F
Frank Krygowski
Guest
R15757 wrote:
>
> I think we can thank Forester and his (pardon me)
> sniveling minions...
No pardon granted. If you're going to go out of your way to be
insulting, you should have the guts to do it without a sniveling "pardon
me."
for a lot of the comforts enjoyed by
> today's urban cyclists--in large part Forester is
> responsible for AASHTO wide curb lanes, bike lanes
> painted to the left of right turn lanes, and smooth
> concrete MUPs that flow underneath major streets.
I'd say the most important thing Forester is responsible for is the wide
acceptance of cyclists' rights to the roads. He began fiercely fighting
for cyclists' rights to the roads back when they were _not_ well
accepted, and at risk. He also began promoting the education of
cyclists, and explaining the best way to ride among other traffic.
His example and his writing, and the example and writing of those who
learned from him, gave many cyclists the confidence to use their bikes
on the roads, not just on MUPs.
There are always people clamoring for oddball or defective facilities;
there are always politicians and (sadly) incompetent traffic engineers
willing to give them these facilities. But blaming Forester for that is
like blaming Galileo for astrology books.
> Forget about the ride-to-the-right law and its
> byzantine asterisks and permutations. Nobody knows
> it anyway.
The byzantine asterisks are generally an attempt to codify what we
already know: that a cyclist has a legal right to the road, but should
cooperate with others and not needlessly impede them. FWIW, Forester
has never (to my knowledge) used such a law's text to describe how a
person should ride; instead, he explains it in terms of fundamental
principles.
Thinking about laws while out riding in
> traffic is pointless, at best it's secondary to the task
> at hand.
There are plenty of laws that _must_ be "thought about." Let's not
confuse fundamental questions like "Should cyclists obey red lights?"
with details contained in obscure asterisks.
Obey the laws. If you disobey the laws, you'd better have a much better
excuse than "Hey, I know what I'm doing, and I'm late delivering this
package."
--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]
>
> I think we can thank Forester and his (pardon me)
> sniveling minions...
No pardon granted. If you're going to go out of your way to be
insulting, you should have the guts to do it without a sniveling "pardon
me."
for a lot of the comforts enjoyed by
> today's urban cyclists--in large part Forester is
> responsible for AASHTO wide curb lanes, bike lanes
> painted to the left of right turn lanes, and smooth
> concrete MUPs that flow underneath major streets.
I'd say the most important thing Forester is responsible for is the wide
acceptance of cyclists' rights to the roads. He began fiercely fighting
for cyclists' rights to the roads back when they were _not_ well
accepted, and at risk. He also began promoting the education of
cyclists, and explaining the best way to ride among other traffic.
His example and his writing, and the example and writing of those who
learned from him, gave many cyclists the confidence to use their bikes
on the roads, not just on MUPs.
There are always people clamoring for oddball or defective facilities;
there are always politicians and (sadly) incompetent traffic engineers
willing to give them these facilities. But blaming Forester for that is
like blaming Galileo for astrology books.
> Forget about the ride-to-the-right law and its
> byzantine asterisks and permutations. Nobody knows
> it anyway.
The byzantine asterisks are generally an attempt to codify what we
already know: that a cyclist has a legal right to the road, but should
cooperate with others and not needlessly impede them. FWIW, Forester
has never (to my knowledge) used such a law's text to describe how a
person should ride; instead, he explains it in terms of fundamental
principles.
Thinking about laws while out riding in
> traffic is pointless, at best it's secondary to the task
> at hand.
There are plenty of laws that _must_ be "thought about." Let's not
confuse fundamental questions like "Should cyclists obey red lights?"
with details contained in obscure asterisks.
Obey the laws. If you disobey the laws, you'd better have a much better
excuse than "Hey, I know what I'm doing, and I'm late delivering this
package."
--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]