Advocacy & Safety - Vehicular Cycling Poll, who does it?

This sounds like the anti-VC rhetoric sprinkled throughout Robert Hurst's book, The Art of Urban Cycling.

Here's the thing, can you provide even one example, real or hypothetical, to illustrate your point? In what situation might adhering to VC 100% get you killed, and violating the vehicular rules of the road (which is what not riding VC means) would save you?

If that's not what you mean, what do you mean by, "adhering to [VC] 100% may get you killed"?

I ride in an area where the road forces me on a 25 mph, one lane ramp, then after 250 feet that ramp is joined by another road on the right and the speed limit bumps to 45. While this is not a garunteed biker-kill, it is bad enough that reasonable, experianced bicyclists may opt for an alternative. I do VC most of the time.

If you are going to ride the sidewalk you have to be aware of the dangers associated with that. Car backing out of a driveway for example. Just like you have to be aware of the dangers in the streets-- being doored for exapmple.

I think that as the baby boomers age and more are killed in pedestrian accidents or kill pedestrians/ bikers while driving there will be more PSAs that can alert motorists to the porblems that they cause.

I think you misunderstood my intentions for this poll Genec. The poll options hint at what I mean. When I say VC, I mean riding as a car, in the middle of the lane. Sure, we usually ride on the right lane, but we don't need any other lanes. Bike lanes separate cyclists from cars; therefore, you are not riding as a car.

I guess I did, too. This definition of VC seems a bit restrictive. Perhaps "Do you always take the lane?" would have been closer to the described action of "riding...in the middle of the lane" I consider myself a VC rider; however, I only take the lane when necessary -- left turns, intersection with a right turn, nonsharable narrow lane, etc.

Paul

- Ride on the right side of the road, out of the way of traffic.
- Stick to smaller, less travelled roads when possible.
- If there is a shoulder, you should ride there, especially on curves, where cars are less likely to see you.
- If at night, you should have reflectors on your bike and reflective clothing. (ahem..lights?)
- Rather than ride on the roads, it's much better to go to a bike path (MUP I think he meant..we have a couple of the Rails-to-trails paths around).

Blah, it is discouraging to hear that this guy is against VC since he is preaching to the masses. He has some good tips, such as the curves thing, but the shoulder is more dangerous, IMO, than in the middle of the lane. There is so much more you have to worry about on the shoulder. When you approach an obstacle on the shoulder, smart and considerate drivers yield to you so you can swirve out and back (like they learn from their driver handbook). However, I can't trust drivers to be smart and considerate, because I don't think most are.

Where is the voice of the VC cyclists?

however, I only take the lane when necessary -- left turns, intersection with a right turn, nonsharable narrow lane, etc.

Do cars yield to you at intersections? I always have problems trying to concentrate on riding with one hand, signaling left so I can get in the middle of the lane at the intersection, and looking back at the same time. One of these days, I will hit some car on the right or lose control and wipe out from having too many things to worry about.

It is a myth “that to ride VC, you have to be some super fit, super skilled roadie”. All bikes and all riders can ride VC if they are willing to learn, practice and dispose of some of their baseless fears.

My hats off to you, the fact that you are willing to ride uphill and make a left turn from the left tire track on this winding road on a recumbent, tells me that you are an extremely skilled and experienced rider. My travel bike is a folding recumbent. Mostly because I can take it on a plane trip for free (I hate paying airline extortion), but also, a recumbent is fun to drive. We both know that a recumbent reduces the initial speed with which we are able to accelerate from a stop, making the left turn unsafe to perform from a stop. Your choice to change mode to pedestrian in this case is not counter or anti VC, it is what VC would dictate for safety. I was not trying to put you down. Forgive me if you read it as a put down, I will try harder next time to avoid any such misunderstanding.

I grew up in Colorado, and I have a winding gulch in Hawaii I ride on a daily commute. I know what you are talking about with continuous S-curve roads. My suggestion of passing the turn deals with gaining a better line of sight for you before crossing the roadway. For example, you might ride to the apex of the next left hand curve. At this point, you have a longer line of sight both uphill and downhill (over the point you normally make your left turn). That should make for an easier and safer road crossing either by riding or running.

I would never suggest any bicyclist should have to find another route. We deserve to use any route we choose. If engineering problems exist, then it is the engineering problem that should be fixed. If the problem is law breakers, then the cops should be giving tickets for that (rather than this stupid click it or ticket campaign). I have been told too many times that I should choose another route or ride the bus when I have pointed out poor road engineering.

Glad to hear your main route will be back soon. I am still trying to convince the State to fix the gulch road on my main route (so no more drivers have to die because of it’s poor design and the speeders).

Thank you. I appreciate your comments. A recumbent is a different kind of beast. Great fun, too, as you know.

I wish I had enough energy to ride up that silly road the mile it would take to find a good place to turn around. But it's after work and I just want to go home. I tried this on my scooter once and found that making a U-turn across a double-yellow line even if I can see isn't very safe (or legal) either.

What I don't get is why in Hawaii would anybody ever drive a car? I would ride a beach cruiser every day and wear sandals and never worry about getting wet in the rain. Ah, but it's a stereotype, isn't it? I digress.

I have to say that if I could change my vote, I would. I got pulled over (by a bike cop no less) the other day for not stopping at a red light (well, I did stop, but then I said to hell with it and just went.) So I suppose I ride VC less than 95% of the time since I guess I'm not too good at stopping completely at lights and stop signs.

As far as riding taking the lane all the time? Put me down for practically never. I don't have much reason to except on a couple of narrow residential roads.

I think you misunderstood my intentions for this poll Genec. The poll options hint at what I mean. When I say VC, I mean riding as a car, in the middle of the lane. Sure, we usually ride on the right lane, but we don't need any other lanes. Bike lanes separate cyclists from cars; therefore, you are not riding as a car.

No, I did not misunderstand... that was why I chose "other." True VC is not "riding as a car in the middle of the lane..." It is keeping to the right as a slower vehicle, and chosing the proper lane position for the immediate destination... amoung other things which I outlined.

This is exactly where some of the vitrol between some VC proponents and others exist. VC is NOT always taking a lane, but some seem to preach that it is. VC is not anti-bike lane, but some seem to preach that it is. (Sidenote: this is not an endorsement of all bike lanes either, so don't that idea either)


VC means going in the same direction as all other traffic, merging, signaling, keeping to the right as any other slow vehicle, and acting just like any other vehicle by using the proper lanes to turn, or to travel across intersections to ultimately arrive at the desired destination. There is no exclusion of the use of Bike Lanes, nor requirement to travel full time in the middle of any other lane. One should simply use that part of the lane and roadway that is optimal for the immediate destination and in doing so, should act like any other user of the roadway, negotiating, acquiring and conceding ROW where appropriate.

The reality is that VC means going in the same direction as all other traffic, merging, signaling, keeping to the right as any other slow vehicle, and acting just like any other vehicle by using the proper lanes to turn, or to travel across intersections to ultimately arrive at the desired destination. There is no exclusion of the use of Bike Lanes, nor requirement to travel full time in the middle of any other lane. One should simply use that part of the lane and roadway that is optimal for the immediate destination and in doing so, should act like any other user of the roadway, negotiating, acquiring and conceding ROW where appropriate.
In other (shorter) words, VC means cycling in accordance to the vehicular rules of the road.


When I say VC, I mean riding as a car, in the middle of the lane. Sure, we usually ride on the right lane, but we don't need any other lanes. Bike lanes separate cyclists from cars; therefore, you are not riding as a car.
Thanks for clarifying what you meant by VC in the poll, and that's a common misunderstanding, but that's certainly not how it is normally defined.

VC does not mean "riding as a car". VC does not stand for "Car Cycling", it stands for Vehicular Cycling. There are many types of vehicles other than cars that have the right to travel on our roadways, and must obey the same vehicular rules of the road. From horse and buggy to tractor trailers, it's all vehicles. Same rules. Same rights. Same roads. VC is about riding in accordance to the same rules that every other vehicle driver does.

This is from the Wikipedia entry on "Vehicular Cycling" (which I wrote):


Misconceptions About VC

There is considerable confusion expressed on the internet about the meaning of vehicular cycling. Some people mistakenly describe VC as, "cycling as if you're a car". But bicycles are not cars, and the vehicular rules of the road apply to not just cars, but all kinds of vehicles, from horse and buggies to tractor trailers, and everything in between, including bicycles. Some rules have more relevance to drivers of some vehicles than to others because of unique physical and operational characteristics of some vehicles. For example, because of the narrow nature of motorcycles, motorcyclists can often share (split) lanes that are too narrow for two standard width vehicles to share. This is also true for bicyclists, whose vehicles also have the narrow characteristic. Truck drivers require special training, as do bus and taxi drivers, and motorcyclists. Some people advocate special training for cyclists to learn vehicular cycling, such as the Effective Cycling program. One of the main vehicular rules that has special application to cyclists riding on roadways is that drivers of slower vehicles should keep to the side (when safe and reasonable) between intersections, though many people forget that at intersections and their approaches lane position should be selected according to destination. Cyclists who ride in the center of a lane needlessly impeding faster traffic are sometimes mistakenly referred to as vehicular cyclists; yet by definition a cyclist who needlessly impedes faster traffic is violating the vehicular rules of the road and is hence not riding vehicularly. Another misconception about VC -- that riding in bike lanes is non-vehicular -- probably stems from Forester's opposition to bike lanes. But Forester himself has written and said countless times that riding vehicularly often involves riding in bike lanes, when the bike lane happens to coincide with the appropriate place to cycle for the given factors and conditions. So VC does not require staying out of bike lanes all the time.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicular_cycling

Serge

This puts you on the defensive at every intersection where an auto exists, even if you look right into the eyes of that driver.

Whether as a pedestrian, a cyclist or a motorist, "defensive" is my modus operandi :D

VC is NOT always taking a lane, but some seem to preach that it is. VC is not anti-bike lane, but some seem to preach that it is.
Gene, do you know of any VC advocates who preach that VC is always taking the lane, or that VC means never riding in a bike lane?

By the way, do not confuse being opposed to all bike lanes (as I am) with being opposed to using bike lanes when they exist and it being safe, appropriate, reasonable to use them (which I am not).

Serge

Do cars yield to you at intersections? I always have problems trying to concentrate on riding with one hand, signaling left so I can get in the middle of the lane at the intersection, and looking back at the same time. One of these days, I will hit some car on the right or lose control and wipe out from having too many things to worry about.
I rarely use my hand to signal... looking back over the shoulder is usually all that is required. You do have to learn how to look ahead, make sure it's safe to look away for a moment, and then look back, and only for as long as it is safe to look back. Like anything else, once you do it enough times you get a feel for it, it becomes a habit, and you can do it automatically without wasting precious conscious cycles doing it.

I checked off "other" - I try to drive my bike VC if it is practical; however, when there's alot of (car) traffic, and no shoulder, I'll go to the sidewalk. there are other situations where I may not be VC, but I'd say I'm about 80-90% VC and the rest is whatever is convenient for me at the particular time based on road conditions (and my mood).

Boy am I glad you told me that. I had it all backwards. You see, 95% of my transportation needs since 1976 have been taken care of either on a motorcycle or bicycle. I have been hit from behind twice in a car. I have never been hit from behind on a motorcycle or bicycle. My overwhelming personal data indicates you are wrong concerning being hit from behind.

Other data indicates motorcycles are in more accidents either because of their excess speed and/or other motorist do not see them as they approach and pull out in front of the motorcyclist.

The studies I have seen indicate adult VC cycling is much safer than motoring. Most studies that come to a different conclusion include child cyclist and non-VC cyclist.


Oddly enough the most common motorcycle/auto accident is where a motor vehicle makes a left across and in front of a motorcycle. So you are saying that these are typically the fault of the motorcyclist due to excessive speed?

Gene, do you know of any VC advocates who preach that VC is always taking the lane, or that VC means never riding in a bike lane?



Not specifically... however that is not what I said.

I did say that it does not mean always taking the middle of the lane... where as others think otherwise:


When I say VC, I mean riding as a car, in the middle of the lane.



By the way, do not confuse being opposed to all bike lanes (as I am) with being opposed to using bike lanes when they exist and it being safe, appropriate, reasonable to use them (which I am not).

Serge

The reality is that there is no connection between VC and the desire to abolish Bike Lanes... There are however, misheld perceptions that Bike Lanes reduce the rights of cyclists to use the entire roadway... (and in one state is is actually a law) and there is the ugly truth that many bike lanes are poorly designed or really should not exist. None of the above however precludes the demise of "all bike lanes now and forever."

Gene, given that motorcyclists are about as unlikely to be seen as are bicyclists in a left hook situation, it should be no surprise that motorcyclists are in more danger since they are typically traveling faster.

Whether as a pedestrian, a cyclist or a motorist, "defensive" is my modus operandi :D

Which then puts you in a constant state of stress... Not really a pleasent situation.

Do you believe that motor vehicle drivers are constantly in defensive mode?

How about walkers on trails or cyclists on isolated (not multiuse) paths?

Gene, given that motorcyclists are about as unlikely to be seen as are bicyclists in a left hook situation, it should be no surprise that motorcyclists are in more danger since they are typically traveling faster.


Agreed, but is the blame due to excessive speed, as was suggested by CBHI, or is it possible that the motorcyclist smaller cross section is sometimes overlooked by motorists that only see 4 wheeled box type vehicles?

Gene,

You wrote: "VC is NOT always taking a lane, but some seem to preach that it is." (post #56)

So I wrote: "Gene, do you know of any VC advocates who preach that VC is always taking the lane, ..." (post #59)

Then you wrote: "however that is not what I said. ... I did say that it does not mean always taking the middle of the lane..." (#63)

When you used the term preach with respect to claims made that "VC is always taking the lane", to whom were you referring, if not VC advocates?


The reality is that there is no connection between VC and the desire to abolish Bike Lanes..
No connection, except that the anti-bike lane movement is dominated by vehicular cycling advocates. Gee, I wonder why. LOL!


There are however, misheld perceptions that Bike Lanes reduce the rights of cyclists to use the entire roadway...
Are you claiming that bicyclists in CA have the same right to use the entire roadway as do, say, moped riders (who are allowed but never required to use bike lanes)?

Serge

In other (shorter) words, VC means cycling in accordance to the vehicular rules of the road.



Yes, however, due to the use of the term "vehicular" and the association in many peoples' minds of "vehicle" to "car," I then went on to give a more descriptive definition, as you also did, below. Comparing a bicycle "vehicle" to a any other wide 4 wheel "vehicle" paints a bit of a deceptive picture in the minds of some, that they must act like a car. In fact, a bicycle "vehicle" is much more like a motorcycle "vehicle" in that the lane can be shared with other "vehicles." This usually is not the case with a "cement truck" or a "horse drawn wagon," which, while slow, are NOT also NARROW.



Thanks for clarifying what you meant by VC in the poll, and that's a common misunderstanding, but that's certainly not how it is normally defined.

VC does not mean "riding as a car". VC does not stand for "Car Cycling", it stands for Vehicular Cycling. There are many types of vehicles other than cars that have the right to travel on our roadways, and must obey the same vehicular rules of the road. From horse and buggy to tractor trailers, it's all vehicles. Same rules. Same rights. Same roads. VC is about riding in accordance to the same rules that every other vehicle driver does.

This is from the Wikipedia entry on "Vehicular Cycling" (which I wrote):


Misconceptions About VC

There is considerable confusion expressed on the internet about the meaning of vehicular cycling. Some people mistakenly describe VC as, "cycling as if you're a car". But bicycles are not cars, and the vehicular rules of the road apply to not just cars, but all kinds of vehicles, from horse and buggies to tractor trailers, and everything in between, including bicycles. Some rules have more relevance to drivers of some vehicles than to others because of unique physical and operational characteristics of some vehicles. For example, because of the narrow nature of motorcycles, motorcyclists can often share (split) lanes that are too narrow for two standard width vehicles to share. This is also true for bicyclists, whose vehicles also have the narrow characteristic. Truck drivers require special training, as do bus and taxi drivers, and motorcyclists. Some people advocate special training for cyclists to learn vehicular cycling, such as the Effective Cycling program. One of the main vehicular rules that has special application to cyclists riding on roadways is that drivers of slower vehicles should keep to the side (when safe and reasonable) between intersections, though many people forget that at intersections and their approaches lane position should be selected according to destination. Cyclists who ride in the center of a lane needlessly impeding faster traffic are sometimes mistakenly referred to as vehicular cyclists; yet by definition a cyclist who needlessly impedes faster traffic is violating the vehicular rules of the road and is hence not riding vehicularly. Another misconception about VC -- that riding in bike lanes is non-vehicular -- probably stems from Forester's opposition to bike lanes. But Forester himself has written and said countless times that riding vehicularly often involves riding in bike lanes, when the bike lane happens to coincide with the appropriate place to cycle for the given factors and conditions. So VC does not require staying out of bike lanes all the time.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicular_cycling

Serge

If you don't associate VC with riding in the middle of the lane with cars, then VC, in your definition genec, is just another word for commuting or cycling. I can say I commute to work on my bike, and this could mean I ride on the sidewalk, in bike lanes, or in the middle of lanes. If you need the term to be clearer, how about we use VMC now, vehicular motor cycling?

Edit: sorry, I am just using VC in this thread for my benefit. I want to know how many people ride with cars in the middle of the lane, all the time. Ok, with the exception of turning right and hitting the bike lane and such.

Gene,

You wrote: "VC is NOT always taking a lane, but some seem to preach that it is." (post #56)

So I wrote: "Gene, do you know of any VC advocates who preach that VC is always taking the lane, ..." (post #59)

Then you wrote: "however that is not what I said. ... I did say that it does not mean always taking the middle of the lane..." (#63)

When you used the term preach with respect to claims made that "VC is always taking the lane", to whom were you referring, if not VC advocates?



Gee, seems to me this whole poll is about riding in the middle of the lane and thus taking that whole lane... which is exactly what powertoold stated. Sounds like he is preaching the use of the whole lane "in accordance with VC." (which it is not!)



No connection, except that the anti-bike lane movement is dominated by vehicular cycling advocates. Gee, I wonder why. LOL!



However, VC does not mean NOT riding in bike lanes, there is no exclusion of bike lanes in the VC method. There is in John Forester's mind... and that falsehood has simply been promalgated by some VC advocates.



Are you claiming that bicyclists in CA have the same right to use the entire roadway as do, say, moped riders (who are allowed but never required to use bike lanes)?

Serge

Yup... as long as they need to... if there is no need, then they should stay on the right and use the bike lane, if provided. If however, they need to set up for a turn or intersection, move to avoid hazards, or make a left turn or meet or exceed the speed of other traffic, (all reasons to move away from the right side of the road) then there is no limitation to do so.

Can you tell me a reason not to use a bike lane, other than what I mentioned? (hazards, intersections, turns, and speed)

Can you tell me a reason not to be on the right side of the road (not in the gutter, but about 3-4 feet from the right of the edge of the road... ) except for the reasons I mentioned? (hazards, intersections, turns, and speed)

How about "Yes: except under very exceptional circumstances, about 99% of the time". Had to answer "Other" because I cannot go with the VC purist response.

I think you misunderstood my intentions for this poll Genec. The poll options hint at what I mean. When I say VC, I mean riding as a car, in the middle of the lane. Sure, we usually ride on the right lane, but we don't need any other lanes. Bike lanes separate cyclists from cars; therefore, you are not riding as a car.

I agree with Gene. You over-emphasize the "as" to mean "same as" a car. I can still ride vehicularly and not ride my bike like drivers drive a car, eg. in the same space on the street as a car. Your assumption that we don't need any other lanes . . . EVER . . . does not logically flow from riding a bicycle vehicularly, at least to me.

If you don't associate VC with riding in the middle of the lane with cars, then VC, in your definition genec, is just another word for commuting or cycling. I can say I commute to work on my bike, and this could mean I ride on the sidewalk, in bike lanes, or in the middle of lanes. If you need the term to be clearer, how about we use VMC now, vehicular motor cycling?

Edit: sorry, I am just using VC in this thread for my benefit. I want to know how many people ride with cars in the middle of the lane, all the time. Ok, with the exception of turning right and hitting the bike lane and such.

Hey I commute, I use VC (and have for years, actually) and I just completed Road 1 training which verified that I have been properly using VC. I rarely operate in the middle of the lane... in fact tend to avoid it due to grease buildup. I often operate in the right tire track... in particular I do this on roads that do not offer Bike Lanes and especially where parked cars may exist.

Where I ride does not preclude other vehicles ability to share the same lane, where possible. However, they do not have the right to cut me off and must make sure that they have the clear ability to safely pass me... this is done by either that vehicle taking part of my lane and the lane to the left (as is often done) or by that vehicle simply moving to the lane to the left.

I ride as a motorcyclist would... and in the manner I ride, another cycliest or motorcyclist could easily share my lane... this is not possible if I were riding in the MIDDLE of the lane.

In the rare case of a very narrow lane, I would probably ride closer to the middle to preclude any vehicles passing me. I also often ride in the left tire track in order to set up for a left turn. Again, I rarely ride in the middle.

Riding on the right tire track sounds good. Have cars ever tried to squeeze by you even when there are cars to the left though?

Where I ride, there are poor excuses for bike lanes. Excluding the gutter, which is about 1 foot across, the bike lane is only 2 feet across, so I basically have to ride in the lane.

If you don't associate VC with riding in the middle of the lane with cars, then VC, in your definition genec, is just another word for commuting or cycling. I can say I commute to work on my bike, and this could mean I ride on the sidewalk, in bike lanes, or in the middle of lanes. If you need the term to be clearer, how about we use VMC now, vehicular motor cycling?

Edit: sorry, I am just using VC in this thread for my benefit. I want to know how many people ride with cars in the middle of the lane, all the time. Ok, with the exception of turning right and hitting the bike lane and such.
Redefining VC to mean riding in the middle of the lane is very confusing, since it is contrary to standard usage of the term, and invalidates the data in this poll. If you wanted to ask how often folks ride in the center of the lane, then you should have asked that, rather than asking whether folks ride in accordance to the vehicular rules of the road (which is what you're asking when you ask who rides "vehicularly", and how often).


However, VC does not mean NOT riding in bike lanes, there is no exclusion of bike lanes in the VC method.
Agreed.


There is in John Forester's mind...
False.

John Forester, nor any other VC advocate that I know of, including the staunchest of the anti-BLers (Forester is a moderate in the anti-BL world, believe it or not), holds that VC means not riding in bike lanes. Unless you have evidence to the contrary, please stop spreading this falsehood.


Sounds like [powertoold] is preaching the use of the whole lane "in accordance with VC." (which it is not!)
Since powertoold is clearly not a VC advocate, nor even an advocate use using the whole lane, I find it odd that you refer to his misuse of the term VC as "preaching". I think my first interpretation, that you were referring to VC advocates, and which you confirmed in post #70 (quoted above), was accurate.


and that falsehood has simply been promalgated by some VC advocates.
Once again, can you find even one example of any VC advocate claiming that VC means NOT riding in bike lanes? If not, please stop spreading this falsehood.


Can you tell me a reason not to use a bike lane, other than what I mentioned? (hazards, intersections, turns, and speed)
Sure. For one, to improve sight lines (both from the cyclist to potential hazards, not just known hazards, and from drivers in potential conflict to the cyclist).

For the record, when I say the "center" or "middle" of a lane, I mean somewhere between the left and right track of where cars generally drive in the given lane. Differentiating between the exact center, and the right tire track, is hardly relevant to the issue of whether you are using the full lane or not. Using the full lane means you're in a position that precludes cars in particular from being able to fully fit into the lane next to you. Other bicyclists or even motorcyclists may still be able to fit even though you are "using the full lane".

Serge

Riding on the right tire track sounds good. Have cars ever tried to squeeze by you even when there are cars to the left though?

It is something of an art, though easily learned, especially if you use a mirror, to find the "sweet spot" in the lane that's far enough right to not inhibit passing car drivers from at least partially using your lane to pass, without being so far right that they try to fully squeeze in. Basically, you have to learn to be able to visualize how you appear to motorists approaching from behind, what your lane position communicates to them, and adjust it accordingly.

Sometimes the right track is far enough left, sometimes you have to go a bit further left, depending on lane width and other factors.

Serge

Riding on the right tire track sounds good. Have cars ever tried to squeeze by you even when there are cars to the left though?

Where I ride, there are poor excuses for bike lanes. Excluding the gutter, which is about 1 foot across, the bike lane is only 2 feet across, so I basically have to ride in the lane.

So bad bike lane designs exist... and unless we as a group demand better, they will continue to exist. Sadly bike lanes also exist where they really should not. But what other voice is available to tell designers what to do? The MUTCD does a terrible job at offering bike lane designs... And yet is is the key document.

Where I ride, on the right tire track, there is no room for a wide vehicle to pass me without sharing a left lane or changing lanes; if they do try, I give them a left arm down stop signal.

"So bad bike lane designs exist... and unless we as a group demand better, they will continue to exist. Sadly bike lanes also exist where they really should not. But what other voice is available to tell designers what to do? The MUTCD does a terrible job at offering bike lane designs..." -Gene C, a bicycle segregation apologist, missing the point.


"So bad water fountain designs exists... and unless we as a group demand better, they will continue to exist. Sadly, water fountains exist where they really should not. But what other voice is available to tell designers what to do? The City does a terrible job at offering separate but equal fountain designs..." - A racial segregation apologist, missing the point.

"So bad bike lane designs exist... and unless we as a group demand better, they will continue to exist. Sadly bike lanes also exist where they really should not. But what other voice is available to tell designers what to do? The MUTCD does a terrible job at offering bike lane designs..." -Gene C, a bicycle segregation apologist, missing the point.


"So bad water fountain designs exists... and unless we as a group demand better, they will continue to exist. Sadly, water fountains exist where they really should not. But what other voice is available to tell designers what to do? The City does a terrible job at offering separate but equal fountain designs..." - A racial segregation apologist, missing the point.
So now you're equating support for bike lanes to support for racial segregation. That's offensive. There is no comparison. Will you stop at nothing?

Redefining VC to mean riding in the middle of the lane is very confusing, since it is contrary to standard usage of the term, and invalidates the data in this poll. If you wanted to ask how often folks ride in the center of the lane, then you should have asked that, rather than asking whether folks ride in accordance to the vehicular rules of the road (which is what you're asking when you ask who rides "vehicularly", and how often).



John Forester, nor any other VC advocate that I know of, including the staunchest of the anti-BLers (Forester is a moderate in the anti-BL world, believe it or not), holds that VC means not riding in bike lanes. Unless you have evidence to the contrary, please stop spreading this falsehood.



Boy that was a twisted sentence... Sorry, but I cannot gramatically determine if you are saying "1) VC advocates believe it is OK to ride in BL" or "2) VC advocates believe it is NOT OK to ride in BL?"

If it is "1)," then why the anti-BL attitude, and why not work to improve BL rather than staunch dismissal?



Since powertoold is clearly not a VC advocate, nor even an advocate use using the whole lane, I find it odd that you refer to his misuse of the term VC as "preaching". I think my first interpretation, that you were referring to VC advocates, and which you confirmed in post #70 (quoted above), was accurate.

Once again, can you find even one example of any VC advocate claiming that VC means NOT riding in bike lanes? If not, please stop spreading this falsehood.



Gee, I guess it was simply because the two are so often intermixed that I made that conclusion... I have yet to see a pro-VC presentation of any kind that did not contain some anti-BL message.


Sure. For one, to improve sight lines (both from the cyclist to potential hazards, not just known hazards, and from drivers in potential conflict to the cyclist).


This in of itself is a conflict as the BL stripe moves motorists over to the left and sets them up to avoid anyone to their right, and gives notice that cyclists may exist in the traffic up ahead. Regarding hazards... different areas have different hazards which may or may not exist in BL, such as the travel lane broken pavement so previlent here in southern Cal, verses the beach sand and tree droppings in the BL in the north east.



For the record, when I say the "center" or "middle" of a lane, I mean somewhere between the left and right track of where cars generally drive in the given lane. Differentiating between the exact center, and the right tire track, is hardly relevant to the issue of whether you are using the full lane or not. Using the full lane means you're in a position that precludes cars in particular from being able to fully fit into the lane next to you. Other bicyclists or even motorcyclists may still be able to fit even though you are "using the full lane".

Serge

I know what you mean, as we have discussed the fine points of exact location in a lane, however other cyclists may not understand that "middle" does not mean middle... just as some associate "vehicle" with "car."

I've been following the thread Serge started for a while now, but it doesn't seem like many people actually do VC. I'm curious about how many of you actually cycle vehicularly or plan to, and why.

I just got a road bike a few weeks ago and plan on cycling to places where I won't have to carry much cargo back. Recently, I find that I don't like driving anymore. For some reason, every time I drive, I become frustrated and disappointed. It could be all the gases I see rising from cars on a hot day or the smell of oil and tires when I open my window or just the fact that all I see is a bunch of lifeless and impatient metal. This is why I want to bike; it feels much more fresh, healthy, open, and unconfined. Of course, the problem is: cyclists are a very small minority, and the fact is, not many people even know cyclists' rights. Heck, I didn't even know that cyclists are allowed to ride vehicularly until I read these forums. If I saw one a year ago on the streets, I would be pissed off or think he's stupid and crazy, to tell the truth. So here comes the problem:

Even though San Jose has bike lanes on almost every major road, I don't feel very safe riding in bike lanes, especially when approaching an intersection where there is a right turn lane. There is a sense of being trapped on the right. When I get close to the intersection, I can't all of a sudden move out of the bike lane to go straight because there are cars to my left who want to turn right and are most likely not going to yield to me. The solution is, of course, riding vehicularly so that everyone sees me and has to slow down regardless of my intentions. However, when I ride vehicularly, I always feel guilty about being an inconvenience to cars (yes, I've read all the posts about being an inconvenience and such but still can't get over it). So here I am, stuck in the VC dilemma: if I drive, I feel bad, but if I bike in the bike lanes, I don't feel safe.


Bike lanes and the like are just not suited to travling at speed. IMHO these path are only good to about 12-15mph w/o Peds but as soon as they start to show up speeds need to drop to 10-12mph at the most. Why is it that the big rule the road and the little rule the paths?

So now you're equating support for bike lanes to support for racial segregation. That's offensive. There is no comparison. Will you stop at nothing?

What's offensive to me is your apparent inability to distinguish comparing different types of segregation from equating them.

Segregation has effects. We segregate restrooms by sex in our culture. That has an effect. Whether the effect is sufficiently detrimental in terms of affecting women's rights to warrant concern and action is difficult to measure, and is arguable. Never-the-less, you cannot deny that there is an effect.

Same with bike lanes. It is difficult to deny that the existence of bike lanes helps foster the "get in the bike lane" attitude held by many motorists (regardless of how inappropriate cycling in the bike lane may be for a cyclist in a given circumstance).

Denying the segregationist effect of bike lanes on the attitudes of cyclists as well as motorists regarding the rights of cyclists in traffic, and instead focusing on "making bike lanes better" (which misses the point, like focussing on making "separate but equal" water fountains "better" would be missing the point) is not helpful to the discussion, and all I was trying to underscore.

I did not mean to offend anyone, and, if I did, I'm sorry.

Serge

Boy that was a twisted sentence... Sorry, but I cannot gramatically determine if you are saying "1) VC advocates believe it is OK to ride in BL" or "2) VC advocates believe it is NOT OK to ride in BL?"

If it is "1)," then why the anti-BL attitude, and why not work to improve BL rather than staunch dismissal?
Yes, I really botched that. Sorry. Never-the-less, you are correct, it's "1". The answer to your question is the point I've been trying to make about the segregated water fountains. Just like improving separate but equal water fountains does not solve the segregationist water fountain problem, improving bike lanes does not solve the segregationist bike lane problem.

Improving bike lanes only addresses a tiny aspect of the problem with bike lanes, just like improving separate and unequal water fountains to be separate but equal would only be addressing a tiny aspect of the problem with separate water fountains.




For one, to improve sight lines...
This in of itself is a conflict as the BL stripe moves motorists over to the left ...

Do you understand how moving left out of the bike lane improves sight lines to and from the cyclist? Or are you denying this?


[bike lane] sets [motorists] up to avoid anyone to their right

Which addresses, at best, less than 1% of car-bike collisions, especially in day light.


gives notice that cyclists may exist in the traffic up ahead.
And puts cyclists out of the motorist's traffic lane so he need not be concerned with their presence up ahead, which is why motorists ignore bike lanes. Cyclists may or may not be up ahead regardless of the presence of a bike lane.

CPcyclist brings up a good (and new) point. Bike lanes are downright dangerous at speeds above around 15 mph. They put you too close to the edge of the roadway - too little evasion margin, especially considering if you are riding near the stripe motorists are likely passing by on your left just inches away (in their own lane). But try to leave the bike lane and see how well that is accepted by motorists (not to mention law enforcement). Good luck. And how do you "improve" bike lanes to solve this problem inherent with all bike lanes?

Do you understand how moving left out of the bike lane improves sight lines to and from the cyclist? Or are you denying this?


In dense high speed traffic, there are no sight lines to improve... motorists cannot see far enough past the next car to be able to see you 3-4 autos ahead... moving slowly. They cannot react well enough. Keep the cars to the left to begin with and it is not a problem.

If there are gaps in this type of traffic, there is another motorist looking to fill it... and they have no clue that you are there.

CPcyclist brings up a good (and new) point. Bike lanes are downright dangerous at speeds above around 15 mph. They put you too close to the edge of the roadway - too little evasion margin, especially considering if you are riding near the stripe motorists are likely passing by on your left just inches away (in their own lane). But try to leave the bike lane and see how well that is accepted by motorists (not to mention law enforcement). Good luck. And how do you "improve" bike lanes to solve this problem inherent with all bike lanes?

CP is actually discussing paths... as he specifically mentions "peds." I have no problem going 22MPH in a lane. Heck I can go 22MPH on some one else's wheel... why would a 5 foot wide lane be an issue?

I also have no problem leaving bike lanes... I simply signal and move over... the same as I would do in a WOL... But of course in the WOL, I have had to "negotiate" with each and every motorist that wanted to pass me...

Do you understand how moving left out of the bike lane improves sight lines to and from the cyclist? Or are you denying this?

In dense high speed traffic, there are no sight lines to improve...
I'll take that as a "no". It's not the sight lines between the cyclist and traffic from behind that are an issue in car-bike collisions... it's the sight lines between the cyclist and potential cross traffic.



But of course in the WOL, I have had to "negotiate" with each and every motorist that wanted to pass me...
When the term "negotiate" is used with respect to traffic cycling, it is meant to convey the communication required in order for the cyclist to obtain right-of-way from faster traffic to merge left. I don't understand what you mean by a need to "'negotiate' with each and every motorist that wanted to pass" while traveling straight (and not merging left) in a WOL, though I have seen Brian Ratliff use the term in this context as well. Can you explain it to me?

As to what CP really meant ... it is irrelevant. Regardless, his point is well taken. "Bike lanes and the like are just not suited to travling at speed."

I disagree with you that 22 mph is safe in a bike lane - it's too narrow. If you're in the center of the bike lane, you're only 1.5-2 feet from the edge of the roadway. If you're further left, you're even closer to passing traffic that is staying fully within its lane. That's just not enough safety margin, on either side. And that's in the "good" bike lanes.

Serge

I'll take that as a "no". It's not the sight lines between the cyclist and traffic from behind that are an issue in car-bike collisions... it's the sight lines between the cyclist and potential cross traffic.
Serge

On high speed roads there are often few intersections (and these are generally light controlled) from which "potential cross traffic" can enter... however, you are at the mercy of lane changers.

For the umpteenth time, Gene, the argument against bike lanes is that whatever benefits bike lanes may bring to cyclists, including on high speed roads with few intersections, they are dwarfed by the drawbacks (including but not limited to debris collection, segregationist thinking on the part of cyclists as well as motorists, the spreading of freeway mentality to non-freeway roads, etc. etc.).

If this helps, the scoreboard is something like this:

Benefits of bike lanes to cyclists: 3
Drawbacks of bike lanes to cyclists: 1,642



I'm just making up those numbers, of course, because it is so difficult to quantify the value of the benefits and drawbacks of bike lanes. I'm just trying to illustrate what is meant by "whatever benefits bike lanes may bring to cyclists, including on high speed roads with few intersections, they are dwarfed by the drawbacks."

When the term "negotiate" is used with respect to traffic cycling, it is meant to convey the communication required in order for the cyclist to obtain right-of-way from faster traffic to merge left. I don't understand what you mean by a need to "'negotiate' with each and every motorist that wanted to pass" while traveling straight (and not merging left) in a WOL, though I have seen Brian Ratliff use the term in this context as well. Can you explain it to me?

As to what CP really meant ... it is irrelevant. Regardless, his point is well taken. "Bike lanes and the like are just not suited to travling at speed."

I disagree with you that 22 mph is safe in a bike lane - it's too narrow. If you're in the center of the bike lane, you're only 1.5-2 feet from the edge of the roadway. If you're further left, you're even closer to passing traffic that is staying fully within its lane. That's just not enough safety margin, on either side. And that's in the "good" bike lanes.

Serge

I am only talking about good bike lanes... nothing else is worth riding in... I consider the rest as simply road repairs yet to be made. :D

The "negotiation" is due to faster traffic wanting to pass you... and at a 25+ MPH difference, it comes often. The negotiation usually begins with a motorist hesitantly moving up on you... perhaps reving the engine, you give a slow down signal, they honk the horn... they try to go wide... a whole series of events... depending on the agressiveness of the motorist, the condition and width of the road and how cold their dinner is becoming. While there should be plenty of room for the motorist to simply pass you... they often don't, and thus ensues the "negotiation."

A classic example I had on Friday. I was going down Clairemont Mesa Blvd... just south of Regents (having just climbed that hill) I was in the right tire track (perhaps a bit closer to center) and basically holding my position as there were parked cars on my right. I was about the 3rd vehicle in a line waiting at the light. The first car behind me started with me at the light and as soon as there was room in the left lane, they moved over. The second car behind me soon split the lanes and went around me. Car 3 stayed behind for a bit as the left lane was full... they soon became frustrated (heck, I was only going 20 MPH in a 35... golly) They started the rev game. I held my position and signaled slow down. The left lane became open... they roared through as if to put out a fire... Vehicle 4 stayed behind me... we appoached the next light, and I rode up behind the "fire chief."

Now that was not an especially fast or busy road... imagine every 4th vehicle being "Mr fire chief" and you get the idea of "negotiation."

For the umpteenth time, Gene, the argument against bike lanes is that whatever benefits bike lanes may bring to cyclists, including on high speed roads with few intersections, they are dwarfed by the drawbacks (including but not limited to debris collection, segregationist thinking on the part of cyclists as well as motorists, the spreading of freeway mentality to non-freeway roads, etc. etc.).

If this helps, the scoreboard is something like this:

Benefits of bike lanes to cyclists: 3
Drawbacks of bike lanes to cyclists: 1,642



I'm just making up those numbers, of course, because it is so difficult to quantify the value of the benefits and drawbacks of bike lanes. I'm just trying to illustrate what is meant by "whatever benefits bike lanes may bring to cyclists, including on high speed roads with few intersections, they are dwarfed by the drawbacks."


Of course your made up statistics are just that, and they also point out that many of the bike lanes out there today are poorly designed. Many are laid out next to parked cars, are too narrow, and some are just plain stupid...

Such as this gem...

http://www.kunstler.com/eyesore_200404.JPG

hey, there's 6-12" wide of perfectly good bike lane there LOL

Gene, you are once again trying to divert attention from the general problems with separate but equal facilities by pointing out the specific problems with certain separate and unequal facilities, like the blatantly bad bike lane in your picture.

You, like the justices in the past who called for separate but equal facilities as a "solution", mean well but are missing the big picture.

I am only talking about good bike lanes... nothing else is worth riding in... I consider the rest as simply road repairs yet to be made. :D
Again, like the justices in the past who called for separate but equal facilities as a "solution", you mean well but are missing the big picture.



The "negotiation" is due to faster traffic wanting to pass you... and at a 25+ MPH difference, it comes often. The negotiation usually begins with a motorist hesitantly moving up on you... perhaps reving the engine, you give a slow down signal, they honk the horn... they try to go wide... a whole series of events... depending on the agressiveness of the motorist, the condition and width of the road and how cold their dinner is becoming. While there should be plenty of room for the motorist to simply pass you... they often don't, and thus ensues the "negotiation."
Sounds like you're talking about a road with an outside lane too narrow to be safely shared (indeed, this is confirmed below).


A classic example I had on Friday. I was going down Clairemont Mesa Blvd... just south of Regents (having just climbed that hill) I was in the right tire track (perhaps a bit closer to center) and basically holding my position as there were parked cars on my right. I was about the 3rd vehicle in a line waiting at the light. The first car behind me started with me at the light and as soon as there was room in the left lane, they moved over. The second car behind me soon split the lanes and went around me. Car 3 stayed behind for a bit as the left lane was full... they soon became frustrated (heck, I was only going 20 MPH in a 35... golly) They started the rev game. I held my position and signaled slow down. The left lane became open... they roared through as if to put out a fire... Vehicle 4 stayed behind me... we appoached the next light, and I rode up behind the "fire chief."

Now that was not an especially fast or busy road... imagine every 4th vehicle being "Mr fire chief" and you get the idea of "negotiation."
Nor did this road have an outside lane wide enough to be safely shared, obviously. There is a reason there are no bike lanes there (besides the good reasons)... there is not enough room to put in a bike lane without widening the road or at least restriping everything to make the outside lane wide enough to accomodate a bike lane.

Yes, there is your type of "negotation" on a road with an outside lane too narrow to be safely shared, of course. But you're comparing apples to oranges. That's a problem solved by widening the outside lane, not by adding a bike lane.

For a real example of a road with a WOL, take Balboa going east of Genesee... got any "negotiation" issues there (assuming you're going straight, not merging left)?

Serge

Originally Posted by CB HI
Other data indicates motorcycles are in more accidents either because of their excess speed and/or other motorist do not see them as they approach and pull out in front of the motorcyclist.

Oddly enough the most common motorcycle/auto accident is where a motor vehicle makes a left across and in front of a motorcycle. So you are saying that these are typically the fault of the motorcyclist due to excessive speed?

No. I did not use the word typically. My post states that speeding by the motorcyclist is a factor in many, not necessarily most of these accidents. It is also true that many but not necessarily most of these accidents are caused by a lack of attention by the automobile driver when making their left turn. Many but not necessarily most of these accidents may be caused by a combination of the two factors.

What's offensive to me is your apparent inability to distinguish comparing different types of segregation from equating them.Comparing or equating, call it what you want, it's offensive. If you think that kind of comparison is reasonable, then you live in a different world than I do.

I don't really care about bike lanes one way or the other but, I've got to tell you, that silly comparison to racial segregation is the worst argument anyone has presented.

I don't really care about bike lanes one way or the other but, I've got to tell you, that silly comparison to r****l segregation is the worst argument anyone has presented.Of course, there are other approaches for getting the point across which use words other than the "R" word. For example:
* Bicyclists - a group or class of people traveling on bicycles
* Bikelanes - "... for preferential or exclusive use by bicyclists."

Here are the definitions of three more relevant words (as can be found in most English dictionaries):
* Facilitate - to make easier; to help bring about
* Discriminate - to make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit
<discriminate in favor of your friends> <discriminate against a certain group>
* Segregation - the separation or isolation of a class or group by discriminatory means

The bad news: since bikelanes are intended to help separate a class or group of people on a basis other than the merit of each individual person, bikelanes facilitate segregation by definition.

The good news: bikelanes can be desegregated by removing the discriminatory signs/markings and changing the stripe from solid to broken (i.e., dashed).

Note: this post is "R" word free :)

Again, like the justices in the past who called for separate but equal facilities as a "solution", you mean well but are missing the big picture.



Sounds like you're talking about a road with an outside lane too narrow to be safely shared (indeed, this is confirmed below).



Nor did this road have an outside lane wide enough to be safely shared, obviously. There is a reason there are no bike lanes there (besides the good reasons)... there is not enough room to put in a bike lane without widening the road or at least restriping everything to make the outside lane wide enough to accomodate a bike lane.

Yes, there is your type of "negotation" on a road with an outside lane too narrow to be safely shared, of course. But you're comparing apples to oranges. That's a problem solved by widening the outside lane, not by adding a bike lane.

For a real example of a road with a WOL, take Balboa going east of Genesee... got any "negotiation" issues there (assuming you're going straight, not merging left)?

Serge


These negotiation issues occur on other roads too, such as our favorite: Miramar Road. I chose the example of Clairemont as it had just occured to me. RE widening the outside lane still results in the "WTF" reaction of motorists that you presented some many many threads ago.

RE widening the outside lane still results in the "WTF" reaction of motorists that you presented some many many threads ago.
Well, the "WTF" reaction is much more likely to occur when a cyclist is using the full lane, which the other poll has established is quite often, than when a cyclist is keeping to the side of a wide lane.

Are you saying that there is an inherent problem with using the full lane because it causes the "WTF" reaction?

If the "WTF" reaction does not present a real and present danger to the cyclist whenever he uses the full lane, why worry about the lesser "wtf" reaction that may occur when he is keeping to the side in a wide lane?

You see, we keep coming back to the same point. The only basis for bike lanes is that there is something fundamentally wrong with cyclists sharing the same (high speed in your case) roadway with motorists. Let's take your latest example, Miramar Road. There are so many driveways westbound that I believe even you would agree cyclists would be better off there without a bike lane. Personally, I think there should be a 9' wide slow lane on the very right, that cyclists would ride down the center. Whether you agree or not, surely you agree that the eastbound bike lane is less problematic (far fewer turning conflicts). Would you agree that the basis for the eastbound bike lane is that there is something fundamentally wrong with mixing slow cyclists with faster eastbound traffic, and a bike lane stripe solves this "problem" by providing a distinctive separating facility by delineating a separate travel space of cyclists?

Now, consider the eastbound cyclist who needs to make a left turn. Now what? Without forgetting the basis for the bike lane, what is this cyclist to do? And what are motorists to think of him?

Now consider eastbound Miramar exactly as it exists today, except the bike lane stripe is missing. How is that any worse?

Serge

The good news: bikelanes can be desegregated by removing the discriminatory signs/markings and changing the stripe from solid to broken (i.e., dashed).As I said in the bike lane thread, it has always puzzled me that bike lane stripes are solid. They should be dashed.

Actually, I don't care a whole lot one way or the other about bike lanes. I mostly ignore the stripe. If I think it's safe to ride in the BL, I will. If I don't think it's safe, I won't. Big deal.

Of course, there are other approaches for getting the point across...Yea, I appreciate those other ways. Enough said.

As I said in the bike lane thread, it has always puzzled me that bike lane stripes are solid. They should be dashed.
The reason BL stripes are solid is to remind vehicle drivers that they are normally not allowed to drive in them and should treat them like shoulders, and to remind cyclists they are supposed to stay in them. This is why many consider bike lanes to have a segregation effect. In fact, that is their purpose (if it isn't segregation, then what is the purpose of bike lanes?).

Because segregation is the purpose, changing the stripes from solid to dashed makes no sense - it defeats their purpose.