Shadow Boxing Part Whatever

I’m throwing a temper tantrum in response to comments in this story:

http://greenlaneproject.org/blog/view/what-if-bike-comfort-is-more-important-than-bike-safety

“I wish you separated-bike-lane advocates would quit lumping everybody who doesn’t like sidewalk-riding with Forester.”

How do you differ from Forrester?

“However, if perceived safety leads to an increase in numbers which leads to a bunch of bike/ped and bike/car collisions (because the facility is bad), that’s a bad thing. And that increase in numbers won’t stick in that scenario either.”

Let’s use the wood working example.

However, if perceived wood working safety leads to an increase in numbers which leads to a bunch of wood working injuries (because the shop is bad), that’s a bad thing.

Not really. If there are more people doing something then there will be more injuries. I don’t know why this is so hard for some people.

Wood workers don’t discourage new wood workers because they might be splinters. Newer wood workers are more likely to be injured. So nobody new should ever do word working again.

That’s totally stupid.

Of course, we should build new wood working facilities just as we should build new bicycle facilities.

Who should be in charge of safety for wood working facilities? Expert wood workers.

Who should be in charge of safety of bicycle facilities? Those who have build safe bicycle facilities in the past. Duh. This most likely happens to be the Dutch.

====================================

“This post is one of the best argument I’ve ever read to the insistence that those of us advocating for bike infrastructure are simply irrational.”

99% of our decisions are based on irrational reasons. Humans are driven by emotion. This article understands that. Most people (not this particular commenter) equate irrational with being “bad”. This is not the case at all but the reality we live in.

Thus to say that cycling infrastructure is irrational does not tell me whether or not we should do it.

Personally, I think that someone who spent his life squashing infrastructure to wake up one day to realize that if he had been in favor of it, he’d be riding today. Instead he’s confined to his smelly home in Lemon Grove where he attacks young advocates viciously online. All day.

Wasting your time online all day is a real rational choice instead of riding a bicycle in some sweet infrastructure.

======================================

“Bad cycle tracks are bad. But good cycle tracks are great.”

I hear this nonsense all the time, but it’s almost always from someone who is totally unqualified to judge the relative “goodness” of a cycle track. Let’s hire some experts and use their judgement instead of lameass self appointed “Savvy” experts.

========================================

“Mmm, while I don’t care for some of Mr. Foresters ideas, I would not call his ideas rejected by mainstream advocates. Remember his ideas are what the League of American Bicyclists education program is based on.
The author would be more correct in saying that his ideas are rejected by bicycle infrastructure advocates.”

YES! too true. We need to purge these other idiots, too.

“I do not understand why Foresters idea of riding with traffic, looking behind, signaling, and yielding if necessary before merging would be a bad thing. Neither his ideas of riding where it is safe and not unsafe (which is supported by Wa.state law), and riding in a position where you can be seen is common sense, riding in a motorists blind spot is not safe.”

Because on a high speed road, riding in a vehicle with substandard crash safety, twenty miles below the speed limit is highly unsafe. Riding in this way, is also irrational. Whether or not it’s legal is irrelevant. Vehicular cycling is foolish and dangerous.

Nobody advocates for riding in motorist’s blind spot.

“I do think the author is attempting to call everything but his own agenda the wrong thing to do. That isn’t good bike advocacy at all.”

No, the original article is excellent advocacy. We must purge the morons from our midst before we get anywhere in the US.

======================================

“Because we have those parallel streets, a better “low stress” solution is to use that neighborhood street a block over from the five-lane arterial. Put in traffic calming measures, barriers that force cars to turn, but allow bikes through.”

NO! Please don’t do this. Why waste money to make these safe routes to be more irritating? We have these routes in San Diego and none of them go where I want to go.

We need infrastructure EVERYWHERE. Arterials are the ONLY streets that get from point A to point B in a straight line. We need more direct routes so we can get around in a reasonable amount of time.

I have a giant spagetti map of convoluted routes in my head that I take when I have time. When I’m in a hurry, I take the arterial and get terrorized each time. Those who “take the lane” all report much more violent and negative interactions than I do who usually have an OK time at the expense of much stress and mental energy to ride safely.

Cycle tracks on arterials is the answer. Why do vehicular cyclists want to force us “off to the side roads” instead of making the normal roads safe and fun? Is it because they are too cheap or are they too obsessed with their silly “share the road” nonsense to the point of ridiculousness?

==============================================

“Think how well it would work for the auto industry using your slogan.
‘What If Automobile Comfort Is More Important Than Automobile Safety?”

If you study your history you’ll realize that they have resisted safety for quite a while. Cars still are the biggest threat to a cyclist’s life. Who do they demonize? Bicycles! The whole yellow vest and helmet nonsense if made precisely to conceal how dangerous cars are in order to place the blame solely on the cyclist.

This strategy “comfort over safety” is highly successful and has official government backing. This is this is why they don’t talk about safety while building motoring infrstructure, but they hide behind things like LOS predictions which are solely there to make roads where cars drive faster (aka more dangerously). Even safety is perverted on the altar of high speed motoring.

In San Diego one of the reasons for building a freeway was “safety”. In this area cycling safety went waaaaay up because riding a bicycle on the freeway is illegal. That’s why we must increase cycling despite safety problems. The only alternative is to discourage cycling. If that’s our goal let’s not call ourselves “cycling advocates”.

“So what you are telling us is that the safety of the cyclist isn’t as important as fulfilling your agenda of people riding in cycletracks?
If you really cared about others, and wanted to do good advocacy work for cycling, why not teach people how to use a bicycle safely?”

OK, show me how you can be safe while sharing a lane with an SUV with it’s drive is texting? When you get hit by the SUV, what magical skill makes you safe? Rear end collisions are highly likely. There are about two million a year in the US. How can you be safe in a vehicle with substandard crash safety (a bicycle)?

[Hint, don’t be in the way of a clueless SUV driver.]

So the first skill I teach is to ride off road only.
========================================================

“There was a pretty good article on cycle tracks in a recent issue of Bicycle Times. The author was pretty enthusiastic about them. But she began the article by describing her serious cycle track crash. A walker popped out in front of her (not looking, because of course no cars would be coming).”

So the cyclist would be safer if she were hit by a car than a pedestrian? I thought I hit the basement level of stupid, and I realize that it’s a long way down.

==================================================

“The conflation of “don’t want bad cycletracks” with “extreme Forester” continues to irritate.

In my case, I don’t mind the Bluebonnet facility so much (it’s for elementary school kids who back in my day would have been riding the sidewalk); but I DO mind the Guadalupe facility, where high-speed adult cyclists are forced between parked cars and the curb, or worse, between two of the most heavily used bus stops and the curb.”

You totally deserve whatever shit infrastructure you get it you stood SILENT while Forrester stopped the THIRTY YEARS of research that US engineers would have had with infrastructure had Forrester not been the lone cyclist voice.

The entire cycling community sold us out and continues to sell us out when they preach helmets, nonsense vehicular cycling classes (sic), yellow vests, and insane “share the road” nonsense.

We need to build bad infrastructure before we build good infrastructure. Why?

Because we have a stupid NIH (not invented here) syndrome where we can’t listen to Dutch engineers due to this self-hating disdain by white people for everything European.

Cycle tracks will be built. You will be forced to ride on them.

Getting upset about the inevitable is “irrational”. So shut it.

The infrastructurists have gone home. The one percent of the one percent which are the loud mouthed vehicular cyclists can shut up now.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: