John Forester

There's no question about driver. Both motorists and cyclists are legally drivers of vehicles. Yes, signalling often does help traffic move more smoothly, as I have suggested myself. However, signalling does not do much to avoid close calls and collisions. It does so only when the signalling driver makes a mistake and makes his movement when he shouldn't, when his movement affects another driver. That should be obvious.

Bekologist

.....evocative of a genuine cycling dilettante! That should be obvious.

Right! and THAT'S why American roadies don't have an elaborate playbook of hand signals. ?!? Wait a second......


Dutch cycling laws and the laws of the states don't really require hand signals (kind of silly actually, wot?) as interpreted under the auspices of the Forester cycling method.

wsbob

cruiserhead, post #193 ...nice pictures. Just a few notes about the hand signals displayed: Of course, in the pictures, though the exact traffic situation can't be seen...cars present, how close to the riders, etc, and how that might have a bearing on the way people are displaying the signals, in terms of critiquing the manner in which the signals are being displayed, I'd generally hope for a more conspicuously visible display; for the 'left turn' indicated using the left arm: upper arm held out further from the body. 90 degrees from the body is I think the way the instructions go.

The guys in the second pic down from the top: Their signal can be seen well enough, but it kind of looks like a 'stop' signal rather than a 'right turn' signal, which appears to be the intention they're indicating. Of course, it's obvious in the pic though, in close proximity to other cyclists, adjustments to the standard, 'arm extended straight out 90 degrees from the body sometimes are in order to keep from possibly poking someone in the ear.

Seventh picture down: Oh my gosh. Eighth picture down: very chic and stylish, but casual. Very nice. Doubt many people on their bikes in Beaverton, are quite as stylish. Maybe in Portland.


Re; John's post #201, of which I'll just copy/paste his comments, since we're at the top of a new page, allowing easy scrolling to his entire post including the quote from one of my earlier posts:

"There's no question about driver. Both motorists and cyclists are legally drivers of vehicles. Yes, signalling often does help traffic move more smoothly, as I have suggested myself. However, signalling does not do much to avoid close calls and collisions. It does so only when the signalling driver makes a mistake and makes his movement when he shouldn't, when his movement affects another driver. That should be obvious." John Forester

It's true that in some places, bikes are considered vehicles. Oregon is one state that does. Still, the word 'driver' does not readily imply someone riding a bicycle. I don't think 'bicycle driver' is a great phrase, but it can sometimes be effective in emphasizing a bicycle's status as a vehicle.

I'm not following you at all in you're suggestion that "...signalling does not do much to avoid close calls and collisions. ...". Signaling offers a huge improvement in safety, close call and collision avoidance, by offering advance notice of intention to other road users in proximity to or approaching the location or imminent destination of the person displaying the signal. Advance notice of intention allows other road users to make adjustments in their vehicles movement to accommodate changes in travel intended on the part of the person displaying the signal.

cruiserhead

Bekologist

It's a cycling travesty. Those Dutch, incompetently signalling their turns, riding in such grave danger of crashing.

doesn't the Dutch Transport Ministry know, by importing a certain North American cycling method (actively crumbing and wallowing in self-styled disrepute), they could instead have cyclists deathgripping the bars, holding on for dear life in fear the gyroscopic forces instilled by all by the most gentle braking may pitch them violently to the pavement.

Yes, those Dutch. They need to get on board with how this bicycling business is supposed to be done!

John Forester

The legal status of cyclists as drivers of vehicles has nothing at all to do with whether or not the state considers bicycles to be vehicles. The legal status is as operators or drivers without regard to the particular type of vehicle they drive.

Considering cyclists on the roadway as drivers of vehicles is by far the best way to consider their actions. It is now the preferred way.

I think that you have not thought the matter through when you argue that "Signalling offers a huge improvement in safety, close call and collision avoidance..." Consider the driver exhibiting a left turn signal. If that driver is ahead of you, you may change lanes rightward to get around him if he is delayed, but that is mere convenience, not safety. If that driver is facing you across an intersection, you have the right of way and don't change course or speed. If that driver is on a cross street, then the rule is first come, first served (absent a traffic control device), so you obey that rule regardless of the signal. In short, there are very few situations in which advance notice of the desire to make a turn will enable the recipient of the signal to avoid a collision.

Bekologist

....and that's why there's no laws requiring hand signals from bicyclists and electrical or hand signals for motorists!

alternately, and that's why dutch cyclists should disobey the law and fail to use hand signals.

Well, that, and the gyroscopic forces of all but the most gentle braking causing them to lose control of their bikes.

wsbob

"...Considering cyclists on the roadway as drivers of vehicles is by far the best way to consider their actions. It is now the preferred way. ..." John Forester

"...I think that you have not thought the matter through when you argue that "Signalling offers a huge improvement in safety, close call and collision avoidance..." ..." John Forester

John Forester

When discussing the legality of traffic movements, it is appropriate to use the word driver to designate each of the participants unless there is some peculiarity that requires one of the participants to be designated by some other word. This is because, in traffic law, most of the analysis will apply to each party equally and reciprocally; the positions could be reversed and the legal situation would not change. That equality would not apply if there is some distinguishing characteristic that changes a legal requirement; the rule for school bus drivers differs from the rule for other drivers when approaching a rail crossing.

The fact that drivers often complain about the failure of other drivers to provide proper signals for turns has nothing at all to do with the supposed collision reduction effect of signals. In fact, rather the opposite, since the complainants complain only of the failure to signal and not of the supposedly resulting collision.

wsbob

"...When discussing the legality of traffic movements, it is appropriate to use the word driver to designate each of the participants unless there is some peculiarity that requires one of the participants to be designated by some other word. ..." John Forester




"...The fact that drivers often complain about the failure of other drivers to provide proper signals for turns has nothing at all to do with the supposed collision reduction effect of signals. In fact, rather the opposite, since the complainants complain only of the failure to signal and not of the supposedly resulting collision." John Forester

cruiserhead

So many great improvements, San Francisco style

https://www.7x7.com/fitness-outdoors/...e-improvements



https://www.facebook.com/pages/SFMTA...29234557115666

hagen2456

You're absolutely correct. The turning signal is basically supposed to have you stretch your arm, but there often isn't room for that. Works fine anyway, as everybody - drivers as well as cyclists and pedestrians - know what they're about. You're also correct that the other signal is a stop signal.

John Forester

With respect to traffic law rules of the road, please describe the relevant differences between motorists, drivers of motor vehicles, and cyclists, drivers of bicycles, that are so important that they require specific distinguishing names be used in most discussions.

Bekologist

Some similariities between bicycles and motor vehicles in Holland and the USA are that both classes of vehicle must signal intent to turn or otherwise alter course with mechanical, electrical or hand signals, or be in violation of traffic laws and the corresponding rules of the road.

same as in this country. this should be obvious. nothing optional about it.

oh, that's right, let's not forget - those pesky Forestorian gyroscopic braking forces pitching Dutch cyclists with one hand on the bars wholesale into the canals must nudge the bicyclist crash rate over there into stratospherically incompetent levels.

John Forester

The above claim demonstrates both Bek's deliberate ignorance of cycling and his unconscious ignorance of the laws of physics.

Chicago Al 

^ Forester wishes to get into pointless semantic digressions, which seems to be a specialty, but has little to nothing to do with the subject of this particular thread. (Admittedly he is not the only one who seems to enjoy these digressions.)

Which is: the Facts About Cycling in the Netherlands. Or as originally titled 'John Forester vs...'

In this thread Forester has made some allegations about the speed ('slow') and handling of intersections ('dangerously designed') of NL cycling infrastructure, but he has not shown tangible evidence of either, only his own hypotheticals.

A phrase Mr Forester in his guise as a self-styled scientist might have encountered is: 'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.'

The burden of proof is on Mr Forester, to show how the extraordinarily popular Dutch cycling system is actually slow, dangerous, or otherwise unsatisfactory. And with a system so widely used surely he could find some shred of anecdotal evidence: some young, fit, testosterone-pumped Dutch cyclist who takes to his blog to complain about having to slow down his commute behind a wall of Omas.

Yet Forester has nothing.

We should put this thread to rest.

genec

Actually I believe early in this thread Forester said something to the effect (I am NOT quoting) that the Dutch system works fine for the Dutch, but that his objection was merely that such a system would not work in the US.

Frankly with the attachment that Americans have to the motor vehicle, he may well be correct in that such a system, if fully installed, would not garner the ridership in the US that it does in NL... but of course we will never know that unless such a thing is actually attempted. And of course while some "facilities improvements" have been made in cities such as Portland, SF and NYC, the increased cycling modal share cannot be attributed to said improvements as "corrolation is not causation."

But until we try it, we really will never know... and there is a huge amount of evidence that the average American could use a bit of exercise...

wsbob

Really, I'm having difficulty understanding where you're going with this. "...motorists, drivers of motor vehicles, and cyclists, drivers of bicycles." That last phrase you wrote, "drivers of bicycles", is one I don't think I've ever read before now.

John Forester

Al does not understand the background of the argument. As I have pointed out, the sidepath system, typical of Dutch designs, produces intersection traffic movements by cyclists and by motorists that conflict with each other. The Dutch make this safe by using traffic signals with separate phases for cyclists and motorists, which delays both classes more than when both move on the same phase. The Dutch don't mind the added delay, because their cycling is still faster than walking. For the same reason, the Dutch accept the typically slow speeds on their sidepaths. This is because their major cities developed as walking cities, where natural development had to occur to be suitable for walking; any other development would have died.

In the Dutch environment, slow cycling fulfills their needs, because it is faster than walking. In the American environment, cycling does not compete with walking but with motoring, where the speed advantage goes to motoring. The American cyclist then has strong motivation to travel fast so that his speed disadvantage does not prevent him from cycling. That's one of the major differences between the two nations.

genec

But how does your arguement work in cities where vast numbers of pedestrians typically fill the streets... such as NYC or SF?

John Forester

Thank you, Genec, for reminding us of the context of this discussion.

I have two major doubts about any effort to implement the Dutch system in typical American cities. One you mention, that it probably would not attract anything like the Dutch modal share. The other is that I doubt that Americans would have the political will, that they would consider the effort with all its costs in money, reconstruction, limitation of motoring and other forms of urban disruption, to be a worthwhile investment considering the small amount of bicycle transportation to be served.

John Forester

As I have repeatedly written, the population of the Manhattan part of NYC is the American population that is most deprived of transportation. They are desperate for any form of transportation that can be made to work. In transportation terms, NYC is by much the farthest outlier among American cities. And SF is rather similar also, being almost entirely surrounded by water and hosting a rather similar business structure. These facts have led me to always qualify my conclusions to apply to typical American cities.

Bekologist

I'm ignorant that traffic laws in both countries require signalling?

Or I'm ignorant about a phobic cycling phenomenon involving gyroscopic forces from all but the slightest braking causing signalling Dutch cyclists to lose control of their bicycles?

Those sound more like your issues, frankly.

wsbob

It's fascinating to speculate on to just what degree better walking and biking infrastructure would enable and bring about increasing numbers of people to getting around by those means rather than by motor vehicle. I think it's a very good guess that many, many more people would be walking and biking if the infrastructure was there, safe and enjoyable to use. For example, in Portland, big increases in use have followed improvements to the Hawthorne Bridge, Waterfront Greenway/Eastside Esplanade, Springwater Corridor Trail, and Williams Ave. This is documented in photos and traffic counts.

I think a fair bit about how improvements to the area within a 2-3 mph radius of where I live...older, lower-middle income suburban neighborhood near a big mall and the small town Downtown...might enable people to walk and bike that are presently discouraged by inadequate infrastructure. I feel certain many people that aren't now, because of crummy, too narrow sidewalks, too narrow bike lanes (that is if they even exist) along streets and thoroughfares with too high a posted speed limit would love to be able to walk a mile from home to school, the store or church...if the infrastructure was there. In and surrounding my neighborhood, there is quite a bit of walking and biking going on, but it's likely that many more people would be doing so, if the infrastructure's design supported them.

Availability of money...to secure right of way, design and build, is probably more the reason existence of NL type active transportation infrastructure doesn't exist in my area and other U.S. communities, rather than people not wanting to walk or bike.

John Forester

You should quit lying, Bek. You lied by replacing my snipped version of your comment with your full version, when I obviously was referring only to the portion that I copied and answered.

Yes, you are clearly ignorant of cycling and of the laws of physics in your claim about gyroscopic forces.