Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Is it necessary...

...to oppose bike lanes in specific to be a vehicular cyclist? I am interested specifically in John Forester's and Helmet Head's answers to this question, but others are welcome to answer as well.

I ask because it often seems to come down to this question. Might as well ask the question directly. FWIW, I'm not interested in starting a debate about this subject. Just an honest answer.

I'd be interested in hearing the answer as well.

...to oppose bike lanes in specific to be a vehicular cyclist? I am interested specifically in John Forester's and Helmet Head's answers to this question, but others are welcome to answer as well.

I ask because it often seems to come down to this question. Might as well ask the question directly. FWIW, I'm not interested in starting a debate about this subject. Just an honest answer.

There are two levels of vehicular cycling. The first is just doing it without worrying about anything else. As long as you are concerned only about yourself, and you live in a state that does not enforce some cyclist-inferiority law (such as a mandatory bike-lane law), that can be all that matters to you.

However, if you choose to advocate vehicular cycling, then you have to both advocate better training for cyclists and oppose the social and governmental forces that oppose vehicular cycling, as embodied in the policy of incompetent cycling on bikeways.

There are two levels of vehicular cycling. The first is just doing it without worrying about anything else. As long as you are concerned only about yourself, and you live in a state that does not enforce some cyclist-inferiority law (such as a mandatory bike-lane law), that can be all that matters to you.

However, if you choose to advocate vehicular cycling, then you have to both advocate better training for cyclists and oppose the social and governmental forces that oppose vehicular cycling, as embodied in the policy of incompetent cycling on bikeways.

Let me say up front that I have absolutely no issues or questions on the advocacy of better training for cyclists. I agree with you here.

As for the second part, does this mean to adopt some sort of bicycling license? There is no way to build a road to avoid incompetence, although there are ways of limiting the amount of competence necessary to use the road. This is the general aim of bike lanes, where they are installed in good faith. WOLs suffer from encouraging ill-trained cyclists to ride much further to the right than is safe; if there is a sidewalk, it encourages sidewalk cycling. This has been documented (regardless of what your opinion of the conclusions the study comes to) in the University of Texas study regarding this subject. The only way I can see of engineering a road to avoid some sort of formal and government issued test of competence is to essentially scare ill-trained cyclists off the road. The only problem I see with this solution, though, is that it makes it harder and more stressful (don't confuse this with more dangerous, that is a different question and I am inclined to agree with you on the relevent points you would make) for even trained cyclists to ride on the road.

How does a vehicular cycling advocate walk this line? How do you avoid the social issues revolving around the adoption of bicycle licensing, and if not that, how do you enforce education?

**cross-posted from "Pro VC editorial in LA Times today" thread**





I'll put in Helmet Head's disclaimer:

I only state my opinion. My opinion is formed by what is talked about by the "pro-VC" camp on these forums. So, to me to be "Pro-VC", it basically all comes down to "no-bike lane." People who ride vehicularly but who do not oppose bike lanes are looked on as heretics.

Again, this is my impression you all have given me by what you talk about in these forums. Feel free to prove me wrong about the "Pro-VC" clique that doesn't include cyclists like myself who approve of bike lanes but bicycle in a vehicular manner.

[/sarcasm]

Someone tell me: If I started a dust up about bike lanes on Chainguard, would I be kicked off, despite my riding in a vehicular manner? I believe at least one member of these forums has been kicked off Chainguard for exactly that? Is it my political positions (the VC politics seem to all lead back to bike lanes, so it seems) that defines me as a vehicular cyclist, or my riding style and my approach to riding in traffic?

Are you saying that opposing bike lanes is a necessery but not sufficient condition to be part of the clique? But it is necessary, right?


I would not be opposed to a bike lane which does not promote cycling against the rules of the road. This basically eliminates bike lanes in any urban and most suburban settings. It also means that bike lanes on roads with few intersections and high speeds would be treated as normal traffic lanes in that whenever other vehicular traffic was to cross the bike lane, the bike lane and traffic lane would merge first, then diverge as is common with normal traffic lanes. There would be none of the blue bike lane treatment that Portland seems to be so proud of.

What do you promote in the bike lane's place? In the hands of the wrong cyclist, a WOL can also promote cycling against the rules of the road and against best practices of traffic cycling. In the hands of a well trained cyclist, neither a bike lane nor a WOL prevent following the rules of the road.

However, if you choose to advocate vehicular cycling, then you have to both advocate better training for cyclists and oppose the social and governmental forces that oppose vehicular cycling, as embodied in the policy of incompetent cycling on bikeways.
Response to similar Forester statement is below.

http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=4474239&postcount=25

**cross-posted from "Pro VC editorial in LA Times today" thread**



What do you promote in the bike lane's place? In the hands of the wrong cyclist, a WOL can also promote cycling against the rules of the road and against best practices of traffic cycling. In the hands of a well trained cyclist, neither a bike lane nor a WOL prevent following the rules of the road.

I would promote road striping which assumes a level of competence of the road users, like all of the current road striping (save for bike lanes) does already. This means that on roads where bike lanes are striped, before any intersection the bike lane would merge in with the right most traffic lane like a truck lane does before an exit ramp. At the exit/right turn area, there would be only one right most lane and you would be able to go straight or exit/turn from it. After the intersection, the bike lane would again diverge from the traffic lane. Bike lanes would never cross other traffic lanes and they would never cross the turning path of right turning motorists.

Where the number of intersections made bike lanes and the necessary merges and diverges impractical, such as on most urban and many suburban streets, bike lanes would not be striped. Long intersectional stretches of low speed road seem to be pretty uncommon, if not non-existant, so it would generally go without saying that low speed roads would not have bike lanes.

In cities with dense traffic, wide curb lanes would make filtering by cyclists easier although not as mindless of any activity as bike lanes can make it. WOL's could also be used on higher speed arterials where proper bike lane striping would be cumbersome although as the intersection count went up, I'd prefer a narrow outside lane over a WOL.

WOL's prevent the common mistake of cyclists assuming that they are not part of traffic because they have their own special lane. WOL's also do not mislead motorists into thinking that the bike lane striped area of the road is off limits for turning manuevers and provide less reinforcement of "cyclists must stay against the curb" mentality for both motorists and cyclists. It's a compromise for sure but much less so than bike lanes in my opinion.

Incompetent cycling is dangerous no matter where the cyclist is positioned on the road so I don't see a real positive benefit of pulling incompetent cyclists off the sidewalk or away from the curb by striping bike lanes, especially due to the misunderstanding about right of way and positioning at intersections in bike lanes.

**cross-posted from "Pro VC editorial in LA Times today" thread**



What do you promote in the bike lane's place? In the hands of the wrong cyclist, a WOL can also promote cycling against the rules of the road and against best practices of traffic cycling. In the hands of a well trained cyclist, neither a bike lane nor a WOL prevent following the rules of the road.

I do not know the reason for this argument appearing twice, but I will repeat my question regarding it.

I presume that you mean that a wide outside lane is more conducive to cycling that disobeys the rules of the road than is a standard width lane. Please explain why you think that this is so.

There are two levels of vehicular cycling. The first is just doing it without worrying about anything else. As long as you are concerned only about yourself, and you live in a state that does not enforce some cyclist-inferiority law (such as a mandatory bike-lane law), that can be all that matters to you.

However, if you choose to advocate vehicular cycling, then you have to both advocate better training for cyclists and oppose the social and governmental forces that oppose vehicular cycling, as embodied in the policy of incompetent cycling on bikeways.


Nice to see that you have finally admitted to what I have been saying all along...there are two components to vehicular cycling...technical, as in how one rides, and political. So to be a vehicular cyclist, one merely has to ride according to the rules of the road, while to be an advanced vehicular cyclist, one must be a politician as well.

Nice to see that you have finally admitted to what I have been saying all along...there are two components to vehicular cycling...technical, as in how one rides, and political. So to be a vehicular cyclist, one merely has to ride according to the rules of the road, while to be an advanced vehicular cyclist, one must be a politician as well.
No, to be a VC advocate one must be a politician as well. This is such an obvious distinction, but hardly any of the regulars on this forum understand it. It's like their heads will explode if they have to think of two ideas at the same time.

KABOOM!!!!

Bike lanes were not invented by engineers. The stripping of bike lanes started as a political issue and remains a political issue today.

So if you oppose the mandatory use of bike lanes or the installation of the terrible, dangerous bike lanes such as Hawaii has, you have to engage in the political arena.

http://img208.imageshack.us/my.php?image=picture006ft3.jpg
http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/2394/dcp03408vc9.jpg
http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/5348/dcp03400pu8.jpg

No, to be a VC advocate one must be a politician as well. This is such an obvious distinction, but hardly any of the regulars on this forum understand it.
It's what I've been saying all along. I'm not a Vehicular Cyclist™ because I don't oppose bike lanes. I ride vehicularly, but don't oppose bike lanes. Opposing bike lanes is required to get the little ™ symbol and the capital letters. Otherwise, vehicular cycling is just another tool for my toolbox.

There are two levels of vehicular cycling. The first is just doing it without worrying about anything else. As long as you are concerned only about yourself, and you live in a state that does not enforce some cyclist-inferiority law (such as a mandatory bike-lane law), that can be all that matters to you.

However, if you choose to advocate vehicular cycling, then you have to both advocate better training for cyclists and oppose the social and governmental forces that oppose vehicular cycling, as embodied in the policy of incompetent cycling on bikeways.

It's what I've been saying all along. I'm not a Vehicular Cyclist™ because I don't oppose bike lanes. ...
Diane, it appears you still do not quite get it.

Diane, it appears you still do not quite get it.
Bike Lanes, Bike Shmanes; that is a sideshow. Forester Brand Vehicular Cycling Advocacy is all about the required training that he and his dedicated followers are trying to promote/foist on an uninterested public. And opposition to any program that is not a part and parcel of promoting that training requirement.

Yes, we all know how much you hate training for cyclist!
But when were you ever forced to take the mandatory cycling training?

Yes, we all know how much you hate training for cyclist!
But when were you ever forced to take the mandatory cycling training?
Don't be obtuse.


However, if you choose to advocate vehicular cycling, then you have to both advocate better training for cyclists and oppose the social and governmental forces that oppose vehicular cycling, as embodied in the policy of incompetent cycling on bikeways.

Bike Lanes, Bike Shmanes; that is a sideshow. Forester Brand Vehicular Cycling Advocacy is all about the required training that he and his dedicated followers are trying to promote/foist on an uninterested public. And opposition to any program that is not a part and parcel of promoting that training requirement.

ILTB, and, as I have written before, quite a few of us know who he is (though I am not going to out him on this forum), writes as though he has some personal grudge against me. So far as I know, this is not the case. Rather, his underhanded and lying opposition pays me the compliment that he considers me to be the leader of the group that is most likely to cause trouble to, and possibly defeat, the advocates of incompetent cycling on bikeways, the cycling method that is so dear to his heart.

ILTB, and, as I have written before, quite a few of us know who he is (though I am not going to out him on this forum), writes as though he has some personal grudge against me. So far as I know, this is not the case. Rather, his underhanded and lying opposition pays me the compliment that he considers me to be the leader of the group that is most likely to cause trouble to, and possibly defeat, the advocates of incompetent cycling on bikeways, the cycling method that is so dear to his heart.
You sir, are no threat to anybody; but are just a leader of a gang of obstructionists unsuccessful in promoting your own cherished scheme.

I consider you the promoter of a bicycling con job that has been unsuccessful for 30 years due to its inherent logical and statistical flaws and distortions, and worse than wee-wee poor leadership/salesmanship.

Look to HH, CB HI and a few other wide eyed acolytes around here or on Chainguard if you want electronic compliments.

Does anyone here have an answer to the original question? It seems like a pretty straight forward one to me.

as far as I can tell from observation, the intense VC (Foresterite) crowd is against some, most or all bike lanes. I have not seen one yet that said they liked them or thought that they were a good idea. I could be wrong. as an adaptive cyclist, I don't like all bike lanes either.

Does anyone here have an answer to the original question? It seems like a pretty straight forward one to me.
Why was post #3 insufficient for you?

Does anyone here have an answer to the original question? It seems like a pretty straight forward one to me.
I can't speak for the gurus but I'll give you my amateur answer, or you might say my crackpot answer. My answer is "yes."

I oppose bike lanes as they are usually constructed. They currently serve two real purposes: to get cyclists out of the way of motor traffic, and to make city planners feel good without doing any actual good. They are of little benefit for utility cyclists. I believe this because I regularly see cyclists riding on the sidewalk along bike paths here in Lansing. If they thought the bike lanes were groovy, they'd likely ride on them.

However, I support the construction from the ground up of a new travel infrastructure in our cities and suburbs. City streets should favor cyclists, pedestrians and mass transit. The current high-speed streets with complex lanes and tricky intersections should be phased out. I'm not sure what the replacement will look like, but it will move slowly and cagers will feel about as welcome on it as cyclists and pedestrians feel on our current streets.

I expect this change will start slowly in the next few years, and be complete in about 30 years. In fact it's already beginning in Portland and a few European cities. I doubt if anybody can stop this change from occurring. It seems inevitable as cars become increasingly unacceptable and impractical.

In the meantime, cyclists are better served by the regular travel lanes than they are by the putative bicycle lanes. VC is overall the best system for riding in travel lanes, even if we all "cheat" a little at times. If you feel more comfortable in a BL or sidewalk, more power to you. Just remember that feeling comfortable and being safe are not always the same thing.

So the answer to the original question is "yes."

as far as I can tell from observation, the intense VC (Foresterite) crowd is against some, most or all bike lanes. I have not seen one yet that said they liked them or thought that they were a good idea. I could be wrong. as an adaptive cyclist, I don't like all bike lanes either.
I would say it is more like -
against poorly designed dangeous bike lanes
and
simply see training, WOL and sharrows as better options than the best designed bike lanes.

I thought the answer was an unequivocal yes, you must oppose bike lanes if you claim to be a Vehicular Cyclist Advocate. But an optional yes or no if you are just a vehicular cyclist.

In other words, if you advocate for Vehicular Cycling you are required to oppose bike lanes. But if you simply ride vehicularly, opposing bike lanes is up to you.

I thought the answer was an unequivocal yes, you must oppose bike lanes if you claim to be a Vehicular Cyclist Advocate. But an optional yes or no if you are just a vehicular cyclist.

In other words, if you advocate for Vehicular Cycling you are required to oppose bike lanes. But if you simply ride vehicularly, opposing bike lanes is up to you.
I'll buy that until John F. or ILTB tell me how I'm supposed to think. ;)

I thought the answer was an unequivocal yes, you must oppose bike lanes if you claim to be a Vehicular Cyclist Advocate. But an optional yes or no if you are just a vehicular cyclist.

In other words, if you advocate for Vehicular Cycling you are required to oppose bike lanes. But if you simply ride vehicularly, opposing bike lanes is up to you.

That pretty much covers it.

I thought the answer was an unequivocal yes, you must oppose bike lanes if you claim to be a Vehicular Cyclist Advocate. But an optional yes or no if you are just a vehicular cyclist.

In other words, if you advocate for Vehicular Cycling you are required to oppose bike lanes. But if you simply ride vehicularly, opposing bike lanes is up to you.
Does it make sense to you to advocate Vehicular Cycling and also demand the building of bike lanes in a mandatory use state?

Does it make sense to you to advocate Vehicular Cycling and also demand the building of bike lanes in a mandatory use state?
No.

But if the bike lanes are inevitable, would it make sense to advocate that they at least be well designed?

No.

But if the bike lanes are inevitable, would it make sense to advocate that they at least be well designed?

Or how about going after laws that require bike lane use?

Or how about going after laws that require bike lane use?
Better. I think maybe we all agree to hate mandatory use laws. One of the best things about bikes is their versatility, and nobody better try to take that away! :fight:

Does anyone here have an answer to the original question? It seems like a pretty straight forward one to me.
See response to #3 at #14
http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=4473088&postcount=3
http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=4476077&postcount=14

Does anyone here have an answer to the original question? It seems like a pretty straight forward one to me.

As John Forester said before, there is operating according to the paradigm of vehicular cycling, and there is advocating in favor of vehicular cycling. Let us consider the latter.

If the bike lane design directs the cyclist to operate in conflict with the ordinary vehicular rules of the road, the vehicular cycling advocate would oppose the bike lane.

If the bike lane design directs the cyclist to operate in a roadway location more hazardous than that desired for the purpose of defensive driving in compliance with vehicular cycling, the vehicular cycling advocate will oppose it.

If the bike lane is undesirable for cycling for some reason other than the vehicular rules of the road and defensive driving, the vehicular cycling advocate may make a choice between advocating for better design or maintenance, or simply opposing the striping and/or laws requiring its use by cyclists. This does not need to be a litmus test for vehicular cycling advocacy; the advocate may just decide that one course of action is more likely to benefit roadway cyclists than another, and this decision may depend on the local built environment, laws, and political atmosphere.

I have seen some pictures of bike lanes that appear to have none of the above problems, and might be more desirable for cycling on some types of roads than the same roads without such bike lanes. However, I do not have any such bike lanes in my community, only the badly designed or worthless debris-accumulating bike lanes. A vehicular cycling advocate may decide that the risk of ending up with more bad and worthless bike lanes does or does not outweigh the possible benefits of advocating in favor of more of the "best" designs. If the local planners and engineers have no interest in distinguishing between good and bad bike lane designs, the vehicular cycling advocate will likely conclude that uniform support of wide outside lanes instead of striped bike lanes is the most effective strategy to improve conditions for roadway cycling.

As John Forester said before, there is operating according to the paradigm of vehicular cycling, and there is advocating in favor of vehicular cycling. Let us consider the latter.

If the bike lane design directs the cyclist to operate in conflict with the ordinary vehicular rules of the road, the vehicular cycling advocate would oppose the bike lane.

If the bike lane design directs the cyclist to operate in a roadway location more hazardous than that desired for the purpose of defensive driving in compliance with vehicular cycling, the vehicular cycling advocate will oppose it.

If the bike lane is undesirable for cycling for some reason other than the vehicular rules of the road and defensive driving, the vehicular cycling advocate may make a choice between advocating for better design or maintenance, or simply opposing the striping and/or laws requiring its use by cyclists. This does not need to be a litmus test for vehicular cycling advocacy; the advocate may just decide that one course of action is more likely to benefit roadway cyclists than another, and this decision may depend on the local built environment, laws, and political atmosphere.

I have seen some pictures of bike lanes that appear to have none of the above problems, and might be more desirable for cycling on some types of roads than the same roads without such bike lanes. However, I do not have any such bike lanes in my community, only the badly designed or worthless debris-accumulating bike lanes. A vehicular cycling advocate may decide that the risk of ending up with more bad and worthless bike lanes does or does not outweigh the possible benefits of advocating in favor of more of the "best" designs. If the local planners and engineers have no interest in distinguishing between good and bad bike lane designs, the vehicular cycling advocate will likely conclude that uniform support of wide outside lanes instead of striped bike lanes is the most effective strategy to improve conditions for roadway cycling.

Ok, I appreciate you, Roody and others taking the time to answer the question at length, but minus all the caveats regarding whether the bike lane is a good one or not and whether you are simply a vc rider or a vc advocate the simple answer appears to be "no", which is heartening IMHO. Through all the fussing and arguing here I have always thought that there must be some happy middle ground where we can all ride comfortably, striped or not ;)

Definitely NO.

I can't add anything more than what S.G wrote.

Al

...to oppose bike lanes in specific to be a vehicular cyclist? I am interested specifically in John Forester's and Helmet Head's answers to this question, but others are welcome to answer as well.

I ask because it often seems to come down to this question. Might as well ask the question directly. FWIW, I'm not interested in starting a debate about this subject. Just an honest answer.

Apparently no, as a cyclist, but yes as an advocate.

As a cyclist one simply uses what is available.

But as an advocate, one apparently must set some sort of example...

As John Forester said before, there is operating according to the paradigm of vehicular cycling, and there is advocating in favor of vehicular cycling. Let us consider the latter.

If the bike lane design directs the cyclist to operate in conflict with the ordinary vehicular rules of the road, the vehicular cycling advocate would oppose the bike lane.

If the bike lane design directs the cyclist to operate in a roadway location more hazardous than that desired for the purpose of defensive driving in compliance with vehicular cycling, the vehicular cycling advocate will oppose it.

If the bike lane is undesirable for cycling for some reason other than the vehicular rules of the road and defensive driving, the vehicular cycling advocate may make a choice between advocating for better design or maintenance, or simply opposing the striping and/or laws requiring its use by cyclists. This does not need to be a litmus test for vehicular cycling advocacy; the advocate may just decide that one course of action is more likely to benefit roadway cyclists than another, and this decision may depend on the local built environment, laws, and political atmosphere.

I have seen some pictures of bike lanes that appear to have none of the above problems, and might be more desirable for cycling on some types of roads than the same roads without such bike lanes. However, I do not have any such bike lanes in my community, only the badly designed or worthless debris-accumulating bike lanes. A vehicular cycling advocate may decide that the risk of ending up with more bad and worthless bike lanes does or does not outweigh the possible benefits of advocating in favor of more of the "best" designs. If the local planners and engineers have no interest in distinguishing between good and bad bike lane designs, the vehicular cycling advocate will likely conclude that uniform support of wide outside lanes instead of striped bike lanes is the most effective strategy to improve conditions for roadway cycling.

Does the bolded section mean that advocating WOLs is a strategic move to avoid the truly bad while getting some accomodation out of the government? If so, how does this type of strategy work towards fixing or swaying the thinking of the government, local planners, and engineers so that they really do have an interest in distinguishing between good and bad road design for bicyclists.

I fix a lot of stuff when it breaks in everyday life. There are fixes which render a repair impossible. Is WOL advocacy one of these fixes then? And if repair is impossible, i.e. if the advocacy of WOLs renders it impossible to correct the thinking of government, local planners, and engineers, it seems to me that the only two possiblities are to replace the road system, essentially what Roody advocates, or keep chugging along with the fix.

Apparently no, as a cyclist, but yes as an advocate.

As a cyclist one simply uses what is available.

But as an advocate, one apparently must set some sort of example...

Perhaps, but I am more interested in why this is the case.

Does the bolded section mean that advocating WOLs is a strategic move to avoid the truly bad while getting some accomodation out of the government? If so, how does this type of strategy work towards fixing or swaying the thinking of the government, local planners, and engineers so that they really do have an interest in distinguishing between good and bad road design for bicyclists.

I fix a lot of stuff when it breaks in everyday life. There are fixes which render a repair impossible. Is WOL advocacy one of these fixes then? And if repair is impossible, i.e. if the advocacy of WOLs renders it impossible to correct the thinking of government, local planners, and engineers, it seems to me that the only two possiblities are to replace the road system, essentially what Roody advocates, or keep chugging along with the fix.
The fix needs to be in design guidelines. A bike lane standard that does not place any stripe 200' before all intersections for example.
Al

Let me say up front that I have absolutely no issues or questions on the advocacy of better training for cyclists. I agree with you here.

As for the second part, does this mean to adopt some sort of bicycling license? There is no way to build a road to avoid incompetence, although there are ways of limiting the amount of competence necessary to use the road. This is the general aim of bike lanes, where they are installed in good faith. WOLs suffer from encouraging ill-trained cyclists to ride much further to the right than is safe; if there is a sidewalk, it encourages sidewalk cycling. This has been documented (regardless of what your opinion of the conclusions the study comes to) in the University of Texas study regarding this subject. The only way I can see of engineering a road to avoid some sort of formal and government issued test of competence is to essentially scare ill-trained cyclists off the road. The only problem I see with this solution, though, is that it makes it harder and more stressful (don't confuse this with more dangerous, that is a different question and I am inclined to agree with you on the relevent points you would make) for even trained cyclists to ride on the road.

How does a vehicular cycling advocate walk this line? How do you avoid the social issues revolving around the adoption of bicycle licensing, and if not that, how do you enforce education?

This is a response to JF's first post; I've been gone for a day and the conversation has progressed, but I want to put this out on the table again.

It seems inevitable that if bicyclist training is made a requirement (as it must be for WOL use, see again the source of the U of T report, again, look only at the data and not the conclusions, this is not a discussion of the conclusions of the report, just the data which found the WOLs tend to place cyclists further right than bike lanes), then there are only two courses of action: 1) that roads are kept "scary", i.e., that there is no accomodation on roads (NOL), or 2) that a mandatory, government issued, bicycle license is implemented to ensure compliance to the training requirements, in the same way that a drivers license does.

I've seen this data from multiple, independent sources. All the disputes over the U of T report and the others (there was one out of Florida which I remember, but I forgot the source) have been about the conclusions the authors draw from their data, not the data itself. So, disregarding the conclusions, all the data I've seen on WOL vs. BL useage shows that cyclists tend to place themselves further to the right on a WOL, or off the road entirely (i.e. sidewalk riding). To be fair, BLs somewhat promoted the presence of wrong way riding, though just looking around me while I ride, I don't see a lot of this where I live.

So, given that bicyclist training is a requiremnt for VC advocacy, how does one go about enforcing these requirements, given that bicyclist training in the absence of enforcement is basically meaningless?

Perhaps, but I am more interested in why this is the case.
It seems to me that the question has been answered several times, most clearly by John Forester and sbgoodri.

I'm thinking that either you don't like the answer, OR you are seeing an additional complexity that others are missing. If the latter, maybe you could rephrase the question. If the former, maybe you could state your objections and quit being a tease.

I see cyclists riding too close to curb when a BL is present and on sidewalk as well as wrong way in BL - especially BLs on slower streets with 50% of riders going wrong way. If training is required I see no distinction between amount of training required between WOL vs. BL. If anything WOL require may less as using BLs is often counter intuitive.

Al

The fix needs to be in design guidelines. A bike lane standard that does not place any stripe 200' before all intersections for example.
Al

Reasonable people disagree on exactly what this guideline should say. Supposing for a second that it is possible to write an overarching bike lane design guideline, would this allow VC advocates to drop the "no bike lane" plank from their agenda?

Should effort instead be focused on bending the ear of the local governments to start differentiating between "good" and "bad" bicycle accomodation. In other words, is it the specifics of what a design guideline should say, or is it the attitude of the governmental agencies, changing it from "don't care, just want the publicity" to "we care, how do we best do this?".

It seems to me that the question has been answered several times, most clearly by John Forester and sbgoodri.

I'm thinking that either you don't like the answer, OR you are seeing an additional complexity that others are missing. If the latter, maybe you could rephrase the question. If the former, maybe you could state your objections and quit being a tease.

What are your thoughts on this matter? You answered an unequivical yes. See, I've got conflicting answers from sggoodri and JF. sggoodri looks at WOL advocacy as a strategic move; I've seen others list this as a stated reason as well. JF and HH are opposed to bike lanes on their face, seeing them as basically never suitable to the demands of vehicular cycling. Both (sggoodri and JF) fail to mention how bicyclist education works into the strategy given the data that shows that WOLs are a disbenefit to untrained cyclists.

Reasonable people disagree on exactly what this guideline should say. Supposing for a second that it is possible to write an overarching bike lane design guideline, would this allow VC advocates to drop the "no bike lane" plank from their agenda?

Should effort instead be focused on bending the ear of the local governments to start differentiating between "good" and "bad" bicycle accomodation. In other words, is it the specifics of what a design guideline should say, or is it the attitude of the governmental agencies, changing it from "don't care, just want the publicity" to "we care, how do we best do this?".
If the former were possible I'd be a supporter of 'next-generation bike lanes*' - but I can't speak for all VC advocates. *of course if they truely addressed key issues with the existing guidelines.

I think there are so many levels of government that 'need to give a crap' about bike lanes that changing the culture of weeding out the bad ones to be near impossible as only a very few have any incentive to care.

I think the 'biggest bang for the buck' in changing bike lane implementation would be to stop painting new ones (but still leave the pavement space to add them later) and correct or eliminate the existing bad stripes. That process alone would not only greately improve infrastructure, but also be very educational for all involved and the pain of doing so would help change the culture.

Al

Does the bolded section mean that advocating WOLs is a strategic move to avoid the truly bad while getting some accomodation out of the government? If so, how does this type of strategy work towards fixing or swaying the thinking of the government, local planners, and engineers so that they really do have an interest in distinguishing between good and bad road design for bicyclists.

I fix a lot of stuff when it breaks in everyday life. There are fixes which render a repair impossible. Is WOL advocacy one of these fixes then? And if repair is impossible, i.e. if the advocacy of WOLs renders it impossible to correct the thinking of government, local planners, and engineers, it seems to me that the only two possiblities are to replace the road system, essentially what Roody advocates, or keep chugging along with the fix.

The WOLs are an easy answer... and that is what government, local planners and engineers want... an easy answer... something to put into the manual and follow... some formula, some plan, some quick line to refer to ("Oh yeah, go see code XYZ123, that is the answer.").

The problem is that all of this tends to overlook cycling as a true part of the transportation picture... it puts cycling as a second thought ("yup, we checked XYZ123, this should be fine...") and does not examine cycling as an activity in of itself and as part of that transit picture. This is one strong reason that door zone BL are in the MUTCD... it looked good on paper, and it gave communities a way to "check off" that they had done it right.

The real issue is that someone in "government, local planners and engineers" needs to look at what really works and then make real decisions about how to implement that solution. 50MPH mulitlaned boulevards are not a viable answer either.

I see cyclists riding too close to curb when a BL is present and on sidewalk as well as wrong way in BL - especially BLs on slower streets with 50% of riders going wrong way. If training is required I see no distinction between amount of training required between WOL vs. BL. If anything WOL require may less as using BLs is often counter intuitive.

Al

"Too close" is different than closer, and I'd guess that you don't see many cyclists at all on WOLs, though it is only a guess. The wrong way bicyclists are usually the result of left turns being too difficult to accomplish - which is more a function of the road and the bicyclist's lack of training or experience, not the facility itself. For instance, on WOL roads, rather than making a vehicular or two part left turn, they might simply hop on the sidewalk and ride wrong way on the sidewalk rather than spend the time for a two part left turn or risk a vehicular left turn.

How is using a WOL any more counter intuitive that a bike lane; can you expand on this? It seems to me that they are both somewhat counterintuitive, being that both are facilities for bicycles which place the bicyclist to the right of faster traffic, which makes left turns counterintuitive. WOLs also dump an untrained rider off to the right of a right turning car. With a bike lane, to avoid a left, an untrained cyclist might right the wrong way. With a WOL, they probably avoid streets with WOLs or use the sidewalk.

What are your observations about WOL useage compared to bike lane useage? How to the numbers compare on how many bicyclists use each? How about NOL streets? The above are all guesses; what are your observations?

If the former were possible I'd be a supporter of 'next-generation bike lanes*' - but I can't speak for all VC advocates. *of course if they truely addressed key issues with the existing guidelines.

I think there are so many levels of government that 'need to give a crap' about bike lanes that changing the culture of weeding out the bad ones to be near impossible as only a very few have any incentive to care.

I think the 'biggest bang for the buck' in changing bike lane implementation would be to stop painting new ones (but still leave the pavement space to add them later) and correct or eliminate the existing bad stripes. That process alone would not only greately improve infrastructure, but also be very educational for all involved and the pain of doing so would help change the culture.

Al


The WOLs are an easy answer... and that is what government, local planners and engineers want... an easy answer... something to put into the manual and follow... some formula, some plan, some quick line to refer to ("Oh yeah, go see code XYZ123, that is the answer.").

The problem is that all of this tends to overlook cycling as a true part of the transportation picture... it puts cycling as a second thought ("yup, we checked XYZ123, this should be fine...") and does not examine cycling as an activity in of itself and as part of that transit picture. This is one strong reason that door zone BL are in the MUTCD... it looked good on paper, and it gave communities a way to "check off" that they had done it right.

The real issue is that someone in "government, local planners and engineers" needs to look at what really works and then make real decisions about how to implement that solution. 50MPH mulitlaned boulevards are not a viable answer either.

I'm not so sure it is always a divide between those who believe bike lanes can be practical and those who cannot. The above is an example of two, informed people, who make their choice of advocacy based on percieved political realities and needs. It seems like there really are two camps of bike lane opposers. Those who oppose them based on political concerns (noisebeam and sggoodri are two examples in this thread), and those who oppose them on practical, implementational concerns (John Forester and Helmet Head).

"Too close" is different than closer, and I'd guess that you don't see many cyclists at all on WOLs, though it is only a guess. The wrong way bicyclists are usually the result of left turns being too difficult to accomplish - which is more a function of the road and the bicyclist's lack of training or experience, not the facility itself. For instance, on WOL roads, rather than making a vehicular or two part left turn, they might simply hop on the sidewalk and ride wrong way on the sidewalk rather than spend the time for a two part left turn or risk a vehicular left turn.

How is using a WOL any more counter intuitive that a bike lane; can you expand on this? It seems to me that they are both somewhat counterintuitive, being that both are facilities for bicycles which place the bicyclist to the right of faster traffic, which makes left turns counterintuitive. WOLs also dump an untrained rider off to the right of a right turning car. With a bike lane, to avoid a left, an untrained cyclist might right the wrong way. With a WOL, they probably avoid streets with WOLs or use the sidewalk.

What are your observations about WOL useage compared to bike lane useage? How to the numbers compare on how many bicyclists use each? How about NOL streets? The above are all guesses; what are your observations?
I just don't see these differences between stripped and unstriped wide lanes where I live. In fact on any given day I see more cyclists riding on unstriped wide lanes than striped. I've never seen wrong way riding in a unstriped wide lane except in residential areas and never seen left turn made from the right side of a wide lane unless it has been striped with a bike lane.

Al

Those who oppose them based on political concerns (noisebeam and sggoodri are two examples in this thread), and those who oppose them on practical, implementational concerns (John Forester and Helmet Head).
Either I am not writng clearly or am being mis-interprested. My primary driver for opposing specific bike lane stripes is the practical and how it affects me - it is my daily experience that drives my opposition to many implementations of stripes. I also find advocating for a wide lane to be much 'easier' and far more difficult to screw up vs. a bike lane stripe on same road.

I would rather see the model to make all new roads with an outside lane wide enough to stripe a a bike lane, build it that way, but dont' stripe the bike lane. Then after a period of time with cyclist experience and inputs determine specific places where a stripe can be added to benefit cyclists.

Al

I just don't see these differences between stripped and unstriped wide lanes where I live. In fact on any given day I see more cyclists riding on unstriped wide lanes than striped. I've never seen wrong way riding in a unstriped wide lane except in residential areas and never seen left turn made from the right side of a wide lane unless it has been striped with a bike lane.

Al

By "stripped and unstripped wide lanes" I assume you are meaning "bike laned and WOL" streets? Why the change in terminology?