Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Take the VC Challenge!

We're still waiting for someone to tell us where more than one percent of daily vehicle trips are made by cyclists in a major US metropolitan area, and where no bicycle-specific infrastructure is provided.

We would also be interested to hear of any community in the US where Lane Taking Vehicular Cycling has become the common, acceptable thing for cyclists to do, and where Lane Taking Vehicular Cycling has resulted in more cyclists and less accidents. Information would in fact be appreciated on any individual municipality that has adopted this method of cycling as the one they will support, with appropriate signage, motorist/cyclist education programs and law enforcement training.

Thanks in advance for your responses!

1.1% of all miles traveled in Maricopa County, AZ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maricopa_County,_Arizona)are by bicycle. (MC includes metro-Phx, over two dozen towns, more than a dozen major/large cities)

But of course there are some bike lanes in MC (generally within specific cities), however a very low percentage of miles have BLs overall. Edit: There are 1340 miles of bike lanes in MC.

Edit2: "there are 1,345 miles of bike lanes, which includes multi-use, paved multi-use, bike lanes, and bike routes on street" (quote from web page (http://www.valleymetro.org/Rideshare/Bike_&_Walk/index.htm))

Thats the flaw in this request. Show me a major metropolitan are that has zero bike specific infrastructure.

Al

1.1%, wow, that's pretty huge! ;) Especially since it's bicycling weather in AZ most of the time. :) Thanks for making my point. :eek:

Next?

Actually its 1.1% of commuting miles are by bicycle.

You asked for where there are over 1% of commuting trips. 1.1% of miles represents quite a bit more than 1% of trips. Thats 450,000 miles commuted by bicycle every day in a county with a population of ~3.8M

Apparently you consider several months of 110-120F prime cycling weather. Most folks round here consider that nuts.

Al

Why would three million people want to live somewhere with limited natural water resources and normal temps that are considered too hot to be outdoors in? That's what's nuts.

Apparently you consider several months of 110-120F prime cycling weather.


It takes her a long time to get hot.....:p

Why would three million people want to live somewhere with limited natural water resources and normal temps that are considered too hot to be outdoors in? That's what's nuts.

She has a point on that one....

I guess my 40mile RT commute from Sommerton to MCAS Yuma for a couple of years was nuts.

I guess my 40mile RT commute from Sommerton to MCAS Yuma for a couple of years was nuts.

I have never been there so I can't really relate. Is it dry heat? Water consumption wards off overheating from what I hear....

Why would three million people want to live somewhere with limited natural water resources and normal temps that are considered too hot to be outdoors in? That's what's nuts.

but..... it's dry heat! :D

it's really not that bad once you get used to it.
there's AC here.

and pools. and shade (not enough)

Here's something showing the opposite effect - that more facilities do not necessarily result in increased commuting cycling. (Do note that there is a substantial club cycling population on the weekends.) Here's a link to the abstract of a thesis (unfortunately the full thesis is in Hebrew): http://www.graduate.technion.ac.il/Theses/Abstracts.asp?Id=11541


Irvine (California) is a place with near-optimal conditions for bicycling, such as suitable geographical and weather characteristics. It is a new city that had a bicycle plan incorporated into its general plan. It has very few physical or planning constraints. Around 80% of the proposed infrastructure is already completed, and Irvine’s population has high potential for bicycling. Nevertheless the percentage of bicycling in Irvine is not higher than the national or regional rates. Portland, as opposed to Irvine, has succeeded in raising the percentage of bicycling in the city.
Here's the city bikeways map, so you can see the extent of facilities in Irvine: http://www.cityofirvine.org/depts/pw/projdev/city_of_irvine_bikeways.asp


The City of Irvine provides a system of bicycle lanes and trails to encourage the use of the bicycle as a safe and convenient means of transportation for both commuting and recreational purposes. This is evident by the 44.5 miles of off-road bicycle trails and 282 miles of on-road bicycle lanes provided in the City today.

I have never been there so I can't really relate. Is it dry heat? Water consumption wards off overheating from what I hear....

Down in the irrigated orange groves in the valley...no it aint the famous 'dry heat'...it gets downright muggy! But it also seems a bit cooler in the valley too...you can feel the difference when you drop down the hill...might be 120 in town, only 110 in the valley. ;)

Once you get acclimated to the heat, you're fine as long as you stay hydrated and keep your head covered. Where it got REAL hot was out on the flight line...used to sizzle eggs on the wings of F-4 Phantoms. :D

Boring. The only platinum "bicycling friendly" city in the country, Davis, CA, had more cyclists per capita back in the 1960s before they had a single bike lane.

Now they credit the gazillions dollars of bike infrastructure for all the cycling that is done in that town, yet there was more of it being done before they spent all those tax dollars. :rolleyes:

Boring. The only platinum "bicycling friendly" city in the country, Davis, CA, had more cyclists per capita back in the 1960s before they had a single bike lane.

Now they credit the gazillions dollars of bike infrastructure for all the cycling that is done in that town, yet there was more of it being done before they spent all those tax dollars. :rolleyes:
show us the numbers

show us the numbers
Haven't found them yet, but this supports what I'm saying:


It’s far beyond the aspirations, even the dreams, of the little band of activists who campaigned for bike lanes nearly 40 years ago. But it grew from a seed planted then, in 1965.

That seed was a letter to the editor from Frank Child, who warned that the town’s tradition of bicycling was in danger. The campus had grown from 2,000 students in 1959 to 7,000 and would reach 12,000 in 1969. The town had 14,500 residents and was growing 10 percent per year.

http://www.runmuki.com/paul/writing/lottarticle.html

This at least shows that the town had a strong tradition of bicycling back in the 1960s before any bike lanes were painted. But I don't have numbers or percentages. I can tell you that we visited family friends in Davis in the 1960s, and there were bikes everywhere, more than today. Remember, that was back in the day when most families still had only one car, and most kids, especially in Davis, went everywhere by bike.

Why would three million people want to live somewhere with limited natural water resources and normal temps that are considered too hot to be outdoors in? That's what's nuts.
Jobs
Cheap housing
Heavily subsidized water. Folks talk about gas prices being too low, I'd add water to the list.

I primarily live here due to proxmity to excellent hiking, backpacking. Otherwise I'd move.

I don't fight the heat (half the battle is really mental). I do wonder about the people that do.

Al

for making my point. :eek:

Next?
I think you are too eager for an argument. I just presented data I was familiar with. Of course it doesn't make or not make your point and I wasn't trying to one way or the other.
Al

I think you are too eager for an argument. I just presented data I was familiar with. Of course it doesn't make or not make your point and I wasn't trying to one way or the other.
Al
I wasn't trying to argue. I just didn't find the extra 0.1% particularly compelling.

:)

I wasn't trying to argue. I just didn't find the extra 0.1% particularly compelling.

:)
The .1% is meaningless. There are bike lanes in maricopa country (1340mi of them) so right there this county can not be used as an example. We also don't know how many of those miles utilize roadways vs. sidewalk.

More curious to me is show me a 'major US metropolitan area' that doesn't have any bike specific infrastructure.

Al

Haven't found them yet, but this supports what I'm saying:


http://www.runmuki.com/paul/writing/lottarticle.html

This at least shows that the town had a strong tradition of bicycling back in the 1960s before any bike lanes were painted. But I don't have numbers or percentages. I can tell you that we visited family friends in Davis in the 1960s, and there were bikes everywhere, more than today. Remember, that was back in the day when most families still had only one car, and most kids, especially in Davis, went everywhere by bike.

If anything has reduced the number of bikes on the road... it is the legal requirement to wear a helmet.

That has done more to tarnish the image of a cyclist than anything else...

So do you blame that on "facilities" or "safety" or what...

Haven't found them yet, but this supports what I'm saying:


http://www.runmuki.com/paul/writing/lottarticle.html

This at least shows that the town had a strong tradition of bicycling back in the 1960s before any bike lanes were painted. But I don't have numbers or percentages. I can tell you that we visited family friends in Davis in the 1960s, and there were bikes everywhere, more than today. Remember, that was back in the day when most families still had only one car, and most kids, especially in Davis, went everywhere by bike.
Interesting little article. Points of note: (1) cyclists advocated for the bike lanes in Davis because of problems with aggressive and impatient motorists. The alternative to dealing with motorist superiority disorder - motorist reeducation - apparently wasn't even on the table back then; (2) dooring was recognized as the serious problem that it is, and so were turning manuevers across bike lanes, even in 1965, and it sounds like they attempted as much as practical given ROW space, to address these two issues; and (3) I'll bet that cycling in Davis today is up in terms of total numbers, and that any drop in the percentage of cyclists per capita in Davis is primarily due to continuing suburban growth, which is autocentric.

Interesting little article. Points of note: (1) cyclists advocated for the bike lanes in Davis because of problems with aggressive and impatient motorists. The alternative to dealing with motorist superiority disorder - motorist reeducation - apparently wasn't even on the table back then; (2) dooring was recognized as the serious problem that it is, and so were turning manuevers across bike lanes, even in 1965, and it sounds like they attempted as much as practical given ROW space, to address these two issues; and (3) I'll bet that cycling in Davis today is up in terms of total numbers, and that any drop in the percentage of cyclists per capita in Davis is primarily due to continuing suburban growth, which is autocentric.

Dale Lott and Bob Sommer were the two most prominent bicycle activists in Davis, but neither of them knew much about cycling. Witness putting a bike lane between the parked cars and the curb. Any person with knowledge of traffic-cycling would have known then that such a design was crazy. Dale and his wife Donna wrote a paper attempting to show that Davis bike lanes reduced car-bike collisions by some enormous proportion (I forget what, now, and I'm not going to look it up). They did so by classifying bicycle traffic movements into those made safer by bike-lane stripes, those made more dangerous, and those unaffected (neutral). They used the number of collisions in the neutral types as a stand-in for the traffic volumes, which were unknown, and then calculated the net number reduced from the other two types. Trouble is, because their ideas of how traffic moves were thoroughly inaccurate, their classifications were inaccurate. I reviewed the paper, and concluded that the date, such as it was, could demonstrate anything from a reduction to an increase, with a slight bias toward increase.

Notice that they called themselves the Bicycle Safety Committee, while knowing nothing about safe cycling.

And there are two completely opposed stories about the genesis of bikeways in Davis. Lott states that the UC campus (which was an agricultural experiment station, the birthplace of industrial tomatoes) had 2,000 students in 1959, with the plan to grow to 20,000 as a full UC campus. The other story says that the City Council worried about the expected enormous increase in cycling students and opposed measures to accommodate them until they also realized that the accommodations could prevent bicycle traffic from blocking the roads.

A longterm professorial observer of cycling in Davis commented that the strongest factor in reducing cycling in Davis has been the establishment of the free campus bus system.

Lott refers to the bikeway study done for the FHWA, in which several of the Davis people participated, including him, and which resulted in design standards and a report on the research that supported those standards. I mentioned that report in some discussion on these lists, published as FHWA-RD-75-112, Safety and Location Criteria for Bicycle Facilities, Final Report, Feb 1976. I adversely criticized much of the research done, and, in the end, the FHWA gave up and adopted the California standards which we in California had been developing at the same time.

This quote from the Davis paper supports that "Motorist Superiority" was key in motivating cyclists to attempt to find a solution.


The town had 14,500 residents and was growing 10 percent per year. Bike riders were being forced to duke it out with increasingly impatient drivers and more and more were giving up riding.

So if motorists had been given the word at that point that cyclists had rights to use the roads (I don't believe CA stated those rights as written law at that time) perhaps things might have turned out differently.

I'll bet that cycling in Davis today is up in terms of total numbers, and that any drop in the percentage of cyclists per capita in Davis is primarily due to continuing suburban growth, which is autocentric.
I've heard that increased bus service has reduced cycling, due to a shift from cycling to transit.

I've heard that increased bus service has reduced cycling, due to a shift from cycling to transit.
well that certainly makes a lot more sense than HH's claim that installation of bike lanes caused a reduction in cycling.

well that certainly makes a lot more sense than HH's claim that installation of bike lanes caused a reduction in cycling. I never claimed that.

I said that despite the installation of gazillions of dollars worth of infrastructure in Davis, enough to make it the only platinum rated bike friendly city in the U.S., cycling per capita in Davis has been reduced as compared to the 1960s when there was no cycling specific infrastructure.

If it wasn't for the free busses, maybe there would have been a slight increase from all that infrastructure. But the fact remains that at best, the undisputed best bike infrastructure in the U.S. had little if any impact on increasing bike usage.

Another factor is that back in the 60s few people had air conditioning in Davis, so everyone was much better acclimated to the summer heat back then. In the summers, Davis gets hot.

I never claimed that.

I said that despite the installation of gazillions of dollars worth of infrastructure in Davis, enough to make it the only platinum rated bike friendly city in the U.S., cycling per capita in Davis has been reduced as compared to the 1960s when there was no cycling specific infrastructure.

If it wasn't for the free busses, maybe there would have been a slight increase from all that infrastructure. But the fact remains that at best, the undisputed best bike infrastructure in the U.S. had little if any impact on increasing bike usage.

What about the fact that the car culture is soooo much more then it was in the 60s? Like many more cars per capita? And cars get you chicks man!

Do you ever look at the current social structure, or are you stuck in 1950s Disney-esque time that never existed? Ahhh, I loved that time - men beat their children, wives took speed and no one talked about VC :)

Hey, but if you're in Portland, bikes get you chicks, but what do I know?

;)

Hey, but if you're in Portland, bikes get you chicks, but what do I know?

;)
What do the chicks get? :p :D

What do the chicks get? :p :D
Guy's with bikes?:D

Guy's with bikes?:D

that's the upside...the downside is that they probably gotta support em too. :eek:

We're still waiting for someone to tell us where more than one percent of daily vehicle trips are made by cyclists in a major US metropolitan area, and where no bicycle-specific infrastructure is provided.

We would also be interested to hear of any community in the US where Lane Taking Vehicular Cycling has become the common, acceptable thing for cyclists to do, and where Lane Taking Vehicular Cycling has resulted in more cyclists and less accidents. Information would in fact be appreciated on any individual municipality that has adopted this method of cycling as the one they will support, with appropriate signage, motorist/cyclist education programs and law enforcement training.

Thanks in advance for your responses!
If "the common, acceptable thing to do in the US" is the standard, then driving a car must be the very best option.

Since nobody can do any better than 1.1% (seems to me the threshold should be greater than 2% since 2% is pretty common) let's see if maybe someone can capture pictures of cyclists riding VC. Let's see how well it's caught on.

Let's see people eschewing perfectly good bike lanes for the travel lane. People riding outside the door zone on roads without bike lanes. People riding high-speed arterials in the travel lane when traffic is heavy and fast.

And pictures of yourself don't count.

Since nobody can do any better than 1.1% (seems to me the threshold should be greater than 2% since 2% is pretty common) let's see if maybe someone can capture pictures of cyclists riding VC. Let's see how well it's caught on.

Let's see people eschewing perfectly good bike lanes for the travel lane. People riding outside the door zone on roads without bike lanes. People riding high-speed arterials in the travel lane when traffic is heavy and fast.

And pictures of yourself don't count.
Keep in mind 1.1% is cycling commuting miles traveled, not 1.1% of trips.
Some cities within Maricopa County have 3.5% non-student commute trips by bicycle, with 10% of students commuting by bicycle. But this 161k population 40sq.mi. city has a total combined 165mi of bike lanes, paths, MUP and Bicycle Routes.

As to the pictures you asked for... I see these often - outside DZ, outside BL (very common if you consider ridng on the stripe outside the BL) - and of course folks ride on arterials. But I also see folks ride in the DZ, in BLs and on quiet residential streets. In otherwords, everyone doesn't do the same all the time.

I am still waiting for Randya to tell me which major metropolitian area in the US doesn't have any bicycle specific infrastructure.

Al

I am still waiting for Randya to tell me which major metropolitian area in the US doesn't have any bicycle specific infrastructure.

Al

I doubt there is such a city. For inspite of the rants and raves of VC advocates... apparently cyclists prefer infrastructure. Not to mention that infrastructure "touches" more cyclists daily than any book or training will ever reach.

While I am not a strict paint and path advocate, it seems to me that rather than deny infrastructure, perhaps advocates should work to improve something that seems quite destined to stay... and has such a wide "audiance."

I doubt there is such a city.
Which is why Randya's 'challenge' is disingenuous. The answer can only be there is none, not because of a lack of cyclists, but instead a lack of such a major metro area.

Al

Which is why Randya's 'challenge' is disingenuous. The answer can only be there is none, not because of a lack of cyclists, but instead a lack of such a major metro area.

Al


Perhaps a better question is why in the face of vehicular cycling and a book written to promote the same, have facilities taken off to such an extent? Of course, the answer we are most likely to hear is "cyclist inferiority" or more accurately "motorist superiority" (as it effects more than just cyclists). But one also has to ask why infrastructure took off in Europe too... where supposedly such "motorist superiority" does not exist?

Let's modify his challenge then and say the city has to have no more cyclist-specific infastructure than say, Houston.

Let's modify his challenge then and say the city has to have no more cyclist-specific infastructure than say, Houston.
I rode all over Houston in college cycling club (not team). We pretty much used vehicular techniques, although I wasn't actively aware of it at the time.
Al

Perhaps a better question is why in the face of vehicular cycling and a book written to promote the same, have facilities taken off to such an extent? Of course, the answer we are most likely to hear is "cyclist inferiority" or more accurately "motorist superiority" (as it effects more than just cyclists). But one also has to ask why infrastructure took off in Europe too... where supposedly such "motorist superiority" does not exist?

good point!

Perhaps a better question is why in the face of vehicular cycling and a book written to promote the same, have facilities taken off to such an extent? Of course, the answer we are most likely to hear is "cyclist inferiority" or more accurately "motorist superiority" (as it effects more than just cyclists). But one also has to ask why infrastructure took off in Europe too... where supposedly such "motorist superiority" does not exist?

Motorist superiority does exist in Europe. In 1937, British motorists attempted to get a mandatory side-path law enacted, and the Cyclists' Touring Club fought that off. In Germany, from the time of Hitler on, cyclists were being pushed aside to clear the way for motorists, to produce some of the world's worst bikeways. Complaints manifest over the decades, and revolt by cyclists. In France, only in recent years have there been some strange experiments, more to do with city planning than anything else. In Spain and Italy, so far as I know, not much in the way of bikeways. In Sweden, while there has been concern about traffic safety and cyclist safety, there has been much investment in motoring facilities and one hears almost nothing about cyclists and cycling facilities. I would say that the typical Swedish attitude is one of motorist superiority. Denmark is an agricultural nation where motoring has been slow to increase, and has a very egalitarian society, whose royal family was known to cycle around town. It probably has the most equal view of motorists and cyclists of any of the European nations, and it is reasonable to conclude that its bikeways are intended to protect cyclists. However, the bikeways that they copy from other nations are based on the cyclist-inferiority view, with distinctly cyclist-inferiority results. Holland is the nation whose bikeway system is widely praised by bicycle activists. Yet Holland is a land of motorist superiority, cyclist inferiority. Holland before WW 2 was a poor nation with a very large amount of bicycle transportation. Maybe twenty years after WW 2, Holland became relatively wealthy and motoring expanded greatly. The Dutch decided that this relatively new form of popular transportation needed to be accommodated on its own facilities, which meant shoving the bicycle traffic aside. The first Dutch bikeway system was a rural system, to move agricultural people, considered those least likely to have the money for motoring, in and out of towns. But these agricultural people had the greatest need for motoring, so they started early. The rural bikeway system is now largely a tourist system. Because of their old, cramped cities, the Dutch squeezed bikeways in wherever they could, making a mix of side paths and bike lanes. They prohibited cyclists from using many roads, where there was no special direction they gave the right-of-way to motorists over cyclists. The three-phase traffic signals that bicycle activists so praise are made necessary because of the complications produced by trying to have three classes of road user, and they delay all traffic. The delays are made necessary to make the bikeways safe.

Therefore, I think that the claim that motorist superiority does not exist in Europe, leading to the conclusion that European bikeways were built purely for the benefit of cyclists, are both false.

I said that despite the installation of gazillions of dollars worth of infrastructure in Davis, enough to make it the only platinum rated bike friendly city in the U.S., cycling per capita in Davis has been reduced as compared to the 1960s when there was no cycling specific infrastructure.


It shouldn't surprise anyone that number of cyclists per capita drops as cities grow. City grows. City gets suburbs, which are autocentric. Number of cyclists/capita drops. Pretty straight forward.

What should be measured is cyclists per capita of residents which work within 5 miles of their home. Such numbers probably haven't been collected, but it would be an infinitely better measure of bicycling than plain number of cyclists per capita.

It shouldn't surprise anyone that number of cyclists per capita drops as cities grow. City grows. City gets suburbs, which are autocentric. Number of cyclists/capita drops. Pretty straight forward.

What should be measured is cyclists per capita of residents which work within 5 miles of their home. Such numbers probably haven't been collected, but it would be an infinitely better measure of bicycling than plain number of cyclists per capita.

Yes, it is considerations such as this that determine the competitive balance between cycling and motoring. However, there are many such considerations, for example the proportion of linked trips being made, linked trips being much less likely to be best made by bicycle.

Yes, it is considerations such as this that determine the competitive balance between cycling and motoring. However, there are many such considerations, for example the proportion of linked trips being made, linked trips being much less likely to be best made by bicycle.

Yes, you are right. And as a city grows, distances between desired locations also increases. The daily trip to the corner store might be less an option by bike if the store is now 5 miles away vs. one half or one mile away.

Actually, some automobile manufactures are starting to recognize that many people use their car as a 2 ton grocery cart, i.e., it's not for the effortless travel or the speed, but merely for cargo carrying capabilities. I read about one housing development somewhere (I forgot where) incorportated a shopping center of some sort in the development and gave (or tacked onto the selling price of the home) each home buyer a smartcar so they could get to the grocery store and back without burning any gasoline.

I said that despite the installation of gazillions of dollars worth of infrastructure in Davis, enough to make it the only platinum rated bike friendly city in the U.S., cycling per capita in Davis has been reduced as compared to the 1960s when there was no cycling specific infrastructure.

It shouldn't surprise anyone that number of cyclists per capita drops as cities grow. City grows. City gets suburbs, which are autocentric. Number of cyclists/capita drops. Pretty straight forward.

What should be measured is cyclists per capita of residents which work within 5 miles of their home. Such numbers probably haven't been collected, but it would be an infinitely better measure of bicycling than plain number of cyclists per capita.
Your point is valid in general, but is not relevant to the situation in this specific context: Davis.

Davis is 10 square miles, and pretty much flat as a pancake.

All destinations within the city are just as bike-reachable today as they were in the 1960s.

Actually its 1.1% of commuting miles are by bicycle.

You asked for where there are over 1% of commuting trips. 1.1% of miles represents quite a bit more than 1% of trips. Thats 450,000 miles commuted by bicycle every day in a county with a population of ~3.8M

Apparently you consider several months of 110-120F prime cycling weather. Most folks round here consider that nuts.

Al

Wow 450,000 miles I bet 2/3 is done on a sidewalk or a MUP err canal.

Also is a bicycle friendly employer considered a bicycle facility. Because in Maricopa they have an alternative trip reduction program. This is mandatory if you have over 50 employees.

Note you only have to worry about the heat index reaching 107 after that your going to start to boil (blood) 30 mins. on 15 mins. off.

Wow 450,000 miles I bet 2/3 is done on a sidewalk or a MUP err canal.

Also is a bicycle friendly employer considered a bicycle facility. Because in Maricopa they have an alternative trip reduction program. This is mandatory if you have over 50 employees.

Note you only have to worry about the heat index reaching 107 after that your going to start to boil (blood)
MUPs :eek:

alternative trip reduction programs :eek: :eek:

Bzzzt...disqualified! :D

Bzzzt...disqualified! :D
What major metro area is not disqualified? That will help narrow the search.
Al

what was the question? I forgot!

what was the question? I forgot!
"tell us where more than one percent of daily vehicle trips are made by cyclists in a major US metropolitan area, and where no bicycle-specific infrastructure is provided."

bike rack... bzzzzt.
MUP thru city park... bzzzzt