|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
John Forester Speaks
On 10/5/2019 11:14 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2019-10-03 15:10, Tom Kunich wrote: 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. IOW, "Danger! Danger!" I just got back from a nighttime utility ride, to a grocery and a pharmacy, a little over six miles. First, except for about 1.5 blocks, there was no multi-use path that could get me there, and there never will be. This is a suburban area that is already built, and even if they wanted to put in a special path for my every destination, it would be impossible. Second, I saw no evidence that 10% or even 1% of the motorists were aggressive or inattentive. The biggest irritation I had with a motorist was the one excessively careful one who refused to pass me for about four blocks despite the lack of oncoming traffic. And to deviate from the thread topic just a bit: I rode (as always) with my dynamo powered headlight and taillight. I had not trouble surviving the trip while riding on residential streets, collector streets or a commercial state highway. I've been riding like this since the 1970s. If I had waited for a Joergian paradise to be built, I'd probably be 40 pounds heavier and would have missed over 40 years of wonderful cycling experiences. The "We must have separate facilities" crowd is actively scaring people away from riding here and now. They are denying others the joys I have experienced and still experience. -- - Frank Krygowski |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
John Forester Speaks
On Saturday, October 5, 2019 at 8:13:56 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
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/ I have been watching this very carefully since the arguments about this started and while aggressive drivers are real it appears that they are a aggressive towards everyone and not cyclists in particular. And this number is much closer to 0.1%. Again I have to underscore that it the traffic laws are enforced for motor vehicles this would stop rather abruptly. Yesterday a dumbass pickup truck with snow tires and reverse rims came up behind me in the bike lane pulled around and instead of staying out in a perfectly spacious lane pulled back over into the bike lane. He did this in front of TWO police cars that were facing the opposite direction and had a clear view of what occurred and neither of them did a thing. Later I was passing two double parked cars and some horses ass pulled out of a driveway without even looking. Again a cop was passing to no effect. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
John Forester Speaks
On 2019-10-06 10:42, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Saturday, October 5, 2019 at 8:13:56 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote: 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/ I have been watching this very carefully since the arguments about this started and while aggressive drivers are real it appears that they are a aggressive towards everyone and not cyclists in particular. The main difference is that my car is very sturdy (SUV) and has crumple zones while my unprotected body on the road bike doesn't. ... And this number is much closer to 0.1%. ... IME that is not so. ... Again I have to underscore that it the traffic laws are enforced for motor vehicles this would stop rather abruptly. They never will be enforced enough when it comes to behavior in relation to weaker traffic participants. ... Yesterday a dumbass pickup truck with snow tires and reverse rims came up behind me in the bike lane pulled around and instead of staying out in a perfectly spacious lane pulled back over into the bike lane. He did this in front of TWO police cars that were facing the opposite direction and had a clear view of what occurred and neither of them did a thing. And what did the cops do? I bet they did nothing. Later I was passing two double parked cars and some horses ass pulled out of a driveway without even looking. Again a cop was passing to no effect. See? The usual. I only did a small 18mi after-church ride yesterday and sure enough ... cars parked all along in the bike lane because of a couple of events. So me in the lane. A guy in a white VW Golf came up very close to my rear wheel and when I was able to pull back into the bike lane he floored it. Others find it funny to "smoke you" as punishment for inconveniencing them, by down-shifting their big Diesel and then stomping on it. The number of idiots is surprisingly high in motor vehicles. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
John Forester Speaks
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512 Chalo wrote: I don't want special bike-specific infrastructure. I want the cars gone, restricted to special motorsports facilities during limited hours and with extremely heavy taxation to help mitigate their pollution and noise. I'm fine with an interim period where the cars stay, but with a 20mph speed limit. - --- Lars Lehtonen -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEyBAEBCgAdFiEEvvKqsf7DSishcEgngTfUdOvLBPIFAl2bUL kACgkQgTfUdOvL BPKF/Qf1EJFBa3hPK+uocgHtSjn7lEbj2yejWhWrtbPFcJmgflSS0Uh 6NPTGYGeM pPfXPYZJ9xexdaqCCqwkQHRob6wVzF+tArkeloCCqzxHtGTV9s 54I24+WupYAqBM Qk+ac4k8t6X8NfJ/l1MtXpUp+MLcKnMhE4pU2CwQoENaaRdWchHKxEM55f4n7pdL hC6XrslzUTsx7649rHNPBzBb2YJt7ESn0PBcbMpXvp+XnnOGGx mcpM77EKdlqhMO pptmXVPZPktC2TwotzMdDvjlsjl07ggpxqVm+t8tL2s1ZfXQDP k9xwhVd977iPKE XgAj9vyWMsiUt8l+Sx4VaeEyM6ir =gCn9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
John Forester Speaks
On Monday, October 7, 2019 at 7:47:22 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2019-10-06 10:42, Tom Kunich wrote: On Saturday, October 5, 2019 at 8:13:56 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote: 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/ I have been watching this very carefully since the arguments about this started and while aggressive drivers are real it appears that they are a aggressive towards everyone and not cyclists in particular. The main difference is that my car is very sturdy (SUV) and has crumple zones while my unprotected body on the road bike doesn't. ... And this number is much closer to 0.1%. ... IME that is not so. ... Again I have to underscore that it the traffic laws are enforced for motor vehicles this would stop rather abruptly. They never will be enforced enough when it comes to behavior in relation to weaker traffic participants. ... Yesterday a dumbass pickup truck with snow tires and reverse rims came up behind me in the bike lane pulled around and instead of staying out in a perfectly spacious lane pulled back over into the bike lane. He did this in front of TWO police cars that were facing the opposite direction and had a clear view of what occurred and neither of them did a thing. And what did the cops do? I bet they did nothing. Later I was passing two double parked cars and some horses ass pulled out of a driveway without even looking. Again a cop was passing to no effect. See? The usual. I only did a small 18mi after-church ride yesterday and sure enough ... cars parked all along in the bike lane because of a couple of events. So me in the lane. A guy in a white VW Golf came up very close to my rear wheel and when I was able to pull back into the bike lane he floored it. Others find it funny to "smoke you" as punishment for inconveniencing them, by down-shifting their big Diesel and then stomping on it. The number of idiots is surprisingly high in motor vehicles. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ At 75 I have crumple zones everywhere. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
John Forester Speaks
On Monday, October 7, 2019 at 8:08:12 AM UTC-7, Lars Lehtonen wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Chalo wrote: I don't want special bike-specific infrastructure. I want the cars gone, restricted to special motorsports facilities during limited hours and with extremely heavy taxation to help mitigate their pollution and noise. I'm fine with an interim period where the cars stay, but with a 20mph speed limit. I don't mind cars with reasonable speed limits. The problem is that they do not have reasonable speed limits in California. School zones used to require 15 mph when children were about. Now it is 25 and almost everyone exceeds that by 10 mph. I have people riding my bumper when I pass schools in session and with breaks at 15 mph. And even with highly unsafe speed limits everywhere when cars exceed these by 10 mph or more the cops do NOTHING. I recovered from by concussion and started riding again at the end of 2012. Since then I have seen perhaps 2 (two) autos pulled over for extremely unsafe driving. But then I don't go out at light usually and so don't get involved with the cops who like to pull over vehicles doing the actual speed limit as "probably being drunk". |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
John Forester Speaks
On 10/7/2019 10:50 AM, Lars Lehtonen wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Chalo wrote: I don't want special bike-specific infrastructure. I want the cars gone, restricted to special motorsports facilities during limited hours and with extremely heavy taxation to help mitigate their pollution and noise. I'm fine with an interim period where the cars stay, but with a 20mph Here in the U.S., a universal 20 mph speed limit would never, ever be accepted - not even by me. It would make it impossible to ever visit my family members and most of my friends. 20 mph in residential and heavily used business and shopping areas could make sense, though. I would have said it could make sense any place there are more than a few pedestrians or bicyclists, except that in most of the U.S. there are very, very few pedestrians or bicyclists. Almost the entire country has been built with the automobile in mind. That's very difficult to change. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
John Forester Speaks
On 2019-10-07 07:54, Tom Kunich wrote:
[...] At 75 I have crumple zones everywhere. Those are called wrinkle zones :-) -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
John Forester Speaks
On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 6:42:50 PM UTC+1, Tom Kunich wrote:
Yesterday a dumbass pickup truck with snow tires and reverse rims came up behind me in the bike lane pulled around and instead of staying out in a perfectly spacious lane pulled back over into the bike lane. He did this in front of TWO police cars that were facing the opposite direction and had a clear view of what occurred and neither of them did a thing. This sort of thing would not happen if policemen were on bicycles. Here in Ireland I know some retired policemen who can remember when country policemen (perhaps city policemen too; I didn't ask) patrolled on bicycles. But part of the greater security for cyclists on the roads when I came to live here 40 years ago, after the policemen were long in cars and on foot at least in the village centre, was simply that the roads carried only light internal combustion traffic. Andre Jute Belt and braces |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
John Forester Speaks
On Monday, October 7, 2019 at 6:02:40 PM UTC+1, Joerg wrote:
On 2019-10-07 07:54, Tom Kunich wrote: [...] At 75 I have crumple zones everywhere. Those are called wrinkle zones :-) Heh-heh! AJ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |