Advocacy & Safety - VC Misconceptions

I have been struggling with this VC thing for some time. While I fit most of the characterisitics of what I believed to be a vehicular cyclist (and never-ever hug the gutter), I had a mistaken notion that to truly ride vehicularly, I had to take the lane almost all the time (even in situations where vehicles could safely share the lane with me). That just did not fit with my believes about sharing the road.

I followed the link in HH's signature and read other material about the issue. I learned that I ride VC most of the time; not in an effort to be VC, but as a natural result of experience on the road and a knowledge of what will most likely be the safest way to approach a given situation. I was riding VC all along but was not aware of it. I am convinced that at least some of those who speak out so vehemently against VC ride vehicularly most of the time but are not aware of what that really means.

I admit that sometimes I have a bit of a Slvoid in me and take more risks than I have to in order to get somewhere faster or even to have more fun. But for the most part, I fit the VC image as described in Serge's link. With all respect to Cyclaholic, there are many VC concepts that simply make good sense and are followed by almost all experienced cyclists. For instance, am I the only one to notice that cars give me more room when I ride further to the left in a constricted lane? Or am I the only one who (without deference to VC) moves to the center of the lane near dangerous intersections in order to be seen? I doubt it. Also, don't most truly experienced cyclists merge left in a vehicular fashion, negotiating for lanes and looking back? I argue that VC mostly just makes sense and comes naturally as a result of experience.

In short, I take accountability for believing in a misconception regarding vehicular cycling (taking the lane unneccessarily). I am curious if there are other misconceptions that are common out there and giving VC a bad rap when it really is just a common sense and experienced based method of staying alive on the roads.

I tend to agree with you... especially with the statement that most experienced cyclists ride in some VC fashion...

Regarding the misconceptions... another big one is that riding VC is not using Bike Lanes. This is simply not true and there is no conflict between VC and the use of Bike Lanes.

The misconception comes from the book Effective Cycling and the anti Bike Lane attitude expressed by the writer Forester, and his "disciples" who while teaching the VC method also in some cases instill a fear and loathing of Bike Lanes.

True vehicular cycling doesn't care if a bike lane is used or not.

Extending it even a little further, I tend to use vehicular techinques even when riding on bike trails (MUPs) where I live, for example; riding on right, passing on left, stopping at intersections (road), etc.. I also prefer trails to cross streets between street intersections where it can be treated as a simple intersection rather than at street intersections where trails get treated like sidewalks and sometimes (often) put you in the wrong place or are simply too complicated.

Like mentioned above, I don't mind using bike lanes (don't really have any here) or wide shoulders (fairly common here) as long as they don't put me somewhere I don't want to be; door zones, coffin corner (attempting to go straight while right of right-hand turners), wrong way against cars or disadvantaged in intersections (including minor one's like driveways), etc..

And I do consider myself a vehicular cyclist.

The misconception comes from the book Effective Cycling and the anti Bike Lane attitude expressed by the writer Forester, and his "disciples" who while teaching the VC method also in some cases instill a fear and loathing of Bike Lanes.
How could the misconception that VC is not using bike lanes come from the book Effective Cycling when the book Effective Cycling explains in detail how bike lanes should be used by vehicular cyclists? Please answer this question.



True vehicular cycling doesn't care if a bike lane is used or not.
Now that's not necessarily true. Whether a bike lane is used in a given situation may or not be vehicular cycling depending on various factors and conditions.

For example, riding in a bike lane that is dashed near the curb along the right edge of a right-or-straight standard lane, for example, as a cyclist approaches an intersection where he is not turning, while faster right-turning motorists are approaching from the rear, left-turning motorists are coming from the opposite direction about to turn left across his path, and right-turning motorists are coming from his right waiting to turn right onto his road in his direction right in front of him, is an example of bike lane use that is clearly non-vehicular (in this situation a vehicular cyclists would move left out of the bike lane).

On the other hand, riding in a bike lane between intersections on a section of roadway where there are no mid-block minor intersections (with driveways, mall entrances, alleys, etc.) and no door zone from onstreet parking, while being passed by faster traffic, is an example of bike lane use that is clearly vehicular.

True vehicular cycling DOES care if a bike lane is used or not - in particular whether it's used vehicularly given the current factors and conditions, or not.

FWIW, Forester's advice on this is quite clear. He says simply ignore the presence of the bike lane stripe, and choose your position vehicularly as if the stripe is not there. If that choice puts you on the pavement inside the bike lane, fine. That's appropriate vehicular use of a bike lane.

Thanks for starting this thread, Sawtooth. Maybe we can have a one stop shop for VC misconceptions here, to which we can send anyone who appears confused.

Like mentioned above, I don't mind using bike lanes (don't really have any here) or wide shoulders (fairly common here) as long as they don't put me somewhere I don't want to be; door zones, coffin corner (attempting to go straight while right of right-hand turners), wrong way against cars or disadvantaged in intersections (including minor one's like driveways), etc..
Exactly. This describes using bike lanes in a vehicular manner.

Now, whether bike lanes inhibit vehicular cycling techniques from getting more popular and more accepted, is a separate issue from whether bike lanes inhibit vehicular cyclists from riding vehicularly. My answers to these questions are "yes" and "no" respectively, and it's my affirmative answer to the first that forms the basis for my opposition to bike lanes.

How could the misconception that VC is not using bike lanes come from the book Effective Cycling when the book Effective Cycling explains in detail how bike lanes should be used by vehicular cyclists? Please answer this question.




http://danenet.wicip.org/bcp/bike_lanes.html

How could the misconception that VC is not using bike lanes come from the book Effective Cycling when the book Effective Cycling explains in detail how bike lanes should be used by vehicular cyclists? Please answer this question.

http://danenet.wicip.org/bcp/bike_lanes.html

Did you read it, Gene? All of it? There is NOTHING in that entire page about whether bike lanes should be used, much less whether VC is consistent or inconsistent with using bike lanes. In fact there is only one reference to vehicular cycling at all in the entire thing:

"We need to get more people understanding the vehicular-cycling
principle, because that both encourages people to cycle and
reduces the errors that non-cyclists and government commit in
cycling policy. " -John Forester

Once again, you seem to be jumping to conclusions. In this case, simply from the fact that John Forester, the so-called "father" of VC, expresses opposition to BLs, you are jumping to the conclusion that he is saying that VC is not using bike lanes? Why? What a leap! Why do you jump to conclusions like this? Or am I missing something? If so, please copy/paste what that is.

If I'm not missing anything, then please answer my original question (above).
If you can't provide an actual answer that isn't based on irrational leaps to wild conclusions, then please retract your statement.

Like Sawtooth, I picked up a lot of VC on my own when I started riding again 3 years ago. I remembered hearing years ago that bikes can be operated on the street like cars, and applied that knowledge when I started using a bike as my basic urban transportation. However, I also learned a lot from Helmet Head and others on this forum, and I still have much to learn. Learning the basic principles of VC is easy, learning to integrate them easily into every ride requires practice and patience. For newcomers, I would reccommend starting on "easy streets" and gradually advancing to faster, busier, and more complex roadways. Let your comfort be your guide, but (as in physical training) make sure you are always progressing a little beyond your comfort level.

Did you read it, Gene? All of it? There is NOTHING in that entire page about whether bike lanes should be used, much less whether VC is consistent or inconsistent with using bike lanes. In fact there is only one reference to vehicular cycling at all in the entire thing:

"We need to get more people understanding the vehicular-cycling
principle, because that both encourages people to cycle and
reduces the errors that non-cyclists and government commit in
cycling policy. " -John Forester

Once again, you seem to be jumping to conclusions. In this case, simply from the fact that John Forester, the so-called "father" of VC, expresses opposition to BLs, you are jumping to the conclusion that he is saying that VC is not using bike lanes? Why? What a leap! Why do you jump to conclusions like this? Or am I missing something? If so, please copy/paste what that is.

If I'm not missing anything, then please answer my original question (above).
If you can't provide an actual answer that isn't based on irrational leaps to wild conclusions, then please retract your statement.


Hey then it is a misconception... which is exactly what we are talking about, right?

How does VC become associated with the misconception that bike lanes are bad... well look at your sig and read the comments from Forester yourself:



The arguments for bike lanes are largely based on the cyclist-
inferiority superstition, for example the argument that cyclists
don't belong on the road and their presence is legitimized by
bike lane stripes. Installing bike-lane stripes legitimizes that
superstition, which is exactly the wrong thing to be doing. We
need to get more people understanding the vehicular-cycling
principle, because that both encourages people to cycle and
reduces the errors that non-cyclists and government commit in
cycling policy.
forester@ccnet.com John Forester
726 Madrone Ave
408-734-9426 Sunnyvale CA 94086 USA



BTW that was right from the URL... notice the use of the anti-bike lane sentiment and the encouragement of the vehicular cycling principle in the same paragraph. I would have to say that is a lot more than NOTHING. Did you read it?

Again it is the association issue... You don't like bike lanes, Forester doesn't like bike lanes; both you and Forester tout VC... therefore Bike Lanes and VC must not mix, eh?

Common misconception. Gee, I wonder why?

Learning the basic principles of VC is easy, learning to integrate them easily into every ride requires practice and patience.
Exactly. Whenever someone says that actually applying VC principles in real time in real traffic is easy, it's pretty clear that that's someone who has not mastered VC.



BTW that was right from the URL...
No duh. My quote of Forester in #7, which you included in your quote of my post in your #9, was the last sentence of the section you quoted "right from the URL" in #9. Your need to mention that your quote was from the URL indicates that you did not read one or both of the quotes, and so did not recognize the connection. Sigh.



notice the use of the anti-bike lane sentiment and the encouragement of the vehicular cycling principle in the same paragraph. I would have to say that is a lot more than NOTHING. Did you read it?
Yes, I read it, and even quoted it. Apparently unlike you, I read words before I quote them.
Again, there is NOTHING in that entire page, much less the part you quoted, ABOUT WHETHER BIKE LANES SHOULD BE USED, much less whether VC is consistent or inconsistent with USING bike lanes.

Do you understand there is a difference between USING bike lanes, and SUPPORTING bike lanes?



You don't like bike lanes, Forester doesn't like bike lanes; both you and Forester tout VC... therefore Bike Lanes and VC must not mix, eh?
Sorry, but I don't know how to prevent misconceptions that are formed from wild and irrational logical leaps like this.

Do you understand there is a difference between USING bike lanes, and SUPPORTING bike lanes?

Sorry, but I don't know how to prevent misconceptions that are formed from wild and irrational logical leaps like this.

Hey, I am just reporting what I see... the association between VC and anti-bike lane rhetoric is as obvious as your sig. You don't believe there should be an association. Fine. But to anyone looking at your message and Forester's message... this misconception comes across as a pretty clear message.

I didn't make this stuff up... I am only reporting what I see and what has even been expressed here in BF.

Don't clear me up... just consider what messages you and Forester and the other "Foresterites" are sending. The misconception didn't just manifest from thin air.

You gotta problem with it... well then perhaps you need to look at the whole picture you are painting.

Do you understand there is a difference between USING bike lanes, and SUPPORTING bike lanes?




...therefore Bike Lanes and VC must not mix, eh?

Sorry, but I don't know how to prevent misconceptions that are formed from wild and irrational logical leaps like this.
the association between VC and anti-bike lane rhetoric is as obvious as your sig. You don't believe there should be an association
GENE!!!!

Once again, I have NEVER said there is no association between VC and anti-bike lane rhetoric. Much of anti-bike lane rhetoric is clearly based on concepts that stem from VC principles. Please stop confusing and equating the political opposition to bike lanes based on VC with the misconception that USING bike lanes is not consistent with VC.

Do you understand there is a difference between OPPOSING bike lanes, and USING bike lanes?
If so, please explain what that is in your own words. Why? Because, frankly, I don't think you truly understand the difference. I have no other explanation as to why YOU (forget everyone else) keep equating OPPOSING bike lanes ("anti-bike lane rhetoric") with USING bike lanes.

Maybe if you could help me understand why you seem to be having such a hard time differentiating OPPOSING/SUPPORTING from USING, I will also begin to understand why so many others seem to have a similar problem, and will be able to adjust my rhetoric accordingly.

Once again, I have NEVER said there is no association between VC and anti-bike lane rhetoric.



Oh, so now you admit that there IS an association between VC and anti-bike lane rhetoric. That perhaps there is no misconception after all.





Do you understand there is a difference between OPPOSING bike lanes, and USING bike lanes?
If so, please explain what that is in your own words. Why? Because, frankly, I don't think you truly understand the difference. I have no other explanation as to why YOU (forget everyone else) keep equating OPPOSING bike lanes ("anti-bike lane rhetoric") with USING bike lanes.

Sure, but opposing bike lanes while USING them is rather hypocritical. Somewhat like opposing autos while driving in one. Bit twisted. Or being a vegetarian while munching on a Big Mac. Don't see the dichotomy there?

Care to explain why you have VC and anti-bike lane rhetoric in the lines of your sig?

You don't like the misconception... then perhaps YOU need to change your message:

What is VC? Start learning about Vehicular Cycling.
Why oppose bike lanes? Find out about the bike lane debate.

Flashing neon sign!!!

You don't like bike lanes, Forester doesn't like bike lanes; both you and Forester tout VC... therefore Bike Lanes and VC must not mix, eh?

Common misconception. Gee, I wonder why?

Ive read foresters stuff as well.He also mentions widing the lanes but not painting bike lane stripes on them instead of widing and painting stripes

Ive seen extra wide right lanes work in pratice very very well in places that are less than bike friendly for the most part. I tend to agree with the idea. Wide right most lanes and drivers will still tend to do whats natural to them and drive centered in the lane. So if the lane is 6 foot wider than normal over all their will be 3 aditional feet on ither side. So unless you get beside a huge suv youll be hard pressed to reach out with fingures streched out and touch the side of a car.

In a better world wed have such wide lanes at inter sections and not have any problems.
Heres the best part most drivers will tend to put more distance between the cyclist and them self inside a lane so youll end up with 4 extra feet insted of being crowded a inter sections.

On most roads here with a car centered in the right most lane theres maybe 3 feet left over if your lucky. So a extra 6 foot total would mean same car driving down the current road with 6 foot extra space youd have 6 foot to each side. And sence the driver has more space to the side with out the cyclist he or she would tend to move over a it that direction further upping the distance. You could end up with 6 foot+ clearance.

Its also a balancing act. To much extra width and youll have cars trying to crowd by each other in the lane.
My idea is bike turning left left cyclist is far left of right lane. Center for strait far right for right turn. You could also let the driver know your going strait and with a small amount of luck hell let you get across and over before he passes you.

In other words make friends with the lead driver whos going strait and he can run a little bit of intefearance for you :)
After all bikes can get ahead of cars on take off easly any how so with the driver aware of your intentions you can easly get ahead and over to right saftly after crossing the road. Right turns are damn easy for bikes just like they are for a car.

Me personaly i take the lane at intersections and check behind me for cars makign right turns. Its far safer for me to be cenetered in the lane at a stop light than any where else. But i can also be safe to the right turn drivers left. Just not quite as safe. So i see a driver turning right i scoot over and let them by. And let the drive behind them know im going back over when the first driver makes their turn.

Ive slapped a few hoods when drivers crowded in. I find it pretty rare though.

Oh, so now you admit that there IS an association between VC and anti-bike lane rhetoric.
NOW??? I have NEVER even hinted that there is no association between VC and anti-BL rhetoric. That would be asburd. Your logical leaps are incredible.



Sure, but opposing bike lanes while USING them is rather hypocritical.
Gene, you disappoint me. Opposing bike lanes means opposing the STRIPE, not the PAVEMENT that is demarcated by the stripe, so there is nothing hypocritical about using that pavement, whether it is demarcated by the stripe or not.



Somewhat like opposing autos while driving in one. Bit twisted. Or being a vegetarian while munching on a Big Mac.
Actually, it's much more like not liking the wall separating your kitchen from the dining area, but using the kitchen anyway, even while you're trying to convince your spouse that getting rid of the wall is a good idea...

I can't believe that after all this time, you still don't get it. This is so depressing. It's not that you don't agree with the arguments opposing bike lanes, it's that your statements indicate you still don't even understand them. If you did understand, you would not liken a BL opponent using pavement demarcated by a BL stripe to a principled vegetarian eating a Big Mac.



Care to explain why you have VC and anti-bike lane rhetoric in the lines of your sig?
WTF? What part of



Much of anti-bike lane rhetoric is clearly based on concepts that stem from VC principles. Please stop confusing and equating the political opposition to bike lanes based on VC with the misconception that USING bike lanes is not consistent with VC.
do you not understand?



You don't like the misconception... then perhaps YOU need to change your message:
There you go again, Gene. What "misconception" that I don't like are you talking about?

Your suggestion that I need to change my message indicates the "misconception" you mean is the "misconception" that VC and anti-BL rhetoric are associated. The problem with that is that IT'S NOT A MISCONCEPTION... VC and anti-BL rhetoric ARE associated. Do I really need to add the statement opposing bike lanes means opposing bike lane STRIPES; it does not mean opposing cycling on the pavement demarcated by the stripe regardless of whether the stripe exists to my sig?


The misconceptions that I don't like are YOURS, Gene. Let's look at the ones you've been spewing in this thread alone.


that OPPOSING BLs and USING BLs is hypocritical (it's not, see above).
the idea that USING BLs is in conflict with VC comes from the book Effective Cycling (it doesn't; in EC Forester writes about when, how and why vehicular cyclists should use bike lanes).
the idea that USING BLs is in conflict with VC comes from Forester's posts (http://danenet.wicip.org/bcp/bike_lanes.html) (it doesn't, those posts do not even address USING BLs and only mentions VC once, in terms of the need to expand understanding of the VC principle).
the idea that USING BLs is in conflict with VC comes from my sig. (it doesn't;, my sig does not even address USING BLs - see below).
that I have contended that VC and anti-BL rhetoric are not associated (I never have).


Shall I go on?

So much time is wasted due to your sloppy reading, thinking and/or writing that leads to all these misconceptions, Gene. Sadly, the examples from this thread are typical of the fantastic logical leaps you make in most other discussions too. Please, I know you can do better. Restore my faith in humanity by proving me to be right about your ability to do better.

Ive read foresters stuff as well.He also mentions widing the lanes but not painting bike lane stripes on them instead of widing and painting stripes

Ive seen extra wide right lanes work in pratice very very well in places that are less than bike friendly for the most part. I tend to agree with the idea. Wide right most lanes and drivers will still tend to do whats natural to them and drive centered in the lane. So if the lane is 6 foot wider than normal over all their will be 3 aditional feet on ither side. So unless you get beside a huge suv youll be hard pressed to reach out with fingures streched out and touch the side of a car.

In a better world wed have such wide lanes at inter sections and not have any problems.
Heres the best part most drivers will tend to put more distance between the cyclist and them self inside a lane so youll end up with 4 extra feet insted of being crowded a inter sections.

On most roads here with a car centered in the right most lane theres maybe 3 feet left over if your lucky. So a extra 6 foot total would mean same car driving down the current road with 6 foot extra space youd have 6 foot to each side. And sence the driver has more space to the side with out the cyclist he or she would tend to move over a it that direction further upping the distance. You could end up with 6 foot+ clearance.

Its also a balancing act. To much extra width and youll have cars trying to crowd by each other in the lane.
My idea is bike turning left left cyclist is far left of right lane. Center for strait far right for right turn. You could also let the driver know your going strait and with a small amount of luck hell let you get across and over before he passes you.

In other words make friends with the lead driver whos going strait and he can run a little bit of intefearance for you :)
After all bikes can get ahead of cars on take off easly any how so with the driver aware of your intentions you can easly get ahead and over to right saftly after crossing the road. Right turns are damn easy for bikes just like they are for a car.

Me personaly i take the lane at intersections and check behind me for cars makign right turns. Its far safer for me to be cenetered in the lane at a stop light than any where else. But i can also be safe to the right turn drivers left. Just not quite as safe. So i see a driver turning right i scoot over and let them by. And let the drive behind them know im going back over when the first driver makes their turn.

Ive slapped a few hoods when drivers crowded in. I find it pretty rare though.


Great post Nova. Sounds like you have been practicing vehicular cycling all along, though you may not have referred to it as that.



My idea is bike turning left left cyclist is far left of right lane. Center for strait far right for right turn.
This, by the way, is what Forester calls destination positioning at intersections.

But as Roody noted, it is one thing to understand this and do it in ideal conditions, it's another to be able to accomplish it in challenging traffic situations where conditions are changing in real-time.

OK let's keep it simple for you.

I use bike lanes. I am a vc cyclist. I don't have a problem using BL or any other part of the road.

Others on BF, not me, have expressed confusion on what is VC and why it doesn't like BL. Therefore there must be some perceived association between vc and anti-BL rhetoric.

Forester and yourself both tout VC and both tout anti bike lane rhetoric.

Can anyone here see why one might assume that VC adovates anti bike lanes rhetoric?

Now the use of the bike lanes (as Forester touts) is simply the use of the road... the stripe doesn't mean a thing.

But the association of VC and anti-BL rhetoric simply comes from the message that the Fosterites constantly chant... such as your sig.

Hence folks hear "vc," and hear "anti-BL" in nearly the same breath, and assume that VC is all about NOT using BL. Just as folks also hear VC and "take the lane" and assume that VC is all about always taking lanes.

It is called a misconception. And it exists.
It's that simple.

But the association of VC and anti-BL rhetoric simply comes from the message that the Fosterites constantly chant... such as your sig.

Hence folks hear "vc," and hear "anti-BL" in nearly the same breath, and assume that VC is all about NOT using BL.
Gene, read what you wrote, quoted here. Read it again. Can you spot the problem?

I know you're talking about "folks". But please explain to me how one gets from a mere ASSOCIATION between VC and "anti-BL" (which again, I have never denied, though you still inexplicably seem to think it's important to point out why one would make that association) to "ASSUME that VC is ALL ABOUT NOT **USING** BL?"

How do you (and other folks) get from ASSOCIATION with "anti-BL" to association with not USING BLs?

I've updated my sig. Do you think that will help?

I don't know if bike lanes are anti-VC or if VC is anti-BL. It all sounds like BS to me, actually. :)

But I do know that if you are riding VC, you like to be able to use any part of the pavement that is legally available to you, depending on circumstances. Stripes make this more difficult.

For example, if the BL stripe were not there, I would have a wide outer lane. I would probably choose to ride about 4 feet to the left of the gutter much of the time. Cagers would still have room to pass me safely without even leaving the lane, or at most just nosing into the left lane. Everybody would be happy and safe.

Unfortunately, where I want to ride is exactly where the damn stripe is painted. I don't like to ride on the stripe. It is going to be slippery in wet weather. Also, when cagers see me riding on the stripe, they automatically think that I am crowding them, even if they really have plenty of room. They will feel uncomfortable, and a few will even get mad. If I ride to the left of the stripe, they think I'm flouting the law. If I ride to the right of the stripe, I'm usually on dirty pavement, and I'm too far to the right to be visible.

So, basically, the stripe has taken a big chunk of pavement away from me, which would be available if the bike lane were just part of a wide outer lane. I can cope, I can adapt, but there's no way I'm going to like it!

Gene, read what you wrote, quoted here. Read it again. Can you spot the problem?

I know you're talking about "folks". But please explain to me how one gets from a mere ASSOCIATION between VC and "anti-BL" (which again, I have never denied, though you still inexplicably seem to think it's important to point out why one would make that association) to "ASSUME that VC is ALL ABOUT NOT **USING** BL?"

How do you (and other folks) get from ASSOCIATION with "anti-BL" to association with not USING BLs?



Uh, I never associated vc with NOT using bike lanes. In fact, it took me a darn long time to convince you that while I do use bike lanes and do think they have some merit in attracting cyclists to the road and informing motorists that cyclists are on the road, I am in fact a vc cyclist. In fact, you were convinced early on that because I do believe that some bike lanes have merit, I couldn't possibly be a vc cyclist.

Tripped up on your own narrow thinking. Drawing the same conclusions that others draw, because of the association between VC and AntiBL.

Based on the message, and the messengers... IE the Foresterites such as yourself touting both VC and anti bike lane rhetoric, it is just short leap to the conclusion (misconception) that VC means not using BL. And in the case of your previous sig, the two lines together made that association quite easy.




I've updated my sig. Do you think that will help?

I doubt it. Why mix the messages? Tout VC. Use a VC sig.

In other discussions, be anti BL. Use an anti BL sig.

The conclusions (misconceptions) that are drawn, are based on you and others trying to deliver the two messages in the same breath.

I don't know if bike lanes are anti-VC or if VC is anti-BL. It all sounds like BS to me, actually. :)

But I do know that if you are riding VC, you like to be able to use any part of the pavement that is legally available to you, depending on circumstances. Stripes make this more difficult.

For example, if the BL stripe were not there, I would have a wide outer lane. I would probably choose to ride about 4 feet to the left of the gutter much of the time. Cagers would still have room to pass me safely without even leaving the lane, or at most just nosing into the left lane. Everybody would be happy and safe.

Unfortunately, where I want to ride is exactly where the damn stripe is painted. I don't like to ride on the stripe. It is going to be slippery in wet weather. Also, when cagers see me riding on the stripe, they automatically think that I am crowding them, even if they really have plenty of room. They will feel uncomfortable, and a few will even get mad. If I ride to the left of the stripe, they think I'm flouting the law. If I ride to the right of the stripe, I'm usually on dirty pavement, and I'm too far to the right to be visible.

So, basically, the stripe has taken a big chunk of pavement away from me, which would be available if the bike lane were just part of a wide outer lane. I can cope, I can adapt, but there's no way I'm going to like it!
Well stated Roody. I agree with all of this, but this "practical" drawback of bike lane stripes, for me, pales in comparison to the role bike lanes play in inhibiting many non-VC cyclists from learning VC, and everyone from accepting cyclists as full-fledged normal users of the roadway with the same rights as drivers of other vehicles.

I understand that bike lanes do have some effect in getting cyclists off the sidewalks, and getting the neanderthals who think sidewalks are where cyclists belong to see the light, but it really only moves the sidewalk problem to a different place (albeit a slightly better one), while at the same introducing a plethora of new problems, not the least of which are the two mentioned here by you and me. And we have not even touched on all the intersection-related problems that are unique to bike lanes, including those at midblock "minor" (but deadly) intersections with driveways and alleys for which there is no practical work-a-round solution. Yes, I know there are claims that bike lanes make cycling more popular, and, hence, get more cyclists on the roads which makes cycling safer. But these are tenuous, at best. For every cyclist who is encouraged to ride because of bike lanes, another is probably discouraged due to being reminded of the danger of "mixing" cars and bikes - the "problem" the bike lane is obviously trying to address. And the inhibiting of learning VC factor ialso arguably indirectly reduces the potential of cycling popularity, by inhibiting cyclists from learning how to safely and effectively ride integrated with traffic.

In the final analysis, on roads where slow moving vehicles are not allowed, the relatively minor benefits of bike lanes are dwarfed by these and the many other drawbacks of bike lanes. That, in a nutshell, is why I am generally opposed to bike lanes.

Uh, I never associated vc with NOT using bike lanes.
What then were you doing in post #2? "...another big [misconception] is that riding VC is not using Bike Lanes ... [which] comes from the book Effective Cycling and the anti Bike Lane attitude expressed by the writer Forester, and his 'disciples' ..." (my emphasis)

That sure reads like an association between vc and not using bike lanes to me...
The association is implied by the "comes from the [VC 'Bible'] book... attitude [of the 'father of VC' and his]... 'disciples'" statement.



Why mix the messages? Tout VC. Use a VC sig.

In other discussions, be anti BL. Use an anti BL sig.
Changing the sig affects sigs in all posts... past, present and future.
Besides, why separate the two (VC and anti-BL)? My opposition to bike lanes relies heavily on VC theory. Why not "mix" them?

Dude, I was simply reporting the misconceptions that others have.

They also have the misconception that riding VC is all about always taking the lane.

Run that up your flagpole and salute it for a while.

These are misonceptions that others have formed... I am simply reporting what I have seen on various areas here on BF. Don't try to kill the messenger.

Unfortunately, where I want to ride is exactly where the damn stripe is painted. I don't like to ride on the stripe. It is going to be slippery in wet weather. Also, when cagers see me riding on the stripe, they automatically think that I am crowding them, even if they really have plenty of room. They will feel uncomfortable, and a few will even get mad. If I ride to the left of the stripe, they think I'm flouting the law.

Interesting. A good point here. If I look at this from what I experience or "feel" while driving, if you're riding somewhere to the right of the line, I feel that I know what you're doing. If you're out into the lane, say, at the right wheel track or a bit further, I feel I know what you're doing. When a rider is just outside the line, then I feel I don't know what you're doing. I start to think "unpredictable".
If there's no white line, and you're riding a straight line, then I feel you're predictable no matter where you are in the lane. When I say "predictable", it means even if I go into the left lane of two lanes going the same way (some riders do some crazy stuff around here).

Gene (and others), would you agree with the following statement?

While cycling in bike lanes is not necessarily contrary to VC principles (the pavement that happens to be demarcated by a bike lane stripe is often the appropriate vehicular place to cycle, particularly between intersections when faster same-direction traffic is present), supporting and/or not opposing bike lanes on roads where slow moving vehicles are not prohibited is contrary to VC principles.

If you disagree, an explanation would be appreciated.

Dude, I was simply reporting the misconceptions that others have.
I take exception to the comes from (EC, Forester, "disciples") aspect of your "reporting", not your reporting of what the misconception is.

If it comes from a misunderstanding of these sources (which I contend it is and you seem unwilling to acknowledge), then it's not really coming from these sources as per your reporting.
If the misconception was really coming from the sources per your reporting, then you would be able to point out where it is. Pointing out "pro VC" and "anti BL" in my signature, for example, does not identify a source for the misconception that VC means not using bike lanes. That would be poor reporting. The source in that case would be sloppy reading and/or thinking on the part of those who conceive the misconception, just as sloppy reading/thinking, and certainly not Forester's writing, is the source for the misconception that VC means taking the lane.

Well I think the biggest VC misconception that is spread often on these forums is it will work for every one regardless of where they live. Would be nice if it was true but fact is there are areas where it wont. Places where a driver will scream and yell at you to get out of the road or plow in to you at a intersection from behind. Because oops he was to busy on his cell phone to see any thing in front of him.

My brother had his little honda essentialy ran over by a huge disel dodge ram. Guy hit him from behind and just kept rolling foward. The hit it self was nothing more than a tap but he kept movin slowly foward and just completly crushed the car at a stop light.

If a driver could hit a car like this they will hit a bike the same way. Thats a simple fact that you cant dispute. If that had been me on my bike riding useing VC techniques id have been hit and killed. The stop light in question is one where getting rear ended in this fasion is fairly common. Its one of the least busy intersections in the area. Drivers feel safe to talk on the phone because of it. Fact is they are safe to do so from cross trafic and on comming. Its the person who turns off the last side street in to trafic or pulls out of their drive saftly who is not. Even those in the very front for a long period of time will likly get rear ended to some degree or another at some point.

To date ive been in 4 or 5 cars when they got hit from behind. All just little taps and no crushing. Seen one car get towed away that had a truckdrive up on to the trunk and bust the rear window out with its bumper.

To een think VC is useable at that intersection could get you killed. Bikes have a slight advantage in that we can slide ours over and out of the way most of the time. Were less likly to have such a crash with another car at such intersections. But it will happen some where some time probably has already.

Gene, you are right on the money. It is not a misconception. You can not start any thread in this forum that comes anywhere near the topics of vc or bike lanes without it becoming an anti-bike lane thread. HH would like to try to spin his way out of the association, but there's no way to.

I agree with the op that I, too, ride as vc as anybody based on my experience over time. It's just sensible. But what I don't do is take it to the extremes that HH does. I also do not cram it down anybody's throat. If a particular technique might help somebody with a particular incident, then I'll suggest it. I don't suggest anything in the context of a "suite" of ideological practices. I don't aspire to any vc purity. And I try not to make judgments about the way other people handle their day-to-day cycling situations.

Nobody is interested in salvation. Nobody wants to be preached at. They just want to get from here to there and enjoy themselves doing so.

Nova, have you tried taking your place in line at this intersection vehicularly when you're on your bicycle, or are you too scared to try it?

My experience, no matter where I ride, is that drivers consistently slow down sooner and stop leaving a wider margin at any intersection where there is a bicyclist stopped in front of them than when there is a cager stopped there.

Sometimes I worry about getting rear-ended too, and find myself looking back over my shoulder, or in my mirror, as the car behind me approaches. So far, I've never had to jump out of the way.



Well I think the biggest VC misconception that is spread often on these forums is it will work for every one regardless of where they live.
Hmm, I think the misconception is opposite. All of the VC advocates that I know report that their VC techniques work effectively no matter where they go. I've never heard a VC advocate say something like, "oh that intersection in Norton, Ohio is a real *****... I have to get off my bike and walk across the crosswalk there, those Norton drivers are so old/crazy/homocidal/distracted (take your pick, I've never heard any of it from a VC advocate)".

So the misconception I see expressed around here, such as in your post, is the notion there are some places where, although cyclists have the same legal rights to the roads as do drivers of other vehicles, cycling in accordance to the vehicular rules of the road (VC) does not work.

By the way, since your brother got rear-ended in his little Honda, has he stopped driving it vehicularly through that intersection?

Gene, you are right on the money. It is not a misconception. You can not start any thread in this forum that comes anywhere near the topics of vc or bike lanes without it becoming an anti-bike lane thread. HH would like to try to spin his way out of the association, but there's no way to.
WTF? For the third time in this thread (or is it the 4th?), I am stating I have NEVER denied that there is an association between VC and anti-bike lane rhetoric (see my signature, for example). I have NEVER tried to spin my way out of the association!

Where do you guys get this nonsense?

Can you really not understand that while the anti-lane rhetoric based on VC principles IS about opposing the creation of bike lanes on roads where slow moving vehicles are not prohibited, that it IS about supporting the removal of bike lanes on roads where slow moving vehicles are not prohibited, it is NOT about avoiding the USE of bike lanes.

Separate from the anti-BL rhetoric above that stems from VC principles, is VC advice about proper vehicular use of bike lanes: ignore the stripe and choose your position as if the stripe were not there.

NONE of it is about not USING bike lanes.

Serge... you need to chill. You cannot argue against a misconception because it is a product of someone else's reception of your message. It is fruitless to argue that the misconception is caused by people hearing your message wrong; after all you cannot control what people hear. All you can do is refine your message to create the impression you want. If you want to create the impression that it is "okay" to use the bike lanes that are in place, then talk about ways to use the bike lane effectively. Now of course, this means that bike lanes are not "deadly traps" or some such thing, if there are ways of using a bike lane effectively. To have your message resonate, you must admit this. If you want to emphasis that bike lanes are not contrary to vehicular cycling, then you must move your argument against bike lanes from a "deadly bike lane vs. benign WOL" type attitude to an "okay bike lane vs. better WOL" attitude. You cannot say "bike lanes are categorically deadly" in one sentence, and in the next, claim that bike lanes are okay to ride in. In other words, your extreme message about the dangers of bike lanes runs contrary to their use, giving the impression that one should not use the bike lanes that are in place because they are "deadly."

You new sig, by the way, runs counter to your advocacy with the first statement:


While a bike lane stripe may happen to demarcate the "VC" place to cycle...

We have argued this before and this statement, per your words, is contrary to your argument.

You've been called on your retoric. Everything you say here, in different threads and in different forums, gets lumped into what people view as your message. It is hypocritical to claim that deaths can be attributed to bike lanes and that all bike lanes are deadly, and then in the next breath, claim that bike lanes can be integrated into vehicular cycling technique. After all, why would you use a facility that is deadly? If bike lanes were as deadly as you claim, wouldn't you ride a bike laned road as if the shoulder/bike lane did not exist? These are retorical questions, so you don't have to answer, but they raise the issue.

Simply put, your arguments against bike lanes are so strong that to have a consistent view, you should be advocating, not only against the creation of new bike lanes, but for the actual removal of bike lanes from existing roads. And in your cycling practice, you need to be making the point of riding only outside the bike lanes, to illustrate your point that bike lanes are so dangerous as to be deadly. If you claim that bike lanes are deadly, why would you, personally, ride them?

Otherwise, you should simply moderate your blanket characterization about all bike lanes being deadly. This was a retorical trap of your own making. To be consistent, you either need to start riding as if you really believe that bike lanes are a deadly facility, or you need to admit that bike lanes are more benign than you make them out to be and your objections are more of a technical nature than they are fundamental.

...I learned that I ride VC most of the time; not in an effort to be VC, but as a natural result of experience on the road and a knowledge of what will most likely be the safest way to approach a given situation.
I thought the original poster made an excellent point.

I thought the original poster made an excellent point.

Yes, a good point. I've read that only something like "only three thousandths of one percent of the cyclists in this country" have taken the EC course (this is 1996 information, but the present number is unlikely to be much better). Most people learn vehicular cycling by personal experience and a little written or verbal guidence. That is certainly how I learned to ride in traffic.

Brian, I was with you on the first paragraph, then you lost me.



It is hypocritical to claim that deaths can be attributed to bike lanes and that all bike lanes are deadly, and then in the next breath, claim that bike lanes can be integrated into vehicular cycling technique.
Is it possible to oppose hand guns because they can be deadly if misused and yet, as long as they exist, promote learning and teaching of hand gun use that is safe?

Is it possible to oppose bike lanes because they can be deadly if misused and yet, as long as they exist, promote learning and teaching of bike lane use that is safe?

Where is the hypocrisy?
Where is the inconsistency?



or you need to admit that bike lanes are more benign than you make them out to be and your objections are more of a technical nature than they are fundamental.
Fine. Bike lanes don't kill people, use of bike lanes according to their design kills people (how many real world examples of cyclist deaths caused by cyclists using bike lanes according to their design posted to this forum alone do you need to see to be convinced of this?)

You new sig, by the way, runs counter to your advocacy with the first statement: "While a bike lane stripe may happen to demarcate the "VC" place to cycle, ..."
If you think noting that a bike lane stripe may happen to demarcate the VC place to cycle runs counter to my advocacy, then either you haven't been paying attention, or I've been doing a lousy job explaining my advocacy, or both.

Please explain what you think my advocacy is that runs counter to this statement, and why it does.

Do you really think my "all bike lanes are deadly" argument means that I am saying it is deadly dangerous for any cyclist to ever ride in any bike lane under any circumstances?

Why does everyone jump to such extreme twists of what I say?

If someone says, careful when you drive on that highway, it is deadly, do you interpret that to mean if you drive on it you will die? Of course not! Then why do you insist on twisting my similar words about bike lanes in such a manner?

An in context quote of my words that would lead you to such an extreme conclusion would be most helpful.

It is fruitless to argue that the misconception is caused by people hearing your message wrong; after all you cannot control what people hear.
No more than a cyclist can depend on controling the understanding of messages received by motorists (especially innattentive motorists) sent by the cyclist through a cryptic stare or the assumed psychic power of an alpha dog attitude.

Bike lanes don't kill people, use of bike lanes according to their design kills people

Folks, we have a lucid statement of position. Now the bike lane discussion can continue minus all the talking past each other. (This should apply to hand guns: Hand guns don't kill people, using hand guns according to their design kills people... :D)

FWIW, we've hashed and rehashed most of the relevent arguments. Not only us here... I read this (http://www.wright.edu/~jeffrey.hiles/essays/listening/home.html) which states that these very same arguments have been made by both sides for the past two or three decades, and both sides are probably suffering from shortsightedness and narrow thinking. This is not good for cycling advocacy.

I am going to check out of these debates about utopias and do some research about real cycling facilities and how they affect real people, from a technical and social aspect. I have come to the conclusion that there is not nearly enough information to determine in actuality what bike facility, if any, is truely best suited for cycling as a whole.

The most ideal situation is to come up with a facility which both segregates cyclists from faster moving traffic, and integrates cyclists into the overall traffic scheme. Bike lanes are an attempt at this, but they have their disadvantages. WOL's integrate cyclists better that bike lanes when cyclists know how to cycle vehicularly, but don't provide any natural guidance and don't provide an "invitation" for cyclists. This invitation to cyclists is an important part of making an environment cycling friendly. The psycology of what an untrained cyclist sees on the road is just as important as the psycology of what a trained cyclist sees on a road.

Arguing from the fringe, either pro or against bike lanes is easy enough. The arguments are clear cut and no compromises have to be made. Yet the real world lives in the muddy valley between the extremes, and at some point, we need to deal with this fact.

Please explain what you think my advocacy is that runs counter to this statement, and why it does.


Aren't you the one who argued with me about the static nature of the bike lane stripe?

As for your in-context quote, reread your posts about the hit from behind accidents reported recently on this board. Your initial statements equating bike lanes with death are unequivocal and in bold.

The most ideal situation is to come up with a facility which both segregates cyclists from faster moving traffic, and integrates cyclists into the overall traffic scheme.
And there is the fundamental flaw. You cannot be simulataneously segregated and integrated by definition. If that's what you're trying to accomplish, you're doomed to failure.

I know what you're thinking, I think. When you're driving a car in a lane, you're segregated from vehicles in the other lanes, yet you're integrated with the overall traffic flow. Why can't we implement that with bikes?

The primary difference is that in the car case you're integrated with the traffic flow because you're integrated with the others in your lane. You might be loosely segregated from the vehicles in the other lanes, but it's very loose - hence the dashed stripes (but solid stripes truly segregating you from the opposite direction lanes).

This gets at Bruce Rosar's idea of dashed bike lanes. But judging how turning motorists naturally mistreat dashed bike lanes at intersection approaches, due to their narrowness they avoid them, and seeing how I've seen dashed BLs used in Germany, I don't see any significant difference - it's still more segregation than integration.

By the way, on the topic of what constitutes too much vs. too little segregation, consider the treatment of men and women in our society. There is a balance, and I think we need to seek that balance with cyclists vs motorists too. And like with men and women, I think the appropriate balance of segregation for cyclists is "nearly none"; only minor exceptions (i.e., restrooms, baby showers; freeways and bike paths). In both cases, the more segregation you have, the more segregatory/discriminatory thinking you have.

Women have come a long way, baby (on the segregation/discrimination issue).
Let's not take cyclists in the opposite direction (on the segregation/discrimination issue).

Folks, we have a lucid statement of position. Now the bike lane discussion can continue minus all the talking past each other. (This should apply to hand guns: Hand guns don't kill people, using hand guns according to their design kills people... :D)

FWIW, we've hashed and rehashed most of the relevent arguments. Not only us here... I read this (http://www.wright.edu/~jeffrey.hiles/essays/listening/home.html) which states that these very same arguments have been made by both sides for the past two or three decades, and both sides are probably suffering from shortsightedness and narrow thinking. This is not good for cycling advocacy.

I am going to check out of these debates about utopias and do some research about real cycling facilities and how they affect real people, from a technical and social aspect. I have come to the conclusion that there is not nearly enough information to determine in actuality what bike facility, if any, is truely best suited for cycling as a whole.

The most ideal situation is to come up with a facility which both segregates cyclists from faster moving traffic, and integrates cyclists into the overall traffic scheme. Bike lanes are an attempt at this, but they have their disadvantages. WOL's integrate cyclists better that bike lanes when cyclists know how to cycle vehicularly, but don't provide any natural guidance and don't provide an "invitation" for cyclists. This invitation to cyclists is an important part of making an environment cycling friendly. The psycology of what an untrained cyclist sees on the road is just as important as the psycology of what a trained cyclist sees on a road.

Arguing from the fringe, either pro or against bike lanes is easy enough. The arguments are clear cut and no compromises have to be made. Yet the real world lives in the muddy valley between the extremes, and at some point, we need to deal with this fact.


Very nicely put and in reality the real heart of the matter, now trying to convey this message to those the slap a line of paint down on any road and tout it as a wonderful thing is going to be the most difficult part of your task... not to mention dealing with those that feel a line of paint causes all sorts of "cyclo psychological" issues...

Good luck.

The psycology of what an untrained cyclist sees on the road is just as important as the psycology of what a trained cyclist sees on a road.

Interesting assertion. Consider this statement made with respect to drivers:

The psychology of what an untrained driver sees on the road is just as important as the psychology of what a trained driver sees on a road.

So are roads designed for the psychology of what an untrained driver sees, or what a trained drivers sees, or both? Why?

Should this approach be any different for cyclists? Why or why not?

Heck, even sidewalks are designed for trained pedestrians, not for untrained pedestrians. Sure, the training pedestrians need is simpler than that needed by motorists, but it's still needed. That's why we don't let our 5 year old go on walks by herself... she's not sufficiently trained

Why is it that there is this supposed need/desire/requirement to design facilities for untrained cyclists, but not for untrained motorists or even pedestrians?

Why is it that there is this supposed need/desire/requirement to design facilities for untrained cyclists, but not for untrained motorists or even pedestrians?

Because we don't limit access to the roads to trained cyclists... getting back to the issue of licenses and or some form of required training by bike shops.

Without any form of access limitation, anyone that can balance a bike can ride it anywhere they feel comfortable.

The psychology of what an untrained driver sees on the road is just as important as the psychology of what a trained driver sees on a road.

So are roads designed for the psychology of what an untrained driver sees, or what a trained drivers sees, or both? Why?

Should this approach be any different for cyclists? Why or why not?


Your comparison is irrelevent as we both agree that cycling is a right, not simply a privilege. Driving is a privilege, so licensing, registration, and insurance are requirements which are justifiably imposed. Cycling, if it is to remain a right, must have no licensing, registration, or insurance requirements which stand in the way of a cyclist using the road. The requirement for training is rightly attached to the vehicle, not the facility the vehicle is operating on.

Aren't you the one who argued with me about the static nature of the bike lane stripe?

As for your in-context quote, reread your posts about the hit from behind accidents reported recently on this board. Your initial statements equating bike lanes with death are unequivocal and in bold.
I've stated that bike lane stripes are static (they don't move), but I don't recall you or anyone else arguing with me on that rather obvious point.


I asked earlier: "Do you really think my "all bike lanes are deadly" argument means that I am saying it is deadly dangerous for any cyclist to ever ride in any bike lane under any circumstances?" Now you say, "Your initial statements equating bike lanes with death are unequivocal ...". I'll take that as a "yes" answer to my question.

Nothing I ever stated was so absolute as to mean anything like "it is deadly dangerous for any cyclist to ever ride in any bike lane under any circumstances".

I continue to be perplexed why you and all too many others insist on interpreting the meaning of my words to something so absurdly extreme, without even clarifying with me first if that's what I meant.

Your comparison is irrelevent as we both agree that cycling is a right, not simply a privilege. Driving is a privilege, so licensing, registration, and insurance are requirements which are justifiably imposed. Cycling, if it is to remain a right, must have no licensing, registration, or insurance requirements which stand in the way of a cyclist using the road. The requirement for training is rightly attached to the vehicle, not the facility the vehicle is operating on.
That's why I included pedestrians in my comparison, which you conveniently omitted. Why?

Licensing, registration, or insurance requirements also do not stand in the way of a pedestrian using the road, yet we still do not design facilities for untrained pedestrians.

Just because cyclists are not required to get licensed etc., means we have to design facilities for untrained cyclists? Is that your argument?

Heck, even sidewalks are designed for trained pedestrians, not for untrained pedestrians. Sure, the training pedestrians need is simpler than that needed by motorists, but it's still needed. That's why we don't let our 5 year old go on walks by herself... she's not sufficiently trained

Why is it that there is this supposed need/desire/requirement to design facilities for untrained cyclists, but not for untrained motorists or even pedestrians?

By your own admission, a trained cyclist can use any facility, such as a bike lane, in a way which is suitable for his or her purposes -- even if this usage differs from the intent of the facility.

An untrained cyclist will do what seems fit to him or her according to his or her options. The purpose for cycling facilities should be to limit (or expand - depending on your viewpoint) the untrained cyclist's options to ones which are in his best interest.

As for pedestrians, I am not sure what you are referring to when you say "trained pedestrians." Even walk signals have little pictures of a person walking to guide the pedestrian to push it. As for a sidewalk, it is simply an area free of cars that is put there for walking. Common sense will tell an adult not to step in front of a fast moving car. There is no training in this. Not like driving. The problem with small children is not generally so much with training, but with judgement.

Finally, all facilities require some sort of training. The purpose of these facilities should be to minimize the training necessary and put most of the burden on the shoulders of the traffic engineer instead. The people who know how to work with traffic and have a high degree of traffic tolerance are the ones with the least need for any facility at all. The people who have low traffic tolerance and have no wish to learn to negotiate directly with drivers are the ones who are in most need of facilities.

Licensing, registration, or insurance requirements also do not stand in the way of a pedestrian using the road, yet we still do not design facilities for untrained pedestrians.

Like I said earlier, you will have to enlighten me as to how pedestrians are trained in any significant manner. I do not remember going to a class in "sidewalk walking" when I was in school. Did you? Learning to push the walk signal button is not "training."


Just because cyclists are not required to get licensed etc., means we have to design facilities for untrained cyclists? Is that your argument?

Of course. If you want only trained cyclists on the road, you need to have an enforcement mechanism. This is the license. Otherwise, if we allow untrained cyclists on the road and call cycling a right of which anyone can participate, then we need to account for untrained cyclists. The fact remains that there are far more untrained cyclists in the United States than there are "trained" cyclists. It is even more lopsided if you consider trained cyclists to be only those that have taken a class.

Nothing I ever stated was so absolute as to mean anything like "it is deadly dangerous for any cyclist to ever ride in any bike lane under any circumstances".

I continue to be perplexed why you and all too many others insist on interpreting the meaning of my words to something so absurdly extreme, without even clarifying with me first if that's what I meant.



Not to blame the cyclist, but does anyone else think that cyclo-segregationism, and particularly the method of riding too far to the right, as is accepted as right and proper in our culture, was a significant contributory factor in the death of this man? Anyone else fault the BIKE LANE, as a tool of cyclo-segregationism, and those who support bike lanes, for misguiding cyclists into riding too far to the right in situations like this?

I have described my hypothesis on this forum many times... The subconscious of a driver tends not to bother to alert his conscious mind about what it deems to be insignificant... like a cyclist who is up ahead riding near the right side, in a bike lane. Anyone want to bet that the driver "never saw him"? Of course he never "saw" him... what he means is he was never aware of him, and what that means is that even though he probably physically saw the cyclist, the subconscious mind didn't think it was important enough to make the conscious mind aware of his presence. So there he is motoring along the road, unaware of the cyclist up ahead and "out of the way" in the bike lane, and, for some reason, drifts into the bike lane. The idea that bike lanes make motorists MORE aware of cyclists is a crock. How many cyclists have to die until cyclists, much less the general public, realizes this? How many? How many?

Now, I'm NOT defending the motorist here, don't get me wrong. That's completely negligent driving and I hope he goes away for a long time, BUT, that will not bring back Eric Krautzky. We need to look at ALL the contributory causes here, not just the negligent driving. And, in particular, as cyclists, I think we need to look at what cyclists can do in this type of situation to make getting run over less likely. I better not get any flack here for defending the motorist or blaming the cyclist. I'm not doing that.

However, I will say this: If you're riding on a quiet street at 6:30 am in a bike lane... be afraid. GET OUT OF THE BIKE LANE. Please.

Yes, I'm saying ride in the center of the vehicular lane even though there is a "perfectly good" bike lane to ride in. Why? Because your "perfectly good" bike lane is DEADLY. You need to position yourself so that motorists coming from behind (not to mention those whose path of travel intersects yours) NOTICE you, and are aware of you. Then you can move temporarily aside, when it is safe, reasonable and appropriate, to let them pass. Want to learn about this? Read about the concept of the default position in Robert Hurst's Urban Cycling, or, even better, study the concept of the primary riding position, and its purpose, in John Franklin's book, Cyclecraft.

And next time you're clamoring for more bike lanes in your town or city, please consider what I'm saying here, and pause for at least a moment, in memory of Eric "yet another BL victim" Krautzky.

How many cyclists have to be killed unnecessarily before we realize the culpability of cyclo-segregationism in so many cyclist deaths? How many wasted lives? It makes me sick.

Yes, you start out with the 6:30 in the morning thing, but by the end, you've expanded your argument to all bike lanes at all times - unequivocal.

but by the end, you've expanded your argument to all bike lanes at all times - unequivocal.
What are you talking about?
All bike lanes at all times what?

In the quote you posted all I did was urge cyclists to get out of bike lanes on quiet streets at 6:30 in the morning, and monitor to the rear. How do you get from that to "all bike lanes at all times" (whatever that's supposed to mean)?

I even specify when you should use the bike lane in that situation:

"Then you can move temporarily aside, when it is safe, reasonable and appropriate, to let them pass."

Is it not clear that "move temporarily aside" means "into the bike lane"?

What are you talking about?
All bike lanes at all times what?

In the quote you posted all I did was urge cyclists to get out of bike lanes on quiet streets at 6:30 in the morning, and monitor to the rear. How do you get from that to "all bike lanes at all times" (whatever that's supposed to mean)?


And next time you're clamoring for more bike lanes in your town or city, please consider what I'm saying here, and pause for at least a moment, in memory of Eric "yet another BL victim" Krautzky.

How many cyclists have to be killed unnecessarily before we realize the culpability of cyclo-segregationism in so many cyclist deaths? How many wasted lives? It makes me sick.

Unequivocal.