Bike Lanes in Berlin...anything like that in the US?

[Helmet Head]

John... actually, the double-cross via Hidden Valley is usually faster, since they get the green before the left-turners on TP Rd. But I find that maneuver, I don't know, lacking elegance for lack of a better term. It doesn't feel right, like I'm a second-class user, or someone who isn't allowed in through the front entrance, but must sneak in through the side... But even practically speaking, either I have to cross the intersection on the far right, close to the front of those already stopped, and then stop and do the 90 degree left turn in place once I'm off to the right of them -- which is another problem, I like to be legitimately in front, but behind the stop line, or in line, not off to the side at a light -- or I turn right on Hidden Valley Rd, then U-turn and come back and take my place. I've tried it all, and I really prefer the method I use, even in heavy/fast commute-time traffic, that I describe in detail in the previous post.

Gene - I have never had anyone aggressively pull into the bike lane in front of me to "teach me a lesson" or whatever, and, if they did, the only recourse is what I would do in any case of assault, get their license plate and call 911.

I do hear revving engines ALL the time, but I attribute this to the fact that the relative difference in speed when they're behind from the speed they're trying to reach after they drive around me is high, and, so, they're using a lot of (loud) power to accelerate. I don't take it personally. Do you?

With all due respect, you seem inclined to interpreting all kind of motorist behavior that seems insignificant to me as evidence that "some drivers do not believe we belong on the roads", as if that "belief" matters. Personally, I don't give a rat's rear-end about what they believe, as long as they don't assault me. And if they ever assault me, I'll call 911. What's the problem?

[Helmet Head]

OK... now we get a bit of acknowledgement that perhaps your commute is not perfectly silky smooth. Honks are one thing... yes, by the honk you know that someone has seen you... positive thing. But as you pointed out, why?

Since it was an old lady... perhaps you can just ignore her... no problem. But when a honk is then backed up with some radical driving behaviour, then it can lead to a problem. Suppose that old lady aggressively then moved in front of you and at the "useless bike lane" cuts you off... pulls hard over to the right with her engine roaring (so you know it was not an innocent act) and then she continues on. Near miss. Not so friendly. (of course you would probably blame it on the BL... and dismiss the driver... ;) )

So my point... these behaviours are NOT what these motorists would do to fellow motorists. Sure, there is aggressive behaviour on the road, and road rage does exist, but beyond that, there is also a more targeted behaviour toward cyclists... which really should not exist if we were "fellow users of the road." We are not... at least in some eyes... we are simply obstructions to either be avoided or worse, "cleared out." We are no more than an errant dog in the way of the motorist... not a fellow vehicle user.

Now this doesn't happen all the time... but it does happen often enough that I remember it. And frankly, it is the radical driving behaviour, that someone had to go out of their way to do, that really exemplifies this sort of thing. I do NOT get the same treatment when I drive my car... so it is not location based, it is not roadway based, there is some other basis for this... Oh... I am on a bicycle. That's it, it is vehicle based.

Finally my point... this dismissive/aggressive (don't know what else to call it) behaviour also shows up as a lack of simple road use courtesy... we are not given the same courtesy on bikes that might be extended to a driver of a motor vehicle.

Why... I contend that some drivers do not believe we belong on the roads. Until that issue is cleared up... us cyclists, we will always be treated as 2nd class users by the motorists out there. And that dismissive behaviour also "checks us off" the list of "things that must be watched for" on the road. I honestly think some drivers would work harder to avoid a dog in the road then a cyclist. And THAT is my point.

Frankly I can dismiss it if it just a dumb move by someone... those happen... but when it is an agressive move motivated simply because someone does not want to deal with me on a bicycle in "their lane," on "their road," etc... that is the part that bothers me.
Rereading this, I can only say that it seems more about what you think of you as a cyclist, or what you think motorists think of you as a cyclist, then how motorists are actually treating you.

Try the following algorithm, which works for me...

if the motorist's behavior is assault with a deadly weapon THEN
call(911);
Else
ignore();
rideyourbikedammit();
end-if

[genec]

John... actually, the double-cross via Hidden Valley is usually faster, since they get the green before the left-turners on TP Rd. But I find that maneuver, I don't know, lacking elegance for lack of a better term. It doesn't feel right. Either I have to cross the intersection on the far right, close to the front of those already stopped, and then stop and do the 90 degree left turn in place once I'm off to the right of them -- which is another problem, I like to be legitimately in front, but behind the stop line, or in line, not off to the side at a light -- or I turn right on Hidden Valley Rd, then U-turn and come back and take my place. I've tried it all, and I really prefer the method I use, even in heavy/fast commute-time traffic, that I describe in detail in the previous post.

Gene - I have never had anyone aggressively pull into the bike lane in front of me to "teach me a lesson" or whatever, and, if they did, the only recourse is what I would do in any case of assault, get their license plate and call 911.

I do hear revving engines ALL the time, but I attribute this to the fact that the relative difference in speed when they're behind from the speed they're trying to reach after they drive around me is high, and, so, they're using a lot of (loud) power to accelerate. I don't take it personally. Do you?

With all due respect, you seem inclined to interpreting all kind of motorist behavior that seems insignificant to me as evidence that "some drivers do not believe we belong on the roads", as if that "belief" matters. Personally, I don't give a rat's rear-end about what they believe, as long as they don't assault me. And if they ever assault me, I'll call 911. What's the problem?


The "bike lane" issue was just an example of what could happen... perhaps not a great example, but just to illustrate my point.

Personally I wouldn't care one iota about their beliefs except for the fact that aggressive behaviour sometimes accompanies it... that behaviour you seem easy to dismiss, is the stuff that can hurt you.

I can just hear the 911 call now:
me: I was almost run over by a motorist while on AB road...
police: can you describe the vehicle and situation...
m: yes, I have the license plate number... I was riding my bike and...
p: riding a bike? on the road? and someone almost hit you... Ha! You idiots should just stay off the road... use a bike lane. Sheesh. Call me when there is a real problem. :rolleyes:
click.

The engine rev thing is more then just "power used to pass... " if the motorist does something like swoop from behind to just in front of you in a manner as to also cut off other drivers... handling the vehicle in a reckless way... that is aggressive behaviour.

Here is another illustration of "cyclist dismissive behaviour... " only in this case (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=140582) it is funny as the writer is targeting cyclists simply as "cyclists," when the problem could just be she doesn't get up early enough. "Those cyclists... "

Hey don't get me wrong, it's not as if this kind of thing happens on every ride... most of the time I have good rides, no issues. But the fact that this does occur, simply tells me that work needs to be done with motorists to increase their awareness that we are equal road users.

[genec]

Rereading this, I can only say that it seems more about what you think of you as a cyclist, or what you think motorists think of you as a cyclist, then how motorists are actually treating you.

Try the following algorithm, which works for me...

if the motorist's behavior is assault with a deadly weapon THEN
call(911);
Else
ignore();
rideyourbikedammit();
end-if

Nice, but the problem has nothing to do with how I think of myself as a cyclist... it is the behaviour that they exhibit that bothers me...

Put it another way... it is like someone just kicks you because you are a cyclist... Now is that right? No, it is a form of discrimination... and you wouldn't find that acceptable now would you?

[genec]

It is not 911 type stuff, it is more "now what the hell did they have go do and do that for" kinda stuff.

I have only been aggressively threatened a few times... perhaps 3 or 4 times in some 30 years of cycling. And I would be willing to bet alcohol was involved in 3 of those cases. (or was it three cases of alcohol --- in a Groucho Max voice... )

But the other stuff... which is probably easily forgotten... it just ticks me off... it is the kind of behaviour that comes from someone that really just doesn't care about you... as a human, simply because you are riding a bike.

"I can get away with this... that guy is just on a bike... screw him."

Yup... just rubs me the wrong way. $hitheads!

[sbhikes]

So my point... these behaviours are NOT what these motorists would do to fellow motorists. Sure, there is aggressive behaviour on the road, and road rage does exist, but beyond that, there is also a more targeted behaviour toward cyclists... which really should not exist if we were "fellow users of the road." We are not... at least in some eyes... we are simply obstructions to either be avoided or worse, "cleared out." We are no more than an errant dog in the way of the motorist... not a fellow vehicle user.

<snip>

Why... I contend that some drivers do not believe we belong on the roads. Until that issue is cleared up... us cyclists, we will always be treated as 2nd class users by the motorists out there.
Brilliant!

That's the heart of it all. All the VC and edudation of cyclists in the world doesn't make them understand we belong on the road as 1st class users. It's valuable, yes. But it isn't enough.

Educate the drivers. They shouldn't be allowed to drive around according to their beliefs. They need to understand the laws and drive accordingly.

[Helmet Head]

Until that issue is cleared up... us cyclists, we will always be treated as 2nd class users by the motorists out there.

Brilliant!

That's the heart of it all.


Brilliant indeed.
The heart of it all... well it's half of it. Perhaps that's why John Forester coined the phrase, "Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles".

I agree that education of cyclists alone does not make motorists understand we belong on the road.

But the best and only way to be treated like a 1st class user, a driver of a vehicle, is to ACT like a 1st class user, or driver of a vehicle.

There is NOTHING that educates motorists faster about cyclists being 1st class users of the road than SEEING cyclists ACT like 1st class users of the road.

Sure, some might not buy it the first time they see it. But by the time they see the 3rd or 4th cyclist acting vehicularly... it's going to start sinking in. That is human nature.

Unfortunately, there is nothing that strengthens their misinformed beliefs about cyclists being 2nd class users than seeing cyclists ACT like 2nd class users. Not only disobeying the laws, but generally staying out of the way like they don't belong, performing awkward left turns in 2 steps, riding in bike lanes, etc. etc... it all spells I'M A SECOND CLASS LOSER, I MEAN USER.

[sbhikes]

There is NOTHING that educates motorists faster about cyclists being 1st class users of the road than SEEING cyclists ACT like 1st class users of the road.

And yet we are all doing that and it's still not working.

Why even last night on our local news, after a story about a woman who was run over by a lady backing out in a parking lot (the cyclist was blamed), they showed pictures of cyclists riding according to the law but were saying how easy it is to spot cyclist scofflaws. One picture showed a cyclist riding in the left lane of a one-way street. Totally legal.

Law-abiding cyclists are having no effect in the face of so much rampant ignorance.

[genec]

Brilliant indeed.
The heart of it all... well it's half of it. Perhaps that's why John Forester coined the phrase, "Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles".

I agree that education of cyclists alone does not make motorists understand we belong on the road.

But the best and only way to be treated like a 1st class user, a driver of a vehicle, is to ACT like a 1st class user, or driver of a vehicle.

There is NOTHING that educates motorists faster about cyclists being 1st class users of the road than SEEING cyclists ACT like 1st class users of the road.

Sure, some might not buy it the first time they see it. But by the time they see the 3rd or 4th cyclist acting vehicularly... it's going to start sinking in. That is human nature.


You know I was thinking about this last night... and this is why it bugs me... I AM doing every thing I can to be that "driver of a vehicle" and then some clown comes along and does every thing they can to dispel that. It is not the threating stuff... you are right... that warrants a 911, and it is not the stupid stuff... the motorists that do that realize almost right away that they have messed up and you usually see the shrugs and slaps on the forehead that indicate that they know they messed up. Those I can live with or ignore.

It is the behaviour of dismissive-aggression that bothers me. It is me doing the right thing, signaling, maintaining position in traffic and acting like a driver of a vehicle, and then having someone do something that is so out of character for a driver of another vehicle, and aggressively, that bothers me.

It is not getting that last half of the Forester statement: "Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles." The "and are treated as drivers of vehicles... " part is what is abused. And frankly the "abuse" is often dangerous and or foolish behaviour on the part of some semi-braindead motorist.

That is exactly it. When one does the right thing and expects the right thing to be done in turn and you are instead "abused" by some jerk on the road...

I cannot put it any other way.

Frankly it makes me want to jerk the offender right out of their vehicle and ask them just what the heck they were thinking... And perhaps that is why it bothers me so much, as that is NOT what I do... :o I just roll on like "oh, nothing happened... " and it sticks like a burr under my saddle all day long...

Well, thanks for helping me exactly pin point the issue... that is exactly what it is.

[Helmet Head]

I don't know about anyone else, but I think this is a great discussion.




There is NOTHING that educates motorists faster about cyclists being 1st class users of the road than SEEING cyclists ACT like 1st class users of the road.

Sure, some might not buy it the first time they see it. But by the time they see the 3rd or 4th cyclist acting vehicularly... it's going to start sinking in. That is human nature.

Unfortunately, there is nothing that strengthens their misinformed beliefs about cyclists being 2nd class users than seeing cyclists ACT like 2nd class users. Not only disobeying the laws, but generally staying out of the way like they don't belong, performing awkward left turns in 2 steps, riding in bike lanes, etc. etc... it all spells I'M A SECOND CLASS LOSER, I MEAN USER.

And yet we are all doing that and it's still not working.
No, we are NOT all doing all that. I agree there is rampant ignorance, as reflected in the news story you saw, but my point is we cyclists are not doing our part in correcting that ignorance, so I, for one, am not surprised there is so much ignorance about cycling out there. If the ignorance is rampant within the cycling community, of course it's going to be rampant among the general public. It's in our interest that the ignorance be corrected, and we have the best means to effect it. But we must start with extinguishing the ignorance among us., before we can even hope to spread the knowledge to others. Examples:


John Eldon, a typical very experienced cyclist whom I respect, talks about doing left turns in 2 steps all the time, apparently dismissing the effect of doing so on miseducating motorists about cyclists being 2nd class users. When you act like a 2nd class user of the roadway space, others are going to see you as one, and treat you as one.
You, my friend, talk all the time about using bike lanes and staying off to the side to seek "your own space", even when moving left and sharing the same space with motorists would make you more visible and predictable. You, and the vast majority of other cyclists, seem oblivious to how asking for and using "your own space" miseducates motorists and others into thinking that cyclists are second class users of the roadway space that is used by motorists. Just the other day a friend of mine asked me why cyclists ride outside of the bike lane on 101. I started to explain (door zones, debris, turning left, passing others, etc. etc.), and he said, simply and logically, "I don't drive in their lane, why do they have to ride in mine? How can you argue with that? The very existence of bike lanes instills the notion that cyclists should have their own space, and, hence, are 2nd class users on the primary "motorist's space". Just by defending bike lanes here, much less riding in them, you are part of the massive miseducation of motorists, and contributing to the rampant ignorance. We can't have it both ways. Are we first class users of the roadway, all of the roadway, or do we need "our own space", where we're the 1st class users and motorists are 2nd, while we're 2nd on "their" space?
I look for cyclists acting like first class users all the time, and am pleased as punch whenever I see it. It's extremely rare, however. Most of the time cyclists are acting like 2nd class users of the roadway, keeping to the side, not daring to use the space that they obviously feel primarily belongs to motorists, and not to cyclists, waiting for a gap when motorists are not using it so they can quickly borrow it before anyone else needs it. That is the 2nd class behavior that the vast majority of cyclists model to motorists... can we blame motorists for believing that cyclists are 2nd class users when that's what cyclists themselves believe and teach through their own actions?

I could go on and on...

Bottom line: Cyclists are the teachers of motorists with regard to cyclists' rightful place on the roadway, and we're teaching the wrong lessons.

That's why I believe we need to teach the cyclists. That's what I'm trying to do here. We need to teach the cyclists so they can teach the motorists. The old adage "use it or lose it" applies quite well in this case, where "it" is roadway space. We need to use the roadway space, or we'll lose it.

We talke about "share the road" all the time, but what does it mean? What did sharing mean when you learned about it in Kindergarten? If you share a toy, does that mean you break it and give out the pieces? Of course not. It means one kid plays with it, then give it to another for their turn. That's how we should be sharing the road. Not "cyclists get this peice of the road and motorists get that piece of the road", but we share the road, meaning sometimes motorists get their turn, and sometimes cyclists get their turn, to the same space on the roadway. That's what sharing the road means to me. That's what being a 1st class user means to me. And that's not the model that most cyclists, including most participating in this thread, are teaching motorists.


That is exactly it. When one does the right thing and expects the right thing to be done in turn and you are instead "abused" by some jerk on the road...
You're putting the cart before the horse, my man. We know that there is "rampant ignorance" out there. Knowing that, why would you expect "the right thing to be done in turn"? Despite the rampant ignorance, you admit this kind of behavior is relatively rare. And that's what I was referring to when I said, "Sure, some might not buy it the first time they see it.".

Keep modeling the correct vehicular behavior. There are some slow learners in our class, that's for sure. They need to see more examples, and, right now, they're seeing far too few. In fact, I would say given how unusual vehicular cycling is in our culture, it's surprising how accepting motorists are of it. I'm amazed we don't have many more negative interactions than we do. Why do I run into only one "honking grandma" every 6 months or so? In La Jolla, you'd think I'd run into several every day! Considering how good we have it with so little proper teaching of motorists by cyclists, imagine how much better it would be if we had, say, 50% VC compliance by cyclists -- starting with much more full lane usage -- instead of the 2-3% compliance that I see.

With you this is beginning to seem more of a glass is "half full/empty" thing than anything else. I see the rarity of negative events as the glass being half full. We're moving in the right direction. I don't expect the "right thing to be done in turn" all the time, because I realize there is rampant ignorance out there, so I'm not bothered by the occasional exception. In fact, I'm pleased at how rare it is. My goal is to get cyclists to model the correct behavior, to set the correct motorist expectations, to reduce the incidence of "exceptions" even more.

You, on the other hand, seem to dismiss all the positive interactions, and focus only on the negative ones, saying "a ha" every time you experience one. That's the glass is half empty approach, Gene. Snap out of it. Start tracking the miles between negative incidents, and, when you have one, instead of working the burr deeper into your rear-end, celebrate how long it has been since the last negative interaction. In the mean time, keep modeling the correct behavior, and encouraging other cyclists to do the same.

[genec]

Well I hate to say it, but you do have a very valid point... these are rare events... most often things do work, and generally work well. I think perhaps that is why this sort of thing IS so shocking.

It is like going into a store and being kind and human to the help and expecting kindness back and suddenly you are confronted with a raging idiot clerk. It IS shocking. You suddenly are facing "gee, what did I do?"

That is why it does stick with me so... I begin to examine what I was doing and why the incident happened and what I might have done... Yeah, it shakes me up.

But in the long run, these are indeed rare events.

I guess the biggest issue is that the idiots (and yes I am using degrading terms on purpose) that do this, are doing whatever they do with 4000 pounds of emphasis. And that part does worry me. Kind of like being "gently slapped" by an elephant.

Yeah, it is a good conversation... wrong thread perhaps, but it is on a subject that does effect us all.

BTW this kind of thing tends to happen to me when BL are not involved, so I cannot say that they are a source or even contribute to this sort of thing. With BL I find that motorists just act dumb.. they are not sure if they should merge to turn or not... that is the biggest single issue that I see using BL.

The defiant "lack of respect-aggression" I have encountered when I am simply in the lane in place and quite frankly in a line with other vehicles. That is the thing that makes this really sad... at least with respect to the motorists that do it. And in "this case" I mean the sudden swooping from behind me to in front of me after horn honking/engine reving "saber rattling." The motorist doesn't gain any ground, they therefore have done nothing to improve their situation. They have only "vented" their frustrations about cyclists in dangerous angry ways. In every case I can recall, I have managed to stay right in place behind the offending motorist for quite some distance... or for several light changes. (much like that honking grandma... what or where did she expect you to go?)

I think your stated frequency is about the same as mine... maybe every 6 months or so. There might be one or two back to back and then things are just as they have always been.

It is one of those things though that makes me realize... oh yeah... they are out here... Riiiight.

[Helmet Head]

BTW this kind of thing tends to happen to me when BL are not involved, so I cannot say that they are a source or even contribute to this sort of thing
That's not surprising. It's not the bike lanes per se that are the problem. The root cause of treating cyclists as 2nd class users of the roadway is segregationist thinking of which bike lanes are only one manifestation.



The motorist doesn't gain any ground, they therefore have done nothing to improve their situation. They have only "vented" their frustrations about cyclists in dangerous angry ways. In every case I can recall, I have managed to stay right in place behind the offending motorist for quite some distance... or for several light changes. (much like that honking grandma... what or where did she expect you to go?)
Try to recognize that such a motorist is not as irrational as he may seem. He is simply acting in accordance to cyclo-segregationism - the belief that cyclists should have and be in their own space - a mentality that cyclists themselves promote. How much can you really blame him for thinking along the same lines? He just takes it to an extreme, believing that cyclists never belong in "his" (motorist) space, even when they don't have their own space. He justifies his behavior on the grounds that your behavior, using his space, is wrong, and he's just responding to your wrong behavior.

Some people believe that the solution is to keep adding more and more cyclist-exclusive (or cyclist-preferred) space, including Berlin-style sidepath facilities with cycle-specific lights, etc., but I believe doing so just contributes to making the root problem - the spread of cyclo-segregationism, the belief that cyclists should have and be in their own space - on the part of cyclists as well as motorists, even worse.

Instead, I believe the solution is to keep modeling cyclo-integrationism (vehicular cycling), including using the full lane when appropriate, to expect, and understand the source (cyclo-segregationism) of, the rare but unpleasant interactions when they happen, and to encourage other cyclists to do the same.

[sbhikes]

BTW this kind of thing tends to happen to me when BL are not involved

Me too. I get the most disrespect on high-speed roads that have no bike lane. High-speed being at least 35.

I get it on some residential streets, too, especially in neighborhoods where people have a lot of money.

[genec]

Well your statement had a bit of truth to it, but also seemed somewhat focused toward those that might be somewhat pro-BL. I really don't know how much the aggression issue is fueled by BL and or "segregation issues." I would hate to speculate until I had spoken to a few of these clowns. Certainly the last one I confronted, simply felt that I should have been "closer to the right... " and he was clearly wrong.

RE the sidepath issues... I don't see any advantage of those at all, never have.

Isolated paths however I do appreciate, and I even see the utility of "cycle-specific lights" where isolated paths meet streets.

[Helmet Head]

I really don't know how much the aggression issue is fueled by BL and or "segregation issues." I would hate to speculate until I had spoken to a few of these clowns. Certainly the last one I confronted, simply felt that I should have been "closer to the right... " and he was clearly wrong.
Read your own words, Gene. He "felt" that you should have been "closer to the right". Why? What is the source/justification of the "feeling" that you should be "closer to the right" if not the belief that cyclists should be separated/segregated from motorists? It's blatant cyclo-segregationism, as is the call for bike lanes.

[Helmet Head]

I get the most disrespect on high-speed roads that have no bike lane.
Well, duh. When you're in the bike lane, you're where you're supposed to be, in your own space segregated from motorists. What's to disrespect when you're properly staying off the roadway space reserved for the 1st class users?

When you're sitting in coach on an airliner, you generally don't get too much disrespect from the 1st class folks. But try to move into their space, say to use "their" bathroom, and see what kind of disrespect you'll get.

It's the same thing on the road. Motorists are 1st class, you're 2nd class, just like you want it. Just don't complain when they give you flack for trespassing on their space...

Bike lane use/promotion and motorist treatment of cyclists as 2nd class users of the road are the flip-sides of the same coin: cyclo-segregationism.

[Helmet Head]

I like bike lanes, I use bike lanes, I'll advocate for more bike lanes 'til the day I die.
I am a vehicular cyclist even though I ride in the bike lane. No matter what anybody's misleading statements suggest, one is not exclusive of the other.
Regarding your signature, Diane, as I've said many times before, riding in the bike lane is not necessarily exclusive of vehicular cycling, if the bike lane happens to be located in a roadway position where you would be riding regardless of the existence of the BL stripe.

What is exclusive of vehicular cycling is promoting bike lanes, because doing so promotes cyclo-segregationism, which is about as anti-VC as you can get.

[Brian Ratliff]

Regarding your signature, Diane, as I've said many times before, riding in the bike lane is not necessarily exclusive of vehicular cycling, if the bike lane happens to be located in a roadway position where you would be riding regardless of the existence of the BL stripe.

What's exclusive of vehicular cycling promoting bike lanes, because doing so promotes cyclo-segregationism, which is about as anti-VC as you can get.

How does vehicular cycling automatically rule out advocating bike lanes? Are there actual, registered Vehicular Cyclists, in the way there are registered Democrats and Republicans?

Should we, once and for all, make a distinction between vehicular cyclists (cyclists that practice vehicular cycling techniques) and Vehicular Cyclists (cyclists who subscribe to a certain political view of advocacy)? Perhaps we should follow the way of the political parties, where democratic (small 'd') is a system of government, and Democratic (large 'D') is one that holds with the views of a certain US political party.

Serge and some others are obviously Vehicular Cyclists, yet there are many here, myself included, who practice vehicular cycling, but do not subscribe to the Vehicular Cyclist's politics.

[genec]

Read your own words, Gene. He "felt" that you should have been "closer to the right". Why? What is the source/justification of the "feeling" that you should be "closer to the right" if not the belief that cyclists should be separated/segregated from motorists? It's blatant cyclo-segregationism, as is the call for bike lanes.

How about just that I was "in his way" as far as he was concerned. Sure motorists have this "segregation issue... " they don't want anybody on "their roads." The guy would probably yell at a horse drawn wagon too.

The guy probably thinks he pays for the road too... where does that come from?

Has nothing to do with BL.

[Helmet Head]

How does vehicular cycling automatically rule out advocating bike lanes? Are there actual, registered Vehicular Cyclists, in the way there are registered Democrats and Republicans?

Should we, once and for all, make a distinction between vehicular cyclists (cyclists that practice vehicular cycling techniques) and Vehicular Cyclists (cyclists who subscribe to a certain political view of advocacy)? Perhaps we should follow the way of the political parties, where democratic (small 'd') is a system of government, and Democratic (large 'D') is one that holds with the views of a certain US political party.

Serge and some others are obviously Vehicular Cyclists, yet there are many here, myself included, who practice vehicular cycling, but do not subscribe to the Vehicular Cyclist's politics.
You're right and I like the distinction.

At the same time, and using this distinction, I will say that Vehicular Cyclists recognize that advocating bike lanes promotes a cultural mentality of cyclo-segregationism that makes vehicular cycling less acceptable in our culture.

[genec]

What is exclusive of vehicular cycling is promoting bike lanes, because doing so promotes cyclo-segregationism, which is about as anti-VC as you can get.

I disagree... the whole anti-BL thing is about as dumb as the anti-mirror thing, yet they come from the same voice, the VC master himself... therefore those Fosterites that drank the koolaid, have adopted the whole message.

The biggest problem with BL is poor design and worst implementation... coupled with political motivation to "do something."

But then we have long covered this ground.

[Helmet Head]

How about just that I was "in his way" as far as he was concerned. Sure motorists have this "segregation issue... " they don't want anybody on "their roads." The guy would probably yell at a horse drawn wagon too.

The guy probably thinks he pays for the road too... where does that come from?

Has nothing to do with BL.
He might yell at a horse drawn wagon too, but if he does, it's because he believes that horse drawn wagons and motor vehicles don't mix. I bet he would not yell at a bulldozer, even if it was slowing him down more than you. What matters is if he believes the entity slowing him down has a legitimate right to the road. He obviously believes cyclists do not. He believes cyclists should be separated from motor vehicles. That belief may have nothing to do with BLs, but it's consistent with the justification for BLs, which is the same: cyclists should be separated from motor vehicles.

Do you really not see the connection, or are you just playing dumb cuz it's Friday afternoon?

[genec]

He might yell at a horse drawn wagon too, but if he does, it's because he believes that horse drawn wagons and motor vehicles don't mix. I bet he would not yell at a bulldozer, even if it was slowing him down more than you. What matters is if he believes the entity slowing him down has a legitimate right to the road. He obviously believes cyclists do not. He believes cyclists should be separated from motor vehicles. That belief may have nothing to do with BLs, but it's consistent with the justification for BLs, which is the same: cyclists should be separated from motor vehicles.

Do you really not see the connection, or are you just playing dumb cuz it's Friday afternoon?

Oh I see how you are trying to connect the two all right... I just don't believe it as I doubt most motorists give two seconds of thought about BL or "separation of cyclists."

I think his motivation was simple, and that was to get the cyclist off of "his" road, period. I talked to the man and he was from the school of thought that bikes didn't belong on the road and were "toys." This he did not specifically state... (others have though) but his age and approach were of that type of thinking.

This gets way back to my premise that most motorists simply don't have a clue that cyclists have the rights to use the road in the same manner as a motorist.

Occam's razor man... this is not a complex separation or segregation issue... with a BL conspiracy; it is as simple as "get off my road."

[Brian Ratliff]

You're right and I like the distinction.

At the same time, and using this distinction, I will say that Vehicular Cyclists recognize that advocating bike lanes promotes a cultural mentality of cyclo-segregationism that makes vehicular cycling less acceptable in our culture.

Then the line is drawn! ;) And I don't. Bike lanes and other bicycling facilities can be used together with the vehicular cycling technique to enhance the ability for people to move around on bicycles as cycling as a whole becomes more acceptable in our culture. Cycling has increased in popularity in recent years (at least in the Portland area), and I am inclined to think it is because of, rather than despite of, efforts to design better cycling facilities into the roads.

[Brian Ratliff]

He might yell at a horse drawn wagon too, but if he does, it's because he believes that horse drawn wagons and motor vehicles don't mix. I bet he would not yell at a bulldozer, even if it was slowing him down more than you. What matters is if he believes the entity slowing him down has a legitimate right to the road. He obviously believes cyclists do not. He believes cyclists should be separated from motor vehicles. That belief may have nothing to do with BLs, but it's consistent with the justification for BLs, which is the same: cyclists should be separated from motor vehicles.

Do you really not see the connection, or are you just playing dumb cuz it's Friday afternoon?

About your bulldozer... I seriously think that many drivers, including the drivers who tend to yell at cyclists, believe that anything which is impeding his or her progress, regardless of right to the road, should get off and let them pass. The proverbial Grandma in the car going 45 mph on the freeway gets yelled at too, even though she has the right to be on the road and go that speed. In fact, she probably has more of a right to go that speed than the people trying to pass her going 75 or 80 mph. The drivers who yell are the ones who want to go their own speed and not be impeded, right to the road be damned. Humans as a whole are very good at rationallizing their abuse to their fellow humans. That's why we have laws.

[genec]

Then the line is drawn! ;) And I don't. Bike lanes and other bicycling facilities can be used together with the vehicular cycling technique to enhance the ability for people to move around on bicycles as cycling as a whole becomes more acceptable in our culture. Cycling has increased in popularity in recent years (at least in the Portland area), and I am inclined to think it is because of, rather than despite of, efforts to design better cycling facilities into the roads.

Oh cr@p... now we are going to have to state whether we are VC'ers or vc'ers... and what if you are a card carrying (or certificate holding) graduate of Road 1... is that VC or vc. And jeeze I even own Forester's book...

Sigh. :rolleyes:

[Brian Ratliff]

Oh cr@p... now we are going to have to state whether we are VC'ers or vc'ers... and what if you are a card carrying (or certificate holding) graduate of Road 1... is that VC or vc. And jeeze I even own Forester's book...

Sigh. :rolleyes:

Sorry...it was only a suggestion...:o I just want it clear that we are debating politics, not best cycling practice. Last thing I want to happen is some beginner come in here and think we are actually debating cycling technique. I think everyone here practices some version of vehicular cycling, and though we may disagree slightly on the implimentation, we are pretty much in agreement that vehicular cycling, as a technique, is best practice.

There are, however, significant, unnamed, political disagreements which keep getting mixed into our discussions which can be pretty confusing to people who don't know we are talking politics.

[Brian Ratliff]

About Forester's book... so do I.

[Helmet Head]

I would say that graduating Road 1 does not necessarily make one a vc, but does provide the foundation for becoming one.
And simply own Forester's book does not make one a vc or a VC, though studying it provides a better foundation for becoming a vc than does taking Road 1, and of course also provides compelling reasons for becoming a VC.

Brian, I'm liking the VC/vc distinction more all the time.

There is a similar distincition made in political/philosophical circles between libertarian (the political philosophy) and Libertarian (the political party that advocates public policy consistent with the libertarian political philosophy).

[Helmet Head]

Oh I see how you are trying to connect the two all right... I just don't believe it as I doubt most motorists give two seconds of thought about BL or "separation of cyclists."

I think his motivation was simple, and that was to get the cyclist off of "his" road, period. I talked to the man and he was from the school of thought that bikes didn't belong on the road and were "toys." This he did not specifically state... (others have though) but his age and approach were of that type of thinking.

This gets way back to my premise that most motorists simply don't have a clue that cyclists have the rights to use the road in the same manner as a motorist.

Occam's razor man... this is not a complex separation or segregation issue... with a BL conspiracy; it is as simple as "get off my road."

Sometimes you really make things complicated, Gene.


................CYCLO-SEGREGATIONISM <------------------------+
.................|..............|.............................|
.................|..............|.............................|
......"bikes don't belong.......|...."cyclists need their ----+
...... on the road".............|.....own space"..............^
............|...................|.............................|
...."BLs are good - keeps....."BLs are good - gives me my own-+
.......bikes off MY road".............space"


In other words, CYCLO-SEGREGATIONISM forms the basis for your motorist's "bike don't belong on the road" belief, and it forms the basis for "cyclists need their own space", which supports bike lanes. But the key is the feedback loop, with bike lanes and the concept of cyclists needing their own space bolstering the concept of CYCLO-SEGREGATIONISM, which in turn fuels the "bike don't belong on the road" belief.

It's a simple feedback loop, not rocket science.

[genec]

Ya know, an easy test of my theory would be to do a simple poll at UTC some sunny afternoon...

Two questions:

"Should cyclists be allowed on the road?"

"Did you know that the law permits cyclists the same rights and rules on the road as motorists?"

Would be interesting to see the responses.

I believe that only cyclists know that they are "allowed" on the road...

[sbhikes]

Oh brother. "Cyclo-segregationism" How much money does it cost to say that?

You go to some other countries in this world where bikes are more segregated than here and they are given more respect as vehicles on the roads than they are here. There's no correlation.

The anti-cyclist attitude in America has everything to do with bad bicycle behavior (not stopping at lights, riding on the wrong side etc), bad motorist behavior, general American selfishness, general traffic frustration, ignorance of laws, car culture in general, and an infrastructure that has been built to move people in automobiles but not other modes of transportation.

I never want to live in the VC world you wish to create.

[wallace125]

What do you mean by "mingling with vehicular traffic all the time" and do you really believe that is the alternative to bike lanes?

Imagine a road with a U.S. style bike lane (painted stripe 4-5 feet from edge of the road). Now, without making any other changes on that road, remove the bike lane stripe. No more bike lane. Instead, you have a wide outside lane (WOL). Do cyclists have to "mingle" with vehicular traffic all the time? Do you really believe that cycling becomes less safe when the stripe is removed?

I believe that by simply removing the stripe on the road, riding does become more dangerous. Most drivers are completely clueless that a misjudgement of only a few inches can actually make cyclists "become dead". I very nearly ate it big time when a car cruised past me and just nipped my left handlebar with his mirror. I saw my whole life pass before me.

That section of Market Street in Philadelphia has plenty of room for a bike lane but the stripe is not there.
Just 2 blocks away on the same road, the stripe is there. My scientific sample of 1 person tells me that the white stripe makes "some" drivers "a little more" aware.

[Helmet Head]

You go to some other countries in this world where bikes are more segregated than here and they are given more respect as vehicles on the roads than they are here. There's no correlation.
Excuse me, I just got back from Germany a few weeks ago, where segregation is very heavy, and while I saw plenty of vehicular cycling on residential streets posted at 30 KPH (18 MPH), I saw NONE on faster arterials, where all cyclists were puttering along at 10-12 mph on the sidepaths and making left turns like pedestrians.

The fastest way to kill roadway cycling acceptability (on all but the slowest streets) within a culture is with segregated cycling facilities.

Brian - any increase in cycling popularity in the last few years is much more likely attributable to Lance Armstrong than segregated cycling facilities.

[Helmet Head]

My scientific sample of 1 person tells me that the white stripe makes "some" drivers "a little more" aware.
Sorry, but I'll stick with the more comprehensive studies that cannot find any correlation with bike lanes making cycling safer, and arguably make cycling more dangerous.

Are you aware that the kind of incident you describe is very rare, that cyclists are much more prone to collisions at intersections, and the bike lanes, by encouraging poor positioning at intersections, actually make those types of collision more likely?

Bike lanes encourage poor positioning at intersections by reinforcing cyclo-segregrationism, which inhibits through cyclists from positioning properly -- in the center of the rightmost through lane -- at intersections, but instead encourages them to keep to the side and "out of the way".

[Brian Ratliff]

Sometimes you really make things complicated, Gene.


................CYCLO-SEGREGATIONISM <------------------------+
.................|..............|.............................|
.................|..............|.............................|
......"bikes don't belong.......|...."cyclists need their ----+
...... on the road".............|.....own space"..............^
............|...................|.............................|
...."BLs are good - keeps....."BLs are good - gives me my own-+
.......bikes off MY road".............space"


In other words, CYCLO-SEGREGATIONISM forms the basis for your motorist's "bike don't belong on the road" belief, and it forms the basis for "cyclists need their own space", which supports bike lanes. But the key is the feedback loop, with bike lanes and the concept of cyclists needing their own space bolstering the concept of CYCLO-SEGREGATIONISM, which in turn fuels the "bike don't belong on the road" belief.

It's a simple feedback loop, not rocket science.

This is a plausible feedback loop only if the laws either say nothing about bike/car interactions, or reinforce the loop. With a different set of laws, you could easily create a feedback loop which begins with cyclists being seen using both the bike lane and the road, leading to drivers accepting the fact that cyclists can use the road and are an approved road user (after all, they even have their own lane to use if they want), leading to more cyclists being seen on the road.

In the 70's, when Forester first coined his terminology and noticed the "cyclo-segregation," laws were at least blind to cyclists, and manytimes unfavorable. In a land where the law is blind to bike/car interactions, then we have to fend for ourselves, which is what Forester recommends. Fortunately, in the 30 years since Forester's book, the law is not blind to bike/car interactions, and many places have laws which are favorable to cyclists.

Now, we have to be careful positing "simple feedback loops" in light of our lack of data. I can posit half a dozen plausible feedback loops in support of both the for and against arguments for bike lanes. And for the data, we cannot just fall back on Forester's work, since it is 30 years old. Much has changed since then. Also, the addition (or subtraction) of bike lanes can have different effects in different places. Driver education definitely plays a role.

I'm willing to bet that there are enough variables affecting how cyclists and moterists interact that there is plenty of work to do regardless of each person's political stance on any one subject. With enough people pulling enough different strings, we can solve this problem from both ends and make the roads a better place for bicyclists.

[Brian Ratliff]

Brian - any increase in cycling popularity in the last few years is much more likely attributable to Lance Armstrong than segregated cycling facilities.

Perhaps, but a lot of bike lanes were put in place in that time, with modern implementation (i.e. good traffic engineering) and that certainly did not hurt. And you didn't address the decrease in harrassment I noticed, which was the real point.

Now, you should explicitly define "segregated cycling facilities." Are you attempting to lump bike lanes of modern implimentation with bike paths? Are you lumping all bike lane implementations together, regardless of effectiveness?

[genec]

Oh Jeeze I didn't even stop to think that the laws themselves are only some 30 years old... that really cinches my argument that most motorists don't know that cyclists have the same rights to the road as they, the motorists... especially those motorists over about 45 years of age.

But that is true... Forester did mention that he played a strong role in getting the CA laws enacted.

[Brian Ratliff]

Sorry, but I'll stick with the more comprehensive studies that cannot find any correlation with bike lanes making cycling safer, and arguably make cycling more dangerous.


I am curious. Are there any studies which are truely compehensive and less than 5 years old? Give me some references. Otherwise, you are simply moving hot air, or perhaps, cheap electrons.

Enough with the assertions. I enjoy the statis quo, the direction cycling advocacy is moving, and the projected future. You are the one out for change. Give me some evidence for your assertions! Remember, comprehensive, not anecdotal. Otherwise, we'll just end up repeating the 1000 odd posts in the bike lane thread.

I can make up hundreds of "theories" about how the world works which sound plausible but are wrong. At some point, experimental evidence needs to be brought into the discussion. Serge, you want change, so the burden is on you.

[Helmet Head]

I can make up hundreds of "theories" about how the world works which sound plausible but are wrong.
Maybe your theories will "sound" plausible to you, but I'll show you how they're wrong (either by pointing out a faulty premise, or a flaw in the logic supporting the conclusions), or I'll agree with them. Go ahead, give me your best shot.

You, on the other hand, dismiss my theories out of hand, without giving reason.

I'm not sure, but I was under the impression that the "cyclists have the same rights as drivers of vehicles" law is significantly older than 30 years.

It's the cyclists must keep to the right crap that was spawned in the 70s. Are these the laws Brian is referring to as "favorable to cyclists"? LOL. Forester's role in those was taking the teeth out of them (adding the exceptions).

I need to have my study data more readily available. Where is Bruce Rosar when you need him?

Brian, I certainly agree there is a feedback loop for vc. That is, the more people see cycling riding vc, the more acceptable it becomes. The problem is that vc riding, at least in SD and all parts of CA that I visit, is exceptionally rare. While there are isolated exceptions here and there, I almost never see any cyclist go for more than a minute or two without doing something non-vc. So the traffic on that particular feedback loop is very weak.

The traffic on the cyclo-segregationism loop, on the other hand, is very heavy. Cyclists are constantly modeling 2nd class user behavior on the roadways. It's almost impossible to find a cyclist that isn't doing it.

I wouldn't disagree with "with enough people pulling enough different strings, we can solve this problem from both ends", except that in terms of modeling vc, I don't see any string pulling, while I see tons of cyclo-segregationism string pulling.



As far as the definition of segregated cycling facilities, I'm going with Wikipedia's definition, which is quite comprehensive, and, I find, an interesting read.

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

[genec]

Uh, Serge, you're quoting the wrong guy...

[genec]

As far as the definition of segregated cycling facilities, I'm going with Wikipedia's definition, which is quite comprehensive, and, I find, an interesting read.

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

The problem with that wikipedia article is that is freely mixes the results of accident rates of sidepaths with those of bike lanes... there is no distinction between the two so the benefits of one over the other are blured, and in the case of the article, dismissed.

[Helmet Head]

That's your only comment on the entire article?

[sbhikes]

What I don't understand is why was Serge a day ago saying things about bike lanes that were almost reasonable. He was saying that he uses them all the time, that the use of bike lanes is inclusive with riding vehicularly. Now all of a sudden it's cyclo-segregation and you can't be vc if you advocate for bike lanes and all that other venom he's been spewing for so long.

Serge, I'd like to suggest that if you are so hateful of bike lanes that you stop riding in them. Why don't you go for a while NEVER riding in bike lanes. Then tell us how awful they are, how much better it is without them. You need to live what you preach or else it's meaningless hot electrons.

[Dchiefransom]

Oh brother. "Cyclo-segregationism" How much money does it cost to say that?

The anti-cyclist attitude in America has everything to do with bad bicycle behavior (not stopping at lights, riding on the wrong side etc), bad motorist behavior, general American selfishness, general traffic frustration, ignorance of laws, car culture in general, and an infrastructure that has been built to move people in automobiles but not other modes of transportation.

.

WHOA !!!! You've got to be careful when using basic common sense to explain and solve society's problems. It could end up putting thousands of highly paid technical type researchers out of work and save taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. It's a good thing not that many 'Mericans read this forum. :eek:

[Helmet Head]

What I don't understand is why was Serge a day ago saying things about bike lanes that were almost reasonable. He was saying that he uses them all the time, that the use of bike lanes is inclusive with riding vehicularly. Now all of a sudden it's cyclo-segregation and you can't be vc if you advocate for bike lanes and all that other venom he's been spewing for so long.
Sometimes I worry about your reading comprehension, Diane. After months of reading my posts, I'm really amazed I have to explain this to you.

I, personally, in terms of how they affect me directly, have little against BLs. I know when to use them, and I know when not to use them. They offer me no benefits (that wouldn't be there if the stripe were erased), and the drawbacks I know how to manage quite effectively, thank you very much.

My opposition to bike lanes comes from my perspective as a bicycling advocate... I believe they hurt cycling and cycling advocacy all the ways I have specified many times before, over and over. I'm not going to do it again. If you or anyone else is interested, I believe all the reasons can be found in the bike lane debate Wiki referenced in my signature below, and, of course, in the bike lane thread.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Should we, once and for all, make a distinction between vehicular cyclists (cyclists that practice vehicular cycling techniques) and Vehicular Cyclists (cyclists who subscribe to a certain political view of advocacy)? ...Serge and some others are obviously Vehicular Cyclists, yet there are many here, myself included, who practice vehicular cycling, but do not subscribe to the Vehicular Cyclist's politics.


Indeed we should. There is a "we VCers" cult that claims their superior knowledge of Vehicular Cycling Dogma entitles them to own the bicycling advocacy issue. These few pompous and preachy dogmatists have appointed themselves the gatekeepers of all appropriate discussion on this (and other) bicycling discussion lists.

Everybody else (including those who may practice vehicular cycling but are not card carrying ideologues) is incompetent, in need of training, or at the very least, require unending proselytization to think/speak like "we VCers" think/speak.

[patc]

WHOA !!!! You've got to be careful when using basic common sense to explain and solve society's problems. It could end up putting thousands of highly paid technical type researchers out of work and save taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. It's a good thing not that many 'Mericans read this forum. :eek:

Careful there, you could put entire gov't departments out of a job with that revelation!

Living in a city with one of the highest cycle-commuter rates in North America*, I think the biggest factor in bike safety/advocacy/acceptance is sheer volume. We had relatives visiting from BC (Comox area) last week, and they commented on not being used to seeing so many cyclists. I often have to circle the nearest mall several to find a spot to lock up my bike! (Counted over 100 bikes one day last week).

[* Speculation, really, the numbers we have are from one really bad survey and a great deal of guessing.]

[Nicodemus]

The answer to your question, about whether this is an improvement to regular bike lanes, depends on one's perspective.
Yeah, you don't want facts to get in the way.

[Daily Commute]

Indeed we should. There is a "we VCers" cult that claims their superior knowledge of Vehicular Cycling Dogma entitles them to own the bicycling advocacy issue. These few pompous and preachy dogmatists have appointed themselves the gatekeepers of all appropriate discussion on this (and other) bicycling discussion lists.

Everybody else (including those who may practice vehicular cycling but are not card carrying ideologues) is incompetent, in need of training, or at the very least, require unending proselytization to think/speak like "we VCers" think/speak.
And what do you have to add to the debate (other than personal insults)?