Death of VC thread
Originally Posted by
pcook489
No new posts in over 7 months. Long live the King....the King is dead.
Originally Posted by
flangehead
Yes, the Party will brook no disagreement or criticism:
Originally Posted by
GamblerGORD53
All the posters here are dead or banned. LOL
Originally Posted by
pcook489
So your idea is to ride in a designated bike lane. Not a Forester way of thinking. Take the lane/control the lane/act like any other vehicle. I appreciate that.
Originally Posted by
livedarklions
Well, if you have a theory that no one will use bike infrastructure if you build it, and then when they build it the number one complaint people have about bike infrastructure is it's too crowded, it gets a bit hard to keep up the debate.
As you may be aware @livedarklions, users of the Minuteman Bikeway in Arlington, MA have reported a great increase in riders as well as diminished road auto traffic, prompting many cyclists to become "vehicles.”
I have posted to this thread, “So what's your beef with Multi-Use Pathes?”
Originally Posted by
drlogik
There was a time not all that long ago when there were no bike paths, bike lanes or dedicated "exercise paths". We have it good now, really good. I've been riding on the road since 1974. We should grateful for what we have now. Instead of complaining, form a volunteer Pathway Coalition in your area made up of riders, walkers, joggers, etc and find common ground.
Yes, it's a hassle riding on multi-use paths but that is what they are. Everyone has to get along on the same path...
Originally Posted by
speyfitter
Yeah we should be grateful for being 40+ years behind Europe in bike infrastructure in North America due to a guy who thought vehicular cycling was the way to go over separated cycling infrastructure.
Originally Posted by
Jim from Boston
I’m not sure who that nefarious guy is (? John Forester) but I think cycling infrastructure is possibly correlated with the age of the city prior to introduction of the automobile, so much longer in compact, recently war-ravaged European cities; and even longer in older, denser US East Coast cities with
better cycling infrastructure (link), than the sprawling Midwest and West.
In any case I have previously posted:
Originally Posted by
Jim from Boston
“I don't think I like physically separated bike lanes.”
As a decades-long urban commuter and road cyclist, on a societal policy basis, I was impressed by this opinion by @B. Carfree
Originally Posted by
B. Carfree
…Some people, mostly people who are relatively new to cycling, think
we should use the few dollars that can go towards improving conditions for cycling by building a few miles of separated infrastructure and place it mostly on urban roads (with the inevitable intersection failures).
Other, more experienced riders, think we would be better served by funding traffic law enforcement and putting in many more miles of proper, six to eight foot bike lanes (not in the door zone) and only putting in separate facilities where there are long stretches of high-speed road without appreciable numbers of intersections.
This difference of opinion wouldn't be such a big deal
, but many of the segregationists have been making their public case by convincing everyone that cycling is too dangerous to be done anywhere except on a segregated facility.
Not surprisingly, this has an impact in terms of how many people are willing to even try riding a bike since there is no way to get anywhere in the US without riding on a road.
Oddly enough, these people are called and consider themselves "bicycling advocates". If one were to design a fifth-column assault to keep cycling participation down, it would look just like the pro-separation folks.
Originally Posted by
Maelochs
I hate the idea of walled-off lanes, myself ... I don't want to be penned in with a bunch of cyclists ... worst group of people ....
↓↓↓↓
Last edited by Jim from Boston; 05-17-20 at 07:49 AM.