|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
John Forester Speaks
On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 8:00:32 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2019-10-01 16:46, Tom Kunich wrote: On Tuesday, October 1, 2019 at 4:39:22 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote: This was forwarded to me by one of my bike commuter cohorts: -- Jay Beattie. Pretty much the entire commuter bicycle movement is built around John as a starting point. ... I disagree with many of the things John Forester advocates. In this interview he clearly dodged a key point: Quote, "[Interviewer] ... I'm not a transportation policy person but I would guess that there's data now to demonstrate that on avenues where protected infrastructure has gone in that incidents with serious injury or death have gone down since that infrastructure go put in. So I feel like I see evidence in the US that in some places at least where it's practical, that protected infrastructure can make a difference and vastly increase the number of people who feel safer riding a bike. JF: Your statement is full of false assumptions." ... and then he veered off the topic above. Which "false assumptions"? The interviewer was correct, the vast majority of cyclists prefers cycling infrastructure. On other things I agree with John Forester. For example, I always leave bike lanes when I want to do a left turn, lining up with cars in the turn lane. And sometimes getting grumpy when the traffic engineers were too incompetent to make the loop for the light detect my bike. ... Though all of these bike lanes and bike trails ideas COME FROM BICYCLISTS. Exactly. And they know. ... And I have to admit, after battling h4qvy traffic getting on a nice quiet bike path has a remarkable calming effect. I know only one cyclist who doesn't care much whether he rides in the lane or on a bike path, though even he is mostly found on long segregated bike paths. All others prefer, like myself, good quality bike paths. Even the serious commuters do who easily spend 50mi/day on their bikes. What many do is a split commute. They truck their bikes to parking lots near the American River Bike Path an then continue the commute by bicycle. In the evening all in reverse. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ You ride across Sausalito's north side on a bike path and then follow a "bike route" (Coyote Creek?) Then do a sort of zigzag up Camino Alto which is a narrow two lane road that while a bike route certainly teaches you why bike paths do have some advantages. |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
John Forester Speaks
On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 9:06:15 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 8:00:32 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote: On 2019-10-01 16:46, Tom Kunich wrote: On Tuesday, October 1, 2019 at 4:39:22 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote: This was forwarded to me by one of my bike commuter cohorts: -- Jay Beattie. Pretty much the entire commuter bicycle movement is built around John as a starting point. ... I disagree with many of the things John Forester advocates. In this interview he clearly dodged a key point: Quote, "[Interviewer] ... I'm not a transportation policy person but I would guess that there's data now to demonstrate that on avenues where protected infrastructure has gone in that incidents with serious injury or death have gone down since that infrastructure go put in. So I feel like I see evidence in the US that in some places at least where it's practical, that protected infrastructure can make a difference and vastly increase the number of people who feel safer riding a bike. JF: Your statement is full of false assumptions." ... and then he veered off the topic above. Which "false assumptions"? The interviewer was correct, the vast majority of cyclists prefers cycling infrastructure. On other things I agree with John Forester. For example, I always leave bike lanes when I want to do a left turn, lining up with cars in the turn lane. And sometimes getting grumpy when the traffic engineers were too incompetent to make the loop for the light detect my bike. ... Though all of these bike lanes and bike trails ideas COME FROM BICYCLISTS. But they don't. Most infrastructure design is the product of national planning organizations like NACTO or state DOTs or local planning departments.. Some of it is from private enterprise like Alta Planning + Design. Many of these grand designs would never come from cyclists except perhaps those with suicidal ideations. Exactly. And they know. A lot of the planners don't know and you end up with facilities that are a nightmare. ... And I have to admit, after battling h4qvy traffic getting on a nice quiet bike path has a remarkable calming effect. I know only one cyclist who doesn't care much whether he rides in the lane or on a bike path, though even he is mostly found on long segregated bike paths. All others prefer, like myself, good quality bike paths. Even the serious commuters do who easily spend 50mi/day on their bikes. What many do is a split commute. They truck their bikes to parking lots near the American River Bike Path an then continue the commute by bicycle. In the evening all in reverse. Linear parks are fine if you want to avoid traffic, but then again, you get hung up behind walkers with dog packs, homeless, etc., etc. Many times the added infrastructure is inferior to the prior road arrangement, which around here, may have included a bike lane or wide shoulder, e.g. https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2440/3...340bfe29_c.jpg The segregated MUP is now bisected by intersecting roads every 25-50 yards. The prior bike lane allowed you to ride without interruption down the main road. Danger is now increased because cyclists hit the intersections at the same time as entering traffic. It's the functional equivalent of putting bikes on sidewalks. Gee, thanks for that improvement. Now I get to stop every 25 yards. There are many illustrations of foolish choices around here -- and some good choices, which are typically just wide shoulders and/or bike lanes. -- Jay Beattie. Jay, while I ignore a large part of the bicycle laws that pertain almost entirely to motor vehicles, I simply do not know how else to control people like children etc. that would otherwise ride down the wrong side of the street and through crosswalks while cars are zipping past. You and I may have the judgement to ride in a safe and sane manner but that probably only accounts for about 60% of the riders. For the others you can only force them to use the Vehicle Code. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
John Forester Speaks
On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 12:42:23 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2019-10-03 09:06, jbeattie wrote: On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 8:00:32 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote: On 2019-10-01 16:46, Tom Kunich wrote: On Tuesday, October 1, 2019 at 4:39:22 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote: This was forwarded to me by one of my bike commuter cohorts: -- Jay Beattie. Pretty much the entire commuter bicycle movement is built around John as a starting point. ... I disagree with many of the things John Forester advocates. In this interview he clearly dodged a key point: Quote, "[Interviewer] ... I'm not a transportation policy person but I would guess that there's data now to demonstrate that on avenues where protected infrastructure has gone in that incidents with serious injury or death have gone down since that infrastructure go put in. So I feel like I see evidence in the US that in some places at least where it's practical, that protected infrastructure can make a difference and vastly increase the number of people who feel safer riding a bike. JF: Your statement is full of false assumptions." ... and then he veered off the topic above. Which "false assumptions"? The interviewer was correct, the vast majority of cyclists prefers cycling infrastructure. On other things I agree with John Forester. For example, I always leave bike lanes when I want to do a left turn, lining up with cars in the turn lane. And sometimes getting grumpy when the traffic engineers were too incompetent to make the loop for the light detect my bike. ... Though all of these bike lanes and bike trails ideas COME FROM BICYCLISTS. But they don't. Most infrastructure design is the product of national planning organizations like NACTO or state DOTs or local planning departments. Some of it is from private enterprise like Alta Planning + Design. Many of these grand designs would never come from cyclists except perhaps those with suicidal ideations. Exactly. And they know. A lot of the planners don't know and you end up with facilities that are a nightmare. How come we have excellent ones like these down here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jededi..._Fair_Oaks.jpg https://www.usbr.gov/mp/ccao/images/fsc-new.jpg ... And I have to admit, after battling h4qvy traffic getting on a nice quiet bike path has a remarkable calming effect. I know only one cyclist who doesn't care much whether he rides in the lane or on a bike path, though even he is mostly found on long segregated bike paths. All others prefer, like myself, good quality bike paths. Even the serious commuters do who easily spend 50mi/day on their bikes. What many do is a split commute. They truck their bikes to parking lots near the American River Bike Path an then continue the commute by bicycle. In the evening all in reverse. Linear parks are fine if you want to avoid traffic, but then again, you get hung up behind walkers with dog packs, homeless, etc., etc. Many times the added infrastructure is inferior to the prior road arrangement, which around here, may have included a bike lane or wide shoulder, e.g. https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2440/3...340bfe29_c.jpg The segregated MUP is now bisected by intersecting roads every 25-50 yards. The prior bike lane allowed you to ride without interruption down the main road. Danger is now increased because cyclists hit the intersections at the same time as entering traffic. It's the functional equivalent of putting bikes on sidewalks. Gee, thanks for that improvement. Now I get to stop every 25 yards. Poor design. Have you personally intervened at the city council? There are many illustrations of foolish choices around here -- and some good choices, which are typically just wide shoulders and/or bike lanes. And they can be fixed. As has happened on Freeport Blvd in Sacramento. To my surprise with a very low amount of hissing from the automotive league despite the fact that they lost one lane. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ I want to hear the response to the bicycle lane on the San Rafael Bridge. Now THAT has to be a strange one. Who is going to ride a bicycle through Richmond without a bulletproof vest? |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
John Forester Speaks
On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 1:11:03 PM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 10/3/2019 8:00 AM, Joerg wrote: snip I disagree with many of the things John Forester advocates. In this interview he clearly dodged a key point: Quote, "[Interviewer] ... I'm not a transportation policy person but I would guess that there's data now to demonstrate that on avenues where protected infrastructure has gone in that incidents with serious injury or death have gone down since that infrastructure go put in. So I feel like I see evidence in the US that in some places at least where it's practical, that protected infrastructure can make a difference and vastly increase the number of people who feel safer riding a bike. JF: Your statement is full of false assumptions." ... and then he veered off the topic above. Which "false assumptions"? The interviewer was correct, the vast majority of cyclists prefers cycling infrastructure. Exactly. He dodges the questions then he goes off on a tangent of using a single example of someone he knows as "proof." A favorite ridiculous statement I picked out was this one: "JF: Sure. Because it entices some cyclists into facilities that are inherently more dangerous than riding in the street. And you can prove that because New York has to put in special traffic signal phases to try to prevent that are created by the sidepath." Huh? The addition of phases for the side path doesn't prove that the facilities are inherently more dangerous than riding in the street, just that riding on the side path is different than riding in the street. It's just like in Effective Cycling which is full of logical fallacies that anyone with critical thinking skills will instantly recognize. snip All others prefer, like myself, good quality bike paths. Even the serious commuters do who easily spend 50mi/day on their bikes. What many do is a split commute. They truck their bikes to parking lots near the American River Bike Path an then continue the commute by bicycle. In the evening all in reverse. In my area, while some of the bicycle infrastructure only is suitable for lower speeds than can be achieved on the road, the net commute time is lower because of the lack of stop signs and traffic lights, and because often the bicycle route is more direct than the route on the road.. Remember that John Forrester was the early proponent of vehicular cycling. It wasn't until the wild-eyed crying for bicycle "roads" began that he as a person with a normal mind tried to show people that the road system that we have all over the US can accommodate everyone. The PROBLEM is the "Var is King" attitude of everyone including the cops who won't cite drivers who take chances with the lives of others whom they consider in their way. And this isn't limited to cyclists but pedestrians and cars driving the speed limit as well. I was pulled over by a cop once apparently because I was suspiciously driving the speed limit. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
John Forester Speaks
On Thu, 3 Oct 2019 17:03:48 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote: On 10/3/2019 11:00 AM, Joerg wrote: On 2019-10-01 16:46, Tom Kunich wrote: On Tuesday, October 1, 2019 at 4:39:22 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote: This was forwarded to me by one of my bike commuter cohorts: -- Jay Beattie. Pretty much the entire commuter bicycle movement is built around John as a starting point. ... I disagree with many of the things John Forester advocates. In this interview he clearly dodged a key point: Quote, "[Interviewer] ... I'm not a transportation policy person but I would guess that there's data now to demonstrate that on avenues where protected infrastructure has gone in that incidents with serious injury or death have gone down since that infrastructure go put in. So I feel like I see evidence in the US that in some places at least where it's practical, that protected infrastructure can make a difference and vastly increase the number of people who feel safer riding a bike. JF: Your statement is full of false assumptions." ... and then he veered off the topic above. Which "false assumptions"? The interviewer was correct, the vast majority of cyclists prefers cycling infrastructure. The majority of American cyclists may prefer cycling infrastructure, but that's due to a couple reasons. First, the majority of those "cyclists" drive their car to a bike trail, park, unload their bike and ride out and back. They use the trail as a linear park, not to replace car trips. Second, the majority of "cyclists" aren't competent to recognize the dangers imposed by most facilities. Even when (as with the Jensen study in Copenhagen) data clearly shows significant increases in crash rates, the cyclists say they FEEL safer. The syndrome can be described as "Any bike facility is a good bike facility." That's happened with countless door zone bike lanes, with bike lanes to the right of right-turn-only lanes, and other monstrosities. But given the very low ratio of bike deaths to the number of cyclists isn't most of the danger actually a perceived, or imagined, danger? I know only one cyclist who doesn't care much whether he rides in the lane or on a bike path, though even he is mostly found on long segregated bike paths. All others prefer, like myself, good quality bike paths. I don't know what to say to a person who pretends we can build separated, car-free paths everywhere everyone might want to ride. What a fantasy world he must live in! -- cheers, John B. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
John Forester Speaks
On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 12:42:23 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2019-10-03 09:06, jbeattie wrote: On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 8:00:32 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote: On 2019-10-01 16:46, Tom Kunich wrote: On Tuesday, October 1, 2019 at 4:39:22 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote: This was forwarded to me by one of my bike commuter cohorts: -- Jay Beattie. Pretty much the entire commuter bicycle movement is built around John as a starting point. ... I disagree with many of the things John Forester advocates. In this interview he clearly dodged a key point: Quote, "[Interviewer] ... I'm not a transportation policy person but I would guess that there's data now to demonstrate that on avenues where protected infrastructure has gone in that incidents with serious injury or death have gone down since that infrastructure go put in. So I feel like I see evidence in the US that in some places at least where it's practical, that protected infrastructure can make a difference and vastly increase the number of people who feel safer riding a bike. JF: Your statement is full of false assumptions." ... and then he veered off the topic above. Which "false assumptions"? The interviewer was correct, the vast majority of cyclists prefers cycling infrastructure. On other things I agree with John Forester. For example, I always leave bike lanes when I want to do a left turn, lining up with cars in the turn lane. And sometimes getting grumpy when the traffic engineers were too incompetent to make the loop for the light detect my bike. ... Though all of these bike lanes and bike trails ideas COME FROM BICYCLISTS. But they don't. Most infrastructure design is the product of national planning organizations like NACTO or state DOTs or local planning departments. Some of it is from private enterprise like Alta Planning + Design. Many of these grand designs would never come from cyclists except perhaps those with suicidal ideations. Exactly. And they know. A lot of the planners don't know and you end up with facilities that are a nightmare. How come we have excellent ones like these down here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jededi..._Fair_Oaks.jpg https://www.usbr.gov/mp/ccao/images/fsc-new.jpg Because you have lots of empty dirt, which is a luxury in most parts of the developed world. The American River trail is a linear part, and the other is a Bureau of Reclamation project along a canal. https://www.usbr.gov/newsroom/storie...RecordID=62139 Both are considered recreation trails. That's nice. It's good you have those things, but they are not representative of facilities in cities where bicycles account for any appreciable mode share, e.g. https://bikeportland.org/2016/05/04/...o-essay-182506 And to my point, I seriously doubt that either of your recreational trails were designed by cyclists with some sort of special sense about what cyclists really need. Any empty bike trail is fine. Its not so fine when its not empty or when it intersects streets. ... And I have to admit, after battling h4qvy traffic getting on a nice quiet bike path has a remarkable calming effect. I know only one cyclist who doesn't care much whether he rides in the lane or on a bike path, though even he is mostly found on long segregated bike paths. All others prefer, like myself, good quality bike paths. Even the serious commuters do who easily spend 50mi/day on their bikes. What many do is a split commute. They truck their bikes to parking lots near the American River Bike Path an then continue the commute by bicycle. In the evening all in reverse. Linear parks are fine if you want to avoid traffic, but then again, you get hung up behind walkers with dog packs, homeless, etc., etc. Many times the added infrastructure is inferior to the prior road arrangement, which around here, may have included a bike lane or wide shoulder, e.g. https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2440/3...340bfe29_c.jpg The segregated MUP is now bisected by intersecting roads every 25-50 yards. The prior bike lane allowed you to ride without interruption down the main road. Danger is now increased because cyclists hit the intersections at the same time as entering traffic. It's the functional equivalent of putting bikes on sidewalks. Gee, thanks for that improvement. Now I get to stop every 25 yards. Poor design. Have you personally intervened at the city council? There are many illustrations of foolish choices around here -- and some good choices, which are typically just wide shoulders and/or bike lanes. And they can be fixed. As has happened on Freeport Blvd in Sacramento. To my surprise with a very low amount of hissing from the automotive league despite the fact that they lost one lane. This may incite Chalo rage, but I usually don't support taking away traffic lanes. Cars don't disappear, and it can produce unintended consequences. There are exceptions. -- Jay Beattie. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
John Forester Speaks
On 10/3/2019 6:33 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 3 Oct 2019 17:03:48 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: The majority of American cyclists may prefer cycling infrastructure, but that's due to a couple reasons. First, the majority of those "cyclists" drive their car to a bike trail, park, unload their bike and ride out and back. They use the trail as a linear park, not to replace car trips. Second, the majority of "cyclists" aren't competent to recognize the dangers imposed by most facilities. Even when (as with the Jensen study in Copenhagen) data clearly shows significant increases in crash rates, the cyclists say they FEEL safer. The syndrome can be described as "Any bike facility is a good bike facility." That's happened with countless door zone bike lanes, with bike lanes to the right of right-turn-only lanes, and other monstrosities. But given the very low ratio of bike deaths to the number of cyclists isn't most of the danger actually a perceived, or imagined, danger? It's true that if done even halfway competently, bicycling is very safe. By extension, even riding in a door zone in a crowded city is not _extremely_ dangerous. It's not like jumping out of a plane without a parachute. OTOH, I have a problem with bike segregationists and city officials telling people these facilities are safer than ordinary streets, when in fact they are more dangerous. I have a problem with spending public funds based on that falsehood. And I don't like the additional hassling that comes from motorists who see a cyclist refusing to use those facilities. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
John Forester Speaks
On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 11:47:00 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote: On 10/3/2019 6:33 PM, John B. wrote: On Thu, 3 Oct 2019 17:03:48 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: The majority of American cyclists may prefer cycling infrastructure, but that's due to a couple reasons. First, the majority of those "cyclists" drive their car to a bike trail, park, unload their bike and ride out and back. They use the trail as a linear park, not to replace car trips. Second, the majority of "cyclists" aren't competent to recognize the dangers imposed by most facilities. Even when (as with the Jensen study in Copenhagen) data clearly shows significant increases in crash rates, the cyclists say they FEEL safer. The syndrome can be described as "Any bike facility is a good bike facility." That's happened with countless door zone bike lanes, with bike lanes to the right of right-turn-only lanes, and other monstrosities. But given the very low ratio of bike deaths to the number of cyclists isn't most of the danger actually a perceived, or imagined, danger? It's true that if done even halfway competently, bicycling is very safe. By extension, even riding in a door zone in a crowded city is not _extremely_ dangerous. It's not like jumping out of a plane without a parachute. I've found that when riding in a "door zone" is one simply slows down and is alert the chances of being "doored" drop to infinitesimal levels. OTOH, I have a problem with bike segregationists and city officials telling people these facilities are safer than ordinary streets, when in fact they are more dangerous. I have a problem with spending public funds based on that falsehood. And I don't like the additional hassling that comes from motorists who see a cyclist refusing to use those facilities. Tom, Tom, if one is a public official one has to be seen to "Do Something" as the best recipe for being elected is to be able to point out all the wonderful things "I have done for you". -- cheers, John B. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
John Forester Speaks
On 2019-10-03 16:11, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 12:42:23 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote: On 2019-10-03 09:06, jbeattie wrote: On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 8:00:32 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote: On 2019-10-01 16:46, Tom Kunich wrote: On Tuesday, October 1, 2019 at 4:39:22 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote: This was forwarded to me by one of my bike commuter cohorts: -- Jay Beattie. Pretty much the entire commuter bicycle movement is built around John as a starting point. ... I disagree with many of the things John Forester advocates. In this interview he clearly dodged a key point: Quote, "[Interviewer] ... I'm not a transportation policy person but I would guess that there's data now to demonstrate that on avenues where protected infrastructure has gone in that incidents with serious injury or death have gone down since that infrastructure go put in. So I feel like I see evidence in the US that in some places at least where it's practical, that protected infrastructure can make a difference and vastly increase the number of people who feel safer riding a bike. JF: Your statement is full of false assumptions." ... and then he veered off the topic above. Which "false assumptions"? The interviewer was correct, the vast majority of cyclists prefers cycling infrastructure. On other things I agree with John Forester. For example, I always leave bike lanes when I want to do a left turn, lining up with cars in the turn lane. And sometimes getting grumpy when the traffic engineers were too incompetent to make the loop for the light detect my bike. ... Though all of these bike lanes and bike trails ideas COME FROM BICYCLISTS. But they don't. Most infrastructure design is the product of national planning organizations like NACTO or state DOTs or local planning departments. Some of it is from private enterprise like Alta Planning + Design. Many of these grand designs would never come from cyclists except perhaps those with suicidal ideations. Exactly. And they know. A lot of the planners don't know and you end up with facilities that are a nightmare. How come we have excellent ones like these down here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jededi..._Fair_Oaks.jpg https://www.usbr.gov/mp/ccao/images/fsc-new.jpg Because you have lots of empty dirt, which is a luxury in most parts of the developed world. The American River trail is a linear part, and the other is a Bureau of Reclamation project along a canal. https://www.usbr.gov/newsroom/storie...RecordID=62139 Both are considered recreation trails. So is this but it's my favorite route if I have to go pick something up in Folsom: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44zqIKf2T_I Then I have to use the MTB which is slower but it is so worth it. It's a matter of attitude. For me, cycling isn't just for environmental and health benefits. I also do it because it allows me to enjoy nature better than in or on any other vehicle. So I gladly accept 15-30min extra ride time. Sometimes, like on the way to Sacramento yesterday, using a so-called "recreational trail" actually saves time because I never have to slow down for traffic, stop signs or lights. Right now though we have a growing problem that sometimes makes bike paths not so pleasant or even unusable. It's the sprawling homeless encampments. When I went through there yesterday I couldn't believe it, one large homeless site had a power generator purring outside the tent. The guy had an impressive bicycle chop shop going. ... That's nice. It's good you have those things, but they are not representative of facilities in cities where bicycles account for any appreciable mode share, e.g. https://bikeportland.org/2016/05/04/...o-essay-182506 That looks almost like my way to work in Hengelo (Netherlands). 200 bikes and three cars waiting for a green light. Back then the bike path had three lanes and the road had two. Only in the Netherlands. And to my point, I seriously doubt that either of your recreational trails were designed by cyclists with some sort of special sense about what cyclists really need. Any empty bike trail is fine. Its not so fine when its not empty or when it intersects streets. It was designed for cyclists, AFAIK more than 100 years ago. Anyhow, it is now a major bike commuter route and there are times when I avoid it. Just like I avoid freeways druing rush hour if I can. Weekends are bad because of lots of slow cyclists but even during rush hour most ride at a pretty good clip, typically in the 15-20mph range. ... And I have to admit, after battling h4qvy traffic getting on a nice quiet bike path has a remarkable calming effect. I know only one cyclist who doesn't care much whether he rides in the lane or on a bike path, though even he is mostly found on long segregated bike paths. All others prefer, like myself, good quality bike paths. Even the serious commuters do who easily spend 50mi/day on their bikes. What many do is a split commute. They truck their bikes to parking lots near the American River Bike Path an then continue the commute by bicycle. In the evening all in reverse. Linear parks are fine if you want to avoid traffic, but then again, you get hung up behind walkers with dog packs, homeless, etc., etc. Many times the added infrastructure is inferior to the prior road arrangement, which around here, may have included a bike lane or wide shoulder, e.g. https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2440/3...340bfe29_c.jpg The segregated MUP is now bisected by intersecting roads every 25-50 yards. The prior bike lane allowed you to ride without interruption down the main road. Danger is now increased because cyclists hit the intersections at the same time as entering traffic. It's the functional equivalent of putting bikes on sidewalks. Gee, thanks for that improvement. Now I get to stop every 25 yards. Poor design. Have you personally intervened at the city council? There are many illustrations of foolish choices around here -- and some good choices, which are typically just wide shoulders and/or bike lanes. And they can be fixed. As has happened on Freeport Blvd in Sacramento. To my surprise with a very low amount of hissing from the automotive league despite the fact that they lost one lane. This may incite Chalo rage, but I usually don't support taking away traffic lanes. Cars don't disappear, and it can produce unintended consequences. There are exceptions. Sometimes mistaken priorities of the past need to be corrected and that's what happened on Freeport Boulevard. I support that. Otehrwise all that environmental consciousness is just ... empty talk. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
John Forester Speaks
On 2019-10-03 15:10, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 1:11:03 PM UTC-7, sms wrote: On 10/3/2019 8:00 AM, Joerg wrote: snip I disagree with many of the things John Forester advocates. In this interview he clearly dodged a key point: Quote, "[Interviewer] ... I'm not a transportation policy person but I would guess that there's data now to demonstrate that on avenues where protected infrastructure has gone in that incidents with serious injury or death have gone down since that infrastructure go put in. So I feel like I see evidence in the US that in some places at least where it's practical, that protected infrastructure can make a difference and vastly increase the number of people who feel safer riding a bike. JF: Your statement is full of false assumptions." ... and then he veered off the topic above. Which "false assumptions"? The interviewer was correct, the vast majority of cyclists prefers cycling infrastructure. Exactly. He dodges the questions then he goes off on a tangent of using a single example of someone he knows as "proof." A favorite ridiculous statement I picked out was this one: "JF: Sure. Because it entices some cyclists into facilities that are inherently more dangerous than riding in the street. And you can prove that because New York has to put in special traffic signal phases to try to prevent that are created by the sidepath." Huh? The addition of phases for the side path doesn't prove that the facilities are inherently more dangerous than riding in the street, just that riding on the side path is different than riding in the street. It's just like in Effective Cycling which is full of logical fallacies that anyone with critical thinking skills will instantly recognize. snip All others prefer, like myself, good quality bike paths. Even the serious commuters do who easily spend 50mi/day on their bikes. What many do is a split commute. They truck their bikes to parking lots near the American River Bike Path an then continue the commute by bicycle. In the evening all in reverse. In my area, while some of the bicycle infrastructure only is suitable for lower speeds than can be achieved on the road, the net commute time is lower because of the lack of stop signs and traffic lights, and because often the bicycle route is more direct than the route on the road. Remember that John Forrester was the early proponent of vehicular cycling. It wasn't until the wild-eyed crying for bicycle "roads" began that he as a person with a normal mind tried to show people that the road system that we have all over the US can accommodate everyone. It can but all it takes is 10% of car drivers being aggressive or inattentive. With the advent of smart phones that percentage has gone up. The PROBLEM is the "Var is King" attitude of everyone including the cops who won't cite drivers who take chances with the lives of others whom they consider in their way. And this isn't limited to cyclists but pedestrians and cars driving the speed limit as well. The main problem is that cars have crumple zones, safety belts, protected cockpits and airbags. Bicycles don't. ... I was pulled over by a cop once apparently because I was suspiciously driving the speed limit. I was pulled over, cited and had to pay for busting a road speed limit. On a road bike. The 2nd time they let me go because I had no residence in WA state. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Email to J. Forester | James[_8_] | Techniques | 4 | October 24th 13 01:40 AM |
Forester says... | Tēm ShermĒn °_°[_2_] | General | 184 | February 9th 11 06:01 PM |
Forester says... | Tēm ShermĒn °_°[_2_] | Techniques | 181 | February 9th 11 06:01 PM |
J.Forester How to Brake | nash | General | 0 | March 11th 07 07:17 PM |
John Forester's 1955 Viking "Tour of Britain" | Lars Lehtonen | General | 2 | May 23rd 06 07:44 PM |