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/