Detente

Wayne Pein said:

Rich said:

Wayne Pein said:

The point is not whether Ft Collins is nice to ride around. It may
be. Sorry though for not feeling warm and fuzzy about all the bike
lanes there that likely were striped on preexisting wide lanes. The
point is that some bicyclists there apparently disagree with the ban.
It is probable that the powers that be feel justified in banning
bicyclists because they are so wonderful to them elsewhere, having
graciously given them paths and bike lanes.

You're ignorance is showing. I recommend you go to Fort Collins and
see what it's actually like before going on about how wrong it is.

Please specify where my ignorance lies.

Your ignorance of Fort Collins roads and traffic.

Rich

Wayne Pein said:

gds said:

Wayne Pein said:

One has to question the "friendliness" of something that is compulsory.

Wayne

I have to ask--what does that mean?

Essentially there is an element of compulsion in all laws, rules, and
regulations. Are speed limits intrinsically unfriendly? Are rules
against carrying firearms into a bank unfriendly?

No, but if only bicyclists had to obey the speed limit or the firearm
ban they would be.

And it is answers like that which make me wonder about your point in
most areas. The point of the social contract is to BALANCE the needs of
the majority and those of any minority. I can't express this any better
than THE FEDERALIST PAPERS. What ever we have in practice, it is clear
that the writers of the Constitution spent a lot of time worrying about
that balance and how to achieve it. Key to the solution was that not
everything was going to seem to be equal to everyone every time. But it
seems to me that you are mainly concenred that the rights of cyclist
NEVER need to give way to the rights of motorists. The federalist
writers considered this to a a tyranny of the minority and not
acceptable.

Wayne, I've read lots of your writings and I think you make some very
good points and in general have well thought out positions that are
effective in terms of both cycling advocay and safety. However, I also
believe that your constant need to assert rights, which to me is
assertion for the simple sake of assertion, only serves to weaken your
overall argument by putting the label of zealot on your back.

It is interesting that in this forum which is comprised almost wholly
of folks who are very pro cycling that you get so much argument on some
of these issues. These areguments come from folks who cycle a lot, have
lots of experience, and are mostly advocates for cycling. It just shows
that there can be disagreement in the best of families. But I think it
also shows a reaction to the way in which you occupy such extreme
positions on some issues.

Wayne said:

So the ubiquitous bike lane streets ASLO have wide outside lanes?

Well yeah. By lane I mean the rightmost lane including
the 'bike lane,' which in FC are not what one typically
thinks of as bike lanes. Tons of space, swept clean
and maintained, a large chunk of the right side of the
road. The single stripe that marks this 'lane'
turns out to be almost entirely immaterial, although it
does have some positive effect in passing situations.

So what's this all about? Is Fort Collins up for some
award from LAB or something? I don't keep up on these
things. But I say they deserve it, whatever it is.
If you want to go car-free and you're looking for the
perfect place to do it, move to the Fort. Go Rams.

Robert

Rich said:

Agreed. I lived there for several years. I didn't know bikes weren't
allowed on College, but never had a desire to ride there anyway.

Ban the streets _next to_ College, then you've got
a problem.

I've always thought of Fort Collins as the redneck
love child of Boulder and Greeley. Or maybe of Boulder
and Laramie. We're not quite sure who the daddy is yet.
But it's either a cowboy or a trucker.

I love Fort Collins. Every weekend for about two years,
when my girlfriend was in Laramie and I was in Boulder,
we would meet at the grungy old hotel in 'downtown'
Fort Collins. Quite often I would make the trip on
a bike. I got tangled in the College Av/sidewalk/car
dealership parking lot cluster*@#! on my very first
ride to Fort Collins, I'll never forget it. Last summer
I had occasion to ride up there, had a mind to stay
in the old hotel, and found it renovated into some
trying-too-hard hip noir thing along with the rates.

Robert

In article <[email hidden]>,

gds said:

Key to the solution was that not
everything was going to seem to be equal to everyone every time. But it
seems to me that you are mainly concenred that the rights of cyclist
NEVER need to give way to the rights of motorists.

As I [mis?]understand Wayne's POV: cyclists or motorists have
the same rights. It's not "us vs them"; it's just /drivers/
of vehicles (whether motorized or not.) So it's not about
interactions between groups having different rights, it's
about interactions within a group having the same rights.
Trouble is, not everyone is aware of that fact.

Quoted message said:

Wayne, I've read lots of your writings and I think you make some very
good points and in general have well thought out positions that are
effective in terms of both cycling advocay and safety. However, I also
believe that your constant need to assert rights, which to me is
assertion for the simple sake of assertion, only serves to weaken your
overall argument by putting the label of zealot on your back.

Well, I applaud Wayne's zeal. But I'm only a shameless advantagist
who'll apply some Effective Cycling when it suits me, or some Art
of Urban Cycling when it suits me, or (mostly) my own, learned
smarts. When it comes to ideologuery, I'm a reed-bending-with-
the-wind hypocrite. But I do get around unscathed ;-)

It's really, really hard to stick to one's guns.
It takes a lot of strength.

Quoted message said:

It is interesting that in this forum which is comprised almost wholly
of folks who are very pro cycling that you get so much argument on some
of these issues. These areguments come from folks who cycle a lot, have
lots of experience, and are mostly advocates for cycling. It just shows
that there can be disagreement in the best of families. But I think it
also shows a reaction to the way in which you occupy such extreme
positions on some issues.

Funny thing is, those are the exact same positions
John Forester takes. When I first read EC, I took
issue with some of his points, too. Later I learned
to my surprise that he was right!

Still later I learned that he wasn't /always/ right,
so now I'm an hypocritical, shameless advantagist
who takes some input from here, some from there,
and comes up with my own approach.

Oh well, nobody's always right.

cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

Tom Keats said:

As I [mis?]understand Wayne's POV: cyclists or motorists have
the same rights. It's not "us vs them"; it's just /drivers/
of vehicles (whether motorized or not.) So it's not about
interactions between groups having different rights, it's
about interactions within a group having the same rights.
Trouble is, not everyone is aware of that fact.

The thing is, bicyclists and motorists aren't two groups
with the same rights. Bicyclists actually enjoy more
rights and much more freedom than motorists. It's
a shame to be so obsessed with the few areas where
bicyclists may appear to be marginalized (i.e. lane-
taking issues) that we forget the whole gamut of
situations where cyclists have the upper hand.

Robert

Rich said:

Wayne Pein said:

Rich said:

Wayne Pein wrote:

> The point is not whether Ft Collins is nice to ride around. It may
> be. Sorry though for not feeling warm and fuzzy about all the bike
> lanes there that likely were striped on preexisting wide lanes. The
> point is that some bicyclists there apparently disagree with the
> ban. It is probable that the powers that be feel justified in
> banning bicyclists because they are so wonderful to them elsewhere,
> having graciously given them paths and bike lanes.

You're ignorance is showing. I recommend you go to Fort Collins and
see what it's actually like before going on about how wrong it is.

Please specify where my ignorance lies.

Your ignorance of Fort Collins roads and traffic.

Rich

That's good Rich.

Wayne

gds said:

Wayne Pein said:

gds said:

Wayne Pein wrote:

>One has to question the "friendliness" of something that is compulsory.
>
>Wayne

I have to ask--what does that mean?

Essentially there is an element of compulsion in all laws, rules, and
regulations. Are speed limits intrinsically unfriendly? Are rules
against carrying firearms into a bank unfriendly?

No, but if only bicyclists had to obey the speed limit or the firearm
ban they would be.

And it is answers like that which make me wonder about your point in
most areas. The point of the social contract is to BALANCE the needs of
the majority and those of any minority. I can't express this any better
than THE FEDERALIST PAPERS. What ever we have in practice, it is clear
that the writers of the Constitution spent a lot of time worrying about
that balance and how to achieve it. Key to the solution was that not
everything was going to seem to be equal to everyone every time. But it
seems to me that you are mainly concenred that the rights of cyclist
NEVER need to give way to the rights of motorists. The federalist
writers considered this to a a tyranny of the minority and not
acceptable.

Huh? Bicyclists, including myself, almost ALWAYS give way to the
rights/needs/concerns of motorists. Don't put words in my mouth or try
to define my position. Every time a motorist passes a bicylist using
part of the bicyclist's lane the rights/needs/concerns of motorists are
met at some small concession by the bicyclist (it would certainly be
safer/more comfortable for the bicylist if the motorist changed lanes
and the bicyclist rode down the center of it, creating lateral shy
distance and improved sight triangles.)

Freeways are all over the place that disallow bicyclists. Many statutes
actively discriminate against bicyclists.

Quoted message said:

Wayne, I've read lots of your writings and I think you make some very
good points and in general have well thought out positions that are
effective in terms of both cycling advocay and safety. However, I also
believe that your constant need to assert rights, which to me is
assertion for the simple sake of assertion, only serves to weaken your
overall argument by putting the label of zealot on your back.

Ever consider that it is you are are doing the labeling?

Quoted message said:

It is interesting that in this forum which is comprised almost wholly
of folks who are very pro cycling that you get so much argument on some
of these issues. These areguments come from folks who cycle a lot, have
lots of experience, and are mostly advocates for cycling. It just shows
that there can be disagreement in the best of families. But I think it
also shows a reaction to the way in which you occupy such extreme
positions on some issues.

My "extreme" position is this: It's the bicyclist's lane. Most of the
time bicyclists defer by letting motorists use their lane, but it's
still the bicyclist's lane to use as he wishes.

I'm sorry those of you with an inferiority complex feel the need to
characterize my position as extreme, but it will not change my position.

Wayne

Tom Keats said:

Well, I applaud Wayne's zeal. But I'm only a shameless advantagist
who'll apply some Effective Cycling when it suits me, or some Art
of Urban Cycling when it suits me, or (mostly) my own, learned
smarts. When it comes to ideologuery, I'm a reed-bending-with-
the-wind hypocrite. But I do get around unscathed ;-)

I think virtually everyone on two wheels employs a little selective
street smarts. Today I went down a sidewalk for 100 yards instead of
going around the one-way block with 2 traffic lights and hill.
Bicyclists are not banned from the sidewalk there. I didn't feel guilty
about using a ped facility, but when I assume that role I ride like aa
guest. Similary, I don't feel guily when I assert my right to use the
road as I see fit, especially since I'm not a guest, I'm the road owner,
moving along with the other owners.

Regards,
Wayne

Quoted message said:

The thing is, bicyclists and motorists aren't two groups
with the same rights. Bicyclists actually enjoy more
rights and much more freedom than motorists.

I don't believe that's the case. I think you need to step back.

Motorists have had entire city centers radically modified for their
convenience. At a typical traffic light, motorists get 30 to 45
seconds of green, while pedestrians get ten seconds of "Walk" followed
by blinking "Don't Walk". Malls are frequently built in locations that
most people find incredibly hostile to walk or bike to. Neighborhood
stores that are easily accessible by walking or biking have vanished in
most areas, replaced by mega-stores out in suburbs, accessible only to
motorists - or to bus riders, who must wait half an hour between buses
as a penalty for not being a motorist. Freeways are built at
monumental expense, on private land taken by eminent domain, to speed
the travel of motorists - even if they greatly impede travel of
non-motorists. New roads are still being constructed or widened
without sidewalks, or without shareable-width outside lanes.

I think the world has been made far too convenient for motorists. I
don't see the same happening for bicyclists at all.

Quoted message said:

It's
a shame to be so obsessed with the few areas where
bicyclists may appear to be marginalized (i.e. lane-
taking issues) that we forget the whole gamut of
situations where cyclists have the upper hand.

The way you've defined that in the past, IIRC, is that cyclists can
flout some laws with impunity because of being below the
law-enforcement radar. Perhaps there are other ideas you have in mind
- but I don't think motorists lack that benefit either. I see plenty
of law-flouting by people in tin boxes.

- Frank Krygowski

Quoted message said:

Motorists have had entire city centers radically modified for their
convenience. At a typical traffic light, motorists get 30 to 45
seconds of green, while pedestrians get ten seconds of "Walk" followed
by blinking "Don't Walk". Malls are frequently built in locations that
most people find incredibly hostile to walk or bike to. Neighborhood
stores that are easily accessible by walking or biking have vanished in
most areas, replaced by mega-stores out in suburbs, accessible only to
motorists - or to bus riders, who must wait half an hour between buses
as a penalty for not being a motorist. Freeways are built at
monumental expense, on private land taken by eminent domain, to speed
the travel of motorists - even if they greatly impede travel of
non-motorists. New roads are still being constructed or widened
without sidewalks, or without shareable-width outside lanes.

I think the world has been made far too convenient for motorists. I
don't see the same happening for bicyclists at all.

I agree with all of the first paragraph- but not all of the second.

The reality is that we have a motor vehicle centric society. That can
be considered good or bad but it is the reality. So, of course, most
resources are going to go towards supporting that.

What I read in many or your comments is a desire to change the highly
motor vehicle emphasis we currently have. Fine! I agree that is a
worthy goal.
The disagrement appears to be in how to do that. To me the heavy
emphasis on a confrontational style of rights assertion will slow
rather than speed the process. Hard to do a controlled experiment so it
is hard to "prove" one or the other.
The thing is that in some parts of the country lots of what folks talk
about here seem almost irrelevant. I now live in the SW and the
combination of relatively low population density, almost always good
weather, good roads many with very wide shoulders, and a generally
friendly motorist population really takes a lot of the tension out the
situation.
That said all of the first 3 above also combine to result in very high
speed auto traffic. So, when something goes wrong between a motor
vehicle and a bike it goes very wrong- and serious injury and even
death occurr all too often.

My experience is that simple courtesy - by both cyclists and motorists-
goes a long way to making travel better for both.

gds said:

Quoted message said:

Motorists have had entire city centers radically modified for their
convenience. At a typical traffic light, motorists get 30 to 45
seconds of green, while pedestrians get ten seconds of "Walk" followed
by blinking "Don't Walk". Malls are frequently built in locations that
most people find incredibly hostile to walk or bike to. Neighborhood
stores that are easily accessible by walking or biking have vanished in
most areas, replaced by mega-stores out in suburbs, accessible only to
motorists - or to bus riders, who must wait half an hour between buses
as a penalty for not being a motorist. Freeways are built at
monumental expense, on private land taken by eminent domain, to speed
the travel of motorists - even if they greatly impede travel of
non-motorists. New roads are still being constructed or widened
without sidewalks, or without shareable-width outside lanes.

I think the world has been made far too convenient for motorists. I
don't see the same happening for bicyclists at all.

I agree with all of the first paragraph- but not all of the second.

The reality is that we have a motor vehicle centric society. That can
be considered good or bad but it is the reality. So, of course, most
resources are going to go towards supporting that.

What I read in many or your comments is a desire to change the highly
motor vehicle emphasis we currently have. Fine! I agree that is a
worthy goal.
The disagrement appears to be in how to do that. To me the heavy
emphasis on a confrontational style of rights assertion will slow
rather than speed the process. Hard to do a controlled experiment so it
is hard to "prove" one or the other.

You may have the wrong idea of my philosophy on the bike.

It's a rare day when I'm confrontational on the bike. Yes, if someone
is actively abusive, I'll let them know they're being a jerk, but that
is _extremely_ unusual. I can think of only two examples this entire
year. I typically go more than a month between even the rude horn honks
we sometimes get.

However (thinking about what has sometimes caused horn honks) if the
lane is too narrow to safely share, I _will_ take the lane. If the
road is striped with a LTOL, RTOL and straight ahead lane, I _will_ be
in the proper lane for my direction, not gutter-skulking. If I'm
moving as fast as traffic, I _will_ be in the center of my lane. IOW,
I'll share the road when it's safe. But I'm not going to put myself in
any danger to be overly-deferential.

This isn't being confrontational. This is just good sense.

- Frank Krygowski

Wayne Pein said:

I think virtually everyone on two wheels employs a little selective
street smarts. Today I went down a sidewalk for 100 yards instead of
going around the one-way block with 2 traffic lights and hill.
Bicyclists are not banned from the sidewalk there. I didn't feel guilty
about using a ped facility, but when I assume that role I ride like aa
guest. Similary, I don't feel guily when I assert my right to use the
road as I see fit, especially since I'm not a guest, I'm the road owner,
moving along with the other owners.

You are no more the owner of the road than the owner
of the sidewalk in that situation. In each case,
the surface is available for your use as long as you
cooperate and compromise with the other users of
that surface.

Robert

Wayne Pein said:

My "extreme" position is this: It's the bicyclist's lane. Most of the
time bicyclists defer by letting motorists use their lane, but it's
still the bicyclist's lane to use as he wishes.

I wouldn't call that an extreme postion, necessarily.
But it is incorrect.

Robert

Wayne Pein said:

gds wrote:

Quoted message said:

My "extreme" position is this: It's the bicyclist's lane. Most of the
time bicyclists defer by letting motorists use their lane, but it's
still the bicyclist's lane to use as he wishes.

My position is this "it's the taxpayer's lane, paid for by them to
facilitate effecient transportation". While I am one of them I'm only
one of them, and for me to needlessly make the road ineffecient for many
others just to show I'm not inferior is self-centered and unkind.

I take the lane when necessary, but try to make that as unoften as
possible. Fortunatly, I live in an area where taking the lane is seldom
required.

Quoted message said:

I'm sorry those of you with an inferiority complex feel the need to
characterize my position as extreme, but it will not change my position.

And calling everyone that understands the concept of "sharing" inferior
will neither make it so nor convince us your position is correct.

Rich

Quoted message said:

Wayne Pein said:

My "extreme" position is this: It's the bicyclist's lane. Most of the
time bicyclists defer by letting motorists use their lane, but it's
still the bicyclist's lane to use as he wishes.

I wouldn't call that an extreme postion, necessarily.
But it is incorrect.

Robert

In your universe. Not mine.

Wayne

Quoted message said:

You are no more the owner of the road than the owner
of the sidewalk in that situation. In each case,
the surface is available for your use as long as you
cooperate and compromise with the other users of
that surface.

Robert

I can use the road but not "cooperate and compromise," though I do most
of the time by letting motorists use my lane. I need only follow the
law. Cooperate and compromise is not in statutes.

And yes, I'm an owner of the road/lane space that I occupy.

Wayne

Rich said:

Wayne Pein said:

My "extreme" position is this: It's the bicyclist's lane. Most of the
time bicyclists defer by letting motorists use their lane, but it's
still the bicyclist's lane to use as he wishes.

My position is this "it's the taxpayer's lane, paid for by them to
facilitate effecient transportation". While I am one of them I'm only
one of them, and for me to needlessly make the road ineffecient for many
others just to show I'm not inferior is self-centered and unkind.

Then Rich, don't do it. I don't.

Quoted message said:

I take the lane when necessary, but try to make that as unoften as
possible. Fortunatly, I live in an area where taking the lane is seldom
required.

You get a cookie. And your area gets a gold star. Or maybe it can have a
genuine Bicycle Friendly Community sign.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'm sorry those of you with an inferiority complex feel the need to
characterize my position as extreme, but it will not change my position.

And calling everyone that understands the concept of "sharing" inferior
will neither make it so nor convince us your position is correct.

Rich, why is it that you cannot understand that I share my lane most of
the time?" I've said it several times. I share when I want and I don't
share when I don't want. That's the way it is, and I don't need to
convince you of anything.

You don't ride here. You don't know the roads I don't share. You don't
know my speed or theirs when I don't share. In short, you don't know
enough to make judgement.

Wayne

Wayne Pein said:

I can use the road but not "cooperate and compromise," though I do most
of the time by letting motorists use my lane. I need only follow the
law. Cooperate and compromise is not in statutes.

So you're riding the middle of a huge outside lane, and a
car comes up behind you, and you slide over simply out
of the goodness of your heart? Well that's real big
of you, Wayne, but the law does in fact mandate that
you do exactly that. There are many situations where you
are legally allowed to take command of a whole lane
while riding a bicycle, and there are some situations
where you are not. Since all the substantive and
legitimate reasons for lane-taking are addressed in
the law, I can't imagine why anyone feels a need to
make up their own law.

Quoted message said:

And yes, I'm an owner of the road/lane space that I occupy.

Then you are also the 'owner' of the sidewalk space you
occupied, but fine, if it makes you feel good to use
that word. Me, I'm the 'Emperor' of my space. Other
possibilities: 'Generalissimo,' 'captain,' 'Grand Poobah,'
'boss-man,' 'El Jefe,' 'Supreme Allied Commander of This
Space (SACOTS),' etc.

Robert

Quoted message said:

Wayne Pein said:

I can use the road but not "cooperate and compromise," though I do most
of the time by letting motorists use my lane. I need only follow the
law. Cooperate and compromise is not in statutes.

So you're riding the middle of a huge outside lane, and a
car comes up behind you, and you slide over simply out
of the goodness of your heart?

No. If I'm in the middle of a lane I'm there for a reason, and I'm not
moving right just because someone comes up behind me.

Well that's real big

Quoted message said:

of you, Wayne, but the law does in fact mandate that
you do exactly that. There are many situations where you
are legally allowed to take command of a whole lane
while riding a bicycle, and there are some situations
where you are not. Since all the substantive and
legitimate reasons for lane-taking are addressed in
the law, I can't imagine why anyone feels a need to
make up their own law.

There is no indication to stay right or yield right in a marked lane in
NC. Further, I believe there is no indication to do so in many other
states. Where bicyclists are required to do so, they should work to
repeal the law, and ignore it when they feel the need to. Other vehicle
drivers do not have to justify their lane position. I don't when I drive
my car and I won't when I drive my bike.

Wayne