Google sponsored links
On my commute I sometimes (50:50 based on conditions) leave the road and use a 40m section of footpath before re-entering the roadway. This is mainly for convenience but allows me to avoid a slightly nasty section of road if traffic is heavy.
Bicycles are allowed on the footpath where I live so I am obeying the "vehicular rules of the road" as they apply to bicycles. I also give way to any traffic when re-entering the road.
Is this VC? and can I still get my VC(TM) merit badge :)
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content
here.
Ready to buy? Check out these two online bike stores:
-
http://www.nashbar.com (you can find the latest bike nashbar coupons in
this thread)
-
http://www.performancebike.com (you can find the latest performance bike coupons in
this thread)
Cya on the forums,
- The BikeForums Team
-
http://www.bikeforums.net
Vehicular cycling principles represent to me the ability to use the same facilities as automobiles in a similar fashion to all vehicular traffic. But it does not limit my other options, like cutting through at the end of a cul-de-sac while rolling slowly on the sidewalk past cafe dwellers and seemingly indifferent pigeons, in order to get to another street. ;)
Who cares? As long as it doesn't scare the horses, is legal, then whatever....
If the footpath is part of a highway right of way, then vehicular cycling means operating on the roadway rather than the walkway, in order to generally allow destination positioning and speed positioning among other vehicular traffic, and to operate at a safer distance from pedestrians as the corridor allows.
If the footpath is a greenway in its own right-of-way, i.e. it's own route, then it is possible to borrow vehicular cycling concepts when cycling on it by treating it like a miniature road - i.e. staying right except to pass, looking back before moving laterally, etc.
Some cyclists who prefer to use the roadway section and prefer to observe vehicular cycling principles will occasionally use a short section of sidewalk if it saves them time and effort, is reasonably safe, is legal, and is not impolite. I usually walk my bike on the sidewalk when I encounter these situations because they are very short distances, and because the situations where I do it most often involve contra-flow travel where I need to consider my visibility and ability to react to turning and crossing traffic. Other places, it's usually easier to just use the roadway according to the normal rules.
I suggest that vehicular cycling is not a moral or philisophical concept, but a model with which to compare cycling by vehicular rules to other approaches such as pedestrian-style cycling, so one can make objective comparisons of their operational advantages and disadvantages in either general or specific situations.
Unless you're thumping the Forester bible and bludgeoning others with your self-proclaimed holier than thou VC status, nothing you do is VC.
If the footpath is part of a highway right of way, then vehicular cycling means operating on the roadway rather than the walkway, in order to generally allow destination positioning and speed positioning among other vehicular traffic, and to operate at a safer distance from pedestrians as the corridor allows.
If the footpath is a greenway in its own right-of-way, i.e. it's own route, then it is possible to borrow vehicular cycling concepts when cycling on it by treating it like a miniature road - i.e. staying right except to pass, looking back before moving laterally, etc.
Some cyclists who prefer to use the roadway section and prefer to observe vehicular cycling principles will occasionally use a short section of sidewalk if it saves them time and effort, is reasonably safe, is legal, and is not impolite. I usually walk my bike on the sidewalk when I encounter these situations because they are very short distances, and because the situations where I do it most often involve contra-flow travel where I need to consider my visibility and ability to react to turning and crossing traffic. Other places, it's usually easier to just use the roadway according to the normal rules.
I suggest that vehicular cycling is not a moral or philisophical concept, but a model with which to compare cycling by vehicular rules to other approaches such as pedestrian-style cycling, so one can make objective comparisons of their operational advantages and disadvantages in either general or specific situations.
Steve, once again, your writing is very lucid. I won't call you a genius, because that's a sure-fire way to open the doors to ignorance. :) You tread a proper balance between simplicity and covering everything important.
Unless you're thumping the Forester bible and bludgeoning others with your self-proclaimed holier than thou VC status, nothing you do is VC.
What do you think of our "alternate text" here in North Carolina?:
http://www.ncdot.org/transit/bicycle/safety/safety_Streetwise_cycling.html
Does this text adequately describe vehicular cycling?
I suggest that vehicular cycling is not a moral or philisophical concept, but a model with which to compare cycling by vehicular rules to other approaches such as pedestrian-style cycling, so one can make objective comparisons of their operational advantages and disadvantages in either general or specific situations.
You realize that this above statement is quite at odds with the likes of John Forester and Helmet Head, right? To them, most, if not all, of Vehicular Cycling is about morality and philosophy. The actual vehicular cycling techniques are almost secondary.
Depends on what you mean by VC.
See the following for the need of badges ...
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0040897/
EDIT: For the lazy ... Badges? We ain't got no badges! We don't need no badges. I don't have to show you any stinkin' badges!
You realize that this above statement is quite at odds with the likes of John Forester and Helmet Head, right? To them, most, if not all, of Vehicular Cycling is about morality and philosophy. The actual vehicular cycling techniques are almost secondary.
You realize that this above statement is quite at odds with the likes of John Forester and Helmet Head, right? To us, most of Vehicular Cycling is about the actual vehicular cycling techniques and practices. Secondary, though necessary to practice the techniques consistently, habitually and instintively, is adoption of the philosophy: believing deep down that cyclists have an equal right to the road, subject to the same rules and responsibilities, as do drivers of vehicles. Morality has nothing to do with it.
On my commute I sometimes (50:50 based on conditions) leave the road and use a 40m section of footpath before re-entering the roadway. This is mainly for convenience but allows me to avoid a slightly nasty section of road if traffic is heavy.
Bicycles are allowed on the footpath where I live so I am obeying the "vehicular rules of the road" as they apply to bicycles. I also give way to any traffic when re-entering the road.
Is this VC? and can I still get my VC(TM) merit badge :) No, it's not VC when you're riding on a footpath. Vehicular cycling techniques only apply on roadways where drivers are subject to the rules of the road.
A vehicular cyclist is one who practices vehicular cycling when on roadways.
But there is nothing to keep a vehicular cyclist from using non-roadway facilities. That has nothing to do with vehicular cycling.
It's like asking if a butterfly specialist is doing the butterfly when he's swimming in a freestyle event. Of course not.
Morality has nothing to do with it.
mo·ral·i·ty /məˈrælɪti, mɔ-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[muh-ral-i-tee, maw-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -ties for 4–6. 1. conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct.
subject to the same rules and responsibilities
believing deep down that cyclists have an equal right
I think that Brian's use of "morality" was reasonably consistent with the ideas that you have posted.
as mossy john has clarified recently in this forum,
vehicular cyclists can and do use bike paths. they can use them safely. they can use them competantly.
vehicular cyclists can take advantage of bike specific engineering controls. vehicular cyclists can ride on bike paths.
and not as 'rolling pedestrians', as bicyclists on a path!
the disarming, misappropriated negativity surrounding bike infrastructure or use of bike specific infrastructure is sooooo misleading.
OF COURSE a vehicualr cyklist can ride on a side path!
You realize that this above statement is quite at odds with the likes of John Forester and Helmet Head, right? To them, most, if not all, of Vehicular Cycling is about morality and philosophy. The actual vehicular cycling techniques are almost secondary.
I don't read enough of Helmet Head's writing to comment on his beliefs.
John's writing seems clear to me, that vehicular cycling is a model, one that provides for the best operational tradeoffs of safety and convenience for cyclists when cyclists and the rest of society act compatibly with it. He appears to reserve his moral judgements not for those cyclists who choose to occasionally operate their own bicycles contrary to that model, but for those who attempt to require others to operate contrary to that model. This is straightforward: if vehicular cycling is, in general, the best model for the cyclist, then requiring or encouraging cyclists to operate contrary to that model would be unethical.
Of course, in special situations where the model is overly simplistic, and practical caveats arise, such as how to accommodate cycling on freeways (not in the travel lanes) or on very large bridges (a shared bike/ped sidepath can be much more affordable to construct that extra roadway space in WOLs/Bike lanes and can work reasonably well) then there is not ethical issue with departing from the vehicular cycling model. I have seen John Forester write about such situations and he seems very reasonable about them when they are clearly defined.
I don't read enough of Helmet Head's writing to comment on his beliefs.
John's writing seems clear to me, that vehicular cycling is a model, one that provides for the best operational tradeoffs of safety and convenience for cyclists when cyclists and the rest of society act compatibly with it. He appears to reserve his moral judgements not for those cyclists who choose to occasionally operate their own bicycles contrary to that model, but for those who attempt to require others to operate contrary to that model. This is straightforward: if vehicular cycling is, in general, the best model for the cyclist, then requiring or encouraging cyclists to operate contrary to that model would be unethical.
Herein lies the question though. A model is, by necessity a simplification of the world. When the actual environment falls within the model's bounds, then the model will provide a good solution. But this model cannot be perfect because the system is extremely complex. What works in suburban environments such as most of California and Pheonix (perhaps NC as well, I don't know, never been there), might not work very well in urban Porland or Seattle or New York.
The VC model seems to have been generated in the suburban environment. The WOL platform seems to have been generated in a "super suburban" environment which assumes 4 lane (both directions) roads with fast traffic. Certain parts of VC are useful in all environments. The concept of lane positioning is useful everywhere, but its strict adherance is a product of the suburban environment. The lane positioning which is suitable for a 4 lane arterial is not possible on a 2 lane, narrow, no shoulder rural highway.
This model generation is all about tradeoffs. The model can be extremely complex, and will cover most environments. The model can be simplified and cover limited environments. This is why experience is key. Humans have an innate ability to pick out localized patterns from extremely complex data. Experience is basically the use of the human senses to gather data and pick out patterns in that data. This is why, in extremely complex systems, experience is the most useful tool to generate a working model of a system. For this reason, I have my suspicions about people who claim to have generated a simplistic model which covers every environment. This is why I have suspicions about Vehicular Cycling (I am referring to the way Vehicular Cyclists apply the vehicular cycling techniques, not the techniques themselves). The foundation is simple, yet claimed to be universally applicable to an extremely complex system.
The VC model seems to have been generated in the suburban environment. The WOL platform seems to have been generated in a "super suburban" environment which assumes 4 lane (both directions) roads with fast traffic. Certain parts of VC are useful in all environments. The concept of lane positioning is useful everywhere, but its strict adherance is a product of the suburban environment. The lane positioning which is suitable for a 4 lane arterial is not possible on a 2 lane, narrow, no shoulder rural highway.
I believe that the vehicular cycling model fits best in urban environments with a high density of intersections, narrow lanes/door zones, and slower speeds.
As motor vehicle speeds get very high and intersection counts get very low, especially when the intersections become free-flowing exchanges, and the availability of space for segregated bikeways increases, that's where I think the model starts to show shortcomings.
WOLs may be easier to build in the suburbs, but they operate fine in urban areas too. I prefer a WOL in an urban area over a sidewalk bike path or a striped bike lane through the same high-intersection count, moderate-speed environment. On freeway-like roads in the suburbs, that's where I start to think a well-swept, wide bike lane or wide paved shoulder could have advantages over a WOL.
The neighborhood street in front of my house is two lanes, 16' per lane, 25mph speed limit. Kids and their parents ride near the edge of the lane and drivers pass with plenty of space. I ride in the center of the lane if I am going fast. A driver can park on the side of the road if he wants to, but there aren't very many. A perfect WOL example.
Herein lies the question though. A model is, by necessity a simplification of the world. When the actual environment falls within the model's bounds, then the model will provide a good solution. But this model cannot be perfect because the system is extremely complex. What works in suburban environments such as most of California and Pheonix (perhaps NC as well, I don't know, never been there), might not work very well in urban Porland or Seattle or New York.
The VC model seems to have been generated in the suburban environment. The WOL platform seems to have been generated in a "super suburban" environment which assumes 4 lane (both directions) roads with fast traffic. Certain parts of VC are useful in all environments. The concept of lane positioning is useful everywhere, but its strict adherance is a product of the suburban environment. The lane positioning which is suitable for a 4 lane arterial is not possible on a 2 lane, narrow, no shoulder rural highway.
This model generation is all about tradeoffs. The model can be extremely complex, and will cover most environments. The model can be simplified and cover limited environments. This is why experience is key. Humans have an innate ability to pick out localized patterns from extremely complex data. Experience is basically the use of the human senses to gather data and pick out patterns in that data. This is why, in extremely complex systems, experience is the most useful tool to generate a working model of a system. For this reason, I have my suspicions about people who claim to have generated a simplistic model which covers every environment. This is why I have suspicions about Vehicular Cycling (I am referring to the way Vehicular Cyclists apply the vehicular cycling techniques, not the techniques themselves). The foundation is simple, yet claimed to be universally applicable to an extremely complex system.
Purely theoretical considerations based on the theory of model design. And supported by unwarranted assumptions.
Vehicular cycling did not arise in any suburban environment. It arose in the mix of center cities, suburbs, and rural areas, all of them. You say that: "The WOL platform seems to have been generated in a "super suburban" environment which assumes 4 lane (both directions) roads with fast traffic." More nearly, it arose, as a formal concept, through discussions that concerned two-lane city streets with 15,000 cars a day, as much as anything, though probably not applicable to such streets. Strange discussions get going about cycling affairs, don't they.
However, to apply some reason to Brian Ratliff's argument, wide outside lanes can be applied to all the situations in which bike lanes can be applied, and to a few more besides. All this talk about things being different in New York than in Phoenix, while having some point, is absolutely foolish when discussing bike lanes. And the bike lanes in New York have had numerous troubles, too, more, apparently, than elsewhere.
The VC model seems to have been generated in the suburban environment. The WOL platform seems to have been generated in a "super suburban" environment which assumes 4 lane (both directions) roads with fast traffic. Certain parts of VC are useful in all environments. The concept of lane positioning is useful everywhere, but its strict adherance is a product of the suburban environment. The lane positioning which is suitable for a 4 lane arterial is not possible on a 2 lane, narrow, no shoulder rural highway.
I believe that the vehicular cycling model fits best in urban environments with a high density of intersections, narrow lanes/door zones, and slower speeds.
As motor vehicle speeds get very high and intersection counts get very low, especially when the intersections become free-flowing exchanges, and the availability of space for segregated bikeways increases, that's where I think the model starts to show shortcomings.
WOLs may be easier to build in the suburbs, but they operate fine in urban areas too. I prefer a WOL in an urban area over a sidewalk bike path or a striped bike lane through the same high-intersection count, moderate-speed environment. On freeway-like roads in the suburbs, that's where I start to think a well-swept, wide bike lane or wide paved shoulder could have advantages over a WOL.
The neighborhood street in front of my house is two lanes, 16' per lane, 25mph speed limit. Kids and their parents ride near the edge of the lane and drivers pass with plenty of space. I ride in the center of the lane if I am going fast. A driver can park on the side of the road if he wants to, but there aren't very many. A perfect WOL example. I agree with Steve that there is no way that the "VC model" is somehow less effective in urban environments than in suburban environments. If anything, since the relative speeds between cyclists and motorists are lower, and the intersections more frequent, VC works better in urban than in suburban environments. I've heard Brian make this argument before, and I just can't understand it. It's seems totally backwards. I wonder if he has any rebuttal, if he will concede, or if we will continue grasping to his position despite an inability to respond to Steve's points with reason.
Having said that, I can't imagine how VC could work any better in the suburban environment either. The only areas that I can think of where particular challenges are presented are left turns on high speed arterials, and high speed merges and diverges, such as those encountered at arterial/freeway interchanges. But even these are effectively and easily managed by advanced VC techniques. And bike lanes, not even "well designed" ones, don't help with those challenges either; if anything, they make them more difficult for the cyclist uninitiated in vehicular cycling practices.
By the way, all that leaves is the rural environment, where speeds might be high, but in general the traffic volumes and lane counts are relatively low, so VC works great.
I believe that the vehicular cycling model fits best in urban environments with a high density of intersections, narrow lanes/door zones, and slower speeds.
As motor vehicle speeds get very high and intersection counts get very low, especially when the intersections become free-flowing exchanges, and the availability of space for segregated bikeways increases, that's where I think the model starts to show shortcomings.
WOLs may be easier to build in the suburbs, but they operate fine in urban areas too. I prefer a WOL in an urban area over a sidewalk bike path or a striped bike lane through the same high-intersection count, moderate-speed environment. On freeway-like roads in the suburbs, that's where I start to think a well-swept, wide bike lane or wide paved shoulder could have advantages over a WOL.
The neighborhood street in front of my house is two lanes, 16' per lane, 25mph speed limit. Kids and their parents ride near the edge of the lane and drivers pass with plenty of space. I ride in the center of the lane if I am going fast. A driver can park on the side of the road if he wants to, but there aren't very many. A perfect WOL example.
I actually agree with this, for the most part. Except for the inner city urban part; I don't actually think accomodation is needed at all, just speed control over the flow of traffic. Downtown Portland is a good example of this. Speed limit not-withstanding, the light timing limits the average speed of all traffic to 15 mph. Very easy to bicycle in this environment with no space demarcated specifically for bicyclists, WOL or BL, once the cyclist knows that they aren't restricted from the road. Portland does a good job of this too; because of the number of cyclists, the word that we are not restricted from the road gets out to newbies quickly.
Residential neighborhood streets don't need lane markings at all. My parents live in a subdivision in Beaverton, and there are no lane markings on those roads. This seems good. Bike lanes can be helpful on two lane, slow, residential arterials because maneuvering room for cars are usually restricted by the single lane in each direction, so designating lanes for bicycles and for cars decreases friction in passing to a minimum. As long as cyclists know that they have the full lane available, and know how to make a vehicular left turn, the bike lane works quite well in this environment.
Where a bike lane might not do so well is in a built up area around a 4 lane arterial, where there is need for midblock left turns and where speeds are around 45 mph. Then a WOL will help an experienced cyclist make a vehicular left turn, since he is already within the "adjacent" lane, it cuts down on the burden of negotiating lane changes. On roads faster than this where there are fewer intersections, the a wide bike lane works best because it keeps traffic streams moving at different speeds separate. There is a disadvantage regarding debris, but this is of minor concern, in my experience.
On rural highways, a full bike lane is not needed in my opinion (and not to mention it is unlikely to be built). These roads are mostly two lanes and have extremely few intersections. A 3 foot shoulder is sufficient here, as long as it is relatively smooth. A WOL though is not good, as traffic stream separation is very advantageous from both the cyclist's point of view and the driver's point of view.
Vehicular cycling did not arise in any suburban environment. It arose in the mix of center cities, suburbs, and rural areas, all of them.
Brian seems to picture Palo Alto as the birth of of the VC concept or something, and, therefore, attempts to argue that it applies only to suburban environments.
Of course, the concept has been around long before, and, as you say, "arose in the mix of center cities, suburbs, and rural areas". You just gave it a name and wrote a book about it.
By the way, can you tell us a little bit about how it is that you came up with the term "vehicular cycling". Where were you, and how did that come about? Had you heard it before and adopted it (I note that you chose to call your book "Effective Cycling", not "Vehicular Cycling"), or did you invent it (the term I'm talking about, not the concept of course)?
On my commute I sometimes (50:50 based on conditions) leave the road and use a 40m section of footpath before re-entering the roadway. This is mainly for convenience but allows me to avoid a slightly nasty section of road if traffic is heavy.
Bicycles are allowed on the footpath where I live so I am obeying the "vehicular rules of the road" as they apply to bicycles. I also give way to any traffic when re-entering the road.
Is this VC? and can I still get my VC(TM) merit badge :)
As long as the entrance and exit of the foot path don't require any serious two-stepping with cars on the roadway, then I don't see a problem with using any footpath when it is available. Times when I eschew an available foot/bike path are usually when the entrance and/or exit to the path puts me in conflict.
For instance, near the University of Washington campus, there is a bridge (I think it's the University Bridge, for those local). Going off on recreational rides around Mercer Island, I'd have to cross this bridge and take an immediate left turn. The bridge is steel grated, but has a walkway to the side of it. Here, many times if is dry (I don't ride on steel grates when it is wet, bad idea), I will take the lane going across the bridge instead of using the foot path, because using the foot path would make it difficult to make the proceeding left turn at the end of the bridge. When I do use it, I have to cross two lanes in the space of 50 feet (or so).
Now, the alternative is to do a two part left turn. I saw lots of cyclists doing this and it is a perfectly valid way of turning left, as opposed to the vehicular left turn I described. However, I'm sometimes an impatient guy, and the two part left turn takes too long to get me through the intersection if I have an alternative.
So the point is, if the beginning or end of the path doesn't present any major problems, then go ahead, take the path. It's only, what, 40 meters? Nobody's going to demerit you. ;)
Is this VC? and can I still get my VC(TM) merit badge :)
If you send me $10 (for S&H) I will mail you a VC(TM) merit badge. It will look exactly like a quarter and be worth as much.
By the way, can you tell us a little bit about how it is that you came up with the term "vehicular cycling". Where were you, and how did that come about? Had you heard it before and adopted it (I note that you chose to call your book "Effective Cycling", not "Vehicular Cycling"), or did you invent it (the term I'm talking about, not the concept of course)?
And then how 'bout a bedtime story for little HH? :rolleyes:
And then how 'bout a bedtime story for little HH? :rolleyes:
Not until they are done with their pillow fight
http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=4320529&postcount=224
Al
Originally Posted by sggoodri
I suggest that vehicular cycling is not a moral or philisophical concept, but a model with which to compare cycling by vehicular rules to other approaches such as pedestrian-style cycling, so one can make objective comparisons of their operational advantages and disadvantages in either general or specific situations.
You realize that this above statement is quite at odds with the likes of John Forester and Helmet Head, right? To them, most, if not all, of Vehicular Cycling is about morality and philosophy. The actual vehicular cycling techniques are almost secondary.
As a practical matter for details, Steve is quite correct. However, because our society and our governments, under the control of the unlikely alliance of motorists and bicycle advocates, have imposed the cyclist-inferiority, bikeway-building system as our road system. If we did not have to fight that imposition, there would be much less that had to be discussed.
Brian seems to picture Palo Alto as the birth of of the VC concept or something, and, therefore, attempts to argue that it applies only to suburban environments.
Of course, the concept has been around long before, and, as you say, "arose in the mix of center cities, suburbs, and rural areas". You just gave it a name and wrote a book about it.
By the way, can you tell us a little bit about how it is that you came up with the term "vehicular cycling". Where were you, and how did that come about? Had you heard it before and adopted it (I note that you chose to call your book "Effective Cycling", not "Vehicular Cycling"), or did you invent it (the term I'm talking about, not the concept of course)?
Vehicular cycling was the principle for all the major cycling nations of Europe and, at least, those elsewhere with roots in British tradition, right from the early days of cycling. It never had to have a name, because it was the same as driving any vehicle and had no distinguishing features. America was different because it was the first major nation to do most of its personal transportation by automobile. Right from as early as anyone could tell me, American policy was as cyclist-inferiority as was practical. The traffic-law experts knew that we must not have conflicting rules of the road for motorists and for cyclists, but they managed to discriminate against cyclists by simply prohibiting cyclists from having all the rights of drivers of vehicles. However, American social practice then resulted in such monstrous instruction as having cyclists ride at the rightmost edge of the roadway, stick out their left arms, and, without looking, turn left. I had (don't know where it is, now) a poster by the AAA showing the rear view of a child cyclist and a child tricyclist doing just what I have described, as instructional material of what should be done.
As I have repeatedly written, American club cyclists, who until about 1970 or so had quite a leavening of cyclists who had learned in Europe, largely had the vehicular viewpoint and rode largely in the vehicular manner. We recognized the difference between our methods and the dangerous "bike-safety" methods of the rest of American society with respect to cycling, but there wasn't much we could do about that. The rules of the road protected us from most of the discrimination; while 38 states had the mandatory side-path law, there were very few sidepaths and the law was rarely enforced.
Then, when California government became serious at imposing the cyclist-inferior style of cycling on all cyclists through the means of bikeways, it became necessary to describe the differences between proper cycling in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles and the cyclist-inferiority laws and facilities being imposed.
The name "vehicular cycling" just came rather naturally in that situation.
Vehicular cycling was the principle for all the major cycling nations of Europe and, at least, those elsewhere with roots in British tradition, right from the early days of cycling. It never had to have a name, because it was the same as driving any vehicle and had no distinguishing features. America was different because it was the first major nation to do most of its personal transportation by automobile. Right from as early as anyone could tell me, American policy was as cyclist-inferiority as was practical. The traffic-law experts knew that we must not have conflicting rules of the road for motorists and for cyclists, but they managed to discriminate against cyclists by simply prohibiting cyclists from having all the rights of drivers of vehicles. However, American social practice then resulted in such monstrous instruction as having cyclists ride at the rightmost edge of the roadway, stick out their left arms, and, without looking, turn left. I had (don't know where it is, now) a poster by the AAA showing the rear view of a child cyclist and a child tricyclist doing just what I have described, as instructional material of what should be done.
As I have repeatedly written, American club cyclists, who until about 1970 or so had quite a leavening of cyclists who had learned in Europe, largely had the vehicular viewpoint and rode largely in the vehicular manner. We recognized the difference between our methods and the dangerous "bike-safety" methods of the rest of American society with respect to cycling, but there wasn't much we could do about that. The rules of the road protected us from most of the discrimination; while 38 states had the mandatory side-path law, there were very few sidepaths and the law was rarely enforced.
Then, when California government became serious at imposing the cyclist-inferior style of cycling on all cyclists through the means of bikeways, it became necessary to describe the differences between proper cycling in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles and the cyclist-inferiority laws and facilities being imposed.
The name "vehicular cycling" just came rather naturally in that situation.
Thanks.
I find it perplexing how folks like Chipcom seem to not get this. Chip has long argued that you did not invent vehicular cycling - it existed long before you - as if that needed arguing. But at the same time he objects to giving it a name (a "trade mark" as he says), as if there is no need to distinguish between what is meant by vehicular cycling and the way the vast majority of cyclists in the U.S. actually ride their bikes. I used to call it "out-of-the-way" cycling, because the governing principle seemed to be: stay out of the way of cars. But "cyclist-inferiority style" certainly means the same thing.
But I think that a lot of members here still don't fully understand and appreciate the difference between vehicular cycling and cyclist-inferiority cycling. I suspect this is because some are practictioners of cyclist-inferiority cycling, and resent being told they're doing something wrong and there is a better way. But guys like Chipcom are something else again. Short of a slip here and there, cyclist-inferiority thinking does not seem to be predominant in his words, and I suspect it is not manifested in his riding either. Surely he sees how most other people ride, and how different it is from his vehicular style. I guess he doesn't see a problem with it, or how that style contributes to causing most bike-car crashes. Or he just doesn't care.
Don't mean to pick on Chip, he's just probably the best example out there of what I'm perplexed about.
However, because our society and our governments, under the control of the unlikely alliance of motorists and bicycle advocates, have imposed the cyclist-inferiority, bikeway-building system as our road system. If we did not have to fight that imposition, there would be much less that had to be discussed.
First under the bike advocates control (with the aid of our co-conspirators, the motorists) our society and our governments; Next the Universe!!!:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
But I think that a lot of members here still don't fully understand and appreciate the difference between vehicular cycling and cyclist-inferiority cycling. I suspect this is because some are practictioners of cyclist-inferiority cycling, and resent being told they're doing something wrong and there is a better way. But guys like Chipcom are something else again. Short of a slip here and there, cyclist-inferiority thinking does not seem to be predominant in his words, and I suspect it is not manifested in his riding either. Surely he sees how most other people ride, and how different it is from his vehicular style. I guess he doesn't see a problem with it, or how that style contributes to causing most bike-car crashes. Or he just doesn't care.
Don't mean to pick on Chip, he's just probably the best example out there of what I'm perplexed about.
or maybe he believes in letting people ride the way they are most comfortable, and not trying to force them into a mold that doesn't fit. maybe he doesn't buy your "evidence" of how riding in any but the most buttoned-down, preconcieved VC style "contributes to causing most bike-car crashes" what a load of bull****.
not trying to force them into a mold that doesn't fit.
And here I thought HH was a libertarian...
I don't think anyone is forcing anything. Its only discussion about different ways, including asking others to consider their own and the other possibilities, which is very different than telling someone they need to change.
I don't think anyone is forcing anything. Its only discussion about different ways, including asking others to consider their own and the other possibilities, which is very different than telling someone they need to change. Indeed, that is libertarianism.
The fact that no one can force anyone to do anything does not preclude anyone from trying to persuade others to freely choose to do one thing or another.
I, for one, try to persuade others to be good to each other and respect each other. But I don't presume to think that I could force anyone to do that, nor would I care to if I could.
I actually agree with this, for the most part. Except for the inner city urban part; I don't actually think accomodation is needed at all, just speed control over the flow of traffic. Downtown Portland is a good example of this. Speed limit not-withstanding, the light timing limits the average speed of all traffic to 15 mph. Very easy to bicycle in this environment with no space demarcated specifically for bicyclists, WOL or BL, once the cyclist knows that they aren't restricted from the road. Portland does a good job of this too; because of the number of cyclists, the word that we are not restricted from the road gets out to newbies quickly.
I don't think Steve was saying that he wants a WOL in the inner city, but rather that he would prefer that type of accomodation over a footpath/sidepath, assuming an accomodation was going to be added. I'd agree. I also agree with you that no extra road width is necessary in such low speed situations, unless of course traffic was very dense in which case it would be nice to be able to filter.
Bike lanes can be helpful on two lane, slow, residential arterials because maneuvering room for cars are usually restricted by the single lane in each direction, so designating lanes for bicycles and for cars decreases friction in passing to a minimum.
How do bike lanes keep passing friction to a minimum on slower speed arterials any more than wider pavement would? Or do you mean that motorists will feel more comfortable passing as higher speeds due to the bike lane line seperating lanes?
Where a bike lane might not do so well is in a built up area around a 4 lane arterial, where there is need for midblock left turns and where speeds are around 45 mph. Then a WOL will help an experienced cyclist make a vehicular left turn, since he is already within the "adjacent" lane, it cuts down on the burden of negotiating lane changes. On roads faster than this where there are fewer intersections, the a wide bike lane works best because it keeps traffic streams moving at different speeds separate. There is a disadvantage regarding debris, but this is of minor concern, in my experience.
Your first sentence seems to be at odds with what you just wrote above and at odds with where most cyclists seem to prefer bike lanes (on higher speed roads). I do agree that WOL help with lane changes as the cyclist is already in the lane and thus not being ignored (I prefer this type of treatment on all roads). If I was going to have a bike lane on any road, it would be a road with few intersections of any type. My idea of few would be at least a half mile between intersections of any type (no driveway, small side streets, parking lots, etc.), and the bike lane would disolve into a WOL at intersections to allow traffic to mix and destination position as necessary. In my area, there is only one road I can think of that meets this criteria.
On rural highways, a full bike lane is not needed in my opinion (and not to mention it is unlikely to be built). These roads are mostly two lanes and have extremely few intersections. A 3 foot shoulder is sufficient here, as long as it is relatively smooth. A WOL though is not good, as traffic stream separation is very advantageous from both the cyclist's point of view and the driver's point of view.
Again, how is the traffic seperation a good thing for cyclists and motorists? In my experience on rural highways (and I ride these quite often) if you stay out of the way the entire time as the motorist approaches, you will get passed at full speed and without the driver shifting in his lane at all. While riding in a 3 foot shoulder which may or may not be consistent in width or quality, this is the last thing I'd expect cyclists to prefer. If I'm riding these types of roads, I am at least in the right tire track to start and move right as necessary to allow faster traffic to pass, unless it's a passing zone with no oncoming traffic in which case I'll let them use the other lane. A WOL would be nice simply to have a wider section of debris free pavement (important on coastal roads where sand build up becomes significant if the pavement is not regularly swept).
I don't think Steve was saying that he wants a WOL in the inner city, but rather that he would prefer that type of accomodation over a footpath/sidepath, assuming an accomodation was going to be added. I'd agree. I also agree with you that no extra road width is necessary in such low speed situations, unless of course traffic was very dense in which case it would be nice to be able to filter.
If there is only one lane of traffic in each direction, and the road carries significant traffic in both directions, I think a wide through lane will make slower cyclists more comfortable by making them feel that they are not delaying motorists.
Downtown Raleigh is in the process of converting some one-way two-lane roads to two-way with narrow lanes, with the result creating more difficulty for automobile drivers passing bicyclists. If the purpose of the road is low speed local access over a short distance, this is no big deal, but when this treatment is applied to longer roads that are more useful for mobility and carry significant traffic, it creates undesirable social conflict.
If a passing facility is to be developed in a downtown area, I prefer that it be implemented as a wide outside lane, possibly with sharrows outside the door zone if parking is present, rather than a door zone bike lane or designated two-way bicycle sidewalk.
Here is my article on designing wide outside lanes:
http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/passing/index.htm
Here's a picture of a perfectly fine wide lane on an urban/suburban collector street.
http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/passing/WOL3.jpg
Here are some distances to consider when designing wide outside lanes next to parallel parking:
http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/passing/parking1.gif
And if passing by buses is to be considered:
http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/passing/parking2.gif
Again, if there are multiple lanes in each direction on a downtown street, then motorists can change lanes to pass. If there is only one lane in each direction, it takes a considerable amount of room to allow same-lane passing by wide vehicles. However, leaving inadequate total width for passing by a bus unstriped is better than building a door-zone bike lane like this one:
http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/passing/DoorLane.jpg
-Steve Goodridge
Previous -
Top -
Next
Copyright 1999 - 2007
BikeForums.Net - All rights reserved.
Common bike forum topics in clue bicycles, cycling, mountain biking,
cycling jerseys, shorts, socks, shoes and bike equiptment selection.