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

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). Electric, gas, hydrogen powered scooters, mopeds, etc., may be driven in the bike lane in many places, like California.

In reality they deliver only an illusion.

Explain to me then how the VC model does a better job at increasing modal share of cycling, show me the study that shows VC does a better job at reaching sidewalk and wrong riders and correcting the way they ride, show me the study that VC is safer then riding in a bike lane.

Nothing? Oh it must be that VC is all illusionary. You guys make me sick when the agenda you are propagating fails to meet the same criteria that you insist that bike lane advocates must adhere too. If you spent half the time trying to mainstream VC education as you do fighting bike lanes you might actually have some results by now.

I’m sorry HH but your arguments have so many holes and misrepresent “facts” it makes my head hurt. Your whole first paragraph is just wrong or at best you are spinning one short term study as negatively as you can, you are ascribing feelings to people in the study that never expressed any such thing. And you are making this short term study seem as if it was a long term study. After this critic it is rather pointless to continue as your other points seem to rest on the points made here.

Explain to me then how the VC model does a better job at increasing modal share of cycling, show me the study that shows VC does a better job at reaching sidewalk and wrong riders and correcting the way they ride, show me the study that VC is safer then riding in a bike lane.

Nothing? Oh it must be that VC is all illusionary. You guys make me sick when the agenda you are propagating fails to meet the same criteria that you insist that bike lane advocates must adhere too. If you spent half the time trying to mainstream VC education as you do fighting bike lanes you might actually have some results by now.

I’m sorry HH but your arguments have so many holes and misrepresent “facts” it makes my head hurt. Your whole first paragraph is just wrong or at best you are spinning one short term study as negatively as you can, you are ascribing feelings to people in the study that never expressed any such thing. And you are making this short term study seem as if it was a long term study. After this critic it is rather pointless to continue as your other points seem to rest on the points made here.

If you place great emphasis on getting butts on bikes, then the current program is probably most effective, though worst. That is because it perpetuates and magnifies the historical American superstitions about bicycle transportation: that cyclists are inferior to motorists, that they don't really belong on the roads, and they must stay out of the way lest they be crushed. In contrast to this social policy of perpetuating and magnifying these false and dangerous views of bicycle transportation, vehicular cyclists are trying to reform American society into accepting that cyclists should act and be treated as drivers of vehicles. In contrast, the bicycle advocates are not only dragging their feet but are vigorously advancing more false arguments to prevent reform from occurring.

...the historical American superstitions about bicycle transportation: that cyclists are inferior to motorists....

That the cyclists themselves are inferior?

Inferior human beings?

Inferior forms of life?

Inferior how?

Socioeconomically?

Inferior in safety?

In dignity?

In freedom?

In their rights to use the road?

In their abilities?

In their traffic skills?

What?

***
Or is it that the bike (not the cyclist) is inferior in (injury and fatality) protection? (or in mass, or speed, or in various other ways?)

Or all of the above and more?

***
I agree that there are some attitudes or superstitions about many of these (all of them and more, actually). And I agree that changing these has a place. And that attitudes on both sides can be addressed (cyclists' attitudes and superstitions about themselves, and about motorists; and motorists' attitudes and superstitions as well).

But I don't see it as being quite as black-and-white as some people seem to see it, when it comes to bike lanes.

One person might feel personally insulted (particularly if they have some incident(s) in their past that hurt or stung or made an impression -- like being told by a cop that you belong on the sidewalk, you ******** munchkin), while another might find it amusing, and another might just wonder what it's all about.....

Or they have different experiences. Or the experiences don't make a very strong, deep or lasting impression on them.

Many cyclists probably do not feel that bike lanes are personally insulting. I don't feel much of anything about them either way (or any other way). And I think there are many others who share this.

***
There are probably some who feel 'safer than they should' because of the lines 'separating' them from traffic -- but there are certainly others who do not make this mistake. And there are degrees. It is unfair and inaccurate to speak as if all users are on the far-end of mistaken thinking here. Some more than others -- others not at all.....

***
Also, it is possible to jettison some superstitions (about personal inferiority for example) that are false (and well worth getting rid of), and at the same time (because of overly broad, overly inclusive, or unclear concepts) jettison some 'superstitions' that are not really superstitions.

I've run into some ('cyclist's pride') riders who ride like they've undergone a metamorphosis into newly proud and powerful beings, who stand up to motor vehicles (and motorists -- which is a bit different). But they do so in some dangerous ways at times. They seem to be operating under a new paradigm, and their post-metamorphosis behavior (and superstitions?) can sometimes be a little on the far end.

(It isn't always. But I've seen some unrealistic attitudes in operation at times, on this other end of the scale as well. There is a kind of power misperception that occurs for some people.)

(And I have to say also that this is not entirely objectionable. I had an extremely fearless friend who was a blast to be around -- very enjoyable company. It's just that she could be quite reckless at times, and perhaps unrealistic.)

(On the other hand, should we cringe in fear of death?)

(It's just that she (and some others) may also be a little unrealistic.)

(Or maybe they just refuse to cringe and refuse to fear anything, including death -- something like some samurai.)

(And I applaud this in a way, while still feeling that there may also be something that is not quite on target....)

There's a huge difference between delivering an illusion and being an illusion.

How can a fantasy deliver anything at all, let alone anything safer than the so-called illusory benefits of a bike lane? At least there's actual data to support the efficacy of bike lanes. There is nothing but dreamscape to support VC. It's Vaporware.

There's a huge difference between delivering an illusion and being an illusion.

How can a fantasy deliver anything at all, let alone anything safer than the so-called illusory benefits of a bike lane? At least there's actual data to support the efficacy of bike lanes. There is nothing but dreamscape to support VC. It's Vaporware.

You are claiming that there are no data to support the hypothesis that, when cycling on the road, obeying the rules of the road is safer than disobeying the rules of the road. I find that to be an unsubstantiated claim, and contrary to the collision statistics available.

Your claimed efficacy of bike lanes is precisely that they persuade people who believe the same motorist propaganda that you either believe or trade upon, that bike lanes both legitimize cycling on the roadway and make cycling safe for beginners. It is bad policy to trade upon, and thereby strengthen, such anti-cyclist views.

why say bad, great pontificator? those are value judgements, and uses flawed logic, john.

If you place great emphasis on getting butts on bikes, then the current program is probably most effective, though worst. That is because it perpetuates and magnifies the historical American superstitions about bicycle transportation: that cyclists are inferior to motorists, that they don't really belong on the roads, and they must stay out of the way lest they be crushed. In contrast to this social policy of perpetuating and magnifying these false and dangerous views of bicycle transportation, vehicular cyclists are trying to reform American society into accepting that cyclists should act and be treated as drivers of vehicles. In contrast, the bicycle advocates are not only dragging their feet but are vigorously advancing more false arguments to prevent reform from occurring.
It seems to me that we have already opened Pandora's Box on this. And not just opened it we have dumped the contents out on the floor. It seems that anything we build that is for non-motorized transport whether it is trails, sidewalks or bike lanes perpetuates the myth that roads are only for cars. When we don’t have bike lanes the motorists taunt “use the sidewalk” and many, many, many cyclists do use the sidewalk. I could tell you outrageous stories of what motorists do to kids on bikes in my neighborhood to force them to ride on the sidewalk. I honestly don’t see where having bike lanes is going to make the current situation any worse and how not having bike lanes is going to rally people to our cause.

I also want to point out that just because people say the roads are scary and they want bike lanes does not necessarily mean that’s the problem and the only solution. A recent example is my 14 year old daughter works at Rita’s. It’s off a busy, fast 4 lane arterial even though it’s just 5 miles away the thought of biking there along the car route is extremely intimidating. Well there is another way to get there that motorists don’t know about that is a lot more bike friendly. I showed my daughter the route, who in turn showed her friends and now as if by magic a place that was car only accessible has been transformed into something the neighborhood kids can enjoy by bike without getting chauffeured by their parents.

To get from point A to point B by bike requires a different mindset in selecting routes, we do not hop on the expressway and arterials to go everyplace like motorists. We need maps, signed routes, or something to help in selecting roads. The fact that a grant funding program for bike maps is not readily available or nationally encouraged I personally find a bit upsetting (I could get funding for the printing but not for the cartographer.) It was easer to get $3 million for bike lanes then a few thousand for a cartographer.

I got them impression from conversations long ago that even saying some roads are better then others also perpetuates the cyclist inferiority thing so even publishing bike route maps is taboo. It’s as if kids are expected to first learn to ride with training wheels on the sidewalk and then the next step is learning to take the lane on 50mph roads. We need more visibility, availability and opportunity for something in the middle.

The kids after their ride in the rain to Rita’s (my daughter took the pic so she’s not shown):
46666

I honestly don’t see where having bike lanes is going to make the current situation any worse and how not having bike lanes is going to rally people to our cause.
Let's say you're in Hawaii ready to set sail for California when you notice a storm looming to the east.

Do you batten down the hatches and head for your destination, or do you decide to head southwest towards Japan instead, thinking doing so is not "going to make the current situation any worse"? Changing your plans 180 degrees to go to Japan instead of California might be fine, as long as you're willing to not only give up on your goal of sailing to California, but actually working against it.

In other words, if your goal is to achieve and retain cyclist rights to ride on the roadways per the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, then bike lanes are a problem. But if you're willing to not only give up on that goal, but actually works against it, it's fine.

Let's say you're in Hawaii ready to set sail for California when you notice a storm looming to the east.

Do you batten down the hatches and head for your destination, or do you decide to head southwest towards Japan instead, thinking doing so is not "going to make the current situation any worse"? Changing your plans 180 degrees to go to Japan instead of California might be fine, as long as you're willing to not only give up on your goal of sailing to California, but actually working against it.

In other words, if your goal is to achieve and retain cyclist rights to ride on the roadways per the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, then bike lanes are a problem. But if you're willing to not only give up on that goal, but actually works against it, it's fine.
Do you ever actually read what you've typed before you hit the 'send' button???? WoW, but am I underwhelmed!!!

:rolleyes:

Let's say you're in Hawaii ready to set sail for California when you notice a storm looming to the east.

Do you batten down the hatches and head for your destination, or do you decide to head southwest towards Japan instead, thinking doing so is not "going to make the current situation any worse"? Changing your plans 180 degrees to go to Japan instead of California might be fine, as long as you're willing to not only give up on your goal of sailing to California, but actually working against it.

You batten down the hatches?:rolleyes: Gee, I don't know, are you in a dinghy, or a yacht? How big of a storm is it? How much spam do you have on board?

But in general, one would postpone their trip or alter course for any serious storm.

You batten down the hatches?:rolleyes: Gee, I don't know, are you in a dinghy, or a yacht? How big of a storm is it? How much spam do you have on board?

But in general, one would postpone their trip or alter course for any serious storm.
Altering course is fine as long as you are still making some forward progress towards your ultimate goal/destination, however postponing (doing nothing) is preferable to moving in the opposite direction, is it not?

So the question is are bike lanes making forward progress towards the ultimate goal, or do they move us in the opposite direction?

The VC argument is that if the goal is cyclist rights to ride on roadways per the rules for vehicle drivers, then supporting bike lanes, and particularly the policy of more and more bike lanes, is moving us in the opposite direction.

The VC argument is that if the goal is cyclist rights to ride on roadways per the rules for vehicle drivers, then supporting bike lanes, and particularly the policy of more and more bike lanes, is moving us in the opposite direction.
can't you get it through your thick skull already that one is not dependent upon the other???

The VC argument is that if the goal is cyclist rights to ride on roadways per the rules for vehicle drivers, then supporting bike lanes, and particularly the policy of more and more bike lanes, is moving us in the opposite direction.
And so long as bike lanes do not come with a price tag of invalidating that law above, we're good.


So the question is are bike lanes making forward progress towards the ultimate goal, or do they move us in the opposite direction?
So if a state declares that cyclists have all the rights and responsibilities of drivers of vehicles, except those laws which, by there very nature cannot apply, then VCs goal is done? YAYAYY!!!

Altering course is fine as long as you are still making some forward progress towards your ultimate goal/destination, however postponing (doing nothing) is preferable to moving in the opposite direction, is it not?

So the question is are bike lanes making forward progress towards the ultimate goal, or do they move us in the opposite direction?

The VC argument is that if the goal is cyclist rights to ride on roadways per the rules for vehicle drivers, then supporting bike lanes , and particularly the policy of more and more bike lanes, is moving us in the opposite direction.

I support cyclist rights to ride on roadways per the rules for vehicle drivers (with some qualifications that even you support).

I do not see this as necessarily and strongly incompatible with bike lanes.

Again, you could find out more empirically. Very few people attach as much meaning (or the same meaning or meanings) to bike lanes and their implications and consequences. Their lives, theories, and conjectures are not tied up with them in the same way.

I can speak for myself: they have very little meaning for me. I do not take them to mean that I have fewer rights to ride on the roadways, or will have fewer rights. And I will ride on the roadways where appropriate (with or without bike lanes).

I can see some benefits and some dangers; but each side seems to get very overblown sometimes. One-sidedly dwelling on the dangers and drawbacks (or on certain ones) is not having a balanced or full view. Nor is one-sidedly overemphasizing the other side.

There are so many factors and possible consequences involved here. I don't see why it is particularly 'rational' to dwell on certain possible sides, outcomes, scenarios, or consequences when there are so many possibilities.

There are many different people, attitudes, forces, etc. involved too. It won't be so easy to role back cyclists' rights on the roads (and those rights are not necessarily incompatible with bike lanes) -- particularly if vigilance and appropriate actions are maintained (which is needed anyway).

(As one example, among others: The argument can be made that more-advanced and faster riders should be allowed to retain the option of riding in the lane (particularly if they can keep up with traffic flow), not in the bike lane -- or even that any rider who deems it more practicable should (within current agreed-upon limits) be able to take the lane....)

***
Improved skills can still be emphasized and taught, and their value can continue to be recognized, or even be made more recognized.

***
[I will continue to listen and keep an open mind, though. So far, there are a variety of points and possibilities on both sides. I do not see why things cannot be steered in appropriate directions, with or without more bike lanes.

Also, if it is happening anyway, why not steer it in the best directions? Why not make it widely known that cyclists' rights on the road are still important, and can be maintained, reinforced, strengthened, and extended? And do the same with skills and education?]

And so long as bike lanes do not come with a price tag of invalidating that law above, we're good.


So if a state declares that cyclists have all the rights and responsibilities of drivers of vehicles, except those laws which, by there very nature cannot apply, then VCs goal is done? YAYAYY!!! Cultural acceptance of cyclists rights to the road are at least as important as legalities.

Regardless of what the law says, to the extent that bike lanes make motorists and cyclists think that cyclists belong out of the way, supporting them is moving us in the wrong direction (assuming our goal is establishing and protecting our right to travel on roadways the same as the driver of any other vehicle - including the rights and responsibilities that come with being slow and narrow when applicable).

Again, you could find out more empirically. Very few people attach as much meaning (or the same meaning or meanings) to bike lanes and their implications and consequences. Their lives, theories, and conjectures are not tied up with them in the same way. Are you kidding? The term "bike lane" has been adopted in the cultural jargon to mean "that space where cyclists belong". This is why motorists, traffic engineers and even many cyclists often conflate bike paths and bike lanes. This is why motorists yell "get in the bike lane" at cyclists on roads where there are no bike lanes.

[QUOTE=Helmet Head]Cultural acceptance of cyclists rights to the road are at least as important as legalities.

Regardless of what the law says, to the extent that bike lanes make motorists and cyclists think that cyclists belong out of the way[QUOTE]

Do bike lanes necessarily (or actually) make motorists and cyclists think this way?

Again, emipirical investigations to find out the truth would be more scientific than assumptions.

The VC argument is that if the goal is cyclist rights to ride on roadways per the rules for vehicle drivers, then supporting bike lanes, and particularly the policy of more and more bike lanes, is moving us in the opposite direction.


can't you get it through your thick skull already that one is not dependent upon the other???
When all the evidence I see indicates they are very much dependent on each other, no I can't get it through my thick skull that they are not connected.

Let's say you're in Hawaii ready to set sail for California when you notice a storm looming to the east.

Do you batten down the hatches and head for your destination, or do you decide to head southwest towards Japan instead, thinking doing so is not "going to make the current situation any worse"? Changing your plans 180 degrees to go to Japan instead of California might be fine, as long as you're willing to not only give up on your goal of sailing to California, but actually working against it.

In other words, if your goal is to achieve and retain cyclist rights to ride on the roadways per the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, then bike lanes are a problem. But if you're willing to not only give up on that goal, but actually works against it, it's fine.
You would batten down the hatches for 20+ years and possibly for decades more to come? A lot of things in life come down to use or lose it. You cannot just wait out a storm for 20+ years and expect to pick up where you left off. If we can’t maintain a significant representation that is traveling the Hawaii to California route we lose access to that route. So with either of your choices we lose that route, at least with going to Japan you maintain some interest in oceanic sailing and after the storm passes you might stand a chance in regaining the route because of all the interest in sailing.

Note: I am not saying this is an easy choice but I need better options.

drivers don't yell 'get in the bike lane' when there's no bike lanes, head! you're hilarious!

they yell "GET OUT OF THE ROAD"

drivers don't yell 'get in the bike lane' when there's no bike lanes, head! you're hilarious!

they yell "GET OUT OF THE ROAD" Time for a HeadPoll.

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=306655

Time for a HeadPoll.

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=306655

That is quite possibly one of the saddest things I have seen you do.

drivers don't yell 'get in the bike lane' when there's no bike lanes, head!

People who actually ride their bikes disagree with you Bek.

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=306655

People who actually ride their bikes disagree with you Bek.

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=306655

Yeah, the Portland Bus incident should serve as clear reminder.

people that actually ride their bikes....

umm, i ride every day, transportationally and recreationally, Head. Hundreds of miles a week. YOU'RE the part timer, dude.

you're really anti-facilites, head, despite using them on your sometimes bike commute, dude. you need to match reality with your internet puffery.

seems like your city values accomodations along high speed arterials for the benefit of bicycle transportation.