|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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. 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. |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
John Forester Speaks
On Thu, 03 Oct 2019 08:00:37 -0700, Joerg
wrote: All others prefer, like myself, good quality bike paths. I saw one in London once. -- Joy Beeson joy beeson at comcast dot net |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
John Forester Speaks
On 03/10/2019 1:02 p.m., Joy Beeson wrote:
On Thu, 03 Oct 2019 08:00:37 -0700, Joerg wrote: All others prefer, like myself, good quality bike paths. I saw one in London once. I've seen a couple decent ones but they're typically too crowded to use. And the ones here in Quebec have a 20k/h speed limit. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
John Forester Speaks
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/ |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
John Forester Speaks
On 2019-10-03 10:02, Joy Beeson wrote:
On Thu, 03 Oct 2019 08:00:37 -0700, Joerg wrote: All others prefer, like myself, good quality bike paths. I saw one in London once. Visit my area (Folsom, Rancho Cordova, Sacramento) and you'll see lots of them. I ride about the 30+ miles to Sacramento almost weekly. The usual drill is to push the right downshift lever way forward and then leave it there for about two hours. Because it is a proper bike path with grade separation at all thoroughfares. Until I get onto city streets and that's when the not so pleasant stop and go begins. In contrast to people in cars I never have to stop on the bike path unless I become hungry, have a cell phone call or ... a nature call. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
John Forester Speaks
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. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
John Forester Speaks
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. 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! -- - Frank Krygowski |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
John Forester Speaks
On 10/3/2019 3:47 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2019-10-03 10:02, Joy Beeson wrote: On Thu, 03 Oct 2019 08:00:37 -0700, Joerg wrote: All others prefer, like myself, good quality bike paths. I saw one in London once. Visit my area (Folsom, Rancho Cordova, Sacramento) and you'll see lots of them. Visit almost all U.S. cities and you'll find there's no way to build them to serve more than a tiny fraction of destinations. So if you're really going to ride a bike to get anywhere, you still need to know how to ride on an ordinary street or road. That will always be the case. And Forester was the first to make real headway in teaching those necessary techniques. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
John Forester Speaks
On 10/3/2019 4:10 PM, 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. Certainly you've heard of "warrants" for traffic signals. They are put in only where there is reason to do so, and the reason is almost always because the intersection would be, or was, too dangerous without them. Sheesh. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
John Forester Speaks
On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 11:49:45 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 4:19:52 PM UTC+1, Tom Kunich wrote: On Tuesday, October 1, 2019 at 10:28:35 PM UTC-7, 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. Well, you know that isn't going to happen. What's more, the entire civilized structure of the world is built around rapid high speed transportation via motor vehicle. I agree that the planning COULD have been around high speed rails, small towns and bicycle transportation but there actually is no going back. Chloe's plan got screwed by dumb oxen looooong before he was born. From a post by a mate in Utah: '...the story goes that Brigham Young, who led Mormon settlers to the West in 1847, directed that the streets of Salt Lake City be made sufficiently wide so that a wagon team could turn around without “resorting to profanity”.' Makes one wonder about Amish roads... But it isn't only American roads. From a post elsewhere by me: *I'm tempted to say, "Humane city planning takes bicycle commuters into account," but the fact is that, if it is true, it also appears to be irrelevant except in cities that were modernised largely from pedestrian walkways, like Dutch cities. Compare the British "New Towns", designed at a time in the 1950s when close living memory was of a poor prewar underclass which perforce cycled and could not dream of possessing a car, many of which offer interesting and in some cases exemplary cycling infrastructure -- which is mostly stands unloved, unused and empty." From another post elsewhere by me: Baron Haussmann* would be proud of whoever laid out that town [in Utah]: wide, arrow-straight roads running perfectly parallel to each other, crossing each other perpendicularly. *Haussmann was the fellow who gave Paris the aspect it still bears, which was copied by cities around the world. He was arguably the most influential city planner of all time. Whether cyclists have anything at all to thank him for is a different story, as his prime motivation was to create wide boulevards specifically to speed vehicular traffic, precisely the sort of city planning one would perpetrate if the explicit objective was to kill pedestrians and cyclists (yes, I'm aware that Haussmann worked before the invention of the bicycle, but there were surely pedestrians in his time). Nor am I aesthetically all that keen on Haussmann's vision of Paris, all chill, inhuman scale and distance, a perfect prescription for the unlovable fascist cities Mussolini and Hitler created in the 1930's, which are also inhumane aesthetic disasters hostile to cyclists." Andre Jute Though, admittedly, the Musee d'Orsay is my second favourite art gallery in all the world, after only the Fitzwilliam in Cambridge (the one with the good university on the River Cam, not "the jumped-up missionary school outside Boston, Mass," as a literary protege would have it). Salt Lake City is also laid out with North and South roads cut by East and West roads. I seem to remember that they are numbered in both directions so even Zen could find his way around. |
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... | Tm Shermn _[_2_] | General | 184 | February 9th 11 05:01 PM |
Forester says... | Tm Shermn _[_2_] | Techniques | 181 | February 9th 11 05:01 PM |
J.Forester How to Brake | nash | General | 0 | March 11th 07 06:17 PM |
John Forester's 1955 Viking "Tour of Britain" | Lars Lehtonen | General | 2 | May 23rd 06 07:44 PM |