Originally Posted by Brian Ratliff
I think we've tried this tact. As always, the devil's in the details. On a broad level, we are all cyclists and all want to improve the cyclist's lot out on the road. At the detail level, the disagreement is on implementation; with one side seeing cyclist training as the key issue and the other side seeing engineering design (of the roadway) as the key issue. As always, the solution to the problem lies somewhere in the middle, but to get to the appropriate mix requires leadership at a local level; something which is impossible on the internet, no matter what is the forum.
As I see it, the forums have to be a place where the two extremes can lay out their best case for their proposed solution. As long as the discussion doesn't get personal (as it all too often has in the past; and I'll admit, I've been part of the problem at times), then the two cases are layed out and individuals can make their own better informed (we hope) opinion about the subject to carry into the real world.
I've given up on seeing the forums as a place where peace and harmony on a controversial subject can exist. It is impossible to enforce that kind of peace without some extremely heavy handed mod'ing to control and lead the conversation. Frankly, I think the disagreements are fine, as long as it doesn't get to the level where it becomes personal. HH and I had many a discussion in the past which was purely discussion on a technical and philosophical basis. Both him and I, in the past, have gotten frustrated with each other and turned it personal, and I regret this.
Hopefully, we can all cool off and start discussing this problem in a rational way again. But realize that there will never be any consensus on a forum on the internet, where leadership of the discussion is impossible. Only in real life can a consensus be formed, and it has to come from a leader talking to people who trust this person's decisions and philosophy.
I think that Brian has not stated the difference accurately. Here is his view of the controversy: "At the detail level, the disagreement is on implementation; with one side seeing cyclist training as the key issue and the other side seeing engineering design (of the roadway) as the key issue."
Vehicular cyclists are as interested in good road engineering as the bikeway promoters are in their kind of engineering. Much of the argumentation by bikeway advocates states the vehicular cyclist position as advocating narrow outside lanes. That is not correct at all. Suggestions for what can be done to improve existing roads are given in my Bicycle Transportation. Furthermore, bikeways do not even reduce the need for proper training of cyclists; that training is just as necessary with bikeways (of the American pattern) as without them.
Furthermore, there is a much deeper difference, that concerns: How should cyclists operate on the roadway? If cyclists should operate as drivers of vehicles, then society and government should both accept and accommodate that use (in all aspects from paving to training) and should not complicate the problem by building facilities that are based on the opposite concept. If, on the other hand, cyclists should not operate as drivers of vehicles, then it would be appropriate to build facilities for that non-conforming use. Looks simple, doesn't it?
Here's the catch. Nobody has built a system that allows cyclists to travel freely and safely without obeying the rules of the road. In a way, the Dutch sidepath system is nearest to that, but it is not ubiquitous even there.
Instead of obeying either principle, we have an irrational combination of both principles that nobody can understand, which, therefore, is controlled by superstition. One system is the vehicular system, that is required by the operational characteristics of vehicles and drivers, and for which the road system is designed. The other is the motorist-invented view of cyclists as incompetent road users who must be kept out of the way of motorists, lest they be crushed, and which is now institutionalized in the form of bikeways, which are believed to make cycling safe for incompetent cyclists. This view has great social acceptance, which is the problem, because, of course, it is false.
The idea that bikeways will persuade large numbers of motorists to switch to bicycle transportation is the foundation of anti-motoring bicycle advocacy. This is based on the social belief that bikeways make cycling safe for incompetent road users. And this belief is pure superstition.
Therefore, we have a conflict between the rationally based vehicular cycling principle and the bikeway superstition. It is difficult to find a compromise between two such different modes of thought.