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repealed.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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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.

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.

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.