Vehicular Cycling (VC) - just the facts

All right, guys. I've been trying to follow along with this discussion as best I can. But I'm pretty bamboozled at this point. To me, it sounds like everyone is advocating the same things, but is then shouting over the others while shouting the same things.

I think we can agree as cyclists, that cycling is treated as an inferior means of travel by most of the public. My non-cyclist friends think it is silly and childish that people ride bikes to work, for example.

I think we can agree that cyclists need to do more to educate our children, ourselves, and our friends about cycling as effective transportation and safe recreation. It's also our burden to fight for more rights, more bike lanes, and more awareness of cyclists, even if that burden shouldn't be ours. If cyclists don't stand up for cyclists, no one will.

I think we can agree that there are differences between motor vehicles and bicycles, in speed, in the types of paths they can follow, the protection they provide in a collision, and so on. I think most cyclists prefer to be treated as vehicle operators whenever possible. But there are situations where the physical differences are too large.

Example: On the winding roads of Oregon, even a cyclist following the traffic laws is still at risk, because the roads are narrow and cars are moving much faster than even a pro time-trialist. Having driven the roads as well as biked them, I know there is just no way to keep cyclists safe and give them the same complete level of access to the roadways. If you allow a car to go 55 mph around a curve where cyclists may be, and you allow cyclists full use of the lane, treating them as the equal to a motor vehicle, the cyclist is dead. The only options I can think of are to add a bike lane or reduce the motor traffic speed substantially. Motorists would never agree to a slower speed limit like that, and frankly, it isn't practical anyway. Adding a bike lane to those mountain roads would be a large, costly undertaking. So, cyclists are stuck riding along the margin, treated as something cars drive around and not with. It's not perfect, but I think it's the best we can realistically do.

That's just one example, but I think you get the point. There is a way things should be and a way things can realistically be. I think we can agree that if the realistic, practical solution were perfected (treating bikes as a slower, different type of vehicle), that would be acceptable to most. Again, I also think the underlying issue is that cyclists are seen by the majority of the country as silly grown-ups riding around on kids' toys. That perception needs to be dealt with first.

It is indeed one of my shared beliefs that the motoring public should be better educated... But let's ask the leading guru about that and see what his response is and I think you will understand my frustration.

Changing the laws won't do squat... as the public is not aware of the laws now... so it won't make one bit of difference. Now enacting laws that demand that the motoring public pay attention to cyclists is another story... as this will give LEOs something to enforce, AND give cyclists some needed publicity. But again, ask the leading guru about this and check the response.

Yes, all of us who vehicularly cycle are constantly "fighting the battle." It gets old... real old. Heck, any wonder why John is such a curmudgeon...

Gene, I certainly agree that lack of publicity and public knowledge is a huge part of the equation. When I went for my usual one hour intense ride today, the last part of that was on a 4' bike lane separated from a four lane 50 mph arterial by a stripe of paint. I got to thinking of the notion that if the legislature passed a law proclaiming that motorists must keep a minimum of one meter away from cyclists, and that the burden of proof was on them in case of an accident, that the resulting publicity in addition to the law, would have a significant impact on these bozos who pass me within two feet on this road.

Anyway, I am going over to the dark side. Just bought a 2006 Porsche Boxster S. Flying to Houston this week to pick it up and drive it back. I will fill the atmosphere with hydrocarbons all the way and those f-ing geek cyclists better stay out of my way.

If I see Bek on the road 'claiming MY lane' he's a dead man. :)

All right, guys. I've been trying to follow along with this discussion as best I can. But I'm pretty bamboozled at this point. To me, it sounds like everyone is advocating the same things, but is then shouting over the others while shouting the same things.

I think we can agree as cyclists, that cycling is treated as an inferior means of travel by most of the public. My non-cyclist friends think it is silly and childish that people ride bikes to work, for example.

I think we can agree that cyclists need to do more to educate our children, ourselves, and our friends about cycling as effective transportation and safe recreation. It's also our burden to fight for more rights, more bike lanes, and more awareness of cyclists, even if that burden shouldn't be ours. If cyclists don't stand up for cyclists, no one will.

I think we can agree that there are differences between motor vehicles and bicycles, in speed, in the types of paths they can follow, the protection they provide in a collision, and so on. I think most cyclists prefer to be treated as vehicle operators whenever possible. But there are situations where the physical differences are too large.

Example: On the winding roads of Oregon, even a cyclist following the traffic laws is still at risk, because the roads are narrow and cars are moving much faster than even a pro time-trialist. Having driven the roads as well as biked them, I know there is just no way to keep cyclists safe and give them the same complete level of access to the roadways. If you allow a car to go 55 mph around a curve where cyclists may be, and you allow cyclists full use of the lane, treating them as the equal to a motor vehicle, the cyclist is dead. The only options I can think of are to add a bike lane or reduce the motor traffic speed substantially. Motorists would never agree to a slower speed limit like that, and frankly, it isn't practical anyway. Adding a bike lane to those mountain roads would be a large, costly undertaking. So, cyclists are stuck riding along the margin, treated as something cars drive around and not with. It's not perfect, but I think it's the best we can realistically do.

That's just one example, but I think you get the point. There is a way things should be and a way things can realistically be. I think we can agree that if the realistic, practical solution were perfected (treating bikes as a slower, different type of vehicle), that would be acceptable to most. Again, I also think the underlying issue is that cyclists are seen by the majority of the country as silly grown-ups riding around on kids' toys. That perception needs to be dealt with first.

I agree with most, if not all of this, Arthur. First, many of the debaters essentially agree with each other, but are more interested in making personal points. Second, regarding your Oregon roads (I think of Pacific coast roads, as well as the mountain roads in my area) there is scant relief to the cyclist to know that the motorist is not supposed exceed his vision when rounding a curve. There are many '30 mph' curves that can be easily driven at 50 mph or more, especially by motorcyclists and sports car enthusiasts, but should be driven much slower due to vision issues. Good luck to us expecting that rule will be observed frequently enough for us to feel safe.

I doubt john forester can endorse ANY bikelane, regardless of the speed differential that can exacerbate hazardous riding conditions and serve as a barier to more populist bicycling participation in this country, Dan.

That level of obstructionism for sake of an illusory 'vehicular equity' serves to stunt greater and safer, more diverse ridership.

nice antagonism towards bicyclists with your porsche thing. maybe with the porsche you can give up bicycling altogther now because of those 'close passes' while riding on the shoulders. Do you feel you should have been simply taking the lane in the 50mph traffic flow, that would have been more appropriate? Cyclists, of course, have that right in Washington state so i am confused why you chose the shoulder instead of the travel lane. maybe you can elaborate a bit further. why were you on the shoulder anyway????

maybe your area needs wider shoulders or better bikelanes, meh.

Luckily, the tri-cities bike master plans look to be bringing you better riding conditions regardless of your take on how road stripes and the motorists are conspiring to discriminate against you. :)


BTW, there are no issues with the 'pacific coast roads' (????) :roflmao: anywhere in Oregon or Washington state. what roads are you referring to, and which sections?

I doubt john forester can endorse ANY bikelane, regardless of the speed differential that can exacerbate hazardous riding conditions and serve as a barier to more populist bicycling participation in this country, Dan.

That level of obstructionism for sake of an illusory 'vehicular equity' serves to stunt greater and safer, more diverse ridership.

nice antagonism towards bicyclists with your porsche thing. maybe with the porsche you can give up bicycling altogther now because of those 'close passes' while riding on the shoulders. Do you feel you should have been simply taking the lane in the 50mph traffic flow, that would have been more appropriate? Cyclists, of course, have that right in Washington state so i am confused why you chose the shoulder instead of the travel lane. maybe you can elaborate a bit further. why were you on the shoulder anyway????

maybe your area needs wider shoulders or better bikelanes, meh.

Luckily, the tri-cities bike master plans look to be bringing you better riding conditions regardless of your take on how road stripes and the motorists are conspiring to discriminate against you. :)


BTW, there are no issues with the 'pacific coast roads' (????) :roflmao: anywhere in Oregon or Washington state. what roads are you referring to, and which sections?

Once again Bek you show how out of touch you are with reality. What part of "four foot bike lane" makes you call it "the shoulder." In this post you appear to be against riding in bike lanes or on the road. I guess you are simply against bicycling anywhere but the sidewalk. You also appear to be against reading competently.

what kind of muddled misdirect is that, councilor? a personal attack on my reading ability? please, stick to the issues and not the personal rebukes.


:rolleyes:

I have no issues with riding on any road, bikelane or shoulder, positioned vehicularly as FRAP.

you have a clear stated issue of riding in the near proximity of faster traffic separated by a stripe on the highway. My apologies for the bikelane/shoulder mixup.

please, elaborate why you were riding in the bikelane and not in the general traffic lane on yesterdays' ride.

what kind of muddled misdirect is that, councilor? a personal attack on my reading ability? please, stick to the issues and not the personal rebukes.


:rolleyes:

I have no issues with riding on any road, bikelane or shoulder, positioned vehicularly as FRAP.

you have a clear stated issue of riding in the near proximity of faster traffic separated by a stripe on the highway. My apologies for the bikelane/shoulder mixup.

please, elaborate why you were riding in the bikelane and not in the general traffic lane on yesterdays' ride.

1. Your apology about the 'bikelane/shoulder mixup' contradicts your defense of your reading abilities.

2. I always ride in a bike lane if that seems to me to be the safest, most prudent choice. My issue with bike lanes, is that sometimes bike lanes may make the situation less safe for a cyclist. As I've said before the statistics show that motorists ride closer to cyclists when there is a bike lane stripe, than when there is not.

I have no doubt whatsoever that on this particular 50 mph road, if the bike lane stripe were removed and I rode in the same position from the centerline or curb, cars would give me greater clearance than they do with the f-ing bike lane which proclaims, contrary to law, that I must stay inside it.

This is the only major issue with bike lanes. They proclaim, contrary to law, that cyclists must use them. Even though I disagree with this, I am not so stupid that I will 'stick to my rights' regardless of the safety issues caused by the bike lane stripe, and ride in the lane. Generally, if I feel I need to ride in the road way instead of the bike lane, I will ride in the center of that through lane, rather than far to the right, to make it clear to oncoming drivers that I am there and they shouldn't try to squeeze by. To me, bike lanes force me to more of an 'all or nothing' decision, instead of a generally more intelligent and flexible approach.

sounds to me like you need bigger, better bikelanes. :)



blanket proclaimations that riding outside the bikelane mandates a center of a general traffic lane position is quite odd. it indicates a curious inability to share the road safely with other traffic.

you can't share a road with a bikelane and still ride FRAP? a LOT, perhaps a majority of seattle riders i observe understand how to ride frap and sometimes use the bikelane, sometimes on the stripe, sometimes a foot to the left of the stripe or sometimes in the middle or left edge of the general travel lane depending on the road/traffic dynamic.

the bikelane stripes are 'proclaiming' something? shocking, state law proclaims something quite different, as do driver education materials in the state. they proclaim nothing to me like that. your perception is an interesting take on bikelanes.

to accomodate bikes in the transportation mix, or leave higher speed roads with significant barriers to more populist bicycling participation with high traffic speeds and no preferred class lanes, is the question.

so far, this thread contains the most stubborn of posters on this site.
..and i imagine y'all hate being called stubborn.

so far, this thread contains the most stubborn of posters on this site.
..and i imagine y'all hate being called stubborn.

Not at all. :) I am stubborn in the defense of liberty and in opposition to incompetent reading and muddled writing. Thus, I am stubborn in mocking Glen Bek

sounds to me like you need bigger, better bikelanes. :)



blanket proclaimations that riding outside the bikelane mandates a center of a general traffic lane position is quite odd. it indicates a curious inability to share the road safely with other traffic.

you can't share a road with a bikelane and still ride FRAP? a LOT, perhaps a majority of seattle riders i observe understand how to ride frap and sometimes use the bikelane, sometimes on the stripe, sometimes a foot to the left of the stripe or sometimes in the middle or left edge of the general travel lane depending on the road/traffic dynamic.

the bikelane stripes are 'proclaiming' something? shocking, state law proclaims something quite different, as do driver education materials in the state. they proclaim nothing to me like that. your perception is an interesting take on bikelanes.

to accomodate bikes in the transportation mix, or leave higher speed roads with significant barriers to more populist bicycling participation with high traffic speeds and no preferred class lanes, is the question.

Accommodate this:

*yawn*

I'm really happy for you. that new car - what is that, a Lada? - will obviously make dealing with traffic easier for you, minimizing the speed differential you experience while widening your road profile.

however, that new sportster will probably aid you in continuing to stunt your professed inability to share the road safely while riding a bicycle. Pity seems to be in order.

hope the OP got some good 'facts' about how to increase road ridership in this country. Perhaps his inquiring mind led him to interventions, proven in other locales, that lead or are correlated with safer, more diverse cycling populations in communities.

I posit that a sense of humor (or at least a sense of irony) is one of the requirements of being human. If that proposition is correct, what are those things walking around, living, breathing, typing and whining that do not have senses of humor? Until a better term comes along, I'll call them Beks.

a petty personal attack, making fun of someone and their name? how lowbrow. VERY impressive, councilor.

Just another joke you didn't get. Sorry.

:rolleyes:

yes, riding a bike. Stymies the best of us.

Maybe someday, the bikelanes in the tri cities will be wide enough for that new Lada of yours! :D