skanking biker

Thanks for making milk come out my nose

chipcom 

Uhh, John, I WAS one of those 'official leaders', thanks for the vote of confidence in my knowledge and integrity, I can see why you were probably a darling of the council chambers.

I have yet to see any data that says that facilities are NOT safer for cyclists, both overall or in car-bike collision rates. AGAIN, the only data I have seen indicates the opposite, that the car-bike collision rate is greater on the roadways. (BTW, I ride the roads, have been for over 40 years and my personal accident rate is close to nil, so I don't have any of your alleged phobias, incompetence or a bias towards facilities).

While ANY accident rate is too high, I've yet to see any data that indicates that the accident rate for cyclists is any higher than that of other vehicles (see, I'm even sticking to your narrow focus), let alone higher in facilities versus the roadways. Indeed, as I already mentioned, fatalities seem to have decreased while the number of facilities AND overall ridership has increased.

But for discussion sake, let's say that you are correct in your claims that cyclist skills pretty much suck...tell me, how is throwing them onto the roads going to reduce car-bike collisions? Are they going to magically become steely-eyed, alpha-dawg, vehicular cyclists? Or are you suggesting mandatory training and licensing as a requirement to ride a bicycle?

The reality is that facilities exist and are used by large numbers of cyclists for both transportation and recreation....the horse is out of the barn and isn't coming home soon. No data supports your notion that these facilities are more dangerous than the roadways nor that cyclists have reduced car-bike collisions on the roadways. So until you can provide an alternative, short of mandatory education and licensing, just what do you suggest we do with all of those allegedly unskilled cyclists who are allegedly being killed and maimed in epic numbers on the bikeways? Perhaps one could work to improve the conditions of the facilities, rather than oppose their existence at all, while also working to improve the skill levels of cyclists and motorists alike and improving the conditions of our roads? Don't tell me that it can't be done, that's what losers say...in America we have proved over and over again that we CAN do anything we set our minds to, if we get over arguing amongst ourselves, seek compromise for the greater good, and work together to achieve the common goal. Do you want to improve the condition of cycling and cyclists, John, or just complain that it isn't being done your way?

Helmet Head

That's because the LAWs are based on the underlying PRINCIPLEs.
Laws are specific, principles are general.

The principle is to ban slow moving vehicles that would impede faster moving vehicles on freeways.
The law is to ban the specific classifications of vehicles that are slow moving.

John Forester

An interesting bit this: "Uhh, John, I WAS one of those 'official leaders', thanks for the vote of confidence in my knowledge and integrity, I can see why you were probably a darling of the council chambers." I have no idea of who you really are, but if you actually were one of the leaders in the official side of the bikeway promotion business, why didn't you realize that you were promoting the system that the motorists forced on cyclists to clear the way for motoring? That was obvious from the very beginning. And how could I be a darling of the council chambers? Sounds like you mean city council chambers. If you really knew much about the beginning of the bikeway promotion movement you would have known that I was on really bad terms with council chambers, right from the beginning, for endangering me and prosecuting me for riding safely.


To get to the rest:
I have said, time after time, that there has never been any evidence that bikeways perform the ostensible functions for which they are built. Those two functions are reducing the cyclist accident rate and allowing unskilled cyclists to ride safely. You evidently agree, because you argue for the preservation of bikeways unless they are proved to be more dangerous than unskilled riding on the road.

The trouble with the view that you have adopted is that you are seen by the public as advocating facilities that make cycling safe for those who don't know how, thereby eliminating the need for the proper traffic skills. The public? Even a large part of the people writing in this discussion believe this superstition, let alone the public who know even less. Therefore, you are encouraging uninformed people to ride dangerously. An honest public servant, an honest engineer, would be working toward reducing the cyclist accident rate.

By the way, you suggest improving the bikeway system to make it safer. The worst dangers were eliminated at the start, by my actions long ago. What's left are largely the inherent dangers that cannot be eliminated while having a practical bikeway system. A safer bikeway system is possible, but only at the cost of overhead construction, and maybe not even then, considering how such a system would be used by current cyclists. It cannot be done. You raise a great cheer for your superstition: "Don't tell me that it can't be done, that's what losers say...in America we have proved over and over again that we CAN do anything we set our minds to, if we get over arguing amongst ourselves, seek compromise for the greater good, and work together to achieve the common goal. Do you want to improve the condition of cycling and cyclists, John, or just complain that it isn't being done your way?" Your side, with your help, so you say, has had thirty years to figure that one out, and it hasn't been able to do so. Nobody has done so.

Rather than working to prop up a system that cannot work safely, bicycle advocates should be working to improve the skills of cyclists. That is the strongest factor in improving cyclist safety. And if you manage that, motorists' skills with respect to cyclists will also improve, because they will have been exposed to the same training. Other nations used to have such a system, why not do what was proved practical then? I grew up in such a nation. Even in 1985, when I last cycled there, casual motorists met in roadside pubs recognized that the American cyclist-inferiority & bikeway system was just plain foolish. "Of course," they said, "Everyone must use the same rules or there will be collisions."

Pete_Fagerlin1

It's hilarious stuff like this that keeps me reading this thread.

Please continue!

Helmet Head

Why is that so funny? Do you have any idea what those dangers were that were eliminated? Do you have any idea what actions caused them to be eliminated? Why is this so funny to you?

Bruce Rosar

To be precise, the regulation bans traveling by means of a bicycle (as well as some other modes). If it really banned vehicles, then it would be illegal to transport them as cargo on those highways.

The basic issue here isn't the government's authority to require vehicle operators to travel above some minimum speed. Rather it's whether or not this regulation is in compliance with the equal protection clause. In other words, does the regulation:
Note that motorists, which the regulation allows to engage in the activity of using the highways in question, are a class of individuals as the result of a classification.

bigpedaler

I remember some 'power speaker' several years ago, proposing his own version of the Golden Rule (do unto others as you would have them do unto you); he said it SHOULD be:

"do unto others as they would have you do unto them."
pure gobbledygook.

so, having said that, what level of respect do you think you are entitled to, and how is anyone supposed to know that? you have, in fact, INCLUDING THE RIBBING YOU HAVE RECEIVED from several of us, gotten more respect than your icon, JF, gives any of us who disagree with him. i believe that if i were to look up "condescending", i would see his picture.

i will grant that, during this whole debate, few (if any) people have changed their outlooks on the subject; you have not swayed me, i have not swayed you. but IF my sense of respect and propriety were violated, or my feelings hurt, i would not do as you have done, and complain about the lack of respect. but then, i rarely get disrespected -- may have something to do with the tongue-in-cheek 'madness' i enjoy, who knows? (actually, it's because only one person in nearly fifty years has been able to debate me successfully)

Helmet Head

The leve of respect that I or anyone else is entitled to is immaterial. What matters here is whether we show respect for each other, or not.

JF is like anyone else. If he shows disrespect for anyone else on this forum, he should be called on it (showing respect when calling him on it, of course). If he, or anyone else, persists, he should be suspended from posting for some period (perhaps 24 hours, to start).

bigpedaler

RobertHurst

First of all, greetings John Forester if you're still following.


HH, I'm not worked into a lather by facilities, pro or con. It's a big yawner. My disagreement and exasperation with the VC camp is fairly well encapsulated by the sentence below from Mr. Forester:

Well, I almost choked on my dinner.

It may be 'recognized' by somebody, but... Well, this is a strange sentence considering that a collision automatically implies that at least one party has breached the rules of the road -- if nobody breaks any rules, no collisions. That would be a useless tautology. But let's assume what is meant is that cyclists' obeying the rules causes surrounding traffic 'to flow in patterns that do not cause collisions.' If this statement were true, one might reasonably expect there to be far fewer collisions between lawful cyclists and unlawful motorists, if not zero, right? As it is, this brand of car-bike collision (cyclist lawful, motorist not) forms the bulk of collisions suffered by adult riders like those on this forum.

Perhaps I misread or misunderstand the sentence as he meant it (and welcome any clarification). If not, I think this is the kind of seductive mischaracterization of traffic that can lead an innocent cyclist like yourself HH to start waxing poetic about VC 'autopilot' and other nasty pitfalls. Fanciful notions on the nature of traffic lead to fanciful notions about how best to deal with it.

Robert

skanking biker

Useless tautologies--now what would those be? I haven't seen one in a while.


I am buying your book this weekend

RobertHurst

Ka-Chiiiing!!


FREE CORN FOR ALL!

Juha

Which northern Europe would that be? Your description does not really apply to the northern Europe where I live.

--J

chipcom 

There just so much here to address that I'm not sure where to even begin. It seems that we both live in different realities, or perhaps you still see the world as it was 'back in the day' rather than as it is today. So rather than continue this discussion that is obviously going nowhere, I'll simply summarize:

1. There is no data to support your contention that bikeways are more dangerous than roadways.
2. There is no data to support your contention that the majority of cyclists don't have the skills required to safely ride a bicycle or understand the basic rules of the road.
3. There is no data to support your contention that bikeways cannot be improved.
4. There is no data to support your theory of cyclist-inferiority phobia

I appreciate that you had the good manners to come here into Bike Forums after you saw fit to blast away at some of our members on your web site, but I'm afraid that you have not done anything to convince me that the politics of vehicular cycling is anywhere near as useful or valid as the technical concepts. Perhaps it's time that more of us joined Hurst in publishing works that include vehicular cycling practices as just one of many tools at a cyclist's disposal, while leaving the vc political horsepucky on the editing room floor.

I-Like-To-Bike

I'm rather fond of this belly whopper factoid: "Even in 1985, when I last cycled there, casual motorists met in roadside pubs recognized that the American cyclist-inferiority & bikeway system was just plain foolish. "Of course," they said, "Everyone must use the same rules or there will be collisions."

A lotta good research going on over there in English pubs. An excellent source of safety data and psychological insight of American Cyclists, eh?

I-Like-To-Bike

I suspect it's the Northern Europe he imagined is true, or more recently, is a pastiche he derived from the filtered cut and pasted snippets/factoids that a few of his Googling associates email to him. I previously asked on this thread the same question about the source of his info/data on Northern European Vehicular Cycling/ status of Vehicular Cyclists, and the alleged negative effect of the local laws on this unidentified population of Vehicular Cyclists. So far, all I've read is the same broken record with no relevant response.

chipcom 

It seems that Mr. Forester and company believe that cyclist error is the key factor:

Bekologist

despite mr foresters' protestations and denial,

facilites both add cyclists and increase cyclists' safety. the facts ARE IN: bike facilties and vigorously supporting bikes thru bike infrastructure has been PROVEN, in cities around the world, to both

1) increase numbers of cyclists in a community; and

2) decrease indexed accident rates for cyclists.



MORE cyclists, LOWER accident rates.

Sorry, John, but your stale, dated anecdotal smears against facilties is decades old and does not reflect current data surrounding bike infrastructure.

John, even vehicular cyclists can use a bike lane.

I-Like-To-Bike

Good summation. I'm glad you got it in before a few individuals succeed in closing down the thread because they believe that viewpoints/impressions such as above are the product of "vendettas," "personal attacks" and "disrespect" for their own sacrosanct opinion/viewpoints which must be treated as inviolate.

chipcom 

Yes, I noticed that the poll parody got closed and I found this PM from our favorite A&S personality in my box this morning:

Hardly a new tactic when sacred cows are being gored.

I_Bike

I believe there's plenty of blame to go around. No one person can be blamed for this mess.

deputyjones

Well, regardless of how silly these arguments get they have succeeded in drawing in the two leading authors in the field. Closing it now would be silly.

chipcom 

I'm thinking that this particular thread isn't the 'blame' either, compared to so many other A&S threads. I mean, taking into account the subject of the thread, who is considered to be the devil by some and a god by others, and the fact that he is actually participating in the thread to boot, this thread has been relatively well behaved. Am I wrong?

I-Like-To-Bike

Oh, I agree. It's not just one person carrying on unnecessarily. But could you be a little more specific about the nature of the alleged "mess" or transgressions "we" are being "blamed" for creating by unnamed parties?