use of the existing roadways, for the purpose of reducing social friction, improving cyclists comfort, improving convenience, etc.
Note that it's not just motoring interests who are tempted to treat bikeways as the only legitimate infrastructure for bicycling. Those planning and engineering firms (and even some government departments) that specialize in bicycle-specific engineering will sometimes try to get their product defined as THE system for bicycle transportation, in order to maximize their funding. Some cities have equated their bicycle plan to their greenway plan, with no consideration of on-roadway cycling.
If cyclists want money to be spent on education, enforcement, and maintenance issues related to use of the existing streets, and see all streets become better places for cycling, they should start with a comprehensive approach that treats them as entitled to use those streets.
Oddly I was forgetting the very shades of gray I typically use when I bike... using both well designed paths and riding very vehicularly on the roadways...
Admittedly though the P&P crowd rarely acts in an obstructionist manner, unlike some of the stricter VC crowd, who at times have even announced here on BF that "no bike lane are good, either past, present, or future." (that is slightly paraphrased... but I believe it is an accurate representation of the feelings that have been expressed by some.)
I think we all have to bend a bit... And work together to promote cycling as a whole for all the good it can be, for all that may desire to bike.
07-12-10, 03:30 PM
#82
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
Indeed you are right... I was slipping down the slippery slope there for a second... the "problems" tend to occur when either side, strictly VC or P&P tend to think in absolutes. Cycling is NOT a black and white issue, as a sport, as transportation or as just a form of exercise... there are shades of gray all over that must be acknowledged.
Oddly I was forgetting the very shades of gray I typically use when I bike... using both well designed paths and riding very vehicularly on the roadways...
Admittedly though the P&P crowd rarely acts in an obstructionist manner, unlike some of the stricter VC crowd, who at times have even announced here on BF that "no bike lane are good, either past, present, or future." (that is slightly paraphrased... but I believe it is an accurate representation of the feelings that have been expressed by some.)
I think we all have to bend a bit... And work together to promote cycling as a whole for all the good it can be, for all that may desire to bike.
Oddly I was forgetting the very shades of gray I typically use when I bike... using both well designed paths and riding very vehicularly on the roadways...
Admittedly though the P&P crowd rarely acts in an obstructionist manner, unlike some of the stricter VC crowd, who at times have even announced here on BF that "no bike lane are good, either past, present, or future." (that is slightly paraphrased... but I believe it is an accurate representation of the feelings that have been expressed by some.)
I think we all have to bend a bit... And work together to promote cycling as a whole for all the good it can be, for all that may desire to bike.
Not only has the motorists' claim never been demonstrated empirically, but the evidence known for thirty years demonstrates that it cannot be correct. In the face of this knowledge, the public resolutely believes that bikeways make cycling safe. At one time it was thought useful to point out the defects in this superstition, but, for any of several reasons, the public refuses to give up its superstition; motorists see its benefits to them, and almost everybody believes it.
While it has always been a nice intellectual process to demonstrate the errors of the curb-hugging bikeways system, its intellectual errors have never been the cause of the war. The cause of the war has always been that first, motorists alone, then later the strange alliance of motorists and anti-motorists, used governmental power to prohibit cyclists from operating safely by obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. That's the cause of the war, using bikeways and restrictive laws to prohibit cyclists from operating safely by obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles.
Motorists no longer openly advocate discriminating against lawful cyclists; they are content to have the anti-motorists carry their political water. Just so long as the anti-motorists trumpet the superstition that bikeways and restrictive laws make cycling safe, they are providing the political power to do the motorists dirty work for them, to restrict cyclists to make motoring more convenient.
I think that the bicycling war would essentially end if America adopted the policy of advancing cycling by providing bikeways for those who think they are wonderful, while also allowing cyclists to obey the standard rules of the road whenever the cyclist thinks this best. After all, it is foolish to believe that bicycle transportation is best encouraged by prohibiting the methods of those who do it best. Motorists won't make this change on their own, and vehicular cyclists have nowhere near the political power to do it. The political power to make this change is in the hands of the anti-motoring bicycle advocates. And if they exert such power, vehicular cyclists will add their small power to the effort.
07-12-10, 05:40 PM
#83
Kaffee Nazi
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
....since bikeways kept cyclists out of motorists way, bikeways had to make cycling safe.
.... [T]he evidence known for thirty years demonstrates that it cannot be correct. In the face of this knowledge, the public resolutely believes that bikeways make cycling safe. At one time it was thought useful to point out the defects in this superstition, but, for any of several reasons, the public refuses to give up its superstition; motorists see its benefits to them, and almost everybody believes it....
.... [T]he evidence known for thirty years demonstrates that it cannot be correct. In the face of this knowledge, the public resolutely believes that bikeways make cycling safe. At one time it was thought useful to point out the defects in this superstition, but, for any of several reasons, the public refuses to give up its superstition; motorists see its benefits to them, and almost everybody believes it....
07-12-10, 05:45 PM
#84
genec
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
The American bikeway system was designed by motorists, contrary to the known statistics about car-bike collisions, with the obvious motive of making motoring more convenient by clearing bicycle traffic out of motorists' path. Motorists got away with their scheme because they had been trumpeting for decades that cyclists had to stay out of their way, with death the penalty for disobeying the curb-hugging command. Therefore, so the motorists claimed, since bikeways kept cyclists out of motorists way, bikeways had to make cycling safe. So the motorists proclaimed, and the people believed. This is historical fact that cannot be controverted.
Not only has the motorists' claim never been demonstrated empirically, but the evidence known for thirty years demonstrates that it cannot be correct. In the face of this knowledge, the public resolutely believes that bikeways make cycling safe. At one time it was thought useful to point out the defects in this superstition, but, for any of several reasons, the public refuses to give up its superstition; motorists see its benefits to them, and almost everybody believes it.
While it has always been a nice intellectual process to demonstrate the errors of the curb-hugging bikeways system, its intellectual errors have never been the cause of the war. The cause of the war has always been that first, motorists alone, then later the strange alliance of motorists and anti-motorists, used governmental power to prohibit cyclists from operating safely by obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. That's the cause of the war, using bikeways and restrictive laws to prohibit cyclists from operating safely by obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles.
Motorists no longer openly advocate discriminating against lawful cyclists; they are content to have the anti-motorists carry their political water. Just so long as the anti-motorists trumpet the superstition that bikeways and restrictive laws make cycling safe, they are providing the political power to do the motorists dirty work for them, to restrict cyclists to make motoring more convenient.
I think that the bicycling war would essentially end if America adopted the policy of advancing cycling by providing bikeways for those who think they are wonderful, while also allowing cyclists to obey the standard rules of the road whenever the cyclist thinks this best. After all, it is foolish to believe that bicycle transportation is best encouraged by prohibiting the methods of those who do it best. Motorists won't make this change on their own, and vehicular cyclists have nowhere near the political power to do it. The political power to make this change is in the hands of the anti-motoring bicycle advocates. And if they exert such power, vehicular cyclists will add their small power to the effort.
Not only has the motorists' claim never been demonstrated empirically, but the evidence known for thirty years demonstrates that it cannot be correct. In the face of this knowledge, the public resolutely believes that bikeways make cycling safe. At one time it was thought useful to point out the defects in this superstition, but, for any of several reasons, the public refuses to give up its superstition; motorists see its benefits to them, and almost everybody believes it.
While it has always been a nice intellectual process to demonstrate the errors of the curb-hugging bikeways system, its intellectual errors have never been the cause of the war. The cause of the war has always been that first, motorists alone, then later the strange alliance of motorists and anti-motorists, used governmental power to prohibit cyclists from operating safely by obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. That's the cause of the war, using bikeways and restrictive laws to prohibit cyclists from operating safely by obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles.
Motorists no longer openly advocate discriminating against lawful cyclists; they are content to have the anti-motorists carry their political water. Just so long as the anti-motorists trumpet the superstition that bikeways and restrictive laws make cycling safe, they are providing the political power to do the motorists dirty work for them, to restrict cyclists to make motoring more convenient.
I think that the bicycling war would essentially end if America adopted the policy of advancing cycling by providing bikeways for those who think they are wonderful, while also allowing cyclists to obey the standard rules of the road whenever the cyclist thinks this best. After all, it is foolish to believe that bicycle transportation is best encouraged by prohibiting the methods of those who do it best. Motorists won't make this change on their own, and vehicular cyclists have nowhere near the political power to do it. The political power to make this change is in the hands of the anti-motoring bicycle advocates. And if they exert such power, vehicular cyclists will add their small power to the effort.
I have found several great and quite safe examples of separated paths here in San Diego... such as the Mission Bay path and the San Diego River Path and the Highway 56 path. All of these are indeed "bikeways," yet contrary to your suggestions that such bikeways are not safe, I have found these paths to be quite safe... with the only injuries suffered by cyclists being the occasional skinned knee, vice broken bones and even death, which may (and does) occur on shared roadways.
Now that said, I have to fully agree with your last paragraph... part of which I highlight below...
I think that the bicycling war would essentially end if America adopted the policy of advancing cycling by providing bikeways for those who think they are wonderful, while also allowing cyclists to obey the standard rules of the road whenever the cyclist thinks this best.
I use bike paths where they exist and are of a quality to be useful and their routing is useful, and I ride as a vehicular cyclist when no other means exists. My personal feeling is that as long as roadways are designed for high speed vehicles, (50MPH and greater) separated paths are considerably more comfortable (and safer)... But of course, said paths do not exist everywhere I want to go.
07-12-10, 05:58 PM
#85
Kaffee Nazi
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
The problem with the use of the term bikeways is that it encompasses all forms of cycling ways or facilities... from the separated path to the "curbhugging bikeway," to use your term. (the latter being commonly referred to as "bike lanes" by most cyclists)
I have found several great and quite safe examples of separated paths here in San Diego... such as the Mission Bay path and the San Diego River Path and the Highway 56 path. All of these are indeed "bikeways," yet contrary to your suggestions that such bikeways are not safe, I have found these paths to be quite safe... with the only injuries suffered by cyclists being the occasional skinned knee, vice broken bones and even death, which may (and does) occur on shared roadways.
Now that said, I have to fully agree with your last paragraph... part of which I highlight below...
I think that the bicycling war would essentially end if America adopted the policy of advancing cycling by providing bikeways for those who think they are wonderful, while also allowing cyclists to obey the standard rules of the road whenever the cyclist thinks this best.
I use bike paths where they exist and are of a quality to be useful and their routing is useful, and I ride as a vehicular cyclist when no other means exists. My personal feeling is that as long as roadways are designed for high speed vehicles, (50MPH and greater) separated paths are considerably more comfortable (and safer)... But of course, said paths do not exist everywhere I want to go.
I have found several great and quite safe examples of separated paths here in San Diego... such as the Mission Bay path and the San Diego River Path and the Highway 56 path. All of these are indeed "bikeways," yet contrary to your suggestions that such bikeways are not safe, I have found these paths to be quite safe... with the only injuries suffered by cyclists being the occasional skinned knee, vice broken bones and even death, which may (and does) occur on shared roadways.
Now that said, I have to fully agree with your last paragraph... part of which I highlight below...
I think that the bicycling war would essentially end if America adopted the policy of advancing cycling by providing bikeways for those who think they are wonderful, while also allowing cyclists to obey the standard rules of the road whenever the cyclist thinks this best.
I use bike paths where they exist and are of a quality to be useful and their routing is useful, and I ride as a vehicular cyclist when no other means exists. My personal feeling is that as long as roadways are designed for high speed vehicles, (50MPH and greater) separated paths are considerably more comfortable (and safer)... But of course, said paths do not exist everywhere I want to go.
Part of the problem is that EVERY bike path I have seen that is separate from motor vehicle traffic ends up being used by non cyclists who actually outnumber the cyclist users. It does not matter how the path is 'designated,' it will be used by pedestrians if it is a path cars are not allowed to operate upon... UNLESS the particular bike path is used regularly enough by cyclists that a culture develops that agrees pedestrians may not use the path. The law as proclaimed by statute is of no matter compared to the informal norm that develops based on how the path is actually used by the public.
07-12-10, 08:32 PM
#86
genec
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
I also use bike paths when they are convenient for me AND when they are in areas where they are not infested with pedestrians, dog walkers, slow juvenile unpredictable cyclists and others that present a danger when the path is used by a cyclist moving at 20 or more mph.
Part of the problem is that EVERY bike path I have seen that is separate from motor vehicle traffic ends up being used by non cyclists who actually outnumber the cyclist users. It does not matter how the path is 'designated,' it will be used by pedestrians if it is a path cars are not allowed to operate upon... UNLESS the particular bike path is used regularly enough by cyclists that a culture develops that agrees pedestrians may not use the path. The law as proclaimed by statute is of no matter compared to the informal norm that develops based on how the path is actually used by the public.
Part of the problem is that EVERY bike path I have seen that is separate from motor vehicle traffic ends up being used by non cyclists who actually outnumber the cyclist users. It does not matter how the path is 'designated,' it will be used by pedestrians if it is a path cars are not allowed to operate upon... UNLESS the particular bike path is used regularly enough by cyclists that a culture develops that agrees pedestrians may not use the path. The law as proclaimed by statute is of no matter compared to the informal norm that develops based on how the path is actually used by the public.
The ironic thing I find about any cyclist complaining about having to slow down for pedestrians, is that those same cyclists don't seem to understand that motorists don't want to slow down either.
07-12-10, 09:03 PM
#87
Kaffee Nazi
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
And using such a path is MORE dangerous than using a street with motor traffic moving at a much faster speed???
The ironic thing I find about any cyclist complaining about having to slow down for pedestrians, is that those same cyclists don't seem to understand that motorists don't want to slow down either.
The ironic thing I find about any cyclist complaining about having to slow down for pedestrians, is that those same cyclists don't seem to understand that motorists don't want to slow down either.
Roads are wide and under the rules of the road, motorists are required to slow for slower moving traffic or to pass safely. I understand that motorists don't want to slow and have a prejudice about what laws they choose to follow. I prefer to be the slower vehicle when I have that choice. I don't want the government to make my choices for me. No irony there.
07-12-10, 09:51 PM
#88
genec
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
Roads are wide and under the rules of the road, motorists are required to slow for slower moving traffic or to pass safely. I understand that motorists don't want to slow and have a prejudice about what laws they choose to follow. I prefer to be the slower vehicle when I have that choice. I don't want the government to make my choices for me. No irony there.
Seems pretty ironic to me.
07-12-10, 10:37 PM
#89
Kaffee Nazi
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
All I ask is that the cyclist ninny's don't ruin everything by their segregationist policy.
07-12-10, 10:54 PM
#90
Surf Bum
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Pacifica, CA
Posts: 2,184
Bikes: Lapierre Pulsium 500 FdJ, Ritchey breakaway cyclocross, vintage trek mtb.
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times
in
3 Posts
Why does this always have to be a discussion between extremists? The topic is way more complicated than either you guys or the VC types want to admit.
I just want to point out, like I have before, that when making statements about "the rest of the world's" approach to cycling, and why it succeeds where America fails, you have once again totally ignored Asia.
Many European cities have high cycle usage and bike infrastructure.
Many Asian cities have high cycle usage and no bike infrastructure.
Wait? How can this be? I though bike infrastructure was necessary for people to ride bikes in large numbers?
There is one thing that Asian cities and European cities with high cycle usage have in common, but it's not bike infrastructure. It's excellent public transportation so people don't need automobiles every day of their lives and can still go all the places bikes can't possibly take them in the time they have available. I lived car free in Tokyo for many years, rode my bike almost every day like a large percentage of the country, never saw one bike lane. But what we could do was use the bike around our neighborhoods, for shopping or whatever, then park it at the subway station and go hundreds of KM away in a couple of hours.
Until America provides that, there will never be high cycle usage, because people will still need cars. And once you have a car, you'll always use it over a bike unless you have tons of time on your hands or a need for exercise or just happen to love cycling like we do.
I just want to point out, like I have before, that when making statements about "the rest of the world's" approach to cycling, and why it succeeds where America fails, you have once again totally ignored Asia.
Many European cities have high cycle usage and bike infrastructure.
Many Asian cities have high cycle usage and no bike infrastructure.
Wait? How can this be? I though bike infrastructure was necessary for people to ride bikes in large numbers?
There is one thing that Asian cities and European cities with high cycle usage have in common, but it's not bike infrastructure. It's excellent public transportation so people don't need automobiles every day of their lives and can still go all the places bikes can't possibly take them in the time they have available. I lived car free in Tokyo for many years, rode my bike almost every day like a large percentage of the country, never saw one bike lane. But what we could do was use the bike around our neighborhoods, for shopping or whatever, then park it at the subway station and go hundreds of KM away in a couple of hours.
Until America provides that, there will never be high cycle usage, because people will still need cars. And once you have a car, you'll always use it over a bike unless you have tons of time on your hands or a need for exercise or just happen to love cycling like we do.
07-12-10, 11:06 PM
#91
Kaffee Nazi
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
Why does this always have to be a discussion between extremists? The topic is way more complicated than either you guys or the VC types want to admit.
I just want to point out, like I have before, that when making statements about "the rest of the world's" approach to cycling, and why it succeeds where America fails, you have once again totally ignored Asia.
Many European cities have high cycle usage and bike infrastructure.
Many Asian cities have high cycle usage and no bike infrastructure.
Wait? How can this be? I though bike infrastructure was necessary for people to ride bikes in large numbers?
There is one thing that Asian cities and European cities with high cycle usage have in common, but it's not bike infrastructure. It's excellent public transportation so people don't need automobiles every day of their lives and can still go all the places bikes can't possibly take them in the time they have available. I lived car free in Tokyo for many years, rode my bike almost every day like a large percentage of the country, never saw one bike lane. But what we could do was use the bike around our neighborhoods, for shopping or whatever, then park it at the subway station and go hundreds of KM away in a couple of hours.
Until America provides that, there will never be high cycle usage, because people will still need cars. And once you have a car, you'll always use it over a bike unless you have tons of time on your hands or a need for exercise or just happen to love cycling like we do.
I just want to point out, like I have before, that when making statements about "the rest of the world's" approach to cycling, and why it succeeds where America fails, you have once again totally ignored Asia.
Many European cities have high cycle usage and bike infrastructure.
Many Asian cities have high cycle usage and no bike infrastructure.
Wait? How can this be? I though bike infrastructure was necessary for people to ride bikes in large numbers?
There is one thing that Asian cities and European cities with high cycle usage have in common, but it's not bike infrastructure. It's excellent public transportation so people don't need automobiles every day of their lives and can still go all the places bikes can't possibly take them in the time they have available. I lived car free in Tokyo for many years, rode my bike almost every day like a large percentage of the country, never saw one bike lane. But what we could do was use the bike around our neighborhoods, for shopping or whatever, then park it at the subway station and go hundreds of KM away in a couple of hours.
Until America provides that, there will never be high cycle usage, because people will still need cars. And once you have a car, you'll always use it over a bike unless you have tons of time on your hands or a need for exercise or just happen to love cycling like we do.
07-12-10, 11:07 PM
#92
totally louche
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 10 Times
in
9 Posts
tokyo's sidewalk cycling mamachari are very well established; and the trend in tokyo is an official recognition of the need for dedicated road space for bicycle traffic.
In THIS country, those that seek to thwart FHWA endorsed roadway enhancements - that are proven to build ridershare, retain ridership, increase lawful roadway bicycling while enhancing safety for all road users - have no defense except vacuous talk of 'segregationism'.which is exactly what DOESN'T happen.
'segregationist notions' ignore the integrative effect bike infrastructure has on public bicycling. FHWA compliant roadway plans are by and large vehicular by design, speed and destination specific, with treatments for intersection mixing dependent on many factors. Bikelanes bring more riders on all streets in a community. there are more bicyclists in towns that plan smartly for roadway bicycling and put into place to some degree bike specific treatments that facilitate safe road sharing behaviors for bikes and car traffic.
again, roadway ridership in north america can be driven positively with roadway infrastructure for bicyclists; there are those that stand oppossed to any and all bike specificity of public space, to the detriment of american rider share.
this secretive, furtive cult of supreme vehikular cyklists - some of who are posting to this thread - actively seek to thwart proven plans to facilitate roadway bicycling in america, and are the theme of the essay from Mikhail Colville-Anderson.
there is a furtive group of superior vehikular cyklists that actively try to thwart plans to facilitate populist roadway bicycling.
outcry against better infrastructure that supports and encourages populist, lawful roadway bicycling is despicable. obstructionism coming from people who self-identify as 'bicyclists' is even lower.
Hey, Danarnold- how's the wide shoulders on the high speed rural roads coming along as part of the tri-cities master plan? there should be roadway bikelanes and/or improvements to help facilitate greater roadway ridership in your community. how's that all coming along?? you'll get to
in well designed roadway bike lanes that allow you - and more of the public as well - to share high speed road corridors that have been identified as significant bike routes and emphasized for roadway bicycling.
In THIS country, those that seek to thwart FHWA endorsed roadway enhancements - that are proven to build ridershare, retain ridership, increase lawful roadway bicycling while enhancing safety for all road users - have no defense except vacuous talk of 'segregationism'.which is exactly what DOESN'T happen.
'segregationist notions' ignore the integrative effect bike infrastructure has on public bicycling. FHWA compliant roadway plans are by and large vehicular by design, speed and destination specific, with treatments for intersection mixing dependent on many factors. Bikelanes bring more riders on all streets in a community. there are more bicyclists in towns that plan smartly for roadway bicycling and put into place to some degree bike specific treatments that facilitate safe road sharing behaviors for bikes and car traffic.
again, roadway ridership in north america can be driven positively with roadway infrastructure for bicyclists; there are those that stand oppossed to any and all bike specificity of public space, to the detriment of american rider share.
this secretive, furtive cult of supreme vehikular cyklists - some of who are posting to this thread - actively seek to thwart proven plans to facilitate roadway bicycling in america, and are the theme of the essay from Mikhail Colville-Anderson.
there is a furtive group of superior vehikular cyklists that actively try to thwart plans to facilitate populist roadway bicycling.
outcry against better infrastructure that supports and encourages populist, lawful roadway bicycling is despicable. obstructionism coming from people who self-identify as 'bicyclists' is even lower.
Hey, Danarnold- how's the wide shoulders on the high speed rural roads coming along as part of the tri-cities master plan? there should be roadway bikelanes and/or improvements to help facilitate greater roadway ridership in your community. how's that all coming along?? you'll get to
Originally Posted by danarnold
ride alongside of 50mph traffic
Last edited by Bekologist; 07-12-10 at 11:32 PM.
07-12-10, 11:25 PM
#93
totally louche
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 10 Times
in
9 Posts
Where DID the supreme vehikular cadre come up with the fantasy that bike lanes, sharrowed lanes, road rechannelizations and road diets are currently being fought for by the MOTORISTS? some recollections of bureaucratic committeeism john forester was involved in with in the 1970's?
a DOOZY of a tall tale! H I L A R I O U S !
a DOOZY of a tall tale! H I L A R I O U S !
Last edited by Bekologist; 07-12-10 at 11:29 PM.
07-12-10, 11:29 PM
#94
Kaffee Nazi
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
_ Dan Arnold
Richland, WA
07-12-10, 11:38 PM
#95
totally louche
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 10 Times
in
9 Posts
i don't quite see how anyone could call FHWA bikeway planning an effort to 'destroy cyclists freedom of the open road'
you are quite open to opposition to what again? pushing cyclists to the side of the road? are you even serious?
you are quite open to opposition to what again?
pushing cyclists to the side of the road? are you even serious?
07-13-10, 12:17 AM
#96
Kaffee Nazi
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
Bek, you claim there is a 'secretive' and 'furtive cult' promoting vehicular cycling. Yet those promoting riding in the streets as opposed to your namby pampy big brother program of keeping cyclists 'where they belong' in bike lanes, use their own names while you hide behind 'Bekologist.'
YOU are the secretive, furtive one with your own anonymous agenda, yet you call those who use their own names, those who stand behind what they write, 'secretive' and 'furtive.' How can you proclaim such hypocrisy? You really don't get it, do you? C'mon Bek. Put up or shut up. Stand up for what you whine about. Sign your posts with your real name, or admit that YOU are the 'secretive, furtive' one.
YOU are the secretive, furtive one with your own anonymous agenda, yet you call those who use their own names, those who stand behind what they write, 'secretive' and 'furtive.' How can you proclaim such hypocrisy? You really don't get it, do you? C'mon Bek. Put up or shut up. Stand up for what you whine about. Sign your posts with your real name, or admit that YOU are the 'secretive, furtive' one.
07-13-10, 07:09 AM
#97
totally louche
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 10 Times
in
9 Posts
why would i need to do that? Bekologist is my name in this forum.
your point of view doesn't stand up even WITH your real name attached to it.
feel familiar?
your point of view doesn't stand up even WITH your real name attached to it.
Originally Posted by MCA, Copenhangize blog and source of the OP
After talking with so many bicycle advocates at Velo-City from around the world, I can understand that these Vehicular Cyclists are regarded in many areas as a frustrating deterrent to mainstreaming cycling. "A cold-sore that just won't go away", in the words of a German colleague. "Kinda like those vuvuzela horns at the World Cup", said his colleague.
Goodness. What a lot of strong opinions about a relatively unknown group.
It is a small, yet vocal, group that is male-dominated, testosterone-driven and that lacks basic understanding of human nature. They expect that everyone should be just like them - classic sub-cultural point of view - and that everyone should embrace cycling in traffic and pretending they are cars. They are apparently uninterested in seeing grandmothers, mothers or fathers with children or anyone who doesn't resemble then contributing to re-creating the foundations of liveable cities by reestablishing the bicycle as transport.
Goodness. What a lot of strong opinions about a relatively unknown group.
It is a small, yet vocal, group that is male-dominated, testosterone-driven and that lacks basic understanding of human nature. They expect that everyone should be just like them - classic sub-cultural point of view - and that everyone should embrace cycling in traffic and pretending they are cars. They are apparently uninterested in seeing grandmothers, mothers or fathers with children or anyone who doesn't resemble then contributing to re-creating the foundations of liveable cities by reestablishing the bicycle as transport.
Last edited by Bekologist; 07-13-10 at 07:18 AM.
07-13-10, 08:36 AM
#99
totally louche
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 10 Times
in
9 Posts
I wanted to show Dan a video of my new Porsche - we can go race!
07-13-10, 09:58 AM
#100
Bicikli Huszár
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 2,116
Bikes: '95 Novara Randonee
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Why does this always have to be a discussion between extremists? The topic is way more complicated than either you guys or the VC types want to admit.
I just want to point out, like I have before, that when making statements about "the rest of the world's" approach to cycling, and why it succeeds where America fails, you have once again totally ignored Asia.
Many European cities have high cycle usage and bike infrastructure.
Many Asian cities have high cycle usage and no bike infrastructure.
Wait? How can this be? I though bike infrastructure was necessary for people to ride bikes in large numbers?
There is one thing that Asian cities and European cities with high cycle usage have in common, but it's not bike infrastructure. It's excellent public transportation so people don't need automobiles every day of their lives and can still go all the places bikes can't possibly take them in the time they have available. I lived car free in Tokyo for many years, rode my bike almost every day like a large percentage of the country, never saw one bike lane. But what we could do was use the bike around our neighborhoods, for shopping or whatever, then park it at the subway station and go hundreds of KM away in a couple of hours.
Until America provides that, there will never be high cycle usage, because people will still need cars. And once you have a car, you'll always use it over a bike unless you have tons of time on your hands or a need for exercise or just happen to love cycling like we do.
I just want to point out, like I have before, that when making statements about "the rest of the world's" approach to cycling, and why it succeeds where America fails, you have once again totally ignored Asia.
Many European cities have high cycle usage and bike infrastructure.
Many Asian cities have high cycle usage and no bike infrastructure.
Wait? How can this be? I though bike infrastructure was necessary for people to ride bikes in large numbers?
There is one thing that Asian cities and European cities with high cycle usage have in common, but it's not bike infrastructure. It's excellent public transportation so people don't need automobiles every day of their lives and can still go all the places bikes can't possibly take them in the time they have available. I lived car free in Tokyo for many years, rode my bike almost every day like a large percentage of the country, never saw one bike lane. But what we could do was use the bike around our neighborhoods, for shopping or whatever, then park it at the subway station and go hundreds of KM away in a couple of hours.
Until America provides that, there will never be high cycle usage, because people will still need cars. And once you have a car, you'll always use it over a bike unless you have tons of time on your hands or a need for exercise or just happen to love cycling like we do.