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

sbhikes

I read the following in the Anti-VC thread and it bothers me:

[VC is...]
- not for granny going to do her weekly shopping.
- not for 8 year olds going to school.
- not for the businessman in the suit.
- not for a couple, one sitting on the rear rack, going to a movie.
- not for the mob of students returning cases of beer bottles for refunds.
- not for mum with a 6-month old toddler.

Don't kid yourself, it's not an all-inclusive ideology.

What makes you think I believe VC is an all-inclusive ideology?
Your list describes what Jeffrey Hiles ("Listening to bike lanes" - have you read it?) refers to as folk cyclists.
But even folk cyclists who may never have the inclination to master VC, could only be made safer by learning at least some of it.

Learning VC helps the sidewalk cyclist be more aware of, and better prepared for, the dangers of sidewalk cycling.
Learning VC helps the bike lane cyclist be more aware of, and better prepared for, the dangers of bike lane cycling.
Learning VC helps cyclists learn the dangers of, and to be better prepared for, bike path/roadway transitions and crossings.
Learning VC helps folk cyclists understand the dangers of wrong-way cycling.

It seems to me that VC is being shoved down our throats here as some kind of God-given solution to all bicycling problems, and yet it's admittedly not a methodology intended for so-called "folk" cyclists. I agree that everyone can benefit from learning vehicular cycling, but what good is it to advocate for some kind of methodology at the expense of all other tools that is admittedly not for the benefit of all?

That list above is of real people who use their bicycles for real transporation What kind of advocate writes off these people as "folk" cyclists, as if that's some kind of subset of lesser cyclists who can maybe learn a few tricks, but won't ever be full-fledged members of the "club"? How can anyone consider it bicycle advocacy if it isn't for everybody?

In my mind, bicycle advocacy should serve the needs of everyone who uses bicycles for transportation. Otherwise it's just elitism.

What do you think? What should advocates advocate for so that granny and the 8 year old and the suited businessman and all the rest can get where they need to go by bike?

The BikeForums Team

-adv-

This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content here.

Ready to buy? Check out these two online bike stores:
- http://www.nashbar.com (you can find the latest bike nashbar coupons in this thread)
- http://www.performancebike.com (you can find the latest performance bike coupons in this thread)

Cya on the forums,
- The BikeForums Team
- http://www.bikeforums.net

Bekologist

Roody

I imagine the granny and the suited businessman can pretty much take care of themselves. I think it's good general cycling advocacy to provide adult cyclists with the information that bicycles are considered vehicles, and they have a right to ride them on public streets if they want to. That is simply the law of the land, and a good option for many adults who do a lot of cycling. I doubt if anybody here would disagree with that. Fortunately, almost all of the cycling information I have read does include that information, that bikes are OK on the public right of way.

VC advocacy is another issue. As I understand it (and I might be wrong), VC advocates argue that all adult cyclists always fare best when they ride as vehicles. A number of people on this forum, along with many cagers, do not agree with this opinion.

I believe that all cyclists should be exposed to the accepted principles of riding safely on streets, roads, trails, MUPs, bike lanes, and sidewalks. (They should also receive information about riding with other cyclists and learn how to do sarety checks of their bicycles.) Whatever limited knowledge we have about the relative risks of different riding environments should also be provided. Then, as adults, each cyclist will follow his own preferences about where and how he rides.

After that, it is up to VC avocates to provide the information (their own informed opinions) about the alleged benefits of vehicular cycling. Cyclists who are interested in VC will listen to this information, others will not. (Both will probably end up posting on this subforum anyway. :))

As for the "8 year old going to school": I think it's unfortunate that the OP included children in this discussion, as that is a totally different issue. Obviously, young children must be TOLD how to ride; they are not yet able to form their own opinions about vehicular cycling and the like.

Roody

My mom is NEVER going to ride VC, steely eyed into 35MPH traffic with arm outstretched and eye contact alpha dogging her right to the road.

Would as many people bike in Portland if there weren't as many bike lanes? I seriously doubt it. And if all the stripes were replaced tomorrow with wide outside lanes, I think less people would bike in Portland.

Regardless of my personal riding style, If VC's net effect on bicyclists is less people on bikes, it's not helping. I think bicycle advocacy should be for all people who bicycle, not just those who bike for transportation.
I tend to agree with you. However, I think that many "folk cyclists" do not ride very often, and many only ride for a few months before they give it up. Setting aside safety issues, cycling is generally less efficient when it is done exclusively on paths, trails and sidewalks. Not all areas are served by paths and trails, and even the sidewalk eventually ends. "The road goes ever on," however, and usually with better pavement and higher practical speeds.

My question is, how many "folk cyclists" would spend more time on their bikes if they felt able to ride in the street? I myself would not have continued cycling if I felt confined to the sidewalks and trails. Street avoidance is not practical cycling, and in the long run, it isn't much fun for most adults either. At least inform people that they have a realistic option to ride in the street,then let them make up their own minds.

late

Hi,
when I saw your post, it reminded me of something. I was walking down a street in Italy when a school let out. Suddenly there was at least a hundred kids on bikes just filling the road.

I take a thoroughly pragmatic approach to riding. There are places where VC is the way to go. And there are places where
a break down lane works better if the traffic is a lot faster than you are.

Vehicular Cycling is about insisting on our fair share of the road.
You are taking it out of context, which likely happened before you were born. The Highway Lobby wanted bikes off streets completely. There was a lot of hostility against cyclists.

Big subject, I ought to know about it than I do. But I am lucky,
things have gotten markedly better in this area for cyclists.

sbhikes

chipcom

I read the following in the Anti-VC thread and it bothers me:

It seems to me that VC is being shoved down our throats here as some kind of God-given solution to all bicycling problems, and yet it's admittedly not a methodology intended for so-called "folk" cyclists. I agree that everyone can benefit from learning vehicular cycling, but what good is it to advocate for some kind of methodology at the expense of all other tools that is admittedly not for the benefit of all?

That list above is of real people who use their bicycles for real transporation What kind of advocate writes off these people as "folk" cyclists, as if that's some kind of subset of lesser cyclists who can maybe learn a few tricks, but won't ever be full-fledged members of the "club"? How can anyone consider it bicycle advocacy if it isn't for everybody?

In my mind, bicycle advocacy should serve the needs of everyone who uses bicycles for transportation. Otherwise it's just elitism.

What do you think? What should advocates advocate for so that granny and the 8 year old and the suited businessman and all the rest can get where they need to go by bike?

1. A cyclist is a cyclist, don't matter if they are man, woman, young, old, black, white, mauve, gay, straight, Republican, Democrat....shall I continue?

2. If you want to be a 'cycling advocate', IMHO you should fight hardest for the issues that have the greatest benefit for all cyclists - yes you represent Granny the sidewalk rider, Flash the Roadie, MoonUnit the BMXer, etc. etc. etc.

3. If you wish to represent just one aspect of cycling, then you should qualify yourself and not pretend to speak for or be acting for all cyclists. Road cycling advocate, BMX cycling advocate, Pedestrian cycling advocate and, yes, Vehicular cycling advocate.

(off topic, but Wasn't it the VCers that came up with the contradictory term 'Pedestrian cyclist' in the first place?)

4. IMHO, technically VCers should represent all cyclists, because VC is not their own idea, methodology or ideology. VC derives it's tenents from proven safe, lawful riding technicques that have been in practice, albeit in varying amounts) for as long as people have piloted bicycles. ('piloted' sounds better in that sentence than 'ridden', don't you think?) Forrester and others merely borrowed that existing body of knowledge, packaged it and gave it a their 'brand' - Vehicular Cycling.

Obviously these are my own opinions, take them as you like. ;)

Roody

I agree with all of you that vc (small letters) is a valuable thing for everyone to learn. However, as I read the above quotes I got the sense that some of these so-called advocates write these "folk cyclists" off.

I know some of these granny-types and they would definitely not ever ride in town if there were no bike lanes, or if they had to somehow negotiate a WOL with 55mph traffic. They would take the bus because they do not drive. That they are over 60 and over 90 and out there riding bicycles should be something to celebrate, and encourage, not work against.

I am just bothered that the big "alpha dog" VCers in these forums seem to write them and their needs off. What good is a cycling advocacy that works against legitimate users? Maybe those who would prefer a 100% VC no-cyclist-facilities-ever-world should compromise a bit.
Please don't jump to conclusions. I pretty much agree with you.:)

But it's not just VCers who ignore "folk cyclists." The most hurtful comments I have read about these cyclists were on the roadie forum and the commuting forum, not here. If I were half the man I want to be, I would try to help these folk cyclists, not by telling them how to ride, but by helping them to get their bikes fitted and fixed, or maybe giving them a blinkie or something. The other day I saw a big guy riding a cheap old BMX while somehow carrying a huge duffel bag in both arms. The whole frame was swaying like a broken dow old horse. Clearly, he needed something besides advice on which lane to ride in. (Actually, to demolish a stereotype, he was riding vehicularly! :D)

But you know what? Don't sell the grannies short either. Several months ago, I posted an anti-VC post about an older lady I work with. She had just bought a comfort bike, and was scared to ride it the four blocks or so to the MUP where she wanted to ride. How, I asked Serge and others, was VC going to help her? I never did get an answer. However, that lady did start riding on a rail-trail near her vacation home, and got in good condition and began to feel confident riding her bike. Late this summer, she bought a new hybrid, one of the sportier ones. Now she is riding on streets all over her neighborhood as well as on the MUP. Her goal for next year is to ride across town to work. She would not have done this if I (or somebody else) had not explained that it is feasible to ride with cars. That was good advocacy on my part. I gave her the information that she may ride on the public right of way with all the other vehicles.

But much more importantly, she would not have made this progress if she had not felt free to ride her bike in her own style,until she had the conditioning, skills and self-confidence to move it onto the streets.

Sometimes the bicycle is its own best advocate!

Roody

[ . . . ]
(off topic, but Wasn't it the VCers that came up with the contradictory term 'Pedestrian cyclist' in the firs)t place?Actually, I don't think this is off-topic at all. Bicycles can be ridden safely in "pedestrian mode." (By definition, this is not vehicular cycling.)

Don't you agree that there are certain safety rules that make pedestrian riding safer? Like riding slowly, looking for traffic in all four directions when crossing a street or even a driveway, yielding to true pedestrians, etc. Obviously, a lot of sidewalk cyclists don't follow these guidelines. They put themselves and others at risk. If I'm reading Diane's OP right, she is suggesting that advocates should inform these cyclists of the principles of safe pedestrian cycling?

I would add that they should also be told, at least, of the feasibility of riding vehicularly, since ped. riding will probably prove inadequate for most of them, sooner or later. Many will probably either graduate to vehicular cycling, or give up their bike altogether.

lws

like, riding on the sidewalk which is on the right side of the road, rather than the one on the left.

patc

It seems to me that VC is being shoved down our throats here as some kind of God-given solution to all bicycling problems, and yet it's admittedly not a methodology intended for so-called "folk" cyclists. I agree that everyone can benefit from learning vehicular cycling, but what good is it to advocate for some kind of methodology at the expense of all other tools that is admittedly not for the benefit of all?

I couldn't agree more. I was hit with it from my first day on these forums.

The problem isn't just that they shove VC down our throats: its that they shove their version of VC down our throats to the exclusion of all else (e.g. the bike-lane phobia common with so many VCers). There is a group of VCers, well represented here, who believe they have the one and only answer to "correct" cycling.

What do you think? What should advocates advocate for so that granny and the 8 year old and the suited businessman and all the rest can get where they need to go by bike?

Honestly, the first thing advocates should do is to get rid of extremists. I say that based on being politically active my whole adult life. The extremists are not team players, they will de-rail your advocacy effort and alienate everyone, "friend" or "foe".

To better answer your question, though, I will go back to something I said before: we must advocate for a full range of cycling facciilties which reach out to all cyclists and consider the safety, convenience, and comfort of each type of cyclist. A cycling network must include pathways and bike lanes and marked bike routes and more. If we feel the need to advocate for just one thing, it should be for the development (municipal, regional, national, whatever) of comprehensive cycling networks that are as inclusive as possible.

I primarily use roads for cycling, with pathways for scenic longer distances and never side-walks. I appreciate a good bike lane. I am faced daily with the challenges of cycling on roads and I have no doubt at all that it is beyond many people's abilities, never mind "ice stares" and all that non-sense.

I-Like-To-Bike

I couldn't agree more. I was hit with it from my first day on these forums.

The problem isn't just that they shove VC down our throats: its that they shove their version of VC down our throats to the exclusion of all else (e.g. the bike-lane phobia common with so many VCers). There is a group of VCers, well represented here, who believe they have the one and only answer to "correct" cycling.

Honestly, the first thing advocates should do is to get rid of extremists. I say that based on being politically active my whole adult life. The extremists are not team players, they will de-rail your advocacy effort and alienate everyone, "friend" or "foe".

I would suggest that at least as far as the Bike Forums Lists are concerned, a separate list be set aside for those who wish to discuss the ideology and promotion of "Vehicular Cycling". It would be similar to the Living Car-Free list where those who hold even extreme ideas on the topic are safe from anyone "insulting" their personal beliefs/dogma/ideology, even when counterproductive to bicyclists in general, as long as it is kept on the appropriate list. This proposed Vehicular Cycling Promotion/Free VC Expert Advice List would be a criticism free place for VC™ true believers and inquiring minds, safe from skeptics who may "insult" them with a dose of reality. Then the rest of the world of cyclists could seriously discuss bicycling safety or advocacy; or at least enjoy blessed silence and relief from endless VC™ proselytization about the needs/desires of "we-VCers."

patc

I would suggest that at least as far as the Bike Forums Lists are concerned, a separate list be set aside for those who wish to discuss the ideology and promotion of "Vehicular Cycling".

Great idea, but the extreme VCers would no more respect that setup than they do the current one.

Roody

The definition of an extremist: "Anybody who holds a strong opinion that is not in accord with my equally strong opinion."

CrimsonEclipse

Please try to put the definition of VC in the first post.

For all i knew, you guys were anti-Vietcong. :eek:

CE

filtersweep

My mom is NEVER going to ride VC, steely eyed into 35MPH traffic with arm outstretched and eye contact alpha dogging her right to the road.

I love that visual... my wife won't even stay on my wheel as I ride like that to barrel into a left turn lane.

noisebeam

Nicodemus

I don't have anything to add at this point, just wanted to say thanks for your post, sbhikes. Nicely said. :beer:

patc

Then the higher speed roads where bike lanes are added, any cyclist must have the skills to merge left/right in traffic and destination position oneself at intersections. Bike lanes do nothing to help here - what good are the 1/2-1mi stretches between intersections with nice bike lanes if the difficult part for any cyclist (experienced or not) is the intersections?

Bike lanes are a great help to "folk" cyclists in those conditions. They don't need to negotiate intersections as such: If going straight, just go straight through*. If turning and not comfortable changing lanes, they get off the bike at the intersection and use the crosswalks. I do see people riding this way - very inefficient, but if it makes them comfortable then great.

For some people, a bike lane on a busy road may be the ONLY way they will ever cycle from point A to point B.

noisebeam

Bike lanes are a great help to "folk" cyclists in those conditions. They don't need to negotiate intersections as such: If going straight, just go straight through*. If turning and not comfortable changing lanes, they get off the bike at the intersection and use the crosswalks. I do see people riding this way - very inefficient, but if it makes them comfortable then great.

For some people, a bike lane on a busy road may be the ONLY way they will ever cycle from point A to point B.
Well I simply never see this. 'Casual' or 'folk' cyclists seem to stick to the sidewalks even when a nice passable bike lane is present. And those folks so rarely (approaching never) dismount to cross the x-walks or side streets with implied x-walks. I've observed this for years from both car and bike. Basically from what I've seen is that once folks use the x-walks, they stick to the sidewalk too.

Al

sggoodri

If we define vehicular cycling as being obedience of the normal vehicular traffic laws while operating on a particular road, then vehicular cycling is absolutely for everybody who rides on that road. Contrary operation is illegal and dangerous.

If we instead define vehicular cycling as being instantly able to use every roadway and every turn lane safely and comfortably, then no, it takes some practice and skill to get there, even for physically fit cyclists, and there are some places where even an experienced cyclist will have difficulty merging over to a left turn lane. Heck, I experience similar difficulties in my car.

Starting out on slower and lower volume streets helps one develop the skill and confidence to ride safely and comfortably on more and more busy and faster streets, just like when learns to drive a car. But even with just a beginner's level of learning, vehicular cycling provides safe and comfortable access to a very broad network of pleasant roads. Using those roads in a way contrary to the rules of the road would make them less safe, and so vehicular cycling skills are very useful.

So what do we do about the unpleasant roads, where only the most confident, seemingly physically fit cyclists seem to be comfortable riding? There are couple of strategies that I think are useful here:

- One strategy is for the government to promote better connections between low-speed low-volume roads, so that traffic-averse cyclists can reach more destinations on the easier roads.

- Another strategy of is for the less pleasant roads to be re-engineered in ways that cyclists will be safer or feel more comfortable (as long as the design for comfort does not actually reduce safety). Wider pavement in the area where cyclists will operate near overtaking motor traffic may be useful here. This can be accomplished by reducing the lane count, shifiting lane lines toward the inside, removing parking, or widening the road. Also, high-speed right turn lanes and merge lanes can be avoided. However, I don't believe that traffic control devices that demand cyclists operate contrary to the normal vehicular rules (such as "bike boxes", door-zone bike lanes, narrow bike lanes on steep descents, bike lanes to the right of right-turn-only-lanes, and mandatory-use sidepaths) are useful for improving safety.

-Another strategy is more vigorous enforcement of traffic laws for motorists, in conjunction with education efforts for motorists to drive safely around cyclists on busy roads.

-Last, but not least, cyclists can dismount and make pedestrian-style left turns where they find traffic volumes to be so high that merging into the left lane safely would be too difficult. Better engineering of pedestrian facilities such as sidewalks, crosswalks and pedestrian signals can assist with this. Note that dismounting and following pedestrian rules is not a violation of vehicular rules. It isn't an example of vehicular cycling, but it doesn't conflict with vehicular cycling either.

I support, and practice, all of the above in the appropriate context. As a member of the Cary NC Planning and Zoning Board, I promote better residential street connectivity, better pavement width on major roads, avoidance of high-speed merge and right-turn-only lanes where they would create problems for slower cyclists, Better motorist law enforcement, and better pedestrian accommodations. I ride all over town pulling my two year old son in a Burley trailer, usually slowly, and I never violate the vehicular rules of the road, and I don't ride on sidewalks, although I do avoid some major roads and I do make an occasional pedestrian left turn, or dismount to cross a street while stopping on the median like a pedestrian.

I find vehicular cycling to be very useful. There are some linear park paths that I ride on occasion, but those paths will never get me everywhere I want to go the way roads can, unless they get built as sidepaths, in which case I find a pleasant roadway to be far superior. I have not had any trouble teaching these techniques to the friends and family who join me on my rides. I am sorry if others have more difficulty.

-Steve Goodridge

Helmet Head

VC advocates argue that all adult cyclists always fare best when they ride as vehicles. A number of people on this forum, along with many cagers, do not agree with this opinion.
False. This is typical VC criticism - strawman arguments based on mischaracterizations and misrepresentations, in this case the insertion of the all modifier in the VC principle, "Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles". No "all" is used or implied by any VC advocates I have read or heard.

However, as I read the above quotes I got the sense that some of these so-called advocates write these "folk cyclists" off.

I know some of these granny-types and they would definitely not ever ride in town if there were no bike lanes, ...
Jeez. My own mother is a granny-type folk cyclist who is never going to vc. If you think I'm writing her off, or any other folk cyclists, you couldn't be more wrong.

What good is a cycling advocacy that works against legitimate users?
Uh, no good, of course. Now, please explain to me how VC advocacy works against any cyclists. I'm not holding my breath. Typical VC criticism. Launch a baseless claim implying something outlandish about VC, and ignore any and all requests to explain how that is.

Helmet Head

But it's not just VCers who ignore "folk cyclists."
This is pissing me off because it's personal. Both of my parents are in their mid 80s and are pure folk cyclists. My Dad is too blind to ride in the streets vehicularly. I resent the implication that I advocate for something that ignores people like my parents.

So, please, explain, what is it that "folk cyclists" need, that needs advocacy, and is not part of VC advocacy. If you can't explain this, then please stop making these statements with absurd and offensive assumptions.

Helmet Head

Please try to put the definition of VC in the first post.
Good luck getting any kind of definition of VC out of Diane or any other VC critic.

Roody

This is pissing me off because it's personal. Both of my parents are in their mid 80s and are pure folk cyclists. My Dad is too blind to ride in the streets vehicularly. I resent the implication that I advocate for something ignores people like my parents.

So, please explain, what is it that "folk cyclists" need, that needs advocacy, and is not part of VC advocacy. If you can't explain this, then please stop making these statements with absurd assumptions that I find offensive.Sorry, dude, I certainly didn't have you in mind when I wrote that. I'm not aware of any VCers being against "folk cyclists," I was responding to Dianes's assertion that this has happened. I went on to say that I have read negative comments on other forums. I do believe that many folk cyclists in my area (and that would be the vast majority of cyclists in my area) find most safety lectures to be unnecessary. Most of them do their best to avoid all motor traffic. I'm sure that VC training would be beneficial to them, but they probably aren't interested, and that's their option. Again sorry that I inadvertantly offended you or your parents!

There are areas of interest to "folk cyclists" that advocates ignore. Many folk cyclists ride poorly fitted and maintained bicycles. This can be a major cause of cyclist injuries. Their bikes are often poorly equipped, lacking lights, reflectors, helmets, even brakes.

sbhikes

HH you are the one who wrote
What makes you think I believe VC is an all-inclusive ideology?
Your list describes what Jeffrey Hiles ("Listening to bike lanes" - have you read it?) refers to as folk cyclists.
But even folk cyclists who may never have the inclination to master VC, could only be made safer by learning at least some of it.
The tone and context led me to believe that you do not believe VC is an all-inclusive ideology. Then you put a lable on that list of cyclists: "folk cyclists." Folk cyclists are the ones not included in your ideology, although you feel they can benefit somewhat.

I agree with you that learning at least some VC is beneficial to them, but I just get a sense, a feeling if you will, that these cyclists are sort of written off as less capable and not the focus of your ideology. But if they aren't the intended audience for your ideology--which is pretty much your advocacy--how useful can your advocacy be?

Definition time:
I consider VC to be the ideology and vehicular cycling to be the practice.

Vechicular cycling means you adhere to the same laws that motor vehicles do. Additionally, you adhere to the laws specific for bicycles. Examples include obeying traffic signals and stop signs and using the appropriate lane for the direction of travel. Vehicular cycling places no negative value judgments on the use or existence of special cycling facilities except when they will cause a true hardship (not simply an inconvenience) or hazard.

VC is the ideology that takes vehicular cycling a step further. VC places value judgments on road facilities and the people who make up the category of vehicles called cyclists. VC places a higher value and on road facilities intended for motor vehicles and a lower value on road facilities intended for bicycles, going so far as to develop parallels to racial segregation and other negative forms of separatism when considering the use of specialized road facilities for cyclists. VC ideology places a higher value on cyclists who are literate and physically strong than on those who are not. VC ideology places the highest value on cyclists who have taken certain courses, read certain books, and who share their views. VC ideology appears to have as its intent the promotion of education courses for cyclists.

Helmet Head

But if they aren't the intended audience for your ideology--which is pretty much your advocacy--how useful can your advocacy be?
To the extent that they want to learn from VC, it may be useful for them.
My question stands, what does benefit folk cyclists?

Your main question is kind of like, what good is chicken if vegetarians won't eat it?

Brian

This is pissing me off because it's personal.

Because YOU make it personal. You take over every A&S thread with your VC preaching. You took offense when I said you had a chip on your shoulder. Maybe you need to take a good long look at yourself, and your approach to VC advocacy.

Brian Ratliff

To the extent that they want to learn from VC, it may be useful for them.
My question stands, what does benefit folk cyclists?

Your main question is kind of like, what good is chicken if vegetarians won't eat it?

I would suggest, dare I say, bike lanes, MUP's, even sidewalks. Slower moving cyclists are not as exposed to the downsides of either facility because of their faster reaction time and stopping distance. Slower cyclists also have a narrower "collision" zone. For example, a slower cyclist needs to be closer to an intersection to be right hooked, meaning the car driver is more likely to notice the cyclist and not misjudge the cyclist's speed.

Now, do you have any specific advocacy or advice to help "folk" cyclists traverse the city, absent an average speed higher than 10 or 15 mph?

Helmet Head

You took offense when I said you had a chip on your shoulder.
Maybe I forgot something, but I believe you have me confused with someone else.

At any rate, a lot of sh!t gets said about me here, and I let almost all of it roll right off.

Helmet Head

I would suggest, dare I say, bike lanes, MUP's, even sidewalks. Slower moving cyclists are not as exposed to the downsides of either facility because of their faster reaction time and stopping distance. Slower cyclists also have a narrower "collision" zone. For example, a slower cyclist needs to be closer to an intersection to be right hooked, meaning the car driver is more likely to notice the cyclist and not misjudge the cyclist's speed.

Now, do you have any specific advocacy or advice to help "folk" cyclists traverse the city, absent an average speed higher than 10 or 15 mph?
Folk cyclists like my parents have excellent facilities - they're called pedestrian facilities. They ride slowly on the sidewalk, walk across crosswalks, call in city maintenance for repairs, etc.

I don't know of any advocacy that cyclists like these need, other than the right to continue riding on sidewalks.

As for cyclists who don't follow pedestrian or vehicular rules, I admit don't know what to advocate for them.

Bekologist

I bet well designed bike lanes are better, safer, and more accomodating than riding on sidewalks for the so called 'pedestrian' or 'folk' cyclist. Calling sidewalks excellent bicycling facilities is absurd.

I see families on bike paths on weekends. I think it's neat.

I-Like-To-Bike

Maybe I forgot something, but I believe you have me confused with someone else.

At any rate, a lot of sh!t gets said about me here, and I let almost all of it roll right off.
Sure, why not? Could be all that sh!t that gets said about you might be really about somebody else, only everybody was confused about who has made a practice of proselytizing sh!t.

sbhikes

noisebeam

Now, do you have any specific advocacy or advice to help "folk" cyclists traverse the city, absent an average speed higher than 10 or 15 mph?
I went on a 21mi ride with my wife a couple months ago. We averaged about 11mph for the entire trip. Speeds ranged from 8-15mph. We didn't use a single sidewalk. We didn't stick ourselves in the bike lane at intersections, we lined up in traffic. We rode to the side of wide outside lanes and in the center of narrow ones. We signaled and negotiated for left turns. We pretty much used the same methods I use when commuting at 25mph. However one of the biggest differences was that we were riding in Sunday late morning traffic vs. weekday rush hour (and didn't ride on some of the more tricky roads which I have to ride on to commute) - which made motorist negotiation easier and aggressiveness notably lower.

(By the way I was in far more body pain during this 2hr ride than I get after/during riding 2x the distance at twice the speed. I think this is because I was putting far more weight on my butt and arms.)

Al

I-Like-To-Bike

We pretty much used the same methods I use when commuting at 25mph. However one of the biggest differences was that we were riding in Sunday late morning traffic vs. weekday rush hour (and didn't ride on some of the more tricky roads which I have to ride on to commute) - which made motorist negotiation easier and aggressiveness notably lower.
Yes that is quite a difference, glad you noticed. Maybe the difference is comparable to the difference between what is learned riding in a large group/peloton on a sunny weekend vs. by yourself in dense traffic in inclement weather during periods of darkness, or the difference between riding in sun belt suburbs WITH wide outside lanes or shoulders vs. typical Eastern and Midwest urban areas with no shoulders, narrow lanes and dense traffic and on street parking. Note that the rules for vehicle operation are the same for all these conditions.

Daily Commute

[VC is]
- not for granny going to do her weekly shopping.
- not for 8 year olds going to school.
- not for the businessman in the suit.
- not for a couple, one sitting on the rear rack, going to a movie.
- not for the mob of students returning cases of beer bottles for refunds.
- not for mum with a 6-month old toddler.
Eight-year-olds should not be on a 45 mph road, or even a 35 mph with or without a bike lane. When they travel on low-traffic residential streets (if their parents think they are mature enough), they should follow VC rules--stay far enough to the left to stay visible, stop at stop signs, don't pass on the right, etc.

As to the others, bike lanes might make them feel safer, but no one has been able to show that most bike lanes actually make people safer. If you increase the perception of safety without increasing the reality, you make people less safe.

Yes that is quite a difference, glad you noticed. Maybe the difference is comparable to the difference between what is learned riding in a large group/peloton on a sunny weekend vs. by yourself in dense traffic in inclement weather during periods of darkness, or the difference between riding in sun belt suburbs WITH wide outside lanes or shoulders vs. typical Eastern and Midwest urban areas with no shoulders, narrow lanes and dense traffic and on street parking. Note that the rules for vehicle operation are the same for all these conditions.
Nicely said. As someone who has never done a group ride, and who regularly rides in rush hour traffic in less-than-ideal conditions, I agree, especially with the part I bolded.

Roody

Yes that is quite a difference, glad you noticed. Maybe the difference is comparable to the difference between what is learned riding in a large group/peloton on a sunny weekend vs. by yourself in dense traffic in inclement weather during periods of darkness, or the difference between riding in sun belt suburbs WITH wide outside lanes or shoulders vs. typical Eastern and Midwest urban areas with no shoulders, narrow lanes and dense traffic and on street parking. Note that the rules for vehicle operation are the same for all these conditions.
Sorry, you're wrong, Al is right, and I'm the living proof, along with Al's wife. I "learned to ride by myself in inclement weather during periods of darkness." Then and now, I rode in "midwest urban areas with no shoulders, narrow lanes and dense traffic and on street parking." I could not have written a better description myself!

But I ride almost all the time in a vehicular manner. Beside the streets you described, I now ride on country roads (alone, no club) in a vehicular manner. I ride during rush hour or on a Sunday afternoon in a vehicular manner. I have never ridden with a large group or peloton, but I still ride vehicularly. I ride fast (for me, 50, fat and on a mountain bike, certainly I'm no elite athlete) in a vehicular manner, and I ride slowly the same way. I am successfully teaching my stepson to ride in a vehicular manner, even though he rides slowly and unsteadily since a severe auto accident.

It is not that hard for most cyclists to learn to ride in a vehicular manner. If you don't want to, that's fine by me. But you are wrong when you imply that it can only be done by a few elite cyclists. I think poor people, homeless people, handicapped people, elderly people should all be insulted by the implication that they cannot learn vehicular principles and then decide for themselves if they want to put them into practice.

Helmet Head

You need something between a sidewalk and nothing.
We do have something between a sidewalk and "nothing", Diance... it's a call a road.

Pedestrian rules on sidewalks (and bike paths).
Vehicular rules on roads.

Bike lanes are neither here nor there, and complicate matters.

JASON R. TOMSIC

It's a gray, grey day. I don't have "THE ANSWER (trumpet fanfare)", but I have to say that I'm having a hard time following what any of you are talking about. I commute/ ride daily via street or path WHICH EVER WAY GETS ME "THERE" FASTEST and SAFEST, PERIOD. If that means riding on a trail or a "lane" then so be it. If I have to ride on a road I will "take the lane," as it should be. I see "grannys" and "roadies" doing the same thing in the same places, too. Ride where you feel MOST comfortable. A person simply has to know their limitations. "Advocacy" helps people learn about their limitations and VC or "vc", or "v.c.", or "vehicular cycling" threads/reponses do have a place here, too. I want YOU to RIDE YOUR BIKE! Period. That's all that matters. Just remember, you have rights, too.

chipcom

Actually, I don't think this is off-topic at all. Bicycles can be ridden safely in "pedestrian mode." (By definition, this is not vehicular cycling.)

Don't you agree that there are certain safety rules that make pedestrian riding safer? Like riding slowly, looking for traffic in all four directions when crossing a street or even a driveway, yielding to true pedestrians, etc. Obviously, a lot of sidewalk cyclists don't follow these guidelines. They put themselves and others at risk. If I'm reading Diane's OP right, she is suggesting that advocates should inform these cyclists of the principles of safe pedestrian cycling?

I would add that they should also be told, at least, of the feasibility of riding vehicularly, since ped. riding will probably prove inadequate for most of them, sooner or later. Many will probably either graduate to vehicular cycling, or give up their bike altogether.

I understand the difference between vechicular cycling and pedestrian cycling, but the latter term is contradictory. A bicycle is a vehicle, but it is not a pedestrian, no matter what 'mode' it is operated in. Even when the rider is operating like a pedestrian, they are still operating a vehicle. But no matter, I hate putting labels on these things, it makes smoke come out of my poor overheated pea brain. IMHO, I would rather lump cycling into two categories - safe and unsafe. No labels, no dogma, no endless explaining of a new term for an old idea. No matter what 'mode' you are in, you are either riding safely or you are not riding safely. Then, we can discuss and debate specific methods and tactics (like turning your head in traffic, for example ;), leaving the labels, categories and other little boxes to politicians and media types. ;)

Helmet Head

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?
Sigh. Yet another VC criticism based on a misunderstanding.

When I'm pulling my 5 year old in the trailer with my mountain bike, I'm going 12 if there is no hill at all, and under 10 otherwise. I ride in the lane. Besides even on my road bike I typically go 16-18 mph, not 25. Speed has very little to do with where you can ride, and where it's safe and reasonable to ride. Anyone who is capable of riding too fast on the sidewalk, is capable of learning to ride safely in the street, starting with quiet streets. And anyone who is not yet ready to ride safely on a given street, is not made ready for that street by the city painting a bike lane stripe on it.

Roody

I understand the difference between vechicular cycling and pedestrian cycling, but the latter term is contradictory. A bicycle is a vehicle, but it is not a pedestrian, no matter what 'mode' it is operated in. Even when the rider is operating like a pedestrian, they are still operating a vehicle. But no matter, I hate putting labels on these things, it makes smoke come out of my poor overheated pea brain. IMHO, I would rather lump cycling into two categories - safe and unsafe. No labels, no dogma, no endless explaining of a new term for an old idea. No matter what 'mode' you are in, you are either riding safely or you are not riding safely. Then, we can discuss and debate specific methods and tactics (like turning your head in traffic, for example ;), leaving the labels, categories and other little boxes to politicians and media types. ;)Fine, I agree with a lot of what you say, but "label" is another word for "definition." I think we need definitions, just to make sure we're all really talking about the same thing. Also, it is difficult to classify cyclist behavior as "safe" and "unsafe" because first, there is disagreement about the definitions of those words, and second, because there is disagreement about the kind of data needed to support the notion that one particular behavior is safer than an alternative behavior. For example, many experienced cyclists say that it's safer to ride in the street than on the sidewalk, but what kind of data would support or refute that hypothesis? When we try to talk about those distinctions, I know that the temptation is to call it anal nitpicking and leave it at that. Sometimes it really is nitpicking. But a lot of the time, the discussion is complex, and we as cyclists and cycling advocates will not come to a concensus without hashing it out over and over again. I think we remember (most of the time) that we all love cycling, and we all want it to be fun and safe, so we really do have a lot of common ground.

Helmet Head

I understand the difference between vechicular cycling and pedestrian cycling, but the latter term is contradictory.
Another criticism of VC based on a misunderstanding.
Vehicular Cycling is vehicular cycling regardless of whether a bicycle is a vehicle (in CA, for example, legally a bicycle is not a vehicle). Vehicular cycling is called vehicular cycling not because a bicycle is a vehicle (though must us believe it is), it is because the term is used to describe bicycling on the public right-of-way in accordance to the vehicular rules of the road.

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.

The terms vehicular and pedestrian cycling have to do with identifying the set of rules the given cyclist is riding in accordance with. That's all. The terms have nothing to do with the issues of whether a bicycle is a vehicle or whether the sidewalk cyclist is a pedestrian.

Bekologist

Helmet Head

Roody

it appears VC'ers are anti bike lane, anti bike path, blanket anti segregationist,and to my simple mind that means less bikers out biking, and that's bad.

Bike facilities increase the number of bikers, and arguably, if a city like Portland didn't have such visible bike facilities there would be less bikers biking there.

Less bikers biking is bad.I'm not sure that I'm a VCer, but I do ride vehicularly on public streets and highways.

I'm not anti-bike path; I ride on bike paths frequently and enjoy my rides. I even volunteer for the annual clean-up day on the RiverTrail. But the MUP doesn't go everywhere I want to go (like to my house :D) and in nice weather it is very slow going.

Anti-bike segregation? Like I said, I'm not against separate facilities, as long as I'm still allowed to ride in the street when I want to.

Anti-bike lane? I hate 'em, but if you like them I don't care. I do hope that the new riders they attract soon feel confident to ride on some streets that don't have bike lanes, if they need to get somewhere. Again, there is no bike lane going to my house, so it isn't much use to me.

(Please use your own words to express your own ideas. Quit putting words into other peoples' mouths that they never actually said.)

Bekologist

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.

noisebeam

Yes that is quite a difference, glad you noticed. Maybe the difference is comparable to the difference between what is learned riding in a large group/peloton on a sunny weekend vs. by yourself in dense traffic in inclement weather during periods of darkness, or the difference between riding in sun belt suburbs WITH wide outside lanes or shoulders vs. typical Eastern and Midwest urban areas with no shoulders, narrow lanes and dense traffic and on street parking. Note that the rules for vehicle operation are the same for all these conditions.
While there was a difference, the difference is traffic was not as great as you suggest. Sure if was Sunday vs. rush hour but there were still a lot of 45mph+ vehicles, some bumper to bumper congestion at intersections. We rode about 50% on roads with not bike lanes nor WOL. There were still tricky spots (merging left across 3 lanes of 45mph traffic) But it wasn't the hell that commuting on some roads can be. I grew up back east and found riding there to be easier as in cities traffic was significantly slower, more alert. I never used a BL nor a WOL back east (Grew up along a 50mph two lane road with no shoulder which we as kids cycled on all the time to get to the playground and back. We followed simple rules from my dad: Stay visible by riding well into the road and ride with traffic)

Al