Vehicular Cycling (VC) - The science of bike lane advocacy.

My experience with WOLs is that (1) they encourage motorists to drive too fast and (2) motorists frequently don't care to 'share' a WOL with cyclists and consequently they pass too closely and/or too aggressively.
+1 I have also noticed a pattern (even in more bike friendly areas) in that the ~third car back in pack does not see what the first two cars shifted over for so they don’t shift over resulting in a buzz of the cyclist. (Note this does not imply a cyclist won’t get buzzed by a solitary motorist just explaining another problem with WOL.)

narrow lanes, bikes get stuck in traffic, and get blamed for holding up traffic. wide outside lanes, bikes CAN get stuck in traffic, as cars will be skewed all over the wide lane, cars drive in any position in wide lane, wide lanes do not encourage road bicycling or visible road position by 'average bicyclist', wide lanes can encourage bicyclist harassment.

bike lanes, can be positioned to the left of right turn only lanes, bikes will NOT get stuck in traffic, bicyclists have clear lane, cars have clear lane, bikes do NOT hold up traffic, bikes will not encourage driver harrasment due lane position.

Certainly such studies exist. Government was extremely anxious, after starting its bikeway program, to discover engineering evidence that it had made the correct decision. Government paid for many studies that attempted to justify the policy of incompetent cycling on bikeways. However, they all failed.

Our point, which Bekologist tries to mislead people about, is that none of those studies demonstrated any of the three basic claims for bikeways. The claims are that bikeways reduce car-bike collisions, that bikeways reduce the level of skill that is required for safe cycling, and that bikeways make a transportationally significant reduction in motoring.
Your Government Conspiracy Theories to propagate cyclist’s inferiority are laughable. Gee I want segregated facilities (expressways) for my automobile so I must be brainwashed by the government and have motorist-inferiority syndrome. You logic does not work when applied to other things. Your logic is simply a way to resort to name calling when your arguments have failed.

Bikeways get the wrong way and the sidewalk cyclists in a better and safer road position. Bikeways are not about just reducing rear end collisions which you are constantly misdirecting arguments. And studies do show that bikeways work in this aspect.

And VC increasing the level of skill needed to ride a bike is a better option? Keeping the current ambiguity between a WOL, NOL and NSNOL (Not So Narrow OL) I do not find helpful for cyclists or the general public.

And it has already been pointed out that bikeways are increasing their modal share and I will point out that here mass transit has a 10% modal share so numbers approaching 10% I think are very encouraging.

Yes, I find a lot of motorist harassment and general stupidity happens on WOLs (and even more so on not-so-narrow-outside-lanes), too.

Motorists need bike lanes because otherwise they can't figure out what to do. They'll even try to pass you on the right sometimes. I can figure out what to do just fine bike lanes or not. It's them what's incompetent. I'd rather have incompetent motorists who at least know what to do, than stupid ones who have no idea.

seems obvious to me. a designated lane for bicycles helps both motorists and cyclists. not necessary on all roads, but a huge advantage on some or most high speed ones.

Yes, I find a lot of motorist harassment and general stupidity happens on WOLs (and even more so on not-so-narrow-outside-lanes), too.

Motorists need bike lanes because otherwise they can't figure out what to do. They'll even try to pass you on the right sometimes. I can figure out what to do just fine bike lanes or not. It's them what's incompetent. I'd rather have incompetent motorists who at least know what to do, than stupid ones who have no idea.

Ok, fine. Bike lanes solve the supposed problem of motorists not knowing how to go straight past a cyclist off to the side. I'll give you that (although I've never experienced any problems of the sort). How then do bike lanes offer any help at intersections? How does Mr. Incompetent Motorist suddenly figure out how to handle a bike lane at an intersection when he previously couldn't figure out how to go straight?

seems obvious to me. a designated lane for bicycles helps both motorists and cyclists. not necessary on all roads, but a huge advantage on some or most high speed ones.

yep, so glaringly obvious, john delusionally created an 'inferiority complex' to damnify on-road bike infrastructure.

yep, so glaringly obvious, john delusionally created an 'inferiority complex' to damnify on-road bike infrastructure.
Why? If you believe 'inferiority complex' is a false construct created in order to oppose bike lanes, what is your explanation for Forester's motivation to "damnify on-road bike infrastructure?"

joe, bike lanes can provide dedicated space for bicyclists leading up to intersections.

signs 'cars yield to bikes' and knowledge of same helps drivers 'figure it out'.

how do drivers handle bikes leading up to intersections with WOLs and bicyclists attempting to control the lane to prevent a righthook? pass agressively on left OR right.

there's 'problems' operating bikes on the roads, REGARDLESS of road striping or bike infrastructure.

however, if cyclists' rights to use of full lane is preserved, and mandatory sidepath rules are fought, then bike specific infrastructure has the ability to make communities more bikeable.

that the League of American Bicyclists- (who sent john forester packing, by the way!) can differentiate between different cities in America as being better, versus not-so-good for bicycling, speaks volumes to the efficacy of bike infrastructure in communities.

Why? If you believe 'inferiority complex' is a false construct created in order to oppose bike lanes, what is your explanation for Forester's motivation to "damnify on-road bike infrastructure?"

the guy is delusional, hates the idea of bike infrastructure, and is in bed with the car loving, bike adverse, sprawl loving, american dream coalition.

www.americandreamcoalition.org

the guy is delusional, hates the idea of bike infrastructure, and is in bed with the car loving, bike adverse, sprawl loving, american dream coalition.

www.americandreamcoalition.org
But WHY do you think he hates bike infrastructure? What do you believe is the reason that he hates bike infrastructure?

start another thread about why john hates bike infrastructure.

his canned response is sophistic mastery. he'd win laurels back in ancient Greece, dude.


this thread has been beat to death by the anti-accomodationalists, despite admittances that

a) bike infrastructure works well for some roads
b) it is vehicular to ride in bike lanes
c) studies show the efficacy of bike infrastructure at increasing modal share, improving road position, and decreasing indexed accident rates for bicyclists.
d) bike lanes can increase the 'bikeability' and decrease car/bike friction on roads, versus narrow lanes or wide lanes alone.


plueaze. you ride in bike lanes, vehicularily, when you occasionally ride a bike for your commute. we've seen the pictures of your commute, with bike lanes along high speed arterials. in steady traffic, your riding in the bike lanes, vehicularily.

Yes, I find a lot of motorist harassment and general stupidity happens on WOLs (and even more so on not-so-narrow-outside-lanes), too.

Motorists need bike lanes because otherwise they can't figure out what to do. They'll even try to pass you on the right sometimes. I can figure out what to do just fine bike lanes or not. It's them what's incompetent. I'd rather have incompetent motorists who at least know what to do, than stupid ones who have no idea.
+1 Motorist Inferiority Complex, that has to be the explanation. :D

Seriously if there were just 10’ or 14’ lanes VCing would be a lot simpler and easer for everyone to understand but when you through into the mix 12’ and 13’ lanes that really complicates the matter. We need consistent road widths and right hand stripes help.

I do think that bike lanes help emphasize that cyclists belong roads. I also think that they provide a reminder to motorists that cyclists may be traveling on bike-lanes roads more than a simple sign on the side of the road. My perception is that most motorists are cognizant of lanes but relatively unaware of their placement within lanes.

From Albuquerque, Santa Fe, and the DC area, it appears to me that bike lanes have more debris than wide-outside lanes. I also gather that there is a greater expectation that the cyclist stay in a bike lane than a road marked with a sharrow or ordinary WOL. But for whatever reason, I don't get yelled or honked at often.

I suspect that traffic flow is better for both autos and bicycles with bike lanes and appropriate signs, which is important for political purposes. From what I gather from a brief review of studies, the transportation community may not fully understand the specific impact from various facilities on safety. But as a transportation package, it appears that implementing WOLs, bike lanes, bikeways, sharrows, appropriate signs, awareness, and so on makes cycling safer. If one can demonstrate that such a program makes transportation better for both motorists and cyclists, it seems that we would be more likely to get resources dedicated to cyclists.

As others have opined, my guess is that the relative advantages of bike lanes and WOLs is probably dependent on traffic speed and density.

In response to Joe, I think that from a pure engineering standpoint, being a bike lane is an inferior position than taking a lane for some of the reason discussed in the forum. However, I think that it is more than compensated for by the constant visual reminder that cyclists belong on and use the road. This also assumes that the bike lane brings the rider to the left of any right-turn lane and that the cyclist actually centers him or herself in the typical motorist position. Anecdotally, I observe most cyclists in the same position as a bike lane when traveling through an intersection with a WOL. So it isn't clear to me that the engineering advantage would be realized in an empirical setting anyway.

Why? If you believe 'inferiority complex' is a false construct created in order to oppose bike lanes, what is your explanation for Forester's motivation to "damnify on-road bike infrastructure?"
Ask Forester. If you and he aren't too occupied with speculating about everybody else's motivations maybe you two can figure out your own motivations. Besides just saving the world for the Real Cyclists.

Your Government Conspiracy Theories to propagate cyclist’s inferiority are laughable. Gee I want segregated facilities (expressways) for my automobile so I must be brainwashed by the government and have motorist-inferiority syndrome. You logic does not work when applied to other things. Your logic is simply a way to resort to name calling when your arguments have failed.

Bikeways get the wrong way and the sidewalk cyclists in a better and safer road position. Bikeways are not about just reducing rear end collisions which you are constantly misdirecting arguments. And studies do show that bikeways work in this aspect.

And VC increasing the level of skill needed to ride a bike is a better option? Keeping the current ambiguity between a WOL, NOL and NSNOL (Not So Narrow OL) I do not find helpful for cyclists or the general public.

And it has already been pointed out that bikeways are increasing their modal share and I will point out that here mass transit has a 10% modal share so numbers approaching 10% I think are very encouraging.

You say that my explanation for the existence of the bikeway standards, cyclist inferiority, is laughable. You have no evidence for your claim. The first California bikeway design standards were horribly dangerous. I worked for about three years to get the dangers reduced. The dangers existed because the bikeway designers considered cyclists to be incapable of cycling in the vehicular manner, and also because the designers wanted to clear the way for motorists. This is historical fact, which you choose, for your own ideology, to ignore.

And you claim that bikeways, probably meaning bike-lane stripes in your context, reduce the level of skill that is required for safe cycling? Well then, specify the particular parts of vehicular-cycling skill that are not needed to ride safely in a city that has a bike-lane system. I doubt that you can do it; nobody else has. You claim that bikeways increase the modal share for cycling. Any validity to that claim has to lie in the public superstition that you have just been proclaiming, that bikeways make cycling safe for beginners. Enticing people onto the roads with false promises of safety instead of providing the training that they need for safe cycling is immoral.

however, if cyclists' rights to use of full lane is preserved, and mandatory sidepath rules are fought, then bike specific infrastructure has the ability to make communities more bikeable.



Please specify what you mean by "bikeable".

Specify what parts of regular know-what-the-hell-is going-on-around-you-and-react-accordingly do you not understand? You've been slogging this system for how long? Change the message and/or get a new PR agency.
You and HH are both terrible salesmen. You claim to have been doing this for ages yet.....bogusnees and bad vibes surround you and you disciple , brother. Adapt and survive, or go way of the do-do.

Is there one way to approach surfing a wave...no
Is there one way to approach freeride downhill...no
Is there one way to approach skateboarding...no

Safety isn't all about one thing...especially in traffic...adaptability, and always having a way out/defensive...even when rippin' traffic a new one. Ask anyone that participates in an extreme sport with the risk of great bodily harm or death. Relying on one aspect of anything to keep you safe is ********...

Specify what parts of regular know-what-the-hell-is going-on-around-you-and-react-accordingly do you not understand? You've been slogging this system for how long? Change the message and/or get a new PR agency.
You and HH are both terrible salesmen. You claim to have been doing this for ages yet.....bogusnees and bad vibes surround you and you disciple , brother. Adapt and survive, or go way of the do-do.

Is there one way to approach surfing a wave...no
Is there one way to approach freeride downhill...no
Is there one way to approach skateboarding...no

Safety isn't all about one thing...especially in traffic...adaptability, and always having a way out/defensive...even when rippin' traffic a new one. Ask anyone that participates in an extreme sport with the risk of great bodily harm or death. Relying on one aspect of anything to keep you safe is ********...

Cycling in traffic is not an extreme sport, but just one more typical task.

Cycling in traffic is not an extreme sport, but just one more typical task.

:rolleyes: :p ;) ahhh but then you aren't doin' it the right way either.

Letsee...rollin' where someone can merely turn on you and smash you into parked cars..sorry I didn't see you.
Turn and send you flying onto the sidewalk/poles/mailboxes, ..sorry I didn't see you.
Open their door to facilitate you plowing into it, ..sorry I didn't see you.
Actively try to scare you off the road because they feel you don't belong there.....sorry I didn't care to see you.

Riding within a foot of a ton of glass and metal with a 12 speaker Bose stereo, while I ride in spandex shorts @ 40km/h...repeat past dozens/hundreds of such obstacles until destination is reached..sounds extreme enough.

how laughable....considering bicycling in today's american road climate a 'typical task,' akin to doing laundry, folding clothes, changing a light bulb.

delusional, john.

I ride any road, but to consider it a 'typical' task for americans is laughable.

Just getting a "typical" North American on a bike is a challenge enough.

how laughable....considering bicycling in today's american road climate a 'typical task,' akin to doing laundry, folding clothes, changing a light bulb.

delusional, john.

I ride any road, but to consider it a 'typical' task for americans is laughable.

We consider motoring to work a typical task, don't we? Aside from the added complications of clothing, low load capacity, addition time, and such, so is cycling to work.

No.... "we" don't ..... I take my driving very seriously, no matter how far or for what reason I'm behind the wheel. It's the way I was trained to drive. There is nothing "typical" about being behind the wheel, maybe this is symptomatic of VC's disconnect with what's actually happening on the roads.

No.... "we" don't ..... I take my driving very seriously, no matter how far or for what reason I'm behind the wheel. It's the way I was trained to drive. There is nothing "typical" about being behind the wheel, maybe this is symptomatic of VC's disconnect with what's actually happening on the roads.

Don't play semantic games for pointless purposes. The large majority of employed adults drive to work. Hence, driving to work is a typical task. Only a small proportion of employed adults take the train to work, Hence, taking the train to work is not the typical way.

It's lumping driving in with "typical" that's gets my goat... I've been trained as a defensive driver in the military and know how dangerous losing one's attention can be.....seeing my buddy get pinned under his jeep in a night exercise rolling it down an embankment because he didn't pay attention and then panicked. It's the "typical" driver that is the threat out there, sippin' their coffees, yaking on the phone completely oblivious as to what's going on out there. You know what the 'typical' excuse is for running someone on a bike over is.? "I'm sorry I didn't see you. "
I drove home the other night and came up on this gent in the middle of the night... no lights, dark clothing I and I still saw him easily enough because he was on the road and I was looking. So please don't tell me what games I am playing... when that is all you and HH do ....twist other peoples' words around so you seem to look like you know what your talking about....

I have taken a differing tact on typical here yes. I'm tired of reading your circular arguments that go nowhere except back to the fact that what you are shillin' is snake oil. Where's your science of advocacy....loons.

Don't play semantic games for pointless purposes. The large majority of employed adults drive to work. Hence, driving to work is a typical task. Only a small proportion of employed adults take the train to work, Hence, taking the train to work is not the typical way.
the fact that many motor to work and few take the train is symptomatic of how our transportation choices have been manipulated over the years. The fact that motoring is such a dangerous activity, yet is done so casually, seems to be everbody's point here; where we all diverge is on the conclusions drawn from this information. FWIW, I consider cycling to work 'typical' for me.

You say that my explanation for the existence of the bikeway standards, cyclist inferiority, is laughable. You have no evidence for your claim. The first California bikeway design standards were horribly dangerous. I worked for about three years to get the dangers reduced. The dangers existed because the bikeway designers considered cyclists to be incapable of cycling in the vehicular manner, and also because the designers wanted to clear the way for motorists. This is historical fact, which you choose, for your own ideology, to ignore.

And you claim that bikeways, probably meaning bike-lane stripes in your context, reduce the level of skill that is required for safe cycling? Well then, specify the particular parts of vehicular-cycling skill that are not needed to ride safely in a city that has a bike-lane system. I doubt that you can do it; nobody else has. You claim that bikeways increase the modal share for cycling. Any validity to that claim has to lie in the public superstition that you have just been proclaiming, that bikeways make cycling safe for beginners. Enticing people onto the roads with false promises of safety instead of providing the training that they need for safe cycling is immoral.
There is no doubt at one time the automobile was on the way up and the bicycle was on the way down. Whatever label you want to use to describe this period really does not matter as times are changing. The automobile can no longer offer the freedom of mobility that it once did, it is now a necessary evil, a source of frustration and many other uncomplimentary terms and sociological ills. Now days if you ask people if they want to go to some new hot spot downtown you usually get nah, too much traffic, too hard to find a parking space, I’ll just stay home and watch a video, so I bike down without them. Again and again this happens till all of a sudden it dawns on those around me that I do more with my life because I bike then what they are willing to do by car. And I don’t have to worry about a few extra pounds or dieting.

You have done some nice work and some things you have done we are very appreciative for but trying to present Cyclists Inferiority as being ever present in all forms of government as if it were being backed by the Illuminati Society is ridiculous. I have no doubt that you have dealt with some personalities that were very unsupportive of bikes as I have but to contend that this is an ever-present unchangeable situation, I strongly disagree. Support for cycling is a mater of political will not some psychosis treatment. I do not doubt your historic facts, I doubt their relevance to the now and the future of cycling.

Skill Level: The choice of transport routes is not a necessarily a choice of skill levels. An auto driver may choose a longer route on a freeway to avoid a direct route with traffic lights even if the direct route would take about the same time as the freeway route. You could argue that negotiating at grade traffic crossing requires more skills then just driving along the freeway so people choose the less skilled route but the point is that is not what is generally behind the choice. Understanding what generally motivates people to prefer one route over another is critical to understanding on how to increase modal share and direct people where you want them to go in the safest way possible.

I am going to take a bit of a time out and recap studies as far as I understand them. On-road with traffic cycling is safer then against traffic or sidewalk cycling. But in the studies that demonstrate that we do not know if we are talking about gutter bunnies or take the lane cowboys. I’ll assert that since VC is not that wide spread we are probably talking about gutter bunnies that proved that riding with traffic is the safest. So now if we put a bike lane in that will move those gutter bunnies a little more away from the curb, get those sidewalk cyclist out in the street and those wrong way cyclists going the right way all of a sudden we have immorally created an unsafe environment??? Compared to what, an imaginary world where everyone was taught VC? There are no studies that substantiate your fears and we have strong indicators that bike lanes do generally increase safety. This is not immoral this is just acknowledging the facts as we have them.

I’m not sure how to say this but if you had a bill before congress that would require Road 1 course to be taught in elementary schools I would be out there helping you to get that to pass. If you had anything of substance that would mainstream effective bike safety education I would be behind that as well. But as it is mainstreaming effective bike safety is a real hard nut to crack and has made very little progress. And for me it is the utmost in immorality to fight bike lanes and crying “cyclist inferiority” at every opportunity when there is no immediate hope of mainstreaming effective cycling instruction.

Let me share with you a bit on what I think describes the current state of the roads a lot better then cyclist inferiority and that is over emphases of safe crashing over safe driving. LAB realized that just wearing helmets did not prevent crashes and that crash prevention would be better. But our motoring counterparts kept the pressure up on safe crashing, seat belts, air bags and highway designs all saying lets not worry at all about preventing accidents. Seatbelt laws, enforcement campaigns all geared to increase one thing, safe crashing. And the result we have to show for all that effort is almost everyone agrees that the roads are unsafe to drive on let alone bike on. Until we can restore some sanity back into the roadways getting the political will to have people say I want my kid to learn to bike in traffic is going to be an impossible task.

I bike because I feel it is safer then driving but it is hard proving that to the uninitiated. I have been biking about 6 years in that time the family car left with my X has been in 4 accidents while I had one left hook that when I turned onto glassphalt driveway for avoidance, the bike went out from under me ruining a $60 pair of paints, big difference between the two modes.

^^^ + a lot!

So now if we put a bike lane in that will move those gutter bunnies a little more away from the curb, get those sidewalk cyclist out in the street and those wrong way cyclists going the right way all of a sudden we have immorally created an unsafe environment??? Compared to what, an imaginary world where everyone was taught VC? There are no studies that substantiate your fears and we have strong indicators that bike lanes do generally increase safety. This is not immoral this is just acknowledging the facts as we have them.
Awesome. Hit the nail right on the head. (The whole post was awesome, not just this part.) Thanks for writing that.

The Human Car... great post, especially the bit about safer crashes.

I think the end result of "safer crashes" and better handling cars has been higher speeds and a more freeway-like attitude amoung motorists.

I have noticed quite a few roads now marked at higher speeds (evidenced by old markings on the road surface at a lower speed; while new signs show the higher speed). Since nothing was done to improve the road... "something" was the cause of the push to higher speeds. (and it certainly was not speed limit enforcement).

Drivers have not suddenly gained new reaction times, nor are sightlines any better... the only thing that has changed is that motorists are more comfortable (read: more disconnected from their environment) and are driving faster.

Safe following distance on the freeways are a joke. (notice the long "trains" of motorists in the far left lane separated by less than a car distance)

Yup, safe driving has given way to safe crashing. Sure, there are fewer deaths on the highways... the car has become a safety coccoon... enveloping the passengers in a web of belts and inflating cushions along with impact zones and crash rails.

The result is motorists feeling safe at any speed and not paying attention to what is outside the cockpit... but focusing on a whole host of distractions that simply were not even available 25 years ago... from super sized meals to cell phones, to DVD players to talking GPS to surround sound and satellite radio to 'gasp' in-dash video games.

No wonder "I didn't see you... " is a common response to an accident.

Much interesting material snipped

Skill Level: The choice of transport routes is not a necessarily a choice of skill levels. An auto driver may choose a longer route on a freeway to avoid a direct route with traffic lights even if the direct route would take about the same time as the freeway route. You could argue that negotiating at grade traffic crossing requires more skills then just driving along the freeway so people choose the less skilled route but the point is that is not what is generally behind the choice. Understanding what generally motivates people to prefer one route over another is critical to understanding on how to increase modal share and direct people where you want them to go in the safest way possible.



There is much of interest in the other parts of your article. However, this discusses only the paragraph titled Skill Level. The claim is made, and I criticize it, that safe cycling in a city with a bike-lane system does not require all the vehicular-cycling skills. Nobody has identified the particular vehicular-cycling skills that are not required because a city has a bike-lane system. You have not, either, but have discussed a different point.

There is no doubt at one time the automobile was on the way up and the bicycle was on the way down. Whatever label you want to use to describe this period really does not matter as times are changing. The automobile can no longer offer the freedom of mobility that it once did, it is now a necessary evil, a source of frustration and many other uncomplimentary terms and sociological ills. Now days if you ask people if they want to go to some new hot spot downtown you usually get nah, too much traffic, too hard to find a parking space, I’ll just stay home and watch a video, so I bike down without them. Again and again this happens till all of a sudden it dawns on those around me that I do more with my life because I bike then what they are willing to do by car. And I don’t have to worry about a few extra pounds or dieting.

You have done some nice work and some things you have done we are very appreciative for but trying to present Cyclists Inferiority as being ever present in all forms of government as if it were being backed by the Illuminati Society is ridiculous. I have no doubt that you have dealt with some personalities that were very unsupportive of bikes as I have but to contend that this is an ever-present unchangeable situation, I strongly disagree. Support for cycling is a mater of political will not some psychosis treatment. I do not doubt your historic facts, I doubt their relevance to the now and the future of cycling.

Skill Level: The choice of transport routes is not a necessarily a choice of skill levels. An auto driver may choose a longer route on a freeway to avoid a direct route with traffic lights even if the direct route would take about the same time as the freeway route. You could argue that negotiating at grade traffic crossing requires more skills then just driving along the freeway so people choose the less skilled route but the point is that is not what is generally behind the choice. Understanding what generally motivates people to prefer one route over another is critical to understanding on how to increase modal share and direct people where you want them to go in the safest way possible.

I am going to take a bit of a time out and recap studies as far as I understand them. On-road with traffic cycling is safer then against traffic or sidewalk cycling. But in the studies that demonstrate that we do not know if we are talking about gutter bunnies or take the lane cowboys. I’ll assert that since VC is not that wide spread we are probably talking about gutter bunnies that proved that riding with traffic is the safest. So now if we put a bike lane in that will move those gutter bunnies a little more away from the curb, get those sidewalk cyclist out in the street and those wrong way cyclists going the right way all of a sudden we have immorally created an unsafe environment??? Compared to what, an imaginary world where everyone was taught VC? There are no studies that substantiate your fears and we have strong indicators that bike lanes do generally increase safety. This is not immoral this is just acknowledging the facts as we have them.

I’m not sure how to say this but if you had a bill before congress that would require Road 1 course to be taught in elementary schools I would be out there helping you to get that to pass. If you had anything of substance that would mainstream effective bike safety education I would be behind that as well. But as it is mainstreaming effective bike safety is a real hard nut to crack and has made very little progress. And for me it is the utmost in immorality to fight bike lanes and crying “cyclist inferiority” at every opportunity when there is no immediate hope of mainstreaming effective cycling instruction.

Let me share with you a bit on what I think describes the current state of the roads a lot better then cyclist inferiority and that is over emphases of safe crashing over safe driving. LAB realized that just wearing helmets did not prevent crashes and that crash prevention would be better. But our motoring counterparts kept the pressure up on safe crashing, seat belts, air bags and highway designs all saying lets not worry at all about preventing accidents. Seatbelt laws, enforcement campaigns all geared to increase one thing, safe crashing. And the result we have to show for all that effort is almost everyone agrees that the roads are unsafe to drive on let alone bike on. Until we can restore some sanity back into the roadways getting the political will to have people say I want my kid to learn to bike in traffic is going to be an impossible task.

I bike because I feel it is safer then driving but it is hard proving that to the uninitiated. I have been biking about 6 years in that time the family car left with my X has been in 4 accidents while I had one left hook that when I turned onto glassphalt driveway for avoidance, the bike went out from under me ruining a $60 pair of paints, big difference between the two modes. :beer:

Human Car, I don't agree with all of what you say, but it's very well written, and you make some excellent points. Thank you for that.

As far as the car becoming less useful... Perhaps, but as illustrated by your own acecdote, folks seem to prefer staying home to taking up bicycling in order to get there. I suspect the internet, Tivo and HD plasma has a lot to do with those choices. There might be some flat places where short trips of 1-4km represent a significant number of useful trips where bicycling has the potential to be taken up by significant numbers. But in most places bicycling requires a bigger effort (most trips are either not that short, or hilly), an effort most people are simply unwilling and/or uninterested in generating. So in the end the proportion of the population that is currently not cycling and is likely to take it up is pretty small. Among those most likely to take it up, I continue to suspect the reason they don't cycle is fear of doing so. To the extent that bike lanes make cycling in traffic seem less scary, it's logical to think they would help. But studies show that the most bike lanes do is cause those cyclists already cycling to move to the streets where the bike lanes are. In other words, they don't get people out of their cars by any significant degree. I think the reason this is is so is because of the bike lane delusion: bike lanes promise an experience that they cannot deliver. They do not take the cyclist out of traffic, and his need to pay attention to and engage with traffic is heightened by bike lanes, if anything, not lowered. So if bike lanes have a short-term effect and get someone to buy a bike and try it out, in most cases they are not prepared for the traffic experience, and quite disillusioned. So the long-term net effect of bike lanes is negligible at best.

One of the most important factors in bringing about change in human behavior, in any context, is proper setting of expectations. In the context of increasing participation in bicycling, the main area of concern is traffic. In order to convert the highest numbers possible, we need to setup expectations about bicycling in traffic as appropriately as we can, to limit the disillusionment. Bike lanes do the opposite: bike lanes promise safety, separation and comfort. In reality they deliver only an illusion.

The emphasis on safe crashing does us no good, to be sure. There is an attitude out there that driving anything out there is inherently dangerous, much less a bicycle. But the solution is to work on disspelling that myth, particularly in terms of how it is not true for bicyclists who behave properly. The solution is not to buy into the myth and advocate facilities based on the delusion.

We anti-BLers are not so much opposed to BLs as we are trying to promote an attitude about cycling that realizes, among other much more important things, not the least of which is that "cyclists fare best when the act and are treated as drivers of vehicles", and that bicycling in traffic is a reasonably safe activity, that BLs are moot to cyclists. If that was the understanding within the bicycling community, we would have no reason to say we oppose bike lanes.

One of the most important factors in bringing about change in human behavior, in any context, is proper setting of expectations. In the context of increasing participation in bicycling, the main area of concern is traffic. In order to convert the highest numbers possible, we need to setup expectations about bicycling in traffic as appropriately as we can, to limit the disillusionment. Bike lanes do the opposite: bike lanes promise safety, separation and comfort. In reality they deliver only an illusion.

The emphasis on safe crashing does us no good, to be sure. There is an attitude out there that driving anything out there is inherently dangerous, much less a bicycle. But the solution is to work on disspelling that myth, particularly in terms of how it is not true for bicyclists who behave properly. The solution is not to buy into the myth and advocate facilities based on the delusion.

We anti-BLers are not so much opposed to BLs as we are trying to promote an attitude about cycling that realizes, among other much more important things, not the least of which is that "cyclists fare best when the act and are treated as drivers of vehicles", and that bicycling in traffic is a reasonably safe activity, that BLs are moot to cyclists. If that was the understanding within the bicycling community, we would have no reason to say we oppose bike lanes.

"moot" means of no legal significance, of no practical importance or irrelevant.

I don't believe BLs are moot to cyclists. I think they can be of use, and it is legal to cycle in them. I also don't believe that cyclists always fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles.

depending on the traffic situation and speeds, cycling CAN be dangerous. to not be aware of possible dangers out there is foolhardy and can get you killed.

Bike lanes do not promise safety and comfort, to me. to say that they do is misleading, and you only say that so you can deride them for not doing this thing that they don't promise. it's a fun little strawman you've got there.

if you're worried about realistic expectations, don't mischaracterize traffic lanes as something they are not.

The problem with BL's is simple:
That solid white stripe signifies segregation. It says to motorists "That's where bicycles belong", even if it's dangerous for the cyclist to remain sequestered.

WOL's represent a much better solution for cyclists. <-PERIOD

to me, WOLs are on OK solution, one of many depending on the locale, but too many times I have seen traffic all OVER the WOL, not hugging the center line or keeping to the left.

"moot" means of no legal significance, of no practical importance or irrelevant.
My intended meaning for moot in the context of "bike lanes are moot for cyclists" was "having no practical significance".


I don't believe BLs are moot to cyclists. I think they can be of use, and it is legal to cycle in them.
The space that the bike lane stripe happens to demarcate is often of use. What use is the stripe that demarcates that space and creates the bike lane?


I also don't believe that cyclists always fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles.
No one every claimed that "cyclists always fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles." It's a general statement, and always changes it to something else.


depending on the traffic situation and speeds, cycling CAN be dangerous.
Of course. What does this have to do with bike lane stripes?


to not be aware of possible dangers out there is foolhardy and can get you killed.
And, yet, that is exactly what bike lanes instill in the uninitiated: a false sense of security about the real dangers out there. In particular, bike lanes reinforce their false belief that the greatest danger comes from same direction traffic, and induces a false sense of security that arguably makes them less vigilant with respect to potential crossing conflicts in front of them.


Bike lanes do not promise safety and comfort, to me. to say that they do is misleading, and you only say that so you can deride them for not doing this thing that they don't promise. it's a fun little strawman you've got there.
I wasn't even thinking about you, much less actually writing about you. If bike lanes do not (falsely) promise safety and comfort, what are they for?


if you're worried about realistic expectations, don't mischaracterize traffic lanes as something they are not.
If you're worried about realistic expectations, don't mischaracterize bike lanes as something they are not: traffic lanes. Traffic lanes are painted in order to encourage traffic to move in accordance with the rules of the road. At intersections and midblock junctions and their approaches, bike lanes do the opposite.

to me, WOLs are on OK solution, one of many depending on the locale, but too many times I have seen traffic all OVER the WOL, not hugging the center line or keeping to the left.

Well I dunno how things are in Tempe, but up here in Penticton folks drive all over the road - BL stripe or not. At least if I "own" the whole lane I can make sure they see me before they approach with their tarmac meandering.

to me, WOLs are on OK solution, one of many depending on the locale, but too many times I have seen traffic all OVER the WOL, not hugging the center line or keeping to the left.
Where is that? Where I live and cycle the vast majority of drivers bias toward the left lane line.
Most also move very far left including into next lane when I am riding in a WOL.
Al

Where is that? Where I live and cycle the vast majority of drivers bias toward the left lane line.
Most also move very far left including into next lane when I am riding in a WOL.
Al

Well I dunno how things are in Tempe, but up here in Penticton folks drive all over the road - BL stripe or not. At least if I "own" the whole lane I can make sure they see me before they approach with their tarmac meandering.
The pattern here is that we all have individual experiences in our respective locales. Even in neighborhoods in my area, driver behavior varies wildly from one to the next, and from one hour of the day to the next.

The pattern here is that we all have individual experiences in our respective locales. Even in neighborhoods in my area, driver behavior varies wildly from one to the next, and from one hour of the day to the next.
Sure, but I ride on many of the same roads (along which rando rides on sidewalk) and don't see drivers all over the place when there is a WOL.

Here is a good example: Rando rides along the sidewalk on this 25mph road (14th between 52nd and Priest) with WOL.

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=W+14th+St,+Tempe,+Maricopa,+Arizona+85281,+United+States&ie=UTF8&oe=UTF-8&cd=1&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=53.300127,74.707031&t=h&om=1&ll=33.41372,-111.96418&spn=0.00182,0.002494&z=19

Note that of the 5 cars that appear to be in motion all five are left biased in lane, away from curb. That is how I observe the majority of drives here to use a WOL. (I did not cherry pick this example, but just used a road that Rando says he rides along often.) Sure there are exceptions which can also easily be found with google maps, but to characterize drivers as 'all over the place' with the implication this is different than if a BL stripe is present is off.

Al

There is much of interest in the other parts of your article. However, this discusses only the paragraph titled Skill Level. The claim is made, and I criticize it, that safe cycling in a city with a bike-lane system does not require all the vehicular-cycling skills. Nobody has identified the particular vehicular-cycling skills that are not required because a city has a bike-lane system. You have not, either, but have discussed a different point.
I heard someone in DOT make the claim that side paths require less cycling skills :eek: so I am familiar with the point you raise but I never clamed that bike lanes require less skill. I was merely discussing my point and refusing to be derailed by your side issue. I guess one could argue that safely riding on the sidewalk at faster then pedestrians speeds requires more skills then bike lane/vehicular-cycling skills so therefore riding in a bike lane requires less skills then that but such a point would be silly IMHO.

I heard someone in DOT make the claim that side paths require less cycling skills :eek: so I am familiar with the point you raise but I never clamed that bike lanes require less skill. I was merely discussing my point and refusing to be derailed by your side issue. I guess one could argue that safely riding on the sidewalk at faster then pedestrians speeds requires more skills then bike lane/vehicular-cycling skills so therefore riding in a bike lane requires less skills then that but such a point would be silly IMHO.
You wrote:


You could argue that negotiating at grade traffic crossing requires more skills then just driving along the freeway so people choose the less skilled route but the point is that is not what is generally behind the choice. Understanding what generally motivates people to prefer one route over another is critical to understanding on how to increase modal share and direct people where you want them to go in the safest way possible.

So, what do you believe is "what generally motivates people to prefer one route over another"?

And if whatever-that-is simply moves people from one route to another, how does that "increase modal share"?

And if whatever-that-is has nothing to do with safety, and doesn't require less skill, then how does "direct people where you want them to go in the safest way possible" come into play?

always[/I] fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles.

depending on the traffic situation and speeds, cycling CAN be dangerous....

Thank you for that. Overgeneralizations often appear in these discussions. Semi-logical or almost-logical (or somewhat logical, or apparently logical) chains of reasoning lead people to conclusions. These conclusions are then sometimes taken as being more absolute or solid than they actually are.

Then they are promoted and acted upon, and given implications that go beyond what is appropriate. They are sometimes misleading and overstated, and given meanings that are overly broad or overly extended.

***
It can help to spot and point out the overgeneralizations or overextensions, as you have done. +1

Where is that? Where I live and cycle the vast majority of drivers bias toward the left lane line.
Most also move very far left including into next lane when I am riding in a WOL.
Al

14th st. for one.

this lane is so wide people are all over it. I noticed it today and yesterday as I had to drive in. cars were staggered from left to right and back again...

Thank you for that. Overgeneralizations often appear in these discussions. Semi-logical or almost-logical (or somewhat logical, or apparently logical) chains of reasoning lead people to conclusions. These conclusions are then sometimes taken as being more absolute or solid than they actually are.

Then they are promoted and acted upon, and given implications that go beyond what is appropriate. They are sometimes misleading and overstated, and given meanings that are overly broad or overly extended.

***
It can help to spot and point out the overgeneralizations or overextensions, as you have done. +1
Speaking of overgeneralizations with semi-logical or almost-logical (or somewhat logical, or apparently logical) chains of reasoning that lead people to conclusions that are sometimes taken as being more absolute or solid than they actually are... good example.

My intended meaning for moot in the context of "bike lanes are moot for cyclists" was "having no practical significance"..

OK.



The space that the bike lane stripe happens to demarcate is often of use. What use is the stripe that demarcates that space and creates the bike lane?.
the stripe creates the boundary of the bike lane. just like the other lines on the roadway. what do you care? I thought you ignored the stripe anyway....


No one every claimed that "cyclists always fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles." It's a general statement, and always changes it to something else..

well, to me that's what it says. I bet I'm not the only one either. maybe you should change it to "fares best in most situations" or something if you want to give people the idea that it is flexible... because right now it doesn't do that, IMO.



Of course. What does this have to do with bike lane stripes?.

nothing. you claimed that cycling in traffic was relatively safe. I contend it is not in some instances.



And, yet, that is exactly what bike lanes instill in the uninitiated: a false sense of security about the real dangers out there. In particular, bike lanes reinforce their false belief that the greatest danger comes from same direction traffic, and induces a false sense of security that arguably makes them less vigilant with respect to potential crossing conflicts in front of them..

bull****. it's a desgnated lane, not a magic force field. and most sane cyclists, initiated or uninitiated, new or old, will know that.



I wasn't even thinking about you, much less actually writing about you. If bike lanes do not (falsely) promise safety and comfort, what are they for?.

doofus. I said "to me" just to reinforce that it was my opinion. you read so literally I should know better than to do that. as usual you pick up the wrong point.




If you're worried about realistic expectations, don't mischaracterize bike lanes as something they are not: traffic lanes. Traffic lanes are painted in order to encourage traffic to move in accordance with the rules of the road. At intersections and midblock junctions and their approaches, bike lanes do the opposite
.

a bike lane is a legal lane for traffic. bikes are traffic. a bike lane is a traffic lane.stop splitting hairs and be reasonable.

OK.

the stripe creates the boundary of the bike lane. just like the other lines on the roadway. what do you care? I thought you ignored the stripe anyway....

well, to me that's what it says. I bet I'm not the only one either. maybe you should change it to "fares best in most situations" or something if you want to give people the idea that it is flexible... because right now it doesn't do that, IMO.

nothing. you claimed that cycling in traffic was relatively safe. I contend it is not in some instances.

bull****. it's a desgnated lane, not a magic force field. and most sane cyclists, initiated or uninitiated, new or old, will know that.

doofus. I said "to me" just to reinforce that it was my opinion. you read so literally I should know better than to do that. as usual you pick up the wrong point.

a bike lane is a legal lane for traffic. bikes are traffic. a bike lane is a traffic lane.stop splitting hairs and be reasonable.

Talk about splitting hairs in illogical ways. I realize that the names of lanes have not been codified completely, in that there are two meanings of "traffic lane". One meaning is a lane for all types of traffic. The other meaning is a lane for all the types of traffic that are not required to be elsewhere.

All lanes on a street that does not have a designated lane are traffic lanes.

A bike lane is not a traffic lane, because it is a lane for only bicycle traffic. The other lanes on that street ought to be called motor lanes (and I often call them that to clarify discussions).

Similarly, consider a multilane road with a long steep ascent. The outside lane will often be named the "truck lane", for use by heavy trucks that will climb only slowly. The other lanes will commonly be called traffic lanes, but they ought to be called auto lanes, or light vehicle lanes.

You, rando, have been conflating the two different meanings of "traffic lane", and therefore your logic fails.

AZ Traffic law refers to the lane most often found to the left of a bike lane (aka motor lane, traffic lane, primary lane) the 'vehicular traffic lane' ;)

example: http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/28/00735.htm&Title=28&DocType=ARS

Al

oy vey.