Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Why hasn't VC caught on?

Tear up the road and start over. These Y-shapes--like nearly all modern road designs-- are designed exclusively for the convenience of motorists and are specifically meant to exclude cyclists and pedestrians. Our roads will never be adequate until they are designed from the ground up to be safe and convenient for cyclists and pedestrians.

However, until roads are properly designed, we cyclists must adapt. Usually that means "playing by their rules." In other words, VC.

Gradually, this is happening. But it takes time. Like you said, until then...

Calle Real and State: I don't think I've ever ridden up State toward Goleta through that intersection. There's really nothing there along that section of State that I need to get to, so I would take Calle Real in order to go to Goleta, or I would take Modoc to get to the beginning of Hollister. I'll have to give it a try sometime, but I imagine that I would just merge over to the inner right/straight lane and go down the middle/left of it so the freeway people aren't impeded.

I work at Patterson and Hollister, so if I'm returning from downtown I'll always just shoot up State directly. But I live off Cathedral Oaks so when I go home I often turn onto Calle Real and take it to Turnpike. When I do go straight on State, I do what you said, I ride between 2nd and 3rd lanes, so that the freeway onramp (the 3rd lane) is not impeeded. People from the 2nd lane that want to go on the freeway too just have to wait for me. Fortunately I can ride fast enough (>25mph) that I'm not usually in the way but every once and a while some idiot can't wait tht extra few seconds and cuts me off.


Castillo/Montecito: This used to be my commute, but I came up Castillo (from the beach toward the freeway) and made a left on Montecito. I've gotten a lot of lectures and yelling while waiting for that left turn signal!

I have always, as in the last 25 years, avoided the underpass on Castillo at all costs. It is too slippery and dangerous and that permeable pavement "solution" they had for a while was positively hazardous with anything that has two wheels. I haven't yet seen the new high-tech solution to the water problem. Does it work? 25 years without going through that intersection I have learned I don't really need it. I can take the lower West side, State or Garden street to get to East Beach.

I used to avoid it, but the new high-tech solution really does work. It is always dry when I go through. If I'm trying to get to the Cabrillo I'll usually take it because the alternative is to go down State and deal with all the traffic, or go down De La Vina and eventually have to cross over to State anyway, or cross all the way over to Garden which has its own issues.


Roundabouts: I tried the one at Milpas one evening after a visit to Trader Joes. It was kind of fun. I took the lane. But I did get a sense people behind me were going to run me over, and that I only made it to the bike lane on lower Milpas in the nick of time before they would have creamed me. I think Santa Barbarans are idiots when it comes to using roundabouts.

I'm not very fond of the Milpas roundabout, but I don't generally find myself in that part of town anyway. The APS roundabout is actually really nice and seems to work pretty well.

^^^ Regarding these intersections in SB, or anywhere for that matter... Cyclists have been on the roads since before cars were invented, but since the auto, road engineers have not looked at situations like this with the cyclist in mind.

Why is it that such "auto centric" designs spring from their minds... Is there any sort of mandate, or training for these civil engineers so that they consider cyclists at all?

What source of material are these engineers designing from that doesn't seem to consider the design of road and their relationship to pedestrians and cyclists?

Gene, I believe they work from what is considered the "dumb molecule" theory of traffic flow. How to move the most molecules through the pipe possible. Unfortunately, there's more than one kind of molecule and they seem to forget that the molecules aren't entirely "dumb" and are actually plotting, planning and scheming for ways to buck the system.

umd, I work at Hollister and Patterson, too. I live on the West side so I take the bike path. I've got a team already set up for Team Bike Challenge. If we work for the same company my team intends to beat yours mwuhaahaahahaha!

umd, I work at Hollister and Patterson, too. I live on the West side so I take the bike path. I've got a team already set up for Team Bike Challenge. If we work for the same company my team intends to beat yours mwuhaahaahahaha!
It would be too funny if it turned out that he's actually ON your team. I mean, you don't know his real name or anything.....

^^^ Regarding these intersections in SB, or anywhere for that matter... Cyclists have been on the roads since before cars were invented, but since the auto, road engineers have not looked at situations like this with the cyclist in mind.

Why is it that such "auto centric" designs spring from their minds... Is there any sort of mandate, or training for these civil engineers so that they consider cyclists at all?

What source of material are these engineers designing from that doesn't seem to consider the design of road and their relationship to pedestrians and cyclists?

As I have often written before, if a road is sufficiently wide for motor traffic it is more than sufficiently wide for bicycles. However, some roads are nicer for cyclists than others, and some of that is due to design differences.

The great fault in today's American bicycle transportation policy is that politicians and planners tell road designers to accommodate bicycles on these particular roads with these particular facilities, and they have the power and the money to enforce their commands. This means that the typical road engineer is let off the hook with respect to accommodating bicycle traffic on the other roads, which he, naturally, then considers to be a low priority concern. The politicians and the planners have this power because the higher levels of government have provided the authority and the money to install the system of bikeways that was invented by motorists for their own convenience regardless of the welfare of cyclists. It is ironic that the bicycle advocates are so passionate in demanding the system that degrades them; evidence of the cyclist-inferiority view that cyclists are inferior to motorists.

The politicians and the planners have this power because the higher levels of government have provided the authority and the money to install the system of bikeways that was invented by motorists for their own convenience regardless of the welfare of cyclists. It is ironic that the bicycle advocates are so passionate in demanding the system that degrades them; evidence of the cyclist-inferiority view that cyclists are inferior to motorists.
I agree with this much of what you say. Although there are a few exceptions, American roads are designed exclusively for the expedience of motor traffic. Cyclists and pedestrians are purely after-thoughts, and even then the goal is to get us out of the way of cars, rather than to make roads more attractive or more convenient for us. The belief that bike facilities are designed for bikes rather than against them is a delusion that's carefully promoted by the traffic engineers. (As I said, there are a few welcome exceptions that prove the rule.)

It's great to advocate for roads that are truly "bike-friendly", but until they are built we're forced to "play by their rules." And that generally means VC, and it means that we'll benefit from vehicle codes that give us equality.

It would be too funny if it turned out that he's actually ON your team. I mean, you don't know his real name or anything.....
In which case, together we'll win against the other team. Mwuaahahaha!

The fact that three or so of us in this discussion group are vehicular cyclists ...
You only count three or so??? That is just sad.

As I have often written before, if a road is sufficiently wide for motor traffic it is more than sufficiently wide for bicycles. However, some roads are nicer for cyclists than others, and some of that is due to design differences.

The great fault in today's American bicycle transportation policy is that politicians and planners tell road designers to accommodate bicycles on these particular roads with these particular facilities, and they have the power and the money to enforce their commands. This means that the typical road engineer is let off the hook with respect to accommodating bicycle traffic on the other roads, which he, naturally, then considers to be a low priority concern. The politicians and the planners have this power because the higher levels of government have provided the authority and the money to install the system of bikeways that was invented by motorists for their own convenience regardless of the welfare of cyclists. It is ironic that the bicycle advocates are so passionate in demanding the system that degrades them; evidence of the cyclist-inferiority view that cyclists are inferior to motorists.

Actually the things I advocate for are slower traffic speeds and wider roads. But both those issues fall on deaf ears with local government... who collectively seem to believe that more lanes are better (supported by the many projects that are funded), faster traffic is better (supported by the 85% rule) and that bike lanes are the answer. (supported by photo ops to show "progress.")

But as a vehicular cyclist, I find that traffic moving at 50+MPH and above becomes somewhat difficult to negotiate, therefore I prefer slower streets... until that is done, I accept BLs as a compromise only in that the lines on the road tell motorists I am supposed to be there on the road, not on the sidewalk.

I am sure that if motorists and the motoring community had it's way, cyclists would not be on "their" roads at all, and all roads would be "speedway like" in design.

It is ironic that some bicycle advocates are so passionate in supporting a system that promotes motoring; evidence of the motorist-superiority view that cyclists are inferior to motorists.

You only count three or so??? That is just sad.

:beer:

umd, I work at Hollister and Patterson, too. I live on the West side so I take the bike path. I've got a team already set up for Team Bike Challenge. If we work for the same company my team intends to beat yours mwuhaahaahahaha!

I don't have a team set up yet for the challenge. The problem is finding infrequent riders that I would be able to get to actually ride. I.e. everyone I know either rides a lot or doesn't ride at all! I think I might have seen you today; were you on the bike path through UCSB a little before 8?

I'm here visiting San Diego, home of one of the most well-known VC advocates in the state of California. The way people cycle here looks the same as anywhere else I've been.

One thing that's different that I've seen is where two busy streets merge together and some hapless cyclist gets stuck in the middle of the merge. I've seen this 3 times in just two days! He's stopped at the point where the merge comes together and is waiting for a break in order to get to the new right lane, two or three lanes away.

So why don't cyclists here ride more like the smooth-sounding VC I've heard so much about? Why aren't they taking the lane so they can smoothly merge through those converging streets? I haven't seen anyone take the lane. Maybe I saw one guy, but it was hard to be sure from my vantage point. Maybe a little "think globally act locally" is needed here in the land of Helmet Head, because VC doesn't seem to be catching on.
Diane,

I've toyed with the idea of trying to make San Diego a VC experiment, if you will. For example, we might start by getting all the local clubs to have all their members at least familiarized with the ideas, if not trained.

The problem right now is that almost no one has ever heard of it. The current cultural belief is that staying out of the way of cars is the primary principle, though, among the more experienced, getting in the way when you really have to is acceptable once in a while, if you have no choice. We have a long way to go.

Diane,

I've toyed with the idea of trying to make San Diego a VC experiment, if you will. For example, we might start by getting all the local clubs to have all their members at least familiarized with the ideas, if not trained.

The problem right now is that almost no one has ever heard of it. The current cultural belief is that staying out of the way of cars is the primary principle, though, among the more experienced, getting in the way when you really have to is acceptable once in a while, if you have no choice. We have a long way to go.

One would think that at a club level, some organization of cyclists might be arranged for training or at least sharing ideas of cycling styles.

Consider if one cannot do this at a club level, how is one to "herd the cats" that unorganized cyclists represent?

This is why, while I feel vehicular cycling works, it will never be a major component of the majority of cyclists' methods for getting from place A to place B... so it is best to resort to "passive teaching" through better bike lanes.

One would think that at a club level, some organization of cyclists might be arranged for training or at least sharing ideas of cycling styles.

Consider if one cannot do this at a club level, how is one to "herd the cats" that unorganized cyclists represent?
People tend to do what they see others do. Early adopters are the exceptions. You have to get them first. Then the secondary, then the tertiary, etc. Once you have reached a certain threshold, the new behavior becomes a fashion, and all the sheep start doing it too.


This is why, while I feel vehicular cycling works, it will never be a major component of the majority of cyclists' methods for getting from place A to place B... so it is best to resort to "passive teaching" through better bike lanes.
Do you teach the value of dynamically adjusting your lane position based on ever-changing factors and conditions with a static facility?

People tend to do what they see others do. Early adopters are the exceptions. You have to get them first. Then the secondary, then the tertiary, etc. Once you have reached a certain threshold, the new behavior becomes a fashion, and all the sheep start doing it too.


However this doesn't seem to be happening... in 30 years one might believe that some road club had shown their members the benefits of strict VC cycling... and through word of mouth that it would progress further. A lot of paint has been laid in the same period of time... but not a lot of education has spread.




Do you teach the value of dynamically adjusting your lane position based on ever-changing factors and conditions with a static facility?

Just as much as drivers dynamically change their lane positions with a static facility.

One would think that at a club level, some organization of cyclists might be arranged for training or at least sharing ideas of cycling styles.

Consider if one cannot do this at a club level, how is one to "herd the cats" that unorganized cyclists represent?
One potential issue I see is that vehicular cycling doesn't work as well in a club/group riding environment, nor if the group can ride vehicularly are its benefits as pronounced. While in a larger group of cyclists, methods such as negotiating a merge do not work the same. Within lane destination positioning is not possible if the group does not stay in a single file line even at stops.

One can teach principles of vehicular cycling to a club, but it is harder if not impossible to gain the needed range of experience and practice while riding in a large group.

Al

However this doesn't seem to be happening... in 30 years one might believe that some road club had shown their members the benefits of strict VC cycling... and through word of mouth that it would progress further. A lot of paint has been laid in the same period of time... but not a lot of education has spread.
There are many difficult taboos to overcome. An effective way to do this has not yet been discovered. I would like to see us spend more time on figuring out how to do that on this forum. I will say that the video techniques and materials being produced now seem promising.



Just as much as drivers dynamically change their lane positions with a static facility.
Are you suggesting multiple parallel bike lanes on streets?

One potential issue I see is that vehicular cycling doesn't work as well in a club/group riding environment, nor if the group can ride vehicularly are its benefits as pronounced. While in a larger group of cyclists, methods such as negotiating a merge do not work the same. Within lane destination positioning is not possible if the group does not stay in a single file line even at stops.

One can teach principles of vehicular cycling to a club, but it is harder if not impossible to gain the needed range of experience and practice while riding in a large group.

Al
Most of the riding club riders do are solo or in small groups.

Most of the riding club riders do are solo or in small groups.
Oh, the club never rides as a club?
Maybe what you mean is that after being exposed during a larger club ride/gathering, folks can then practice on their own. I was coming from the perspective of being able to immediately practice and learn after the 'lesson' when the material is fresh in folks minds.

Al

I was just saying that club riders can "gain the needed range of experience and practice [to learn the principles of VC] while riding" solo.

There are many difficult taboos to overcome. An effective way to do this has not yet been discovered. I would like to see us spend more time on figuring out how to do that on this forum. I will say that the video techniques and materials being produced now seem promising.


Are you suggesting multiple parallel bike lanes on streets?

No, I am suggesting that drivers deal with the dynamics of fixed lanes just fine... why make it such a pitiful point by suggesting that cyclists can't also deal with similar circumstances the same way motorists do.

As far as the cycling club... what I am very pointedly saying is that with a club, you have something of a captive audiance... if you cannot get that "chorus" to sing with you, why do you think training the "average unwashed masses" will be any easier?

Originally Posted by genec
However this doesn't seem to be happening... in 30 years one might believe that some road club had shown their members the benefits of strict VC cycling... and through word of mouth that it would progress further. A lot of paint has been laid in the same period of time... but not a lot of education has spread.



There are many difficult taboos to overcome. An effective way to do this has not yet been discovered. I would like to see us spend more time on figuring out how to do that on this forum. I will say that the video techniques and materials being produced now seem promising.


Are you suggesting multiple parallel bike lanes on streets?

Way back when, cycling clubs did perform the task of training their members through riding together. But that was a different social world, when society was not so insistent on incompetent cycling on bikeways. Back then, society's main cycling interest was in child cyclists, and we adult cyclists were pretty much left alone. Nowadays, adult cyclists have been raised in a society which insists that adult cyclists are supposed to ride incompetently on bikeways. That raises the difficulty in two ways. The new cyclists had received intensive "training" in the idea that bikeways make cycling safe for unskilled cyclists. The pool of skilled cyclists has decreased due to age and such.

Originally Posted by genec
However this doesn't seem to be happening... in 30 years one might believe that some road club had shown their members the benefits of strict VC cycling... and through word of mouth that it would progress further. A lot of paint has been laid in the same period of time... but not a lot of education has spread.




Way back when, cycling clubs did perform the task of training their members through riding together. But that was a different social world, when society was not so insistent on incompetent cycling on bikeways. Back then, society's main cycling interest was in child cyclists, and we adult cyclists were pretty much left alone. Nowadays, adult cyclists have been raised in a society which insists that adult cyclists are supposed to ride incompetently on bikeways. That raises the difficulty in two ways. The new cyclists had received intensive "training" in the idea that bikeways make cycling safe for unskilled cyclists. The pool of skilled cyclists has decreased due to age and such.

Amazing how you cite it as a different social world now effecting cyclists... and yet do not see the actions of motorists as having also changed... in that same period of time.

Amazing how you cite it as a different social world now effecting cyclists... and yet do not see the actions of motorists as having also changed... in that same period of time.

Apparently, you believe that motoring practices have changed greatly over my lifetime. I have not noticed that. I have noticed two things. One, that cars can now corner faster than their drivers can see ahead; when I was a young driver, Detroit iron drove like cows. Drivers now have a lower level of the overtaking skills related to judging clear distance ahead, accelerating promptly, and returning to line, probably because a great deal of long-distance driving is done on multi-lane roads. The first is important on curving roads; the second probably has little importance for cyclists.

Apparently, you believe that motoring practices have changed greatly over my lifetime. I have not noticed that. I have noticed two things. One, that cars can now corner faster than their drivers can see ahead; when I was a young driver, Detroit iron drove like cows. Drivers now have a lower level of the overtaking skills related to judging clear distance ahead, accelerating promptly, and returning to line, probably because a great deal of long-distance driving is done on multi-lane roads. The first is important on curving roads; the second probably has little importance for cyclists.

I saw a commentary about modern motorists the other day... wish I could recall it for you. The thing that caught my eye was the writer wondering "aloud" how well todays' motorists would drive without power brakes and power steering, anti-lock brakes, disk brakes, active suspension, climate control, air bags, seat belts, and a host of other improvments; mostly subtle, some dealing with controls, others with crash protections. All in all, the writer lamented that merging, safe following distance, and the ability to coast to a stop at signs and lights have all fallen to the wayside in an effort to make driving more "effortless" for the uninitiated.

Perhaps you just haven't noticed John... but since I first earned my license in the early '70s, the speed limits everywhere have gone up, (the national speed limit law was modified in the '80s, and repealed in the '90s) the concept of safe following distances has given way to "trains" of motorists, and windows have been raised and radio volumes have gone up significantly... disconnecting motorists from the environment in which they drive. Autos now have a second mirror on the right, and more brake lights...

I would say that todays' "Detroit iron" doesn't drove like cows... and motorists are exercising all that power.

I saw a commentary about modern motorists the other day... wish I could recall it for you. The thing that caught my eye was the writer wondering "aloud" how well todays' motorists would drive without power brakes and power steering, anti-lock brakes, disk brakes, active suspension, climate control, air bags, seat belts, and a host of other improvments; mostly subtle, some dealing with controls, others with crash protections. All in all, the writer lamented that merging, safe following distance, and the ability to coast to a stop at signs and lights have all fallen to the wayside in an effort to make driving more "effortless" for the uninitiated.


I see this in myself when i drive my early 80s era van. It is big, has sketchy handling by today's standards, and I drive slower. Roads I usually take at < 50mph I drive at 45.

VC is just as strange to motorists as it was 30 years ago, when Japanese cars were still matchboxes.

When motorists expect cyclists on the road, instead of on the sidewalk, cyclists fare better. But they fare worse when motorists expect them not to be on the road.

I don't have a team set up yet for the challenge. The problem is finding infrequent riders that I would be able to get to actually ride. I.e. everyone I know either rides a lot or doesn't ride at all! I think I might have seen you today; were you on the bike path through UCSB a little before 8?
If you saw me on my trike, then yes, that was me.

You can join a team by going to the TBC web site and looking for teams that need more people.

HH, maybe your problem is trying to teach Vehicular Cycling to "serious" club riders. You should join a less formal club, something that's a little more social. Then you can chat while you ride because people aren't pushing so hard and riding inches off other people's tires.

And to address other things that were said, I really don't believe that all cycling facilities are designed to push cyclists out of the way at the convenience of motorists. I think that's an opinion based upon something that happened a long time ago in relation to a single solitary facility in a town that spawned a song with the lyrics "Nobody Walks in LA." As a blanket statement, it's completely false.

HH, maybe your problem is trying to teach Vehicular Cycling to "serious" club riders. You should join a less formal club, something that's a little more social. Then you can chat while you ride because people aren't pushing so hard and riding inches off other people's tires.

And to address other things that were said, I really don't believe that all cycling facilities are designed to push cyclists out of the way at the convenience of motorists. I think that's an opinion based upon something that happened a long time ago in relation to a single solitary facility in a town that spawned a song with the lyrics "Nobody Walks in LA." As a blanket statement, it's completely false.

More ignorant foolishness from Diane. You know nothing at all about the genesis of the bikeway system, yet you persist in making comments that display your ignorance.

More ignorant foolishness from Diane. You know nothing at all about the genesis of the bikeway system, yet you persist in making comments that display your ignorance.

I think John F. has a crush on Diane :love:. Why else would he be electronically slapping her down at every turn?

Why does the genesis of the bikeway system matter? I live in the year 2007, how about you? Around here, there are good people trying to make it easier for bicyclists and motorists to coexist on the same roads.

Why does the genesis of the bikeway system matter?
It can be useful to put things in context. But, you're right. Just because some angry Greek wife accidentally discovered how to make olives palatable by trying to kill her cheating husband by soaking olives in brine doesn't mean we can't enjoy olives so fermented today. But, then, fermented olives are tasty and healthy. Bike lanes are neither.


I live in the year 2007, how about you? Around here, there are good people trying to make it easier for bicyclists and motorists to coexist on the same roads. Indeed. Too bad their efforts are counter-effective.

Interesting how there are always some people who want to ignore history or refuse to learn from history.
Now that is truly foolish.

More ignorant foolishness from Diane. You know nothing at all about the genesis of the bikeway system, yet you persist in making comments that display your ignorance.

And what, you hate the competition? There's only room for one foolish/ignorant member here? Are you trying to corner the market?

A&S has turned into P&R. I'm thinking of moving the VC subforum there, since that's what it turns into - preaching an ideology, and personal attacks, with nothing of substance ever accomplished. Other members view A&S as a hockey game. They're only here to watch the fights break out.

Maybe the kids from BMX could come over and raise the maturity level.

A&S has turned into P&R. I'm thinking of moving the VC subforum there, since that's what it turns into - preaching an ideology, and personal attacks, with nothing of substance ever accomplished.

I totaly agree 100% on that

Many cities have mandates to reduce air pollution. Encouraging cycling is one way they do it.

The bicycle path I ride on daily is meant to serve the needs of the University. The current street grid does not suffice. It cannot handle the quantity of cyclists and serves as a deterrent to cycling because it is dangerous and takes you too far out of the way. The University does not want the students driving because they can't handle all the cars.

Recently sharrows were put in on one street because people keep getting killed there. The sharrows are positioned well out into the lane, not off to the side.

On one downtown street recently, one lane was closed and turned into a bike lane to reduce motor traffic. I believe the primary opponents to these types of motorist deterrents that our city likes to install are the same group you came to speak for and support, Mr. Forester.

The nice thing about bicycles is that you can inconvenience motorists with all kinds of measures that actually improve the conditions for cycling. In other words, you can reclaim the public realm from the dominance of the motor vehicle without compromising mobility so long as bicycling, and other modes of travel remain an option. A lot of cities are using bicycle facilities as one tool for this purpose.

You really ought to do a little research of what's happening today and stop griping about what happened in 1974, John Forester.

Here are some links:
http://www.policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/pucher.html - Yeah, I know you try to discredit him, but his research is peer-reviewed, unlike yours
http://www.pps.org/ - Project for Public Spaces
http://www.completestreets.org/ - Complete the Streets
Oh heck, just do a google search: http://www.google.com/search?q=reclaiming+the+streets+from+automobiles

The world has changed, JF. Most folks understand that you need infrastructure to support what you want to accomplish, whether that is traffic reduction, air quality improvement, pedestrian traffic, public safety, or mass transportation. Yes, you can vehicular cycle the streets we have, but nobody will do it. So cities everywhere are trying to figure out how to get people to do it. They aren't buying your product because it doesn't work.

Maybe VC hasn't caught on well because the examples that are used of countries where more people cycle are countries with extensive bike facilities. We've seen on the site how people "tear up" the existing facilities in cities where there are pictures of a sea of bike parking where bikes are the primary mode of transportation for hundreds of thousands.

Maybe VC hasn't caught on well because the examples that are used of countries where more people cycle are countries with extensive bike facilities. We've seen on the site how people "tear up" the existing facilities in cities where there are pictures of a sea of bike parking where bikes are the primary mode of transportation for hundreds of thousands.
But this country doesn't have extensive bike facilities. This country has paint stripes, MUPs and sidepaths that masquerade as bike facilities, but which are totally inadequate and in some cases more dangerous than no facilities. When we do have extensive bike facilities that are adequately designed, I'll use them. In the meantime, I don't feel that I have much choice but to ride vehicularly.

I also doubt that the reason we have so few cyclists in America is totally due to a lack of facilities. There are possibly economic, cultural, psychological and geographical factors as well.

Maybe Holland has lots of bike facilities because Holland has lots of bikes. Maybe it's the other way around. I don't know.

Indeed. Too bad their efforts are counter-effective.

You say this like it's true. Religions also tend to overgeneralize about subjects they have no first hand knowledge of. You and JF are making a very strong case that VC'ism is a religion. You have your mantra, your two slogans, and a host of unquestionable assumptions; even a litmus test.

I don't think I want any part of that, thank you very much.

It can be useful to put things in context. But, you're right. Just because some angry Greek wife accidentally discovered how to make olives palatable by trying to kill her cheating husband by soaking olives in brine doesn't mean we can't enjoy olives so fermented today. But, then, fermented olives are tasty and healthy. Bike lanes are neither.

Indeed. Too bad their efforts are counter-effective. (emphasis added, jcr)
And yet, you insist that I ride in a bike lane when it is available, and not test your concepts outside the bike lane. But you want me to be outside the bike lane much further away from an intersection. Interesting...

John

Many cities have mandates to reduce air pollution. Encouraging cycling is one way they do it.

The bicycle path I ride on daily is meant to serve the needs of the University. The current street grid does not suffice. It cannot handle the quantity of cyclists and serves as a deterrent to cycling because it is dangerous and takes you too far out of the way. The University does not want the students driving because they can't handle all the cars.

Recently sharrows were put in on one street because people keep getting killed there. The sharrows are positioned well out into the lane, not off to the side.

On one downtown street recently, one lane was closed and turned into a bike lane to reduce motor traffic. I believe the primary opponents to these types of motorist deterrents that our city likes to install are the same group you came to speak for and support, Mr. Forester.

The nice thing about bicycles is that you can inconvenience motorists with all kinds of measures that actually improve the conditions for cycling. In other words, you can reclaim the public realm from the dominance of the motor vehicle without compromising mobility so long as bicycling, and other modes of travel remain an option. A lot of cities are using bicycle facilities as one tool for this purpose.

You really ought to do a little research of what's happening today and stop griping about what happened in 1974, John Forester.

Here are some links:
http://www.policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/pucher.html - Yeah, I know you try to discredit him, but his research is peer-reviewed, unlike yours
http://www.pps.org/ - Project for Public Spaces
http://www.completestreets.org/ - Complete the Streets
Oh heck, just do a google search: http://www.google.com/search?q=reclaiming+the+streets+from+automobiles

The world has changed, JF. Most folks understand that you need infrastructure to support what you want to accomplish, whether that is traffic reduction, air quality improvement, pedestrian traffic, public safety, or mass transportation. Yes, you can vehicular cycle the streets we have, but nobody will do it. So cities everywhere are trying to figure out how to get people to do it. They aren't buying your product because it doesn't work.


Your comment that Professor Pucher's papers have been peer reviewed while mine have not is rather illuminating, both of the process and of your ignorance of it. Yes, Pucher is a professor of planning and gets his papers reviewed by other planners, whom one might call his peers. And the planning profession can be described as being generally anti-motoring. In that respect, you are correct while being utterly wrong. Your statement is irrelevant because none of his reviewers, apparently, knows anything about bicycle transportation engineering. If they had, they would not have accepted his papers. The unfavorable reviews that Pucher's papers get come from those who know the subject onto which he has strayed, bicycle transportation engineering.


Your post demonstrates that your interests are anti-motoring rather than pro-cyclist. The trouble with your prescriptions is that too many of them do harm to cyclists in the process of opposing motoring. I have written repeatedly that my sole interests in bicycle transportation are the welfare of cyclists.

And yet, you insist that I ride in a bike lane when it is available, and not test your concepts outside the bike lane. But you want me to be outside the bike lane much further away from an intersection. Interesting...

John To "test" VC, I insist that you decide where you ride independent of the presence of the bike lane stripe.
Speed positioning. Between intersections, when faster same direction traffic is present, and it is safe and reasonable to do so, right about 3' to the right of traffic.
Destination positioning. At intersections and their approaches, choose your position based on your destination, including moving left of the space normally used for right turns by vehicle drivers if you're going straight.Note that these basic VC principles apply equally whether bike lane stripes are present or not.

But, note that the following comments, which is what seems to confuse you, apply to the corresponding VC principles.
If 3' to the right of traffic happens to put you to the right of a bike lane stripe (in the bike lane), so be it. If not, that's fine too. You should not decide to avoid space that is appropriate to ride in per the speed positioning principle above simply because that space is demarcated as a bike lane. Edit: If the bike lane is too narrow for your speed (riding 3' to the right of traffic puts you too close to the curb for that speed), or is full of debris or other hazards, or you're preparing for a left turn, or it is unsafe or unreasonable to ride in the bike lane for some other reason, then, yes, by all means, get the heck out of it. But to avoid riding in space simply because that space is demarcated as a bike lane is not VC.

If a curbside bike lane is present as you approach an intersection where you are going straight, applying the destination positioning principle means moving left out of the bike lane as you approach that intersection.This is VC 101, about which someone who is attempting to test VC should have a solid understanding.

Helmet Head, go out there and prove it. Show San Diego how it's done so San Diego can show the rest of the world. I'd like to see the utopia you and JF preach about. I honestly would. So please, go out and create it.

Your post demonstrates that your interests are anti-motoring rather than pro-cyclist.
=


Dear Diane-

F U 2

-Love, JF

Ya really ought to read that Dale Carnegie book at least once before you die, John

You know, if y'all wouldn't bother quoting JF I would never know he's insulting me...

Anyway, I really would like to see San Diego put Vehicular Cycling to the test. It's the perfect place for it because it's the only way to ride those streets, and Helmet Head is the perfect, driven person to do it.

Aside from that, maybe somebody could make Atlanta a showplace for VC. It's another place well-laid-out for it.

C'mon. Portland is a showplace of facilities. Make San Diego the showplace of Vehicular Cycling!

Your comment that Professor Pucher's papers have been peer reviewed while mine have not is rather illuminating, both of the process and of your ignorance of it. Yes, Pucher is a professor of planning and gets his papers reviewed by other planners, whom one might call his peers. And the planning profession can be described as being generally anti-motoring. In that respect, you are correct while being utterly wrong. Your statement is irrelevant because none of his reviewers, apparently, knows anything about bicycle transportation engineering. If they had, they would not have accepted his papers. The unfavorable reviews that Pucher's papers get come from those who know the subject onto which he has strayed, bicycle transportation engineering.


Your post demonstrates that your interests are anti-motoring rather than pro-cyclist. The trouble with your prescriptions is that too many of them do harm to cyclists in the process of opposing motoring. I have written repeatedly that my sole interests in bicycle transportation are the welfare of cyclists.

John you touched on part of the issue... has any of your work been peer reviewed? Has any scientific study been made of any of your claims? Has any independent group looked at the statistics in your writing and made any comments about any aspect of it?

John you touched on part of the issue... has any of your work been peer reviewed? Has any scientific study been made of any of your claims? Has any independent group looked at the statistics in your writing and made any comments about any aspect of it?
Let me answer for the High Priest of Foresterology: JF has no peers, he is the only qualified bicycle transportation engineer in the world.

:rolleyes:

Anyway, I really would like to see San Diego put Vehicular Cycling to the test. It's the perfect place for it because it's the only way to ride those streets, and Helmet Head is the perfect, driven person to do it.

Aside from that, maybe somebody could make Atlanta a showplace for VC. It's another place well-laid-out for it.
I agree, they should put their money where their mouth is.

I agree, they should put their money where their mouth is.

The only thing I would insist upon is that motorists be informed that cyclists have equal rights to the road... I am tired of having to educate each and every dunderhead in a 4 wheeled vehicle. (after 30+ years one would think I might have told enough of them... but noooooo.... ) :rolleyes:

Convince the motoring world that cyclists have the same rights to the road as any other driver, and all the cycling specific stripes and signs can go away.