|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bicycle Summit and the Failureof Vehicular Cycling.
On 8/10/2017 11:59 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
Hey, Franki-boy, when did you last get anything done in your city? Like changing the design of a million dollar bridge over a freeway to allow an extra 8 feet of width for pedestrian and bicycle passage? I forget the exact date, but I think it was about five years ago. Another was to get all the bicycle-hostile ordinances in my village repealed. I think that was three years ago. Then there's the actually useful bike-ped shortcut path through former cul-de-sacs into the village center. And the restoration of a historic bridge and opening it for non-motorized transportation. And the bike transportation maps first of the major city in our area, then of the entire two county area. I'll stop there only because Jute isn't worth much of my time. I don't generally read much of his posts. -- - Frank Krygowski |
Ads |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bicycle Summit and the Failureof Vehicular Cycling.
On 8/9/2017 11:42 PM, John B. wrote:
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. “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? 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) :-) You should look up the current laws. And the relevant court cases. You're way behind. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bicycle Summit and the Failureof Vehicular Cycling.
On 8/10/2017 4:59 PM, sms wrote:
On 8/10/2017 4:26 AM, wrote: snip I just said that because of traffic I am often forced to pull around on the side road and cross with the traffic from the side road. This is what I saw in Paris as well. I often do that on six lane divided roads like De Anza Blvd. It's much less stressful, and often faster, to wait for the traffic light to cross the arterial, than to get to the left turn lane and wait for a left turn arrow. The Cycling Savvy bike education program (which is based on vehicular cycling principles) teaches the skill of using the spaces between "platoons" of cars to make such maneuvers easier. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bicycle Summit and the Failureof Vehicular Cycling.
Yes, Franki-boy, but all of that happened (if it happened) in prehistory. What did you do this year to match Scharfie's sterling work for cyclists, even the ones who voted Republican?
Andre Jute God, some people shouldn't be allowed to cross the street by themselves, never mind cycle on the road On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 10:37:25 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 8/10/2017 11:59 AM, Andre Jute wrote: Hey, Franki-boy, when did you last get anything done in your city? Like changing the design of a million dollar bridge over a freeway to allow an extra 8 feet of width for pedestrian and bicycle passage? I forget the exact date, but I think it was about five years ago. Another was to get all the bicycle-hostile ordinances in my village repealed. I think that was three years ago. Then there's the actually useful bike-ped shortcut path through former cul-de-sacs into the village center. And the restoration of a historic bridge and opening it for non-motorized transportation. And the bike transportation maps first of the major city in our area, then of the entire two county area. I'll stop there only because Jute isn't worth much of my time. I don't generally read much of his posts. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bicycle Summit and the Failureof Vehicular Cycling.
On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 10:20:30 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
You left out the most important item: Dissuading car use. As long as motoring is more convenient, very few people will choose to bike. Traffic congestion by itself is not sufficient disincentive to driving. - Frank Krygowski Frank-boy's tagline should be: Compulsive Fascist Compeller. Read his post again: Dissuading car use. As long as motoring is more convenient, very few people will choose to bike. Franki-boy not only wants to compel people to cycle, he's tell them to their faces that it is inconvenient and that he knows it is a pain, but he has decided, in his wisdom, that they should be inconvenienced for reasons that made no sense to them when they were first mooted, and some of which (fuel shortage -- what fuel shortage? -- I've been saying since the 1960s that there will never be a fuel shortage unless Americans are dumb enough to give a bunch of camel****ers a cartel -- which is exactly what Americans did in 1973) now make even less sense than when the Krygowski Facisti first cited them as reasons for their compulsion to compel others to be as joyless as they are. One major reason a lot of people, including many, many opinion-formers, don't cycle is that the only cyclists they meet are a bunch of fascist purse-mouths (what do you think Franki-boy looks like in the flesh?) who want to decide what is good for everybody else, and to enforce that on them regardless of their wishes. The irony is that, if Krygowski weren't such an offensive asshole all the time, and overtime on Sundays, I would agree with some of his positions (not the compulsion, but the need not to waste). For instance, I haven't owned a car since 1990, and I did all my business since 1980 by telecoms, telling people who insisted on seeing me that they could come here. Andre Jute Put your mind in gear before your mouth, Franki-boy, and you might even make a few converts |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bicycle Summit and the Failureof Vehicular Cycling.
On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 4:48:47 PM UTC+1, Duane wrote:
On 10/08/2017 11:20 AM, Andre Jute wrote: On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 12:28:15 PM UTC+1, wrote: On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 4:40:17 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote: 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. How many people do you think commute to work over 15 mph in Amsterdam? Some Americans can speed to work on road bikes precisely because there are so few cyclists. If there were a mass of cyclists, you'd soon hear political ructions to have the corralled in a bike lane. There will of course be a breakpoint somewhere, where the mass of cyclists is so large that they get the first consideration in law and infrastructure, as in The Netherlands, but does anyone (except Crazy Frank Krygowski) actually believe that America's bike share will ever approach that breakpoint, whatever it is. Andre Jute Demographics are often counter-intuitive Not the US but bike facilities get pretty crowded in Montreal. If I leave early enough in the morning to get to work I can use some bike paths but if I'm a bit later, I stick to the road. On the way home it's mostly on the road. On rec rides, I head out of town to avoid the crowds on paths and city streets. Riding through rural Quebec is a lot more pleasant than fighting traffic (car or bike) in the city. Even so, I see a lot of people commuting on the bike path. But I think it will be some time before it ever reaches this break point that you talk about. The car culture here is too prevalent. Two breakpoints, actually. The lesser one is outlined above by Scharfie: when the cyclists and their allies in the press get to be a large enough number and loud enough, despite being a tiny minority they get visibility out of proportion to their numbers, and may have a few bones thrown their way. The big breakpoint is when they get the number to get national politicians onside, the Dutch case so often cited, where an entire culture is changed because a majority habit has changed. We can dream. But I think that it's a good sign when the cycling numbers have visibly outgrown the usually optimistic forecast when the bicycle facilities were installed x years ago. I just wish other cyclists would stop describing those with legitimate complaints about the quality of the facilities as "whiners"; that sort of negativity does nobody any good. Andre Jute |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bicycle Summit and the Failureof Vehicular Cycling.
On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 10:15:15 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/10/2017 11:20 AM, Andre Jute wrote: Some Americans can speed to work on road bikes precisely because there are so few cyclists. If there were a mass of cyclists, you'd soon hear political ructions to have the corralled in a bike lane. There will of course be a breakpoint somewhere, where the mass of cyclists is so large that they get the first consideration in law and infrastructure, as in The Netherlands, but does anyone (except Crazy Frank Krygowski) actually believe that America's bike share will ever approach that breakpoint, whatever it is. The laughable Mr. Jute is obviously unaware that I've been saying that Happy to entertain even you, Franki-boy, but I don't know why you assume I know what you've been saying. I have things to do, so you'll forgive me if I don't sit here with bated breath waiting for your posts to fall like lead slippers. It's pretty arrogant and immodest of you to assume I know what you've been saying. All I know of what you say is what learned in this thread where others quoted you, in which case I scrolled back to your posts and trolled you a little just for the hell sticking needles in a permanent asshole. Andre Jute Are we clear now? |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bicycle Summit and the Failure of Vehicular Cycling.
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 17:15:11 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote: On 8/10/2017 11:20 AM, Andre Jute wrote: Some Americans can speed to work on road bikes precisely because there are so few cyclists. If there were a mass of cyclists, you'd soon hear political ructions to have the corralled in a bike lane. There will of course be a breakpoint somewhere, where the mass of cyclists is so large that they get the first consideration in law and infrastructure, as in The Netherlands, but does anyone (except Crazy Frank Krygowski) actually believe that America's bike share will ever approach that breakpoint, whatever it is. The laughable Mr. Jute is obviously unaware that I've been saying that bike mode share in the U.S. will NEVER exceed 10%. At least, barring some sort of unpredictable global catastrophe. It's people like Joerg and SMS who are claiming that bike lanes can transform America into Amsterdam. I've been arguing against that foolishness. Do try to stop posting out of ignorance, Jute! I suggest that you are asking the impossible :-( -- Cheers, John B. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bicycle Summit and the Failure of Vehicular Cycling.
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 07:34:36 -0500, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/9/2017 10:06 PM, John B. wrote: 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. As regards 1981, roughly 1/3 of all US bicycle stores open in 1980 were closed by the end of 1982. That short severe recession hurt more than bike shops too. Yes, I was aware of that but the numbers were there and I thought that not mentioning it might be misleading. -- Cheers, John B. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bicycle Summit and the Failure of Vehicular Cycling.
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 12:12:27 -0700, sms
wrote: On 8/9/2017 8:06 PM, John B. wrote: snip My guess is that bicycle use, as a percentage of the population is not and never will increase. They said the same thing about The Netherlands before the country decided to change their ways. So your guess is not based on any actual data. We all know what caused the change in The Netherlands. Tell us about the "change in the Netherlands". According to what I read, comparing bicycle use in the Netherlands from 1920 until the late 1990's, the high point in bicycle use in the Netherlands was in the 1950's when the ~85% of all trips in Amsterdam was by bicycle. This figure dropped to about 25% of trips by 1970 and increased to nearly 30% by the late 1990's. This is an "increase"? From 85% to 30%? -- Cheers, John B. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 | [email protected] | 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 | [email protected] | 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 | [email protected] | Techniques | 0 | May 14th 08 09:54 PM |