Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Evidence of only accommodating motorized travel reinforcing the notion

I don't see how.

Your point was that such a road is "by design, only capable of carrying either automobiles safely, or bicycles safely, but not both". But it is capable of carrying both safely. The fact that motorists sometimes have to slow down to the speed of the cyclist does not make it unsafe to carry both.That was not my point at all. My point is in bold below:



The OP specifically refers to roads that are "designed so that motorized travel is the only viable way ...".

How accepting drivers are of bicyclists on these roads is a separate issue, and, specifically, is not a road design issue. It's a cultural/understanding issue.

Engineering/design problems need to be addressed with engineering/design solutions.

Cultural/understanding problems need to be addressed through behavior that changes that understanding, and education. Not with engineering/design "solutions" that actually exacerbate the underlying cultural/understanding problems.
Nonsense, as usual.

If a road is, by design, only capable of carrying either automobiles safely, or bicycles safely, but not both, then if it is by default carrying automobiles, drivers will not accept cyclists on that road because they perceive it as not being designed for cyclists. Design proper infrastructure, and drivers will accept that the road is for more than automobiles.
What road (excluding freeways) is, "by design, only capable of carrying either automobiles safely, or bicycles safely, but not both"?

I know of no such roads. None. Every non-freeway surface street, road or highway I've ever driven or ridden on was and still is (so far as I know) capable of carrying both automobiles and bicyclists safely.
How about a road with lanes too narrow to safely share, and with a 40 MPH or greater speed limit? :rolleyes:
A road with lanes too narrow to be safely shared side-by-side is not unsafe to be shared in line. Yes, motorists sometimes have to slow down to the speed of the cyclist.
Which gets to the point of my post, doesn't it?

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree.

The recent Oregon tragedy seems to me to be an example of how dangerous bicycling can be, particularly to someone who does not understand and appreciate where the source of threats to his safety are most likely to come from, and what the best practices and habits are to help avoid a sudden and unexpected demise like that.

Here's a hard fact of life for you HH. You could teach vc or whatever else you want to all the cyclists in the world and dress them in full body armor - but people will still get injured or die, whether they make a mistake or do everything right. It's a shame you feel cycling is so dangerous, kinda hard to defeat the 'notion' when you buy into it yourself.

A road with lanes too narrow to be safely shared side-by-side is not unsafe to be shared in line. Yes, motorists sometimes have to slow down to the speed of the cyclist. I was in Mendocino a few weeks ago, which requires driving a narrow 2 lane highway from 101 out to the coast. We (driving in a Ford F150 king cab) came around a corner and were suddenly required to slow down and be stuck behind a chain of barely moving cars. As we soon found out, a couple of touring cyclists were riding up the grade, and there was no room to pass while there was oncoming traffic. As soon as the oncoming traffic cleared, everyone passed, without incident. Nothing unsafe about it. It's not much different from coming upon a slow moving truck or piece of farm equipment on such a road. Would anyone say that such roads are "by design, only capable of carrying either automobiles safely, or trucks safely, but not both"? That such roads are, "by design, only capable of carrying either automobiles safely, or farm tractors safely, but not both"? More evidence of how prevalent cyclist inferiority thinking is even among cyclists...

On that same trip, Gene, I happened to rent a mountain bike and rode a few miles up and down highway 1 north of the town of Mendocino (as well as doing some awesome off-road single track riding). No problems.

I repeat: What road (excluding freeways) is, "by design, only capable of carrying either automobiles safely, or bicycles safely, but not both"?

Track back up this thread and you'll see my response. The road doesn't care. It is the motorists that are an issue... they are the ones smart enough to slow down and drive with care, or stupid enough to believe "zoom zoom" and drive like bats outta hell... the problem is they don't get hurt... it is the cyclists that suffer when motorists behave badly.

BTW beautiful country up there... too bad you didn't drive a few miles north (about 120 miles actually) to see the interesting treatment of BL along 101 on either side of the CA/OR border. It is a very interesting contrast. BTW we followed 101 from OR to 1 in CA just last year down to Bodaga Bay. So those roads are still fresh in my mind.

So, Blue Order and Gene, Blue Order's original statement was this:

"If a road is, by design, only capable of carrying either automobiles safely, or bicycles safely, but not both, then if it is by default carrying automobiles, drivers will not accept cyclists on that road because they perceive it as not being designed for cyclists. Design proper infrastructure, and drivers will accept that the road is for more than automobiles."

Since I rejected the If part (arguing that no such roads exist), I really didn't pay much attention to the bold part. If the assumption is never true, then the part that is true only when the assumption is true is not relevant.

But I can look at the bold part, since that appears to be Gene's argument too. I think it goes something like this:

On roads not accomodated for painless/easy passing of cyclists by motorists, drivers will not accept cyclists on that road because they perceive it as not being designed for cyclists. Design proper infrastructure, and drivers will accept that the road is for more than automobiles.

(please correct me if this is misrepresenting your point)I've got several problems with this:
I (and other vehicular cyclists, all over the U.S. - per their reports) only have very rare problems with motorists, frequency measured on the order of weeks if not months, cycling on roads with high volumes of high speed traffic and no accomodation for painless/easy passing of cyclists. Of course there are exceptions, but, for the most part, I know it is not true that "drivers will not accept cyclists on that road". Check out these video clips:
http://www.cyclistview.com/laneposition.htm
http://www.cyclistview.com/trafficskills.htm(there are many, many more examples)
When on-road segregated cycling facilities are built, the driver's conception of where the road ends is generally (there are exceptions) coincident with where the facility begins. To them, that 6-inch solid white stripe defines the edge of the road. To most drivers with the kind of thinking that we're talking about, a cyclist in the bike lane is off (his conception of) the road.
Therefore, such infrastructure does not create acceptance of cyclists on the road, it creates acceptance of cyclists in the infrastructure which they consider to be off the road. Thus, this kind of infrastructure does nothing to address "the notion" described in the OP of this thread.
The existence of a bike lane on one road reinforces the notion, in general, that cyclists belong off the road (or the part of the road that is intended for motor traffic), and this general notion is then that much more likely to manifest itself on roads with "no space" for cyclists, leading to ideas like cyclists don't belong on that road at all, and should be banned.

Here's a hard fact of life for you HH. You could teach vc or whatever else you want to all the cyclists in the world and dress them in full body armor - but people will still get injured or die, whether they make a mistake or do everything right. It's a shame you feel cycling is so dangerous, kinda hard to defeat the 'notion' when you buy into it yourself. I understand that vc is no panacea. But neither is a rubber, but using rubbers is still a good idea. And promoting use of rubbers is a good idea as a means to greatly reduce the incidence of stds and unwanted pregnancies. The imperfection of using rubbers is also a hard (no pun intended) fact of life, but not hard enough to shut down sex ed, Planned Parenthood and all the efforts in Africa to try to stop the spread of AIDS.

Do you wear a floatation device while swimming?

So, Blue Order and Gene,


You can bold as much as you want and imply as much as you want, but your statements do NOT reflect my thoughts... which were expressed in my third post:
Personally I feel that all roads are accomodating of cyclists... however, those with whom I share the roads may not feel as I do.

There is nothing wrong with the roads... just the users.

Make it clear to motorists that I am right where I am supposed to be, and I am fine with roads just as they are.

But since motorists already know all they need to know... and are apparently just too stupid (or selfish) to care, I guess there is nothing we can do. I'll buy ear plugs and learn to fly the finger more often.

Since I get far more honkings on my bike than I do in my car (I can't even recall ever being honked at in my car... and I drive with the windows down)... then I know motorists are treating me differently depending on my vehicle.

Meanwhile come to my part of town and spend a few days riding around at about 13MPH. Just so you know what honking sounds like.

You can bold as much as you want and imply as much as you want, but your statements do NOT reflect my thoughts... which were expressed in my third post:

There is nothing wrong with the roads... just the users.

Make it clear to motorists that I am right where I am supposed to be, and I am fine with roads just as they are.

But since motorists already know all they need to know... and are apparently just too stupid (or selfish) to care, I guess there is nothing we can do. I'll buy ear plugs and learn to fly the finger more often.

Since I get far more honkings on my bike than I do in my car (I can't even recall ever being honked at in my car... and I drive with the windows down)... then I know motorists are treating me differently depending on my vehicle.
I still don't see much of a difference between what you and Blue Order are saying (though it was his words that were bolded, not yours).

I tend to anticipate when someone might honk at me by putting myself in their shoes, and ride and communicate accordingly. It's hard to define that more specifically, but it might explain why I hardly ever get honked at.

Anyway, I'm going to stay away from BF for a few weeks. See ya.

I tend to anticipate when someone might honk at me by putting myself in their shoes, and ride and communicate accordingly. It's hard to define that more specifically, but it might explain why I hardly ever get honked at.

.

Gee, and I ride like I belong on the road... could that be the difference? I don't put myself in anyones' shoes but my own...

Pop quiz: you are destination postioned for a straight through destination and approaching a red light and there is some motorist approaching from behind... whaddya do?

Gee, and I ride like I belong on the road... could that be the difference? I don't put myself in anyones' shoes but my own...

Pop quiz: you are destination postioned for a straight through destination and approaching a red light and there is some motorist approaching from behind... whaddya do?Been watching Speed? :D

I tend to anticipate when someone might honk at me by putting myself in their shoes, and ride and communicate accordingly. It's hard to define that more specifically, but it might explain why I hardly ever get honked at.
Gee, and I ride like I belong on the road... could that be the difference? I don't put myself in anyones' shoes but my own...

Well, that could be the difference. I do ride like I belong on the road, but I put myself in others' shoes to make sure I look like I belong on the road to them. I also use my mirror to make sure I'm as effective as I hope to be, and adjust accordingly when I don't appear to be. It's a constant/continual process.


Pop quiz: you are destination postioned for a straight through destination and approaching a red light and there is some motorist approaching from behind... whaddya do? Happens all the time. As I slow down I monitor to the rear. What I do depends on what they're doing. It may range from simply coming to a normal stop, to issuing the slow/stop signal, looking back at them, doing a few zig-zags, looking back and nodding... it depends. But I sure as heck have never been honked at while doing this, if that's what you mean.

See ya.

I don't think the motorists would consider it "sharing" if they are stuck in long queues waiting behind a cyclist. Sharing usually means neither party loses. Going 15 miles an hour in a 45 mph zone is definitely losing. You are losing the convenience that a car provides. Sharing means it's safe and convenient for both parties to go along their merry way without hardship.

I don't think the motorists would consider it "sharing" if they are stuck in long queues waiting behind a cyclist. Sharing usually means neither party loses. Going 15 miles an hour in a 45 mph zone is definitely losing. You are losing the convenience that a car provides. Sharing means it's safe and convenient for both parties to go along their merry way without hardship.You am not from Bizarro World.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c1/Bizarroworld.PNG

...Going 15 miles an hour in a 45 mph zone...Am parade on Bizarro World. Cyclist leading parade am cheered and revered Drum Major.


http://theages.superman.ws/Encyclopaedia/bizarroWorld.gif

The recent Oregon tragedy seems to me to be an example of how dangerous bicycling can be, particularly to someone who does not understand and appreciate where the source of threats to his safety are most likely to come from, and what the best practices and habits are to help avoid a sudden and unexpected demise like that.



Facilities that appear to be created because of the notion that cycling is dangerous reinforce that notion and appear to be an official sanction of it.

I'm getting the sense that HH is the biggest promoter of "the notion" that cycling is an extremely dangerous occupation if you ride in bike lanes, use MUP's, bike paths or are not a strict adherent of VC practices or do not buy into his speculations/theories regarding the cause of cycling injuries and mortalities.

So all this is to say that the design of the roads is more then just WOL, NOL and bike lanes, a road is defined by its context. Nice. This maybe my new sig. Can I quote you?

Certainly but I think your current quote from Hurst is better. Since I might be losing it I decided to copy it to Baltimore Spokes, so I hope you don't mind.

To give people some idea how the context plays on the street the following gif shows a context transformation:
http://www.completestreets.org/images/transform.gif

(Please, if you must comment about the door zone bike lane do so in another thread. If there is concern about Complete Streets advocating door zone bike lanes; Complete Streets is a concept idea on how to sell bike ped planning to motor vehicle centric planning departments. The concept photo is not meant to be taken so literally, it is meant to depict that you can accommodate bikes and peds into an existing space.)

My point in showing this is to most people the cyclists does not look out of place in the end transformation (I'll even assert that the bike lane is not necessary for this) but the cyclist would look out of place to a lot of people in the beginning frame of the transformation.

If we are truly concerned about being accepted on the roads we have to change the roads context. I strongly feel that what ever damage the VC advocates are attributing to bike lanes is really the design context of too many roads being like the first frame of the transformation.

Certainly but I think your current quote from Hurst is better. Since I might be losing it I decided to copy it to Baltimore Spokes, so I hope you don't mind.


If we are truly concerned about being accepted on the roads we have to change the roads context. I strongly feel that what ever damage the VC advocates are attributing to bike lanes is really the design context of too many roads being like the first frame of the transformation.

THC, quote away! I see you already have it up on your site. I found that bit of Robert Hurst on a thread here in A&S.

It's interesting how you bring up design context. It clarifies things for me at least as to why there is conflicts between motorists and cyclists. Doesn't make it right. And it also illuminates (again, for me) the underlying conflicts between VC advocates, bike facilites advocates, and anti-bike facilities naysayers (well, they're not advocating, right?).

Here's some evidence for you of a car-dominated system reinforcing the notion and vehicular cycling doing nothing to combat it:


I have a question: does anyone else in Montecito have a problem with
cyclists? My wife and I have lived here two years now and have not heard
anyone complain. I know we live in a beautiful area and community, that's
why we moved here, but I don't feel like jeopardizing my family’s life
every time I drive on East Valley, Toro Canyon, Sheffield and Ortega
Ridge Road because a cyclist thinks he owns the road.

All of these roads have very limited visibility, with no bike lanes and
the cyclists expect you to break the law by having to cross over a double
line, which is illegal, when you can't even see if there is oncoming
traffic. This is an extremely dangerous situation and it happens
everyday. I am in constant fear of being responsible for hitting a biker
just because I want to stay safe in my lane.

Since there is no shoulder, a single cyclist is bad enough, as they
refuse to stay on the white line and ride in the middle of the lane...

Here's some evidence for you of a car-dominated system reinforcing the notion and vehicular cycling doing nothing to combat it:
Sounds to me like the guy needs to learn a little patience and learn to not try to pass in an unsafe area!:p

There has been so much over emphasis by our society that cars have to be the most covenant form of door to door transportation. Convenient transportation is one thing but being over zealous for the right to be able to park your car right smack by the front door is quite another. People spend tons of time circling parking lots just waiting for that ideal parking spot that saves them “time” from walking. Simply because the way things are built say “If you drive a car we will give you front row parking but if you bike or walk you will have to cross our obstacle course of 1 ton moving objects.” It is this sharp modal access contrast that gets carried over to the adjoining road. But if the design gives equal or priority access to pedestrians and cyclists the road environment becomes totally different.

(I will also note that people may not be circling the parking lot because of shear laziness but because of the lack of (perceived) pedestrian accommodations in the midst of all those 1 ton moving objects.)

I attended a Safe Routes To School workshop and the school had students that walked to school cross as many as three driveways but for parents who drove their kids to school there was convenient right in front of the door drop off complete with a no stop merge back into traffic lane (that those walking to school had to cross.) The total perverseness of over accommodating cars inappropriately has to stop.

Anyway if you like thinking in terms of streetscape designs for accommodating cyclists I’ve been hanging out with some New Urbanists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Urban) and trying to get cycling issues a little more up front with the local group here and they have been very accommodating so far.

Now hopefully if I have made may case sufficiently so I can get to the case that Diane mentions and bike lanes would be a poor mans way of changing the context of the road to say bikes belong BUT to do so without changing other local design context issues could be counter productive (e.g. JF and HH arguments.) That is to say if we introduced a bike lane in the first frame of the transformation we are giving a mixed message that bikes belong on the road but not at the destinations. Or stated differently; since bikes serve no useful purpose (by not being accommodated at destinations) so therefore they are a nuisance when there is no bike lane.

I don't think the motorists would consider it "sharing" if they are stuck in long queues waiting behind a cyclist. Sharing usually means neither party loses. Going 15 miles an hour in a 45 mph zone is definitely losing. You are losing the convenience that a car provides. Sharing means it's safe and convenient for both parties to go along their merry way without hardship.

Diane, you are being considerate of the feelings of motorists. How nice. All that is necessary is sufficient width to carry the traffic with little delay. Why don't you always argue in this useful way?

Diane posted the following: "Here's some evidence for you of a car-dominated system reinforcing the notion and vehicular cycling doing nothing to combat it:
Quote:
I have a question: does anyone else in Montecito have a problem with
cyclists? My wife and I have lived here two years now and have not heard
anyone complain. I know we live in a beautiful area and community, that's
why we moved here, but I don't feel like jeopardizing my family’s life
every time I drive on East Valley, Toro Canyon, Sheffield and Ortega
Ridge Road because a cyclist thinks he owns the road.

All of these roads have very limited visibility, with no bike lanes and
the cyclists expect you to break the law by having to cross over a double
line, which is illegal, when you can't even see if there is oncoming
traffic. This is an extremely dangerous situation and it happens
everyday. I am in constant fear of being responsible for hitting a biker
just because I want to stay safe in my lane.

Since there is no shoulder, a single cyclist is bad enough, as they
refuse to stay on the white line and ride in the middle of the lane...



Here's some evidence for you of a car-dominated system reinforcing the notion and vehicular cycling doing nothing to combat it:

As I said when I spoke at Santa Barbara, of which Montecito is a suburb, cyclists need good roads. If the residents of Montecito want roads that are too narrow, they will have to put up with slow bicycle traffic. If they are sufficiently upset by the delays, then they can pay for road widening. It is their choice to make; have good roads with few delays, or bad roads with much delay.

There has been so much over emphasis by our society that cars have to be the most covenant form of door to door transportation. Convenient transportation is one thing but being over zealous for the right to be able to park your car right smack by the front door is quite another. People spend tons of time circling parking lots just waiting for that ideal parking spot that saves them “time” from walking. Simply because the way things are built say “If you drive a car we will give you front row parking but if you bike or walk you will have to cross our obstacle course of 1 ton moving objects.” It is this sharp modal access contrast that gets carried over to the adjoining road. But if the design gives equal or priority access to pedestrians and cyclists the road environment becomes totally different.

(I will also note that people may not be circling the parking lot because of shear laziness but because of the lack of (perceived) pedestrian accommodations in the midst of all those 1 ton moving objects.)

I attended a Safe Routes To School workshop and the school had students that walked to school cross as many as three driveways but for parents who drove their kids to school there was convenient right in front of the door drop off complete with a no stop merge back into traffic lane (that those walking to school had to cross.) The total perverseness of over accommodating cars inappropriately has to stop.

Anyway if you like thinking in terms of streetscape designs for accommodating cyclists I’ve been hanging out with some New Urbanists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Urban) and trying to get cycling issues a little more up front with the local group here and they have been very accommodating so far.

Now hopefully if I have made may case sufficiently so I can get to the case that Diane mentions and bike lanes would be a poor mans way of changing the context of the road to say bikes belong BUT to do so without changing other local design context issues could be counter productive (e.g. JF and HH arguments.) That is to say if we introduced a bike lane in the first frame of the transformation we are giving a mixed message that bikes belong on the road but not at the destinations. Or stated differently; since bikes serve no useful purpose (by not being accommodated at destinations) so therefore they are a nuisance when there is no bike lane.

THC,

Not to gush (maybe a little) but the clarity of which you speak is refreshing. :) I do have a couple of nits: 1. Some people circle around a parking lot simply because they want to find a spot where they can keep their moving object form being scratched. 2. I believe in the SUV realm, they weigh more than 1 ton. For example, the new, improved and more efficient GMC Acadia weighs in at 6400 lbs! :D