Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Forester takes on BF Posters

That might burst their little Utopian dream bubble where a bike path runs directly from their front door to every conceivable location...just for them!


No one is asking for that!!!!! And the guy in the bike lane sucks less than the guy in the Hummer.

I mean, its like you guys would rather have more people drive and clutter up the roads than have people engage in "transportational cycling" without exclusively using the roadways.

This is typical popular superstition. Freeway driving is, on average, less stressful and less dangerous than driving the same distance on normal surface streets.

What a load of crap. How do you figure? Where's your proof? Any statistical data?

So by this logic you're telling me that in my community, which has I-29 going through it, 55 mph, 65 mph & 70 mph depending on where your at on it, with an average of 40,000 vehicles a day on it is safer & there is less of a chance for an accident to happen then on Myrtle St., 25 mph to 30 mph that maybe has an average of 500 vehicles a day on it?

I call bull **** on this one! For one I live here, you don't. I should & do know more about my community then you could ever hope to. So where in your little world does this happen?

this thread is shockingly obtuse. wow.

Some are stuck in an auto-centric dystopia.
Some recognize the value in redesign of public space to foster nonmotorized travel.

one hundred twenty years ago, conditions of the roads were poor for bicycling, and bicyclists demanded improvements.
One hundred twenty years later, conditions on the roods are poor for bicycling, and bicyclists demand improvments.

There are cities across the world that have vastly improved conditions for bicyclists, increasing bike use while decreasing indexed accident rates, and other cities see the value in redesign of public space to foster nonmotorized use of public rights of way.

and some are stuck with dated, auto-centric dystopian visions of public space, that will leave cycling in the dark ages of the 20th century.

Another day using bike lanes.

I had a close call...methinks it wouldn't have been close if I had taken the lane. Methinks, had I taken the lane, I wouldn't be posting right now.

Another day using bike lanes.For me, another day cycling in 10'-14' wide marked lanes.


Methinks, had I taken the lane, I wouldn't be posting right now.So you'd still be out on your bike instead of posting? ;) BTW, did you see the videos (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=278113)?

For me, another day cycling in 10'-14' wide marked lanes.

So you'd still be out on your bike instead of posting? ;) BTW, did you see the videos (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=278113)?

Nope, I would have been in the hospital or morgue instead of posting!

I haven't seen the videos. I am comfortable controlling a lane when appropiate. The bike lane I was in is well placed and much needed. I'm not going to attempt to control a lane with people who regularly go at least 15mph over the 45 mph limit while on their way to work.

Not cyclist inferiority, just plain common sense.

One of the streets I ride to work requires me to take the lane. The speed limit is 35mph and the road is all uphill with no bike lane.

I use facilities when apropos, I take the lane when apropos.

... you guys would rather have more people drive ... than ... engage in ... cycling without exclusively using the roadways.Personally, I'd rather have more people realize that the root cause isn't an engineering problem that is best solved with segregated facilities; it's a social problem that is best solved with leadership, education and (IMHO) encouragement.

The bike lane I was in is well placed and much needed... with people... at least 15mph over the 45 mph limit ...I cycle on roads like that, but with well placed (outer) 14' wide lanes. No segregation or lane control needed.


Not cyclist inferiority,...Have you read America's Taboo against Bicycle Driving (http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/sciencepolitics1/page7.html)?


...just plain common sense.Ah, common sense. That reminds me of a favorite quote:

Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.

It is recognized that obeying the rules of the road causes traffic to flow in patterns that do not cause collisions.

[...]


Your words concerning the principle that obeying the rules of the road reduces collisions were:"But let's assume what is meant is that cyclists' obeying the rules causes surrounding traffic 'to flow in patterns that do not cause collisions."

That's no more than playing with words, semantic horseplay, rather than dealing with facts; typical of lawyers, philosophers, theologists, and ideologues.


I'm interested in dealing with facts and I don't want to put words in your mouth. If what you meant was 'obeying the rules of the road reduces collisions' (which is not what you originally wrote), I don't regard that as particularly useful information for adult riders. Far more important and useful to consider is the principle that, even if every last cyclist magically started riding according to the vehicular rules at all times without exception, cyclists would still experience a lot of car-bike collisions.

It is recognized that the key to safe cycling is situational awareness, regardless of whether one follows the vehicular rules or not. This is not a suggestion that cyclists should disobey those rules, just a reality check.

Now back to our regularly scheduled endless loop.

Robert

Where I live, the primarily-for-transportation roads (other than the ones that NCDOT controls) are run by the Engineering department of my town. The paths in town are run by the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources department.

Which county department run the paths that you mentioned?
What's your point?

[...]It is recognized that the key to safe cycling is situational awareness, regardless of whether one follows the vehicular rules or not.

What type or level of situational awareness could allow safe cycling on the roadway while not following the vehicular rules?

What type or level of situational awareness could allow safe cycling on the roadway while not following the vehicular rules?
One example would be for cyclists to observe and react appropriately (for safety and convenience) to the actual existing traffic at intersections, rather than placing faith in the safety provided by rote compliance with traffic control devices. Bicyclists will fare better by reasons of speed and efficiency, as well as safety and convenience.

Obsessive compulsive/strict compliance with vehicular rule type cyclists may "fare better" in their own mind by waiting for the light to change to green at deserted intersections, or by coming to full stops at stop signs at empty intersections.

No one is asking for that!!!!! And the guy in the bike lane sucks less than the guy in the Hummer.

I mean, its like you guys would rather have more people drive and clutter up the roads than have people engage in "transportational cycling" without exclusively using the roadways.


It's not that at all in my feeble little mind. I just don't think painting bike lanes is going to make a meaningful difference in how many people drive or ride bikes. And it's a typical 'road to hell is paved with good intentions' scenario. The only thing that will meaningfully increase cycling for transportation are economic factors. Anybody remember the oil embargo of 1973? All of a sudden, bikes where everywhere.......maybe you weren't born yet....

[...]Far more important and useful to consider is the principle that, even if every last cyclist magically started riding according to the vehicular rules at all times without exception, cyclists would still experience a lot of car-bike collisions.

It is recognized that the key to safe cycling is situational awareness, regardless of whether one follows the vehicular rules or not. This is not a suggestion that cyclists should disobey those rules, just a reality check.

How many is 'a lot' Robert? I ride thousands of miles a year and have for 20 years and have never been in a bike/car collision. I know a few people who have, but when you hear the story, 9 times out of 10 the cyclist was doing something not-to-smart: Blowing stop sign or signal, passing on the right, riding with ear-buds, riding at night with no lights...just the regular dumb stuff cyclists do all the time.

I know a few people who have, but when you hear the story, 9 times out of 10 the cyclist was doing something not-to-smart: Blowing stop sign or signal, passing on the right, riding with ear-buds, riding at night with no lights...just the regular dumb stuff cyclists do all the time.
All depends on whose stories and anecdotes you listen to for creating your "data" about bicycle safety.

. Is this your best example of the degrading effects of bike facilities on the rights of bicyclists to travel from A to B?

Most club rides I've been on involve traveling from point A to point A, I've been on some that had destinations, usually a pub.

Most club rides I've been on involve traveling from point A to point A, I've been on some that had destinations, usually a pub.
And that's great. I assume your club members find their way from Pub A to Pub B and maybe even to Pub C and Pub D even if a temporary detour is involved due to road construction. Probably don't even carry on about infringed constitutional or vehicular cycling rights.

Your answer confirms my point. You choose to take a less convenient and slower way to make a trip because society has not made all areas pleasant. That's what I said, only I added that society does not feel justified to, and probably cannot, make all areas as pleasant as might be desired.

Less convenient & slower? You must acknowledge this as a personal assessment that you make with regard to your own ability to make transportational cycling the best travel option, as you cannot know from the information provided if this is the case for shbikes. It's a good thing that you differentiate between slower & less convenient, to fail would put you squarely in the ranks of "joe sixpack", something that you would find distasteful were one to judge by your writing style.

To add my own anecdotal assessment, were I or my wife to choose the "best" way to reach a local destination of 5-7 miles based on convenience or speed the bicycle would win out each time. Some routes would include long stretches of road equipped with bikelane although they aren't a prerequisite, or a consideration, for our travel needs.

It's also far more convenient for us not to own a car & have lots of extra money instead.

And that's great. I assume your club members find their way from Pub A to Pub B and maybe even to Pub C and Pub D even if a temporary detour is involved due to road construction. Probably don't even carry on about infringed constitutional or vehicular cycling rights.

If construction were present on a recreational ride, I'd accommodate the construction, if it were present on a transportational journey, it would accommodate me unless all vehicles were prohibited. But I may be a whack job, I don't fancy club rides that stick to only 1-3 routes, it's safer & easier but also boring

If construction were present on a recreational ride, I'd accommodate the construction, if it were present on a transportational journey, it would accommodate me unless all vehicles were prohibited. But I may be a whack job, I don't fancy club rides that stick to only 1-3 routes, it's safer & easier but also boring
And if you had to ride on the other side of the Jersey barriers than the motorized traffic, or perhaps on an alternate adjacent parallel path due to the road construction, and perhaps even had to moderate your speed due to the temporary restrictions, would you consider that a prohibition? I assume you are not that wacky.

IMO, the issue of a relative handful of California Club Cyclists being required to adjust their recreational ride route along a section of the PCH during road construction was a tempest in a teapot, and has little to no significant relevance when discussing the rights of cyclists being infringed due to the construction of bike facilities.

Where I live, the primarily-for-transportation roads (other than the ones that NCDOT controls) are run by the Engineering department of my town. The paths in town are run by the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources department.

Which county department run the paths that you mentioned?

NOT Parks and Recreation. County Roads. Whatever their real name is. Same folks who have to maintain the roads that are not within the city limits.

Doesn't have to be a bikeway; a public way where heavy motor vehicle operation was prohibited would provide those benefits without the segregation.

It would be better if the government regulation for access to that public way was in compliance with the equal protection clause (http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/Equal_protection).
That is stupid and will only make sense once they open freeways for bicycles. Oh yeah. That's what a bikeway is.

This is typical popular superstition. Freeway driving is, on average, less stressful and less dangerous than driving the same distance on normal surface streets.

As is bikeway riding, a freeway for bikes.

Your answer confirms my point. You choose to take a less convenient and slower way to make a trip because society has not made all areas pleasant. That's what I said, only I added that society does not feel justified to, and probably cannot, make all areas as pleasant as might be desired.
It is not less convenient and slower. It is more convenient and faster. I don't have any traffic signals and it leads almost to my place of business. If you had been shown the bikeway when you visited you might understand. It's a freeway for bicycles.

Do you go out of your way to take the freeway? Or did you take surface streets all the way when you drive?

Because that is the usual tactic to deflect the discussion, ignoring or ruling out an integrated system that consists of both roadways and bikeways and making it seem like facilities advocates are asking for blanket coverage by bikeways, thereby making them look foolish. Remember Diane, part of the strategy outlined by JF himself consists of discrediting facilities advocates, which means muddying and distorting their goals. Whether you realize it or not, this debate has more to do with politics than science or engineering, so expect everything you say that has any potential credibility to be distorted and manipulated behind a facade of friendly helpful words.

Oh, so that's what's happening. That makes sense because logic and common sense aren't working for these fools.

Oh, so that's what's happening. That makes sense because logic and common sense aren't working for these fools.
This thread is apparently an eye opener for those not previously exposed directly to the wonderful world of Forester Brand logical, debating and analytical technique. I am glad our BF moderators have seen fit to let it be demonstrated with no further interference.

That .. will only make sense once they open freeways for bicycles. No problemo; some Interstates and freeways are already open to bicyclists :) Of course there may still be a minimum speed limit on some of them, but that won't necessarily violate the equal protection clause (http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/Equal_protection) the way bicyclist bans do.

What a load of crap. How do you figure? Where's your proof? Any statistical data?

So by this logic you're telling me that in my community, which has I-29 going through it, 55 mph, 65 mph & 70 mph depending on where your at on it, with an average of 40,000 vehicles a day on it is safer & there is less of a chance for an accident to happen then on Myrtle St., 25 mph to 30 mph that maybe has an average of 500 vehicles a day on it?

I call bull **** on this one! For one I live here, you don't. I should & do know more about my community then you could ever hope to. So where in your little world does this happen?

I don't have the source handy, not being my usual line of work, but it has been published quite frequently that the accident rate per car-mile on freeways is less than that on other roads.

No problemo; some Interstates and freeways are already open to bicyclists :) Of course there may still be a minimum speed limit on some of them, but that won't necessarily violate the equal protection clause (http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/Equal_protection) the way bicyclist bans do.

Why shouldn't bicycles be allowed unfettered access to all roadways? Isn't a minimum speed limit exclusionary/discriminatory?

It is not less convenient and slower. It is more convenient and faster. I don't have any traffic signals and it leads almost to my place of business. If you had been shown the bikeway when you visited you might understand. It's a freeway for bicycles.

It would be helpful to remember that "bikeway" is a general term.

I believe that the facility you are talking about is actually a bike path, intended primarily for recreation, which happens to serve some of your transportation needs. That's fine. No VC proponent I know would argue against the inherent safety of a well-designed path in a separate ROW, with few intersections, etc.

Nor would anyone I know argue that you shouldn't choose to use such a facility. Most of us would merely point out that paths like this can be constructed to serve only a very small percentage pf cycling transportation trips, because of physical and economic limitations. Consequently, they are mostly irrelevant to the needs of transportation cyclists, except as they are seen by planners, officials, the public and even a majority of cyclists as places where people should ride bikes.

IOW, "good" Type I facilities are nice for those whom they happen to serve, but not a significant part of the big picture, and never can be in built-up areas.

Or perhaps Joe Sixpack rides a bike and has a family that also ride bikes and likes the idea of bikeways to enjoy cycling as recreation with his family? Despite your wish to keep this discussion limited to transportational cycling in urban areas, matters of public policy are not confined to the same narrow scope.

It is well recognized that a considerable number of bicycle paths whose primary use is for recreation have been paid for out of transportation funds. However, by and large, few bikeways are much used for recreation. Those that are, are generally bike paths through parks or alongside non-industrial waterfronts. In other words, the places that provide quite pleasant environments. We vehicular cyclists have no problem with the creation of such facilities; we just wish that they were recognized for what they are and were paid for out of the proper funds, instead of misleading everybody by pretending that they are primary transportation facilities.

I don't have the source handy, not being my usual line of work, but it has been published quite frequently that the accident rate per car-mile on freeways is less than that on other roads.

You are right there John. Not sure about the highway N_C noted, but on limited access highways in general accident rates are significantly lower. This is attributed (by the "experts") to the fact that vehicles are all moving at generally the same speed without the need to stop at lights, for turns, etc.

I will do a quick search and see what I can find on the stats.

bmike posted with approval the following, as a quote from, I think, Peter Sayer:

"... I don't feel that this kind of work needs to be, or even should be, about campaigning for pork to build "cycle facilities". It ought to be about encouraging city authorities to make the cycling lifestyle easier ... by countering urban sprawl, ensuring that zoning laws allow people to live close to their workplace and to essential commerces, and encouraging commerces and employers to consider bicycle access and parking when planning any new construction."

bmike, if you want to live within cycling distance of your work, go ahead and do it. Nothing is stopping that. I suspect than no industrial or commercial district is so large that it has no residential accommodations within cycling distance. Oh, vehicular cyclists have for years supported having reasonable bicycle parking at employment and commercial centers.

The plain fact is that, for whatever reasons seem reasonable to them, nowadays most people choose to live elsewhere than near their work.

In Maryland we have several such bike paths. The NCR (North Central Rail) trail (http://www.dnr.state.md.us/greenways/ncrt_trail.html) which starts in Hunt Valley and goes north to York, PA. The southern portions of this line originally constructed in the 1800 is.... the Baltimore Light Rail. The trail portion is useless for commuting for anyone but the very few who may live along the route (it's quite rural) and happened to work in Hunt Valley. But, to actually get to any employment or to even get on the light rail and head to Baltimore, one would have to leave the trail at it's terminus and....ride on busy suburban roads (parish the thought). This linear green-way park is maintained by the Maryland Dept. of Natural Resources

Another very long trail is the C & O tow path which follows the Chesapeake and Ohio canal (abandoned) and the Potomac River from western DC to Cumberland, MD. This path is very long (and winding) and is maintained by the National Park Service. Again, pretty useless for commuting unless one lived and worked in the vicinity of western DC.

Then there is the Baltimore and Annapolis Trail Park - another abandoned rail road - (http://www.dnr.state.md.us/greenways/b&a_trail.html) also maintained by the Maryland Dept. of Natural Resources. This trail may be more useful for commuting as it goes through a more built up area.

But the overall picture is of disjointed linear parks that don't connect to each other, serve limited use for commuting and serve a very limited area. 99% of the users of these parks are recreation cyclists who arrive by car.

Originally Posted by sbhikes
You just don't get it. There isn't a freeway from your front door to your every destiation, why do you think that people expect bikeways from their front doors to every destination?



Because that is the usual tactic to deflect the discussion, ignoring or ruling out an integrated system that consists of both roadways and bikeways and making it seem like facilities advocates are asking for blanket coverage by bikeways, thereby making them look foolish. Remember Diane, part of the strategy outlined by JF himself consists of discrediting facilities advocates, which means muddying and distorting their goals. Whether you realize it or not, this debate has more to do with politics than science or engineering, so expect everything you say that has any potential credibility to be distorted and manipulated behind a facade of friendly helpful words.

The official and ostensible justifications for bikeways are that they reduce motoring and that they make it unnecessary to know how to ride a bicycle in traffic. Please don't hold me responsible for these official policy statements. However, if one believes them, then the necessary conclusion is that a bicycle transportation system must consist of a very dense network of bikeways, maybe not down every residential street, but reachable from every residential street and connecting into all centers of employment, commerce, and culture.

And, chipcom, I don't have to muddy or distort anything. The activity of anti-motoring bicycle advocates getting so tied into advocating the system designed by motorists to make motoring more convenient is so muddy and distorted that all I have to do is to tell the truth. If you want to encourage bicycle transportation, then you should be advocating what is good for cyclists.

It is well recognized that a considerable number of bicycle paths whose primary use is for recreation have been paid for out of transportation funds. However, by and large, few bikeways are much used for recreation. Those that are, are generally bike paths through parks or alongside non-industrial waterfronts. In other words, the places that provide quite pleasant environments. We vehicular cyclists have no problem with the creation of such facilities; we just wish that they were recognized for what they are and were paid for out of the proper funds, instead of misleading everybody by pretending that they are primary transportation facilities.

I have to disagree there, John. Bikeways ARE used for recreation in ALL environments that they exist. Granted, if one has their druthers they may opt for a nice park or waterfront path, toting the bike there via motor vehicle, but as you know we don't always get our druthers and don't have the time to load up the car and travel to some other location to enjoy the recreational or fitness benefits of riding a bike. This is an activity limited to weekends for those who don't commute by bike, so during the week they are more likely to simply ride out from their home, using a route consisting of streets and bikeways. By the same token, some transportational cyclists prefer to take advantage of bikeways as part of their route if the bikeway fits their needs. Bikeways are multi-purpose cycling facilities, serving the needs of transportational, recreational, recreational-transportational cyclists. Personally I don't have a problem using transportation or recreational funds or a combination of both to create cycling facilities - whatever gets the job done when it comes to serving the needs of the public is fine with me - it is THEIR money after all.

Not all of these items are required, although riding in comfortable cycling clothing is highly desirable. The plain fact is that you will not choose to ride for transportation to any significant extent. Another plain fact is that it is impractical for society to provide for you to practice your chosen variety of bicycle transportation to any significant extent. There it is.
Would it surprise you to know that I am virtually car free, bicycle daily for transporation (commute to work, haul groceries, etc.) on all types of roads and paths, and my current bike of choice is a 3-speed Raleigh 20, a 30-year old classic English transportation vehicle?

I repeat, the majority of the American public will NEVER accept VC as the cycling model to follow. People simply do not want to mix it up in high speed, high volume traffic on a bike, regardless of training - it is unpleasant and stressful, and your safety depends too much on the predicability (or lack thereof) of the motorists around you. This is not a phobia, it is a simple fact that American motorists are poorly trained, often distracted, and that a small but significant percentage of motorists are vehemently anti-cyclist and WILL both harass and endanger you if given half an excuse to do so.

As Chip has pointed out, the VC model has already been rejected by policymakers throughout the US, due to the likelihood that it's implementation would fail to increase the use of bicycles for transportation significantly.

Modern bicycle advocacy - getting more people on bicycles, safely - requires a different model, closer to the Amsterdam model. There are even ways to make intersections along paths and bike lanes safer, by providing bicycle-specific signals and signal phases, that are as of yet not widely adopted in the US.

You're living in the past, John Forester. It's no wonder only pro-motoring organizations advertise you and hire you to come speak. You speak for them, not for the vast majority of cyclists and non-cyclists. It is YOU who is advocating for a system designed by motorists to make motoring more convenient. That's why they hire you to come speak for them.

All depends on whose stories and anecdotes you listen to for creating your "data" about bicycle safety.

The best study of American car-bike collisions that has ever been done is that by Cross. Furthermore, a followup study done by NC Traffic Studies in recent years, though not nearly as detailed, confirms that the pattern has not changed significantly since.

Of course, a lot of people, who consider themselves "transportational", since they do errands or commute on bicycle, might be surprised that JF doesn't consider them "transportational".

You know, like the 3 speeds of Amsterdam (which he mentions later). Those are only for recreational cyclists. A person, cruising to work at 12mph on a 3 speed is not "transportational".
Their biases and prejudices are really showing here.

As Chip has pointed out, the VC model has already been rejected by policymakers throughout the US, due to the likelihood that it's implementation would fail to increase the use of bicycles for transportation significantly.


There you have it. The truth. VC is a has-been, washed-up idea that nobody wants. Sell it all you want. Resort to smear tactics if you have to. But still nobody is going to want this idea. And the smear tactics won't win you any converts either. Makes you look like a bunch of Internet cranks.

However, by and large, few bikeways are much used for recreation.


I have to disagree there, John. Bikeways ARE used for recreation in ALL environments that they exist.
I think Chip is responding to a typo.

John, didn't you mean that few bikeways (bike paths in this case) are used for transportation?

One example would be for cyclists to observe and react appropriately (for safety and convenience) to the actual existing traffic at intersections, rather than placing faith in the safety provided by rote compliance with traffic control devices. Bicyclists will fare better by reasons of speed and efficiency, as well as safety and convenience.

Obsessive compulsive/strict compliance with vehicular rule type cyclists may "fare better" in their own mind by waiting for the light to change to green at deserted intersections, or by coming to full stops at stop signs at empty intersections.

Yes, indeed, here is ILTB's standard obfuscations at work. Talk about misleading the readers, indeed, by him who does so much of it. We vehicular cyclists recognize two things about this. Some traffic signals will not provide a green phase for bicycles. We work on those responsible to correct this problem. However, the standard rule for inoperative traffic signals is that those using them yield to approaching traffic and cross when safe. Of course, in this particular situation, the signal appears to motorists to be operating properly, so the cyclist must recognize this and yield appropriately. As for stop signs,we vehicular cyclists are with the traffic engineering profession in that a great many stop signs have been placed for political reasons, and with the motorists who don't know this but act according to what they have learned by experience, and use these stop signs as yield signs, what's known colloquially as the California stop.

In summary, vehicular cyclists are not the obsequious ideologues that ILTB has for years tried to paint them, but reasonable people operating in a usually reasonable environment.

And, chipcom, I don't have to muddy or distort anything. The activity of anti-motoring bicycle advocates getting so tied into advocating the system designed by motorists to make motoring more convenient is so muddy and distorted that all I have to do is to tell the truth. If you want to encourage bicycle transportation, then you should be advocating what is good for cyclists.

I do, John, based on what the cyclists themselves want, no matter if they are transportational, recreational or a combination of both. I don't assume that I have to decide what is best for them based on my own personal theories and bias and I don't accuse them of having phobias and inferiority complexes if their needs don't jibe with my own. The bottom line is that you advocate what YOU feel is good for cyclists based on YOUR OPINION, backed up by whatever facts support YOUR OPINION, dismissing or ignoring anything that does not support YOUR OPINION. I do pretty much the same, but one big difference is that I also weigh the wants and needs of the population as a whole into the equation, looking at the big picture based on the realities of today, rather than on some ideal that has never materialized. I value your opinion, knowledge, expertise and the contributions you have made to cycling over the years, but that does not make your opinions the sole guide in crafting my own opinions and decisons, especially if they run counter to my own observations, experience or the wants and needs of all cyclists and the general population. I believe the major reason that your ideas meet so much resistance, other than your bedside manner (which I would be the last person to judge, not being very good at that myself), is that they are based on a narrow scope that fails to take the larger overall picture into account and frankly, have failed to adapt to the realities of today.

I think Chip is responding to a typo.

John, didn't you mean that few bikeways (bike paths in this case) are used for transportation?

It really doesn't matter, since my contention is that they are used for recreation, transportation and combinations of the two, in all environments.

If it's the only way to get from A to B, you have no choice but to ride on it, or drive.

If there is no space to create a separate route for cyclists, then that's the way it's going to stay. Welcome to Long Beach (or so I understand).

In many case the only alternative to vehicular cycling is walking or driving or public transportation.
If we do not preserve our vc rights, if we do not work against efforts that contribute to the eroding of our vc rights, then we are going to end up with more and more situations where there is no reasonable/legal way to get from A to B by bicycle. That is not cycling advocacy; that is anti-cycling advocacy.
I'm sorry, but the answer to poor planning and engineering design is not to force cyclists to ride VC on underdesigned and unsafe roads, but rather, to reengineer the built environment to more safely accomodate bicyclists. This is an entirely separate issue from compulsory sidepath laws and you are confusing the two.

What type or level of situational awareness could allow safe cycling on the roadway while not following the vehicular rules?

You might ask one of the veteran practitioners of urban industrialized cycling in your city by the bay, as they will have far more experience in traffic than any other group, tend not to follow vehicular rules, and achieve accident rates far lower than those touted as evidence that VC works so well.

Robert

Would it surprise you to know that I am virtually car free, bicycle daily for transporation (commute to work, haul groceries, etc.) on all types of roads and paths, and my current bike of choice is a Raleigh 20, a 30-year old classic English transportation vehicle?

I repeat, the majority of the American public will NEVER accept VC as the cycling model to follow. People simply do not want to mix it up in high speed, high volume traffic on a bike, regardless of training - it is unpleasant and stressful, and your safety depends too much on the predicability (or lack thereof) of the motorists around you. This is not a phobia, it is a simple fact that American motorists are poorly trained, often distracted, and that a small but significant percentage of motorists are vehemently anti-cyclist and WILL both harass and endanger you if given half an excuse to do so.

As Chip has pointed out, the VC model has already been rejected by policymakers throughout the US, due to the likelihood that it's implementation would fail to increase the use of bicycles for transportation significantly.

Modern bicycle advocacy - getting more people on bicycles, safely - requires a different model, closer to the Amsterdam model. There are even ways to make intersections along paths and bike lanes safer, by providing bicycle-specific signals and signal phases, that are as of yet not widely adapted in the US.


Randy, I have to disagree here to a point. Vehicular cycling IS accepted by most cyclists and policy makers alike as a valid model - riding on the roadways following the laws and rules of the road for vehicles. Where the disagreements come is in assuming that vc is the ONLY model and when the political aspects of vc come into play concerning facilities and the phobias of cyclists who do not choose to fully embrace the vc model - who ironically include many who consider themselves vehicular cyclists.

There you have it. The truth. VC is a has-been, washed-up idea that nobody wants. Sell it all you want. Resort to smear tactics if you have to. But still nobody is going to want this idea. And the smear tactics won't win you any converts either. Makes you look like a bunch of Internet cranks.

Diane, I think we have to separate the techincal aspects of vehicular cycling, which are commonly accepted, from the political aspects, which indeed are commonly rejected. Let's don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. ;)

As a practical matter, if you can make your necessary and desired journeys under nice conditions, OK, but that limits your travel to those routes, and hence the destinations reachable by those routes. If you want to generally travel throughout all of the area within reachable distance, then you will have to accept some unpleasant conditions because society cannot provide for pleasant travel everywhere.
That's kind of a defeatist attitude. Huge amounts of money are constantly being spent on transportation infrastructure, the vast majority to benefit motorists and motorists alone. Poor, unsafe designs should constantly be identified and upgraded, and any modern transportation department that doesn't plan, design and build for bicyclists' access and safety is acting both inappropriately and in violation of their engineers' code of ethics.