A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bicycle Summit and the Failure ofVehicular Cycling.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old August 9th 17, 10:28 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Joerg[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,150
Default Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bicycle Summit and the Failureof Vehicular Cycling.

On 2017-08-09 14:10, sms wrote:
On 8/9/2017 12:58 PM, Joerg wrote:

As for those 60% I side with Jay. Some of those will start cycling
once we have a decent infrastructure and I have seen proof of that.
However, the majority of the "interested but concerned" will find
excuses. Oh, it's too cold. Oh, it's too hot. It could start raining,
see that cloud there on the horizon? And so on.


That 60% is a big group. If there were infrastructure like Amsterdam or
Montreal, you could get a lot of them to ride. If it's only green paint
then you're right. And it's not getting them to make 100% of their
commutes or shopping trips or whatever, even just a small amount is
better than nothing.

The point the two speakers made was that you won't even get ANY of that
60% unless you take steps to get them comfortable riding, and the
vehicular cycling philosophy, while it may work for up to 7%, is not
going to get any of the other 93% out of their cars.

Like Jay, you were probably talking to the 33% and not the 60%.



Must have been at least some of the 60% group because there was partial
success. "You mean, there is a bike path after we hacking it through the
field towards Folsom? Really?" ... "Yeah, promise. Only 500 yards of
residential roads, then bike paths all the way to Sacramento" ... "Ok,
I'll go".

When walking our dogs I come by a lot of properties, sometimes with
people working out there and the garage doors open. When I see bicycles
in there I try to strike up a conversation.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
Ads
  #12  
Old August 9th 17, 10:31 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Joerg[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,150
Default Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bicycle Summit and the Failureof Vehicular Cycling.

On 2017-08-09 13:55, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/9/2017 3:29 PM, sms wrote:
On 8/9/2017 10:41 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 8:37:05 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bicycle Summit and the Failure of
Vehicular Cycling.

Attended the Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bike Summit
https://bikesiliconvalley.org/summit/ yesterday. The keynote was
entertaining, but very strange, and had nothing to do with bicycling,
but the event improved from there.

The most interesting thing was to hear two different transportation
planners, in separate presentations, lambast the “vehicular cycling”
movement, as an impediment to increasing the number of transportational
cyclists. As we now know, the vehicular cycling movement was a dismal
failure in terms of increasing the bicycle mode-share, but for years
transportation planners bought into the idea of treating bikes like
cars, an idea which was promoted by people like John Forester. “Here’s
what happened when one city rejected vehicular cycling,”
http://shifter.info/heres-what-happened-when-one-city-rejected-vehicular-cycling/



That's an ignorant and deceptive propaganda piece.

Ignorant? Yes, because as explained by many people in the comments, even
its first mention of John Forester is mistaken. He did not "come up
with an idea for keeping cyclists safe on busy roads." He simply
publicized what was already standard bike riding technique in European
countries, where far more people used bikes than in America.



Sorry but that is not correct. I grew up and lived in Europe for decades
and rode more than 100k miles there on bicycles. Riding lane center is
not at all customary there and would quickly result in a citation and fine.

[...]

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
  #13  
Old August 10th 17, 12:40 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,527
Default Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bicycle Summit and the Failureof Vehicular Cycling.

On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 2:28:42 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-08-09 14:10, sms wrote:
On 8/9/2017 12:58 PM, Joerg wrote:

As for those 60% I side with Jay. Some of those will start cycling
once we have a decent infrastructure and I have seen proof of that.
However, the majority of the "interested but concerned" will find
excuses. Oh, it's too cold. Oh, it's too hot. It could start raining,
see that cloud there on the horizon? And so on.


That 60% is a big group. If there were infrastructure like Amsterdam or
Montreal, you could get a lot of them to ride. If it's only green paint
then you're right. And it's not getting them to make 100% of their
commutes or shopping trips or whatever, even just a small amount is
better than nothing.

The point the two speakers made was that you won't even get ANY of that
60% unless you take steps to get them comfortable riding, and the
vehicular cycling philosophy, while it may work for up to 7%, is not
going to get any of the other 93% out of their cars.

Like Jay, you were probably talking to the 33% and not the 60%.



Must have been at least some of the 60% group because there was partial
success. "You mean, there is a bike path after we hacking it through the
field towards Folsom? Really?" ... "Yeah, promise. Only 500 yards of
residential roads, then bike paths all the way to Sacramento" ... "Ok,
I'll go".


The American River Trail is a linear park -- probably a pretty ride but not too efficient with a 15mph speed limit, dog walkers, sight-seers, wobbly kids, etc. http://www.americanriverbiketrail.co...l-speed-limit/ I'm sure it has attracted some commuters, but anyone willing to ride to Sacramento and back is probably not in the "60%."

Some MUPs are mostly used by bikes, and those can be convenient. We have some dedicated bike trails that are convenient (mostly along highways), although the I-205 bike trail and parts of the Springwater (MUP) are pretty scary now. Here's a fine fellow who can help you with some repairs! http://bikeportland.org/wp-content/u...ops1-skeel.jpg

Segregated facilities may attract some riders, but it's hard to tell -- particularly since many facilities were created as part of much larger housing construction projects, including the facility I constantly malign in the south waterfront. https://www.southwaterfrontdental.co...waterfront.jpg All of those condo towers are new. So is the OHSU Hospital complex and all of its employees. Sure, nobody road on S.W. Moody 20 years ago . .. . but look now! What they don't mention is that 20 years ago, that area was an abandoned shipyard and mini-storage. I and five other people rode through there with any regularity. It was very convenient back then. Not so much now with the traffic and "cycle track." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HpCGyr61Do&t=47s

The most heavily used facilities are just on-street bike lanes. https://bikeportland.org/2016/05/04/...o-essay-182506 No, that's not an event. That's normal bike traffic. But on-street bike lanes are boring and so un-Amsterdam-ish. We need style! We need panache! The "60%" will not use a bland bike lane.

-- Jay Beattie.
  #14  
Old August 10th 17, 12:56 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,877
Default Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bicycle Summit and the Failureof Vehicular Cycling.

On 8/9/2017 4:40 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 2:28:42 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-08-09 14:10, sms wrote:
On 8/9/2017 12:58 PM, Joerg wrote:

As for those 60% I side with Jay. Some of those will start cycling
once we have a decent infrastructure and I have seen proof of that.
However, the majority of the "interested but concerned" will find
excuses. Oh, it's too cold. Oh, it's too hot. It could start raining,
see that cloud there on the horizon? And so on.

That 60% is a big group. If there were infrastructure like Amsterdam or
Montreal, you could get a lot of them to ride. If it's only green paint
then you're right. And it's not getting them to make 100% of their
commutes or shopping trips or whatever, even just a small amount is
better than nothing.

The point the two speakers made was that you won't even get ANY of that
60% unless you take steps to get them comfortable riding, and the
vehicular cycling philosophy, while it may work for up to 7%, is not
going to get any of the other 93% out of their cars.

Like Jay, you were probably talking to the 33% and not the 60%.



Must have been at least some of the 60% group because there was partial
success. "You mean, there is a bike path after we hacking it through the
field towards Folsom? Really?" ... "Yeah, promise. Only 500 yards of
residential roads, then bike paths all the way to Sacramento" ... "Ok,
I'll go".


The American River Trail is a linear park -- probably a pretty ride but not too efficient with a 15mph speed limit, dog walkers, sight-seers, wobbly kids, etc. http://www.americanriverbiketrail.co...l-speed-limit/ I'm sure it has attracted some commuters, but anyone willing to ride to Sacramento and back is probably not in the "60%."


The Stevens Creek Trail has all of that as well, but it is used heavily
by commuters. The speed limit is routinely ignored. Yesterday I saw two
electric bicycles go by me at high speed. The trail goes straight to the
industrial park where Google is located, as well as many other
companies, including Microsoft (who hosted the SVBC Summit yesterday).

snip

But on-street bike lanes are boring and so un-Amsterdam-ish. We need style! We need panache! The "60%" will not use a bland bike lane.


Even though you say that sarcastically, it's actually true.

  #15  
Old August 10th 17, 02:27 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,952
Default Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bicycle Summit and the Failureof Vehicular Cycling.

On 8/9/2017 7:56 PM, sms wrote:
On 8/9/2017 4:40 PM, jbeattie wrote:


But on-street bike lanes are boring and so un-Amsterdam-ish. We need
style! We need panache! The "60%" will not use a bland bike lane.


Even though you say that sarcastically, it's actually true.


Yep, the people who whined since the 1970s about the need for bike lanes
now have them. So now they're whining that bike lanes aren't good
enough, they need "protected" cycle tracks.

Whiners will whine, I guess. Me, I learned how to ride. I can ride
anywhere I want.

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #16  
Old August 10th 17, 02:31 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,952
Default Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bicycle Summit and the Failureof Vehicular Cycling.

On 8/9/2017 5:31 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-08-09 13:55, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/9/2017 3:29 PM, sms wrote:
On 8/9/2017 10:41 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 8:37:05 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bicycle Summit and the Failure of
Vehicular Cycling.

Attended the Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bike Summit
https://bikesiliconvalley.org/summit/ yesterday. The keynote was
entertaining, but very strange, and had nothing to do with bicycling,
but the event improved from there.

The most interesting thing was to hear two different transportation
planners, in separate presentations, lambast the “vehicular cycling”
movement, as an impediment to increasing the number of
transportational
cyclists. As we now know, the vehicular cycling movement was a dismal
failure in terms of increasing the bicycle mode-share, but for years
transportation planners bought into the idea of treating bikes like
cars, an idea which was promoted by people like John Forester. “Here’s
what happened when one city rejected vehicular cycling,”
http://shifter.info/heres-what-happened-when-one-city-rejected-vehicular-cycling/



That's an ignorant and deceptive propaganda piece.

Ignorant? Yes, because as explained by many people in the comments, even
its first mention of John Forester is mistaken. He did not "come up
with an idea for keeping cyclists safe on busy roads." He simply
publicized what was already standard bike riding technique in European
countries, where far more people used bikes than in America.



Sorry but that is not correct. I grew up and lived in Europe for decades
and rode more than 100k miles there on bicycles. Riding lane center is
not at all customary there and would quickly result in a citation and fine.


How odd. My wife and I rode lane center there whenever it was necessary
or desirable. The citation and fine crew somehow skipped us, those
slackers!

So about the citations: If you're in a ten foot lane in your country,
and a truck that's 8.5 feet wide is wanting to pass, are you supposed to
ride on the ragged edge of the pavement and hope that it doesn't knock
you over? Really??

Is that what you advocate for Americans?

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #17  
Old August 10th 17, 03:21 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,877
Default Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bicycle Summit and the Failureof Vehicular Cycling.

On 8/9/2017 2:31 PM, Joerg wrote:

Sorry but that is not correct. I grew up and lived in Europe for decades
and rode more than 100k miles there on bicycles. Riding lane center is
not at all customary there and would quickly result in a citation and fine.


But if you're a tourist they just ignore you, and assume that you don't
know the law.

In the UK you can take the lane when necessary, other times you can't.
Are you saying it's different in other European countries? No one said
that it's customary to ride lane center, you only do it when there is no
other option.
  #18  
Old August 10th 17, 03:50 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Sir Ridesalot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,529
Default Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bicycle Summit and the Failureof Vehicular Cycling.

On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 3:58:36 PM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
Snipped
I could have told them already in the 70's when I was a teenager that
"vehicluar cycling" is a bad idea and will not work. Being in traffic
and using the proper turn-off lanes, yes, that's what I always do.
Riding lane center at a whopping 15mph pretending to be in a car is
stupid. It's the same as wanting to ride on a moped on the same runway
where a Boeing 747 is about to land.


Bloody nonsense! I've been a vehicular bicyclist for over 50 years and I even ride from city to city a lot of times because it's far faster than riding the inter-city buses tht have a really great-circle route. One city I ride to is 2 HOURS away by bicylce and FIVE HOURS away by bus. That's a total of 4 hours riding vesus 10 hours of busing.

Many other cities around here do not have bus service to them or the bus takes just as long proportionally as does that other route = twice as long by bus as by bicycle and then there's the transferring onto a city bus if there is even public transportation and the time to wait forthose buses. Sometimes the inter-city bus does not run except in the morning and the evening.

MAny times my rides to a city are longer than 2 hours but still far faster and less timethan a bus is.

Again, in your world YMMV but that doesn't mean what doesn't work for you won't work for others.

Cheers
  #19  
Old August 10th 17, 04:06 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,922
Default Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bicycle Summit and the Failure of Vehicular Cycling.

On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 17:13:44 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/9/2017 3:58 PM, Joerg wrote:

I could have told them already in the 70's when I was a teenager that
"vehicluar cycling" is a bad idea and will not work. Being in traffic
and using the proper turn-off lanes, yes, that's what I always do.
Riding lane center at a whopping 15mph pretending to be in a car is
stupid. It's the same as wanting to ride on a moped on the same runway
where a Boeing 747 is about to land.


Oh, bull****. When I ride lane center, I'm not pretending to be a car.
I'm using the legal right to the road that is specifically given to the
operator of a bicycle. It's clearly written in the state laws. No
pretending is necessary.

And only the ignorant would claim it's stupid to ride according to those
laws. We did 25 miles today, mostly on narrow country roads and
highways, meaning there was really not a single place where the lane was
wide enough to be safely shared with a passing motor vehicle. My wife
and I and the other dozen or so people on the ride were almost always
near lane center. We were passed by many dozens of cars. As usual,
there was no drama, no hostility, no close calls, no terror. The same
happens when I ride in the city and suburbs, including the 35,000
vehicle per day road I use to get to the hardware store.

I know there are people too timid for such riding. They tend to hide
their timidity by bragging about their "gnarly" heroics, and spice it
with tales of their beer drinking prowess. But those on today's ride
would probably laugh behind their backs.

As for those 60% I side with Jay. Some of those will start cycling once
we have a decent infrastructure and I have seen proof of that. However,
the majority of the "interested but concerned" will find excuses. Oh,
it's too cold. Oh, it's too hot. It could start raining, see that cloud
there on the horizon? And so on.

We have indeed missed a lot of opportunity because bike paths were
largely not built. We can lament all day long that we'll never get above
3% or whatever of mode share in most areas like Frank keeps saying. At
the same time he touts the health benefits of cycling and what that
means for the economy. I agree with him there but it's a contradiction.
We have to ask ourselves whether a 1-2% mode share increase is worth it
or not, considering all "side effects".


Is a 1% - 2% bike mode share worth it? Joerg, it depends greatly on
"worth WHAT?"

Is it worth increasing the crash count from 2 per year to 15 per year,
as happened recently on one stretch of road in Columbus? Is it worth
spending public money on trial-and-error bike facility designs, as
Portland has done for years, then re-doing them to try to make them
work? Is it worth delaying the travel of competent cyclists, or
ticketing them for refusing to use faulty designs? Is it worth telling
people that bicycling is so hazardous that one should not do it until
there are segregated facilities everywhere?

Why is it not worth it to begin educating both bicyclists and motorists
about how to properly and safely share existing roads? After all,
that's _really_ what Vehicular Cycling is about.



My guess is that bicycle use, as a percentage of the population is not
and never will increase.

According to the National Bike Dealers Association in 1973 there were
some 15.2 million 20" and larger wheel bicycles sold in the U.S. which
is asterisked as "Record High". In 1981 there were 8.9 million sold
and in 2015 there were 12.5 million sold.

The U.S. population figures for the same years are
1973 - 311.9 million
1981 - 229.47
2015 - 320.0

Bicycle use per capita is then:
1973 - 1 bike/20.5 people
1981 - 1/25.7
2015 - 1/24.9

In short, other then the one year, 1973, there is a smaller percentage
of USians on bicycles every year.

Over the past 20 years from 1995 - 2015 the numbers a

1995 - 12 million bikes, 20 inch or larger wheels size, sold versus a
population of 266.28 million. Or 1 bike per 22.19 people

2015 - 12.5 bikes versus 320.9 million or 1/25.6

Obviously bicycle sales vary from year to year and in the 20 year
period (above) the high point was in 2005 when 14.0 million bikes were
sold in a population of 295.8 million or 1 bike/21.12 people.
--
Cheers,

John B.

  #20  
Old August 10th 17, 04:42 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,922
Default Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bicycle Summit and the Failure of Vehicular Cycling.

On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 21:31:01 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/9/2017 5:31 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-08-09 13:55, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/9/2017 3:29 PM, sms wrote:
On 8/9/2017 10:41 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 8:37:05 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bicycle Summit and the Failure of
Vehicular Cycling.

Attended the Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bike Summit
https://bikesiliconvalley.org/summit/ yesterday. The keynote was
entertaining, but very strange, and had nothing to do with bicycling,
but the event improved from there.

The most interesting thing was to hear two different transportation
planners, in separate presentations, lambast the vehicular cycling
movement, as an impediment to increasing the number of
transportational
cyclists. As we now know, the vehicular cycling movement was a dismal
failure in terms of increasing the bicycle mode-share, but for years
transportation planners bought into the idea of treating bikes like
cars, an idea which was promoted by people like John Forester. Heres
what happened when one city rejected vehicular cycling,
http://shifter.info/heres-what-happened-when-one-city-rejected-vehicular-cycling/



That's an ignorant and deceptive propaganda piece.

Ignorant? Yes, because as explained by many people in the comments, even
its first mention of John Forester is mistaken. He did not "come up
with an idea for keeping cyclists safe on busy roads." He simply
publicized what was already standard bike riding technique in European
countries, where far more people used bikes than in America.



Sorry but that is not correct. I grew up and lived in Europe for decades
and rode more than 100k miles there on bicycles. Riding lane center is
not at all customary there and would quickly result in a citation and fine.


How odd. My wife and I rode lane center there whenever it was necessary
or desirable. The citation and fine crew somehow skipped us, those
slackers!

So about the citations: If you're in a ten foot lane in your country,
and a truck that's 8.5 feet wide is wanting to pass, are you supposed to
ride on the ragged edge of the pavement and hope that it doesn't knock
you over? Really??

Is that what you advocate for Americans?


I've lived in (lets see) ten of the 50 states and every one of them
had a verse in the highway rules that said "thou shall not impede
faster traffic". I didn't see any that were amended to say (except if
you are on a bicycle) :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Founder of Marin County Bicycle Coalition Arrested again Mike Vandeman[_4_] Mountain Biking 1 December 13th 13 02:42 PM
Marin County Bicycle Coalition Expands into Mountain Biking sms88 Social Issues 1 November 8th 11 06:02 AM
Best Bike Buys searches online bike stores to help you find bicycles,bikes, bicycle parts, bicycle clothing, and bicycle accessories pepelopez08@gmail.com Rides 0 May 14th 08 09:56 PM
Best Bike Buys searches online bike stores to help you find bicycles,bikes, bicycle parts, bicycle clothing, and bicycle accessories pepelopez08@gmail.com Australia 0 May 14th 08 09:55 PM
Best Bike Buys searches online bike stores to help you find bicycles,bikes, bicycle parts, bicycle clothing, and bicycle accessories pepelopez08@gmail.com Techniques 0 May 14th 08 09:54 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2017 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.