can vehicular cyclists also advocate for bike lanes and paths?

[Bekologist]

Can a vehicular cyclist advocate for bike specific infrastructure for their communities? Can vehicuar cyclists also advocate for bike lanes? can vehicular cyclists advocate for bike paths? can vehicular cyclists advocate for public service announcements to educate drivers?

can vehicular cyclists advocate for bike specific enhancements to their communities?

[sbhikes]

Not the ones who follow John Forester. They would lose credibility with their Lord and Master. But when I go to my local advocacy meetings, people who ride vehicularly do advocate for bike specific enhancements, including bike lanes and bike paths.

[Bekologist]

that's my experience also in Seattle.

Vehicular cyclists and bike specific enhancements to communities are NOT mutually exclusive.

despite the rantings of a very, VERY small segment of the bicycling population, vehicular cyclists can advocate for bike lanes, bike paths, etc. in their communities.

[sggoodri]

I checked yes.

I advocate for a lot of well-designed bicycle-specific facilities, such as bike parking, greenway bridges over highways/rail lines, greenway short cut paths, some rail-trails/streamside paths, bicycle-safe drain grates, and wide outside lanes on roads with significant traffic.

I don't support badly designed facilities like door-zone bike lanes.

[invisiblehand]

Can I vote for two choices? I want chocolate.

[sggoodri]

Can I vote for two choices? I want chocolate.


Bay Area Chocolate Tour: http://travel.yahoo.com/trip-view-406129-bay_area_chocolate_tour

Chocolate Chip Cookie Ride:
http://www.tarwheels.org/favorite_rides/cookie.html
http://www.unc.edu/~uevans/bike_stories/cookie.ride.html

[noisebeam]

I checked yes.

I advocate for a lot of well-designed bicycle-specific facilities, such as bike parking, greenway bridges over highways/rail lines, greenway short cut paths, some rail-trails/streamside paths, bicycle-safe drain grates, and wide outside lanes on roads with significant traffic.

I don't support badly designed facilities like door-zone bike lanes.
Agreed, and sensors that detect bikes too.

But the question in the title of the thread is different than the question in the body.

The title asked about lanes and paths, while the body asked about bike specific infrastructure.

I can not advocate for lanes and paths in a generic sense. I would advocate for a very specific locatoin implementation of a specific design for a lane or path.
I would advocate against a bike lane or path implmentation design if it did not meet a wide range of criteria.

Al

[Helmet Head]

Can a vehicular cyclist advocate for bike specific infrastructure for their communities? Of course, and we do. See this thread (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=271083).


Can vehicuar cyclists also advocate for bike lanes? Well, when bike lanes are inevitable on long intersectionless stretches, I advocate for widening the ones that of substandard width. But, in general, bike lanes, especially in states like CA where cyclists are required to use bike lanes, bike lanes are contrary to "same roads, same rights, same rules". Again, this is mostly moot on long intersectionless stretches, but where there are intersections (including midblock intersections), the concept of bike lanes is inherently in conflict with the concept of vehicular cycling.

can vehicular cyclists advocate for bike paths? Absolutely, and we do. See this thread (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=271083).

can vehicular cyclists advocate for public service announcements to educate drivers? Of course, and we do. See this thread (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=271083).

can vehicular cyclists advocate for bike specific enhancements to their communities? Of course, and we do. See this thread (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=271083).

[John Forester]

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.

[Keith99]

Can surfers advocate for swimming pools?

I'd say these are related. A swimming pool doesn't normally do a surfer any good. At least not as a surfer. But a surfer might like to relax in the pool from time to time. Surely a VC type can anjoy a nice path. Lanes might be a different story. That might be like pools at the beach to replace lifeguards and beachj maintenance.

I for one still see a place for bike lanes. They provide a sort of starting place. And going back to pools at the beach, there are some beaches that sometimes have hazards, be they rip tides, jellyfish or sharks. In those cases a pool at the beach makes sense. Sometimes a bike lane makes sense, even for a vehicular cyclist. Just like truck lanes.


The problem is where the goal seems to be bike lanes everywhere. To me that is sort of like truck lanes everywhere. It just does not make sense.

[noisebeam]

And going back to pools at the beach, there are some beaches that sometimes have hazards, be they rip tides, jellyfish or sharks. In those cases a pool at the beach makes sense.
I'd say the analogy is more like roping off an area in the ocean giving appearance it safer, even though it still allows access to sharks, jellies and may even have riptides during some seasons.

I'd say a pool is more like a MUP. Ever try and do laps at the city pool during a heatwave?

My brother is a surfer, he visits the pool several time a week to keep in swimming shape.

Al

[Brian Ratliff]

Can surfers advocate for swimming pools?

I'd say these are related. A swimming pool doesn't normally do a surfer any good. At least not as a surfer. But a surfer might like to relax in the pool from time to time. Surely a VC type can anjoy a nice path. Lanes might be a different story. That might be like pools at the beach to replace lifeguards and beachj maintenance.

I for one still see a place for bike lanes. They provide a sort of starting place. And going back to pools at the beach, there are some beaches that sometimes have hazards, be they rip tides, jellyfish or sharks. In those cases a pool at the beach makes sense. Sometimes a bike lane makes sense, even for a vehicular cyclist. Just like truck lanes.


The problem is where the goal seems to be bike lanes everywhere. To me that is sort of like truck lanes everywhere. It just does not make sense.

Odd. I agree mostly with this as well.

There's no need to throw the baby out with the bath water. I ride in all environments, but a bike lane (in certain situations, of course) definitely is a place to relax a little. I mean, I still keep wary, but I don't need to hawk every car around my slow mass.

Being able to ride in all environments is the purpose for learning vehicular cycling. It's so I don't have to be deterred from any destination I need to get to, just because the road is this way or that. But if the road is going to be rebuilt anyway, why not rebuild it to make it easier to bicycle on? Bike lanes work, to a certain extent at least, but any additional space is okay by me. And if a side path is the only option available, I'll call upon my powers of creativity to suggest something different, but I know that I don't need any certain accomodation to ride any road, no matter the configuration. If I disagree with the accomodation provided, and I have in certain circumstances, I just take to the road.

As for beginners, I don't think any bicycle accomodation is implicitly hazardous. Bike paths with signalized intersections are, by far, the safest for beginners. Bike lanes are easier to understand as long as they are routed to avoid conflicts. Left turns can always be made in two parts utilizing the crosswalks.

Bike lanes everywhere? Well, where they are necessary or not is a matter much debated, but does an entire city need to be papered over, buildings moved, streets redesigned, tomorrow just to cram in some bike lanes? No. Infrastructure of any sort is an evolving process. Certain streets don't need accomodation, just cyclist education on how to use them. Certain streets are very much in need of accomodation.

Anyway, that's my take on this subject; from the mouth of a vehicular cyclist, though not of the VC club.

[Brian Ratliff]

I'd say the analogy is more like roping off an area in the ocean giving appearance it safer, even though it still allows access to sharks, jellies and may even have riptides during some seasons.

I'd say a pool is more like a MUP. Ever try and do laps at the city pool during a heatwave?

My brother is a sufer, he visits the pool several time a week to keep in swimming shape.

Al

Kinda depends, doesn't it? Here we are arguing about analogies now. :)

Just as a side note, that bike lanes tend to collect debris means that motorists don't drive in them. But we've been through this before. To each their own; and particularly you. I've seen how drivers are in Pheonix. I'm not envious.

[noisebeam]

Just as a side note, that bike lanes tend to collect debris means that motorists don't drive in them.
Bike lanes collect debris because motorist don't usually drive in them. I do find the outer 1' of a BL to be usually debris free.
BLs to the left of RTOLs as one gets closer to stop line and beyond until the x-traffic lane have the most debris, also the place motorist are least likely to drive.
Al

[Brian Ratliff]

Bike lanes collect debris because motorist don't usually drive in them. I do find the outer 1' of a BL to be usually debris free.
BLs to the left of RTOLs as one gets closer to stop line and beyond until the x-traffic lane have the most debris, also the place motorist are least likely to drive.
Al

Sounds right to me. A weekly sweeping seems to keep the debris levels down around here. Like I said, I've found the debris issue overblown for the cycling I've done. I mean, it's there, but it's not much of an issue.

[noisebeam]

Sounds right to me. A weekly sweeping seems to keep the debris levels down around here. Like I said, I've found the debris issue overblown for the cycling I've done. I mean, it's there, but it's not much of an issue.
Sweeping (in the more funded cities that make up Phx-metro) is done every 2-3wks on a published scheudule.

I've ridden just after a sweeping. Three days later there was already fairly thick acculmulation of hard debris, car bits, rocks, glass in the zones that rarely see a car tire. I guess 50k cars a day leaves and pushes around a lot of material.

Another local consideration is perhaps that the landscape and landscaping is harder, less organic. Made of rocks. Vegitation tends to be more durable too (less leafy and more stemmy). Harder material is both more of a concern for a cyclist and gets less easily blown off road by vehicles or weather.
Area between sidewalk and road is most often landscaped with 1/2" rock. These rocks makes their way into roadway. A specific problem area is by bus stops. Waiting passengers seem to pass time kicking rocks into road.

Overblown, yes if presented as the only issue, but it is one of many and it plays a part.

Al

[Brian Ratliff]

Sweeping (in the more funded cities that make up Phx-metro) is done every 2-3wks on a published scheudule.

I've ridden just after a sweeping. Three days later there was already fairly thick acculmulation of hard debris, car bits, rocks, glass in the zones that rarely see a car tire. I guess 50k cars a day leaves and pushes around a lot of material.

Another local consideration is perhaps that the landscape and landscaping is harder, less organic. Made of rocks. Vegitation tends to be more durable too (less leafy and more stemmy). Harder material is both more of a concern for a cyclist and gets less easily blown off road by vehicles or weather.
Area between sidewalk and road is most often landscaped with 1/2" rock. These rocks makes their way into roadway. A specific problem area is by bus stops. Waiting passengers seem to pass time kicking rocks into road.

Overblown, yes if presented as the only issue, but it is one of many and it plays a part.

Al

Ah, I see, especially about the landscaping aspect. Around here, there is little landscaping using rocks or pebbles; most of the landscaping is done using barkmulch, fine dirt, and vegetation. This explains some things. Here, debris is only a bit of crushed rock in very limited quantities, which is just from gravel driveways mostly. These little bits are easy to dodge and easy to sweep up and slow to accumulate. So, debris is a minor issue.

However, if you are constantly dodging rocks, glass and other big debris which builds up quickly and densely, then I can see how it can become a real concern.

[noisebeam]

Just as a continuation of an off topic aside... debris
Debris is not only a BL problem. It can accumulate in infrequent drive areas on regular streets.

One place is similar to the end of BL zone when the BL is left of a RTOL. There is often a triangle of debris in the space between right turning vehciles, thru vehicles and thru x-traffic. This is an area easily avoided by riding vehicularly center biased thru the intersection.

Another place I find debris is a place I would otherwise choose to ride - the preferred vehicular location: The thru lane for a collector road leaving a residential neighborhood. People rarely leave one residential area to go to another directly adjacent (exceptions are primaily mail carriers and such) So the RT and LT lanes get 95% of traffic as people are turning onto the arterial, not crossing it - they sweep debris to the middle thru lane. Of course a cyclist who uses a back vs. arterial route does travel from hood to hood, so uses this thru lane.

Al

[Helmet Head]

Just as a side note, that bike lanes tend to collect debris means that motorists don't drive in them. False.

That bike lanes tend to collect debris means that motorists tend to drive less in the space demarcated by the bike lane stripe than they would if the stripe were not there. There is no disagreement on that point, so far as I know. It doesn't mean that they don't drive in that space at all (which is the false implication of your statement).

What's most important to cyclists, of course, is that motorists not drive in that space when cyclists are in that space. So the key question is not what do stripes do in general with respect to keeping motorists out of that space, but what effect they have when cyclists are in that space.

Now, one seemingly logical argument goes like this:

IF the bike lane stripes makes motorists less likely to be driving in that space in general
THEN motorists are less likely to be in that space when cyclists are in that space.

But what matters here is to consider the effect of the stripe not in general, but ONLY when cyclists are in that space.
That is: what is the likelihood of motorists driving in that space, with and without the stripe, when cyclists are in that space?

In particular, if the presence of a cyclist in that space makes the likelihood of a motorist driving in that space be practically nil, as we have ample reason to believe it is, without the stripe, then the advantage of the stripe in tending to keep motorists out of that space in general is moot.

The ample reason to believe that the presence of a cyclist in that space makes the likelihood of a motorist driving in that space be practically nil is that the incidence of cyclists being hit from behind in wide outside lanes (no bike lane stripes) is no higher than it is when riding in bike lanes or shoulders (where cyclists are allegedly "protected" by the stripe's ability to tend to keep motorists out of that space). In fact, the incidence of cyclists riding in shoulders and bike lanes being hit from behind is all too high, while the incidence of cyclists being hit from behind while riding up ahead within the motorist's lane (wide or narrow) is so rare as to be almost unheard of. This makes sense given that motorists pay most attention to whatever is up ahead in their own lane.

This could be because cyclists ride many more miles of roads with bike lanes than on roads without stripes. But we have no reason to believe that to be true.

What seems more likely to me is that motorists are more likely to pay attention to a cyclist up ahead in their lane, and so less likely to choose to attend to a drift-causing distraction while a cyclist is up ahead, than when the cyclist up ahead is outside of their lane, where he is more likely to not even be noticed.

[Brian Ratliff]

Just as a continuation of an off topic aside... debris
Debris is not only a BL problem. It can accumulate in infrequent drive areas on regular streets.

One place is similar to the end of BL zone when the BL is left of a RTOL. There is often a triangle of debris in the space between right turning vehciles, thru vehicles and thru x-traffic. This is an area easily avoided by riding vehicularly center biased thru the intersection.

Another place I find debris is a place I would otherwise choose to ride - the preferred vehicular location: The thru lane for a collector road leaving a residential neighborhood. People rarely leave one residential area to go to another directly adjacent (exceptions are primaily mail carriers and such) So the RT and LT lanes get 95% of traffic as people are turning onto the arterial, not crossing it - they sweep debris to the middle thru lane. Of course a cyclist who uses a back vs. arterial route does travel from hood to hood, so uses this thru lane.

Al

The little space which doesn't get driven on by either right turning cars or straight through cars is an extremely bad debris collection spot around here. Whereas in a bike lane, even a bike lane to the left of a right turn lane, there is debris but at a very low density and is easily dealt with, the little triangle where neither turning cars nor the straight through cars touch accumulates debris at much higher densities. It is enough to cause a wheel to slid out if one isn't careful. Fortunately, the 1 foot rule you've noticed at bike lanes also applies to the triangle, so by biasing leftward a little, a cyclist can miss the triangle.

[noisebeam]

The little space which doesn't get driven on by either right turning cars or straight through cars is an extremely bad debris collection spot around here. Whereas in a bike lane, even a bike lane to the left of a right turn lane, there is debris but at a very low density and is easily dealt with, the little triangle where neither turning cars nor the straight through cars touch accumulates debris at much higher densities. It is enough to cause a wheel to slid out if one isn't careful. Fortunately, the 1 foot rule you've noticed at bike lanes also applies to the triangle, so by biasing leftward a little, a cyclist can miss the triangle.
So you agree that riding center biased in a BL in this above case you describe is a recipe for riding thru this high density debris field?

Similarly riding right biased in a WOL thru an intersection will lead one thru this debris field.

I attached diagram, with red area being the location (not the shape) of the high intensity debris field zone.

Al

[Brian Ratliff]

So you agree that riding center biased in a BL in this above case you describe is a recipe for riding thru this high density debris field?

Similarly riding right biased in a WOL thru an intersection will lead one thru this debris field.

I attached diagram, with red area being the location (not the shape) of the high intensity debris field zone.

Al

Yes. This is a practical matter and happens at select, high traffic intersections. Like you pointed out though, this doesn't necessarily means that the bike lane needs to be exited, as the one foot clear area seems to still apply in most situations.

Like you said, WOLs (and NOLs) suffer this same problem. A cyclist who is informed in how to deal with it in both types of facilities is not bothered much by this situation. A cyclist who is ill informed is not seriously threatened by it, in my opinion, and will soon learn that it should be avoided. The only real solution for this is street sweeping.

[noisebeam]

Like you pointed out though, this doesn't necessarily means that the bike lane needs to be exited, as the one foot clear area seems to still apply in most situations.

If one is riding in the leftmost 1' of a BL, one is not within the BL. It would be much clearer to other road users if one signaled and purposfully and clearly left the BL. Or are motorists who are driving in outside lane expected to anticiapte a cyclist suddenly hanging over stripe and adjust before they do move leftward?

Al

[Brian Ratliff]

If one is riding in the leftmost 1' of a BL, one is not within the BL. It would be much clearer to other road users if one signaled and purposfully and clearly left the BL. Or are motorists who are driving in outside lane expected to anticiapte a cyclist suddenly hanging over stripe and adjust before they do move leftward?

Al

I can only say that in practice, this has never been a problem. That's all I have to say about that.

[Brian Ratliff]

BTW, noisebeam, you do realize that if you ride, say 6" to the right of the bike lane line, and the line is 8" wide, you are not actually impinging on the adjacent lane, right? A cyclist is roughly 2" wide, take half of that is 12", 6"+8"=14" means that you are not intruding into the adjacent lane by 2".

[noisebeam]

BTW, noisebeam, you do realize that if you ride, say 6" to the right of the bike lane line, and the line is 8" wide, you are not actually impinging on the adjacent lane, right? A cyclist is roughly 2" wide, take half of that is 12", 6"+8"=14" means that you are not intruding into the adjacent lane by 2".
It does make me happy to know that a truck driver who stays within their lane could pass me with 2" of clearance. Much better than being hit.

Or do motorists also get this 8" of extra lane allowance? Are they legally riding within their lane if the mirror of the vehicle they are piloting hangs 6" into the 8" stripe, or do cyclists get a special exception?

Al

[Brian Ratliff]

It does make me happy to know that a truck driver who stays within their lane could pass me with 2" of clearance. Much better than being hit.

Or do motorists also get this 8" of extra lane allowance? Are they legally riding within their lane if the mirror of the vehicle they are piloting hangs 6" into the 8" stripe, or do cyclists get a special exception?

Al

Again, in practice, this hasn't been a problem - vehicles aren't as wide as the lane and all pass without difficulties to themselves or to me. I'm not understanding your perspective. Has this been a problem for you in practice?

I suspect you are generating these arguments just to be argumentative.

[noisebeam]

Has this been a problem for you in practice?

It hasn't as I generally get out of the right or BL when traveling thru major ntersections where this debris accumulates.

I do see vehicles passing just outside the BL as in this photo. That would be 2" of clearance if the cyclist was riding 1' inside stripe.

Al

[Brian Ratliff]

It hasn't as I generally get out of the right or BL when traveling thru major ntersections where this debris accumulates.

I do see vehicles passing just outside the BL as in this photo. That would be 2" of clearance if the cyclist was riding 1' inside stripe.

Al

It's not like everything is static out there or anything, or that drivers don't move when presented with this situation. Again, it hasn't been a problem, so I don't know what else to say.

[sbhikes]

That's just silly, Al. If you were riding one inch from the line, the traffic would move over to pass you. I see this all the time when I ride my trike, which often doesn't fit in narrower bike lanes. I frequently have to ride with one wheel slightly over the line. The cars and trucks just move over.

For crying out loud, traffic isn't like a speeding train on a track.

[randya]

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.
We all learned it from Helmet Head.

:)

[Helmet Head]

We all learned it from Helmet Head.

:) Sadly, many of you cannot differentiate a genuine effort to convey meaning versus disingenuous semantic wordplay (a Chipcom speciality, whose technique is insidious while Bek's is much more harmless due to its transparency).

For example, Chip posted this today:

:beer: IMO, if one feels the need to emulate an automobile while on a bicycle, I'm thinking it is they who have the issues and not those of us who are quite secure with the fact our bicycle is is a bicycle. ;)
http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=4316562&postcount=53

The fact that Chipcom knows that no one on this forum has ever expressed a "need to emulate an automobile while on a bicycle", and in fact this misconception has been corrected countless times, does not prevent him from shamelessly throwing it out there. These tactics are really harmful to reasonable and respectful discourse on this forum.

For the umpteenth time, it was corrected today as well, this time by Steve:

This is why I often reiterate that vehicular cycling does not mean that one treats the bicycle as an automobile; it means that one treats the bicycle as a vehicle.

Cyclists fare best when bicyclists, traffic engineers, and other drivers understand that the kinematics, dynamics and the perceptual, cognitive, and reactive abilities of a bicyclist on a bicycle have very much in common with that of drivers of other vehicles. Certainly one should observe that they have different masses, widths, and maximum top speeds, but these parameters do not generally override the other operational aspects, particularly on normal, typical streets.

[wethepeople]

Bike lanes are the cause of global warming!

[pj7]

Sadly, many of you cannot differentiate a genuine effort to convey meaning versus disingenuous semantic wordplay (a Chipcom speciality, whose technique is insidious while Bek's is much more harmless due to its transparency).

For example, Chip posted this today:


http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=4316562&postcount=53

The fact that Chipcom knows that no one on this forum has ever expressed a "need to emulate an automobile while on a bicycle", and in fact this misconception has been corrected countless times, does not prevent him from shamelessly throwing it out there. These tactics are really harmful to reasonable and respectful discourse on this forum.

For the umpteenth time, it was corrected today as well, this time by Steve:

And it's not possible that he meant "vehicle", after all, to everyone else in the world the two words are almost synonymous. also, the post he replied to used "autos" alot, so isn't it also likely that he possibly had the word "auto" in his head when he made that post? C'mon now, you know it's possible.

Spell SPOT out loud 4 times real fast.
Now tell me, what do you do when you come to a green light?
Most people answer "stop" to this question because it has been impressed upon them right before asked.

For someone so quick to make psychological assessments of others you sure missed this basic concept of psychology.

[Helmet Head]

And it's not possible that he meant "vehicle", after all, to everyone else in the world the two words are almost synonymous. also, the post he replied to used "autos" alot, so isn't it also likely that he possibly had the word "auto" in his head when he made that post? C'mon now, you know it's possible.

Spell SPOT out loud 4 times real fast.
Now tell me, what do you do when you come to a green light?
Most people answer "stop" to this question because it has been impressed upon them right before asked.

For someone so quick to make psychological assessments of others you sure missed this basic concept of psychology.
Chip knows better. He knew exactly what he was doing. He even used "automobile" instead of "car".
He's very devious. Remember, he's a politician at heart. Beware.

Forester and I clearly are not.

[pj7]

Chip knows better. He knew exactly what he was doing. He even used "automobile" instead of "car".
He's very devious. Remember, he's a politician at heart. Beware.

Forester and I clearly are not.

Clearly not what? Politicians at heart? You must be joking.
And your post exemplifies my quote about making psychological judgements about others.
Where did you and JF get your psychological certifications again? ;)

[sggoodri]

Clearly not what? Politicians at heart? You must be joking.


I used to consider my facilities advocacy as just promotion of good engineering, until a reporter who was interviewing me pointed out that it was really politics due to the existence of controversy and the involvement of government.

A lot of us on this list are playing politics - on and off list. Some of us test our arguments on-list before using them off-list, with the local government and public. And some people just like to argue, politicians or not.

I see a number of people on this list argue both sides of the vehicular cycling controversy, trying to push people toward what they consider a moderate, practical view. They have different ideas of what moderate is, however, and so they may not completely agree among themselves. But I think of moderation advocacy as a political aim just as much as promoting extremes. Also, it is possible to adopt a principled and practical position that happens to align with a so-called moderate view.

I sometimes take more "extreme" principled positions when it suits the political context. When I get involved in advocacy with other cyclists, and we are trying to effect change, we may play good cop, bad cop. I often get to take turns. For instance, when dealing with Clear Channel Radio, I played good cop, and let the protesters calling into the station and scaring away their sponsors play bad cop. When dealing with NCDOT, I often play bad cop, and let the local bike/ped planners play good cop.

Bad cop is more fun from a distance. Good cop is more pleasant in person.

[sbhikes]

I would like to answer the main question: Can vehicular cyclists also advocate for bike lanes and paths? The answer is they already do, and yes, they should. (And to be clear, I mean vc, not VC(TM), cyclists because the Foresterites simply won't advocate for these things so they are irrelevant.)

Why should vehicular cyclists advocate for these things? Because they are the ones with the empiricle experience who understand the problems of poor design of traffic systems. They have expertise the engineers often lack. They are also the ones who will reject designs where the motivation is to "push cyclists out of the way". They are the true stakeholders in the system who can ensure lanes and paths don't hinder their mobility or inhibit access for others. When left to to motorists and people who ride on the sidewalk (as it may very well be in many areas) what gets built largely lacks utility.

I believe vc cyclists have a responsibility to be part of the process that advocates for lanes and paths. This means you offer what support you can: money, letters, votes, time, whatever.

[sggoodri]

I would like to answer the main question: Can vehicular cyclists also advocate for bike lanes and paths? The answer is they already do, and yes, they should. (And to be clear, I mean vc, not VC(TM), cyclists because the Foresterites simply won't advocate for these things so they are irrelevant.)

Why should vehicular cyclists advocate for these things? Because they are the ones with the empiricle experience who understand the problems of poor design of traffic systems. They have expertise the engineers often lack. They are also the ones who will reject designs where the motivation is to "push cyclists out of the way". They are the true stakeholders in the system who can ensure lanes and paths don't hinder their mobility or inhibit access for others. When left to to motorists and people who ride on the sidewalk (as it may very well be in many areas) what gets built largely lacks utility.

I believe vc cyclists have a responsibility to be part of the process that advocates for lanes and paths. This means you offer what support you can: money, letters, votes, time, whatever.

I agree. My caveat is that I think vehicular cyclists must advocate for bicyclist-friendly engineering, and not advocate for "bike lanes and paths" as a concept, sight unseen.

The simplistic "I advocate bike paths" statement implies that one advocates paths in any corridor, including sidewalk bike paths, and the "I advocate bike lanes" statement implies that one advocates stripes and stencils for separation by vehicle on any road, including in door zones. This is why many vehicular cyclists hesitate to make such statements.

My biggest headache is the propensity of some advocates for a particular facility type to promote continuing that type of facility through an area where it doesn't belong, "for contiguity." For example, as a proponent of bicyclist-friendly engineering, I might support a bike path that connects two neighborhoods, or runs through a rail or stream corridor, and continues as a cross-town route on roadways via wayfinding signs and perhaps sharrows outside the door zone of on-street parking. But a "path advocate," of which we have plenty in my area, will reject the idea of changing facility types, and promote conversion of the sidewalk to a designated, marked two-way bike path. This is where I must reject the idea of advocacy for a specific engineering solution, and instead promote best practices to serve the interests of the bicyclist herself.

[noisebeam]

That's just silly, Al. If you were riding one inch from the line, the traffic would move over to pass you. I see this all the time when I ride my trike, which often doesn't fit in narrower bike lanes. I frequently have to ride with one wheel slightly over the line. The cars and trucks just move over.

For crying out loud, traffic isn't like a speeding train on a track.
Thats the difference I guess between perfect SB and the hell hole of metro-Phx.

Traffic here does move like a speeding train on a track. Actually I think it was Gene who first used this description of traffic here.

But the question I have, is if drivers move left for cyclist near line and some cyclists/tricyclist ride over the line, what is the purpose of the line?

Also how soon before the debris field must one signal with left arm and bias left in BL for passing drivers to be able to notice and move left for the cyclist?

Here is one minor example of a truck/trailer driver that didn't adjust left passing me. I saw them in mirror and adjusted right instead. Of course the driver really didn't have much room to move left
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otpWDv8d24M

Al

[randya]

I agree. My caveat is that I think vehicular cyclists must advocate for bicyclist-friendly engineering, and not advocate for "bike lanes and paths" as a concept, sight unseen.

The simplistic "I advocate bike paths" statement implies that one advocates paths in any corridor, including sidewalk bike paths, and the "I advocate bike lanes" statement implies that one advocates stripes and stencils for separation by vehicle on any road, including in door zones. This is why many vehicular cyclists hesitate to make such statements.

My biggest headache is the propensity of some advocates for a particular facility type to promote continuing that type of facility through an area where it doesn't belong, "for contiguity." For example, as a proponent of bicyclist-friendly engineering, I might support a bike path that connects two neighborhoods, or runs through a rail or stream corridor, and continues as a cross-town route on roadways via wayfinding signs and perhaps sharrows outside the door zone of on-street parking. But a "path advocate," of which we have plenty in my area, will reject the idea of changing facility types, and promote conversion of the sidewalk to a designated, marked two-way bike path. This is where I must reject the idea of advocacy for a specific engineering solution, and instead promote best practices to serve the interests of the bicyclist herself.
I'm amazed that you have 'pure path' advocates in significant numbers. Almost all of Portland's bike routes/'facilities' are hybrid in one way or another.

[invisiblehand]

I saw Steve's rides ... I have a bud that is an Asst. Professor at NC State. A few of us are thinking of visiting him and bringing the bikes. Perhaps I will get some chocolate too!

But the straight forward answer to Bek's question is yes.

[sggoodri]

I'm amazed that you have 'pure path' advocates in significant numbers. Almost all of Portland's bike routes/'facilities' are hybrid in one way or another.

The "pure path" advocates typically include:

-Those mountain bikers who are not also road cyclists, who like to ride to their singletrack trails, but eschew roadways in favor of sidewalks and greenways.

- Those novice cyclists who ride only on paths and sidewalks, and never on roadways if a sidewalk is available.

- Parents who insist that their kids should never ride on roadways.

- Some career greenway designers and planners, who have a financial stake in greenway projects, but gain nothing from roadway projects.

- Some parks and rec officials, who claim all paths as their domain, but will have nothing to do with roads, either financially or logistically. Some parks and rec departments have considered themselves to be THE bikeway system for their city, and do not want to let the road engineers take over that responsibility, since this might reduce funding for paths.

- Some runners, who want wide sidewalks made of asphalt (the standard material for our designated sidewalk bikeway/MUPs) rather than the standard width portland cement concrete.

[randya]

Well then, it seems like the VCers and the PPers need to come to some sort of mutually acceptable agreement. Roads and Paths both! Better engineering for all! Plus anything else that is useful for Adaptive Cycling. Then the rest of us middle of the roaders can just relax and ride our bikes. It seems really simple to me.

:beer:

[John Forester]

Well then, it seems like the VCers and the PPers need to come to some sort of mutually acceptable agreement. Roads and Paths both! Better engineering for all! Plus anything else that is useful for Adaptive Cycling. Then the rest of us middle of the roaders can just relax and ride our bikes. It seems really simple to me.

:beer:

The difficulty in implementing such a naive goal is that there has to be agreement about what is proper for the road system and what is proper for a path system, and how to allocate resources, such as space and money, when recommendations conflict. No such agreement looks likely considering the differences in opinion. I would say that the proper agreement would say design for vehicular cycling on roads and build transportational paths in those locations where a path would serve a transportational need and can be built with very few intersections with motor-vehicle traffic. Paths for recreation would need the same absence of crossing motor traffic, but need not be located to serve a transportational need, but would be paid for out of recreation funds. Of course, appropriate safety design standards must apply to all.

[Helmet Head]

...

I would say that the proper agreement would say design for vehicular cycling on roads and build transportational paths in those locations where a path would serve a transportational need and can be built with very few intersections with motor-vehicle traffic. Paths for recreation would need the same absence of crossing motor traffic, but need not be located to serve a transportational need, but would be paid for out of recreation funds. Of course, appropriate safety design standards must apply to all. :beer:

Is this something everyone can live with?
If not, why not?

[Bekologist]

at risk of inflaming ol' mossy john,

it sounds like even the most vehemently dogmatic VC can advocate for bike lanes. 'design for vehicular cyling on roads' well, vehicular cyclists can and do use bike lanes, daily, all over the country. thousands of us. tens of thousands of vehicular cyclists use bike lanes daily. safely, competantly, in accordance with vehicular rules of the road.

mossy john states in another thread, that vehicular cyclists CAN ride in a bike lane, and vehicular cyclists should advocate for vehicular cycling, so logically, some advocating for bike lanes is within the aegis of vehicular cyclists' aganda.

interesting.

[John Forester]

at risk of inflaming ol' mossy john,

it sounds like even the most vehemently dogmatic VC can advocate for bike lanes. 'design for vehicular cyling on roads' well, vehicular cyclists can and do use bike lanes, daily, all over the country. thousands of us. tens of thousands of vehicular cyclists use bike lanes daily. safely, competantly, in accordance with vehicular rules of the road.

mossy john states in another thread, that vehicular cyclists CAN ride in a bike lane, and vehicular cyclists should advocate for vehicular cycling, so logically, some advocating for bike lanes is within the aegis of vehicular cyclists' aganda.

interesting.

More semantic tricks that demonstrate only that Bekologist has no reasonable agenda that he can advance by reasonable means. There's nothing there.

[Bekologist]

actually, John,

it's obvious. and simple.

cyclists that ride vehicularily, according to the rules of the road, i.e. vehicular cyclists, can also advocate for bike lanes.

vehicular cyclists can advocate for bike lanes and bike paths; vc and bike specific infrastructure are NOT mutually exclusive.

[John Forester]

actually, John,

it's obvious. and simple.

cyclists that ride vehicularily, according to the rules of the road, i.e. vehicular cyclists, can also advocate for bike lanes.

vehicular cyclists can advocate for bike lanes and bike paths; vc and bike specific infrastructure are NOT mutually exclusive.

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. While vehicular cyclists can ride in bike lanes, that's not the point. The two views are so opposite that social and governmental policies for the two are incompatible. That's the problem.

So far as paths go, some are based on the view that cyclists don't belong on the road, others are based on the view that they provide either transportational benefits or recreational benefits without reference to roadway cycling. The first are bad (and are not recommended in the AASHTO Guide and similar standards), the second can be beneficial.