Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Is anti vc anti motoring?

Is vc the dogma, anti-bicycling? YES, NO and I don't know/not sure are your options.

who's 'against' vc?

vehicular cycling and bikeways planning are not mutually exclusive. and planning for bikes in the transportation mix is not anti-motoring.

the FHWA has oodles of design guidance recommending bicyclists be considered as part of the roadway mix on all roads bicyclists are not prohibited from.

I suggest VC the dogma is anti-BICYCLING. anti vc is pro bicycling. society still needs motor vehicles.

who's 'against' vc?

vehicular cycling and bikeways planning are not mutually exclusive. and planning for bikes in the transportation mix is not anti-motoring.

the FHWA has oodles of design guidance recommending bicyclists be considered as part of the roadway mix on all roads bicyclists are not prohibited from.

I suggest VC the dogma is anti-BICYCLING. anti vc is pro bicycling. society still needs motor vehicles.

I can't edit the poll, just the body of the thread. What do you suggest I do? Create a new thread with a poll that asks: Is vc the dogma anti-bicycling? Should I specify vc the dogma as defined by john forester? Or should I not single out anyone in particular?

The argument is based on the false constructs of a charlatan. (not you)

By cycling or bicycling I mean all around cycling in general. I think someone termed it as REALITY CYCLING. It could also be called ADAPTIVE CYCLING.

here's an extension of the logical fallacy of the charlatans that claim planning for bikes in the transportation mix is anti-motoring:

parking meters are anti-motoring. parking enforcement is anti-motoring.

here's an extension of the logical fallacy of the charlatans that claim planning for bikes in the transportation mix is anti-motoring:

parking meters are anti-motoring. parking enforcement is anti-motoring.

Are you saying a certain charlatan that regularly posts here thinks parking meters and parking enforcement is anti-motoring?

I don't have an issue with parkign meters in general. My issue is parking meters in a downtown public library parking lot. Otherwise parking meters are fine with me as is parking enforcement.

I have an interesting story about parking meters and parking enforcement in Des Moines, Iowa. Would you like to hear it?

I do not understand the survey question, so will refrain from responding to it.

I will say that I believe cyclists function most safely and most efficiently when they act and are treated like drivers of vehicles. I also believe that there is way too much reliance on the automobile for personal transportation in many parts of the world, particularly in North America. I believe that bicyclists should have the right to build cycling facilities as long as they are willing to pay for them and as long as they do not threaten my right to use the public roadways in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. I believe strategies to make the roads more user-friendly, such as reduced speeds, detection of bicycles by demand-actuated traffic signals, tougher standards for driver qualification, stepped up enforcement for both motorists and cyclists, and wider outside lanes to reduce motorist/cyclist friction are much more effective than cycling-specific infrastructure. Sorry if I don't fit your stereotype.

bicyclists should have the right to build facilities?

wild opinion about public transportation infrastructure.

I believe high rolled does not understand that Class II and Class III bikeways ARE designed in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles and do not conflict with vehicular cycling principles.

Notions like those expressed in the post just above are anti-bicycling. bicyclists have to build and fund public transportation infrastructure? not even close to reasonable.

Notions like those expressed in the post just above are anti-bicycling. bicyclists have to build and fund public transportation infrastructure? not even close to reasonable.

So the expectation is that taxpayers, the vast majority of whom will not use such facilities or perceive any benefit to themselves from such faciltities, will open their wallets to pay for them? In an economic environment of diminishing funds for public works? This growing entitlement mentality in our culture never ceases to amaze me. Your faith in the altruism of your fellow man needs a serious reality check.

in the USA, the FHWA has ample design guidance that bicycle traffic shall be considered along all roads bicyclists are not prohibited from. Planning for bikes using road corridors is not an 'add-on' or optional. yes, that is precisely not just the expectation but the federal MANDATE.

your stalwart refusal to understand mandates from the federal highway administration needs a serious reality check. the VC seem to be anti-bike planning that facilitates more riders and safer riding conditions along the roads and highways of america.

Bikeways are not placed solely for bicyclists, they are part and parcel of complete streets and congruous with road and highway design standards to increase safety for all road users.

Additionally, contemporary Class II and Class III roadway bike enhancements do not conflict with vehicular cycling principles. vehicular cyclists can operate in a vehicular manner along roads with class II and Class III bikeways.

if high roller wants to complain about trails funding, thats a different issue. Is high roller shilling for AAA?

Dogmatic VC is, indeed, anti-bicycling. that might not be it's intent, but that is its effect. Nowadays I even suspect that IS the intent.

i suspect the same, judging from some of the antics and positions of some of the particulars.

I had to add one word to make your one statement approach accuracy.


in the USA, the FHWA has ample design guidance that bicycle traffic shall be considered along all roads bicyclists are not prohibited from. Planning for bikes using road corridors is not an 'add-on' or optional. yes, that is precisely not just the expectation but the federal UNFUNDED MANDATE.


The simple fact is that the entire transportation infrastructure in the US is underfunded, and has been for decades. Failure to tie funding levels to inflation. Adding mandates for additional improvements without adding the funding to account for the new mandates. All of these have lead to years of having more needed facilities than there is available funding for. It has gotten so bad recently that even maintenance is approaching the level of total funding availability in many places.

Examples of the problem:

Approximate 25% of all US roads are rated as poor or deficient and in need of maintainance.

Approximate 50% of the bridges in the US are rated as deficient or unsafe and in need of repair or replacement.

well, then, its far past time to restrict motor vehicles damaging the roads then! bikes have nothing to do with degradation of transportation infrastructure.

the US Supreme court back in the 1920 recognized the damage caused by motor vehicles was grave and allowed states to adapt licensing and fees for motor vehicle use.

where do the apologists for motoring come from in a forum about bicycling? jumpin jiminy.

ADAPTIVE CYCLING.

wow, where have I heard that before :lol:

There was another guy who tried to take this term as his own...he had a Vision and was from Iowa too. :innocent:

well, then, its far past time to restrict motor vehicles damaging the roads then! bikes have nothing to do with degradation of transportation infrastructure.

the US Supreme court back in the 1920 recognized the damage caused by motor vehicles was grave and allowed states to adapt licensing and fees for motor vehicle use.

where do the apologists for motoring come from in a forum about bicycling? jumpin jiminy.

It doesn't take much reading of your posts to understand that your not one of those people who let reason or facts get in the way of your preconceived notions, so I probably shouldn't waste my time.

Sure, by all means restrict motor vehicles from the roads paid for by motor vehicle taxes...

Of course, you might find the supply of food at the grocery stores a little sparse. After all, it is cargo vehicles, like trucks, that do a disproportionate share of the damage to the road surface.

And in a few years with no motor vehicles, and hence no taxes to pay for upkeep those empty roads will be in pretty poor shape. Why, you ask, because even unused road surfaces degrade pretty rapidly.

But that's all right you keep believing in your utopic view of the world.

Damage to transportation infrastructure is a public burden? I'm not against public infrastructure that supports the moving of goods, people and services. but whos paying for the damage? other countries can build longer lasting road surfaces, take a look at the autobahn design standards compared to american highways.

A lot of american roads are under-engineered and destined to fall apart prematurely, all in the name of sprawl and motor vehicle conveyance.



Over 80 years ago The US Supreme Court okayed states licensing and taxing motor vehicles because of the damage they cause to public roads and highways in this country.

What is myrridin trying to tell the forum?

Because motor vehicles are such a burden on public tax coffers, states shouldn't follow design mandates of the federal highway administration?

what a gashuffer. those allied with the vc seem to be very pro motoring. i wonder if the political perpetuation of vc is a secretive AAA bicyclist restriction program? (tongue in cheek)

Damage to transportation infrastructure is a public burden? I'm not against public infrastructure that supports the moving of goods, people and services. but whos paying for the damage? other countries can build longer lasting road surfaces, take a look at the autobahn design standards compared to american highways.

A lot of american roads are under-engineered and destined to fall apart prematurely, all in the name of sprawl and motor vehicle conveyance.



Over 80 years ago The US Supreme Court okayed states licensing and taxing motor vehicles because of the damage they cause to public roads and highways in this country.

What is myrridin trying to tell the forum?

Because motor vehicles are such a burden on public tax coffers, states shouldn't follow design mandates of the federal highway administration?

what a gashuffer. those allied with the vc seem to be very pro motoring. i wonder if the political perpetuation of vc is a secretive AAA bicyclist restriction program? (tongue in cheek)

What specific supreme court case are you referring to? The only such cases I am familiar with used public safety as their primary reason, not maintenance... Which is particularly amusing given that the vast majority of roads in this country were funded either through vehicle use taxes or military justified expenditures...


And once again you hold europe up as a shining example. I get it european engineers good, American engineers bad... europeans good, Americans bad

Any and all designs are subject to cost constraints. No european nation covers the sheer quantity of territory that the US does. Population densities are much higher. Hence the economics would allow them to spend more per mile of road...

Oh, and just to bring Godwins law into it, you do know that those Autobahns you reference so proudly were intended by the Nazi's to move TANKS...

good grief. an unabashed motor vehicle apologist posting in a bicycling advocacy forum!


the vast majority of roads in this country were INSUFFICIENTLY funded either through vehicle use taxes or military justified expenditures...

commentary fixed.

the supreme court early on recognized the dangerous and deluterious effects of motor vehicles on public roads and highways in cases in 1915 and 1927.


in 1915 "The movement of motor vehicles over the highways is attended by constant and serious dangers to the public, and is also abnormally destructive to the [high]ways themselves. ... [A] state may rightfully prescribe uniform regulations necessary for public safety and order in respect to the operation upon its highways of all motor vehicles - those moving in interstate commerce as well as others. ... This is but an exercise of the police power uniformly recognized as belonging to the states and essential to the preservation of the health, safety, and comfort of their citizens."

...abnormally destructive to the highways themselves. a majority opinion of the us supreme court.


1927, "Motor vehicles are dangerous machines, and even when skillfully and carefully operated, their use is attended by serious dangers to persons and property. In the public interest the state may make and enforce regulations reasonably calculated to promote care on the part of all, residents and non-residents alike, who use its highways. ... The state's power to regulate the use of its highways extends to their use by non-residents as well as by residents."

I'm pointedly not going to reference the court cases i just cited. I'm not the one without background on the rudiments of the discussion.

good grief. an unabashed motor vehicle apologist posting in a bicycling advocacy forum!



commentary fixed.

the supreme court early on recognized the dangerous and deluterious effects of motor vehicles on public roads and highways in cases in 1915 and 1927.


in 1915 "The movement of motor vehicles over the highways is attended by constant and serious dangers to the public, and is also abnormally destructive to the [high]ways themselves. ... [A] state may rightfully prescribe uniform regulations necessary for public safety and order in respect to the operation upon its highways of all motor vehicles - those moving in interstate commerce as well as others. ... This is but an exercise of the police power uniformly recognized as belonging to the states and essential to the preservation of the health, safety, and comfort of their citizens."

...abnormally destructive to the highways themselves. a majority opinion of the us supreme court.


1927, "Motor vehicles are dangerous machines, and even when skillfully and carefully operated, their use is attended by serious dangers to persons and property. In the public interest the state may make and enforce regulations reasonably calculated to promote care on the part of all, residents and non-residents alike, who use its highways. ... The state's power to regulate the use of its highways extends to their use by non-residents as well as by residents."

I'm pointedly not going to reference the court cases i just cited. I'm not the one without background on the rudiments of the discussion.


Thank you very much for proving my point. The dangers represented by the vehicles were the primary justification for licensing the vehicles and the drivers. The primary funding for the roads were use taxes, which I do not believe have ever received a legal challenge that has risen to the supreme court.

Call me what you want, if it makes you feel better.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dd/Square_-_black_simple.svg/500px-Square_-_black_simple.svg.png

AND




http://www.solarnavigator.net/images/compass_pocket.jpg

Great rebus, allenG!

Myrridin, I'm not proving your point, those supreme court cases led to licensing revenue from car tabs to pay for road upkeep. by the end of the second decade of the 20th century, every state had revenue collection in place thru vehicle licensing.

Great rebus, allenG!

Myrridin, I'm not proving your point, those supreme court cases led to licensing revenue from car tabs to pay for road upkeep. by the end of the second decade of the 20th century, every state had revenue collection in place thru vehicle licensing.

Ah a reading comprehension problem. The quotes you provided stated public safety was the primary justification for vehicle and driver licensing....

And neither vehicle license fees nor driver license fees have ever been the primary or even major funding source for roads.

Early road construction was funded via primarily through property taxes, which was soon replaced with use fees such as gasoline taxes... As such an expert shouldn't you be more aware of the facts?

i never said this was a primary funding source.

the supreme court found motor vehicle traffic abnormally destructive to roadways, and affirmed states right to license vehicles to collect fees early in the 20th century.

the court case in 1915 affirmed an earlier conviction for failure to register a vehicle, under statutory licensing program that directed that "All money collected under the provisions of the act go to the commissioner, and, except so much as is necessary for salaries and expenses, must be paid into the state treasury to be used in construction, maintaining, and repairing the streets of Baltimore and roads built or aided by a county or the state itself.'

why i am debating licensing with a shill for AAA is beyond sensible.

the vc advocacy platform is anti-bicycling.

I have strong, grounded suspicions the guiding force behind the contemporary vc ethos is a deeply subverted plot to restrict cyclists and recognize the supremacy of motorized transport.

the supreme court found motor vehicle traffic abnormally destructive to roadways, and affirmed states right to license vehicles to collect fees early in the 20th century.

You can keep saying that, but that is not what the quotes you provided said...

Though don't think I haven't noticed how you rephrased the statement from your original cause and effect to a simple division into two separate statements. Makes me think you might actually be beginning to understand what those cases actually say.

BTW, do you pursue these diversionary arguments only when you realize your original proposition were unsupportable or simply because you enjoy arguing?

:roflmao:

:roflmao:

So you find your own irrationality and failure to support your points amusing? Interesting...

So I guess that means you do realize you were wrong and got embarressed when I noticed you tried to retroactively change your claim

I.E. you went from this


the US Supreme court back in the 1920 recognized the damage caused by motor vehicles was grave and allowed states to adapt licensing and fees for motor vehicle use.

to this


the supreme court found motor vehicle traffic abnormally destructive to roadways, and affirmed states right to license vehicles to collect fees early in the 20th century.

when you realized the cases you quoted


in 1915 "The movement of motor vehicles over the highways is attended by constant and serious dangers to the public, and is also abnormally destructive to the [high]ways themselves. ... [A] state may rightfully prescribe uniform regulations necessary for public safety and order in respect to the operation upon its highways of all motor vehicles - those moving in interstate commerce as well as others. ... This is but an exercise of the police power uniformly recognized as belonging to the states and essential to the preservation of the health, safety, and comfort of their citizens."

1927, "Motor vehicles are dangerous machines, and even when skillfully and carefully operated, their use is attended by serious dangers to persons and property. In the public interest the state may make and enforce regulations reasonably calculated to promote care on the part of all, residents and non-residents alike, who use its highways. ... The state's power to regulate the use of its highways extends to their use by non-residents as well as by residents."


didn't say what you claimed. :lol:

And lets not forget that this side branch doesn't address the point from the OP, nor my original comment in this thread to which you responded, starting this... As I said, you seem to have a problem defending your points, which in this case was your citing the UNFUNDED mandate by the FHWA requiring cyclists and pedestrians to be considered during new construction...

what is myriddins point except he's apparently pro motoring and anti bicycling?

myriddin. the US supreme court case in 1915, that found motor vehicles abnormally destructive to the roads, was upholding a conviction of a motorist to fail to register his vehicle under a licensing program that directed "All money collected under the provisions of the act go to the commissioner, and, except so much as is necessary for salaries and expenses, must be paid into the state treasury to be used in construction, maintaining, and repairing the streets of Baltimore and roads built or aided by a county or the state itself.'

did you get that?

someone was cited for failing to register their vehicle in a licensing program whereby the monies raised went to road funding, the supreme court found this legal and in the majority opinion stated motor vehicles are abnormally destructive to the roadways.

semantics from motor vehicle apologists affirms the subtext to the OPs post - those defending the vc ideology are anti-bicycling.

what is myriddins point except he's apparently pro motoring and anti bicycling?

myriddin. the US supreme court case in 1915, that found motor vehicles abnormally destructive to the roads, was upholding a conviction of a motorist to fail to register his vehicle under a licensing program that directed "All money collected under the provisions of the act go to the commissioner, and, except so much as is necessary for salaries and expenses, must be paid into the state treasury to be used in construction, maintaining, and repairing the streets of Baltimore and roads built or aided by a county or the state itself.'

did you get that?

someone was cited for failing to register their vehicle in a licensing program whereby the monies raised went to road funding, the supreme court found this legal and in the majority opinion stated motor vehicles are abnormally destructive to the roadways.

semantics from motor vehicle apologists affirms the subtext to the OPs post - those defending the vc ideology are anti-bicycling.

What don't you get? The case upheld the right of the state (not federal government) to have such licensing not because of the use the funds were put to, but because of public safety concerns, which were covered under policing powers...

And how is that relevent to your frequent quoting of the FHWA's unfunded mandate for the consideration of cyclists and pedestrians? Which to remind you is what my comment you responded to starting this was about.

As someone who works for the DOT (now, not in 1915) virtually all of the damage done to roads is from trucks and weather.

actually mirridin, the 1915 case was weighing the constitutionality of a law overseeing collection of vehicle registration fees to pay for road building and repairs.

far afield from the original issue but interesting someone would need to get in here and debate the merits of vehicle licensing.

Myrridins' proving himself quite the shrill shill for motorists on bike forums. is this an attempt by him to exemplify the vc ethos as being pro motoring, anti restrictions on motorists?

curious, and not at all congruous with typical forum participants in a bicycling advocacy and safety forum.

This is no more anti-motoring
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs640.snc4/60023_10150090482234392_522549391_7221375_8353288_n.jpg

Then this is pro-motoring:
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4110/5004152859_56fd14b2e3_z.jpg
http://www.edwardburtynsky.com/WORKS/Oil/Oil_Book_Large/TRANSPORTATION_and_MOTOR_CULTURE/035-HOU_HWY_07_04_Oil.jpg

It should all be about appropriate use of the automobile, it should be obscene to use a car when one could use their own power and it should be obscene to think we can keep expanding our roadways indefinitely and be able to fly highways over anything and every thing. This is not anti-car but just sheer pragmatism.

P.S. This video also came to mind (though the protagonist is not over accommodating cars.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsuK7BeOyvQ

Early road construction was funded via primarily through property taxes, which was soon replaced with use fees such as gasoline taxes... As such an expert shouldn't you be more aware of the facts?

"Replaced" is incorrect "added to" would be more correct.

It doesn't take much reading of your posts to understand that your not one of those people who let reason or facts get in the way of your preconceived notions, so I probably shouldn't waste my time.

1) Sure, by all means restrict motor vehicles from the roads paid for by motor vehicle taxes...

Of course, you might find the supply of food at the grocery stores a little sparse. After all, it is cargo vehicles, like trucks, that do a disproportionate share of the damage to the road surface.

2) And in a few years with no motor vehicles, and hence no taxes to pay for upkeep those empty roads will be in pretty poor shape. Why, you ask, because even unused road surfaces degrade pretty rapidly.

But that's all right you keep believing in your utopic view of the world.

1) One third to one half of Transportation funding comes from non-motorized taxes/fees yet close to 90% of the funds go to car centric roads. We subsidize cars, not the other way around.

2) Then why do paved trails last longer then paved roads? You are the one running a little loose in the facts department.

Dogmatic VC is, indeed, anti-bicycling. that might not be it's intent, but that is its effect. Nowadays I even suspect that IS the intent.

This is the most ridiculous post I've seen today. But maybe that's only because 90% of the folks who participate in the VC forums are on my ignore list, LOL.

VC is simply a method of keeping cyclists safe and legal. To suggest those goals would be anti-cycling strikes me as nuts.

...it should be obscene to use a car when one could use their own power...

Give it a few years. Soon it won't just be obscene to use a car when one could use one's own power - with gasoline at $10+/gallon and rising it will also be stupid.

VC is simply a method of keeping cyclists safe and legal. To suggest those goals would be anti-cycling strikes me as nuts.

not quite so simple, vc ideology is roundly criticized by bicycling authors and bicycling advocates, bona fide transportation engineers and planners.

from wiki:

Zack Furness is highly critical of vehicular cycling advocates in his book One Less Car: Bicycling and the Politics of Automobility, arguing that their criticism of 'political' cyclists "totally ignores all the relevant socioeconomic, physical, material, and cultural factors that influence—and in most cases dictate—everyday transportation choices.

Critical Mass co-founder Chris Carlsson, describes vehicular cycling as a naive, polarizing "ideology".

VC is more than simply a method of keeping bicyclists legal and safe, its underpinnings are roundly criticized as being counterproductive to cycling.

Rando's calling VC anti-bicycling is quite apropos.

This is the most ridiculous post I've seen today. But maybe that's only because 90% of the folks who participate in the VC forums are on my ignore list, LOL.

VC is simply a method of keeping cyclists safe and legal. To suggest those goals would be anti-cycling strikes me as nuts.

Nope, not nuts at all. I guess you haven't seen some of the posts by the most vehemently Dogmatic VCers. many of their preferences and policies have the end result of being quite anti-bicyclist. :eek:

Nope, not nuts at all. I guess you haven't seen some of the posts by the most vehemently Dogmatic VCers. many of their preferences and policies have the end result of being quite anti-bicyclist. :eek:
Or that ugly facet of human nature that urges those who are content with incompetence and mediocrity to resent those who aspire to achieve excellence in their chosen activity.

Critical Mass co-founder Chris Carlsson, describes vehicular cycling as a naive, polarizing "ideology".

This is funny!

Nope, not nuts at all. I guess you haven't seen some of the posts by the most vehemently Dogmatic VCers. many of their preferences and policies have the end result of being quite anti-bicyclist. :eek:

Many so-called 'bicycle advocates' seem to support every bike path they come across, even if it's likely to kill people. That's the sort of thing I find truly 'anti-bicyclist'. The thing is, VCers want cycling to be actually safe. Non-VCers seem to want cycling to 'look safe'. There's a difference.

Most of my riding is VC but I sure agree that the extreme proponents are a hindrance to cycling. I also agree that the extreme anti-VC'ers are just as bad.

Many so-called 'bicycle advocates' seem to support every bike path they come across, even if it's likely to kill people. That's the sort of thing I find truly 'anti-bicyclist'. The thing is, VCers want cycling to be actually safe. Non-VCers seem to want cycling to 'look safe'. There's a difference.
Yes, those stubborn VC people refuse to live in the 21st century, where appearances are so much more important than reality.

Most of my riding is VC but I sure agree that the extreme proponents are a hindrance to cycling. I also agree that the extreme anti-VC'ers are just as bad.

QFT.

VC is no more anti-cycling than anti-VC. That is, they both have extremists who end up hurting the cause, but throwing the baby out with the bathwater and ignoring entire concepts because of a few trolls seems like a bad idea.

QFT.

VC is no more anti-cycling than anti-VC. That is, they both have extremists who end up hurting the cause, but throwing the baby out with the bathwater and ignoring entire concepts because of a few trolls seems like a bad idea.

I totally agree that there are more than a few of us VC types who are complete ********. Heck, I left Chainguard because of that. But while we can be arrogant pricks, at least we do concentrate on finding methods that can make road cycling as safe as it can be. I don't see many non-VC folks doing that. Instead, too many of them seem to fill their time with anti-VC rhetoric.

I totally agree that there are more than a few of us VC types who are complete ********. Heck, I left Chainguard because of that. But while we can be arrogant pricks, at least we do concentrate on finding methods that can make road cycling as safe as it can be. I don't see many non-VC folks doing that. Instead, too many of them seem to fill their time with anti-VC rhetoric.

Why not just accept that there are three sets of views and goals in the issue of American bicycle transportation?

One view and goal is that of the militant motorists, who desire that bicycle traffic be kept out of their way. This group advocates bikeways; after all, they are the ones who invented the modern American bikeway system and imposed it on cyclists. That's historical fact. They have great political power for they control the highway funds, but they don't have to display their self-interest in the argument, because the anti-motorists provide plenty of politically correct argument for them.

The other two groups are composed of cyclists (not forgetting that most cyclists are also motorists). One group concerns itself with the welfare of the individual cyclist, and advocates obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, because that is best for the individual cyclist.

The other group concerns itself with making bicycle transport more popular; some members hope to sell more bicycles, while the majority hope to produce a transportationally significant switch from motor to bicycle transport. They are motivated not so much by love of cycling as by opposition to motoring.

One might think that the vehicular cyclists and the bicycle popularity advocates would have much common ground, but that is not the case. The reason is cultural, particularly so in the USA. American society fears and despises vehicular cycling while approving, even desiring, incompetent cycling on bikeways. That's a social fact.

The combination of the militant motorists and the bicycle advocates has political control of American bicycle transportation affairs and has produced a governmental program for producing incompetent cycling on bikeways, because that is the popular superstition. The popular superstitions on which this program is based make it directly contrary to doing good for the individual cyclist, and this harm to individual cyclists is built into the program by means of both laws and societal prejudice. Naturally, vehicular cyclists desire to protect themselves from this harm, and to do so they marshal the scientific and engineering facts that demonstrate the errors of the bikeway program. This is simple engineering fact. But doing so greatly upsets the bicycle advocates, because they see this as unanswerable opposition to their great goal of switching much motor to bicycle transport. Hence the nastiness of the argumentation in which the desire for great goals is hindered by facts.

American policy has always favored incompetent, subservient cycling, preferably on bikeways. Decades ago, vehicular cyclists hoped that government policy respecting bicycle transportation would be changed to support vehicular cycling, because that is what the facts warranted. However, popularity won out and that change did not occur. Rather, for a variety of reasons, the governmental bikeway program has intensified, both in quantity and in political justification. The greater power forcing vehicular cyclists to operate against traffic-engineering fact just makes vehicular cyclists more resistant to that program.

Bicycle advocates can reduce the intensity of the intra-cyclist arguments by openly opposing the mandatory aspects of the government's program. That is, working to repeal the few anti-cyclist traffic laws that contradict the standard traffic operating laws that apply to all drivers of vehicles: the side-of-the-road law, the mandatory side-path law, the mandatory bike-lane law. That ought to make perfect sense for the bicycle advocates, because it would do good for all cyclists. Not only for vehicular cyclists, but even those who don't like vehicular cycling, because all cyclists have, at many times or others, to operate by obeying the standard rules of the road. The anti-cyclist traffic laws merely serve the desires of the militant motorists who enacted them; all cyclists should be able to agree on the program for repealing them. If bicycle advocates combine their advocacy of subservient cycling on bikeways as a choice for cyclists who want to use that operating method, while opposing the governments' requirement that all cyclists so operate, the argumentation would end.

There is a fourth group in America... the group that dogmatically insists that they know better and uses terms such as "incompetent cycling on bikeways," "superstition" and "cyclist inferiority" while promoting a narrow mindset that decries any popular increase in cycling. Oddly this same group has never shown that their methodology does anything to encourage cycling by anyone... yet they remain quite vocal and readily foist their opinions on others.