Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Why do the VC want bicyclists on shoulders?

in numerous threads about high speed road design the vc lobby for 'improved shoulders' opposed to bike lanes. Even if the road would support a bike lane design thats vehicular.

I'm curious what makes the vc crowd think riding on a shoulder - outside of the travelled way- would be safer or more vehicular than a preffered class lane for bikes on the travelled way of the road itself?

what makes riding off the road preferable to riding in a lane on the road preferable to the vc platform?

vehicles travelling outside of the travelled way seems very unvehicular -you're not even on the road, riding outside of the lines, for gosh sakes - but the vc crowd insists shoulder riding is preffered accomodation for high speed roads.


Why is this? and is shoulder riding considered vehicular to the vc crowd? Is this vc kowtowing to the motorists AGAIN, because cars can't use bike lanes in a vehicular manner but bikes can?

Shoulders are not part of traffic, nor legally part of the "travelled way", nor carry any right-of-way status. I guess even VCers get seduced by the motorist conspiracy that bikes aren't real vehicles!

Shoulders = bike lanes for those suffering from "cyclist inferiority complex". ;-)

Where I live, bike symbols and signs generally increase the degree of boorish territorial behavior, particularly harassment by motorists, without improving the quality of the pavement for cycling. Also, roadway use by cyclists is explicitly allowed here where shoulders exist, but this may not be the case where striped bike lanes exist.

It doesn't have to be this way. Bike lanes could be designed to perform better than wide paved shoulders, e.g. they could be better positioned at intersections than wide paved shoulders, and they could be maintained to be as good as the roadway. Bike lanes could be marked totally outside the door zone. Unfortunately, our state DOT appears disinterested in these operational issues, so we get striped bike lanes marked to the right side of RTOLs, debris accumulation that never gets swept, door zone bike lanes, etc. along with increased harassment when cycling outside of these problem areas. So by comparison, the undesignated shoulders seem preferable, since they are explicitly optional.

Where I live, bike symbols and signs generally increase the degree of boorish territorial behavior, particularly harassment by motorists,

...

It doesn't have to be this way. Bike lanes could be designed .


You can't change behaviour problems with engineering solutions.

optional to whom? I bet the motorists still want you on the shoulder despite their apparant 'optionality'.

Steve, so if a new road was being designed in your comunity, a high speed road to the suburbs without a lot of intersections, would you lobby for well designed bike lanes, or just go with the motorist superiority, autocentric designs and settle for unvehicular shoulder riding?

and this totally sounds like poor road design, steve....


Where I live, bike symbols and signs generally increase the degree of boorish territorial behavior, particularly harassment by motorists, without improving the quality of the pavement for cycling. yeah, that's a problem that could be rectified by better infrastructure design.

NCDOT's standard design for new road construction on non-curb-and-gutter cross sections includes 12' lanes and at least 4' wide paved shoulders. This design is standard outside of municipal areas, i.e. between suburbs as you suggest.

If the road is inside a municipal area where curb and gutter is specified, the state works with the municipality to determine the cross section. NCDOT recommends wide outside lanes on curb-and-gutter thoroughfares. NCDOT will not sweep striped bike lanes so they generally discourage them on state-maintained roads, but whey will build them if the municipality insists.

On those roads where NCDOT proposes to build striped shoulders through many intersections, I actively lobby for wide outside through lanes. Where a municipality proposes to include bike lanes on a state-maintained roads, I lobby the municipality to allocate funding and develop a plan to sweep them regularly. On those roads where a municipality or the state proposes a door-zone bike lane or a bike lane that sweeps to the right of a right-turn-only lane, I speak against the bad design. Other than these situations, the default cross sections for new construction in Cary and surrounding Wake County are acceptable to me. (Cary's standard for new thoroughfares is wide outside lanes).

You can't change behaviour problems with engineering solutions.

Cops here sometimes harass and/or ticket cyclists for using the travel lane instead of an alternate facility such as a sidewalk path. Bike lane markings won't help convince the police not to harass/ticket the cyclist in the travel lane. But I have some hope that sharrow markings in the travel lane have some potential.

Cops here sometimes harass and/or ticket cyclists for using the travel lane instead of an alternate facility such as a sidewalk path. Bike lane markings won't help convince the police not to harass/ticket the cyclist in the travel lane. But I have some hope that sharrow markings in the travel lane have some potential.

If you have problems with police behaviour, discuss that with your chief of police. If you have problems with the law, advocate for the law to be changed. If you have problems with the behaviour of the public, time for an education campaign, media blitz, etc.


You can't change behaviour problems with engineering solutions.

remember, steve, wide lanes encourage gutter hugging, unsafe positioningt by bicyclists and are perhaps better marginally than shoulders. However, wide lanes alone on high speed arterials do NOTHING to encourage bicycling as transportation; a well provided, vehicular bike lane can and does provide better more visible, on road position for the bicyclist versus shoulder riding.


I'm still intrigued why the vc insist shoulders -outside of the travelled way are preferable to well designed bike lanes on road, preferred class lane on high speed roads? is riding on a shoulder even considered 'vehicular'?
is it because cars can't use a bike lane - a vc perpetuation of motorist superiority disorder?

remember, steve, wide lanes encourage gutter hugging, unsafe positioningt by bicyclists and are perhaps better marginally than shoulders. However, wide lanes alone on high speed arterials do NOTHING to encourage bicycling as transportation; a well provided, vehicular bike lane can and does provide better more visible, on road position for the bicyclist versus shoulder riding.


I'm still intrigued why the vc insist shoulders -outside of the travelled way are preferable to well designed bike lanes on road, preferred class lane on high speed roads? is riding on a shoulder even considered 'vehicular'?
is it because cars can't use a bike lane - a vc perpetuation of motorist superiority disorder?

Bek,

Extreme statements are generally unconvincing.

Why do you think that WOLs on arterials do nothing to encourage cycling? How many bike lanes satisfy the conditions you lay out in your first paragraph? How many bike lanes fail those conditions? It is realistic to advocate bike lanes when cycling advocate control of their construction is less than perfect? Who determines the VC stance on various topics? Who are the VC?

Bike lanes can have a positive effect in some of the dimensions you reference. I also suspect that bike lanes probably result in better flow -- although not necessarily safer -- than WOLs in various instances.

-G

Most of the VC advocates I talk to are not in favor of shoulders to "accommodate" cyclists. Shoulders are inferior to the roadway. The pavement is worse, they collect debris, the seams develop longitudinal cracks, there are often ledges where the traffic lane gets repaved but the shoulder doesn't. I don't want to ride in a shoulder. I want to be respected as a slow-moving vehicle and have traffic pass me safely and courteously. Any advocacy for shoulders (or bike lanes) as bicycle accommodations takes us in the wrong direction - away from creating a roadway environment in which we are not second-class citizens.

You have to do everything. You have to have decent riding conditions and you have to have people using and maintaining those conditions. If you don't have all of it you won't get people to use bicycles as basic transportation.

You have to do everything. You have to have decent riding conditions and you have to have people using and maintaining those conditions. If you don't have all of it you won't get people to use bicycles as basic transportation.

How are you defining decent riding conditions? Physical structure? Social structure? Weather?

If you concentrate effort on issues that make all roads safe for all users - driver education, cyclist education, traffic law enforcement, smooth pavement, civility (public awareness) - you can create an environment that is inviting enough to encourage people whose only obstacle is related to traffic safety.

Most people have many more excuses than that, it's just the easiest one to use. It's widely recognized that our traffic culture suffers from distracted driving, excessive speeding, red-light running, outbursts of frustration, etc. Bike facilities don't fix those problems or protect us from them. If you eliminated those conditions, you might encourage more people to ride, you'd definitely make riding more pleasant for those of us who already ride, but for the rest, there would still be a long queue of new excuses.

You can't change behaviour problems with engineering solutions.

I know for a fact that you're way too smart to believe this. Stop lights were engineered to stop the problem behavior of cars entering intersections without checking for cross traffic. Subway stiles were engineered to stop the problem behavior of people not paying to ride. Store security cameras were engineered to stop the problem behavior of shoplifting. Bike lanes were engineered to stop the problem behavior of VC cyclists riding too slowly in "car lanes." I could go on, but I'm sure you get the point.

I know for a fact that you're way too smart to believe this. Stop lights were engineered to stop the problem behavior of cars entering intersections without checking for cross traffic. Subway stiles were engineered to stop the problem behavior of people not paying to ride. Store security cameras were engineered to stop the problem behavior of shoplifting. Bike lanes were engineered to stop the problem behavior of VC cyclists riding too slowly in "car lanes." I could go on, but I'm sure you get the point.

And digital rights management (DRM) was invented to stop movie/music piracy... even Sony is now admitting that solution doesn't work!

Admittedly I should have used a less ambiguous word than behaviour, but I stand by my statement. At best the engineering solutions may restrict expression of some behaviour, but they don't meaningfully change it. Stop lights/signs are routinely ignored - I bet if every driver's priority was safety first, we could do without them. Shoplifting still occurs despite security cameras and "iventory control tags" - it may be somewhat reduced, but the overall cost of the system and its hassles gets spread to everyone.

If the people are the problem, you need to fix the people. I don't think new laws have made smoking less socially acceptable - rather I think the laws happened because social views had been changed (there was relatively little opposition to Ontario's smoking ban in public buildings). I don't think laws, court challenges, etc. are the reason that I seldom hear homophobic remarks in "polite company" anymore - rather it has become socially unacceptable to be seen as homophobic, and even our right-wing prime minister was oh-so-careful in discussing the marriage issue.

Yes, bike lanes and signage etc. can be a tool for social change, but they do not by themselves change behaviour. If sggoodri is correct that local drivers are "boorish" to cyclists and local cops harass cyclists, I see little to reason to believe that tossing a few signs or sharrows on the road will address the problem.

And digital rights management (DRM) was invented to stop movie/music piracy... even Sony is now admitting that solution doesn't work!

Admittedly I should have used a less ambiguous word than behaviour, but I stand by my statement. At best the engineering solutions may restrict expression of some behaviour, but they don't meaningfully change it. Stop lights/signs are routinely ignored - I bet if every driver's priority was safety first, we could do without them. Shoplifting still occurs despite security cameras and "iventory control tags" - it may be somewhat reduced, but the overall cost of the system and its hassles gets spread to everyone.

If the people are the problem, you need to fix the people. I don't think new laws have made smoking less socially acceptable - rather I think the laws happened because social views had been changed (there was relatively little opposition to Ontario's smoking ban in public buildings). I don't think laws, court challenges, etc. are the reason that I seldom hear homophobic remarks in "polite company" anymore - rather it has become socially unacceptable to be seen as homophobic, and even our right-wing prime minister was oh-so-careful in discussing the marriage issue.

Yes, bike lanes and signage etc. can be a tool for social change, but they do not by themselves change behaviour. If sggoodri is correct that local drivers are "boorish" to cyclists and local cops harass cyclists, I see little to reason to believe that tossing a few signs or sharrows on the road will address the problem.

It does, however, change the propensity that people engage in the behavior. And -- in my opinion -- it is far easier to change the incentives that people face than to change their attitudes.

I know for a fact that you're way too smart to believe this. Stop lights were engineered to stop the problem behavior of cars entering intersections without checking for cross traffic. Subway stiles were engineered to stop the problem behavior of people not paying to ride. Store security cameras were engineered to stop the problem behavior of shoplifting. Bike lanes were engineered to stop the problem behavior of VC cyclists riding too slowly in "car lanes." I could go on, but I'm sure you get the point.

Just for giggles, Rood...if there were not laws specifying that one must stop for a stop light, enforcement of those laws and well-known penalties for non-compliance with the law, do you think stoplights would be effective, no matter how well they might be engineered (short of some kind of force field that knocks offenders on their butts if the run the red built into them)? I'm not sure that stop lights are a good example of how engineering can be used to modify people's behavior. ;)

It does, however, change the propensity that people engage in the behavior. And -- in my opinion -- it is far easier to change the incentives that people face than to change their attitudes.

True, but I believe that without addressing the underlying behaviour/beliefs, the problem will just resurface sooner or later. It may even make the problem worse. However the very act of debating and/or adding those incentives may produce a great deal of social change. That's why I wish Ontario would discuss a 3-foot passing law - I'm sceptical it would be effective or enforced, but the added attention would be good.

Just for giggles, Rood...if there were not laws specifying that one must stop for a stop light, enforcement of those laws and well-known penalties for non-compliance with the law, do you think stoplights would be effective, no matter how well they might be engineered (short of some kind of force field that knocks offenders on their butts if the run the red built into them)? I'm not sure that stop lights are a good example of how engineering can be used to modify people's behavior. ;)
Great question!
A slight variation: imagine there were no tickets for running red lights, but you were held responsible for any crash that resulted from you running a red light.

Either way, I bet they would be treated like yield signs.

there'll already treated as yield signs, head!

so, given a choice, vc crewe out here, between a high speed road design with a vehicular bike lane, or no accomodation save a wide paved shoulder, along a 2 lane, congested 50MPH road.... which would you prefer?

I believe its' the forestorite POV the shoulder is the preffered design accomodation for bicyclists. OFF the road, out of the way of the faster traffic.

personally i like bike lanes over well maintained shoulders on high speed roads. keeps me on the road, closer where traffic is looking for other traffic, and not off on the shoulders outside of the travelled way.

On a high speed road, there's probably going to be few intersections and driveways, so practically speaking whether it's a shoulder stripe or a bike lane stripe makes little difference. But legally speaking (at least in California) I'm required to use a bike lane (with exceptions) but shoulder use is optional. Even so, I'd probably be riding to the right of the stripe regardless of whether it's a bike lane stripe or shoulder stripe. But if I have to leave a bike lane due to hazards, the burden of proof is on me to justify why I left the lane if I am cited, but that is not the case for the shoulder stripe.

It's true that most states (don't know about Canadian provinces, patc) don't have a law specifically requiring cyclists to use a bike lane when one is present. But in most of these states, it's arguable that bike lanes are part of the roadway and therefore use is required due to the "ride as far right in the roadway as practicable" laws.

WHAT? where do you get the 'therefore' bike lane use is required due the far right rule? what a dishonest way of looking at bike lanes, brian.

Oh, by the way, you vote you prefer a shoulder -outside of the travelled way- to a well implemented bike lane- on road preffered class lane- due the incredibly slim chance you're going to have to justify your leaving it if cited..... weak. I see a growing case of motorist superiority disorder affecting the VC out here.

True, but I believe that without addressing the underlying behaviour/beliefs, the problem will just resurface sooner or later. It may even make the problem worse.

You are correct that bad legislation can result in agents/people acting in perverse ways.

They should put as much effort and thought (though not necessarily as much money since it wouldn't need as much) into the bicycle transportation system as they do to the motor vehicle transportation system, and that does not preclude the bicycle transportation system being the motor vehicle transportation system.

In other words, if you have separate facilities they have to be as useful and maintained as the motor vehicle transportation facilities. Keeping bike paths maintained, making intersections that make sense etc. is an example of that.

If they are the same facilities they also have to be as useful and maintained. Sweeping the streets and not letting potholes get to bicycle-swallowing size would be an example of that. Making intersections safer is another. Streets that have bicycles, pedestrians and motor vehicles should not be built like freeways. Build streets like freeways and that's what you will get.

I'm just saying that you guys throw the baby out with the bath water. You don't believe that you can make the existing streets workable for cyclists so you make up a bunch of baloney about how if you're just macho enough you can do it. You also don't believe that separate facilities can be made workable so you toss them out altogether. The fact is if you build decent facilities and build decent roads that take bicycles into account from the get go and forever after you will create a better situation that the neglectful one we have now and you won't have to preach silly VC nonsense to anybody. Cycling will just be normal, not a super hero activity that requires macho behaviors.

interesting jhon hasn't chimed in on this, the vcist, motorist superiority affected pledge to keep bikes out of the way of the motorists.

Shoulders that look like bike lanes can be just as problematic as bike lanes. Worse are one that look like BLs but are narrower and/or have more hazards in them. Since they look so much like BLs motorist expect one to cycle there.

Locally in a few cases narrow shoulders like this have been removed (by sandblasting away the fog line) on suburban arterials which results in a wide outside lane that ends up having a wider cleaner pavement width.

See this link (I've posted several times before) about the confusion a narrow shoulder can cause to both motorist and cyclists in a suburban environment:
http://azbikelaw.org/articles/RayRoad.html

Al

They should put as much effort and thought (though not necessarily as much money since it wouldn't need as much) into the bicycle transportation system as they do to the motor vehicle transportation system, and that does not preclude the bicycle transportation system being the motor vehicle transportation system.

In other words, if you have separate facilities they have to be as useful and maintained as the motor vehicle transportation facilities. Keeping bike paths maintained, making intersections that make sense etc. is an example of that.

If they are the same facilities they also have to be as useful and maintained. Sweeping the streets and not letting potholes get to bicycle-swallowing size would be an example of that. Making intersections safer is another. Streets that have bicycles, pedestrians and motor vehicles should not be built like freeways. Build streets like freeways and that's what you will get.

I'm just saying that you guys throw the baby out with the bath water. You don't believe that you can make the existing streets workable for cyclists so you make up a bunch of baloney about how if you're just macho enough you can do it. You also don't believe that separate facilities can be made workable so you toss them out altogether. The fact is if you build decent facilities and build decent roads that take bicycles into account from the get go and forever after you will create a better situation that the neglectful one we have now and you won't have to preach silly VC nonsense to anybody. Cycling will just be normal, not a super hero activity that requires macho behaviors.

I have met few people on this forum. So it is difficult to tell whether your interpretation is correct. My sense from both on this forum and during conversations with real people is that the common argument/skepticism against many facilities has little if anything to do with bravado or being macho. Instead, the argument seems based on

most streets can be successfully navigated with some practice and skills,
skepticism that facilities do much to increase cycling,
skepticism that facilities do much to increase safety, and
the idea that society's resources are limited.

None of these positions appear ridiculous to me. Personally speaking, I agree that a well-constructed MUP or bike lane can improve the cycling experience and I sympathize with the notion of increasing the popularity of cycling for various reasons. Whether there is enough bang for the buck to warrant the expenditure is another issue.

In a thread about one or two months ago -- I recall it compared European and US/UK cycling -- we briefly discussed a strategy where cycling advocates went for the low-hanging fruit. I recall that they were

establish bicycle parking facilities
get cooperation from law enforcement such that cycling laws and individual responsibilities are understood
curb aggressive/extreme driving and cycling via law enforcement

In my view, it is pretty easy to convince fellow cyclists and the population of the merits of these simple steps. These steps would result in a noticeable improvement in the cycling environment for many people. If the US population is ready to use cycling as a standard form of transportation, I would expect to see some effect in the number of cyclists. If an effect is observed, it could be interpreted as a signal that we are close to a tipping point such that more resources are warranted ... say some redesign of major connectors with few alternatives. If no effect is observed, then one really has to sit down and think whether it is cost effective to "lower the bar" enough such that ordinary citizens cycle regularly such that -- just to give a measurable target -- we double the percentage of cycle-commuters. Otherwise, I will ask whether those dollars would be better spent on building a new school, hospital, library, and so on.

Notice that I emphasized common in the first passage. There may be individuals that fit your description well Diane. But in my experience, they are the rare exception instead of the rule.

-G

Just for giggles, Rood...if there were not laws specifying that one must stop for a stop light, enforcement of those laws and well-known penalties for non-compliance with the law, do you think stoplights would be effective, no matter how well they might be engineered (short of some kind of force field that knocks offenders on their butts if the run the red built into them)? I'm not sure that stop lights are a good example of how engineering can be used to modify people's behavior. ;)

Hmmmm, is legislation and enforcement really different from an engineering solution in the context of the Roody-Patc discussion? My interpretation was that engineering in this case was something that externally changed an individual's behavior whereas the counter-argument was that to enact real change, one has to change the perceptions and values of the individuals.

Anyway, if I was overly inclusive of the term "engineering" or exclusive of Pat's point, I agree with your point Chip.

invisiblehand, that's not 'low hanging fruit' you've reiterated, that's table scraps.

low hanging fruit does not describe better conditions and parking for already experienced bicyclists.

obviously you haven't seen the measurable effects of bicycling infrastructure in cities around the world and in communities here like portland and many other cities encouraging bicycling with bonifide bicycling infrastructure.

Regardless of your dimunization of what it takes to encourage more people to pluck at the fruit tree, that is far away from the discussion of this thread.

in lobbying for wide shoulders for bicyclists, the vc crewe betrays their motorist superiority disorder. the vc -led by john repeatedly calling for 'improved shoulders'- prefer bikes shoved off the road onto shoulders versus integrated, on road preffered class lanes for bicycling.

jhon forstor thinks a wide shoulder is sufficient for bicyclist consideration; i counter that indicates a motorist superiority disorder, to get bikes off the road and onto the shoulder -outside of the travelled way- for the conveinence for the motorists.

See this link (I've posted several times before) about the confusion a narrow shoulder can cause to both motorist and cyclists in a suburban environment:
http://azbikelaw.org/articles/RayRoad.html

Al

Thanks for the repost.

invisiblehand, that's not 'low hanging fruit' you've reiterated, that's table scraps.

Not in many parts of the country. From recent articles, it looks like law enforcement "table scrap" should be a high-priority Portland-advocacy goal.

(Are you in Portland? I can't remember)

In the discussion below, I frequently reference cycle commuting. My intent is to describe the more dedicated transportation cyclist: I just use commuting as the signal/threshold.


low hanging fruit does not describe better conditions and parking for already experienced bicyclists.

How experienced? I think that what I described would encourage a lot of recreational roadies and hybrid folks into the streets commuting. Whether it is enough to tip them into becoming a regular commuter is unknown. Moreover, it is something that many communities can easily achieve -- i.e., the low-hanging fruit -- as opposed to fanciful dreams ... at least with respect to what is possible in say the next five to ten years.

Mind you, one should dream. But at some point, one should also figure out a practical strategy within one's resources. You might also want to consider what is the best strategy for achieving those dreams. For instance, if you want a lot more people commuting via bike and/or public transportation, my guess is that you would be better off raising the gasoline tax or the cost of driving instead. Referring to the Pucher paper, it was unclear whether the cost of driving/gasoline or better cycling facilities was the main force in the difference in cycling propensity. Remember, congested and/or slow roadways means that there is a high cost to driving.


obviously you haven't seen the measurable effects of bicycling infrastructure in cities around the world and in communities here like portland and many other cities encouraging bicycling with bonifide bicycling infrastructure.

I have seen what you call proof in the past. It is not entirely convincing nor conclusive. I also live in Arlington, VA; an area with an extensive network of bike lanes (http://www.arlingtonva.us/Departments/EnvironmentalServices/dot/planning/bike/EnvironmentalServicesBikemap.aspx) plus two major MUPs and many minor trails (http://bikewashington.org/trails/index.htm). Note that in addition to the Key Bridge which connects to the paths, there are two "cycling friendly" bridge crossings across the Potomac into DC. Moreover, there is a semi "road warrior" crossing at Chain Bridge. The community here has made a considerable effort to encourage cycle-commuting and general transportation into the District. So I have my own anecdotal observations and evidence.

EDIT: I omitted the C&O Canal from my count of major MUPs since it is on the other side of the river and primarily used for recreation instead of transportation.


Regardless of your dimunization of what it takes to encourage more people to pluck at the fruit tree, that is far away from the discussion of this thread.

But you and I are discussing it ... and sometimes the discussion veers from the original intent anyway. Moreover, I must have missed your response to Diane's post -- to which I responded -- to move the discussion back to the original question.


in lobbying for wide shoulders for bicyclists, the vc crewe betrays their motorist superiority disorder. the vc -led by john repeatedly calling for 'improved shoulders'- prefer bikes shoved off the road onto shoulders versus integrated, on road preffered class lanes for bicycling.

jhon forstor thinks a wide shoulder is sufficient for bicyclist consideration; i counter that indicates a motorist superiority disorder, to get bikes off the road and onto the shoulder -outside of the travelled way- for the conveinence for the motorists.

How is the described behavior different from other slow vehicles? Are there instances when the VC mantra says to not travel in the shoulder? Mind you, I don't actually recall improved shoulders being a big point in JF's advocacy; but let's ignore that for the moment. It also seems to me that your description of JF's motivation to move people onto the should could also be applied to people advocating bike lanes.

Suppose you had to pick from stripping an adequate bike lane -- not the gold standard but decent -- or more frequent street sweeping that includes a 3 foot shoulder (for a total of 15 feet). Which would you prefer? Why? Which would a person who does not bike-commute now, but is seriously considering it prefer?

I don't know whether the trade-off I just described is accurate with regards to cost; but these are the type of questions one should consider.

How about the following: I would think that lobbying for a X-foot shoulder would be easier than a X-foot wide bike lane since it is more general purpose and obvious benefit to everyone. Suppose the two cost the same from a construction and maintenance standpoint. But you have a higher probability of success pushing for the shoulder. For which would you advocate?

the difference between a vehicular bicycle lane and a shoulder, invisible hand, is that one is within the travelled way and shoulders are off the road, outside of the travelled way.

a vc like john, faced with choosing road improvements between a vehicular bicycle lane on high speed roads with well thought out intersection treatments versus a wider shoulder,

the vc will lobby for a shoulder.

that is a dimunization of bicyclists, kicking them off the travelled way versus a bicycle lane positioning bikers in a quite visible on-the-road position.

THAT is what I was describing in the original post.

I consider 'low hanging fruit' as it applies to bicyling advocacy to be people that are ripe and ready to ride, but need to be 'plucked' via some greater inducements. NOT the inducements themselves.

law enforcement education IS important, bike parking IS important. vigorous enforcement of traffic laws IS important.

I find those to be relatively weak inducements compared to infrastructure enhancements in how to get the fruit off the tree.

the difference between a vehicular bicycle lane and a shoulder, invisible hand, is that one is within the travelled way and shoulders are off the road, outside of the travelled way.

Bike lanes almost always pull the cyclist out of the traveled way. If you are talking about an intersection, my understanding is the VC "method" would pull the cyclist out of the shoulder. A good proportion of bike lanes leave the cyclist in a disadvantageous position; although I have come across well designed ones -- mainly in Albuquerque -- which were helpful on the semi-highway arterials leading towards Rio Rancho. But even there, quality of construction, design, and maintenance was uneven across the city.


I consider 'low hanging fruit' as it applies to bicyling advocacy to be people that are ripe and ready to ride, but need to be 'plucked' via some greater inducements. NOT the inducements themselves.

law enforcement education IS important, bike parking IS important. vigorous enforcement of traffic laws IS important.

I find those to be relatively weak inducements compared to infrastructure enhancements in how to get the fruit off the tree.

OK. I understand your reference to low-hanging fruit. But it should be clear that low hanging fruit in my context are the easier-to-achieve advocacy goals with meaningful payoffs. But in the context of people that are close to riding -- i.e., people close to the tipping point -- these easier-to-achieve goals can persuade people to ride. That is, if you believe that they would make conditions better then it would have to make cycling more attractive. Moreover -- based on my own speculation -- what I describe is cheap, quick to take effect, and politically expedient relative to big infrastructure improvements.

Hmmmm, is legislation and enforcement really different from an engineering solution in the context of the Roody-Patc discussion? ...

Anyway, if I was overly inclusive of the term "engineering" or exclusive of Pat's point, I agree with your point Chip.

Well, we didn't really define terms with any precision... if I have to pick, I think I would consider law enforcement as a form of engineering, but not sure if I would include legislation. Legislation which is not enforced is unlikely to shave behaviour (with the exception of legislation currently making the headlines).

EDIT: Shape behaviour... I'm not sure how you shave behaviour!

Well, we didn't really define terms with any precision... if I have to pick, I think I would consider law enforcement as a form of engineering, but not sure if I would include legislation. Legislation which is not enforced is unlikely to shave behaviour (with the exception of legislation currently making the headlines).
This assumes the only reason people abide by legislation is to avoid being penalized. That's simply not true.

I don't know about you, but the primary reason I drive on the right side of the road, don't run reds, don't drive too fast, yield the right of way, don't drink and drive, and obey the rules of the road in general, is to avoid crashing. If I make an error and get a ticket, that's good

Understanding this is key to discriminating between good law and bad law.

Good law reflects rules that are followed naturally by the vast majority.
Bad law implements rules that are largely ignored.

Enforcement is good for tightening up compliance, but if you have to rely on enforcement to get most people to abide by some law, then it's almost certainly bad law.

The purpose of good law is to clarify what the rules of behavior are, the rules that people are already following for the most part. It should not be to change the behavior of most people.

there'll already treated as yield signs, head!

so, given a choice, vc crewe out here, between a high speed road design with a vehicular bike lane, or no accomodation save a wide paved shoulder, along a 2 lane, congested 50MPH road.... which would you prefer?

personally i like bike lanes over well maintained shoulders on high speed roads. keeps me on the road, closer where traffic is looking for other traffic, and not off on the shoulders outside of the travelled way.

If you're going to build or modify a road to "accomodate" cyclists, a WOL is going to be one of the options considered. In reality, you're never going to be limited to just the two options you provided. As such, the question seems invalid.

For the record, I don't ride on the shoulder, and don't know of a single bike lane anywhere within my riding radius - so my perspective is somewhat skewed.

Why do the VC want bicyclists on shoulders?
But in another thread, you said you had some beautiful, wide shoulders to ride on, and showed pics. Then, you challenged the "VC" crowd to ride in the shoulders, like you do.

What's up?

But in another thread, you said you had some beautiful, wide shoulders to ride on, and showed pics. Then, you challenged the "VC" crowd to ride in the shoulders, like you do.

What's up?


Not just once, but multiple times.

I think he just gets entertainment from challenging the practices of others, and asking leading questions. He's clearly anti-VC (or maybe just anti-JF) which is why threads like this exist.