Interesting comments on infra and VC

http://shifter.info/heres-what-happe...cular-cycling/

--
JS

On Monday, July 25, 2016 at 3:37:42 AM UTC+1, James wrote:
http://shifter.info/heres-what-happe...cular-cycling/

--
JS

Interesting article. Looks from a photograph well down in the article as if Montreal started out with a two-way single bicycle lane of the same kind we condemned in another city's plans a couple of weeks ago. Maybe we're not infallible. Actually, what was different in Montreal was a growing attitude..

From the comments to that article, Robert Gallup puts it well, though in a slightly different context (pointing out that vehicular cycling and separate facilities aren't the only two alternatives, as the slightly naive writer of the main article implies):
"Robert S. Gallup:
"Here is another thought experiment. What if, starting 40 years ago, instead of building bike lanes in Montreal, the criminal justice system put motorists in prison for killing, maiming or menacing roadway cyclists with aggressive or negligent driving? For the next 40 years, the roads quietly get more friendly for cyclists.
JUNE 17, 2016 "

'Course, the "criminal justice system" is just the will of the majority, with some time lag and a number of stictions because our democracies are now too large to be as responsive to the will of the demos as the village-sized Athenian model.

Andre Jute
We can change anyone's attitude. Eventually.

On Monday, July 25, 2016 at 6:06:57 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Monday, July 25, 2016 at 3:37:42 AM UTC+1, James wrote:
http://shifter.info/heres-what-happe...cular-cycling/

--
JS

Interesting article. Looks from a photograph well down in the article as if Montreal started out with a two-way single bicycle lane of the same kind we condemned in another city's plans a couple of weeks ago. Maybe we're not infallible. Actually, what was different in Montreal was a growing attitude.

From the comments to that article, Robert Gallup puts it well, though in a slightly different context (pointing out that vehicular cycling and separate facilities aren't the only two alternatives, as the slightly naive writer of the main article implies):
"Robert S. Gallup:
"Here is another thought experiment. What if, starting 40 years ago, instead of building bike lanes in Montreal, the criminal justice system put motorists in prison for killing, maiming or menacing roadway cyclists with aggressive or negligent driving? For the next 40 years, the roads quietly get more friendly for cyclists.
JUNE 17, 2016 "

'Course, the "criminal justice system" is just the will of the majority, with some time lag and a number of stictions because our democracies are now too large to be as responsive to the will of the demos as the village-sized Athenian model.

These articles are always so overwrought. North America did not buy into vehicular cycling -- as illustrated by the proliferation of bike lanes starting in the 1970s (at least). Forester objected to even ordinary bike lanes.. About 30 years ago, ISTEA and other federal programs were already providing money for bike lanes and other infrastructure. 45 years ago, in 1971, Oregon passed the "Bicycle Bill" requiring reasonable amounts to be expended for bicycle facilities when roads were constructed or reconstructed. As Frank often points out, city planners are failing to heed the words of Mr. Forester.

Most US cities, however, did not have either the interest, money, land, topography or other circumstances that produced the desire for separate bicycle facilities ala Amsterdam or Copenhagen.

-- Jay Beattie

On 7/24/2016 7:37 PM, James wrote:
http://shifter.info/heres-what-happe...cular-cycling/

Good article.

John Forester did a lot to set back bicycling in North America. It's
good to see that Montreal was smart enough to not buy into his theories.

On 7/24/2016 10:37 PM, James wrote:
http://shifter.info/heres-what-happe...cular-cycling/

It seems there may be a concerted push to pump out these segregationist
articles. We've seen several lately. And every one falsifies the
methods and objectives of vehicular cycling.

Regarding false objectives: They typically claim that VC has failed
because America doesn't have a bike mode share like Amsterdam. Yet mode
share was never a stated goal of VC. Instead, VC is intended to enable
real-world cyclists to operate safely and pleasantly on real-world
roads, the ones we now have. The opposite philosophy, "segregation
everywhere," is telling people they don't dare ride a bike until a
parallel transportation system is built. How is that promoting bicycling?

Regarding false methods: They portray VC as a teeth-gritting, high
speed duel with cars. It's nothing of the sort. It's primarily riding
in accordance with existing laws (at least, in every state I know
about), accepting your right to the road, and following the normal rules
for vehicles. Yes, there are other bike-specific techniques, like
watching the road surface, choosing the proper side of a lane depending
on your destination, watching for and dissuading motorist mistakes, etc.
but the main thing is just riding according to established laws, because
that's actually safe and legal. How is that irrational?

And macho? See http://cyclingsavvy.org/2011/05/i-am-no-road-warrior/

Admittedly, another part of VC is rejecting bad bike facilities. There
are anti-VC folks who actively promote door zone bike lanes. How is
that not crazy? And the current darling of the "Copenhagen everywhere"
crowd is the "protected cycletrack," almost always a two-way bike trail
siamesed onto a street. Yet Mikael Colville-Andersen, one of the
world's most prominent "Copenhagenizing" advocates, says those things
are nuts.
http://www.copenhagenize.com/2014/06...cle-track.html

But, the article says, there's Montreal! Wow, a tremendous success story!!

.... or is it? It's bike mode share is 2.4%, from what I've been able to
see. That must mean there are hardly any people driving cars any
more... if you're sufficiently innumerate, I guess.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 24/07/2016 10:37 PM, James wrote:
http://shifter.info/heres-what-happe...cular-cycling/



I'm sure this will start yet another thread about VC and infrastructure.

The thing is, there are a lot of cyclists in Montreal. There are less
accidents to cyclists than the norm (probably a lot to do with the
increased numbers more than anything else.) And much of what VC
proponents recommend is actually illegal here. The law to keep to the
extreme right except when turning left or avoiding an obstacle is still
on the books and enforced.

What does all this mean? I think it means that the culture is different
here, more than anything else.

On 7/25/2016 3:27 PM, Duane wrote:
On 24/07/2016 10:37 PM, James wrote:
http://shifter.info/heres-what-happe...cular-cycling/




I'm sure this will start yet another thread about VC and infrastructure.

The thing is, there are a lot of cyclists in Montreal. There are less
accidents to cyclists than the norm (probably a lot to do with the
increased numbers more than anything else.) And much of what VC
proponents recommend is actually illegal here. The law to keep to the
extreme right except when turning left or avoiding an obstacle is still
on the books and enforced.

So you have an enforced law saying a cyclist must _always_ keep to the
extreme right? Is that so no motorist is ever delayed, no matter what
the bicyclist is dealing with?

And your advocacy organizations work for segregation, instead of fixing
that blatant discrimination?

Wow. Some advocacy!

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Monday, July 25, 2016 at 8:27:18 PM UTC+1, Duane wrote:
What does all this mean? I think it means that the culture is different
here, more than anything else.

And it has taken half a century to get there. It takes a long time to change attitudes.

Andre Jute

On 25/07/2016 4:21 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
On Monday, July 25, 2016 at 8:27:18 PM UTC+1, Duane wrote:
What does all this mean? I think it means that the culture is different
here, more than anything else.

And it has taken half a century to get there. It takes a long time to change attitudes.

Andre Jute


+1

On 26/07/16 05:27, Duane wrote:
On 24/07/2016 10:37 PM, James wrote:
http://shifter.info/heres-what-happe...cular-cycling/




I'm sure this will start yet another thread about VC and infrastructure.

The thing is, there are a lot of cyclists in Montreal. There are less
accidents to cyclists than the norm (probably a lot to do with the
increased numbers more than anything else.) And much of what VC
proponents recommend is actually illegal here. The law to keep to the
extreme right except when turning left or avoiding an obstacle is still
on the books and enforced.

What does all this mean? I think it means that the culture is different
here, more than anything else.

The mode share in Montreal is reportedly somewhere between 1.3% and 2.4%.

It's a little higher than Melbourne, and a little behind Canberra (and
Darwin that is not in the table).

Melbourne has a very small number of useful facilities. Canberra is
allegedly much better, but both suffer from helmet laws. Darwin has
relaxed helmet laws, and has some facilities, AFAIK.

We have never had a serious push of VC techniques and I think our mode
share would be better had it not been for the helmet law introduction in
the early 90's.

The helmet law helped to sway our road use culture away from cycling.

So I find it a little odd that Montreal is held up as a glowing example
of facility embrace.

--
JS