Vehicular Cycling (VC) - can vehicular cyclists also advocate for bike lanes and paths?

The two concepts that you mention are based on opposite views of the status of cyclists and what to do about that status. Vehicular cycling is based on the view that cyclists should operate as drivers of vehicles, while bike lanes are based on the view that cyclist should not be considered to be drivers of vehicles.

um, no that's not the idea bike lanes are based on. it's a lane on the roadway specifically for bicycles. it's not a political statement!

this is one of your theories that is way off. It's not a sociopolitical conspiracy IMHO.

um, no that's not the idea bike lanes are based on. it's a lane on the roadway specifically for bicycles. it's not a political statement!

this is one of your theories that is way off. It's not a sociopolitical conspiracy IMHO.

That claim is falsified by the actions of bicycle advocates, of which you appear to be one, in making such political claims for bike lanes. Is it possible that you do not know, or do not recognize the acts of your associates, in this matter?

However, this is irrelevant to the particular point at issue. On what basis should we have lanes specifically for bicycles? If there is no basis, then there is no reason to have such lanes. If there is a basis, then what is it?

That claim is falsified by the actions of bicycle advocates, of which you appear to be one, in making such political claims for bike lanes. Is it possible that you do not know, or do not recognize the acts of your associates, in this matter?

i don't know what you're talking about. what political claims are "they" making? I'm not an advocate of anything. I ride my bike, I follow the rules of the road, I am "for" well-designed bike facilities, so I guess I'm an advocate of that.


However, this is irrelevant to the particular point at issue. On what basis should we have lanes specifically for bicycles? If there is no basis, then there is no reason to have such lanes. If there is a basis, then what is it?

I don't know, why don't you ask a roadway designer? and not one you talked to 30 years ago, if that even happened. anything I would say would just be my opinion of them. I am not a professional in the field, nor do I claim to have any special knowledge of it, so this is my opinion, impression, whatever you want to call it.

OK, OK, My *impression* of them is that they were designed (not well, in all cases) to create more safety and more ease of use of the roadway for bicycle users. I think they were designed as an aid for cyclists and not as a sinister plot to push them off the roadway. whether they acheive this goal in all cases is certainly up for discussion.

I also believe that most people are basically good and have good intentions. so maybe that colors my thinking.

I guess it would be particularly valuable at this point to get the views of a roadway designer, whatever they are called... anybody??

i don't know what you're talking about. what political claims are "they" making? I'm not an advocate of anything. I ride my bike, I follow the rules of the road, I am "for" well-designed bike facilities, so I guess I'm an advocate of that.



I don't know, why don't you ask a roadway designer? and not one you talked to 30 years ago, if that even happened. anything I would say would just be my opinion of them. I am not a professional in the field, nor do I claim to have any special knowledge of it, so this is my opinion, impression, whatever you want to call it.

OK, OK, My *impression* of them is that they were designed (not well, in all cases) to create more safety and more ease of use of the roadway for bicycle users. I think they were designed as an aid for cyclists and not as a sinister plot to push them off the roadway. whether they acheive this goal in all cases is certainly up for discussion.

I also believe that most people are basically good and have good intentions. so maybe that colors my thinking.

I guess it would be particularly valuable at this point to get the views of a roadway designer, whatever they are called... anybody??

I understand that you have no knowledge of the justification, or excuse, for bike lanes. Yet you advocate for them rather passionately.

You seem to think that I have spoken to only one roadway designer some thirty years ago. I was immersed in the process of designing the bikeway design standards, with all the people who performed those tasks, I wrote part of those standards, and I have kept up with the changes in the standards, and the research that has been done on bikeways, ever since.

I repeat, when the bikeway design standards were created there was no intention to make cycling safer, there was no evidence that would suggest that bike lanes would significantly reduce car-bike collisions, and there was all the evidence that bike lanes contradicted the rules of the road and thereby made cycling more complicated and difficult, and, in those cases where bike lanes were constructed that definitely violate the rules of the road, they would cause car-bike collisions. Those researchers paid by government to try to justify the bikeway program as either reducing car-bike collisions or reducing the level of skill that is required for safe cycling have been unable to produce positive results. This much I know, and you admit that you have no real knowledge in the matter. That is what is wrong about bicycle advocacy; much passion and politicking without knowledge.

I understand that you have no knowledge of the justification, or excuse, for bike lanes. Yet you advocate for them rather passionately.

You seem to think that I have spoken to only one roadway designer some thirty years ago. I was immersed in the process of designing the bikeway design standards, with all the people who performed those tasks, I wrote part of those standards, and I have kept up with the changes in the standards, and the research that has been done on bikeways, ever since.

so you helped design "bad" facilities? BAD Forester!


I repeat, when the bikeway design standards were created there was no intention to make cycling safer, there was no evidence that would suggest that bike lanes would significantly reduce car-bike collisions, and there was all the evidence that bike lanes contradicted the rules of the road and thereby made cycling more complicated and difficult, and, in those cases where bike lanes were constructed that definitely violate the rules of the road, they would cause car-bike collisions..

of course there was no evidence of anything; designs were being created...the whole thing had never been done before, much less studied, just as it still isn't studied to any significant extent, today. True? once again we have to take your word for it that the evil designer minions plotted to get cyclists off the road, and yes, even injure them.



Those researchers paid by government to try to justify the bikeway program as either reducing car-bike collisions or reducing the level of skill that is required for safe cycling have been unable to produce positive results...

what researchers are you talking about?


This much I know, and you admit that you have no real knowledge in the matter. That is what is wrong about bicycle advocacy; much passion and politicking without knowledge.

Hey, I'm just being honest. I wish you'd be more forthcoming and honest about what you know and don't know, and admit you don't "know" as much as you pretend to. I just can't believe that there are hordes of evil roadway designers that plot to injure cyclists by building faulty bike lanes, and that in the last 40 years they have passed this evil worldview on to the next generation of designers, and they continue to plot against us. That's crazy. (to me)

It's possible that my impression is totally off-base...I'd love to hear from other people on this, designers, etc. and not just the usual VC suspects.

Hey, I'm just being honest. I wish you'd be more forthcoming and honest about what you know and don't know, and admit you don't "know" as much as you pretend to. Forester has written books like "Effective Cycling" and "Bicycle Transportation" which are very forthcoming and honest about what he knows and doesn't know. Why is this not good enough?

By the way, I spoke to a real live roadway engineer just last week, and the only basis he could provide for bike lanes is to cater to incompetent cycling. He did not use those words. His words were, "the lowest common denominator, and I mean the lowest".

When I suggested that this is an odd justification, he said it is the same as designing a curve to be safe at 45 mph and then marking a speed limit for it to be 25 mph (implying that they don't design for those who obey the rules, but for "the lowest common denominator, and I mean the lowest", who presumably will, for example, always exceed the speed limit, or ride their bicycles too far to the right).

Forester has written books like "Effective Cycling" and "Bicycle Transportation" which are very forthcoming and honest about what he knows and doesn't know. Why is this not good enough?).

books written decades ago often have outdated material in them. Things change, people change, circumstances change.



By the way, I spoke to a real live roadway engineer just last week, and the only basis he could provide for bike lanes is to cater to incompetent cycling. He did not use those words. His words were, "the lowest common denominator, and I mean the lowest".).

If he didn't use those words why are you putting them in his mouth? you and I and everyone else is/are perfectly capable of misunderstanding and misinterpreting things said by other people....

Yeah, I remember when you wrote that. unfortunately, I believe your and Foresters "word" on things you have said and heard and done about as much as I believe in the easter bunny. y'all have proven to me that you are not above misleading and twisting words to suit your cause and make your case. This is why I'd love to hear from an unbiased planner/designer or three.

so you helped design "bad" facilities? BAD Forester!



of course there was no evidence of anything; designs were being created...the whole thing had never been done before, much less studied, just as it still isn't studied to any significant extent, today. True? once again we have to take your word for it that the evil designer minions plotted to get cyclists off the road, and yes, even injure them.




what researchers are you talking about?



Hey, I'm just being honest. I wish you'd be more forthcoming and honest about what you know and don't know, and admit you don't "know" as much as you pretend to. I just can't believe that there are hordes of evil roadway designers that plot to injure cyclists by building faulty bike lanes, and that in the last 40 years they have passed this evil worldview on to the next generation of designers, and they continue to plot against us. That's crazy. (to me)

It's possible that my impression is totally off-base...I'd love to hear from other people on this, designers, etc. and not just the usual VC suspects.


If you want to know what I know, I suggest reading my book Bicycle Transportation, from The MIT Press, and my article The Bicycle Transportation Controversy in Transportation Quarterly, Vol 55, Number 2, Spring 2001, pgs 7-17.

I tell you that I do not pretend to any knowledge that I do not possess. Why should you assume that I am pretending to anything?

And you criticize me for participating in the design of bad facilities? I was making every effort possible to remove as much of the added dangers created by the main bikeway standard designers as I could. And I managed to get rid of many such. That I did not completely succeed demonstrates the power of the bikeway advocates.

Probably the first attempt to demonstrate the bikeway claims was reported in Bikeways -- State of the Art -- 1974, FHWA-RD-74-56, July 74. The next was probably Safety and Location Criteria for Bicycle Facilities, Final Report, FHWA-RD-75-112, Feb 76. Somewhat later are the bicycling portions of the 24 case studies contained in the National Bicycling and Walking Study, Federal Highway Administration, 1994. There have been several studies about motorists overtaking cyclists, in Florida and in Texas, and another study of bike lanes and intersections in Florida. Don't have the copies immediately available, but, for example, the Texas one showed that motorists left less clearance with a bike-lane stripe than without one.

Your complaint about evil road designers shows that you do not understand the way that the highway design system functions, or how bicycle advocacy influences it. The bikeway standards were invented and designed by motorists with the intent of shoving cyclists aside. That's a historical fact. I provided the motorists' names in that effort recently in one or another of these lists. However, once those standards are accepted (and the California standards have been the basis for all that have followed), the road designer is obliged to follow them without considering whether or not the standard has ever been justified. Furthermore, every major urban area has to have a bicycle transportation plan, and is provided with funds to build bikeways. The political parts of government largely say which streets will have which kinds of bikeway. The road designer must then obey, unless it becomes practically impossible.

This kind of system works with the standard road design system, because the non-bikeway items in the road design standards have been well thought out and tested. The road and traffic engineers have to question the design standards only in a very few exceptional cases where the dangers or expense are extremely obvious, and any such request for deviation has to be considered at a high level. The ordinary designers are not trained to question the standards that they are ordered to follow, and they don't.

Therefore, the urban planner or bicycle planner who has significant input into what kinds of bikeway to put where, and the road designer who is instructed to carry out that plan, just go along with the existing standard methods, without questioning. It is not a matter of evil intent; that was built in at the beginning, and the system carries it out today without anyone in the process having any specific intent at all. Except, really, to earn their livings by doing their jobs as they have been instructed.

If you want to know what I know, I suggest reading my book Bicycle Transportation, from The MIT Press, and my article The Bicycle Transportation Controversy in Transportation Quarterly, Vol 55, Number 2, Spring 2001, pgs 7-17.

I tell you that I do not pretend to any knowledge that I do not possess. Why should you assume that I am pretending to anything?

And you criticize me for participating in the design of bad facilities? I was making every effort possible to remove as much of the added dangers created by the main bikeway standard designers as I could. And I managed to get rid of many such. That I did not completely succeed demonstrates the power of the bikeway advocates. .

well, sorry, that was supposed to be kind of a joke. I should have used a smiley. what sort of dangers did you remove?


Probably the first attempt to demonstrate the bikeway claims was reported in Bikeways -- State of the Art -- 1974, FHWA-RD-74-56, July 74. The next was probably Safety and Location Criteria for Bicycle Facilities, Final Report, FHWA-RD-75-112, Feb 76. Somewhat later are the bicycling portions of the 24 case studies contained in the National Bicycling and Walking Study, Federal Highway Administration, 1994. There have been several studies about motorists overtaking cyclists, in Florida and in Texas, and another study of bike lanes and intersections in Florida. Don't have the copies immediately available, but, for example, the Texas one showed that motorists left less clearance with a bike-lane stripe than without one.

Your complaint about evil road designers shows that you do not understand the way that the highway design system functions, or how bicycle advocacy influences it. The bikeway standards were invented and designed by motorists with the intent of shoving cyclists aside. That's a historical fact. I provided the motorists' names in that effort recently in one or another of these lists. However, once those standards are accepted (and the California standards have been the basis for all that have followed), the road designer is obliged to follow them without considering whether or not the standard has ever been justified. Furthermore, every major urban area has to have a bicycle transportation plan, and is provided with funds to build bikeways. The political parts of government largely say which streets will have which kinds of bikeway. The road designer must then obey, unless it becomes practically impossible.

This kind of system works with the standard road design system, because the non-bikeway items in the road design standards have been well thought out and tested. The road and traffic engineers have to question the design standards only in a very few exceptional cases where the dangers or expense are extremely obvious, and any such request for deviation has to be considered at a high level. The ordinary designers are not trained to question the standards that they are ordered to follow, and they don't.

Therefore, the urban planner or bicycle planner who has significant input into what kinds of bikeway to put where, and the road designer who is instructed to carry out that plan, just go along with the existing standard methods, without questioning. It is not a matter of evil intent; that was built in at the beginning, and the system carries it out today without anyone in the process having any specific intent at all. Except, really, to earn their livings by doing their jobs as they have been instructed.

hmmmmmm.....Thanks for honest reply. I'd still like to hear from other designers and planners about this to verify.

well, sorry, that was supposed to be kind of a joke. I should have used a smiley. what sort of dangers did you remove?



hmmmmmm.....Thanks for honest reply. I'd still like to hear from other designers and planners about this to verify.

For example, in the context of the last version of the standards with which you are probably familiar, it was a battle to get the straight-through bike lane put to the left side of a right-turn-only lane. The CALTRANS principal writer at that time opposed this on the grounds that this would put motor vehicles on both sides of the cyclist, which, so he said, nobody would like.

The very first version of the standards was done by UCLA traffic studies for the California Legislature, and was largely a copy of the then current Dutch and German standards, urban side-paths everywhere. Those posed so many dangers of car-bike collision that, once I discovered them, I got them dismissed, after printing but before issuing them. (I have a copy.) These were based on the idea that cyclists were absolutely inferior to motorists at every conflict point, but, of course, because the UCLA traffic experts considered that that was the normal condition, they didn't question the concept, probably didn't even think of it.

Despite the claims of mossy john, vehicular cyclists can and do advocate for bike specific on road infrastructure including bike lanes and off road facilities like transportational/ recreational bike paths.

realistic vehicular cyclists can see beyond the dogma, and embrace bike infrastructure as positive inducements for cycling in communites.

Vehicular cyclists CAN ride vehicularily in a bike lane.

What an utterly foolish question. All kinds of people can, and do, advocate the most absurd agendas. That says nothing one way or the other.

It looks to me as though Bekelogist (didn't he start this?) is up to his old tricks of trying to make arguments based on semantic wordplay rather than on facts and reason.

JF stop being such a stiff assed Brit! (you are from Great Britain, right?) Man this went way over your head & HH's as well. Bek posted this, IMO, in part as tongue in cheek. Obviously HH & JF both missed this. I can only imagine the look on their face & their thinking. Your thinking is probably WTF was that as it flys over & you turn to look at it.