Vehicular Cycling (VC) - The biggest aspect of the VC/BL debate seems to be IMPASSE

How would you propose we address this as a group? What compromises are possible? How can we work together as a joint advocacy group to create a saner view for all sides of this debate rather than screaming at each other from our respective positions? As it stands right now, if we had to present to any government body, all the impression that they would get would be one of chaos and a distinct lack of a cohesive group.

Discuss this amongst yourselves and please keep the personalities out of it. I submit that as it stands right now, the conflict only undermines us and detracts from our credibility as a group. How does this serve advocacy in any meaningful way?

Final point: No one viewpoint get's ALL their agenda in a democratic society, our whole society is founded on compromise. Strip your basic ideas down to their minimal basic "Have to Have" list, and let's see what kind of synthesis can be generated from both sides of this debate.

I think we've tried this tact. As always, the devil's in the details. On a broad level, we are all cyclists and all want to improve the cyclist's lot out on the road. At the detail level, the disagreement is on implementation; with one side seeing cyclist training as the key issue and the other side seeing engineering design (of the roadway) as the key issue. As always, the solution to the problem lies somewhere in the middle, but to get to the appropriate mix requires leadership at a local level; something which is impossible on the internet, no matter what is the forum.

As I see it, the forums have to be a place where the two extremes can lay out their best case for their proposed solution. As long as the discussion doesn't get personal (as it all too often has in the past; and I'll admit, I've been part of the problem at times), then the two cases are layed out and individuals can make their own better informed (we hope) opinion about the subject to carry into the real world.

I've given up on seeing the forums as a place where peace and harmony on a controversial subject can exist. It is impossible to enforce that kind of peace without some extremely heavy handed mod'ing to control and lead the conversation. Frankly, I think the disagreements are fine, as long as it doesn't get to the level where it becomes personal. HH and I had many a discussion in the past which was purely discussion on a technical and philosophical basis. Both him and I, in the past, have gotten frustrated with each other and turned it personal, and I regret this.

Hopefully, we can all cool off and start discussing this problem in a rational way again. But realize that there will never be any consensus on a forum on the internet, where leadership of the discussion is impossible. Only in real life can a consensus be formed, and it has to come from a leader talking to people who trust this person's decisions and philosophy.

I think we've tried this tact. As always, the devil's in the details. On a broad level, we are all cyclists and all want to improve the cyclist's lot out on the road. At the detail level, the disagreement is on implementation; with one side seeing cyclist training as the key issue and the other side seeing engineering design (of the roadway) as the key issue. As always, the solution to the problem lies somewhere in the middle, but to get to the appropriate mix requires leadership at a local level; something which is impossible on the internet, no matter what is the forum.

As I see it, the forums have to be a place where the two extremes can lay out their best case for their proposed solution. As long as the discussion doesn't get personal (as it all too often has in the past; and I'll admit, I've been part of the problem at times), then the two cases are layed out and individuals can make their own better informed (we hope) opinion about the subject to carry into the real world.

I've given up on seeing the forums as a place where peace and harmony on a controversial subject can exist. It is impossible to enforce that kind of peace without some extremely heavy handed mod'ing to control and lead the conversation. Frankly, I think the disagreements are fine, as long as it doesn't get to the level where it becomes personal. HH and I had many a discussion in the past which was purely discussion on a technical and philosophical basis. Both him and I, in the past, have gotten frustrated with each other and turned it personal, and I regret this.

Hopefully, we can all cool off and start discussing this problem in a rational way again. But realize that there will never be any consensus on a forum on the internet, where leadership of the discussion is impossible. Only in real life can a consensus be formed, and it has to come from a leader talking to people who trust this person's decisions and philosophy.

I think that Brian has not stated the difference accurately. Here is his view of the controversy: "At the detail level, the disagreement is on implementation; with one side seeing cyclist training as the key issue and the other side seeing engineering design (of the roadway) as the key issue."

Vehicular cyclists are as interested in good road engineering as the bikeway promoters are in their kind of engineering. Much of the argumentation by bikeway advocates states the vehicular cyclist position as advocating narrow outside lanes. That is not correct at all. Suggestions for what can be done to improve existing roads are given in my Bicycle Transportation. Furthermore, bikeways do not even reduce the need for proper training of cyclists; that training is just as necessary with bikeways (of the American pattern) as without them.

Furthermore, there is a much deeper difference, that concerns: How should cyclists operate on the roadway? If cyclists should operate as drivers of vehicles, then society and government should both accept and accommodate that use (in all aspects from paving to training) and should not complicate the problem by building facilities that are based on the opposite concept. If, on the other hand, cyclists should not operate as drivers of vehicles, then it would be appropriate to build facilities for that non-conforming use. Looks simple, doesn't it?

Here's the catch. Nobody has built a system that allows cyclists to travel freely and safely without obeying the rules of the road. In a way, the Dutch sidepath system is nearest to that, but it is not ubiquitous even there.

Instead of obeying either principle, we have an irrational combination of both principles that nobody can understand, which, therefore, is controlled by superstition. One system is the vehicular system, that is required by the operational characteristics of vehicles and drivers, and for which the road system is designed. The other is the motorist-invented view of cyclists as incompetent road users who must be kept out of the way of motorists, lest they be crushed, and which is now institutionalized in the form of bikeways, which are believed to make cycling safe for incompetent cyclists. This view has great social acceptance, which is the problem, because, of course, it is false.

The idea that bikeways will persuade large numbers of motorists to switch to bicycle transportation is the foundation of anti-motoring bicycle advocacy. This is based on the social belief that bikeways make cycling safe for incompetent road users. And this belief is pure superstition.

Therefore, we have a conflict between the rationally based vehicular cycling principle and the bikeway superstition. It is difficult to find a compromise between two such different modes of thought.

Therefore, we have a conflict between the rationally based vehicular cycling principle and the bikeway superstition. It is difficult to find a compromise between two such different modes of thought.

There ya have it. One side is rational, and based on principle, and the other side is over run by psychotic superstitionalists. mmmmm popcorn

John, and Brian both;

I sure never said it would be easy....actually, it'll be extremely difficult! I believe both sides are in reality, working to a common goal though, just diametric opposites in path to the goal.

John, why don't you lay out your "Have to have" list. Let's see how it can be implemented in a manner which is safe. *I suspect cyclist training is right up there at the top. You too, Brian.:)

I agree that cyclist training is very important. At the least, it can't hurt! My question is, and both sides of this debate need to express their views:
What can be done to implement a cyclist training program, either voluntary or public funded, so as to achieve the maximum effect for the minimal cost?

As I see it, there is also the issue of motorist awareness:

How can we effectively express our rights, duties and obligations so that John Q Motorist understands we have the right to ride the roads?

Third question:
It follows that there are cyclists that will NEVER be comfortable riding in traffic, no matter how well they ride. How do we accommodate them? Are they to be eliminated from the equation altogether?

This group of questions gives us a starting ground to brainstorm from to reach a compromise that is palatable by all, hopefully. It's worth a try....after all, which is better, to try to win all and miss the mark, or to make the trip a series of steps, each toward the goal, but ensuring a far greater probability of eventual success?

There ya have it. One side is rational, and based on principle, and the other side is over run by psychotic superstitionalists. mmmmm popcorn
Dewaday, what we have are different viewpoints, but a common goal, and your post is another example of this issue. Before a dialogue even starts, you already discount any attempt at compromise.

I can tell you this much: If you decide your effort will fail, you have a 100% chance of that prediction coming to pass. It's called self fulfilling prophecy. At least I'm making an effort to bridge the gap rather than posting inanities.

some people will have the preference to be generally "out-of-the-way" of cars while cycling. no getting around that. you can not "train" that out of them. whether that's out of the way in fact or in perception, that's a preference. that's why I feel we need to have both facilities and VC, because all riding styles and preferences are not the same.

we need to be able to advocate for all preferences, not try to force one mode for all. AND this is, in my mind, all part of a bigger picture of re-creating our cities and streets on a more human, less auto-centric, scale...not anti-motorist, but just creating a more even playing field.

some people will have the preference to be generally "out-of-the-way" of cars while cycling. no getting around that. you can not "train" that out of them. whether that's out of the way in fact or in perception, that's a preference. that's why I feel we can have both facilities and VC, because all riding styles and preferences are not the same. we need to be able to advocate for all preferences, not try to force one mode for all.
Which is my point entirely!

Commencing the debate by referring to the other sides position as superstition seems like a counterproductive approach to reconciliation, and is what invariably causes these efforts to fail. good luck

yep, the my-way-or-the-highway-ers on each side are going to have to live with some compromises, I think.

vehicular cyclists can ride infrastructure rich communities. vehicular cyclists can ride on a road with a bike lane.

I feel the foresterite camp doth protest too much. compromise needs to be seen from that camp; bike advocacy includes multi-facted efforts including bike infrastructure, cyclist education, public education, lobbying for greater rights for cyclists.

leaving the onus of cycling advocacy soley on education leaves the bicycling community sorrily misrepresented.

I've several times in past year and in past month offered what I view as a compromise bike facility design - not a 'final compromise unworthy of discussion', but what I consider a good starting pointf or constructive discussion, that takes into account considerations from 'both sides'.

Interestingly I've observed whenever I've done this discussion seems to immediately peter out or change topic and the argument starts in a different thread. I sense that folks don't want constructive discussion or the format of online discussion dynamics doesn't work well for this.

here are a few of those posts:
http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=4678494&postcount=53
http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=4556076&postcount=10
http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=4608263&postcount=2

Al

Which is why I'm trying the concept of a moderated thread (No, not a Blue Star BF Moderator type moderator, but a neutral referee that can keep it on topic and a dialogue going instead of both sides shouting), call it an experiment on my part personally and not representative of Bike Forums official policies. I'm in this thread only in the role of, I guess a better term might be as a mediator or facilitator of dialogue.
I've several times in past year and in past month offered what I view as a compromise bike facility design - not a 'final compromise unworthy of discussion', but what I consider a good starting pointf or constructive discussion, that takes into account considerations from 'both sides'.

Interestingly I've observed whenever I've done this discussion seems to immediately peter out or change topic and the argument starts in a different thread. I sense that folks don't want constructive discussion or the format of online discussion dynamics doesn't work well for this.

here are a few of those posts:
http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=4678494&postcount=53
http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=4556076&postcount=10
http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=4608263&postcount=2

Al

I also think of BF A&SVC as a lab for discussion of ideas, ideas both for practical application as well as ideas that can help folks learn to improve their riding in traffic.

I do not think of it as any representation of cyclists agenda to any outside body. In fact locally cycling advocacy organizations work first internally and with each other and present a cohesive message to goverment. Keep the healthy debate within, but as the output provide a single voice communication.

Anyway if there is any common ground on what cyclists want materially (as opposed to who to train or not), it is wide pavement. Locally this has worked well as adocacy has successfully changed new road designs from original 12' wide outside lanes to 16' ones. No debate was needed as how to stipe them as the width supported adding additional striping at a later date if the road every became an 'important cycling' road - no debate was needed as these roads were otherwise ignored by cyclists. The great work the advoacy has done here is not about striping, but reviewing statewide road projects and flagging them to add more outside lane width when needed - for roads that are not really even on the cyclist radar.

Al

I don't know if this qualifies as a compromise or not. I think the roads need to be rebuilt from the ground up to better accomodate all users. Most of the road features that give cyclists a problem would probably not be solved by bike lanes. specifically, the problem areas include:


merges and diverges,
high speed limits,

tricky multi-lane intersections,
high-speed arterials replacing the slower grid system,
narrow traffic choke points due to expressways, train tracks and geographical features,
narrow bridges and underpasses,
and many other road "improvements" designed to increase carrying capicity for cars only.

I sure never said it would be easy....actually, it'll be extremely difficult! I believe both sides are in reality, working to a common goal though, just diametric opposites in path to the goal.

Actually, Tom, I don't believe the two sides have a common goal at all. I think the two extreme positions are:

1- Only one method of cycling is correct/safe/best/acceptable/to be promoted. Uses very narrow definitions (e.g. bike lanes are not "vehicular" etc.).
2- Many methods of cycling are correct/safe/best/acceptable/to be promoted, and in particular a priority is placed on facilities other than standard lanes on roads.

In this case, the goals are not only different, they are complete opposites. Group 1 wants to re-shape cyclists/cycling - even going to the extreme of excluding many cyclists - for the sake of their vision of what is best. Group 2 wants to re-shape the transportation infrastructure, including most (all?) cyclists but going to the extreme of excluding existing and often adequate roads.

Of course few people are extremists, but usually the extremists are the loudest in any crowd.

Strip your basic ideas down to their minimal basic "Have to Have" list, and let's see what kind of synthesis can be generated from both sides of this debate.
I have to have clean pavement and motorist cooperation.

I have to have a cold, cold water bottle...er, I got that covered. :)

Shade is nice...

Tom,

The so called VC camp, have already told you the bike lane they would not oppose. Which is a reasonable compromise from the "VC side".

http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=4608263&postcount=2

Bike lane advocates find such minimum standards unacceptable (no compromise), since their position seems to be any bike lane (no matter how dangerous) will somehow produce more butts on bikes. Hawaii has terrible bike lanes, and the bike lane advocates push for more bike lanes, while ignoring any discussion to fix the extremely dangerous ones to the above standard. Hawaii has a mandatory use law, but the bike lane advocates are not willing to use any of their effort in repealing that law.

Forum admin has taken a position that VC is the problem, not bike lane advocates, by relegating VC to a sub-forum rather than making it a VC/BL sub-forum.

The so called VC camp, have already told you the bike lane they would not oppose. Which is a reasonable compromise from the "VC side"..



http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=4608263&postcount=2.

well, that was Al talking. are you saying he speaks for all of you guys?



Bike lane advocates find such minimum standards unacceptable (no compromise),
well, that's not true. some do, some don't... I would approve of a bike lane like Al mentioned. But I would not call that a "minimum standard", I have trouble with that concept because it is inflexible... different situations are going to require different solutions as far as facilities go, and one size does not fit all.

to me, this is another example of "all or nothing" thinking that accomplishes little in the real world. But, I admit that I personally am OK with a lot of facilities, including BLs that are NOT 6 feet wide, that many of you guys seem to have a tizzy over...


since their position seems to be any bike lane (no matter how dangerous) will somehow produce more butts on bikes. .

a misstatement of my position, certainly, and probably of a lot of other people. this seems to be a problem across the board-- people not understanding what other people are for or against. maybe we can all work on that.



Hawaii has terrible bike lanes, and the bike lane advocates push for more bike lanes, while ignoring any discussion to fix the extremely dangerous ones to the above standard. Hawaii has a mandatory use law, but the bike lane advocates are not willing to use any of their effort in repealing that law. .

well, that seems to be something you need to talk to your local people about. I would definitely oppose mandatory use laws.


Forum admin has taken a position that VC is the problem, not bike lane advocates, by relegating VC to a sub-forum rather than making it a VC/BL sub-forum.

the problem is no compromise attitudes and ultimatums and blanket statements, and putting words in others' mouths from all sides.

examples:

"their position seems to be any bike lane (no matter how dangerous) will somehow produce more butts on bikes."

"Bike lane advocates find such minimum standards unacceptable (no compromise)"

I wish you all the best of luck. Already we've had people accusing each other of all sorts of rigidity. I would like to know who is the rigid one on the anti-Forester side, because I am having a hard time knowing who that is. Names? I'm not happy with auto-centric road design, but that doesn't mean I must have bike lanes everywhere no matter what. I'm a vehicular cyclist who uses on-street cycling facilities and refuses to use sidewalks. I also refuse to ride 4 mph up steep roads with high-speed traffic and narrow lanes, unless I'm under duress. So shoot me for having a practical, woman's approach to the whole thing.

well, that was Al talking. are you saying he speaks for all of you guys?...


well, that's not true. some do, some don't... I would approve of a bike lane like Al mentioned. But I would not call that a "minimum standard", I have trouble with that concept because it is inflexible... ...

a misstatement of my position,
You read the thread once, try reading it again, since it has many of the so called "VC camp" positions on Al's post.
http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=307323

Thanks for making my point that many are OK with substandard bike lanes.

I was not responding to a post from you, why do you falsely imply such.

... and refuses to use sidewalks...
In other post, you have told us about a sidewalk that you do use. No big deal, but at least be consistent with your claims.

I would like to know who is the rigid one on the anti-Forester side, because I am having a hard time knowing who that is. Names?
Bek is a good start. I would put him at the top of your list.

John, and Brian both;

I sure never said it would be easy....actually, it'll be extremely difficult! I believe both sides are in reality, working to a common goal though, just diametric opposites in path to the goal.

John, why don't you lay out your "Have to have" list. Let's see how it can be implemented in a manner which is safe. *I suspect cyclist training is right up there at the top. You too, Brian.:)

I agree that cyclist training is very important. At the least, it can't hurt! My question is, and both sides of this debate need to express their views:
What can be done to implement a cyclist training program, either voluntary or public funded, so as to achieve the maximum effect for the minimal cost?

As I see it, there is also the issue of motorist awareness:

How can we effectively express our rights, duties and obligations so that John Q Motorist understands we have the right to ride the roads?

Third question:
It follows that there are cyclists that will NEVER be comfortable riding in traffic, no matter how well they ride. How do we accommodate them? Are they to be eliminated from the equation altogether?

This group of questions gives us a starting ground to brainstorm from to reach a compromise that is palatable by all, hopefully. It's worth a try....after all, which is better, to try to win all and miss the mark, or to make the trip a series of steps, each toward the goal, but ensuring a far greater probability of eventual success?


You are trying hard, Tom, in a good cause. So I put at the top of my list what I have put at the top of my list for decades.

1) Societal and governmental acceptance of the principle that cyclists using roadways should operate according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. Given that, everything that is needed, within resource limits, will be produced: road design, road construction, cyclist training, motorist training, law enforcement training. None of these are unknowns; they just are not being done because society thinks otherwise about bicycle transportation.

2) Any facilities for non-vehicular cycling should be regarded as nice but not necessary, and such facilities must not contradict the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles.

OK, we have a summary of positions and in all honesty, the viewpoints aren't that different, goal wise.

VC:

Education, recognition and compliance with road laws.
Bike infrastructure that is built needs to be compliant with safe operation if intended for a transportational alternative rather than a recreational use and must be clean and well maintained.
Bike infrastructure isn't absolutely necessary but can be very nice if properly designed.


Most of the BL responses are to the effect:

The Bike lanes aren't the exclusive solution
Bike lanes must be safe, and clean
Must be convenient to use
Bike infrastructure will increase "butts on bikes" as it will encourage riding by riders less comfortable with traffic and can accommodate various levels of skill. Dianne's statement about climbing a steep hill at 4 mph with fast traffic is a great example of comfort levels.(Could this be addressed with a protected climbing lane for bikes similar to the protected climbing lanes for heavy trucks like the ones up over Grapevine?)


If you read the summary, you can see that the two sides aren't as far apart as the arguments indicate. Still think there isn't room to discuss and work toward a unified front?:D

You read the thread once, try reading it again, since it has many of the so called "VC camp" positions on Al's post.
http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=307323

no thanks.

Thanks for making my point that many are OK with substandard bike lanes.

what's substandard to one is fine to another. there's that all-or nothing thinking again.

I was not responding to a post from you, why do you falsely imply such.

I used personal pronouns because *I* wanted it understood that those were *MY* views and no one else's. not implying anything.

Bek is a good start. I would put him at the top of your list.
The irony of this is that if you rode with him, you'd discover that in terms of personal practice, he utilizes VC principles about 99% of the time.

John, and Brian both;

I sure never said it would be easy....actually, it'll be extremely difficult! I believe both sides are in reality, working to a common goal though, just diametric opposites in path to the goal.

John, why don't you lay out your "Have to have" list. Let's see how it can be implemented in a manner which is safe. *I suspect cyclist training is right up there at the top. You too, Brian.:)

I agree that cyclist training is very important. At the least, it can't hurt! My question is, and both sides of this debate need to express their views:
What can be done to implement a cyclist training program, either voluntary or public funded, so as to achieve the maximum effect for the minimal cost?

As I see it, there is also the issue of motorist awareness:

How can we effectively express our rights, duties and obligations so that John Q Motorist understands we have the right to ride the roads?

Third question:
It follows that there are cyclists that will NEVER be comfortable riding in traffic, no matter how well they ride. How do we accommodate them? Are they to be eliminated from the equation altogether?

This group of questions gives us a starting ground to brainstorm from to reach a compromise that is palatable by all, hopefully. It's worth a try....after all, which is better, to try to win all and miss the mark, or to make the trip a series of steps, each toward the goal, but ensuring a far greater probability of eventual success?

Um... no. I'm actually quite tired of this discussion and have nearly two years worth of my argument layed out. That's why I haven't been posting for a while now. I'll watch this thread, but I am not going to subject myself to a hard session of thinking and composing and writing only to have it all shot down as irrelevent by the "other" side. I just joined in here to say that, perhaps, the disagreement is not so bad and is actually can spawn some good ideas to the individuals who follow them. But a compromise? You have to have an objective to compromise over; there can be no compromising an abstract idea. The bad part is when the argument started curling back on itself and when people started calling other's names. Now, argue amongst yourselves on who threw the first stone!

I would actually like to see some new ideas being composed for these arguments. HH's ideas are probably bad, in my opinion of course, but they are worthy of thought and in the process of countering them, it spawned ideas of my own. JF's ideas are also worthy of thought; I wish he would expand past the argument he lays out in his literature and move past simple contradiction and non-recognition of the counterarguments. I don't wish that we will settle on a compromise Bike Forum Position, but I wish the argument wouldn't go about in circles. Now, argue amongst yourselves on who sent the argument folding back on itself first!

Anyway; I was just checking in with a few thoughts gathered on my experience on these forums in the past. I have no wish to get more involved in this discussion for a while yet at least.

The irony of this is that if you rode with him, you'd discover that in terms of personal practice, he utilizes VC principles about 99% of the time.
Exactly, what Bek preaches and what he practices are 2 very different things.

So sorry to burst that bubble, CB, but a vehicular cyclist CAN advocate for community enhancements to bicycling including bike lanes.

because remember, CB, a vehicular cyclist can ride vehicularily in a bike lane.
Vehicular cyclists can live and ride in infrastructure rich communities.
A vehicular cyclist can seek to increase bicycling in communities via bike specific infrastructure.

Yes, we must have bike lanes to stick those cyclist that Bek considers inferior in. Do not teach them to ride VC like the great Bek, because he is way beyond other mortal cyclist.


Yet, Hawaii is able to teach 4th grade student cyclist the basics of VC.
http://www.hbl.org/bikeEd_general.html

Edit: maybe Bek is not so great after all, if he cannot teach those cyclist to ride VC rather than thinking his bike lanes somehow protect them.

huh? you really don't get it. and you are rude. why the namecalling and the pathetic attempt to put me down? i feel no cyclist is inferior. and i'm definetly a mortal. bike infrastructure is not considered 'my' bike lanes.

How lame. can a moderator please slap down CBHI's insipid rant?

As many times as you have been rude to HH and others, now you cannot take a little jab in the ribs. Pretty pathetic.

Come on! Rib jabs, etc are nonproductive in this conversation, CB! You have a lot to contribute, so how about that instead of giving the thread a hotfoot?

1) Societal acceptance of the principle that cyclists using roadways should operate according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles.

I would settle for this alone. I get the feeling that motorists generally just treat us as some obstacle to be avoided at any means, even if this requires foolish, dangerous action on the motorists' part.

The misconceptions and lack of understanding of cyclists rights to the road are demonstrated to me any time I get a chance for a candid conversation with regular folks that do not know me as a cyclist. I ask simply what people think about bicyclists on the roads... using something as simple as the current price of gas as a conversation starter. The responses are quite enlightening. The motoring public seems to not have any idea that cyclists can use any part of the road, they seem somewhat frightened by us (they ARE in fear of hitting a cyclist), and they want us out of the way. Suggesting that a driver should slow down... invokes chaos. Motorists have a strong sense of entitlement... and the cost of their vehicles seems closely tied to that, along with the belief that taxes and fees of motorists grant them exclusive access to roads.

Thus there is a long long way to go, to getting actual acceptance of cyclists on the roads. At this point, cyclists are just a bit of "road trash" to be avoided or "worked around."

OK, we have a summary of positions and in all honesty, the viewpoints aren't that different, goal wise.

VC:

Education, recognition and compliance with road laws.
Bike infrastructure that is built needs to be compliant with safe operation if intended for a transportational alternative rather than a recreational use and must be clean and well maintained.
Bike infrastructure isn't absolutely necessary but can be very nice if properly designed.



I would add to this list wide outside lanes. This provides the passing space that most bike lane supporters desire. I keep reading bike lane supporters claiming that vehicular cycling advocates want motorists to always have to change lanes to pass cyclists, and intend to deny traffic-averse cyclists additional breathing room for comfort. This is disingenuous; the striping supporters know that vehicular cyclists support adequate passing room in outside lanes, but appear to want to claim the space issue as their own, so they deliberately misrepresent vehicular cycling.

I would add to this list wide outside lanes. This provides the passing space that most bike lane supporters desire. I keep reading bike lane supporters claiming that vehicular cycling advocates want motorists to always have to change lanes to pass cyclists, and intend to deny traffic-averse cyclists additional breathing room for comfort. This is disingenuous; the striping supporters know that vehicular cyclists support adequate passing room in outside lanes, but appear to want to claim the space issue as their own, so they deliberately misrepresent vehicular cycling.

maybe for some, but I think for the most part it is an honest misunderstanding of the VC position, combined with the sometimes confusing "space but not stripes" position or the "I use the space but ignore the stripe" position I've seen from some VC advocates. It can get downright complicated for those not willing or unable to follow the labyrinthine logic web woven by some advocates.

personally, WOLs are fine with me. BLs are fine with me. VC is fine with me.
I'm flexible, and I believe in flexibility when it comes to making roadways more friendly to more cyclists.

I would actually like to see some new ideas ... Here's a relatively new idea:


A Bicycle Boulevard (http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/01/24/streetfilms-berkeleys-bike-boulevards/) gives the cyclist the sense of owning the road and being able to take the lane and being able to be in the middle of the street where they can avoid the door zone. Cars are expecting that they're going to have to wait for bikes and that they're going to be seeing bikes. It's not going to be a confrontational thing if a cyclist is the middle of the road because it's expected ...
http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/bicyclespedestrians/tools/bicycleBlvd/image1.jpg

I'm with Gene on all this. There is so much ignorance about cyclists and so much entitlement about autos out there that the idea that just a little extra pavement, a steely-eyed stare or two, and taking the lane for whatever purpose is sufficient to change any of the current problems cyclists have on the roads is simply a delusion.

Unless you educate motorists somehow, they simply will not understand any of the following things:
Cyclist rights to the road
WOLs
NOLs
Bike Lanes
Bike Boulevards
Sharrows
Vehicular Cycling
Safe passing of bicycles
etc...

OK, we have a summary of positions and in all honesty, the viewpoints aren't that different, goal wise.

VC:

Education, recognition and compliance with road laws.
Bike infrastructure that is built needs to be compliant with safe operation if intended for a transportational alternative rather than a recreational use and must be clean and well maintained.
Bike infrastructure isn't absolutely necessary but can be very nice if properly designed.


Most of the BL responses are to the effect:

The Bike lanes aren't the exclusive solution
Bike lanes must be safe, and clean
Must be convenient to use
Bike infrastructure will increase "butts on bikes" as it will encourage riding by riders less comfortable with traffic and can accommodate various levels of skill. Dianne's statement about climbing a steep hill at 4 mph with fast traffic is a great example of comfort levels.(Could this be addressed with a protected climbing lane for bikes similar to the protected climbing lanes for heavy trucks like the ones up over Grapevine?)


If you read the summary, you can see that the two sides aren't as far apart as the arguments indicate. Still think there isn't room to discuss and work toward a unified front?:D

I think that is an overly optimistic summary of the debates here. While I agree that both sides generally acknowledge the need for better cyclist education and well-designed facilities, the goals of the two groups are entirely different, and, as a result, their emphasis on these two concepts is entirely different.

Without trying to imbue this summary with value-laden caveats, modifiers, and assumptions, here is the way I see it.

The VC group's goal is to "fit" cyclists within the existing infrastructure, which requires a high degree of "training" and accepting the fact that many existing users of bicyclists will be unable or unwilling to "fit" within that system as properly "trained" and "competent" users of that system

The AC group's goal is to make cycling as pleasant, safe, and accessible to as many cyclists as possible. This goal, by definition requires additional facilities, as many existing users of bicyclists are unable or unwilling safely utilize existing roadways.

Both groups do have the common goal of having well-designed safe surfaces on which to cycle. One group wants to change people to fit the existing system. The other group wants to change the system to fit people's existing behavior.

Theoretically speaking, there should be some room for a middle ground and a blending of both concepts; however, given the discussions here, I have serious doubts as to the practical reality of that conclusion.

not a bad analysis, Skanking biker...
I'm a little more optimistic than you are about the common ground.
the same old arguments get tiresome to me...
BUT I still get into them...

I was asked by HH to respond to the following about my post



In particular, do you really believe what VC advocates call for is a "high degree" of training? What exactly is so "high" in the degree of the training that would prevent many existing users to be able or willing to use it? Do you think the degree of training called for by VC advocates is any higher, than, say, the degree of emphasis on responsibility and vigilance called for by Robert Hurst in his book? If so, how? why?

Part of the VC argument, that you seem to be ignoring, is that the skills/knowledge required to ride on roads with bike lanes is no less, and is arguably more, than on roads without bike lanes. Do you not accept this part of the argument? If so, why? How is it that a road with bike lanes requires less skills/knowledge (which can be obtained through self-education as well as training) than a road without bike lanes?


1. The "High Degree" of training I guess is an assumption I made based on the discussions of the tests generated and administered by the foresterites and the constant use of the phrase "incompetent" to describe those to feel uncomfortable riding on high speed high traffic aterials. I do get the impression that VC advocates want to require people to be "certified cyclists" before they are allowed to utilize the roadways. If I am wrong on this account, I apologize. However, JF comments here seem to postulate that "most" cyclists are "incompetent" and should not be utilizing the roadways.

2. I have not had time to read Robert Hurst's book as of yet, so I cannot legitimately compare/contrast the two. While I do believe that cyclists should know the rules of the road (which everyone who has a driver's license pressumably learned at one point), I do not believe it is necessary to take a specific "cyling skills test." Based on the discussions and his posts here, it seems to me that Hursts' approach is more experience "hands-on" based whereas the VC approach is very rigid and academic.

3. With regard to the "unable/unwilling" comment, I was refering to the fact that many "average Joe's" do not have the skills to safely ride on certain roads and that even those of use who are experienced and in my opinion "competent" nonetheless choose not to ride on certain roads due to safety concerns. I guess I am also referring to a perception/reality dichotomy. Even assuming one could scientifically prove it is "safe" to ride vehicularly on "all" roads, including narrow, high traffic, high volume arterials" and even assuming the entire cycling population is sufficiently "trained" to use them to the satisfaction of VCers, there will still be a sizeable portion of cyclists who nevertheless refuse to do so based on their own risk/benefit analysis. As an analogy, you can train someone to safely jump out of an airplane with a parachute, but that does not mean that all those who are so trained will, given a choice in the matter, want to jump out of an airplane. Some believe it is unsafe no matter how much training one receives; others are simply unwilling to take the risk. VCers do not seem to take these categories of people into account.

3. With regard to the "unable/unwilling" comment, I was refering to the fact that many "average Joe's" do not have the skills to safely ride on certain roads and that even those of use who are experienced and in my opinion "competent" nonetheless choose not to ride on certain roads due to safety concerns. I guess I am also referring to a perception/reality dichotomy. Even assuming one could scientifically prove it is "safe" to ride vehicularly on "all" roads, including narrow, high traffic, high volume arterials" and even assuming the entire cycling population is sufficiently "trained" to use them to the satisfaction of VCers, there will still be a sizeable portion of cyclists who nevertheless refuse to do so based on their own risk/benefit analysis. As an analogy, you can train someone to safely jump out of an airplane with a parachute, but that does not mean that all those who are so trained will, given a choice in the matter, want to jump out of an airplane. Some believe it is unsafe no matter how much training one receives; others are simply unwilling to take the risk. VCers do not seem to take these categories of people into account.

Just as a counter to this argument... would these same average "Joes" consider cycling on roads with Bike Lanes? Or to use your analogy, would a "striped parachute" make a difference?

If a cyclist is not likely to use the roads no matter what... then effectively are these folks not already lost to cycling altogether anyway?

Here's a relatively new idea:


http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/bicyclespedestrians/tools/bicycleBlvd/image1.jpg

Doesn't this run smack into the argument (by VC'ists) that such a symbol will be fine on road with the symbol, but disinfranchise cyclists on roads without the symbol? On residential streets like these, I don't really feel any symbol is necessary; perhaps a bike route sign posted on a poll. My main concern around the Portland area is on arterial roads. The concept of a bike boulevard, as a whole, is a good one, especially in the way that Portland is trying to implement them, by restricting the movement of cars on the bike boulevards through road furniture and single entrance/exits to limit traffic to local traffic, eliminating through traffic.

Overall, I don't view sharrows as an alternative to arterial bike lanes or wide outside lanes. Where they are useful, I'd argue that they are not really necessary. Perhaps there is a narrow window of useability on residential or inner city areas with traffic speeds between 35 and 45 mph. Below 35 mph, the symbol is not necessary, and above 45 mph, the sharrow is useless except as a notification that bicycles might be in the area and to be extra alert. I'm not convinced that many symbols other than lane lines are useful to be painting on the road. Perhaps there is a benefit to get cyclists away from the door zone, but it might just as easily put the cyclist closer to the door zone if they take the edge of the sharrow as a boundary and ride to the right of that.

HH and I had many a discussion in the past which was purely discussion on a technical and philosophical basis. Both him and I, in the past, have gotten frustrated with each other and turned it personal, and I regret this.I don't agree with anything HH has to say about cycling, but he's never taken it personal with me. What I do find annoying is his zealotry leading to disingenuous argument, which has led to me getting a bit carried away with him. But never the other way around.

I'm defending HH! :eek:

I don't agree with anything HH has to say about cycling, but he's never taken it personal with me. What I do find annoying is his zealotry leading to disingenuous argument, which has led to me getting a bit carried away with him. But never the other way around.

I'm defending HH! :eek:

I think what I am saying is that, between him and me, it hasn't turned to insults, but we have both been guilty of taking the counterarguments personally and getting emotionally pissed off with each other, resulting in over-the-top retoric designed specifically to get a rise out of the other.

I think what I am saying is that, between him and me, it hasn't turned to insults, but we have both been guilty of taking the counterarguments personally and getting emotionally pissed off with each other, resulting in over-the-top retoric designed specifically to get a rise out of the other.Maybe that's why he resorts to disingenuous arguments? In that case, he'd be trying to get a rise out of me, and I escalate by pulling out the roflmao emoticon....

Anything? I've said that bicycles have two wheels - you don't agree? ;)I'm sorry, but we'll have to agree to disagree. :D

feeling all warm and fuzzy in here...

1. The "High Degree" of training I guess is an assumption I made based on the discussions of the tests generated and administered by the foresterites and the constant use of the phrase "incompetent" to describe those to feel uncomfortable riding on high speed high traffic aterials. I do get the impression that VC advocates want to require people to be "certified cyclists" before they are allowed to utilize the roadways. If I am wrong on this account, I apologize. However, JF comments here seem to postulate that "most" cyclists are "incompetent" and should not be utilizing the roadways.

Most of JF's test is very basic cycling skills although not necessarily skills a brand new road cyclist would have (due to the bad example set by most other cyclists on the road, in my experience). They are not difficult skills to master and I certainly don't think everyone would need a class to "get it." Some might though and that is what I believe the classes are mostly for. With anything I do though, I always find it educational to talk with someone who has more experience than me with the subject even if I feel I have a really good grasp on the subject. There's almost always something more to learn. I've learned A LOT on these forums that I didn't get from Effective Cycling or the Art of Urban Cycling (doesn't mean it wasn't in there, but reading the book wasn't enough for me to "get it"). I believe the classes would also be useful in that respect as well.


2. I have not had time to read Robert Hurst's book as of yet, so I cannot legitimately compare/contrast the two. While I do believe that cyclists should know the rules of the road (which everyone who has a driver's license pressumably learned at one point), I do not believe it is necessary to take a specific "cyling skills test." Based on the discussions and his posts here, it seems to me that Hursts' approach is more experience "hands-on" based whereas the VC approach is very rigid and academic.

Most people know how to apply to the rules of the road when going at or near the speed of other traffic on the roadway. Once there is a large speed differential, most people don't have a clue. It gets even worse when the are going slow on a narrow bicycle (a kid's toy).

I would call neither the VC or the Hurst approach rigid. HH has argued, and I agree, that the biggest difference is that VC stresses best practices to avoid accidents while Hurst stresses vigilance. Both stress some of the other side. I've found that it's much easier to abide by a set of best practices than to be 100% vigilant hence the side I argue for. I'm far a highly focussed individual (I'm the exact opposite) so doing things contrary to the rules of the road that can be done safely with a high dose of vigilance gets me out of my comfort zone. I'm perfectly comfortable on a high speed multilane arterial taking the full right lane though.


3. With regard to the "unable/unwilling" comment, I was refering to the fact that many "average Joe's" do not have the skills to safely ride on certain roads and that even those of use who are experienced and in my opinion "competent" nonetheless choose not to ride on certain roads due to safety concerns. I guess I am also referring to a perception/reality dichotomy. Even assuming one could scientifically prove it is "safe" to ride vehicularly on "all" roads, including narrow, high traffic, high volume arterials" and even assuming the entire cycling population is sufficiently "trained" to use them to the satisfaction of VCers, there will still be a sizeable portion of cyclists who nevertheless refuse to do so based on their own risk/benefit analysis. As an analogy, you can train someone to safely jump out of an airplane with a parachute, but that does not mean that all those who are so trained will, given a choice in the matter, want to jump out of an airplane. Some believe it is unsafe no matter how much training one receives; others are simply unwilling to take the risk. VCers do not seem to take these categories of people into account.

Why should cyclist advocacy take into account people who will never feel comfortable riding a bike in traffic? Why try to coax them onto roads that they'd otherwise never ride on by striping a bike lane and hoping for the best for them?