What good is it if it isn't for everybody?

[noisebeam]

VC is anti bike lane. seems pretty clear. crystal.

My assertion is less bike lanes= less people biking. And therefore, VC=bad populist bike policy.

VC as a personal riding style, fine. Want to ignore the bike lane, be my guest. Ride in highway traffic 'alpha dog' style because there's no bike lane, great. Just don't force my mom to do it.
I cycle vehicularly and am against lane striping where it suggest poor cyclist positioning (to cyclist and driver)

But I am not against, in fact I support, WOLs. I have a great example: There is a road here that is one of the easiest arterial roads to cycle on. It is called Guadalupe. It not only has painted bike lanes, but the primary lanes are also quite wide. Cyclists ride up and down this quite often for recreation. About 3mo. ago the city started to prep the road for resurfacing. This meant grinding away the right most 4ft or so of pavement, making it very bumpy, basically right up to the white bike lane stripe, sometimes leaving bits a pieces of it. I rode for months on this road, to the left of the rememinats of the stripe (I didn't feel it neccessary to ride in center of lane here, not exactly VC, but a judgemet call based on experience) All vehicles passed me with very good clearance, ever once in 3mo. did I get close passed, yet I was to the left of the bike lane. Then the city paved the road and shortly after striped it. Now in the past 2wks I have had more close passes (riding just to the right of the bike line, about 6" closer to the curb than before, but still about 4' from the curb) than I did in the 3mo. previous. It has to be tried, it is so apparent a difference, but please take my experience on this.

I really believe that if there were more WOL on high speed aterials were I live and fewer painted bike lanes on 25mph streets that more people would choose to cycle for transportation. As it is today the BLs we have are really best suited for familys tooling around their immeditate neighborhoods.

Al

[noisebeam]

Just a thought on VC and so called 'folk' cyclist:

Firstly I believe that understanding how to cycle vehicularly does not mean one must do it all the time, but that when one has an opportunity to cycle vehicularly that stays within ones comfort zone, then its most often better to do so.

Which bring me to my observation and puzzlement. I see quite frequently fit, healthy looking 20-40yr old people on bikes riding on the sidewalk on very low speed, low density roads even when they somtimes have bike lanes. These are roads that you may find kids playing ball on, moving aside when a car comes. I am flat out puzzled why anyone, let alone someone who it relatively fit and agile, would ride on the sidewalk in these cases? I can very easily see why they use this mode when riding along 45mph aterial road, but why is there not a switch to VC when on the most easy of roads to ride on?

Al

[Roody]

Al --

Here and in many other cities, a lot of four lane roads are being restriped. Instead of 2 narrow lanes in each direction, they are being given one wide lane with a shared center lane for left turns. In other words, they are changed from four narrow lanes to three wider lanes, with no rebuilding.

Traffic engineers say this is faster for motor traffic, since a narrow inner lane is often blocked by left turners anyway, requiring a lot of risky lane changes for through traffic.

Although designed for the benefit of motor vehicles, these three lane roads are also a lot better for cyclists. You can partially share the wider lane, and cagers also use the center (left turn) lane to overtake you. It works great for everybody and should be widely adopted.

[noisebeam]

Al --
.
Pretty much all the arteral roads here are 5 or 7 lanes including the continuous center turn lane. Even so the outermost lane is often narrow like this where these cars are traveling at 45mph (a 6 lane road, 2 east bound lanes, a center turn lane and three west bound lanes):
http://www.optionnz.com/users/afs/i1/IMG_8531w.jpg

Al

[patc]

Which bring me to my observation and puzzlement. I see quite frequently fit, healthy looking 20-40yr old people on bikes riding on the sidewalk on very low speed, low density roads even when they somtimes have bike lanes. These are roads that you may find kids playing ball on, moving aside when a car comes. I am flat out puzzled why anyone, let alone someone who it relatively fit and agile, would ride on the sidewalk in these cases? I can very easily see why they use this mode when riding along 45mph aterial road, but why is there not a switch to VC when on the most easy of roads to ride on?

I was floored to find out a recently that a friend finds roads "too scary" to cycle on. This guy bike about 2000km a year, is part of the bike patrol on our local pathways, but won't bike on a road if he can help it.

I guess its the same as everything else in life: most people are just afraid to try new things, and are far too influenced by their preconceptions of "safe" and "dangerous". So they'll run across a busy highway playing Frogger with cars, but they won't cycle on a minor road. :rolleyes:

[Roody]

Pretty much all the arteral roads here are 5 or 7 lanes including the continuous center turn lane. Even so the outermost lane is often narrow like this where these cars are traveling at 45mph (a 6 lane road, 2 east bound lanes, a center turn lane and three west bound lanes):
http://www.optionnz.com/users/afs/i1/IMG_8531w.jpg

Al
Yeah, the street I live on is 5 narrow lanes. At least the speed is only 35 mph. Even so, more than 90 % of local cyclists ("folk cyclists") use the sidewalk here. I feel fine in the center of the outer lane.

But I'm not a "cyclo-elitist." If they want the sidewalk, it's fine by me. :D

[biodiesel]

DOPE.

First off, there's plenty of countries around the world where 80 year old grannys are returning baskets of bottles via bicycle. They tend to have less heart disease than the US miraculously too... And though 8 years old is a little young to ride to school alone, that's exactly what i grew up doing with about half of my class in Michigan (not Detroit obviously.)
Second i think there is some elitism regarding cycling in America. The idea that cycling is a only a sport is like implying that running or walking is only a sport and not something people do to get around, or do to relax. It IS a way of getting to the market, to school, to work (yeah in a suit, i see it all the time...) and not just an 'elitist' sport.
You know the part that i find elitist? The fact that we in America are so pompus to insist that while 80% of the world is walking, cycling or taking busses to work that for us to do it is impossible like it's beneath us or (from the other side of the argument) somehow a social protest like rich kids slumming.
People that say that VC cycling is impossible usually hit my Elitist alarm in a few seconds by saying they can't break a sweat to get to work (? couldn't possibly sweat at WORK! it might be like WORK!) or that it takes too long, too hard etc. Whaaaaaa! I must have my Lattee or I'll Die!!! Whaaaa. (Side story of an angry lady at a Red Cross Shelter in New Orleans demanding a diet Pepsi cause she dosn't drink water comes to mind...)

I walk or bike for the same reason i have a job and bathe myself. Work Ethic. Self Esteem.

If the strength is left to me i'll be riding to work when i'm 60+. My housemate (65) rides all the time, rusty trusty bike to take to town (2 miles) for coffee and to football games. He's not elitist about riding, just getting to town and dosn't have to fight for parking. Will i raise my kids the same way. Sure. I want to teach them good values. Elitist would be insisting on having someone else to dirve them or that they must be dependant on a car.

Hey sure the country isn't perfectly built for VC. Neither is the UK with all the rain, or Prauge with the cold or most of China. But people seem to make it work.

Go without something for a week, like a car, power, food. Don't have the money to put gas in your car for a month, or only eat the food in your pantry for a month, don't spend a dollar for a month. See what it is to sacrifice something. Then tell me that riding my bike to work is Elitist.

[Nicodemus]

^^ :beer: anytime ^^

[sggoodri]

You need something between a sidewalk and nothing. Sidewalks are for people who go like 5mph. Riding down the center lane and only pulling over when a car is coming is for people who go 25. What if you go 10 or 12?

Wide outside lanes. 16 feet is prefereable; 14 will do. I particularly like the 16' lanes when I am pulling my son in the Burley trailer.

To me, vehicular cycling in a 16' lane means riding a foot or so from the gutter if I am going slowly uphill, riding a little farther left if I am going straight through an intersection, riding in the middle of the lane if I am going very fast downhill, and riding on the left edge of the lane if I am preparing to turn left (on a two-lane road with no left turn lane).

I've never seen a better cycling facility than a ~16' lane to accommodate a wide range of cycling speeds and traffic situations.

My family and I frequently ride on 25 mph streets in downtown Cary with narrow lanes. We do 10 or 12 mph when I'm pulling my son in the Burley trailer. Taking the lane in the narrow lanes there hasn't been a problem, partly because most drivers don't expect to be going very fast there. The faster, 35-45 mph roads are where I *really* appreciate wide lanes for comfort.

Please don't confuse vehicular cycling advocacy that supports using the whole lane where useful with the idea that we prefer or endorse road designs that require cyclists to always ride in the middle of the lane. I spend a lot of my personal time advocating for wider lanes on busy roads to allow easier passing and make slower cyclists feel more comfortable.

-Steve Goodridge

[Brian]

Here and in many other cities, a lot of four lane roads are being restriped. Instead of 2 narrow lanes in each direction, they are being given one wide lane with a shared center lane for left turns. In other words, they are changed from four narrow lanes to three wider lanes, with no rebuilding.


When I handled auto claims, we always referred to that center lane as the "Suicide lane". Sometimes it was a fair description.

[Roody]

When I handled auto claims, we always referred to that center lane as the "Suicide lane". Sometimes it was a fair description.
I did not know. What is the problem with them?

[Brian]

I did not know. What is the problem with them?

You've pretty much got some clown going 40MPH, and he needs to make a left into a side street. So he's looking off to the far left, for his street, and doesn't slow as he's entering the suicide lane. Sucks to be the car going the opposite direction who is waiting for traffic to clear so they can make their left too. They seem to see their fair share of head-on, rear end, and fender clipping accidents. Next time you're out, take a look at how much debris is in that lane of any busy road.

[noisebeam]

I did not know. What is the problem with them?
They support bi-directional traffic so right of way is often ambiguous as it is not always clear from where a car that is in the turn lane came from or will be coming from.

They are not fun to use on a bike either. To leave my home I need to go left on a 7 lane road. I first cross three lanes, land in the turn lane, then merge right into traffic to cross another two lanes to end up in the far right lane. Meanwhile a car from the side street opposite a bit up the road has decided to turn left into the shared lane and is facing me.

Al

[noisebeam]

You've pretty much got some clown going 40MPH, and he needs to make a left into a side street. So he's looking off to the far left, for his street, and doesn't slow as he's entering the suicide lane. Sucks to be the bike going the opposite direction who is waiting for traffic to clear so they can make their left too. They seem to see their fair share of head-on, rear end, and fender clipping accidents. Next time you're out, take a look at how much debris is in that lane of any busy road.

I made a small edit to your post to highlight the situation I face daily.

Al

[Helmet Head]

It's possible to designate that middle lane as a series of left only lanes, each for one direction or the other, but not both. The suicide lanes are when the middle lane supports travel in both directions in the same section.

[noisebeam]

It's possible to designate that middle lane as a series of left only lanes, each for one direction or the other, but not both. The suicide lanes are when the middle lane supports travel in both directions in the same section.
Possible doesn't mean its done. Its rarely done here. It is of course done where there are signal controled intersections, but not for the far more vast number of side streets and alleys.

Al

[Feldman]

"Fundamentalist" VC'ing is almost nonexistent--remember, the idea was formulated thirty-odd years ago when there were almost no safe or useful bike lanes, paths, or other facilities. The pure, idealized version of it should really be thought of as a theoretical, unattainable ideal--for instance, giving motorists far too much credit for intelligence or humanity. One part of VC that sounds unassailable is visibility, dressing and equipping for it. I don't understand why some people in cycling, knowledgable and responsible people, advocate for dressing less visibly, as if cyclists would be better accepted if they dress "normally." WTF is dressing "normally?" It is suidical, for instance, to hike in the woods during hunting season wearing camo clothes and a tan hat--doesn't it make sense that it's equally daft to cycle dressed so invisibly. I've got the sense to don the Pearl Izumi "Martian sperm sample green" vest to run errands down Fourth Plain Blvd.; I don't do it because I want to be perceived as belonging to some hypothetical "elite;" I do it because it's f$%&ing stupid to dress less visibly.
"Folk cycling" just sounds like a timid, evasive way of justifying stupidity.

[Brian]

I made a small edit to your post to highlight the situation I face daily.

Al

Probably the worst possible place for a cyclist.

[noisebeam]

Probably the worst possible place for a cyclist.
Where else would you go to make turns? There is not even a pedestrian option as these are non light controled intersections without x-walks. It is never possible to cross 7 lanes of traffic in one swoop during rush hour.
It creates an interesting dillema. If you try to get your route to use smaller residential streets (that have bike lanes), you are going to have to cross and travel on short connecting segments of 7 lanes roads requiring you use the center turn lane. But if you stick to using primarily the arterials (like I do) you avoid many difficult intersections like this, but then are forced to ride vehiculary in a narrow outside lane. I choose the later as I find intersections more stressful.

Al

[Brian]

Where else would you go to make turns? [SNIP]

I'm only commenting on the fact that it is the worst place for a cyclist. Not a judgment, not a lecture, just an observation.

[sbhikes]

And if you took out all the bike lanes would granny still want to ride to the market? Would the 8 year old kid venture out of her cul-de-sac?

I don't find wide outside lanes better than bike lanes. They're either about the same, or their worse becuase drivers can't see the edge and thus pass too close. I know you all say they pass too close when there's a bike lane, but it is not like that here.

[noisebeam]

Would the 8 year old kid venture out of her cul-de-sac?

How are they to venture in/out of a cul-de-sac without making a left turn? Surely this is a quiet neighborhood and no light signals so the kid can't 'pedestrian' cross using the sidewalk. I think making a safe left turn takes far more skill, maturity and traffic awareness than traveling down the road the cul-de-sac connects to on its wide outside lane.

Al

[Brian]

[snip] it is not like that here.

Those simple words sum up so much. I'm sure you have to vary your tactics, just crossing town. I know I do.

[Daily Commute]

And if you took out all the bike lanes would granny still want to ride to the market? Would the 8 year old kid venture out of her cul-de-sac?. . . .
But if the bike lane doesn't make granny or the eight-year-old safer (and there's no good evidence that bike lanes actually increase safety), then we are not doing them a service by striping the lane, which only lulls them onto a road they're not prepared for.

[Brian Ratliff]

But if the bike lane doesn't make granny or the eight-year-old safer (and there's no good evidence that bike lanes actually increase safety), then we are not doing them a service by striping the lane, which only lulls them onto a road they're not prepared for.

This begs the question of why there are roads which cyclists need to "prepare" for. Shouldn't we all be working towards system where any cyclist of any age can travel anywhere without having to be physically and mentally "prepared" for the trip? If we rule out bike lanes and bike paths, what do we have left? Are wide lanes enough to realize this goal?

What if we can have our bike lanes, our bike paths, our rights to the road, and our instruction all at the same time? There is ample evidence that people who ask for little obtain little, while others who ask for a lot, while not getting all they want, will get more. We should ask for the world. Who knows, if we ask for everything for everybody, then perhaps everybody will get something.

We are way too hung up on bike lane vs. WOL, VC vs. pedestrian. We are truely the definition of missing the forest for the trees. Road facilities and training methods are all variable and can be changed. A bike lane stripe can be erased from a bike lane road. A stripe can be added to a WOL if the bike lane turns out to be better. The teaching methods of a cycling class can be changed and modified year by year.

The important point is that, while "debating" (and I put debate in quotes because to debate, one must have data, and there is not data forthcoming from anyone) BL vs. WOL and the like at planning meetings, something gets lost. The only goal at the moment should be getting cyclists taken into consideration when a new road is designed, or an old road is redesigned. We don't need to be committed to any sort of facility at this point.

Once we are moving on that front, then we can commission studies to see what bike facilities are truely the best. Choose a road. Put in WOL for a year or two, then put in a bike lane for a year or two, see what happens. All this stuff has been hand waving up to this point. Agree to a study methodology that all sides can live with, then do it. When the results are in, those results can be used in new roadway designs.

Above all, don't get sidetracked by the exact species of trees we want when all we really need is the forest of some type.

[Helmet Head]

This begs the question of why there are roads which cyclists need to "prepare" for. Shouldn't we all be working towards system where any cyclist of any age can travel anywhere without having to be physically and mentally "prepared" for the trip?
No.

Just like you don't send a student driver on a freeway or a busy boulevard on his first day of driving, cyclists have to work up experience and skills before they're ready to drive on such roads too.

I know of older drivers who never learned how to drive on freeways? Why, because they never tried. People who never try VC on a quiet road, are never going to try it on a busy road either. You have to learn VC on quiet neighborhood streets first, then move up to busier and faster streets.

But I have not answered your question (beyond the "no"). While it is possible to convert small flat areas into cycling meccas like Amsterdam, it is practically impossible to do so a wide scale over varied terrain. That means that cycling in the U.S.A, except possibly in isolated pockets, can never be a "system where any cyclist of any age can travel anywhere without having to be physically and mentally 'prepared' for the trip? " At least not in the foreseeable (several generations) future.

Given that, the more practical version of your question should be, "shouldn't we be working towards a system with isolated pockets where any cyclist of any age can travel anywhere without having to be physically and mentally 'prepared' for the trip? "

The answer to that is no, because
a) it's very expensive
b) it has very limited practical applicability in the U.S.
c) doing so implies that such work is required for cyclists
d) if we get far enough in that direction, other types of cycling (i.e. VC) are more likely to be banned, or at least lose what little social acceptance they currently have, when we should be working towards getting VC more socially acceptable.

If you doubt me on d, go visit Germany. You'll see VC, but only on quiet residential streets. In busy parts of town, it's all pedestrian cycling. And if you don't think Portland is moving in that direction, wait a decade.

[chipcom]

Similarly, pedestrian cycling is called pedestrian cycling not because the cyclist is a pedestrian (most of us believe he is not), but because the term is used to describe bicycling on the public right-of-way in accordance to the pedestrian rules of the road.

I'll accept that, but your pedestrian cyclists rarely follow the pedestrian rules of the road, they ride with some endless variations of pedestrian, vehicular and no rules at all. There ya have your vast majority of riders, IMHO, they don't follow anyone's defined doctrine, they generally ride in a manner all their own. Bottom line, at least for me, is I ride the way experience has taught me, not based on someone else's defintion of how one 'should' ride. I follow the laws of the road, which I believe is the very root and essense of VC, but that doesn't mean I try to make cagers feel that I am their equal. I want them to pity me and overcome any overwhelming urge to squoosh me like a bug, just cuz they can.

So are there any 'PC' advocate threads active? Do they have their own dogma and provide instruction on how to follow those pedestrian rules of the road. I think we need a MUPC category too, since they are a whole nuther enchilada. Anyone care to define the rules of the MUP and it's relation to VC and PC?

Getting back to the OP, shouldn't a cycling advocate seek to provide education and advocacy for all cyclists, VC, PC , MUPC? Or are VC advocates just that, advocates for VC, but not interested in educating the cycling population as a whole to all the 'Cs'? Thus, is a VC advocate an advocate of only a portion of cyclists and not a cycling advocate for cycling as a whole? Will they do a remake of Pee-Wee's big adventure featuring Roody in the starring role? Inquiring minds...ask smart-arsed questions. ;)

[chipcom]

I was floored to find out a recently that a friend finds roads "too scary" to cycle on. This guy bike about 2000km a year, is part of the bike patrol on our local pathways, but won't bike on a road if he can help it.

I guess its the same as everything else in life: most people are just afraid to try new things, and are far too influenced by their preconceptions of "safe" and "dangerous". So they'll run across a busy highway playing Frogger with cars, but they won't cycle on a minor road. :rolleyes:

LOL, I got a chuckle out of how you related cycling on the road to 'new things'. There weren't any bike paths when I was a kid...closest thing were the bridle paths, and only crazy people like me rode their bikes on them. I grew up riding on the road, it's the MUPs and such that are new to me, and I ain't that old.

[chipcom]

When I handled auto claims, we always referred to that center lane as the "Suicide lane". Sometimes it was a fair description.

I heard that when I was on our city commission and we were repaving main street. There was quite a debate about keeping the medians versus going to a center turning lane. Everyone thought there would be endless head-ons. I finally spoke out, city boy that I am, that where I grew up we had center lanes and I didn't notice any greater carnage on those roads. We ended up compromising, and doing all but the downtown area with a center lane and, who woulda thunk, no increase in accidents, they actually decreased.

[chipcom]

This begs the question of why there are roads which cyclists need to "prepare" for. Shouldn't we all be working towards system where any cyclist of any age can travel anywhere without having to be physically and mentally "prepared" for the trip? If we rule out bike lanes and bike paths, what do we have left? Are wide lanes enough to realize this goal?

What if we can have our bike lanes, our bike paths, our rights to the road, and our instruction all at the same time? There is ample evidence that people who ask for little obtain little, while others who ask for a lot, while not getting all they want, will get more. We should ask for the world. Who knows, if we ask for everything for everybody, then perhaps everybody will get something.

We are way too hung up on bike lane vs. WOL, VC vs. pedestrian. We are truely the definition of missing the forest for the trees. Road facilities and training methods are all variable and can be changed. A bike lane stripe can be erased from a bike lane road. A stripe can be added to a WOL if the bike lane turns out to be better. The teaching methods of a cycling class can be changed and modified year by year.

The important point is that, while "debating" (and I put debate in quotes because to debate, one must have data, and there is not data forthcoming from anyone) BL vs. WOL and the like at planning meetings, something gets lost. The only goal at the moment should be getting cyclists taken into consideration when a new road is designed, or an old road is redesigned. We don't need to be committed to any sort of facility at this point.

Once we are moving on that front, then we can commission studies to see what bike facilities are truely the best. Choose a road. Put in WOL for a year or two, then put in a bike lane for a year or two, see what happens. All this stuff has been hand waving up to this point. Agree to a study methodology that all sides can live with, then do it. When the results are in, those results can be used in new roadway designs.

Above all, don't get sidetracked by the exact species of trees we want when all we really need is the forest of some type.


I used to drink that koolaid too. ;) Trouble is, I learned that data and studies can be twisted and used by both sides of any debate, and since the final debate when it comes to roads is in the political arena, the only way to move forward is to compromise, which in our case leads to spending money on solutions that are far from perfect and may even make matters worse. Funny thing is, when it comes to numbers, cyclists should have the muscle to get the better end of any compromise, not to mention initiate changes in a number of areas, but what cycling lobby there is doesn't have all of the cycling community behind them - we are not a block of any substance, but are rather seen as a green leaning, if not liberal, fringe group. Part of the problem is that of our vast numbers, not a high percentage give a darn enough to do throw their support and involvement behind any one advocacy group and, indeed, we have competing advocacy groups. Wasn't it Chief Seattle who lamented that while the white man tried to teach his people that their religion was the right religion, the white men could not even agree among themselves and even fought wars with each other over their religions? ;)

The first step that has to be made is for the current active advocates of cycling to overcome their different ideologies and come to a compromise that allows them all to speak with one voice. Do that and the numbers will follow and give that voice the power to get stuff done.

[Roody]

I'll accept that, but your pedestrian cyclists rarely follow the pedestrian rules of the road, they ride with some endless variations of pedestrian, vehicular and no rules at all. There ya have your vast majority of riders, IMHO, they don't follow anyone's defined doctrine, they generally ride in a manner all their own. Bottom line, at least for me, is I ride the way experience has taught me, not based on someone else's defintion of how one 'should' ride. I follow the laws of the road, which I believe is the very root and essense of VC, but that doesn't mean I try to make cagers feel that I am their equal. I want them to pity me and overcome any overwhelming urge to squoosh me like a bug, just cuz they can.

So are there any 'PC' advocate threads active? Do they have their own dogma and provide instruction on how to follow those pedestrian rules of the road. I think we need a MUPC category too, since they are a whole nuther enchilada. Anyone care to define the rules of the MUP and it's relation to VC and PC?

Getting back to the OP, shouldn't a cycling advocate seek to provide education and advocacy for all cyclists, VC, PC , MUPC? Or are VC advocates just that, advocates for VC, but not interested in educating the cycling population as a whole to all the 'Cs'? Thus, is a VC advocate an advocate of only a portion of cyclists and not a cycling advocate for cycling as a whole? Will they do a remake of Pee-Wee's big adventure featuring Roody in the starring role? Inquiring minds...ask smart-arsed questions. ;)

:)

I ride on MUPs pretty often, so I can give you some non-expert advice, if that's what you really want. (I have a feeling it's not what you want, but I'll play along for a minute.) If you want my advice on safe conduct on MUPs, for what little it's worth, just PM me and I'll pass it along. Ditto sidewalks. Bike lanes, no, I don't use 'em much. Your question seems a little off-topic for this thread, that's why I suggest the PM.

Are there pedestrian cycling advocates? I think so. I hear that Germany has a movement afoot to relegate cyclists to the sidewalks. I've never been there, and I don't want to visit if I have to stay on the sidewalk. There are posters on this forum who advocate for "folk cyclists" and that might be similar. I think most would agree that there are serious problems with sidewalk biking. There's a super long thread about it here.

Do VC advocates advocate for all cyclists? I think so. Certainly they advocate for those who ride on streets and highways, which is probably a majority of adult cyclists. As for nonvehicular cyclists, many would be happier with cycling if they at least had the ability to incorporate VC into their cycling repertoire. If they felt competent to ride in at least some streets, they would be able to go more places, sometimes move a little faster, have more freedom. Advocates of all stripes call that "empowerment" and they pretty unanimously think it's a good thing, so I guess VCers advocate for pedestrian cyclists in that sense at least. For MUPs, some VC advocates consider them to be part of the "pedestrian mode." I think they're a little different from sidewalks, personally, but they are shared with pedestrians (both human and goose).

[chipcom]

[/SIZE]

:)

I ride on MUPs pretty often, so I can give you some non-expert advice, if that's what you really want. (I have a feeling it's not what you want, but I'll play along for a minute.)

In this case you are right, those were tongue-in-cheek questions, at least concerning MUPS and PC advocates - you wouldn't want me to be serious all the time, would you? I do think the OP has merit though. To effectively improve conditions for cyclists in this country, cycling advocates need to start representing all cyclists and speaking with one voice. Our debates in here over all the subsets of cycling are one thing, but in the public arena we need a unified message and goals. BTW, love the sig. ;)

[Nicodemus]

"Fundamentalist" VC'ing is almost nonexistent--remember, the idea was formulated thirty-odd years ago when there were almost no safe or useful bike lanes, paths, or other facilities. The pure, idealized version of it should really be thought of as a theoretical, unattainable ideal--for instance, giving motorists far too much credit for intelligence or humanity. One part of VC that sounds unassailable is visibility, dressing and equipping for it. I don't understand why some people in cycling, knowledgable and responsible people, advocate for dressing less visibly, as if cyclists would be better accepted if they dress "normally." WTF is dressing "normally?" It is suidical, for instance, to hike in the woods during hunting season wearing camo clothes and a tan hat--doesn't it make sense that it's equally daft to cycle dressed so invisibly. I've got the sense to don the Pearl Izumi "Martian sperm sample green" vest to run errands down Fourth Plain Blvd.; I don't do it because I want to be perceived as belonging to some hypothetical "elite;" I do it because it's f$%&ing stupid to dress less visibly.
"Folk cycling" just sounds like a timid, evasive way of justifying stupidity.
:lol: Okay, obviously, your point of view is pretty clear and obvious from a safety standpoint.

Yet doesn't this just reinforce the OP's point? You have to dress like a freak to be visible enough to ride with adequate safety on them thar streets. That it's so dangerous you still have to think about all these things before you leave the house.

Your comparison with taking a walk in the woods is pretty fair too. How sick and twisted is it that I can't simply wander out and enjoy nature without having to think about dressing like a freak because my own species is likely to accidentally kill me in the name of sport?

"'Folk cycling' just sounds like a timid, evasive way of justifying stupidity."
Would you care to explain that?

[Nicodemus]

This begs the question of why there are roads which cyclists need to "prepare" for. Shouldn't we all be working towards system where any cyclist of any age can travel anywhere without having to be physically and mentally "prepared" for the trip? If we rule out bike lanes and bike paths, what do we have left? Are wide lanes enough to realize this goal?

What if we can have our bike lanes, our bike paths, our rights to the road, and our instruction all at the same time? There is ample evidence that people who ask for little obtain little, while others who ask for a lot, while not getting all they want, will get more. We should ask for the world. Who knows, if we ask for everything for everybody, then perhaps everybody will get something.

We are way too hung up on bike lane vs. WOL, VC vs. pedestrian. We are truely the definition of missing the forest for the trees. Road facilities and training methods are all variable and can be changed. A bike lane stripe can be erased from a bike lane road. A stripe can be added to a WOL if the bike lane turns out to be better. The teaching methods of a cycling class can be changed and modified year by year.

The important point is that, while "debating" (and I put debate in quotes because to debate, one must have data, and there is not data forthcoming from anyone) BL vs. WOL and the like at planning meetings, something gets lost. The only goal at the moment should be getting cyclists taken into consideration when a new road is designed, or an old road is redesigned. We don't need to be committed to any sort of facility at this point.

Once we are moving on that front, then we can commission studies to see what bike facilities are truely the best. Choose a road. Put in WOL for a year or two, then put in a bike lane for a year or two, see what happens. All this stuff has been hand waving up to this point. Agree to a study methodology that all sides can live with, then do it. When the results are in, those results can be used in new roadway designs.

Above all, don't get sidetracked by the exact species of trees we want when all we really need is the forest of some type.
Very nicely said. Double +1



This begs the question of why there are roads which cyclists need to "prepare" for. Shouldn't we all be working towards system where any cyclist of any age can travel anywhere without having to be physically and mentally "prepared" for the trip?
No.

...

Given that, the more practical version of your question should be, "shouldn't we be working towards a system with isolated pockets where any cyclist of any age can travel anywhere without having to be physically and mentally 'prepared' for the trip? "

The answer to that is no, because...<snip>

CHRIST. ON. TOAST.

Please, for the love of god, STFU already! I cannot *believe* your answers and your reasoning. You are a true zealot, and you can't bear the thought that your little pet cause might not be necessary in a world where bicycles are respected.

Come up with all the obfusticatory, diversionary arguments you want, it's pretty clear there how uncomfortable you'd be in a world where your little schtick has no place.

[Daily Commute]

This begs the question of why there are roads which cyclists need to "prepare" for. Shouldn't we all be working towards system where any cyclist of any age can travel anywhere without having to be physically and mentally "prepared" for the trip? If we rule out bike lanes and bike paths, what do we have left? Are wide lanes enough to realize this goal? . . .
We will always have to "prepare" to ride on any route in which we intersect with others, especially if the "others" are cars and trucks.

Edit: I thought of two ways to reach your goal. First, lower the speed limit on all roads and freeways to 15 mph and enforce the limit mercilessly. Second, create a completely separate bicycle skywalk system above roads. It would have to be above in order avoid all intersections.


. . . the only way to move forward is to compromise, which in our case leads to spending money on solutions that are far from perfect and may even make matters worse. . . .
Why would we want to "compromise" on a "solution" that makes "matters worse"?


. . . .Getting back to the OP, shouldn't a cycling advocate seek to provide education and advocacy for all cyclists, VC, PC , MUPC? Or are VC advocates just that, advocates for VC, but not interested in educating the cycling population as a whole to all the 'Cs'? Thus, is a VC advocate an advocate of only a portion of cyclists and not a cycling advocate for cycling as a whole? . . .
VC'ers do advocate for all cyclists, and are very much "interested in educating the cycling population as a whole," including cyclists who currently ride like pedestrians. Actually, I should have said, "especially cyclists who currently ride like pedestrians."

As to MUP's, they are interesting because they are basically lawless places. Some paths post "rules" (which are often really only non-binding suggestions), but they vary from path to path and are widely ignored by nearly all users. The basic MUP guidelines are 1) go only at a safe speed; 2) pass only when safe and only after signalling; 3) everybody stays right; 4) everybody stays single file when others are present. There's not much VC or anything can add to that.

[lws]

This begs the question of why there are roads which cyclists need to "prepare" for. Shouldn't we all be working towards system where any cyclist of any age can travel anywhere without having to be physically and mentally "prepared" for the trip? If we rule out bike lanes and bike paths, what do we have left? Are wide lanes enough to realize this goal?


You say "cyclist", but just to make things a little more plausible, let's try to imagine SOME transportation modality which might not even be cycling, that would allow anyone to travel anywhere without being physically and mentally prepared.

Can you do it? I can't. Can't be done in cars, busses, airplanes, horses, trains or on foot, at least at present. MAYBE, maybe, taxicabs and limousine services do allow it. Might it be done with some kind of teleportation booth?

[Roody]

Very nicely said. Double +1




OH. MY. GOD.

Please, for the love of god, STFU already! I cannot *believe* your answers and your reasoning. You are a true zealot, and you can't bear the thought that your little pet cause might not be necessary in a world where bicycles are respected.

Come up with all the obfusticatory, diversionary arguments you want, it's pretty clear there how uncomfortable you'd be in a world where your little schtick has no place.
As usual, name-calling and hand-wringing and whining. Absolutely no statements of substance. What is your point, Nic, or is it a secret, or do you just like to bellyache?

Are you saying you love bike lanes? Then please tell us why. You love MUPs? Why? VCers don't advocate for "folk cyclist"s? Kindly tell me more. You hate somebody because you disagree with his or her ideas? I don't want to hear about it.

[Nicodemus]

As usual, name-calling and hand-wringing and whining. Absolutely no statements of substance. What is your point, Nic, or is it a secret, or do you just like to bellyache?

Are you saying you love bike lanes? Then please tell us why. You love MUPs? Why? VCers don't advocate for "folk cyclist"s? Kindly tell me more. You hate somebody because you disagree with his or her ideas? I don't want to hear about it.

No. Because he just doesn't get it. It's as simple as that.

Brian's point was just totally ignored and deflected into yet another weird argument. Brian's whole point was more on the higher level of "this shouldn't be necessary", and yet again HH retorts with "but it is necessary". Way to bring down the argument to a level where you don't have to question its ultimate worth, bingo.

It feels to me like saying I should continue in a logical debate with a Kirk Cameron about evolution.


and then, after disagreeing with the first question, narrows it down and still says No. And this reasoning is?

a) it's very expensive
[well I have my priorities right, how 'bout you? How DID those European countries ever do it if it was so expensive?]

b) it has very limited practical applicability in the U.S.
[Dare to question your boundaries of what is possible]

c) doing so implies that such work is required for cyclists
[can we say inferiority complex?]

d) if we get far enough in that direction, other types of cycling (i.e. VC) are more likely to be banned, or at least lose what little social acceptance they currently have, when we should be working towards getting VC more socially acceptable.
This just takes the cake. That one just sparked a fuse in me. WTF does that mean? It means ":cry::cry: I don't wanna ride safely, I enjoy having to fight it out, alpha-dog style, every day with those cars! Please don't take my ideology away!"


It's not as simple as me not liking someone because I disagree with them. I find the deflective, obtuse mentality exceptionally aggravating.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Or are VC advocates just that, advocates for VC, but not interested in educating the cycling population as a whole to all the 'Cs'? Thus, is a VC advocate an advocate of only a portion of cyclists and not a cycling advocate for cycling as a whole? Will they do a remake of Pee-Wee's big adventure featuring Roody in the starring role? Inquiring minds...ask smart-arsed questions. ;)
Yes and no.

Yes. Zealous VC enthusiasts are most definitely "interested" in the promotion of their specific brand of education/training to as many people as can be convinced and/or coerced into the classes.

No. Zealous VC enthusiasts, as represented by their chief spokesman/guru John Forester, are on record as not being interested in advocating for any population of cyclists except those who accept the VC philosophy/philosophy as the one and only method of "competent" cycling. They are on record as being in opposition to any cycling advocacy that "only" results in what they describe derisively as "More butts on bikes" - UNLESS their proprietary education programs are given a taste of the action.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

I hear that Germany has a movement afoot to relegate cyclists to the sidewalks.
Is that right? WHO did you hear that tidbit from?

[LittleBigMan]

I might not have a proper view of vehicular cycling, but I don't think being a vehicular cyclist means that you are automatically equal to motor traffic. I don't think it means that you have to feel comfortable riding on any road at any time of day. I don't think it means that you are automatically safe, or that every road is equally as safe as any other. Most of all, I don't think it means you are a coward, or that you suffer from a phobia if you choose to avoid a certain stretch of road or traffic situation.

I prefer to see vehicular cycling as a tool that gives cyclists more freedom to use the roads we already have, instead of feeling restricted to sidewalks, paths or bicycle facilities. The fact that many advocates of vehicular cycling have strong opinions against bicycle facilities does not mean all cyclists who practice vehicular cycling must restrict themselves from using them.

The skill of practicing vehicular cycling should open up possibilities, not close them.

[Brian Ratliff]

No.

Just like you don't send a student driver on a freeway or a busy boulevard on his first day of driving, cyclists have to work up experience and skills before they're ready to drive on such roads too.

I know of older drivers who never learned how to drive on freeways? Why, because they never tried. People who never try VC on a quiet road, are never going to try it on a busy road either. You have to learn VC on quiet neighborhood streets first, then move up to busier and faster streets.

But I have not answered your question (beyond the "no"). While it is possible to convert small flat areas into cycling meccas like Amsterdam, it is practically impossible to do so a wide scale over varied terrain. That means that cycling in the U.S.A, except possibly in isolated pockets, can never be a "system where any cyclist of any age can travel anywhere without having to be physically and mentally 'prepared' for the trip? " At least not in the foreseeable (several generations) future.

Given that, the more practical version of your question should be, "shouldn't we be working towards a system with isolated pockets where any cyclist of any age can travel anywhere without having to be physically and mentally 'prepared' for the trip? "

The answer to that is no, because
a) it's very expensive
b) it has very limited practical applicability in the U.S.
c) doing so implies that such work is required for cyclists
d) if we get far enough in that direction, other types of cycling (i.e. VC) are more likely to be banned, or at least lose what little social acceptance they currently have, when we should be working towards getting VC more socially acceptable.

If you doubt me on d, go visit Germany. You'll see VC, but only on quiet residential streets. In busy parts of town, it's all pedestrian cycling. And if you don't think Portland is moving in that direction, wait a decade.

Now something new comes out. Cycling is not for everybody in your framework, by your admission above. For those people who don't have a driver's license and don't have a ride, they are confined to walking distance around their homes. I think you are too limited in your thinking. Cities aren't built in a day, they evolve. So will cycling and cycling facilities here in the US. The trends are headed away from sprawl and toward sustainable communities, with cycling being part of the mix. Not all cities look like Southern Califonia, and the sprawl in California is becoming the very symbol of what cities should not be.

You presupose that vehicular cycling is the be all and end all for cycling. It doesn't have to be, and I would be disappointed if it is. It would mean that cycling will become a privilege instead of a right. Licensing will be required, eventually, if standardized training is to be implimented, which means that walking will become the only form of unrestricted travel.

Cycling is something for all ages, from the young to the old. If cycling is going to relevent to our culture, as opposed to being the perview of some "eccentrics" (that's us, as viewed from the outside), it needs to be unrestricted, common, and useful. Think of the city you live if you could get to anywhere in a 5 mile radius without putting on clipless shoes and cycling cloths and never be passed by a car going more than 30 mph, never have to take a lane, never have a driver conflict, never have your life be put in danger by someone who doesn't understand what it's like to be on a bike. We should step back from the discussion about the details and determine what our end goals are. Is our end goal to make cycling more like driving, regulated by licenses, and restricted to the previliged few who are willing to put up with crap from drivers who don't understand cyclists? Or should cycling be for everyone as a common, practical method of transportation; a right instead of a privilege?

Ultimately, the choice of road design matters little. It is a question of laws and culture. Vehicular cycling principles work as a technique for cyclists now, but it has no power to change our culture as a whole. Forester's second premise, stating that enough vehicular cyclists on enough roads will eventually lead to acceptance of cycling, will ultimately not hold because it gives up too much to the current culture. If vehicular cycling is the best we can do, we will never be more than a very small minority, and we will never have a true place in the US culture.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

I might not have a proper view of vehicular cycling, but I don't think being a vehicular cyclist means that you are automatically equal to motor traffic. I don't think it means that you have to feel comfortable riding on any road at any time of day. I don't think it means that you are automatically safe, or that every road is equally as safe as any other. Most of all, I don't think it means you are a coward, or that you suffer from a phobia if you choose to avoid a certain stretch of road or traffic situation.

I prefer to see vehicular cycling as a tool that gives cyclists more freedom to use the roads we already have, instead of feeling restricted to sidewalks, paths or bicycle facilities. The fact that many advocates of vehicular cycling have strong opinions against bicycle facilities does not mean all cyclists who practice vehicular cycling must restrict themselves from using them.

The skill of practicing vehicular cycling should open up possibilities, not close them.
I believe you have stated a very proper view of bicycling advocacy. Bicycling advocacy can certainly include informing cyclists of the various practical techniques of vehicular cycling (but without the unique and wacky visions, attitudes, legal abstractions, and wierdly named risky techniques from a few zealots.)

Unfortunatly, the advocacy of vehicular cycling has been totally corrupted and made impotent (as well as counterproductive to bicycling advocacy) by its most avid spokesmen and proselytizers due to their arrogance and reliance on sophistry.

[Brian Ratliff]

We will always have to "prepare" to ride on any route in which we intersect with others, especially if the "others" are cars and trucks.

Edit: I thought of two ways to reach your goal. First, lower the speed limit on all roads and freeways to 15 mph and enforce the limit mercilessly. Second, create a completely separate bicycle skywalk system above roads. It would have to be above in order avoid all intersections.


First, do you have to prepare to walk from your car to the entrance of Costco? Perhaps a little, but you certainly don't have to get suited up and fill the waterbottle. Why should cycling in a 5 mile radius be any different?

Second, you are limiting your imagination. Who knew in the 1950's what roads would look like and what rules would be developed by the year 2000? Didn't they think that we would have flying cars by now? Cities and roads evolve, we only need to push that evolution toward including cyclists and pedestrians. Forcing a freeze on cycling facilities is the wrong way to go if cycling is going to be for everybody, even if a small group of elites are satisfied with the status quo.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

We should ask for the world. Who knows, if we ask for everything for everybody, then perhaps everybody will get something.

…
Once we are moving on that front, then we can commission studies to see what bike facilities are truely the best. Choose a road. Put in WOL for a year or two, then put in a bike lane for a year or two, see what happens. All this stuff has been hand waving up to this point. Agree to a study methodology that all sides can live with, then do it. When the results are in, those results can be used in new roadway designs.

While asking for everything such "putting in a WOL"for a year or two for the benefits accrued to bicyclists, I would add a trial of free beer and pizza dispensers at every other busy intersection for the benefit of cyclists.

Either scenario is just as likely to be implemented for the benefits of cyclists in any built up urban area; the locations where cycling for transportation purposes is likely to be considered practical due to the synergy of population, reasonable distances, and potential destinations factors. Widening streets in built-up cities (presumably by removing on-street parking or sidewalks or both, or wholesale urban renewal) for the purpose of only creating a wider lane for cyclists' benefit is a pipe dream.

[Brian Ratliff]

While asking for everything such "putting in a WOL"for a year or two for the benefits accrued to bicyclists, I would add a trial of free beer and pizza dispensers at every other busy intersection for the benefit of cyclists.

Either scenario is just as likely to be implemented for the benefits of cyclists in any built up urban area; the locations where cycling for transportation purposes is likely to be considered practical due to the synergy of population, reasonable distances, and potential destinations factors. Widening streets in built-up cities (presumably by removing on-street parking or sidewalks or both, or wholesale urban renewal) for the purpose of only creating a wider lane for cyclists' benefit is a pipe dream.

Not a pipe dream on either account. Portland mandates new road projects to set aside a specific percentage of the budget for cycling facilities. Road widening is part of this. This law even survived a recent attack a couple years ago.

In the summer, I believe we have donuts and coffee at the top of one of our bridges, free for crossing cyclists. Beer probably wouldn't fly, though pizza might.

[chipcom]

Why would we want to "compromise" on a "solution" that makes "matters worse"?


I believe that was my point, if you take more of what I wrote in that sentence but the sound bite:

"and since the final debate when it comes to roads is in the political arena, the only way to move forward is to compromise, which in our case leads to spending money on solutions that are far from perfect and may even make matters worse."

That's how politics work - to get anything done you have to compromise, which, at best doesn't improve anything and at worst makes them worse. The only way to get the lions share of what you want when forced to compromise is to have the stronger political hand - like 85 million cyclists that speak with one voice and vote based on cycling issues. Like that's gonna happen. :(

[Daily Commute]

First, do you have to prepare to walk from your car to the entrance of Costco? Perhaps a little, but you certainly don't have to get suited up and fill the waterbottle. Why should cycling in a 5 mile radius be any different?
What in VC requires anyone to "suit up" for a 5 mile ride? (The water bottle might be helpful depending on the weather.)


Second, you are limiting your imagination. Who knew in the 1950's what roads would look like and what rules would be developed by the year 2000? Didn't they think that we would have flying cars by now? Cities and roads evolve, we only need to push that evolution toward including cyclists and pedestrians. Forcing a freeze on cycling facilities is the wrong way to go if cycling is going to be for everybody, even if a small group of elites are satisfied with the status quo.
I don't think we should put a "freeze on cycling facilties." I just don't think we should build poorly-designed or poorly-placed ones. But you're right, limiting imagination when brainstorming solutions is a bad idea.

[Bekologist]

mmm, doughnuts. Handed to me while I commute? cycling paradise.

[chipcom]

Yes and no.

Yes. Zealous VC enthusiasts are most definitely "interested" in the promotion of their specific brand of education/training to as many people as can be convinced and/or coerced into the classes.

No. Zealous VC enthusiasts, as represented by their chief spokesman/guru John Forester, are on record as not being interested in advocating for any population of cyclists except those who accept the VC philosophy/philosophy as the one and only method of "competent" cycling. They are on record as being in opposition to any cycling advocacy that "only" results in what they describe derisively as "More butts on bikes" - UNLESS their proprietary education programs are given a taste of the action.

That is exactly the point I was trying to make in a previous post that you took offense to (and PM'd me about). VC....or shall I say VC zealot organizations, are no different than PACs and other political lobbying groups, which have a tendency to ensure there is always a 'problem' to keep them in business and the money flowing in, rather than solving the problem and losing their justification for existence. I used to be a very active NRA member and gun rights advocate, till I discovered that the NRA's real game is self preservation, not the preservation of my rights.

No, I'm not going to explain what 'I got your ideology - 'hangin' means - that is one of those turns of a phrase that you either get or you don't, kinda hard to explain. Note that in person it is usually accompanied by an obvious grab to the crotch. ;)