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

John Forester Speaks



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old October 3rd 19, 10:36 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tom Kunich[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,045
Default 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  
Old October 3rd 19, 10:40 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tom Kunich[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,045
Default 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  
Old October 3rd 19, 10:42 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tom Kunich[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,045
Default 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  
Old October 3rd 19, 11:10 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tom Kunich[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,045
Default 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  
Old October 3rd 19, 11:33 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
jOHN b.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,177
Default 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  
Old October 4th 19, 12:11 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,298
Default 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  
Old October 4th 19, 04:47 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,798
Default 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  
Old October 4th 19, 11:59 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
jOHN b.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,177
Default 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  
Old October 5th 19, 04:04 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Joerg[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,856
Default 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  
Old October 5th 19, 04:14 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Joerg[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,856
Default 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

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
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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:06 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Š2004-2019 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.