Originally Posted by
buzzman
Again, expressions like "Every lane is a bike lane.". It seems to me that statements like that are used not because they are true in any logical sense but because they stop the dialogue. What's hard for me to understand is how reluctant some people are to abandon those fallacious arguments and adhere to a kind of wishful thinking that they are, indeed, true. I'm not saying that is what you are doing but my general impressions when I read posts in the VC thread is that kind of thinking abounds and it makes progressive discourse virtually impossible. And I am not referring solely to roads like interstates where the law dictates that it is unridable but roads that are legally ridable but not necessarily a recommended route for any cyclist no matter their "skill level" or chutzpah.
First off, these forums are a bad place to gain any knowledge at all. The level of discourse has dropped down so far that nothing useful is really discussed.
I have also stayed away from the specific VC issues in your post on purpose. As I have stated I am not a "VC'r" in that I haven't read any of the books etc which strictly talk about it. So I don't want to put words into their mouth when I may not be correct.
The "every lane is a BL" to me means that I don't require a bike lane to feel safe riding in traffic. So far I haven't encountered a road which I have felt unsafe riding. Keep in mind however, as is evident in my commute link, that I live in a more suburban/rural area. I don't bike downtown very often (no need) so my experience is distinctly different than city dwellers. I am also lucky to see a shoulder on most of the roads I ride. And none have bike lanes.
Originally Posted by
buzzman
What's also hard for me to understand is how quickly the analogy is made to "when I drive in my car". Please note your use of the word "rideable" in your automobile analogy- perhaps a simple error but reflective of a lot of thinking in these threads. When I can get my bike to go 60 mph from a dead stop in less than 12 second on level ground I'll better understand the analogy but while I agree that both are "vehicles" analogies between the automobile and the bicycle also lead to a kind of fallacious thinking when selecting routes, designing roadways and techniques applied when riding a bike on a roadway, bike lane, bike path or MUP. My bicycle is no more like my car than my car is like a semi-trailer truck.
Then you need to look up analogy. Analogies are not direct comparisons. Sure my bike and car are not even close in acceleration etc. But the analogy works partly because many people drive cars and many times have more experience in their car than on a bike.
My analogy is to illustrate the following point. I feel safe wherever I have ridden. I also feel safe in my car. I can choose 2 paths to drive my car in the morning. One is the major highways/beltway. It offers the possibility of getting to work slightly faster, but I find it more frustrating, due to the nature of large multilane highways during rush hour. The other is a more rural route (actually the identical path I bike). I find it more enjoyable as I don't have to keep track of 6 lanes of traffic around me.
Originally Posted by
buzzman
I also find it difficult to understand the reluctance to refer to certain roads as "safer" or "less safe" for riding and instead euphemistic expressions like "more vigilance is needed" or "more enjoyable". These expressions are most often used with a qualifier like "it's equally rideable" as if to say, "if I wanted to I could ride on that road" perhaps out of a justifiable paranoia that to admit otherwise might mean risking the right to ride on certain roads. Some of us, like me, consider that roads needing "more vigilance" are actually, dare I say it- less safe and therefore not "equally rideable" as much as I might wish it to be. Often these suspicions are supported by accident statistics on these same roads. And while we support the right of cyclists to ride on every possible road we are pragmatic realists who recognize that some roads, due to design, traffic volume, condition of pavement etc, are just not worth it. And that despite all the experience, bicycle "education", vigilance and skill some cyclists may have nothing beats a well designed roadway conceived and built with bicyclists in mind.
That is because I don't find the differing roads "safer" or "less safe". The smaller neighborhood roads have less traffic. So I don't have to necessarily be as "vigilant" with my lane handling etc. But I still could get T-boned by the soccer mom backing out of her driveway. But these quiet roads tend to be more enjoyable.
The sections of road that I find less enjoyable are not "less safe" But I do have to be more alert as there is more going on. I have to pay more attention to the traffic around me, the same way I would if I were in my car etc. But I still don't feel "less safe".
The key is, by using VC type techniques I can ride safely everywhere that I have tried so far. I don't disagree that a roadway designed with cyclists in mind may be more enjoyable, most haven't been designed this way. I would hate to feel i was constrained to only using those roads designed for cyclists as I would have very few option in my area at all.
Now, one problem I do have with the general VC debate is the converse. There are many who seem to feel that by simply training cyclists they will instantly be comfortable riding safely anywhere. This of course is not true. We all have different temperments and limits on what we can deal with. Some people will simply not feel comfortable in some situations regardless of their training.
-D