Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Bike lanes are like sidewalks

To add validity to your spin you add original design intent that cannot ever change. That comes across as "If god wanted men to fly, he would have given him wings." I'm sorry but I am at a loss to find any sort of valid argument that is dependent on original historic design intent taht can make or break an argument. If something fails, failure under current conditions is far superior then failure in the past. The only time I see this form of argument of original intent is from a highly biased point of view.

What you say is interesting and in some ways true. In molecular biology there are numerous arguments concerning the "purpose" or "function" of cellular machinery. There are many mechanisms which originally evolved for one particular purpose (or none at all, e.g. spandrels) and then gradually became adapted or re-purposed to new ends. Sometimes tracing the original "design constraints" of the original function give clues as to why the present machinery does an imperfect job. In a similar way it can be useful to consider all the different pressures which have given rise to the current use/function/design of bikelanes.

The recent pressure from motorists is something which only a True Believer In Facilities would find hard to ignore or deny. Keep it up chaps!

if we provide sidewalks for pedestrians and freeways for motorists, why shouldn't we provide bike lanes for cyclists?


Because bike lanes offer neither the advantages of sidewalks obtained by pedestrians or the benefits of freeways used by cars.



Conversely, if we aren't going to provide bike lanes, shouldn't we also remove the freeways and sidewalks?

I don't mind the freeways being removed as I don't drive but I find the sidewalks useful. Bike lanes however cause me inconvenience and danger and I'd rather not have them. K THX BYE!

WOLs allow motorists the space to overtake cyclists without delay, in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, but without imposing any separation that contradicts the rules of the road and applies a stigma on cyclists as being only fit for the side of the road. WOLs provide sufficient space, without generating any other complication. That is their virtue. The same goes for shoulders, because there is no implication that cyclists should be limited to shoulders.

One would think that these matters are readily understandable. That they are not, for many people, demonstrates the obduracy of unthinking prejudices.

How much time have you really spent riding on WOL's as opposed to opining the result?

My experience with WOL's further encourages me to side with the BL folks. Maybe it has to do with the areas I ride, but WOL's cause motorists to weave and not be sure where in that big lane they're supposed to be. Your statement about not generating any other complication is not true.

It seems to also make the motorist forget about any kind of space to pass as well. They'll speed by two abreast being more concerned with staying away from the motor vehicle in the other lane than giving me space.

Because bike lanes offer neither the advantages of sidewalks obtained by pedestrians
What advantages?

What advantages?

Keeps 'em out of the bike lanes and off the freeways?:D

I am sure, Allister, that you do not always ride at the edge of the road, although your statement so indicates.

You apparently missed the 'if there's room' caveat.


The trouble with the bike-lane stripe is that it was designed to shove incompetently discourteous cyclists aside (the designers said so, several times), and when courtesy is enforced by a physical stripe it just goes wrong. Courtesy depends on the situation at the place, time, and traffic, and cannot be enforced by a permanent stripe.

Don't be so melodramatic. It's just another lane.

Incompetently discourteous is a double negative. If you're incompetent at being discourteous, that means you're courteous, right? Anyway, I think you meant 'incompetent and discourteous', no? In which case, I think aside is the best place for them, if not off the road altogether. Them buggers are a bloody menace. Same goes for car drivers of a similar ilk.

There is a great deal of difference between normal lane stripes, which simply allow drivers to obey the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, and the bike-lane stripe, which distinguishes between one type of driver and another type of driver, with the result of sometimes contradicting the rules of the road.

And while you continue your bleating, in the real world, designs are improving by people who think engineering problems should be solved rather than moaned about. Where have you been?

All your complaints about 'contradicting the rules of the road' can be solved simply by directing the bikelane to the left of right-turning traffic, which seems to be the standard on all new lanes marked around here. Seems simple enough to me, and you could save yourself hours of typing on here.

:roflmao:

why don't you humble yourself and offer to help design better bike lanes and paths, John? That would actually be a useful contribution.

I'm not sure he could if he wanted to.


bike lanes can have better destination positioning if done right, and paths can be done better too with careful route selection and selective use of grade eliminations and other treatments. The money might actually be out there in the near future to do it better.

There's a lot of political capital in being seen to be green. If they accidentally do some actual good in the process, that's a plus.

*snikker*

What advantages?

They provide a good place for cafes to put tables in the summertime.

I just wanted to chime in that Segways are the only vehicle that enjoys a dual pedestrian and vehicle status.

Thats' an electric scooter right?

please try to remain on topic.

if we provide sidewalks for pedestrians and freeways for motorists, why shouldn't we provide bike lanes for cyclists?


As long as the cars have 'must use' laws and may only use the freeways that's fine.

All this complaining and tossing of insults, yet who is offering a true incentive to get out and ride for practical purposes? Who is doing an actual study of safer conditions for cycling? Where can we get data actually related to bike usage, skill and safety? Please, can we stop being collectively stupid and snide and get this on track?

who is offering a true incentive? the accomodationalist notion of well designed and implemented bike infrastructure.

All this complaining and tossing of insults, yet who is offering a true incentive to get out and ride for practical purposes? Who is doing an actual study of safer conditions for cycling? Where can we get data actually related to bike usage, skill and safety? Please, can we stop being collectively stupid and snide and get this on track?

You are asking quite a reasonable question, but the answer is unpleasant because there is so much superstition on one side. I assume that your question was asked about American activities and conditions. In any case, I answer with respect to American activities and conditions.

The essential facts have been known for thirty years and have never been successfully challenged. That is, the best way to reduce American cycling casualties and to improve American bicycle transportation is to improve the traffic behavior of American cyclists, getting them to operate in the vehicular manner instead of the ways in which they do operate. Going beyond that, toward a society that accepts vehicular cycling as the proper mode of operation, would be better still.

However, the vehicular cycling policy is not popular. American society, for various reasons, has always believed, wrongly of course, that vehicular cycling is a dangerous activity that requires great skill. American society educated its children to cycle in a childish manner that placed exaggerated priority on staying out of the way of same-direction motor traffic lest the cyclist be killed by that same-direction motor traffic. The American bikeway program is the physical implementation of that popular view and its early bike-safety training.

Some people believe that it is extremely important to transfer a significant portion of American personal motoring to bicycling. Nearly all of those people have chosen the bikeway policy, for either or both of two reasons. They either believe the superstition that bikeways make cycling much safer, particularly for beginners, or they cynically recognize that the public strongly believe that superstition.

The anti-motoring bikeway promoters base their strategy on two assumptions.

The first is that bikeways make cycling safe, particularly for beginners. The second is that if cycling is seen to be much safer, then a transportationally significant portion of motorists will transfer a transportationally significant portion of their trips from motoring to bicycling. The first assumption was disproved by the facts thirty years ago, and that situation has not been changed by later information, which only confirms the early data.

The second assumption is based on the idea that Americans motor so much because they are afraid of cycling. It is certainly true that Americans are afraid of cycling, but that does not mean that they motor for that reason. Americans motor because it is convenient, because it suits their purposes. Furthermore, Americans have developed their cities and all their urban activities, except for older urban cores, in the ways allowed by the convenience of motoring. This means that an ever-decreasing proportion of motoring trips are suitable for cycling. I think that this reasoning, far from being only hypothetical, is the explanation for why the thirty years of the American bikeway program have not produced this hoped-for transfer of a transportationally significant portion of motoring trips to cycling trips.

The anti-motoring bikeway advocates are in the position of trying to argue in a supposedly reasonable way for a program whose only support is the superstition of the cycling-ignorant American public. In such a situation, nastiness all too frequently comes to the fore.

Well, there are the two sides. The vehicular cycling side does the best for cyclists, but will not make bicycle transportation popular. The bikeways side does harm to cyclists by reinforcing the popular cycling-ignorant superstition, and probably will never make bicycle transportation popular. I know which side I prefer.

To make bicycle transportation popular in America will require a great change in those conditions that cause motoring to be more useful than cycling. If such occurs, bicycle transportation has the possibility of becoming popular, but predictions of this magnitude have a very high error rate and should not be counted on until imminent.

blech. your entire argument is based on the fallacy that the best way to improve bicycle transportation in america is to improve the cyclists! wrong.

that presumption falls flat in the face of worldwide evidence of higher modal shares and lower accident rates in well accomodated communities, john.


it is VEHICULAR CYCLING as a model for improving bicycling transportation that has failed Britian and the USA, john. miserably. your putsch failed.

The Accomodation model of well implemented redesigns of public space and transportation cooridors with bicyclists bears the nearly universal fruits of higher bicycling participation and lower accident rates.

You keep repeating that the bicycle was invented to create the as then unimagined sport of cycling, despite my telling you of the truth of the matter. Your persistence in repeating error simply shows the strength of prejudices. Inventing the bicycle to create some sport that was undreamed of at that time? Ludicrous, that is.

Well you and the local bike historian are going to have to have some words is all I can say. And great point that something has to already exist before it can be invented. :rolleyes:

So going with your argument then it is recreational/sport use of the bicycle that just can't be because it is beyond the consistency in function of the original intent. As original intent defines the scope and that scope can never change. For example phones were meant for long distance communications so they can never have clocks, calenders, alarms, cameras, games and play music as that is all outside the consistency in function. Public opinion about the nature or function of nursery rhymes can never change from the original intent. Some things stick to the original intent and other things can take on a life of their own that goes far beyond what was originally intended. It all comes down current use defines what a thing does, history really does not need to enter into it, especially if it is used to counter current use/intent.


I consider your argument using separation, as you call it. "You can spin anything, even your own advocacy for WOLs and shoulders can be spun as shoving bicycle traffic to the side of road. Despite all your carefully worded explanations it still comes down to some sort of separation of space and time as desirable by motorist." In that you are entirely wrong. WOLs allow motorists the space to overtake cyclists without delay[/COLOR], in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, but without imposing any separation that contradicts the rules of the road and applies a stigma on cyclists as being only fit for the side of the road. WOLs provide sufficient space, without generating any other complication. That is their virtue. The same goes for shoulders, because there is no implication that cyclists should be limited to shoulders.

I'm sorry but my statement (in blue) and your rebuttal (in black) is the same. As to the points you added:

Bike lanes:
1) Contradicts the rules of the road
The contradiction of the bike lane continuing to the right of a right hand turn lane is no longer accepted practice. You keep making this statement yet you claim a VC can ride bike lanes without a contradiction of the rules of the road this seems contradictory to me, when I call you on this somehow "rules of the road" becomes what's in the mind of drivers which is the same as your point 2 so rather then having two objections you only have one.

2) Stigma on cyclists as being only fit for the side of the road
They also create an impression that bikes are vehicles that are fit for the road and not sidewalks and wrong way cycling. You seem to conveniently forget that sidewalk and wrong way cycling are significantly more of a safety issue for cyclists then the dreaded right hook. So without bike lanes we have the stigma on cyclists as being not being fit for the road at all.


WOL:
1) Contradicts the rules of the road
The contradiction that two vehicles can share the same lane side by side is what put right hooks up on the top ten list of cyclists problems in the first place.

2) Stigma on cyclists as being only fit for the side of the road
Few state have mandatory bike lane use laws but all states have mandatory stay to the right laws, so WOLs contribute as much to the stigma as do bike lanes. WOLs may fix some problems but they also create other problems. Proper and safe use of a WOL by a cyclist is at best undefined by the rules of the road, that has its advantages and disadvantages but it does not make it clear winner.



One would think that these matters are readily understandable. That they are not, for many people, demonstrates the obduracy of unthinking prejudices.

Hmmm, I'm thinking the same thing. You are the one with the argument that rests on static consistency in function as defined by original intent that equates to "If god wanted men to fly, he would have given him wings." if that is not unthinking prejudices I don't know what is.

blech. your entire argument is based on the fallacy that the best way to improve bicycle transportation in america is to improve the cyclists! wrong.

that presumption falls flat in the face of worldwide evidence of higher modal shares and lower accident rates in well accomodated communities, john.


it is VEHICULAR CYCLING as a model for improving bicycling transportation that has failed Britian and the USA, john. miserably. your putsch failed.

The Accomodation model of well implemented redesigns of public space and transportation cooridors with bicyclists bears the nearly universal fruits of higher bicycling participation and lower accident rates.

It is only your superstition that enables you to believe that the correlation between bikeways and bicycle modal share is actually a causal relationship, because neither facts nor reasoning provide a better explanation than does superstition.

Thats' an electric scooter right?
This is a Segway:
http://www.segwaypr.com/db2/00135/segwaypr.com/_uimages/SegwayHTiSeries.jpg

An electric scooter (2 wheels in-line) follows the same rules as a cyclist except they are not allowed on MUPs. Unless it is an electric scooter (3 or more wheels) that is designed to replace a wheelchair, then pedestrian rules apply (including driving against traffic when no sidewalk.) I find it interesting all this mishmash of laws.

All this complaining and tossing of insults, yet who is offering a true incentive to get out and ride for practical purposes? Who is doing an actual study of safer conditions for cycling? Where can we get data actually related to bike usage, skill and safety? Please, can we stop being collectively stupid and snide and get this on track?

FWIW I tried to get a cyclists usage count before our bike lanes went up, it fell through for reasons not explained. I'm currently working on getting more detailed crash data so hopefully we will have some stats on the safety end at least.

Well you and the local bike historian are going to have to have some words is all I can say. And great point that something has to already exist before it can be invented. :rolleyes:

So going with your argument then it is recreational/sport use of the bicycle that just can't be because it is beyond the consistency in function of the original intent. As original intent defines the scope and that scope can never change. For example phones were meant for long distance communications so they can never have clocks, calenders, alarms, cameras, games and play music as that is all outside the consistency in function. Public opinion about the nature or function of nursery rhymes can never change from the original intent. Some things stick to the original intent and other things can take on a life of their own that goes far beyond what was originally intended. It all comes down current use defines what a thing does, history really does not need to enter into it, especially if it is used to counter current use/intent.



I'm sorry but my statement (in blue) and your rebuttal (in black) is the same. As to the points you added:

Bike lanes:
1) Contradicts the rules of the road
The contradiction of the bike lane continuing to the right of a right hand turn lane is no longer accepted practice. You keep making this statement yet you claim a VC can ride bike lanes without a contradiction of the rules of the road this seems contradictory to me, when I call you on this somehow "rules of the road" becomes what's in the mind of drivers which is the same as your point 2 so rather then having two objections you only have one.

2) Stigma on cyclists as being only fit for the side of the road
They also create an impression that bikes are vehicles that are fit for the road and not sidewalks and wrong way cycling. You seem to conveniently forget that sidewalk and wrong way cycling are significantly more of a safety issue for cyclists then the dreaded right hook. So without bike lanes we have the stigma on cyclists as being not being fit for the road at all.


WOL:
1) Contradicts the rules of the road
The contradiction that two vehicles can share the same lane side by side is what put right hooks up on the top ten list of cyclists problems in the first place.

2) Stigma on cyclists as being only fit for the side of the road
Few state have mandatory bike lane use laws but all states have mandatory stay to the right laws, so WOLs contribute as much to the stigma as do bike lanes. WOLs may fix some problems but they also create other problems. Proper and safe use of a WOL by a cyclist is at best undefined by the rules of the road, that has its advantages and disadvantages but it does not make it clear winner.




Hmmm, I'm thinking the same thing. You are the one with the argument that rests on static consistency in function as defined by original intent that equates to "If god wanted men to fly, he would have given him wings." if that is not unthinking prejudices I don't know what is.

You play with words like a lawyer rather than paying attention to facts like a scientist or engineer. And your words disclose that you don't understand English, either. To accuse me of saying that something had to exist before it could be invented. I never wrote such a thing; it is only your inability to understand standard English that caused you to reach such an absurd conclusion. Ideologues such as you are the bane of civilized existence, for you muddy all the waters to which you pay attention.

For all of you who are interested in the history of the invention of the bicycle, I suggest Andrew Ritchie's "King of the Road", ISBN 0-913668-42-7, published in England by Wildwood House, in the USA by Ten-Speed Press, 1975. Need I keep on repeating that most of the necessary information about cycling has been known for decades?

Ideologues such as you are the bane of civilized existence, for you muddy all the waters to which you pay attention.

Pot meet Kettle

Pot meet Kettle

I know I dropped that accusation in another thread.:D

Let's ask another question then. Are the goals of "separate facilities" and "vehicular cycling" mutually exclusive? Would operating in a safe and predictable manner on roads or paths not be the best way? Can we design separate facilities that actually work with the current facilities?

It would seem to me, and I believe from my limited reading in John's work and others that better facilities and better cyclists, AND better drivers would all be beneficial. Beyond that I think we'd need something like $15 a gallon gas.

(Why do I feel like Don Quixote?)

I find it interesting, the idea to create large infrastructure for bicycles only, putting them on high importance of that of a car in terms of special means of transportation for only that vehicle, and we still complain.

If anything, I think the bike lane serves as a message, it is quite the viable means of getting practically anywhere, you even get your own lane. Vehicles of different sizes can be restricted to certain lanes on certain roads except under certain conditions (making turns and such), why not bikes? What makes us so special that we can't follow the same rules as other vehicles?

Mainly, as I mentioned before, the most important thing is it sends a strong message, without a bike lane, and without a shoulder, people STILL think we should have to buy a car to be on that road. (before anyone wants to make any stupid points about how people think)

I'm not going to get into the whole "VC" or other elitist bull****, because it seems to be making too much out of something so simple.


If bike lanes are like sidewalks, so are truck only lanes.

I know I dropped that accusation in another thread.:D

Let's ask another question then. Are the goals of "separate facilities" and "vehicular cycling" mutually exclusive? Would operating in a safe and predictable manner on roads or paths not be the best way? Can we design separate facilities that actually work with the current facilities?

It would seem to me, and I believe from my limited reading in John's work and others that better facilities and better cyclists, AND better drivers would all be beneficial. Beyond that I think we'd need something like $15 a gallon gas.

(Why do I feel like Don Quixote?)

Many people believe that one of the solutions is better motorist education, which the VC summarily reject.

Separate facilities are generally only needed on higher speed and volume arterials. Cycling conditions are also substantially different in older 'pre-automobile' urban areas and newer 'post-automobile' suburban areas, so a 'one-size fits all' solution is nearly impossible to arrive at.

There was discussion here a year or so back of 'adaptive cycling' or matching cycling methods and road treatments to the immediate local roadway network. (also summarily rejected by the VC)

The intransigence of the VC in general and John Forester in particular, is a major stumbling block.

Are the goals of "separate facilities" and "vehicular cycling" mutually exclusive?

Of course they're not.

I know I dropped that accusation in another thread.:D

Let's ask another question then. Are the goals of "separate facilities" and "vehicular cycling" mutually exclusive? Would operating in a safe and predictable manner on roads or paths not be the best way? Can we design separate facilities that actually work with the current facilities?

It would seem to me, and I believe from my limited reading in John's work and others that better facilities and better cyclists, AND better drivers would all be beneficial. Beyond that I think we'd need something like $15 a gallon gas.

(Why do I feel like Don Quixote?)


Indyv8a asks: "Are the goals of "separate facilities" and "vehicular cycling" mutually exclusive?"

Unfortunately, I think so. The goal of the vehicular cycling movement is for those who choose to cycle to operate competently and safely. The goal of the separate facilities movement is to persuade a transportationally significant proportion of motorists to use bicycle transportation for a transportationally significant proportion of trips.

The different goals produce different strategies.

VC works largely on the pattern of the standard industrial safety program. It looks at physical items (facilities, bicycles, cars), operating procedures (rules of the road), operator skills (driving skills), accidents (type, frequency, cause), to produce remedial measures. It also works as a standard transportation program, looking at how bicycle transportation can best be used and making recommendations about improvements to the road system.

The separate facilities movement looks to what would most strongly persuade motorists to take up bicycling, and has concluded that bike lanes and bike paths are the strongest available motivators.

These two different strategies and ways of operating produce conflicting results.

The VC movement has concluded that the best program for the welfare of cyclists is instruction in cycling according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. Associated with that instructional program there has to be public advocacy of what has been forgotten in America, that cyclists should operate according to the rules of the road and such operation should be accepted and accommodated.

The separate facilities movement advocates bike lanes and bike paths because the typical American believes that these facilities make cycling safe for him or her without having to learn the supposedly difficult and dangerous art of vehicular cycling. Innumerable surveys of public opinion demonstrate this. The typical American believes that these facilities make cycling safe and easy by providing protection against same-direction motor traffic. Indeed, these facilities look as though they provide such protection, and they probably do so to a considerable extent.

These two different strategies and results conflict in ways physical, operational, instructional, political, and philosophical. I discuss bike lanes here because bike paths have a different set of problems. The bike lane operating principle is that cyclists stay to the right of the stripe while motorists stay to the left of the stripe. However, there are many occasions, unpredictable at design time, in which the rules of the road require the opposite positioning and the movements to reach it. It should be obvious that violating the rules of the road creates conflicting movements that increase the risk of collision. Nobody has been able to design a bike-lane system that eliminates such conflicts, and geometry provides good reasons why such a design is not practical.

Operationally, the same conundrum arises. Both cyclists and motorists are faced with bike-lane stripes that tell them that, for reasons of cyclist safety, cyclists should be to the right of the stripe while motorists should stay to the left of the stripe. However, both motorists and cyclists are also faced with the safety need and legal obligation of obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. Which does each obey, when, and why? All managers of operations in potentially dangerous processes, be they military, railroad, aircraft operation, chemical refineries, mining, or whatever else, all agree that conflicting instructions often lead to disasters. Furthermore, analysis of collision statistics and the rules of the road demonstrates that bike-lanes cannot make cycling safe and easy, and the confusion they cause may increase collisions.

The two different strategies produce instructional conflicts also. The vehicular cycling movement holds that changing from the typically incompetent cycling to vehicular cycling produces a large reduction in crashes, based on several different groups of crash statistics. Vehicular cycling instruction also teaches that the cyclist should ignore the bike-lane stripe and ride properly, that the bike-lane stripe does not provide protection and ought to be considered insignificant, except to the extent that most motorists, being not as well-instructed in cycling matters as is a trained vehicular cyclist, are more likely to be confused by the stripe and, therefore, are more likely to make driving mistakes that the cyclist has to watch out for. On the contrary, the separate facilities movement relies on the public superstition that such facilities enable safe cycling without further instruction in vehicular cycling. The separate facilities advocates disapprove of the need for vehicular-cycling instruction because they see it as an impediment to getting more motorists out of their cars.

The two different strategies produce political conflict also. The separate facilities advocates want government to provide bike lanes and bike paths while downplaying the need for instruction and the need to obey the rules of the road. The vehicular cycling advocates want government to improve the roads in the ways beneficial to vehicular cyclists, to accept that cyclists are obliged to operate according to the rules of the road, to base law enforcement on that basis, and to provide some official imprimatur for instruction in vehicular cycling.

jAs for philosophical considerations, the two could not be more different. One advocates operation in the ways appropriate for roads, while the other advocates operation in a childish manner. One goes for safety and competence, the other for incompetence and danger. One accepts that bicycle transportation in America is likely to be only a small part of urban personal transportation, while the other bases its strategy on the hope that bicycle transportation will make a major difference in American personal urban transportation.

Many people believe that one of the solutions is better motorist education, which the VC summarily reject.

Separate facilities are generally only needed on higher speed and volume arterials. Cycling conditions are also substantially different in older 'pre-automobile' urban areas and newer 'post-automobile' suburban areas, so a 'one-size fits all' solution is nearly impossible to arrive at.

There was discussion here a year or so back of 'adaptive cycling' or matching cycling methods and road treatments to the immediate local roadway network. (also summarily rejected by the VC)

The intransigence of the VC in general and John Forester in particular, is a major stumbling block.

More of your typical overstatements. Vehicular cyclists do not, have not ever, summarily rejected better training for motorists. We hold that such an improvement would benefit all road users. However, you use the phrase "motorist education", which implies something rather different. We point out that the proportion of car-bike collisions that is caused by motorist misunderstanding of the legal status of cyclists is extremely small. Therefore, "education" of motorists is not likely to produce a significant reduction in the car-bike collision rate.

You state that "Separate facilities are generally needed only on higher speed and volume arterials." On what analysis do you base your statement? What is the traffic-engineering basis for this statement?

You state that: "Cycling conditions are also substantially different in older 'pre-automobile' urban areas and newer 'post-automobile' suburban areas, so a 'one-size fits all' solution is nearly impossible to arrive at." Under what conditions is another operating system better than vehicular cycling? Please describe that system.

Pot meet Kettle
Kettles are so much better. :p

Let's ask another question then. Are the goals of "separate facilities" and "vehicular cycling" mutually exclusive? Would operating in a safe and predictable manner on roads or paths not be the best way? Can we design separate facilities that actually work with the current facilities?

I would have to think about what "separate facilities" and "vehicular cycling" means first. I can think of interpretations where they can work together.

Indyv8a asks: "Are the goals of "separate facilities" and "vehicular cycling" mutually exclusive?"

Unfortunately, I think so.

And therein lies the conflict.

Personally, I'm with Allister.

Wow.

Sure is a lot to think about before we ride our bikes.

I would be happy in my city if they paved a few major roads properly (smooth and wide), kept them clean, and enforced drunk driving laws aggressively. Then, install a Whack-a-mole game at every DMV. You walk in, and BEFORE you even take a number for service, you should have to reach a decent score on the game before being allowed to even THINK about getting an operators license to drive a motor vehicle. If you have no hand-eye coordination, catch a bus.

As for separate bike lanes. No thanks. That typically reinforces the notion that we do not belong on the road. The few we have where I live are full of broken glass and never get cleaned, yet I am expected to use them.

Wow.

Sure is a lot to think about before we ride our bikes.

I would be happy in my city if they paved a few major roads properly (smooth and wide), kept them clean, and enforced drunk driving laws aggressively. Then, install a Whack-a-mole game at every DMV. You walk in, and BEFORE you even take a number for service, you should have to reach a decent score on the game before being allowed to even THINK about getting an operators license to drive a motor vehicle. If you have no hand-eye coordination, catch a bus.

As for separate bike lanes. No thanks. That typically reinforces the notion that we do not belong on the road. The few we have where I live are full of broken glass and never get cleaned, yet I am expected to use them.

I completely agree with everything you state...except the bike lane part. :)

Although I'd like nothing better than to have all drivers treat cyclists with respect and give us the same consideration on the road; (since we're basically required to comply with the same rules and regulations) that's not going to happen in my lifetime.

Given the choice of fighting for road rights and fighting for BL's, I've chosen the BL path. BL's may not be needed everywhere...there are no absolutes. It's just makes more sense, to me, to try to improve conditions for cycling in a way that has shown progress.

VC may be the ultimate right way to ride but it offers nothing 'tangible' to fight for for improvement. :D

I know I dropped that accusation in another thread.:D

Let's ask another question then. Are the goals of "separate facilities" and "vehicular cycling" mutually exclusive? Would operating in a safe and predictable manner on roads or paths not be the best way? Can we design separate facilities that actually work with the current facilities?

It would seem to me, and I believe from my limited reading in John's work and others that better facilities and better cyclists, AND better drivers would all be beneficial. Beyond that I think we'd need something like $15 a gallon gas.

(Why do I feel like Don Quixote?)

this is way too open minded and logical an opinion to last too long in A&S before it suffers the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.

Indyv8a, of course the goals of separate facilities and vehicular cycling do not need to be mutually exclusive. You're right- better facilities, better cyclists and better drivers is the goal of many of us. But we've been labelled a "separate facilities movement" if we support some bike lanes and paths- wow! now I'm part of a movement I didn't even know I was a member of because I think that separate facilities are sometimes appropriate!

But keeping it divisive, contentious and as dogmatic as possible keeps these threads far more entertaining than genuine honest and open dialogue that brings us to consensus. Pronouncing these things as polarizing concepts is much more fun for those with a strong desire to be right 100% of the time.;)

Besides, the motorists that facilities are supposed to be attracting to bicycling theoretically already have operators licenses and know the rules of the road, right? they are not childish, and they know exactly what the risks and benefits of operating a bicycle in traffic are, and they want facilities because they know how motorists typically behave from their own driving experience, and they don't trust them.

Why the Foresterologists are against more motorist education is completely beyond me. Portland is now 'educating' motorists with 'bike boxes'. Personally, I agree with the education part but disagree with the intent and design of the facility being installed in this case.

bike lanes are not sidewalks nor are they 'seperate' facilities, most are integrated into the road grid, better ones are wider, swept, buffered, and accomodating of right turning traffic at major intersections.

As an assertive, lane splitting vehicular cyclist I create my own 'bike box' but my technique helps no one but myself; however, well implemented bike infrastructure can assist both the diehard vc and the more casual (but still competent) cyclist.

Then, install a Whack-a-mole game at every DMV. You walk in, and BEFORE you even take a number for service, you should have to reach a decent score on the game before being allowed to even THINK about getting an operators license to drive a motor vehicle. If you have no hand-eye coordination, catch a bus.

I love it! There is something very poetic about making drivers try to hit everything in front of them so they don't do that on the roadways.

I love it! There is something very poetic about making drivers try to hit everything in front of them so they don't do that on the roadways.

Another reference to Deathrace 2000 is coming somewhere...:rolleyes:

Indyv8a asks: "Are the goals of "separate facilities" and "vehicular cycling" mutually exclusive?"

Unfortunately, I think so. The goal of the vehicular cycling movement is for those who choose to cycle to operate competently and safely. The goal of the separate facilities movement is to persuade a transportationally significant proportion of motorists to use bicycle transportation for a transportationally significant proportion of trips.

The different goals produce different strategies.

VC works largely on the pattern of the standard industrial safety program. It looks at physical items (facilities, bicycles, cars), operating procedures (rules of the road), operator skills (driving skills), accidents (type, frequency, cause), to produce remedial measures. It also works as a standard transportation program, looking at how bicycle transportation can best be used and making recommendations about improvements to the road system.

The separate facilities movement looks to what would most strongly persuade motorists to take up bicycling, and has concluded that bike lanes and bike paths are the strongest available motivators.

These two different strategies and ways of operating produce conflicting results.

The VC movement has concluded that the best program for the welfare of cyclists is instruction in cycling according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. Associated with that instructional program there has to be public advocacy of what has been forgotten in America, that cyclists should operate according to the rules of the road and such operation should be accepted and accommodated.

The separate facilities movement advocates bike lanes and bike paths because the typical American believes that these facilities make cycling safe for him or her without having to learn the supposedly difficult and dangerous art of vehicular cycling. Innumerable surveys of public opinion demonstrate this. The typical American believes that these facilities make cycling safe and easy by providing protection against same-direction motor traffic. Indeed, these facilities look as though they provide such protection, and they probably do so to a considerable extent.

These two different strategies and results conflict in ways physical, operational, instructional, political, and philosophical. I discuss bike lanes here because bike paths have a different set of problems. The bike lane operating principle is that cyclists stay to the right of the stripe while motorists stay to the left of the stripe. However, there are many occasions, unpredictable at design time, in which the rules of the road require the opposite positioning and the movements to reach it. It should be obvious that violating the rules of the road creates conflicting movements that increase the risk of collision. Nobody has been able to design a bike-lane system that eliminates such conflicts, and geometry provides good reasons why such a design is not practical.

Operationally, the same conundrum arises. Both cyclists and motorists are faced with bike-lane stripes that tell them that, for reasons of cyclist safety, cyclists should be to the right of the stripe while motorists should stay to the left of the stripe. However, both motorists and cyclists are also faced with the safety need and legal obligation of obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. Which does each obey, when, and why? All managers of operations in potentially dangerous processes, be they military, railroad, aircraft operation, chemical refineries, mining, or whatever else, all agree that conflicting instructions often lead to disasters. Furthermore, analysis of collision statistics and the rules of the road demonstrates that bike-lanes cannot make cycling safe and easy, and the confusion they cause may increase collisions.

The two different strategies produce instructional conflicts also. The vehicular cycling movement holds that changing from the typically incompetent cycling to vehicular cycling produces a large reduction in crashes, based on several different groups of crash statistics. Vehicular cycling instruction also teaches that the cyclist should ignore the bike-lane stripe and ride properly, that the bike-lane stripe does not provide protection and ought to be considered insignificant, except to the extent that most motorists, being not as well-instructed in cycling matters as is a trained vehicular cyclist, are more likely to be confused by the stripe and, therefore, are more likely to make driving mistakes that the cyclist has to watch out for. On the contrary, the separate facilities movement relies on the public superstition that such facilities enable safe cycling without further instruction in vehicular cycling. The separate facilities advocates disapprove of the need for vehicular-cycling instruction because they see it as an impediment to getting more motorists out of their cars.

The two different strategies produce political conflict also. The separate facilities advocates want government to provide bike lanes and bike paths while downplaying the need for instruction and the need to obey the rules of the road. The vehicular cycling advocates want government to improve the roads in the ways beneficial to vehicular cyclists, to accept that cyclists are obliged to operate according to the rules of the road, to base law enforcement on that basis, and to provide some official imprimatur for instruction in vehicular cycling.

jAs for philosophical considerations, the two could not be more different. One advocates operation in the ways appropriate for roads, while the other advocates operation in a childish manner. One goes for safety and competence, the other for incompetence and danger. One accepts that bicycle transportation in America is likely to be only a small part of urban personal transportation, while the other bases its strategy on the hope that bicycle transportation will make a major difference in American personal urban transportation.

tl:dnr

We point out that the proportion of car-bike collisions that is caused by motorist misunderstanding of the legal status of cyclists is extremely small. Therefore, "education" of motorists is not likely to produce a significant reduction in the car-bike collision rate.

Oh come on! You of all people should know there's more to educating people in using a vehicle than merely pointing out the rules of the road to them.