That is not at all what I have proven... I have pointed out that in fact even if the stripes were not there, the majority of cyclists would be riding in exactly the same location.

For you to not see and understand what I just said just proves that you have an utter bias against anything related to BL stripes while meanwhile pushing your utterly foolish VC program that depends on motorists obeying the laws; which they clearly DO NOT DO. (45,000 deaths a year proves my point).

Perhaps you missed the line in my commentary which said: But well over 95% of the time whether a BL exists or not... I would be in the same location as a BL would direct me anyway... obeying the vehicular rules which tell me to ride to the right as slower traffic.

I'm new to the VC argument and I can see the dangers in ghettoizing cyclists on the road by creating zones and special rules for them. My basic approach to road cycling is to follow the rules of the road and position myself just as if I was a car. I have found that it serves me well, particularly when negotiating rotaries I seldom run into the angry, bad drivers I've hear about from other cyclists and I'm beginning to think that its because of the way I ride, signaling, making eye contact, following the vehicle highway code and being positive in my riding. However, when a wide shoulder or a bike lane is available I'll ride in it and I'll expect cars to stay out of it. I'd be perfectly safe and happy with no special bike lanes, but I think I'd be far more unsafe not riding VC.

Indeed, that IS the most truthful thing said here in a long time!

Really, then why do my daily riding experiences support these arguments?

Al

But well over 95% of the time whether a BL exists or not... I would be in the same location as a BL would direct me anyway... obeying the vehicular rules which tell me to ride to the right as slower traffic.

So what point does the stripe serve then? I mean if you ride the same stripe or not. And I would imagine 95% of the time the cars drive the same stripe or not...

-D

one things for certain, 'vc' ain't "natural" in any way shape or form.

If you've been riding 40 years, nun, perhaps it appears to have been a 'natural' process,

but what about those 90 percent you are always complaining about???

There are better ways to communicate that cyclists may be present and more importantly one's driving should accommodate that possibility than a white stripe.

Al

Perhaps there are better ways, but my perception and experience is that the simple stripes do indeed help.

Ed

So what point does the stripe serve then? I mean if you ride the same stripe or not. And I would imagine 95% of the time the cars drive the same stripe or not...

-D

Well at a very minimum, the stripe helps define the space for motorists... just as a fog line would do.

On low speed roads, no stripes or guidance is needed... but as the road speeds increase, there is more need for traffic control... that is all the BL stripe really provides.

Nun, I’ve taken a few of your comments slightly out of context here (and for that I apologize) in order to hopefully get some clarification on your thinking.


Part of my motivation for starting the thread was my amazement that I had been riding in a VC manner without ever hearing of JF or VC, given the maverick reputation both seem to have gained.

How do you know you are riding in the JF approved VC manner if you have not read his book or heard of VC before this time? I, too, have been cycling in a manner that I would describe as “vehicular” and long before I came in contact with a word written by John Forester. I do admit to some very positive influence at the words of Eugene Sloane in the late 1960’s, which encouraged a vehicular style and gave me more confidence in the manner to which I had become accustomed. I also at that time rode frequently with former LAW President Ralph Galen an advocate/proponent of a vehicular style as well. But John Forester continues to paint me as a phobic cyclist who rides in a childish manner because I support bike facilities in areas where riding vehicularly does not, in my opinion, always translate into safe cycling.
So what would make you or the way you ride more or less "VC" than me or anyone else? I follow the rules of the road, signal, look back, make eye contact, so what, I'd be dead by now if I didn't.

I feel far safer on the highway riding VC because 99% of the road users follow the rules of the road. Its a far more predictable environment.

Two points here “I feel safer” is a phrase often singled out by VC proponents like JF and HH as a flaw in the thinking of cyclists who prefer bike lanes and other bikeway facilities. I must admit their point is well taken. A feeling of safety does not always logically progress into actual safety. Also, for the sake of argument- what are you basing the figure 99% of road users on? Is that hyperbole? Or do you actually have a real statistical basis for that conclusion. If it’s hyperbole it weakens your argument and makes many of your posts doubtful since it has the appearance of someone just making stuff up without real support.

There's no actuality about it its all just probability,

I’m not sure exactly what you meant by this statement but it all being about probability has a ring of truth to it. Much of what we do as far as cycling behavior seems to be about reducing the probability of a catastrophic or even minor cycling accident.

So with that in mind, as I did in a previous post, let’s take a look at this statement of yours.



I'm usually more afraid of the cyclists than I am of car drivers as the cars are more predictable. 90% of cars drive in a predictable and safe manner, 90% of cyclist don't ride predictably.

"I’m usually more afraid of the cyclists than I am of car drivers…"

Had you said you were afraid of cars and/or car drivers you would have been subject to strident derision by VC proponents as a phobic cyclist with issues of inferiority. But you said you were afraid of other cyclists so the VC crowd will leave you alone and not point out the flaws in this thinking.

While bicycle to bicycle collisions do occur and, as logic would predict happen with more frequency on bike facilities or MUP’s where cars are not a factor, they do not result in anywhere near the same rate nor produce the number of catastrophic injuries and death as automobile/bicycle collisions do.

Since even your chances of being in serious a bicycle/automobile collision are actually pretty statistically low a responsible cyclist would be at much less risk of dying or having a serious injury in a bike to bike collision than in a car/bike collision. My challenge to you is to support, with statistics, why you, or anyone else, should be more afraid of cyclists than car drivers.

I seldom run into the angry, bad drivers I've hear about from other cyclists and I'm beginning to think that its because of the way I ride, signaling, making eye contact, following the vehicle highway code and being positive in my riding.

I suppose that’s possible. I wonder why you run into so many more unpredictable cyclists than I do then? And I ride on bike paths and in bike lanes on occasion.

There's no actuality about it its all just probability

As I pointed out in a previous post these statistics (just where did you get these 90% figures?) don’t support your contention that you have more to fear from cyclists than from cars.

If 90% of car drivers drive predictably and 90% of cyclists don't ride predictably and cyclists represent 2% of vehicular traffic then out of every 100 vehicles you encounter on your bike rides you would encounter 1.8 unpredictable cyclists and 9.8 unpredictable drivers of cars.

That’s about 5.5 times as many unpredictable car drivers on the road than unpredictable cyclists at any given time using your own statistics even if they are accurate, which I doubt they are. In which case a cyclist still would have more to "fear" of car drivers than fellow cyclists.

But if, as you say, 90% of cyclists behave unpredictably it certainly does disprove that "VC is just natural".

^^ I'm sure the "I feel safer" aspect of those aspiring to VC is coincidental with riders gaining in confidence as they gather experience.

I feel safer than ever using a bicycle simply because I have become accustomed to the sensations and environment, and have gained confidence in riding amongst other road users.

The semantics of VC are only ever debated by those who are (probably) already confident road users. Therefore it is redundant - everyone knows they can and are supposed to ride according to the rules. Unfortunately we don't all start out with this confidence. In most places there are other cyclists providing a good example of this. Rider confidence will affect whether an individual choses to ride in a certain manner, or even on certain streets.

Ed

But well over 95% of the time whether a BL exists or not... I would be in the same location as a BL would direct me anyway... obeying the vehicular rules which tell me to ride to the right as slower traffic.
Wow, even during commute time, even going up hill, on roads with bike lanes there is no way I spend even close to half my time actually riding in the bike lane. On many days when I'm riding after peak commute time it's probably less than 10%.

Again, I'll ride so far right as is required to ride in the bike lane if it's necessary, safe and reasonable to allow faster traffic to pass, but that's the only time I'll ride that far right, and with the way suburban traffic tends to travel in platoons with relatively long gaps in between because of traffic signals, that's not very often.

But riding that far right 95% of the time??? :eek:

But riding that far right 95% of the time??? :eek:


Yup. Count me in.

Yup. Count me in.
Well, strictly speaking I guess riding that far right that much is still vehicular. For all I know JF rides that far right that often. But I don't. And most of the VC advocates that I've ridden with don't. But most cyclists do.

While I may now be a VC proponent I had to learn how to ride in traffic. Unforutnately, I had a few accidents (e.g., ending up on a cars bonnet, a head on collision with another cycist on a segregated lane, hookign with turning traffic, etc.) before I tried to use VC to ride defensively and never use bike lanes. The accidents were as a direct result of following bike lanes assuming, wrongly, they were there to help me.

Later on I bought and read the books (cyclecraft and effective cycling) and learned more on how to stay safe and visible in traffic. There's a lot there that needs active training. Just getting new cyclists to ride in the door zone and/or inside of vehicles in bike lanes won't help.

I'd mention the numerous fatalities at junctions with straight ahead bike lanes on the inside of turning traffic but I'm sure bike lane proponents will argue that there's no problem.

While I may now be a VC proponent I had to learn how to ride in traffic. Unforutnately, I had a few accidents (e.g., ending up on a cars bonnet, a head on collision with another cycist on a segregated lane, hookign with turning traffic, etc.) before I tried to use VC to ride defensively and never use bike lanes. The accidents were as a direct result of following bike lanes assuming, wrongly, they were there to help me.

Later on I bought and read the books (cyclecraft and effective cycling) and learned more on how to stay safe and visible in traffic. There's a lot there that needs active training. Just getting new cyclists to ride in the door zone and/or inside of vehicles in bike lanes won't help.

I'd mention the numerous fatalities at junctions with straight ahead bike lanes on the inside of turning traffic but I'm sure bike lane proponents will argue that there's no problem.
But now that you "get it", would say it comes naturally?

It's almost like you have to put your mind in some kind of paradigm shift to get there. Some people seem to get there on their own, but most seem to need training, or at least self-training (through books).

Wow, even during commute time, even going up hill, on roads with bike lanes there is no way I spend even close to half my time actually riding in the bike lane. On many days when I'm riding after peak commute time it's probably less than 10%.

Again, I'll ride so far right as is required to ride in the bike lane if it's necessary, safe and reasonable to allow faster traffic to pass, but that's the only time I'll ride that far right, and with the way suburban traffic tends to travel in platoons with relatively long gaps in between because of traffic signals, that's not very often.

But riding that far right 95% of the time??? :eek:

Most of my riding is during peak commute time... So I have little choice as to "other locations" besides far right.

Weekend rides are a different story... Riding down Clairemont drive for instance is 5 feet away from the parked cars in a no bike lane area... I ride just to the right of center of the right lane... Other riding is on paths, such as the 56 path or the Ocean beach path.


My point being as you and others have long stated... ride as if the BL doesn't exist... still puts me in the BL as does probably much of your ride on Torrey Pines road when you are heading to work... although the strange "platoon" situation due to the lights down on La Jolla does make for long gaps with no cars... that situation does not exist on Genesee. Thus I am in a BL most of the time...

And since much of my local riding also takes place on arterials... there are usually BL there.

But now that you "get it", would say it comes naturally?

It's almost like you have to put your mind in some kind of paradigm shift to get there. Some people seem to get there on their own, but most seem to need training, or at least self-training (through books).

Good question - I'd have to say that I probably have to concentrate on VC, positoning, signalling and situational awareness more. There've been some scary lapses though. Fortunately the lapses are very rare and were possibly related to riding tired.

Most of my riding is during peak commute time... So I have little choice as to "other locations" besides far right.

Weekend rides are a different story... Riding down Clairemont drive for instance is 5 feet away from the parked cars in a no bike lane area... I ride just to the right of center of the right lane... Other riding is on paths, such as the 56 path or the Ocean beach path.


My point being as you and others have long stated... ride as if the BL doesn't exist... still puts me in the BL as does probably much of your ride on Torrey Pines road when you are heading to work... although the strange "platoon" situation due to the lights down on La Jolla does make for long gaps with no cars... that situation does not exist on Genesee. Thus I am in a BL most of the time...

And since much of my local riding also takes place on arterials... there are usually BL there.
Back when the coalition meetings were in UC I would ride Genesee from Eastgate Mall to Governor, mostly outside of the bike lane, but that was a bit after peak, between 6 and 7.

Of course when the traffic lanes are full of congested traffic you have to take the bike lane unless there is room further left to split lanes (which I often do coming home on Torrey Pines Rd). But that's a special case condition.

And, no I don't spend much time at all in the bike lane on my out of La Jolla. Only for about 20 seconds at a time while a platoon passes, but I want to be out there in the lane during gaps, especially around the big sweeping blind right hand curve, even though there are no intersections the entire way up (well, besides pottery canyon but that's super minor).

Well, strictly speaking I guess riding that far right that much is still vehicular. For all I know JF rides that far right that often. But I don't. And most of the VC advocates that I've ridden with don't. But most cyclists do.

Be careful with "that far right... " My riding is typically just inside of the stripe... or right on the stripe... as in "where I would ride if the stripe did not exist."

I still clamor for better visibility... and there is nothing in the strict vehicular sense that defines that.

But the bottom line is I am right there... stripe or no stripe... so the whole notion that the stripe makes me ride in a non vehicular manner is not true.

Now I will concede that not all states have stripes that end before intersections, or that they stripe areas narrower than then what we typically see here... but again... no reason to blanket condemn all BL due to that... better to update the AASHTO standards and call for adherence.

Really what it comes down to is the old counter culture trick of working within the system to get change done. "The Man" is gonna put down stripes... no way to counter that... so best to work within and make change... rather then fly your "freak flag" and expect folks just to gather behind.

Just inside the bike lane stripe is much further right than I normally ride, except when required to ride as far right as just inside the bike lane stripe to allow faster traffic to pass.

But on Genesee, there are many places where you can share the outside lane without being as far right as in the bike lane, even just inside the stripe.

Back when the coalition meetings were in UC I would ride Genesee from Eastgate Mall to Governor, mostly outside of the bike lane, but that was a bit after peak, between 6 and 7.

Of course when the traffic lanes are full of congested traffic you have to take the bike lane unless there is room further left to split lanes (which I often do coming home on Torrey Pines Rd). But that's a special case condition.

And, no I don't spend much time at all in the bike lane on my out of La Jolla. Only for about 20 seconds at a time while a platoon passes, but I want to be out there in the lane during gaps, especially around the big sweeping blind right hand curve, even though there are no intersections the entire way up (well, besides pottery canyon but that's super minor).

As I said TP road is different. Genesee is a highway anytime near rush hour... of course right at rush hour it is a parking lot. During weekends and off peak times, it is a raceway.

Just inside the bike lane stripe is much further right than I normally ride, except when required to ride as far right as just inside the bike lane stripe to allow faster traffic to pass.



Everybody is faster than me... I have turned "Fred."

Everybody is faster than me... I have turned "Fred."
When there is nobody else out there, you're the fastest.

When they are there, they may be faster, but when traffic is relatively light and you're riding conspicuously positioned in the right lane they can change lanes into the left lane and pass you without any problem, with a lot more overtaking clearance than if you were in the bike lane (particularly riding near the stripe) and they stayed in the right lane.

ah, all this talk as if trafic weekday rush hour san diego is sparse like a country road on a weekend! how refreshing, helemet head!



dude, concede: VC IS NOT NATURAL.

and the way you ride, head, is most assuredly not natural. even your technique is at odds with mainstream vc - and i don't mean your 'savvy' use of road position!!!

When there is nobody else out there, you're the fastest.

When they are there, they may be faster, but when traffic is relatively light and you're riding conspicuously positioned in the right lane they can change lanes into the left lane and pass you without any problem, with a lot more overtaking clearance than if you were in the bike lane (particularly riding near the stripe) and they stayed in the right lane.

You know... I really wish it was that way... but in those cases... (happens all the time on Clairemont Drive and Clairemont Mesa Blvd... as I've said before) some motorist will get right on my tail and does everything from tailgate to honk and scream.

Doing the ever so obvious "move to the left lane..." just doesn't happen often enough. Oh it does happen... but for every 10-20 motorists that move over... there is always a butthead. And frankly it has just gotten old...

"Dude, I just wanna ride." Sometimes I think a T shirt with "Just leave me the F*** alone" would be the right answer.... but really, that would put out bad attitude toward the other folks... :D

Have a good weekend.

I wonder if anyone can talk about their own experiences without the thread spinning off into predictable arguments centering around John Forester, bike lanes, and the usual banter.

I wonder if anyone can talk about their own experiences without the thread spinning off into predictable arguments centering around John Forester, bike lanes, and the usual banter.

I would be only too happy to see A&S discussions move in that direction but given that the OP mentions John Forester in his first post and bike paths and bike lanes in his next two subsequent posts speaking about one's own experiences might actually be considered off topic.;)

one things for certain, 'vc' ain't "natural" in any way shape or form.

If you've been riding 40 years, nun, perhaps it appears to have been a 'natural' process,

but what about those 90 percent you are always complaining about???

I said VC was second nature now, the fact that I came to it independent of JF from basic instruction in the Highway Code and common sense says something about it being a natural and sensible way to ride
I hope everyone rides according to VC, then they'd experience the same safe and happy cycling I do. But I think that I will hope in vain and that's ok, cycling is an individual kind of thing and you do what you think is best. All I can say is that I seem to have far fewer incidents with other vehicles that some of the folks on this forum. My biggest issue is with cyclist running red lights and behaving in an anti-VC manner

I said VC was second nature now, the fact that I came to it independent of JF from basic instruction in the Highway Code and common sense says something about it being a natural and sensible way to ride
I hope everyone rides according to VC, then they'd experience the same safe and happy cycling I do. But I think that I will hope in vain and that's ok, cycling is an individual kind of thing and you do what you think is best. All I can say is that I seem to have far fewer incidents with other vehicles that some of the folks on this forum. My biggest issue is with cyclist running red lights and behaving in an anti-VC manner

nun,

Give up now and run away (or bike away might be more appropriate). Bek has no interest in any 2 way discourse on the subject of VC.

You see, the VC board exists soley for the 2 polarized sides to remain locked in an eternal battle. You have Helmet Head, Forester, and their ilk on one side. Bek and his cronies on the other. The irony is that they are 2 sides of the same coin. One side so far to one end, and the other group so far the other way that they cannot even see eye to eye on the most basic of things. And this makes the VC subforum largely useless. Well it is good entertainment value sometimes :D

As to your comment above. I actually feel the same way. My riding style is mostly the same. I wasn't "taught" this way of riding. I just made sense to me. I don't know if I would even call it VC, since I have never read a book on the subject to know. But I do tend to ride in the lane and move over for traffic to pass when it is safe. And I have a very low occurrance of negative incidents. I think 3 in the ast 2 years. Or I guess you could put it at 3 in the last 10k miles or so.

-D

No matter how much you try and want to be "vehicular," this sort of problem still rears it's ugly head:

http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=6256770&postcount=11

No matter how much you try and want to be "vehicular," this sort of problem still rears it's ugly head:

http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=6256770&postcount=11

Genec,

Honestly do you think there would be any way to mitigate that? There will always be people who go overboard like that. I would put money on the fact that the driver in that post would have acted similarily even if there had been a bike lane.

I have to drive a lot for my job. I get plenty of situations where while DRIVING A CAR, I get the finger etc from other drivers for holding my line and staying in my lane. It doesn't stop me from driving safely. And an occasional irate driver isn't going to stop me from cycling the way I do, because 99% of the time i don't encounter anything like that.

So bottom line i fail to see how that post shows anything, other than riding VC isn't going to be a 100% fullproof solution. Considering the number of incidents I have read about people getting hit while in a bike lane, no solution or technique is 100% fullproof.

-D

My biggest issue is with cyclist running red lights and behaving in an anti-VC manner
What exactly is your "issue" with other cyclists who don't behave in a "VC Manner"?

You know... I really wish it was that way... but in those cases... (happens all the time on Clairemont Drive and Clairemont Mesa Blvd... as I've said before) some motorist will get right on my tail and does everything from tailgate to honk and scream.

Doing the ever so obvious "move to the left lane..." just doesn't happen often enough. Oh it does happen... but for every 10-20 motorists that move over... there is always a butthead. And frankly it has just gotten old...

"Dude, I just wanna ride." Sometimes I think a T shirt with "Just leave me the F*** alone" would be the right answer.... but really, that would put out bad attitude toward the other folks... :D

Have a good weekend.


This perfectly explains my daily situation.....There are ways to keep it
to a minimum but if you go into the roadway within a block you will
get what genec mentions above. Yeah, most often you could just ignore
it and keep on riding like you have to do sometimes, but it just gets old
after a while. Nobody can realistically think that people who want to try
commuting are going to stick with it for more than two days if subject
to this nonsense. Forester/HH VC might work in a world with no humans
but not this one.

This perfectly explains my daily situation.....There are ways to keep it
to a minimum but if you go into the roadway within a block you will
get what genec mentions above. Yeah, most often you could just ignore
it and keep on riding like you have to do sometimes, but it just gets old
after a while. Nobody can realistically think that people who want to try
commuting are going to stick with it for more than two days if subject
to this nonsense. Forester/HH VC might work in a world with no humans
but not this one.

The world is a pretty big place. I imagine (in fact I know) that there is a wide array of riding conditions, traffic etc. Your generalization is just as bad as HH and Foresters.

The world is a pretty big place. I imagine (in fact I know) that there is a wide array of riding conditions, traffic etc. Your generalization is just as bad as HH and Foresters.

I agree, it doesn't have to go to that extreme... but the situation we have now in America can use improvement... and we're not likely to get there by declaring "things are fine, we just need to train cyclists... "

I agree, it doesn't have to go to that extreme... but the situation we have now in America can use improvement... and we're not likely to get there by declaring "things are fine, we just need to train cyclists... "

Like I said above generalizations on both sides...

Like I said above generalizations on both sides...

OK, very specifically... vehicular cycling works.... at relatively low traffic speeds. When the traffic speeds are such that there is a difference of well over 15MPH between cyclists and motorists, negotiation with motorists becomes difficult for cyclists.

As the 85 percentile rules dictate the speeds of the roads throughout the country... when those roads are arterials and the only access from one place to another, and have speeds and traffic densities that mimic interstate freeways, they are no longer practical for "sharing" with cyclists... at least with the motoring public trained in the manner that exists today, and with the laws of today... that make for autocentric thinking. (not likely to change) Therefore, alternate cycle routes must be developed... either paths, or separate lanes, or bike boulevards, or even bike superhighways.

The same engineering that can create the stack five freeway (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interchange_(road)) in Dallas can also create a well designed interconnected system for cyclists that will allow cyclists to maintain inertia and travel across towns, and encourage others to take up cycling. Interconnected systems of bikeways and designated streets should be the goal.

In residential areas and downtown cores, vehicular cycling works well enough as the speeds of traffic are low enough to permit good negotiation between all users of the road.

A well developed interconnected system for cyclists will actually help maintain the current automotive freeways over a much longer "lifespan" as a certain percent of motorists can shift to cycling vice individual autos for commuting.

It is economically cheaper to build bikeways to extend the life of Automotive Freeways than it is to built new lanes to handle more traffic on those Freeways. (one 10 foot lane of bikeway is half the cost of two 12 foot lanes of Freeway)

OK, very specifically... vehicular cycling works.... at relatively low traffic speeds. When the traffic speeds are such that there is a difference of well over 15MPH between cyclists and motorists, negotiation with motorists becomes difficult for cyclists.

I agree!

OK, very specifically... vehicular cycling works.... at relatively low traffic speeds. When the traffic speeds are such that there is a difference of well over 15MPH between cyclists and motorists, negotiation with motorists becomes difficult for cyclists.

Not that I disagree with the rest of your post, but I do take small issue with this statement. Most of the roads I ride on regularily consist of 2 lane roads, varying from no shoulder to sufficient shoulder, with speeds 35-50mph. I ride these in the lane most of the time. It has to do with not just the speed of traffic but it's density (which I know you also address somewhat).

I learned to ride the roads in a VC sort of way, but for somewhat backwards reasons. I was less concerned about "being seen" But I found that riding in the lane (which is generally nicer than the shoulder) and then moving out of the way when traffic comes up to pass, made a nice signal to the cars that "yes I see you". This has lowered the incidents of negative driver interactions greatly.

Now when I am on my way to work, the traffic on these same roads is dense enough I have to "drive VC in the shoulder" as bek would describe it.

-D

OK, very specifically... vehicular cycling works.... at relatively low traffic speeds. When the traffic speeds are such that there is a difference of well over 15MPH between cyclists and motorists, negotiation with motorists becomes difficult for cyclists.

You say this like you have anything to back it up. What specifically in regards to negotiation becomes difficult when the speed difference is well over 15mph? I really want to know since I spend almost all of my cycling time with this speed differential and only rarely is negotiation what I would deem difficult (though far from impossible and easily worked around if necessary). Your statement, which you repeat quite often, is far too general as well. Don't you think there is anything more than just speed differential that might make vehicular cycling more difficult? Is it the same cycling on a multilane road with a single faster vehicle approaching every few minutes and one a one lane each way road with many blind curves, a faster vehicle every 10 seconds, and a steady stream of oncoming traffic?

Even if negotiation becomes more difficult like you claim, how does that prove that vehicular cycling doesn't work (which you seem to be implying)? Most traffic situations can be made worse by some change in the scenario. Making a left turn in a car becomes more difficult with higher traffic density or with a greater speed differential. Driving in the snow/rain is more difficult than driving on clear roads. Driving at night is more difficult than driving in daylight (for the most part). Driving a large vehicle is more difficult than driving a smaller vehicle on crowded city streets. Should we be clamoring for some "New and innovative" traffic scheme to make these things simpler or should we learn how to do deal with them because they aren't going away any time soon AND are perfectly manageable when dealt with properly?

OK, very specifically... vehicular cycling works.... at relatively low traffic speeds. When the traffic speeds are such that there is a difference of well over 15MPH between cyclists and motorists, negotiation with motorists becomes difficult for cyclists.



Genec, I'm getting tired of seeing you justify your views by repeating what I have written, without acknowledging the rest. Just another example of people being corrupted by exaggerated emotions about same-direction traffic. Have you not read in these discussions that I took my adult beginning cycling classes out on a six-lane arterial, posted 45 mph, with 38,000 cars a day, and had them make repeated left turns off it at unsignalized intersections? If they were able to do that, surely you could also? It just means that instead of making a gap through negotiation you use the gaps that naturally appear.

You say this like you have anything to back it up. What specifically in regards to negotiation becomes difficult when the speed difference is well over 15mph? I really want to know since I spend almost all of my cycling time with this speed differential and only rarely is negotiation what I would deem difficult (though far from impossible and easily worked around if necessary). Your statement, which you repeat quite often, is far too general as well. Don't you think there is anything more than just speed differential that might make vehicular cycling more difficult? Is it the same cycling on a multilane road with a single faster vehicle approaching every few minutes and one a one lane each way road with many blind curves, a faster vehicle every 10 seconds, and a steady stream of oncoming traffic?


Chapter 31, sixth edition of Effective Cycling, by John Forester, page 311, under the heading Changing Lanes In High-Speed Traffic. When traffic is moving more than 15MPH faster than you, negotiation is impossible, though your position to the lane lines is a pretty clear signal. You have to play road sneak and more left only if there is a gap in traffic long enough that you won't affect any vehicles.

I underlined the applicable part. In that section John outlines exactly the issues that face cyclists as traffic reaches speeds of 50 and 60MPH on arterial roads... couple this with the need to find gaps, which may not be possible during heavy traffic, and you have a situation that excludes cyclists... and if the road narrows, you will be cut off. This situation is further complicated when multiple lanes are involved, such as 3 and 4 lanes either way as is the case for the "urban freeway" arterials I am specifically citing.


Even if negotiation becomes more difficult like you claim, how does that prove that vehicular cycling doesn't work (which you seem to be implying)? Most traffic situations can be made worse by some change in the scenario. Making a left turn in a car becomes more difficult with higher traffic density or with a greater speed differential. Driving in the snow/rain is more difficult than driving on clear roads. Driving at night is more difficult than driving in daylight (for the most part). Driving a large vehicle is more difficult than driving a smaller vehicle on crowded city streets. Should we be clamoring for some "New and innovative" traffic scheme to make these things simpler or should we learn how to do deal with them because they aren't going away any time soon AND are perfectly manageable when dealt with properly?

The vast difference between an auto and a cyclist in those same situations is that the auto is recognized, whereas the cyclist is easily overlooked.

Now this situation doesn't occur everywhere... rural high speed roads are often quite ridable as the density of traffic is such that a cyclist has long gaps to allow for lateral movement on the road. On lower speed roads, negotiation with motorists is easy.

So the situation tends to occur on busy multilaned arterials that tend to be the mainstay transportation corridors in large city areas, such as largest cities in the US. This situation may not occur in smaller cities... as the arterials or the density of traffic don't combine to make cycling difficult.

Genec, I'm getting tired of seeing you justify your views by repeating what I have written, without acknowledging the rest. Just another example of people being corrupted by exaggerated emotions about same-direction traffic. Have you not read in these discussions that I took my adult beginning cycling classes out on a six-lane arterial, posted 45 mph, with 38,000 cars a day, and had them make repeated left turns off it at unsignalized intersections? If they were able to do that, surely you could also? It just means that instead of making a gap through negotiation you use the gaps that naturally appear.

Great John, take those folks out to the 60MPH arterials, and have them do the same thing... over and over again daily, just like a dedicated commuter. Then remove the wide lanes or bike lanes and do the same thing. Perhaps they can try this on roads such as Jamboree between Santa Ana and Newport Beach... 60MPH, narrow lanes, and free merging intersections... a motorists' heaven and cyclists' hell.

BTW just for reference... what local 45MPH road did you do this on? Or was this 30 years ago far far away?

VERY interesting, Gene!!!

John's proffessing a cyclist inferiority built into speed differential!

" When traffic is moving more than 15MPH faster than you, negotiation is impossible, though your position to the lane lines is a pretty clear signal. You have to play road sneak and more left only if there is a gap in traffic long enough that you won't affect any vehicles."

WOW. I think a lot of us ride a bit differently than john describes above. john thinks bikes shouldn't affect motor traffic. due to high volumes and high speeds, bicycling with traffic becomes an 'out of the way,' impossible to negotiate road position- preetty inferior if john might say so himself!

WOW.

OK, very specifically... vehicular cycling works.... at relatively low traffic speeds. When the traffic speeds are such that there is a difference of well over 15MPH between cyclists and motorists, negotiation with motorists becomes difficult for cyclists.

As the 85 percentile rules dictate the speeds of the roads throughout the country... when those roads are arterials and the only access from one place to another, and have speeds and traffic densities that mimic interstate freeways, they are no longer practical for "sharing" with cyclists... at least with the motoring public trained in the manner that exists today, and with the laws of today... that make for autocentric thinking. (not likely to change) Therefore, alternate cycle routes must be developed... either paths, or separate lanes, or bike boulevards, or even bike superhighways.

The same engineering that can create the stack five freeway (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interchange_(road)) in Dallas can also create a well designed interconnected system for cyclists that will allow cyclists to maintain inertia and travel across towns, and encourage others to take up cycling. Interconnected systems of bikeways and designated streets should be the goal.

In residential areas and downtown cores, vehicular cycling works well enough as the speeds of traffic are low enough to permit good negotiation between all users of the road.

A well developed interconnected system for cyclists will actually help maintain the current automotive freeways over a much longer "lifespan" as a certain percent of motorists can shift to cycling vice individual autos for commuting.

It is economically cheaper to build bikeways to extend the life of Automotive Freeways than it is to built new lanes to handle more traffic on those Freeways. (one 10 foot lane of bikeway is half the cost of two 12 foot lanes of Freeway)

There is much to this post that I agree with, ie. vehicular cycling works in many circumstances (and relatively lower speeds*) and often is a viable (and only) solution when other infrastructures are unavailable. Granted defining exactly what constitutes "vehicular cycling" will probably be endlessly debated in these forums. And I am supportive of innovative bicycling infrastructures.

However, where, when and exactly what those infrastructures can and should be and how they are implemented is more of a local decision, I think, than your post implies. For example, while low speed, high traffic volume in a dense urban environment may at times favor cycling vehicularly it is not always the case. Sometimes that traffic actually slows down the vehicular cyclist traveling sans infrastructure and makes cycling no more advantageous to driving other than fuels costs and parking. It also does not address the issues of traffic congestion, which affects quality of life issues for everyone in a city not just the cyclist. This is why bicycling advocates and creative urban planners have formed alliances like Transportation Alternatives and Livable Streets.

I have recently been focusing my comments on improvements being made in NYC not so much, as JF continually seems to feel, because it is an anomaly but because each region needs their own creative solutions. And NYC is being innovative and finding it's own unique ways of solving it's problems. It seems that much of the debate in these forums comes from those of us who ride daily in our own environment and hear solutions being proposed that don't seem to fit what we might imagine could work in our community.

Changes in my home city of Boston seem slow in coming ( I get the sense our Mayor, Tom Menino, is watching NYC to see what happens there and if it works he'll go full bore towards similar solutions) but NYC is on a relatively fast track these days and bears watching.

This is why it's important for each of us to be involved locally in planning and not to assume that all solutions work for all cyclists or all regions. I'm not suggesting your post necessarily does this but I think very specific solutions should be tied in to very specific places. So your post is strongest for me when you do exactly that.

What may work in NYC may not be exactly right for Boston and certainly not right for other areas of the country but these regions can learn from one another and certainly steal any good new ideas that come along.

*edit

I think a lot of cities are jumping strongly on the unique solutions bandwagon to better accomodate bikes. Chicago is fast tracking a lot of infrastructure, more is added to cities large and small across America.

but VC is not a natural way to ride a bike as speed differential increases and therefore invalidates vc's effectiveness, undermines its entire platform.

Unless of course, VC actually means 'curbhugging' and 'playing road sneak'- nice choice of words-very inferior!

However, where, when and exactly what those infrastructures can and should be and how they are implemented is more of a local decision, I think, than your post implies. For example, while low speed, high traffic volume in a dense urban environment may at times favor cycling vehicularly it is not always the case. Sometimes that traffic actually slows down the vehicular cyclist traveling sans infrastructure and makes cycling no more advantageous to driving other than fuels costs and parking. It also does not address the issues of traffic congestion, which affects quality of life issues for everyone in a city not just the cyclist. This is why bicycling advocates and creative urban planners have formed alliances like Transportation Alternatives and Livable Streets.



I agree... what it really comes down to is more along the lines of "adaptive cycling," wherein a combination of vehicular cycling and infrastructure both allow cyclists to take full advantage of what cycling has to offer as a narrow human powered vehicle. But for this to really work, there has to be an embrace of cycling as a viable transportation alternative that is factored into and encouraged by both the local political structure and by the infrastructure. Road designs cannot "deadend" cyclists.

I wonder if anyone can talk about their own experiences without the thread spinning off into predictable arguments centering around John Forester, bike lanes, and the usual banter.

I would be only too happy to see A&S discussions move in that direction but given that the OP mentions John Forester in his first post and bike paths and bike lanes in his next two subsequent posts speaking about one's own experiences might actually be considered off topic.;)


I only heard of John Forester recently and read about VC, but I realize that its how I've been riding a bike since I was 10 years old. It seems a perfectly sensible, safe and natural way to ride. Maybe that's because in 1970 I took the UK's Cycling Proficiency Test which emphasized following the Highway Code as a bike is a vehicle on the road and lane positioning strategies similar to VC.
Or perhaps some here seized upon his mere mention of the name, and decided to school him properly.

I agree... what it really comes down to is more along the lines of "adaptive cycling," wherein a combination of vehicular cycling and infrastructure both allow cyclists to take full advantage of what cycling has to offer as a narrow human powered vehicle. But for this to really work, there has to be an embrace of cycling as a viable transportation alternative that is factored into and encouraged by both the local political structure and by the infrastructure. Road designs cannot "deadend" cyclists.
Food for thought along the lines I often muse.

I'm not against bike lanes or paths, especially considering that I use them both when they are present, and that it would be beyond the scope of my experience to judge for all cyclists as to what they prefer for themselves as a means of accomodating their own cycling transportation.

My feeling is that cyclists are marginalized. This occurs as a result not only of lack of bicycle-friendly road design, but also of social attitude. If we are going to push for accomodation of cyclists through bicycle-friendly design, we should also push for a change in public perceptions toward road cyclists.

I believe accomodationalists are all on the boat about actively improving the public perception of bikes on road, little big man.

its interesting, little big man - well implemented on-road bike specific preferred class lanes and its' supporting bike infrastructure inherently improves public perception of bicyclists and road bicycling.

I'm STILL trying to figure out why the thread's originator thinks VC is 'natural' for those 90 PERCENT OF RIDERS he's anguished about?

I believe accomodationalists are all on the boat about actively improving the public perception of bikes on road, little big man.

its interesting, little big man - well implemented on-road bike specific preferred class lanes and its' supporting bike infrastructure inherently improves public perception of bicyclists and road bicycling.

I'm STILL trying to figure out why the thread's originator thinks VC is 'natural' for those 90 PERCENT OF RIDERS he's anguished about?
If by "accomodationalists" you mean only those who think like you do, then you are leaving out a great number of cyclists. Not everyone prefers bike facilities to normal lanes.

I can't go along with your attempt to put every cyclist into the same box. If a person doesn't agree with you, it doesn't mean their preferences are invalid. The world is not black-and-white.

Why do you have such a hard time accepting that a great many cyclists are happy without bike facilities, strange as that may seem? Does it mean they are all against you? Or does it mean they are simply different?

Can you still not believe that some cyclists prefer to avoid bike facilities altogether?

read my comment again, lil' big.. i said nothing about preferences of bicyclists.

I mention inherent characteristics of a bike lane.

and the 90 percent that don't ride naturally like nun mentions.