Other Agendas
#1
www.chipsea.blogspot.com
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: South of Dallas, Texas
Posts: 1,026
Bikes: Giant OCR C0 road
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Other Agendas
ChipSeal said: “I am therefore astonished that so many of our “bicycle advocates” reject and dismiss best practices for a facilities based paradigm that exposes cyclists to far greater peril. It makes me wonder if they are really interested in their constituents safety at all.”
That’s the problem with bike advocacy, it’s been overrun by people with other agendas—reducing motoring, obesity, air pollution, fuel use, save the world, sell bicycles, etc. Those people aim for the lowest common denominator of ignorance to get “butts on bikes.” They don’t really care that their facilities hamstring cyclists, virtually eliminating their ability to protect themselves. A cyclist on a “separated” parallel facility (like a sidewalk) has only one method of avoiding crashes — keep head on a swivel and ride slow enough to stop instantly.
This is something most sidewalk riders don’t understand, and that’s why they make up almost half of Orlando’s bike-v-car crashes
That’s the problem with bike advocacy, it’s been overrun by people with other agendas—reducing motoring, obesity, air pollution, fuel use, save the world, sell bicycles, etc. Those people aim for the lowest common denominator of ignorance to get “butts on bikes.” They don’t really care that their facilities hamstring cyclists, virtually eliminating their ability to protect themselves. A cyclist on a “separated” parallel facility (like a sidewalk) has only one method of avoiding crashes — keep head on a swivel and ride slow enough to stop instantly.
This is something most sidewalk riders don’t understand, and that’s why they make up almost half of Orlando’s bike-v-car crashes
#2
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
ChipSeal said: “I am therefore astonished that so many of our “bicycle advocates” reject and dismiss best practices for a facilities based paradigm that exposes cyclists to far greater peril. It makes me wonder if they are really interested in their constituents safety at all.”
That’s the problem with bike advocacy, it’s been overrun by people with other agendas—reducing motoring, obesity, air pollution, fuel use, save the world, sell bicycles, etc. Those people aim for the lowest common denominator of ignorance to get “butts on bikes.” They don’t really care that their facilities hamstring cyclists, virtually eliminating their ability to protect themselves. A cyclist on a “separated” parallel facility (like a sidewalk) has only one method of avoiding crashes — keep head on a swivel and ride slow enough to stop instantly.
This is something most sidewalk riders don’t understand, and that’s why they make up almost half of Orlando’s bike-v-car crashes
That’s the problem with bike advocacy, it’s been overrun by people with other agendas—reducing motoring, obesity, air pollution, fuel use, save the world, sell bicycles, etc. Those people aim for the lowest common denominator of ignorance to get “butts on bikes.” They don’t really care that their facilities hamstring cyclists, virtually eliminating their ability to protect themselves. A cyclist on a “separated” parallel facility (like a sidewalk) has only one method of avoiding crashes — keep head on a swivel and ride slow enough to stop instantly.
This is something most sidewalk riders don’t understand, and that’s why they make up almost half of Orlando’s bike-v-car crashes
I know that bike highways is what I have in mind... something that preserves a cyclists' inertia while encouraging fast cross town cycle trips. Automobile drivers have controlled access thoroughfares, why shouldn't cyclists?
#3
-=Barry=-
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Baltimore, MD +/- ~100 miles
Posts: 4,077
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
I'll agree there is a problem of defaulting to the lowest common denominator but I'm not sure if it is because of all the different agendas or just the general lack of treating bikes as transportation even when used recreationally.
To explain a bit: Trails that can function well as both transportation corridors and a recreational facility are better utilized then trails that function mainly for recreation even though recreational use is the primary use of both types of trails. I could go on about the importance of connecting residence with destinations (transportation view point) like an ice cream store on a hot summer day over remote wooded trails with no wayfaring signs to destinations and no way to comfortable bike from home to the trail even if you live a half mile from the trail.
The point is all modes of travel have varying degrees of service; roads: residential, collector, arterial, highway, expressway; Mass Transit: local bus, commuter bus, subway, commuter rail and so on. So there should be a similar varying degrees of service for cyclists as well. The lowest common denominator should be accommodated but not everywhere. Just because a new car driver is not comfortable driving on the interstate does not mean we should never build another one, because we all know it does not take long for a new driver to get the confidence to drive on an interstate. Similarly cyclists start off liking the lower end stuff but because we do not have a good interconnecting network so they can't comfortably advance to other types of facilities so too many people end up stuck in beginning mode.
To explain a bit: Trails that can function well as both transportation corridors and a recreational facility are better utilized then trails that function mainly for recreation even though recreational use is the primary use of both types of trails. I could go on about the importance of connecting residence with destinations (transportation view point) like an ice cream store on a hot summer day over remote wooded trails with no wayfaring signs to destinations and no way to comfortable bike from home to the trail even if you live a half mile from the trail.
The point is all modes of travel have varying degrees of service; roads: residential, collector, arterial, highway, expressway; Mass Transit: local bus, commuter bus, subway, commuter rail and so on. So there should be a similar varying degrees of service for cyclists as well. The lowest common denominator should be accommodated but not everywhere. Just because a new car driver is not comfortable driving on the interstate does not mean we should never build another one, because we all know it does not take long for a new driver to get the confidence to drive on an interstate. Similarly cyclists start off liking the lower end stuff but because we do not have a good interconnecting network so they can't comfortably advance to other types of facilities so too many people end up stuck in beginning mode.
#4
Cycle Year Round
Um, you do know that there are other facilities that are NOT sidewalk like... right? Here in San Diego we have a few real nice bike facilities... that permit very high speed cycling; they have on and off ramps and some separated areas for peds. Perhaps this is what some "other agenda" folks have in mind... not stripes of paint nor narrow park/ped paths.
Like all of 0.005% of the so called advocates.
#5
Cycle Year Round
#6
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
ChipSeal said: “I am therefore astonished that so many of our “bicycle advocates” reject and dismiss best practices for a facilities based paradigm that exposes cyclists to far greater peril. It makes me wonder if they are really interested in their constituents safety at all.”[/i]
That’s the problem with bike advocacy, it’s been overrun by people with other agendas—reducing motoring, obesity, air pollution, fuel use, save the world, sell bicycles, etc. Those people aim for the lowest common denominator of ignorance to get “butts on bikes.” They don’t really care that their facilities hamstring cyclists, virtually eliminating their ability to protect themselves. A cyclist on a “separated” parallel facility (like a sidewalk) has only one method of avoiding crashes — keep head on a swivel and ride slow enough to stop instantly.
This is something most sidewalk riders don’t understand, and that’s why they make up almost half of Orlando’s bike-v-car crashes
That’s the problem with bike advocacy, it’s been overrun by people with other agendas—reducing motoring, obesity, air pollution, fuel use, save the world, sell bicycles, etc. Those people aim for the lowest common denominator of ignorance to get “butts on bikes.” They don’t really care that their facilities hamstring cyclists, virtually eliminating their ability to protect themselves. A cyclist on a “separated” parallel facility (like a sidewalk) has only one method of avoiding crashes — keep head on a swivel and ride slow enough to stop instantly.
This is something most sidewalk riders don’t understand, and that’s why they make up almost half of Orlando’s bike-v-car crashes
you are obviously confused about the effects and ramifications of bike infrastructure.
#7
8speed DinoSORAs
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Oxford, UK or Mountain View, Ca
Posts: 2,749
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
So tell us what "bike advocacy" should be doing?
1. Appealing to cyclists to promote a particular riding behaviour?
2. Appealling to the world at large for material and behavioural considerations towards cyclists?
1. Appealing to cyclists to promote a particular riding behaviour?
2. Appealling to the world at large for material and behavioural considerations towards cyclists?
__________________
Get a bicycle. You will certainly not regret it, if you live.
Get a bicycle. You will certainly not regret it, if you live.
#8
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tempe, AZ
Posts: 2,968
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
nah. I'll stay on the sidewalk, thanks.
__________________
"Think of bicycles as rideable art that can just about save the world". ~Grant Petersen
Cyclists fare best when they recognize that there are times when acting vehicularly is not the best practice, and are flexible enough to do what is necessary as the situation warrants.--Me
"Think of bicycles as rideable art that can just about save the world". ~Grant Petersen
Cyclists fare best when they recognize that there are times when acting vehicularly is not the best practice, and are flexible enough to do what is necessary as the situation warrants.--Me
#9
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: St. Louis
Posts: 945
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Bicyclists should have the same agendas as John Forester has:
1. Promotion of the car culture of the 1950s as the American Dream of the 21st century.
2. Opposition to mass transit.
3. Opposition to any kind of bicycling infrastructure that isn't a bike rack (while pretending not to oppose virtually all bicyling infrastructure).
4. Uncritical support of highway infrastructure.
5. Opposition to the idea that bicycling could be a transportation alternative (ridicule of those who dare to use a bicycle as a primary means of transportation is a must).
6. Promotion of the Wide Outside Lane as a primary solution the world's problems.
If anyone thinks those aren't the agendas of JF and his VC-ists followers, they obviously haven't been paying attention to what JF and his followers have written.
Oh, I almost forgot:
7. Promotion of the idea that any bicyclist that doesn't kiss JF's rear end must be suffering from some kind of mental disease like, for example, that VC-ist favorite "cyclist inferiority phobia" -- a disease invented by that great psychologist in his own mind, John Forester, because JF couldn't understand how any bicyclist not suffering from a disease could possibly disagree with his nutjob social theories.
(if "phobia" seems like too strong a word, try substituting "taboo," as one JF follower has done -- LOL).
Seriously, it's not as if VS-ists don't have their own agendas.
1. Promotion of the car culture of the 1950s as the American Dream of the 21st century.
2. Opposition to mass transit.
3. Opposition to any kind of bicycling infrastructure that isn't a bike rack (while pretending not to oppose virtually all bicyling infrastructure).
4. Uncritical support of highway infrastructure.
5. Opposition to the idea that bicycling could be a transportation alternative (ridicule of those who dare to use a bicycle as a primary means of transportation is a must).
6. Promotion of the Wide Outside Lane as a primary solution the world's problems.
If anyone thinks those aren't the agendas of JF and his VC-ists followers, they obviously haven't been paying attention to what JF and his followers have written.
Oh, I almost forgot:
7. Promotion of the idea that any bicyclist that doesn't kiss JF's rear end must be suffering from some kind of mental disease like, for example, that VC-ist favorite "cyclist inferiority phobia" -- a disease invented by that great psychologist in his own mind, John Forester, because JF couldn't understand how any bicyclist not suffering from a disease could possibly disagree with his nutjob social theories.
(if "phobia" seems like too strong a word, try substituting "taboo," as one JF follower has done -- LOL).
Seriously, it's not as if VS-ists don't have their own agendas.
#10
Been Around Awhile
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,973
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,536 Times
in
1,045 Posts
https://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group.../message/27510
#11
-=Barry=-
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Baltimore, MD +/- ~100 miles
Posts: 4,077
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Bicyclists should have the same agendas as John Forester has:
1. Promotion of the car culture of the 1950s as the American Dream of the 21st century.
2. Opposition to mass transit.
3. Opposition to any kind of bicycling infrastructure that isn't a bike rack (while pretending not to oppose virtually all bicyling infrastructure).
4. Uncritical support of highway infrastructure.
5. Opposition to the idea that bicycling could be a transportation alternative (ridicule of those who dare to use a bicycle as a primary means of transportation is a must).
6. Promotion of the Wide Outside Lane as a primary solution the world's problems.
If anyone thinks those aren't the agendas of JF and his VC-ists followers, they obviously haven't been paying attention to what JF and his followers have written.
Oh, I almost forgot:
7. Promotion of the idea that any bicyclist that doesn't kiss JF's rear end must be suffering from some kind of mental disease like, for example, that VC-ist favorite "cyclist inferiority phobia" -- a disease invented by that great psychologist in his own mind, John Forester, because JF couldn't understand how any bicyclist not suffering from a disease could possibly disagree with his nutjob social theories.
(if "phobia" seems like too strong a word, try substituting "taboo," as one JF follower has done -- LOL).
Seriously, it's not as if VS-ists don't have their own agendas.
1. Promotion of the car culture of the 1950s as the American Dream of the 21st century.
2. Opposition to mass transit.
3. Opposition to any kind of bicycling infrastructure that isn't a bike rack (while pretending not to oppose virtually all bicyling infrastructure).
4. Uncritical support of highway infrastructure.
5. Opposition to the idea that bicycling could be a transportation alternative (ridicule of those who dare to use a bicycle as a primary means of transportation is a must).
6. Promotion of the Wide Outside Lane as a primary solution the world's problems.
If anyone thinks those aren't the agendas of JF and his VC-ists followers, they obviously haven't been paying attention to what JF and his followers have written.
Oh, I almost forgot:
7. Promotion of the idea that any bicyclist that doesn't kiss JF's rear end must be suffering from some kind of mental disease like, for example, that VC-ist favorite "cyclist inferiority phobia" -- a disease invented by that great psychologist in his own mind, John Forester, because JF couldn't understand how any bicyclist not suffering from a disease could possibly disagree with his nutjob social theories.
(if "phobia" seems like too strong a word, try substituting "taboo," as one JF follower has done -- LOL).
Seriously, it's not as if VS-ists don't have their own agendas.
[/ meant as humorous (satiric) attempt at imitating a JF follower hard a55. @JRA don't take this personally, I actually support what you wrote.]
#12
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: St. Louis
Posts: 945
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
JRA obviously does not know what he is talking about as the JF agenda does not promote wide outside lanes, only roadway designs that best suit motorized travel. But one could argue that wide outside lanes are safer for drunk and/or distracted motorists and since that is better for motorists it is better for cyclists to tolerate more drunk and distracted drivers on the road.
[/ meant as humorous (satiric) attempt at imitating a JF follower hard a55. @JRA don't take this personally, I actually support what you wrote.]
[/ meant as humorous (satiric) attempt at imitating a JF follower hard a55. @JRA don't take this personally, I actually support what you wrote.]
The roadway design best suited for motorized travel is one with an outside lane wide enough to allow motorists to pass bicyclists "without delay" (to use the phrase JF used in the paper he presented to the American Dream Coalition).
[/ A pillar of VC-ist dogma is that WOLs are better than bike lanes (although not ALL VC-ists are fond of WOLs)]
To summarize, VC-ists have other agendas, too -- agendas that have noting to do with the safety of bicyclists.
Last edited by JRA; 07-08-09 at 02:24 PM. Reason: sp
#13
-=Barry=-
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Baltimore, MD +/- ~100 miles
Posts: 4,077
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Actually I did not want to lay it on too thick in case the joke landed wrong. But I have to say I am not sure if JF and company have any agenda other then criticizing other cyclists outside of the inner circle and praising any and all car centric road designs.
#14
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
For instance:
One will be immediately struck down by JF lightening if one were merely to suggest that a walking mall might be a great idea for a downtown...
#15
-=Barry=-
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Baltimore, MD +/- ~100 miles
Posts: 4,077
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
While this is fun getting back to the the op, I will strongly assert that the problem is not with the "bicycle advocates" nor JF and the blind followers. It is with a third group of planners and road engineers that all too often feel that any fool with a degree can design a bike facility.
A case locally they are doing some road improvements and are showing off how they are accommodating cyclists on typical midsections of the roadway, great! But what about the intersections? No designs are available, no comments can be made because the designs are not out to comment on, will we get curb lanes to the right of right hand turn lanes? Could be, but fighting this has been an infuriating battle because responses keep coming back in essence saying: Since we are accommodating cyclists on the typical mid sections of the road so we don't understand your assertion that we are not accommodating cyclists.
We understand the importance of not putting bike accommodations to the right of right hand turn lanes, the JFs understand this as well, it is those other guys who don't get it.
A case locally they are doing some road improvements and are showing off how they are accommodating cyclists on typical midsections of the roadway, great! But what about the intersections? No designs are available, no comments can be made because the designs are not out to comment on, will we get curb lanes to the right of right hand turn lanes? Could be, but fighting this has been an infuriating battle because responses keep coming back in essence saying: Since we are accommodating cyclists on the typical mid sections of the road so we don't understand your assertion that we are not accommodating cyclists.
We understand the importance of not putting bike accommodations to the right of right hand turn lanes, the JFs understand this as well, it is those other guys who don't get it.
#16
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 fact is that the only really true accomodations for cyclists are low speed narrow roads where all users move at about the same speed.
#17
-=Barry=-
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Baltimore, MD +/- ~100 miles
Posts: 4,077
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Or there is highway ramps where you have some distance when to move from the shoulder to the gore area. Works fairly well with faster traffic as long as there is gaps in traffic.
There is also some promise for bike lanes that come off of parking (hopefully not in the door zone) and end in a right hand turn lane (were there was parking.) we have one case where a sharrow is to the left of the right hand turn lane making a quasi pocket lane. Again that seems to work fairly well but the newb generally does not like either of these at first but give them some explanation of how and why it is supposed to work and they come around in my experience.
I will agree for all practical purposes a WOL is about as good as poorly designed bike lane for the non-VC trained cyclists.
There is also some promise for bike lanes that come off of parking (hopefully not in the door zone) and end in a right hand turn lane (were there was parking.) we have one case where a sharrow is to the left of the right hand turn lane making a quasi pocket lane. Again that seems to work fairly well but the newb generally does not like either of these at first but give them some explanation of how and why it is supposed to work and they come around in my experience.
I will agree for all practical purposes a WOL is about as good as poorly designed bike lane for the non-VC trained cyclists.
#18
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 3,040
Bikes: Bacchetta Giro, Strada
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
`Bike advocacy' is different things to different people. It seems pretty clear that you already know what it should be, but of course not everybody is going to agree.
#19
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: St. Louis
Posts: 945
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
If someone is looking for something to criticize, they should have no difficulty. It's more difficult but probably more helpful to find common ground so that bicyclsts can speak with a less-divided voice and not nit-pick everything.
I actually think that is possible. Call me an optimist.
Last edited by JRA; 07-09-09 at 06:59 PM. Reason: typo
#20
-=Barry=-
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Baltimore, MD +/- ~100 miles
Posts: 4,077
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
If someone is looking for something to criticize, they should have no difficulty. It's more difficult but probably more helpful to find common ground so that bicyclsts can speak with a less-divided voice and not nit-pick everything.
I actually think that is possible. Call me an optimist.
I actually think that is possible. Call me an optimist.
The problem here is, it is the road engineers that have purposed the half a55 solution and it is the divided cyclists who have to try and fix it. So while I would agree if cyclists could speak with a unified voice they could correct problems like this, the source of the problem is the institutes of higher learning where bike/ped issues for street designs are not taught or not taught well.
#21
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
Bicyclists should have the same agendas as John Forester has:
1. Promotion of the car culture of the 1950s as the American Dream of the 21st century.
2. Opposition to mass transit.
3. Opposition to any kind of bicycling infrastructure that isn't a bike rack (while pretending not to oppose virtually all bicyling infrastructure).
4. Uncritical support of highway infrastructure.
5. Opposition to the idea that bicycling could be a transportation alternative (ridicule of those who dare to use a bicycle as a primary means of transportation is a must).
6. Promotion of the Wide Outside Lane as a primary solution the world's problems.
If anyone thinks those aren't the agendas of JF and his VC-ists followers, they obviously haven't been paying attention to what JF and his followers have written.
Oh, I almost forgot:
7. Promotion of the idea that any bicyclist that doesn't kiss JF's rear end must be suffering from some kind of mental disease like, for example, that VC-ist favorite "cyclist inferiority phobia" -- a disease invented by that great psychologist in his own mind, John Forester, because JF couldn't understand how any bicyclist not suffering from a disease could possibly disagree with his nutjob social theories.
(if "phobia" seems like too strong a word, try substituting "taboo," as one JF follower has done -- LOL).
Seriously, it's not as if VS-ists don't have their own agendas.
1. Promotion of the car culture of the 1950s as the American Dream of the 21st century.
2. Opposition to mass transit.
3. Opposition to any kind of bicycling infrastructure that isn't a bike rack (while pretending not to oppose virtually all bicyling infrastructure).
4. Uncritical support of highway infrastructure.
5. Opposition to the idea that bicycling could be a transportation alternative (ridicule of those who dare to use a bicycle as a primary means of transportation is a must).
6. Promotion of the Wide Outside Lane as a primary solution the world's problems.
If anyone thinks those aren't the agendas of JF and his VC-ists followers, they obviously haven't been paying attention to what JF and his followers have written.
Oh, I almost forgot:
7. Promotion of the idea that any bicyclist that doesn't kiss JF's rear end must be suffering from some kind of mental disease like, for example, that VC-ist favorite "cyclist inferiority phobia" -- a disease invented by that great psychologist in his own mind, John Forester, because JF couldn't understand how any bicyclist not suffering from a disease could possibly disagree with his nutjob social theories.
(if "phobia" seems like too strong a word, try substituting "taboo," as one JF follower has done -- LOL).
Seriously, it's not as if VS-ists don't have their own agendas.
"1. Promotion of the car culture of the 1950s as the American Dream of the 21st century."
I do not promote car culture of the 1950s. I accept it as forming the environment in which cyclists must operate, and therefore work out how best should cyclists operate in it. However, I did not introduce this subject into cycling discussions. I merely responded to the anti-motoring bicycle advocates who advanced peculiar criticisms of suburbs and suburban living that do not agree with the views of the very large proportion of our population who chose suburban living.
"2. Opposition to mass transit."
I have strong opposition to the more expensive forms of mass transit, because I believe that the money would be far better spent on improving mass transit for those who really need it. However, that has nothing to do with these discussions. I oppose the superstition believed by so many anti-motorists that mass transit will, in the typical American city, significantly reduce motoring and improve cycling. I consider that entirely unlikely under the present circumstances. I did not introduce this subject to these discussions, but I had to reply to those who presented the unlikely as fact.
"3. Opposition to any kind of bicycling infrastructure that isn't a bike rack (while pretending not to oppose virtually all bicyling infrastructure)."
I oppose all bikeways that contradict the rules of the road, because cycling contrary to the rules of the road is dangerous. I oppose the claim that off-highway trails are likely to make a bicycle transportation system, because there are insufficient locations that would provide this function. I oppose the claim that off-highway trails are automatically safer than roadway cycling. I see this as a reasoned stand; if you think otherwise, then we differ.
"4. Uncritical support of highway infrastructure."
Don't be silly. I support well designed and well maintained highways, and a well planned highway system. That's also a reasoned stand.
"5. Opposition to the idea that bicycling could be a transportation alternative (ridicule of those who dare to use a bicycle as a primary means of transportation is a must)."
You lie. I have never ridiculed anyone who cycles as a primary means of transportation. I have never stated that bicycling cannot be a transportation alternative. Confound it, I have cycled for transportation a great many years of my life; how could I deny that those years existed? The trouble with you is that you are so tied up with your own emotional desires that you cannot understand what I have written so many times. That is, that, in modern American cities, it is highly improbable that any form of bicycle promotion, be it bikeways or anything otherwise probable, will produce so much switching from motoring to bicycling as to reduce motoring to a transportationally significant extent. You believe that? Then demonstrate an example to support your unsupported claim.
"6. Promotion of the Wide Outside Lane as a primary solution the world's problems."
This is so silly that no other response is needed.
"7. Promotion of the idea that any bicyclist that doesn't kiss JF's rear end must be suffering from some kind of mental disease like, for example, that VC-ist favorite "cyclist inferiority phobia" -- a disease invented by that great psychologist in his own mind, John Forester, because JF couldn't understand how any bicyclist not suffering from a disease could possibly disagree with his nutjob social theories.
(if "phobia" seems like too strong a word, try substituting "taboo," as one JF follower has done -- LOL)."
Of course, you don't like to recognize that your hypothesis about bicycle traffic is based on superstition rather than on facts. You refuse to admit that, because all your advocacy is based on that superstition; without that superstition your advocacy would be obviously false. However, facts are facts. There is no factual basis for the bikeway hypothesis other than exaggerated fear of same-direction traffic, the same motivation which enabled the motorists (See, I really do criticize them!) to produce the bikeway system to suit their own convenience. Facts are facts; they're all in the historical record and have been known for more than thirty years.
#22
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
JRA obviously does not know what he is talking about as the JF agenda does not promote wide outside lanes, only roadway designs that best suit motorized travel. But one could argue that wide outside lanes are safer for drunk and/or distracted motorists and since that is better for motorists it is better for cyclists to tolerate more drunk and distracted drivers on the road.
[/ meant as humorous (satiric) attempt at imitating a JF follower hard a55. @JRA don't take this personally, I actually support what you wrote.]
[/ meant as humorous (satiric) attempt at imitating a JF follower hard a55. @JRA don't take this personally, I actually support what you wrote.]
#23
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
That's an excellent imitation, except that you didn't mention that I must have a reading comprehension problem. Nor did you emphasize the point (cough, cough) that JF is not opposed ALL bicycle facilities.
The roadway design best suited for motorized travel is one with an outside lane wide enough to allow motorists to pass bicyclists "without delay" (to use the phrase JF used in the paper he presented to the American Dream Coalition).
[/ A pillar of VC-ist dogma is that WOLs are better than bike lanes (although not ALL VC-ists are fond of WOLs)]
To summarize, VC-ists have other agendas, too -- agendas that have noting to do with the safety of bicyclists.
The roadway design best suited for motorized travel is one with an outside lane wide enough to allow motorists to pass bicyclists "without delay" (to use the phrase JF used in the paper he presented to the American Dream Coalition).
[/ A pillar of VC-ist dogma is that WOLs are better than bike lanes (although not ALL VC-ists are fond of WOLs)]
To summarize, VC-ists have other agendas, too -- agendas that have noting to do with the safety of bicyclists.
#24
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
If I could summarize governments' interaction with people is that people always complain no mater what government does. So governments general position is to act as an informed authority and act only on informed comments. So to be effective an advocate you needs to understand why something is being purposed and offer superior solutions. Locally the VC's have no effective voice not only because they are in the minority but because they do not offer any viable solutions to problems, only complaints. This in turn hurts people like me who are more in the middle between both sides as it gives the "I'll take anything for bike facilities" advocates more power to get junk and half thought out bike accommodations. Something I am up against is the preference for 12' travel lanes by DOT with the road excess being called a bike facility wither AASHTO says it qualifies or not, vs 10' travel lanes which the new upcoming AASHTO guidance says has the same car capacity (for roads 40mph and under) and improves safety for motorists, thus giving cyclists more side area to be in conformance with AASHTO. (e.g. DOT likes the idea of taking a 15' WOL and make a 12' travel lane and a 3' "bike lane", there are better solutions for this then that.)
The problem here is, it is the road engineers that have purposed the half a55 solution and it is the divided cyclists who have to try and fix it. So while I would agree if cyclists could speak with a unified voice they could correct problems like this, the source of the problem is the institutes of higher learning where bike/ped issues for street designs are not taught or not taught well.
The problem here is, it is the road engineers that have purposed the half a55 solution and it is the divided cyclists who have to try and fix it. So while I would agree if cyclists could speak with a unified voice they could correct problems like this, the source of the problem is the institutes of higher learning where bike/ped issues for street designs are not taught or not taught well.
#25
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
so, john, you're telling us you sold out to motor vehicle traffic decades ago.
how do you explain the hundreds of communities in the USA and around the world that
1) reversed declining bicycling rates with bicycling specific infrastructure and other social inducements to favor bicycling;
2) accommodate higher percentages of lawful street bicycling thru the use of bike specific infrastructure;
and
3)Show higher ridership and lower accident rates than communities that have failed to facilitate bicycling.
John, you are a bicyclist that sold out to the motor vehicle decades ago, and your agenda has stunted bicycling ridershare in this country.
how do you explain the hundreds of communities in the USA and around the world that
1) reversed declining bicycling rates with bicycling specific infrastructure and other social inducements to favor bicycling;
2) accommodate higher percentages of lawful street bicycling thru the use of bike specific infrastructure;
and
3)Show higher ridership and lower accident rates than communities that have failed to facilitate bicycling.
John, you are a bicyclist that sold out to the motor vehicle decades ago, and your agenda has stunted bicycling ridershare in this country.