|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
It's happening! Um... sort of.
James wrote:
On 15/05/14 07:35, sms wrote: On 5/14/2014 1:24 PM, Duane wrote: On 5/14/2014 3:48 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote: There's nothing wrong with learning how to ride with traffic. The thing is that traffic skills and infrastructure like bike lanes are not mutually exclusive except in the minds of the zealots. Precisely. The VCZs don't want even well-designed bicycle infrastructure. I think that is untrue. Forester certainly seems to not like infrastructure of any sort. -- duane |
Ads |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
It's happening! Um... sort of.
James wrote:
On 15/05/14 04:20, Duane wrote: On 5/14/2014 1:43 PM, Dan O wrote: While VC is often presented as an enabling strategy, I think it's proponents acknowledge that it doesn't get people out of cars and onto bikes. It doesn't shift the transportation landscape away from the car culture. In fact its very existence is based on accepting car culture dominance and *joining* it. Well if you insist on riding only on roads then maybe that's valid. In Australia we have little choice. Ride on the road for most practical uses of a bicycle, or don't bother. The problem I have with VC is not the strategy but the religion that makes all other options sins. The sins I see are poorly designed alternatives to road infrastructure, and a law that says I pretty much have to use the poorly designed infrastructure where it exists in my direction of travel. Here's a snippet of what I recently wrote to our local roads authority on the subject; quote Your engineers are obviously not competent cyclists or educated about properly designed bicycling infrastructure. Why don't you ask "us", the people who are actually out there riding as many kilometres as many people drive? Here's an example of more failed infrastructure. Just a couple of days ago, a mate tried to use the relatively new facility on Kent Avenue in Croydon. He said, "Councils have no idea when designing infrastructure. I nearly broke my neck on a brand new piece of bicycle infrastructure on Kent ave croydon at 60kph (the speed limit) when the bike lane suddenly raised 4" over the distance of a foot. It was painted to look invisible. It bucked me and I landed front wheel first only about 12" from a truck also doing 60. It buckled a $500 wheel and gave me the biggest fright. I thought I was going to die under those truck wheels because the council didn't want to dig up a gutter when designing a bike lane." Yep, another failure, and it's brand spanking new! When I saw what the construction gang were doing I complained to council, and to the designer at GTA Consultants, and to Vicroads, and to Bicycle Network (who endorsed the design) and to the Ombudsman. I suggested much better alternatives and reasons why the design was faulty - but alas, once the concrete is poured, no one really listens. No one really cares. As another example, I recently rode down Hartland Rd in Vermont South. There is a nice wide bike lane there, but half way along, on a down hill run, the bike lane suddenly narrows to half width where there is a small raised traffic island with a metal post and sign. Nice life threatening obstacle course! Further down there is a traffic calming chicane, where the bike lane becomes a narrow footpath off to the side. Good luck if you don't know it's coming up. I bailed out when I saw it, and had to brake and swerve right, behind a car that was going passed. These attempts to provide a safe haven are all wrong. Do you get it? /quote VC is fine FWIW. VC principles are very helpful in those situations where bicyclists _have to_ share the same space with cars, which is going to be the case for the foreseeable future where the car culture dominates. Like I said, some of it makes sense. Defensive driving (riding) makes the most sense to me. Doesn't preclude bike lanes IMO. snip No, of course it doesn't preclude bike lanes. It is a method to best coexist with motor traffic. So when a new facility makes it harder to coexist with motor traffic, or is simply more dangerous to use than the road, competent cyclists get ****ed off. Of course. But when you get ****ed off at a bad design that makes sense. When you dis all infrastructure by rote it doesn't. I use some bike lanes often. I avoid others just as often and file complaints about the bad ones. Makes sense to me. -- duane |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
It's happening! Um... sort of.
On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 1:21:07 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/14/2014 1:43 PM, Dan O wrote: While VC is often presented as an enabling strategy, I think it's proponents acknowledge that it doesn't get people out of cars and onto bikes. It doesn't shift the transportation landscape away from the car culture. In fact its very existence is based on accepting car culture dominance and *joining* it. If you want to ride a bike in the Westernized world, you have three choices: Ride on the roads (i.e. join the existing culture). I disagree that riding on the roads is joining the existing culture. I believe I am living proof. Or haul your bike to the nearest MUP and cruise back and forth. That's one choice, sort of. Or, I suppose, sit and moan about the horrible dominance of car culture until someone builds a special path right to your driveway. Since you consider unloading your bike at the MUP and riding back and forth amounts to riding a bike, there are *tons* more choices. I fact, there are many places where it's feasible to do much more than simply "ride a bike", and actually get to destinations without ever touching the road. But touching (and using) the road is *not* synonymous with joining the car culture; and yes, one almost has to use roads to do much of any worthwhile bicycling. But you've again addressed my statement out of its context, and missed the point completely. The question was, "Do VC principles alone promote significantly greater participation?" The answer is "no", and even the VC "crew" acknowledge that that is not an objective (though I tend to be charitable in this and credit it with making some riders feel more assured and cement conviction in bicycling as a habit). VC is fine FWIW. VC principles are very helpful in those situations where bicyclists _have to_ share the same space with cars, which is going to be the case for the foreseeable future where the car culture dominates. (Nice of you to leave that in after attacking the first paragraph on something it wasn't.) But it seems to me that VC is just common sense for anyone reasonably versed in traffic rules and conventions. Many people have a lot of trouble understanding what seems simple and obvious to me, though, and I think educational opportunities for them is a good idea. In the classes I've taken and taught that covered vehicular cycling techniques, there were people who had used their bikes for commuting and utility for many, many years. There were people who had toured by bike a great deal, including coast-to-coast and internationally. There were also "sport" riders, the "fast recreational" types. And there were relative beginners. None of any of that implies a lick of common sense. There were _no_ individuals who claimed they had not learned enough to make the course well worthwhile, at least in the ones I taught. And in fact, when I took a Cycling Savvy class a couple years ago, I felt that I learned some valuable tips. I learn something new every day no matter what I do. So you may think it's all just common sense. Perhaps you're the unusually brilliant person who already knows it all. However, I think you're more probably just another person who doesn't know what they don't know. You can try to put me down with smarmy stupidity, but I think I was *supporting* your whole VC education business, Frank. Frank is on record saying, "they dislike us simply because we're there". You've mentioned that several times. I'm very curious about the source, and the context. https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!original/rec.bicycles.tech/NqF5KQ9lSA0/KLuX1rglL2EJ Because while I'm sure some people dislike bicyclists, that's hardly unique. Every group is disliked by _some_ people. First, let me say (again) that *most* drivers are very nice (that many of these have negative feelings toward us is some- thing to consider, but they deal with it internally and at least manage decent social interaction with us anyway). But way too many are not so nice. I'll file that with all the other vague "way too many" regrets - e.g. way too many people don't brush their teeth properly, way too many people aren't saving enough for retirement, way too many people don't drink eight glasses of water per day, etc. Trout fishing and basketball injuries? I had a motorist yell at me the other day. Was that "way too many"? Hardly. He was the first yell this year, and he yelled only because he was caught in a really stupid mistake, and was embarrassed by my "What the hell???" hand motion. It's no different than what happens motorist-to-motorist thousands of times daily in any city. If you expect all sweetness and light on the roads - or even in bike lanes, cycle tracks or MUPs - you'll have to wait for another universe. So, your answer to the problem of motorist hostility toward bicycles is, "Get used to it"? Meanwhile, learning competent cycling (or VC) lets you deal with the world as it is. If learning VC will help me deal with motorist attitudes, then it really must be a religion (the church of "man up and get used to it"?) I theorize that increased mode share can ameliorate motorist attitudes _at the source_, and that there is a tipping point where the presence of bicycles becomes the default expectation and experience - where the *absence* of any bicycles is the anomaly - and motorists must learn to accept them or go crazy. |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
It's happening! Um... sort of.
On 14/05/2014 15:52, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/13/2014 10:54 PM, John B. wrote: I might also mention that when you see two tourists over here the fat one is almost always from the U.S. :-) Every time I've returned from visiting Europe, my first walk through an American airport has been a shock. The difference in average body mass is immediately apparent. We were amused by our experience at the Grand Canyon. Leave the top and start walking down one of the paths, and the average BMI shoots down. (Lots of signs saying things to the effect of "Don't try and go all the way down and back again in a day - we keep having to pick up the pieces" and "Yes, even you young fit people". At a ranger station or similar this young German chap was trying to find out how unhappy they'd be about him doing it - "I've done a few mountains, so I think I ought to be ok, but your signs are pretty insistent". The rangers were very positive and said go for it - I get the feeling that having somebody obviously fit asking them was a welcome change) |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
It's happening! Um... sort of.
On 15/05/14 10:02, Duane wrote:
James wrote: On 15/05/14 07:35, sms wrote: On 5/14/2014 1:24 PM, Duane wrote: On 5/14/2014 3:48 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote: There's nothing wrong with learning how to ride with traffic. The thing is that traffic skills and infrastructure like bike lanes are not mutually exclusive except in the minds of the zealots. Precisely. The VCZs don't want even well-designed bicycle infrastructure. I think that is untrue. Forester certainly seems to not like infrastructure of any sort. I think because there is so little he has seen (in the US) that is well designed and useful for cyclists of all capabilities to comfortably use. -- JS |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
It's happening! Um... sort of.
On Wed, 14 May 2014 12:48:11 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote: On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 2:36:27 PM UTC-4, sms wrote: On 5/14/2014 11:20 AM, Duane wrote: Well if you insist on riding only on roads then maybe that's valid. The problem I have with VC is not the strategy but the religion that makes all other options sins. VC is one of the religions with the fewest adherents in the world. Their beliefs are even more ludicrous than some of the mainstream religions. It's painfully obvious that you have never been to nor looked at areas where vehicular bicycling is very widespread. Many Asian countries have masses of bicycle traffic. Sometimes i think that the biggest problem for many North Americans to become vehicular bicyclists, or to simply ride on roads in traffic, is that they don't know how to behave in traffic themselves. At least bicyclists who are also drivers have an understanding of how to navigate in traffic. Many non-drivers simply have no idea how to ride safely in traffic. That is part of the reason i think there is such a push for bicycle lanes or other facilities - rather than learn how to mingle with motor traffic just separate bicycles from motor traffic and the problem(s0 go away. Unfortunately when the bike facilities end these bicyclists without knowledge of navigating in traffic are left high and dry because they still don't know how to merge/mingle or ride on roads with traffic. Chee4rs Singapore is a good example. Nearly totally destroyed in WW II they gained their independence from Malaysia in 1965 and today is the second most densely populated nation in the world., and as a result the numbers of autos on the road has greatly increased, and yet bicycles are still a common method of transportation. Singapore has a highly developed public transportation system encompassing buses and the MRT (subway or Underground) but still at every MRT station or bus stop you will see bicycles chained and locked. The Lavender Street MRT station has several hundred bikes parked there every day. Bicycle facilities? None that I've seen other than parking stands at MRT stations. I suspect that bicycle use is far more dependent on social or economic conditions, or even historical use, then on the availability or non-availability of facilities. -- Cheers, John B. (invalid to gmail) |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
It's happening! Um... sort of.
On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 6:00:18 PM UTC-7, James wrote:
On 15/05/14 10:02, Duane wrote: James wrote: On 15/05/14 07:35, sms wrote: On 5/14/2014 1:24 PM, Duane wrote: On 5/14/2014 3:48 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote: There's nothing wrong with learning how to ride with traffic. The thing is that traffic skills and infrastructure like bike lanes are not mutually exclusive... Surely. ... except in the minds of the zealots. Precisely. The VCZs don't want even well-designed bicycle infrastructure. I think that is untrue. It's probably at least a too sweeping generalization. I think their ranks are just saddled with some wingnuts. Forester certainly seems to not like infrastructure of any sort. I think because there is so little he has seen (in the US) that is well designed and useful for cyclists of all capabilities to comfortably use. http://www.dutchcycling.nl/index.cfm?page=News&view=detail&item=Why+the+so+ca lled+%27vehicular+cycling%27+concept+is+creating+a +false+dichotomy |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
It's happening! Um... sort of.
On 5/14/2014 8:04 PM, Dan O wrote:
On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 1:21:07 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: If you want to ride a bike in the Westernized world, you have three choices: Ride on the roads (i.e. join the existing culture). I disagree that riding on the roads is joining the existing culture. I believe I am living proof. Dan, you pretend that by disobeying the law puts you into a different culture. That's true only for the most parochial definition of "culture." I fact, there are many places where it's feasible to do much more than simply "ride a bike", and actually get to destinations without ever touching the road. OK, I agree, it's possible to ride (probably on a mountain bike) entirely off-road. And it's occasionally possible to skulk along through parking lots and on sidewalks, avoiding all roads, if you're that timid and have only a short distance to go. To me, that's barely better than riding circles around your own house. But it seems to me that VC is just common sense for anyone reasonably versed in traffic rules and conventions. Many people have a lot of trouble understanding what seems simple and obvious to me, though, and I think educational opportunities for them is a good idea. In the classes I've taken and taught that covered vehicular cycling techniques, there were people who had used their bikes for commuting and utility for many, many years. There were people who had toured by bike a great deal, including coast-to-coast and internationally. There were also "sport" riders, the "fast recreational" types. And there were relative beginners. There were _no_ individuals who claimed they had not learned enough to make the course well worthwhile, at least in the ones I taught. And in fact, when I took a Cycling Savvy class a couple years ago, I felt that I learned some valuable tips. I learn something new every day no matter what I do. But you have no idea how much you still don't know. Frank is on record saying, "they dislike us simply because we're there". You've mentioned that several times. I'm very curious about the source, and the context. https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!original/rec.bicycles.tech/NqF5KQ9lSA0/KLuX1rglL2EJ Ah. I wondered where you got that. The direct quote of what I said, from that link, is "I'm sure those drivers don't like me as a motorist, simply because I'm there." I was clearly and specifically talking about driving my car, not riding my bike. So, from the link, it's apparent you've been misrepresenting my statement all along. Not that I expect a retraction. If you expect all sweetness and light on the roads - or even in bike lanes, cycle tracks or MUPs - you'll have to wait for another universe. So, your answer to the problem of motorist hostility toward bicycles is, "Get used to it"? I'd probably phrase it differently. While some fairly sexist statements have a lot more punch,one might say "Get confident enough that it doesn't bother you." What's worked for me is to learn to ride competently and confidently, as a legal vehicle operator. I know what I'm supposed to do in any road situation I encounter. I do it with confidence, and I find that almost all motorists are perfectly cooperative with me. The very few that are less than civil are not worth whining about. I almost never get really angry at them; I simply recognize those very few are being jerks who deserve no respect. Perhaps I'm treated well because I'm seen as competent and law abiding. All I can say for sure is that the people who complain the most about motorists are the ones who don't ride like I do. And I'm far from the only vehicular cyclist who's noted that. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
It's happening! Um... sort of.
James wrote:
On 15/05/14 10:02, Duane wrote: James wrote: On 15/05/14 07:35, sms wrote: On 5/14/2014 1:24 PM, Duane wrote: On 5/14/2014 3:48 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote: There's nothing wrong with learning how to ride with traffic. The thing is that traffic skills and infrastructure like bike lanes are not mutually exclusive except in the minds of the zealots. Precisely. The VCZs don't want even well-designed bicycle infrastructure. I think that is untrue. Forester certainly seems to not like infrastructure of any sort. I think because there is so little he has seen (in the US) that is well designed and useful for cyclists of all capabilities to comfortably use. Maybe he should get out more. -- duane |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
It's happening! Um... sort of.
On 5/14/2014 4:24 PM, Duane wrote:
There's nothing wrong with learning how to ride with traffic. The thing is that traffic skills and infrastructure like bike lanes are not mutually exclusive except in the minds of the zealots. Some bike infrastructure is absolutely incompatible with traffic skills. One example is a bike lane or sidepath that guides cyclists into the curb side (blind side) of motorists who might turn across the cyclist's path. Another example is a door-zone bike lane. And in mandatory sidepath jurisdictions, the incompatibility is even greater. Unless you consider it a "traffic skill" to recognize and avoid the very facilities that so many people lobby to have built. Since you're one of those touting the facilities, I doubt that's what you meant. -- - Frank Krygowski |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Sort-of an into, sort of a question.. | The Transporter | Unicycling | 16 | August 31st 06 04:51 PM |
Is this really happening???? | Calogero Carlucci | Racing | 1 | June 26th 06 10:24 AM |
What's Happening With Creed? | Tom Kunich | Racing | 0 | June 5th 06 03:01 PM |
What's happening to RBT | Tom Nakashima | Techniques | 43 | January 7th 06 03:42 AM |
gee... what's happening to me? | [email protected] | General | 61 | June 9th 05 05:20 PM |