Vehicular Cycling (VC) - practical VC advocacy for the 21st century

In the spirit of compromise i could get behind Bekologist's list of proposals. Streets redesigned from the ground up to better suit all users -- pedestrians, cyclists, wheelchair users, and (last because least) cars -- is a worthy long term goal. And genec has convinced me over the last couple years that motorist education about bikes is a good idea too. As for cyclist education, it's probably easier to concentrate on the kids rather than training adults.

However, I disagree with the proposals about rewarding people who ride bikes with tax breaks or other compensation. What is the point of this? Do you think the public will get behind the donation of their tax dollars to a few people who ride a bike to work?

Why not? There are already similar breaks for motorists that use their own vehicles in their own business... and consider that cyclists could be cited as ways to balance the national carbon debt...

Come on, be creative here.

They give tax breaks to people who buy Ford Extinctions. Why not give them to people riding a bike to work?

Apparently you missed it entirely. I am not questioning the value of experience in any activity, cycling or otherwise. I specifically asked about your statement about licensing and education objectives for road cyclists : "I also referenced licenses for road cycling where the fixed resources of DMV would be used; I imagine a motorcycle license would not be very different from a bicycle license."

Who has an objective for licensing road cyclists or requiring their "education" by anybody for licensing to ride a bicycle on the road? And why?

I answered the question regarding who has an objective of educating road cyclists. From my reading, that is what you ask below. Although it didn't seem very interesting which led me to believe you wanted something else.

As far as I know, no one, including myself, has an objective of requiring education or licensing road cyclists. I certainly gave some thought to the idea--I strongly suspect that others have as well--and I think that the concept has some merits.

To be brief, generally the arguments for regulation of the sort usually fall under two categories: (1) the individual doesn't know what is best for them so we have to regulate them into "optimal" behavior and (2) there are benefits to the rest of society that the individual fails to take into account.

If you think that there is some truth to the VC argument about the true risks of cycling and society's biased perception of those risks, then requiring them to learn otherwise would be better for the individual. Personally, it is hard to motivate me to protect an individual from themselves. While I don't agree with the whole VC package, just based on anecdotal interactions, I do think that the VC argument that society generally over estimates the risk to road cycling is true.

... hey, I have to run to a PT appointment. Hope to continue this in a few hours.

EDIT: I will not have enough time to respond thoughtfully today. Sorry. I will make an effort tomorrow.

They give tax breaks to people who buy Ford Extinctions. Why not give them to people riding a bike to work?

How would you monitor who actually rides to work in order to give the incentives?

But more to the point, why reward people for doing the right thing? It's more lucrative (for governments) and effective to punish those doing wrong. I would far rather see big carbon taxes and/or huge excise taxes on gas guzzlers.

I would also like to see employers required to convert half their parking lots to rain gardens in order to cleanse the polluted runoff from the asphalt. They could defray the cost of the pollution controls by deducting big parking rentals from the paychecks of those who still choose to drive to work.

Sorry for the delay and deep apologies to ILTB who asked the question. Looks like there might be some tiny invisible hands early next year. Still very early in the process so the risk of miscarriage is high. So I am busy trying to finish the bike projects I have lying around before I have a second full-time job.

Back to ILTB ...

What I want to write is that I have a "theoretical" libertarian view that individuals have the right to do whatever they want given they don't hurt others. In a practical sense, however, this often doesn't work as smoothly as the mental model since ...


Information is "expensive" such that one can make an argument, if the person just knew the true risks of X they would behave differently.
There is considerable evidence of biases in human decision-making such that

[%%]people overestimate the probability of events with low probabilities and underestimate the probability of events with high probabilities
[%%]people give too much weight to the first bit of information they receive regarding an event; i.e., an anchoring effect
[%%]plus lots of other things that I am less familiar with
Given that we live in a society, many of our actions have significant interactions with those around us; i.e., externalities.


I am pretty hesitant to protect the individual from him or herself since, allowing for noise, I feel that the individual is almost always chooses best for him or herself. However, I could see how cycling and transportation are issues where some regulation or outside intervention might be fruitful.

In the case of cycling, as I was beginning to write earlier, I think that there is a general bias that overestimates the risk to road riding. Particularly in the absence of some basic experience. I don't write this scientifically, but anecdotally. Assuming that this is the base that most people begin with, we can expect that many will initially choose sub-optimally until enough learning can take place which according to some academics, could take a very long time since their first exposure is probably a negative one.

In the case of transportation in general, clearly how one agent behaves on the road affects how others must behave and their potential outcomes. So if I ride unpredictably, create some road chaos, and slow down traffic, I have negatively affected those around me. More specifically with cyclists, if we encourage a specific set of behaviors such that motorists and cyclists have the same expectations regarding traveling on the road, then I suspect that all parties will be better off.

Anyway, it isn't clear to me that licensing or direct education is the best way to go. I find some of the arguments for expanding the knowledge base of drivers motivating. I also think that bike lanes, sharrows, or whatever, if implemented properly could be a more efficient solution in this dimension. But in response to Bek, the original poster, I just think that if we are going to ask society/motorists to do something for us (be educated on cyclists rights) then we should also include something regarding what we are going to do for ourselves.

I suspect that you are already familiar with much of the discussion. Subsequently, I omitted a lot of details which most people would find boring anyway.

How would you monitor who actually rides to work in order to give the incentives?

But more to the point, why reward people for doing the right thing? It's more lucrative (for governments) and effective to punish those doing wrong.

I think that your first point is a good one.

Sometimes it is politically easier to offer a reward and/or easier to enforce a reward.

Personally, I would be happy with a gas tax that reflected the true cost of emissions and road usage along with a congestion tax (or a toll ... however one wants to phrase it) for driving in certain areas/times.

Without giving much thought to it, my initial reaction to a bike rebate or something of the sort is that it would be ripe for abuse. I would be interested in hearing how this turned out in England: I believe they give such incentives for purchasing a Brompton (maybe other bikes?).

I answered the question regarding who has an objective of educating road cyclists. From my reading, that is what you ask below. Although it didn't seem very interesting which led me to believe you wanted something else.

As far as I know, no one, including myself, has an objective of requiring education or licensing road cyclists. I certainly gave some thought to the idea--I strongly suspect that others have as well--and I think that the concept has some merits.

Quick question regarding licensing cyclists... have you considered that most cyclists are already licensed drivers of automobiles? Why not a system that offers a simple endorsement of that drivers license for bikes or better yet, just offer the education needed for cycling, and that will also cover "motorists."

Quick question regarding licensing cyclists... have you considered that most cyclists are already licensed drivers of automobiles? Why not a system that offers a simple endorsement of that drivers license for bikes or better yet, just offer the education needed for cycling, and that will also cover "motorists."

Yes ... and I find the argument/idea compelling. Thinking generally, I lump a bicycle endorsement idea with the license idea. Motorcycle and driver licenses work that way too in many states**. I think that there are probably a list of things that we would want to test a road cyclist that are outside of what a motorist needs to know.

Roughly following the motorcycle exams I took, the notion of lane placement, how to change lanes, train tracks, some physical skills, pre-ride checks, and so on.

That list might be small enough such that creating a bicycle license/endorsement might be a waste of time considering the large percentage of people with a drivers license. Then again, if the list is small, then tagging on a bicycle endorsement should not be much of a burden either.

We would want to make sure that if someone wanted to be a "road cyclist" that they could do so without a drivers license road test.

** Now that I think about it more, it may be the case that one can get a motorcycle license in some states without a drivers license. But I never heard of any examples.

Quick question regarding licensing cyclists... have you considered that most cyclists are already licensed drivers of automobiles? Why not a system that offers a simple endorsement of that drivers license for bikes or better yet, just offer the education needed for cycling, and that will also cover "motorists."

The problem is that while American motorists know how to drive a vehicle, specifically a motor vehicle, they have emotional problems in applying that knowledge to driving a bicycle. They need successful exposure to the task of driving a bicycle in real traffic to overcome that problem and become comfortable when doing it. The successful exposure can come about through just plain experience (though this works only for those willing to think about their bicycle driving task), or through experience assisted by reading and such, or through direct instruction. Direct instruction is the fastest, just acquiring experience is the slowest.

The problem is that while American motorists know how to drive a vehicle, specifically a motor vehicle, they have emotional problems in applying that knowledge to driving a bicycle. They need successful exposure to the task of driving a bicycle in real traffic to overcome that problem and become comfortable when doing it. The successful exposure can come about through just plain experience (though this works only for those willing to think about their bicycle driving task), or through experience assisted by reading and such, or through direct instruction. Direct instruction is the fastest, just acquiring experience is the slowest.

So are you suggesting that in fact no motorist training regarding the rights of cyclists is needed, but that cyclists alone should receive training?

How do you feel about the concept of licensing cyclists?

So are you suggesting that in fact no motorist training regarding the rights of cyclists is needed, but that cyclists alone should receive training?

How do you feel about the concept of licensing cyclists?

I was not discussing the views of motorists who intend to remain solely motorists. I think that the more progressive states, certainly California, include some information in the motorist information (I hesitate to call this motorist training) pamphlets that applicants for motoring licenses (note that, in discussions such as this, I do not call them driving licenses) are tested upon. This is a good thing. We Californian cyclists have to lean on the DMV every once in a while to keep this information in the pamphlet.

The point of my discussion was that even Americans with motoring licenses, and with acceptable motoring skills, will not apply their driving knowledge and skills to the task of driving bicycles, because our society has for more than sixty years told Americans that the skills are different, that trying to drive a bicycle according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles both requires much more skill and is much more dangerous, but that, on the other hand, there is a different set of rules that make cycling safe and easy for children. This is illogical, but illogicality is the realm of emotion, and emotion is the major problem for cyclists in America. That is why American motorists who are taking up cycling have to be taken out on the road in real traffic so that they can learn, emotionally learn, that their motoring skills work even when used while riding a bicycle.

The question of cyclist licensing has been much debated. The first thing that I would be afraid of is that the governmentally issued bicycling license would be based on cyclist-inferiority and bikeway cycling. If such a program were started today, I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that it would turn out that way. Then there is the problem of different acceptable levels of skill. We expect any person who earns a motoring license to be able to operate acceptably on all kinds of roads and traffic. We do not issue motoring licenses to children; only to persons with some degree of maturity, and with restrictions for a year or so even then. But we expect children to ride bicycles. I think that a licensing test suitable for teen-age and over cyclists would not be suitable for most younger cyclists, and, in any case, I predict the parental outcry if we tried to insist that child cyclists were tested to safe standards. I've been through a bit of that myself in school-based instruction.

Therefore, I think, now, that governmentally issued and required cycling licenses are a bad idea. On the other hand, I thoroughly approve, and advocate, private training and certification to the proper standards. (ILTB, don't try, at this point, to nastily pretend that I advocate only my own work.) If such training and certification became a point of honor, it would attract more participants.

On the other hand, I thoroughly approve, and advocate, private training and certification to the proper standards. (ILTB, don't try, at this point, to nastily pretend that I advocate only my own work.) If such training and certification became a point of honor, it would attract more participants.
Why not make that spot on assumption about you when you qualify your training recommendations with your EC™ code words of "proper standards"?

What training program of "proper standards" offered by anybody else have you ever endorsed? What variation from your own work is still considered "proper standards" in the Forester lexicon?

Point of honor?:rolleyes: Some people think getting through a fraternity hazing to join the clique is a point of honor too.

On the other hand, I thoroughly approve, and advocate, private training and certification to the proper standards. If such training and certification became a point of honor, it would attract more participants.

At this point the private training situations offered have reached an insignificantly small number of cyclists and the numbers are not growing relative to the population at large, nor the motoring population at large... How can this tiny population of trained cyclists ever overcome the poor examples of roadway use by the vast majority of untrained cyclists in such a manner to provide incentive to motorists to get with the program.

Compare just the number of bicycles sold annually with the number of cyclists trained annually.

In San Diego for instance we have some 900 or so members of the local advocacy group... the most prolific trainer has taught some 60 cyclists since he has started. This is a mere drop in the bucket compared to the total number of cyclists on bikes at any time. This seems like a totally impractical way to "get out the word." Meanwhile, new cyclists are made daily... with the simple purchase of a bike.

I don't see how "trained cyclists" will ever represent enough of the cyclists on the road to set any kind of an example to the motoring public.

well, if that's not a quixotic pipe dream.....


That is why American motorists who are taking up cycling have to be taken out on the road in real traffic so that they can learn, emotionally learn, that their motoring skills work even when used while riding a bicycle.

you are the dreamer, you. john, your advocacy for bicycling in america is predisposed to your illusions and dated ideas surrounding your personal motorist superiority complex.

I advise you to get on board with more populist bicycling advocacy, and stop looking at bicycling thru the windshield (although I suspect you are looking at roads thru the windshield a lot more than over the handlebars these days)

your quixotic fallacies about bicycling are deeply rooted; this isa thread about practical cycling advocacy for the 21st century.

my ideas for practical vehicular cycling advocacy for the 21st century, reiterated:

1)fight mandatory sidepath mandatory use laws. don't fight bike path infrastructure, fight mandatory use laws.

2) major national driver education program about bicyclists use and right to the roads.

3) 'cars yield to bikes' laws codified in state traffic code- drivers need to pass other vehicles safely, and yield until safe to overtake. this is traffic law already, but needs teeth for bicyclists.

4)continue the work to get kids riding to schools across the country.

5)work to encourage bike racks in front of all businesses.

6)bike commuter tax breaks as part of combatting carbon emissions.

7)on road bike infrastructure where appropriate; make communities more bikeable by more people by the use of bike specific, on road infrastructure. (remember, vehicular bicyclists can ride vehicularily in bike lanes!)

8) stiffen penalties for distracted driving- fix the "broken window" syndrome of drivers breaking traffic laws with impunity. rolling stops by drivers onto superior arterials are a concern for bicyclists for example.

9)adopt a policy similar to motorcycling's ABATE- work to make stiffer penalties for bicycling/auto accidents a court case, versus little or no punishment for drivers who "didn't see" the bicyclist they hit.

10) stop the blanket damnification of bike infrastructure.