John Forester

classic33

Legendary Member
Cyclists to be seen as traffic on ordinary roads. Why not?
 

matticus

Über Member
I guess there are a few different things here; a general guiding principle, and the details:
- Bikes on roads have the same status as other vehicles;
- Cyclists on roads fare best when they ride like they drive;
- Some laws will differ in detail e.g. HGVs have lower speed limits, bikes have less stringent construction rules and no tax;
- Some networks exist exclusively for certain vehicles (bike paths, bus lanes, motorways).

If we view any idea too rigidly it just leads to silly binary slagging matches, which block any real progress.
 

raleighnut

Guru
Location
On 3 Wheels
A bit of a tall order to expect that of a five year old though, or even school children.
Only because of the 'Car-centric' way society has developed, when I was 5 (1967) I rode on roads all the time. Mind you most cars were slow then and drivers didn't have the sense of entitlement they seem to have now in that they slowed down or even stopped for pedestrians, horses, bikes and even wildlife not to mention that you were likely to be injured in a car collision unlike the modern 'air bag equipped' killing machines. :cursing:
 
Only because of the 'Car-centric' way society has developed, when I was 5 (1967) I rode on roads all the time. Mind you most cars were slow then and drivers didn't have the sense of entitlement they seem to have now in that they slowed down or even stopped for pedestrians, horses, bikes and even wildlife not to mention that you were likely to be injured in a car collision unlike the modern 'air bag equipped' killing machines. :cursing:
Absolutely right. But my kids need to have somewhere safe to ride: telling them to "act like a car" isn't going to make them safer when they're all of three feet tall on a bike.
 

matticus

Über Member
Absolutely right. But my kids need to have somewhere safe to ride: telling them to "act like a car" isn't going to make them safer when they're all of three feet tall on a bike.
OBJECTION M'Lord! Now that you've written this twice Andy:
I did NOT tell your kids where to ride, and I didn't tell them how they should ride.

Please read what I actually wrote. (Selectively quoting me doesn't really help matters either.)
 

icowden

Senior Member
Location
Surrey
OBJECTION M'Lord! Now that you've written this twice Andy:
I did NOT tell your kids where to ride, and I didn't tell them how they should ride.
OVERRULED!

The defendant has not suggested that you instructed him as to where or how his kids should ride their bikes. He has in fact suggested that the argument proposed is only useful if one is able to ride as suggested by the argument. Further he proposes that the weakness in the assertion of the plaintiff is that it only applies to perhaps a small subset of cyclists, with a greater subset unable to follow those provisions. He therefore questions their usefulness in a real world situation.

This is a valid counter-argument to the plaintiff's assertion, and should be discussed as such. Otherwise we are reduced, as m'learned friend suggested, to the binary existence of the slagging match in which no-one benefits. ;)

Now please proceed with your cross examination....
 

matticus

Über Member
...
He has in fact suggested that the argument proposed is only useful if one is able to ride as suggested by the argument. Further he proposes that the weakness in the assertion of the plaintiff is that it only applies to perhaps a small subset of cyclists, with a greater subset unable to follow those provisions. He therefore questions their usefulness in a real world situation.
...
Then why didn't he SAY that?!?!!

Sorry, I mean Thankyou, Your Honour - we can proceed now ...
 

mjr

Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
Only because of the 'Car-centric' way society has developed, when I was 5 (1967) I rode on roads all the time.
But it has developed. Continually fighting the battles of the early 1970s dooms us to failure and preserves the "right to ride on the roads" for a "minority activity and I didn’t expect it to be any more than that because I knew the difficulty. It was real fun, but on the other hand it had its costs, time and social opprobrium and such" - both quotes from John Forester.

The tragedy of John Forester is that he never seemed to accept that we need more cycling else the right to ride on roads will become a theoretical nicety and practical irrelevance, vulnerable to being voted out of existence.

Mass cycling needs safe spaces and probably easements to stop it being limited by the drawbacks of motoring, such as motor vehicle width, weight and limited vision. Initially, some of that safe space will probably have to be created by force, with kerbs and posts.
 

classic33

Legendary Member
The minute you stick/place a physical divide in place, on the roads, you reinforce the "them and us" culture. "That's where you're supposed to be!" will be heard even more.

I'm in a minority of one locally, no other recumbent riders nearby. And certainly non riding one over three feet wide. There's not a single cycle lane on the roads wide enough to accommodate it, whilst allowing another cyclist to pass. This includes the Leeds-Bradford super highway and the cycle lanes on York Road in Leeds.
 
Top Bottom