Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Is this VC?

Hey, let's not go starting rumors. :D
Are you insinuating that a certain jf rides in only a thong, suspenders, and a bow tie, to a nudist colony, to meet a certain hh, who refuses to go nude, and instead wears a flesh colored skin suit, insisting that it's the tone of the material that matters, not the nudity per se...?

Yada, yada, yada about road engineering and Cary, N.C. too. No one is discussing road building/road design as a vehicular cycling concept except you and Forester.

I am not surprised you want to avoid the subject of the credibility of the fundamental Vehicular Cycling premise/conclusion about "Vehicular Cyclists faring best." You know, the "faring best" premise/conclusion with no measured metrics or definitions of what constitutes "faring best". Only the various Forester Brand safety analyses and tests and statistical mumbo jumbo that Forester and his associates claim are the best evidence that prove their premise/mantra. But you choose to ignore the issue of lack of validity of Forester furnished "scientific evidence" and conclude that vehicular cycling is valid by sticking to discussing esoteric road design concepts. Works for you, eh?:rolleyes:

Most of the local road engineers in my community have become aware of the vehicular cycling paradigm and have made some adjustments in their design standards accordingly. The high numbers of local sidewalk cycling collisions and lack of overtaking collisions on wide outside lanes (and only a couple overtaking collisions at all, on narrow lane thoroughfares), despite higher volumes of roadway cycling than sidewalk cycling, have caused them to rethink their previous emphasis on designating sidewalks as bikeways next to narrow lanes, in favor of wide outside lanes on busy roads with curb/gutter and wide paved shoulders on non-curb/gutter roads. The local engineers have also started experimenting with making traffic signal sensors detect bicycles when those signals are under local maintenance. We are still working on getting the state to do this for state-maintained signals. Cary also has a new ordinance requiring good street connectivity.

My city has been doubling its roadway lane-miles every ten years or so due to its fast growth, and the larger surrounding county of a million or so people is growing almost as fast. Street connectivity, on-roadway passing facility design, sensitivity of signal sensors to bicycles, short-cut paths between subdivisions, land use planning - these are issues that will have very real impacts on the convenience and enjoyability of cycling here, as our community continues to take shape. Thousands of people are now living in new subdivisions, shopping in new commercial areas, and traveling on new roads/lanes and paths that I helped shape while serving on the P&Z board. Thousands more will in the future. I like to think that I have made these places more conducive to bicycle transportation.

From the Cary Bicycle Plan FAQ:
http://www.townofcary.org/depts/dsdept/P&Z/bicycleplan/bicycleplanoverview.htm


What is a ‘bicycle facility’?
A bicycle facility is a structure that enhances accessibility, use, and convenience of
bicycle transportation.
Noted bicycle transportation engineer Richard Moeur describes these ‘principles of good
design’ for bicycle facilities:
�� Treat bicyclists as operators of vehicles
�� Encourage operation in accordance with traffic flow and traffic law
�� Connect destinations in a continuous network
�� Accommodate cyclists without inconvenience or extra travel distance/time

While they most often refer to roads and road modifications, bicycle facilities can consist
of other infrastructure improvements such as bicycle parking, bicycle-sensitive traffic
signals, and compatible road markings, drain grates, and the like. Bicycle Facilities –
Phase 2 implementation includes wide outside lanes and striped bike lanes.

Wide outside lanes, are they safer and/or better than striping a bicycle lane?

The issue of bike lanes versus wide outside lanes is the subject of considerable debate
among bicycle transportation advocates. The bottom line is that there have been too
few studies to answer this question definitively.

While cyclists and motorists may perceive a higher comfort level on roads with striped
bike lanes, wide outside lanes tend to be preferred among experienced cyclists. Why?
Because with very few exceptions, the safest way to ride is as part of the traffic, going
with the flow of the normal traffic pattern. According to the tenets of Effective Cycling,
promoted by the League of American Bicyclists, the national bicycling advocacy
organization, bicyclists fare best when they act as drivers of vehicles and adhere to the
rules of the road.

Wide outside lanes have other benefits

�� Wide outside lanes are more cost-efficient because they can be integrated into new
road construction and road improvements. In other words, they don’t have to be
designated as ‘separate facilities’ when considering funding for new roads.
�� Wide outside lanes require less maintenance than a striped bike lane because they
are narrower than a regular road lane with a bike lane. Since there is no stripe to
keep motorists away from curbside, in the absence of bicyclists, the sweeping action
of motor vehicles clears debris from wide outside lanes continuously, pushing it
closer to the edge and out of bicyclists' way. (The Town will continue to sweep
routes with wide outside lanes routinely and on an ‘as needed’ basis.)
�� Wide outside lanes have one very important intangible: they accommodate bicyclists
in the travel lane as equal drivers of vehicles. Since North Carolina law regards
bicycles as vehicles, bicycle riders have the same rights and responsibilities as
motorists. Bicyclists properly using wide outside lanes demonstrate that bikes
belong.

sorry steve, but the design paradigm of wide outside lanes alone will still leave significant numbers of cyclists on the sidewalks and off the roads.

a WOL on a high speed road may be 'good enough' for the stawart VC, but still encourages bicycle/ vehicle conflict, harassment from drivers, and sidewalk cyclists.

but still encourages bicycle/ vehicle conflict, harassment from drivers.
I can't argue with 'conflict' except to note that conflict has negative connotations, which in the case of using a WOL the interaction is not negative - its a cooperative interaction.

I do however disagree as to harrassment. By far the least harrassment I get is using WOLs. I get significantly more when using roads that are striped with bike lanes. Eliminate the BL stripe for 200' or so at all intersection approaches and keep the BL 6' wide and swept and I'd say they are about equal.

Al

sorry steve, but the design paradigm of wide outside lanes alone will still leave significant numbers of cyclists on the sidewalks and off the roads.

a WOL on a high speed road may be 'good enough' for the stawart VC, but still encourages bicycle/ vehicle conflict, harassment from drivers.

A study in Florida and a study in Texas (I think) showed this to be the case. WOLs prompted cyclists to take a position either off the road (on the sidewalk) or hugging the gutter. Bike lanes tended to put the cyclists further to the left and off the sidewalk.

WOLs give vehicular cyclists more freedom to operate in traffic. That's its singular advantage over bike lanes. It makes non-vehicular cyclists ride more dangerously by forcing them closer to the curb or onto the sidewalk.

sorry steve, but the design paradigm of wide outside lanes alone will still leave significant numbers of cyclists on the sidewalks and off the roads.
Steve's work with the road planners and designers in Cary, N.C is commendable. I salute him for his efforts and intent to improve the cycling environment.

However the discussion here is about bicycling and bicycling technique/methods, not road building in your economically fortunate community. When a cyclist would like to figure out if he/she will indeed "fare best" by "vehicular cycling" when riding today or tomorrow or next week the answer will not come from a discussion about various engineering alternatives.

A study in Florida and a study in Texas (I think) showed this to be the case. WOLs prompted cyclists to take a position either off the road (on the sidewalk) or hugging the gutter. Bike lanes tended to put the cyclists further to the left and off the sidewalk.

WOLs give vehicular cyclists more freedom to operate in traffic. That's its singular advantage over bike lanes. It makes non-vehicular cyclists ride more dangerously by forcing them closer to the curb or onto the sidewalk.
WOLs do tend to collect fewer pine needles than bike lanes.

The other advantages claimed for WOLs over bike lanes appear to be almost entirely creations of the VC propagandists who start with the biases of John Forester and play on fears and superstitions regarding the effect of white paint.

WOLs do tend to collect fewer pine needles than bike lanes.

The other advantages claimed for WOLs over bike lanes appear to be almost entirely creations of the VC propagandists who start with the biases of John Forester and play on fears and superstitions regarding the effect of white paint.
When a bike lane stripe is added to a WOL, it essentially makes a two foot wide prime riding portion of the roadway -- one foot to each side of the center of the BL stripe -- technically illegal for cyclists to ride in. If a 2' wide cyclist's tire is within that space, then he is riding in one lane while encroaching on an adjacent lane, which is technically illegal.

A website with articles extolling the virtues of WOLs (and warning of the dangers of pine needles) is:

http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/index.html

When a bike lane stripe is added to a WOL, it essentially makes a two foot wide prime riding portion of the roadway -- one foot to each side of the center of the BL stripe -- technically illegal for cyclists to ride in. If a 2' wide cyclist's tire is within that space, then he is riding in one lane while encroaching on an adjacent lane, which is technically illegal.


bull. hyperbole. fearmongering.

this thread is about angry motorists' reactions to cycling on unacommodated roadways. NOT mr head's hyperbole about facilities.

rarely have I been harassed by motorists while riding in a bike lane; almost ALL the road rage I encounter is while "taking the lane".

Like Diane asks in the OP, is taking the brunt of road rage while riding in a vehicular style "VC"? should vehicular cyclists accept ragin' cagers angry at bicyclists taking the lane? Can a community do better for its cyclists? I know, have seen the proof , that communities can plan for bikes in the transportation mix to minimize (not totally eliminate) motorist/cyclist conflicts.

Even the die-hard VC see the value in wide lanes and other accomodations for bicyclists.

A website with articles extolling the virtues of WOLs (and warning of the dangers of pine needles) is:

http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/index.html
No sign of any need for motorist education at that web site. :rolleyes:

this thread is about angry motorists' reactions to cycling on unacommodated roadways. NOT mr head's hyperbole about facilities.

rarely have I been harassed by motorists while riding in a bike lane; almost ALL the road rage I encounter is while "taking the lane".

Like Diane asks in the OP, is taking the brunt of road rage while riding in a vehicular style "VC"? should vehicular cyclists accept ragin' cagers angry at bicyclists taking the lane? Can a community do better for its cyclists? I know, have seen the proof , that communities can plan for bikes in the transportation mix to minimize (not totally eliminate) motorist/cyclist conflicts.

Even the die-hard VC see the value in wide lanes and other accomodations for bicyclists.
HH will probably tell just you that since the JAMs have been 'conditioned' to expect bicyclists to ride in bike lanes, they will tell you to use the bike lane even when one isn't present. :rolleyes:

I have not been harassed for riding in a bike lane. I have been harassed for riding on narrow roads without shoulders and on residential streets (can you believe it?). Seems to me that when there is a designated space for cyclists people are happy to drive in your presence. When there isn't, they are less so.

I think it's a leap to say that the latter is a side-effect of facilities or whatever. That the facilities create the anger when you aren't in them. In places with no facilities anywhere they get angry with cyclists. And nobody ever yells, "get in the bike lane." They yell, "get on the sidewalk" or "you're supposed to stay to the right." Knowing that facilities exist somewhere in the universe doesn't seem to make any difference in the willingness or happiness to share the road with you when they are nowhere near your current location.

I think the anger is simply based on the speed differential. People just don't like to slow down or be inconvenienced. So, since the speed differential will never change, does enduring harassment HAVE to be part of vehicular cycling? Or can anything change about this? What on earth will it actually take to change this?

Personally, some harassment is enough to make me want to quit cycling. I'm pretty tough, so I'm sure that there are lots of people out there who do just quit.

I think the anger is simply based on the speed differential. People just don't like to slow down or be inconvenienced. So, since the speed differential will never change, does enduring harassment HAVE to be part of vehicular cycling? Or can anything change about this? What on earth will it actually take to change this?

ding ding ding!!! We haaavvvve a winner!

You have successfully pointed out the white elephant in the room. People get mad when they get inconvenienced. We can put to rest all these helpless "why do they hate us so much?!" questions.

I mean, just last Saturday, I was made at the cycling portion of a triathalon because they were blocking me from getting to, wait for it, my bike ride :eek:. I am so embarrassed now too, since all I had to do was read the web and see that we started from a different starting point.


Personally, some harassment is enough to make me want to quit cycling. I'm pretty tough, so I'm sure that there are lots of people out there who do just quit.

I did make me quit last year. I quit riding earlier in the season than I wanted to because of how mentally tough my route was (partially traffic, partially wind). This year, I changed routes to add a little distance but cut out most of the traffic, and I have discovered just how much all the mental work of riding on a heavily travelled, high speed and single lane in each direction with no shoulder rural road was taking a toll on my willpower to continue cycling.

ding ding ding!!! We haaavvvve a winner!

You have successfully pointed out the white elephant in the room. People get mad when they get inconvenienced. We can put to rest all these helpless "why do they hate us so much?!" questions.

I mean, just last Saturday, I was made at the cycling portion of a triathalon because they were blocking me from getting to, wait for it, my bike ride :eek:. I am so embarrassed now too, since all I had to do was read the web and see that we started from a different starting point.



I did make me quit last year. I quit riding earlier in the season than I wanted to because of how mentally tough my route was (partially traffic, partially wind). This year, I changed routes to add a little distance but cut out most of the traffic, and I have discovered just how much all the mental work of riding on a heavily travelled, high speed and single lane in each direction with no shoulder rural road was taking a toll on my willpower to continue cycling.

I think you're right. and I can relate.

As far as being honked at, I've been honked at when I was nowhere near the road- a pedestrian on a sidewalk. They laughed as they drove on by. Some people just want to be jerks, has nothing to do with "being in their way".

No sign of any need for motorist education at that web site. :rolleyes:

See http://humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/lawguide_critique.pdf

We recommend that NCDOT fix its errors in its law guide. The current guide implies that its illegal for cyclists to ride places where motorists cannot pass immediately, and makes no mention of motorists' duty to slow for cyclists ahead.

There's also this brochure targeting motorist education: http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/Dlux_Driv.pdf

Vehicular cycling education presents the case for why cyclists use the roadways. If motorists are exposed to it, they will gain understanding and empathy.