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. Americans
had (and mostly still have) no concept of how bikes should be used. He
simply described to Americans what already worked, and what was known by
millions of other bike users.
The ignorance continues, with people like Scharf (or SMS) and his heroes
demonstrating it regularly. Scharf says "the vehicular cycling movement
was a dismal failure in terms of increasing the bicycle mode-share." But
_nowhere_ has Forester ever pretended that bigger mode share was his
objective. The objective of Vehicular Cycling techniques is simply to
improve the capabilities, enjoyment and safety of those who choose to
use those techniques. And those techniques work. They just work.
Scharf's heroes pretend that Vehicular Cycling (i.e. cycling with
reasonable skill according to the rules of the road) is only for the
"fearless." Yet very normal women and men manage to use VC techniques
every effectively. They are easy to learn, they work at any speed, they
don't require heroism. See
http://cyclingsavvy.org/2017/05/ride-big-and-carry-a-great-bag/ for example.
In a nutshell, if a person wants to use their bike practically and
enjoyably for transportation or recreation, they have two choices: They
can lobby for massive public spending on separated bicycle facilities
everywhere they may ever wish to ride; or they can learn to ride a bike
correctly using skills and techniques that are sanctioned by existing
laws. The latter strategy allows you to ride essentially anywhere,
right now. The former strategy tells you to wait for some tax-funded
fairyland to appear.
True, Forester and those who understand his ideas point out that many
elements of the fantasy fairyland are crappy designs and impose risks
that normal riding doesn't. Forester's opponents have lobbied hard for
door zone bike lanes, cattle chutes that send fast cyclists wrong-way
into intersections, straight-ahead bike lanes to the right of right
turning cars, etc. This is frustrating to the crowd that believes "any
bike facility is a good bike facility." But reality is often
frustrating to ignorant daydreamers!
The 60% claim is bullshit, unless you use unreasonable standards for
"interested." The survey that got that number essentially asked "would
you be interested in riding if there were amazing bike facilities?" If a
person said "I'd be interested" they count.
But several of us here are engineers. Engineers are supposed to be able
to do numbers. Where in North America have 60% of the population taken
to riding bikes to get around? Where has that number actually been
proven true? Nowhere, Stephen. You can't even point to a large
neighborhood where installation of bike facilities generated 60%
ridership. As Jay said, the best you'd get after producing an amazing
array of bike/cattle chutes is "Oh, that's interesting."
Yes, the evidence IS overwhelming! We're engineers, right? We
understand numbers, right? So let's look at the amazing success Montreal
has had in getting those 60% on bikes. What's its bike mode share?
Oh... hmm.
http://www.cityclock.org/urban-cycling-mode-share/ says it's
somewhere between 1.3% and 2.4%.
Time for a question, Stephen: Is 2.4 greater or less than 60?
Take your time. I know it takes a while to count to 60 on your fingers.
--
- Frank Krygowski