Vehicular Cycling

[Blackberry]

After reading all 100 posts on this board, I think I'll just continue on with my longstanding philosophy with regard to cycling safety: Try not to do anything stupid.

[closetbiker]

your faith in your belief "ensures" nothing for any other cyclist's safety.

It's been the experience of accident investigators that cyclists who do not follow traffic principles that all other road users follow, get into accidents. I think those reports and recommendations to follow traffic principles is pretty good proof of the best way to not be involved in accidents, weather on a bike or in a car.

Are you suggesting you could be equally as safe in traffic on a bike by not yeilding right of way, riding on the wrong side of the road and not being visable (particularily at night)?

[sbhikes]

Have any of you had accidents recently? Did they happen because you weren't doing something vehicularly? Just curious.

[closetbiker]

In about 120,000 kms from 20 years of commuting every day, I've been hit 4 times. 3 by cars, 1 by bike. 2 of the cars made illegal turns into me, 1 car went through a stop sign and hit me. The bike was riding on the wrong side of the road at night with no light on.

That's 4 for 4 non-vehichular behaviours causing accidents for me.

[Bruce Rosar]

We need to be respected as fellow users, but we are not equal.None of us are exactly equal in terms of might, but every citizen of the United States has the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761569008_5/Fourteenth_Amendment.html)Section 1. ... No State shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Comment: Laws must be enacted and enforced in a way that treats people equally.
Bruce Rosar
Same roads, same rules, same rights

[Daily Commute]

My educational alternative is to start from scratch developing a core set of practical instructions and guidance for youth and other non-licensed people to understand some of the typical hazards to be ecountered in the typical and useful places to bicycle. Include various types of traffic situations as well as facilities and off road paths. Leave out the shaky statistics, isolated aberrations in law enforcement and/or wacky law interpretations. Definitly leave out anti-bike lane hysteria.

DROP all Forester inspired rhetoric and specious pedantry (See any of Serge's postings for the former, Bruce Rosar's postings for examples of the later). Lose the gibberish concerning cyclist phobias, inferiority complexes, wacky legal interpretations, motorists/enviromental threats to "Real" cyclists, unsubstantiated safety claims and distorted risk analysis. Any new and even more loony unsubstantiated theories (i.e. extrapolations from an individual's unique "experience") should be given the same consideration; extract anything useful and verifiable; discard the rest.

That is for starts.

The other harder task is modify the bad attitude so many motorists display in the presence of bicyclists. I am certainly open to suggestions - "Just cycle in the VC manner and the motorists will fall into line" is not a credible solution.
From what I can tell, the only differences between your proposed education and VC education are rhetorical style and a refusal to criticize of bike lanes. Is that right?

[I-Like-To-Bike]

From what I can tell, the only differences between your proposed education and VC education are rhetorical style and a refusal to criticize of bike lanes. Is that right?
No. All the pretenses at scientific justification, engineering/psycho-babble explanations for cyclists' motivations and needs, statistical fabrications, mantra chanting of "faring best", and insults for those who don't fit into the narrow profile of the speed obsessed cycling enthusiast are significant problems with the current program of vehicular cycling education promotion.

Bike lanes should be discussed, warts and all; best methods, typical hazards, etc. Obsessed one note Johnnies, with their hysterical rhetoric about the threat of bike lanes to Real Cyclists, and engineering types with club cyclist/elitist attitudes about the priorities of "speed" and efficiency" over all other cyclist concerns are not suitable to instruct anyone but like "thinkers".

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Are you suggesting you could be equally as safe in traffic on a bike by not yeilding right of way, riding on the wrong side of the road and not being visable (particularily at night)?

Typical EC™ response - Anyone who is skeptical of empty rhetoric, mantra chanting and the use of innapproriate/irrelevant/mismatched data to prove their case, MUST be FOR all the above cycling no-no's.

The answer is No.

I am suggesting that if cyclists move their routine cycling in traffic from the right of the road to the center, they are subjecting themselves to DIFFERENT risks. Credible measurement/analysis of the varying risks has yet to made.

[Daily Commute]

No. All the pretenses at scientific justification, engineering/psycho-babble explanations for cyclists' motivations and needs, statistical fabrications, mantra chanting of "faring best", and insults for those who don't fit into the narrow profile of the speed obsessed cycling enthusiast are significant problems with the current program of vehicular cycling education promotion.

Bike lanes should be discussed, warts and all; best methods, typical hazards, etc. Obsessed one note Johnnies, with their hysterical rhetoric about the threat of bike lanes to Real Cyclists, and engineering types with club cyclist/elitist attitudes about the priorities of "speed" and efficiency" over all other cyclist concerns are not suitable to instruct anyone but like "thinkers".
So, other than attitude, when it comes down to how to ride on the road, what would you teach that's different than an EC course?

[patc]

DROP all Forester inspired rhetoric and specious pedantry (See any of Serge's postings for the former, Bruce Rosar's postings for examples of the later). Lose the gibberish concerning cyclist phobias, inferiority complexes, wacky legal interpretations, motorists/enviromental threats to "Real" cyclists, unsubstantiated safety claims and distorted risk analysis. Any new and even more loony unsubstantiated theories (i.e. extrapolations from an individual's unique "experience") should be given the same consideration; extract anything useful and verifiable; discard the rest.

And if that ever gets implemented the world will stop spinning.

[closetbiker]

I am suggesting that if cyclists move their routine cycling in traffic from the right of the road to the center, they are subjecting themselves to DIFFERENT risks. Credible measurement/analysis of the varying risks has yet to made.

I agree that there is a different risk if a cyclist moves to the center than staying on the right at all times, but that still falls in line with VC principles. Slower traffic stays to the right, yield to same direction traffic before moving in their paths. Each situation is unique and it would be impossible to make a judgement on how safe or unsafe it is, which is why yield to same direction traffic before moving in their paths makes sense. There are situations where moving to the center of the lane is the safest position or staying on the right is not the safest position.

[sbhikes]

In about 120,000 kms from 20 years of commuting every day, I've been hit 4 times. 3 by cars, 1 by bike. 2 of the cars made illegal turns into me, 1 car went through a stop sign and hit me. The bike was riding on the wrong side of the road at night with no light on.

That's 4 for 4 non-vehichular behaviours causing accidents for me.
You aren't saying you were riding non-vehicularly, but the other guys were, right?

The bike that hit you was riding non-vehicularly, but I'm not sure that cars making illegal turns and not stopping qualify for "non-vehicular" behavior. After all, that's pretty standard behavior for motor vehicles. Shouldn't the "vehicular/non-vehicular" description be reserved for cycling, not driving.

Why did they turn into you illegally? Did they see you? Or were they just morons?

[closetbiker]

the other guys were, right?

right


Why did they turn into you illegally? Did they see you? Or were they just morons?


They did see me (I asked them and they admitted it) so I guess they were morons.

See what happens when you don't follow the rules of the road? Collisions.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

I agree that there is a different risk if a cyclist moves to the center than staying on the right at all times, but that still falls in line with VC principles.
Does different risk (not necessarily reduced risk) from cycling more to the center of traffic lanes also fall into line with VC principle/mantra about fear from the rear phobias and inferiority complexes affecting those not comfortable with sharing narrow lanes with dense and/or high speed traffic?

[I-Like-To-Bike]

So, other than attitude, when it comes down to how to ride on the road, what would you teach that's different than an EC course?
Provide the approved course outline and required/optional texts or reference material; and if there are options for instructors adding their own material (i.e. Serge's "experience" theory). Then we can discuss if anything useful beyond common knowledge is taught. Something beyond don't run red lights without looking and use lights at night. As if anyone changed their cycling behavior after such instruction.

I have serious doubts about any course taught by people who express loyalty bordering on devotion to Forester's unique theories, WAG's about other cyclists' motivations and fabricated risk analysis. Such opinions are oftene xpressed by some LCI's on-line when discussing the pressing need of educating other cyclists, especially by a few who are oh-so proud of their earning their certificate under the Forester approved regime and are working earnestly to bring it back to life.

[Helmet-Head]

Shouldn't the "vehicular/non-vehicular" description be reserved for cycling, not driving?
Interesting question.

In the context of "vehicular cycling", vehicular means: acting according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. So, in a strict sense, according to that meaning, anyone, even a driver of a motor vehicle, is not being "vehicular" when he violates the rules of the road for a driver of a vehicle.

For example, a cement truck driver driving in the left lane slower than normal traffic is not being vehicular, because he is violating the slower-traffic-keeps-to-the-right rule of the road (unless, of course, he's preparing for a left turn, or avoiding some obstacle, etc.).

[Helmet-Head]

Provide the approved course outline and required/optional texts or reference material; and if there are options for instructors adding their own material (i.e. Serge's "experience" theory). Then we can discuss if anything useful beyond common knowledge is taught. Something beyond don't run red lights without looking and use lights at night. As if anyone changed their cycling behavior after such instruction.
How is that different from LAB's Road 1 course?


...oh-so proud of their earning their certificate under the Forester approved regime and are working earnestly to bring it back to life.
What Forester approved regime? If you're talking about LAB's educational "regime", that would be the one Forester disapproved of so much that he stopped allowing them to use his Effective Cycling name (which is when they came up with "Road 1").

[Bigmikepowell]

Whow what is all this about. Dislike of cycle lanes, Vehicler cycling (is there any other kind). Surely it's simple.

Obey the rules of the road. Act like you are venerable road user and that if you are in a collision it's going to hurt you much more than a guy in a car or a truck. Assume everyone is going to hit you until you have certainty they aren't.

Bike lanes. Campaign for as many as possible then get on the committees that design them and make the designs as bike friendly as possible.

Is there any other way.


PS turning across the path of the traffic. right in the UK left in the US. Irrespective of wether I have the right to do this, unless there huge visability of me, I have some protection from road islands, or bail out option, and the speed differential to the cars isn't high, I don't do it, I get off and push the bike across. Might not be cool, as fast as any other way, but hey i am alive and don't have any broken bones.

I think someone coined the term ride defensively.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

What Forester approved regime?
Perhaps Lab-reform candidate/ECI par excellence Bruce Rosar would like to fill in the details for the questioneer.

[sbhikes]

Interesting question.

In the context of "vehicular cycling", vehicular means: acting according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. So, in a strict sense, according to that meaning, anyone, even a driver of a motor vehicle, is not being "vehicular" when he violates the rules of the road for a driver of a vehicle.

For example, a cement truck driver driving in the left lane slower than normal traffic is not being vehicular, because he is violating the slower-traffic-keeps-to-the-right rule of the road (unless, of course, he's preparing for a left turn, or avoiding some obstacle, etc.).
That makes sense to a point, but I don't think it's correct. Everybody makes a mistake sometimes, and mistakes can cause accidents. For example, pulling out of your driveway, believing it to be clear is not being illegal or non-vehicular. However, you may have erred and it wasn't clear (perhaps you cannot see the street adequately because the street is on a curve or hill or something) and caused an accident.

[noisebeam]

That makes sense to a point, but I don't think it's correct. Everybody makes a mistake sometimes, and mistakes can cause accidents. For example, pulling out of your driveway, believing it to be clear is not being illegal or non-vehicular. However, you may have erred and it wasn't clear (perhaps you cannot see the street adequately because the street is on a curve or hill or something) and caused an accident.
There are things that can be done to minimize the risk (of course all may not be practical or possible):
-remove obstructions to the view of your road from your own private property
-have the city/county/etc or request the private owner of properly opposite your driveway to install a mirror to see around the blind corner
-back into your driveway (this is what I do)
-have 'Blind Driveway" signs installed on road.

Driveways are one of the more hazardous intersections out there for cyclists and motorized vehicles alike. They do create non-vehicular situations. I have just as many cars pull out from driveway in front of me when driving or cycling.

Al

[closetbiker]

Does different risk (not necessarily reduced risk) from cycling more to the center of traffic lanes also fall into line with VC principle/mantra about fear from the rear phobias and inferiority complexes affecting those not comfortable with sharing narrow lanes with dense and/or high speed traffic?

First off, I think the different risk of riding in the center of the lane, when it is appropriate to do so, is a reduced risk over the inappropriate lane position of the right side of the road.

Secondly, I don't get the inferiority complex of some bikers in traffic, because to be safe we all have to agree to a set of rules for all, not different sets for different users. There are some exception s to certain situations of course, but to be safe we all act the same just as I follow the same set of rules in my Echo as my neighbour who drives an Explorer.

[Helmet-Head]

That makes sense to a point, but I don't think it's correct. Everybody makes a mistake sometimes, and mistakes can cause accidents. For example, pulling out of your driveway, believing it to be clear is not being illegal or non-vehicular. However, you may have erred and it wasn't clear (perhaps you cannot see the street adequately because the street is on a curve or hill or something) and caused an accident.
Whether you pull out of your driveway in front of someone else intentionally or inadverdently, you are violating the right-of-way of a legitimate use of the roadway. That's contrary to operating according to the vehicular rules of the road. That, in the sense of "vehicular" in "vehicular cycling", is NOT vehicular.

This is an important point, because "vehicular cycling" does not mean "ride your bike like a car". It means "ride your bike according the vehicular rules of the road", just like you are supposed to drive a car. The distrinction may seem subtle, but it's very important to understanding what vehicular cycling means.

[KrisPistofferson]

Please Hammer don't hurt 'em!

[closetbiker]

"vehicular cycling" does not mean "ride your bike like a car". It means "ride your bike according the vehicular rules of the road", just like you are supposed to drive a car. The distrinction may seem subtle, but it's very important to understanding what vehicular cycling means.

:D

same roads, same rules, same rights

[LittleBigMan]

Have any of you had accidents recently? Did they happen because you weren't doing something vehicularly? Just curious.
I don't get it.

A man lives to be 100. If he smokes cigars everyday, does that mean we all should?

[Bruce Rosar]

In the context of "vehicular cycling", vehicular means: acting according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. So, in a strict sense, according to that meaning, anyone, even a driver of a motor vehicle, is not being "vehicular" when he violates the rules of the road for a driver of a vehicle.Well, we could give "vehicular" such a unique meaning in this context, but there's a better way; Leave "vehicular" as the dictionary defines it (relating to, involving, or for use by vehicles) Use the modifier pair "proper"/"improper" or "lawful"/"unlawful" (as seen in the Rules of the Road :) Here are some examples
Proper roadway driving ...
Improper movement of a vehicle ...
Lawful operation of a vehicle ...
It shall be unlawful for any person to ...

[Da Tinker]

How many stop sign "yields" disqualifies a cyclist from being considered vehicular for safety record purposes? How many/what percentage of sidewalk/bike lane/far-to-the-right miles disqualify the cyclist from consideration for the VC safety record badge? None I assume unless an accident does occur.

Oh, and what do lights, or absence of them have to do with being considered a vehicular cyclist? How amber reflectors instead of lights.? How aboutabout mirrors, helmets, "proper cadence" maintained equipment, etc. etc.

Which of course gets down to the unanswered question of whom is being considered a vehicular cyclist, and under which circumstances, when conjuring a safety record for them?

Vehicular cycling is about behaving as a vehicle. Treating a stop sign as a yield will not 'disqualifiy' you from being considered a VC. It may get you hit by another vehicle and it will reduce other operators perceptions of you as a legal vehicle, sharing the road. Plus, it can garner you unwanted attention from law enforcement. But a person who gets run over by a truck while cycling the wrong way down a road at 02:00, without lights or reflectors, dressed entirely in black, with a BAC of 0.18 is not a VC in my judgement. But he is still considered a cyclist by the report in the newspaper.

If a cyclist wants the protection of the law, wants to use the roads as the law allows, then he is expected to comply with the law, to use, at a minimum, a white light to the front and a red reflector to the rear after sunset. That is VC. If you will read Forester & comprehend, the amber reflector is suggested as an adjunct to a red light or reflector.

The rest, helmets, mirrors, cadence, equipment in good working order, lycra, eating, drinking, is advice that can make the ride more enjoyable, extend your range, increase the usefulness of your bike.

I'll grasp the nettle you offer: A vehicular cyclist is a cyclists who rides on the road, obeying the traffic laws that apply to him, taking the lane when necessary, sharing the road when he can, not cowering in the gutter to the perceived suzeranity of the SUV. He is a cyclist who understands the law, understands his vehicle, understands his body, the engine of his vehicle.

And every review of accident stats show that proper application of VC will make for a safer ride.

[genec]

Vehicular cycling is about behaving as a vehicle. Treating a stop sign as a yield will not 'disqualifiy' you from being considered a VC. It may get you hit by another vehicle and it will reduce other operators perceptions of you as a legal vehicle, sharing the road. Plus, it can garner you unwanted attention from law enforcement. But a person who gets run over by a truck while cycling the wrong way down a road at 02:00, without lights or reflectors, dressed entirely in black, with a BAC of 0.18 is not a VC in my judgement. But he is still considered a cyclist by the report in the newspaper.

If a cyclist wants the protection of the law, wants to use the roads as the law allows, then he is expected to comply with the law, to use, at a minimum, a white light to the front and a red reflector to the rear after sunset. That is VC. If you will read Forester & comprehend, the amber reflector is suggested as an adjunct to a red light or reflector.

The rest, helmets, mirrors, cadence, equipment in good working order, lycra, eating, drinking, is advice that can make the ride more enjoyable, extend your range, increase the usefulness of your bike.

I'll grasp the nettle you offer: A vehicular cyclist is a cyclists who rides on the road, obeying the traffic laws that apply to him, taking the lane when necessary, sharing the road when he can, not cowering in the gutter to the perceived suzeranity of the SUV. He is a cyclist who understands the law, understands his vehicle, understands his body, the engine of his vehicle.

And every review of accident stats show that proper application of VC will make for a safer ride.


What, in the above statement, is consistent with removal of all bike lanes?

I am not saying that all VC cyclists are for the removal of ALL bike lanes, but to some that goal seems to be their quest.

[Da Tinker]

What, in the above statement, is consistent with removal of all bike lanes?


As one of our brothers here in the BF has pointed out in his autosig, bike lanes = bike ghettoes. Bike lanes give inexperienced cyclists a sense of security, city fathers a sense of having done something to appease the cycling crowd, and motorists the idea that bikes don't belong in the traffic lanes. I much prefer wide curb lanes over bike lanes for many reasons:

Auto tires sweep gravel & other trash to the outside of the line. If there is a bike lane, there rests all the road trash.

Drivers look at the traffic lane for conflicts before exiting a driveway or side street. Many tend to ignore the bike lane, since bikes in a bike lane are not traffic in their perception.

Many states have laws requiring cyclists to abandon the roadway where there is a parallel bike facility, such as a bike lane. This is Forester's 'bike inferiority clause'. If the law and motorist's perceptions pin the cyclist to the bike lane, how do you make a left turn? Three rights? Use the crosswalk? Try telling a motorist he has to abandon the interstate when there is a service road!

Maintenance of the bike lanes is often far inferior to maintenance of the main road lanes.

Bike lanes look great on paper, they look great when new, they make political sense on the front page. In the real world, after the bloom is off the rose, don't work very well.

[genec]

As one of our brothers here in the BF has pointed out in his autosig, bike lanes = bike ghettoes. Bike lanes give inexperienced cyclists a sense of security, city fathers a sense of having done something to appease the cycling crowd, and motorists the idea that bikes don't belong in the traffic lanes. I much prefer wide curb lanes over bike lanes for many reasons:

Auto tires sweep gravel & other trash to the outside of the line. If there is a bike lane, there rests all the road trash.

Drivers look at the traffic lane for conflicts before exiting a driveway or side street. Many tend to ignore the bike lane, since bikes in a bike lane are not traffic in their perception.

Many states have laws requiring cyclists to abandon the roadway where there is a parallel bike facility, such as a bike lane. This is Forester's 'bike inferiority clause'. If the law and motorist's perceptions pin the cyclist to the bike lane, how do you make a left turn? Three rights? Use the crosswalk? Try telling a motorist he has to abandon the interstate when there is a service road!

Maintenance of the bike lanes is often far inferior to maintenance of the main road lanes.

Bike lanes look great on paper, they look great when new, they make political sense on the front page. In the real world, after the bloom is off the rose, don't work very well.

Still nothing in the manner of VC cycling A vehicular cyclist is a cyclists who rides on the road, obeying the traffic laws that apply to him, taking the lane when necessary, sharing the road when he can, not cowering in the gutter to the perceived suzeranity of the SUV. He is a cyclist who understands the law, understands his vehicle, understands his body, the engine of his vehicle.negates the use of bike lanes... nor are bike lanes and VC riding techniques mutually exclusive.

It appears that only throughForester's 'bike inferiority clause'. that this dichotomy, and the hatred of bike lanes seems to appear.

[Helmet-Head]

You are correct, Gene. Bike lanes and VC are, for the most part, not mutually exclusive.
In particular, expert vehicular cyclists are hardly at all affected by bike lanes.
However, there are relationships. As I've pointed out countless times:


Bike lanes inhibit novice cyclists from learning VC.
Bike lanes discourage experienced cyclists from using VC.
Bike lanes support the notion held by many motorists that cyclists should not be riding vehicularly.
Riding in bike lanes causes the cyclist to yield the right-of-way in the adjacent main travel lane that he would otherwise have control over.

[genec]

You are correct, Gene. Bike lanes and VC are, for the most part, not mutually exclusive.
In particular, expert vehicular cyclists are hardly at all affected by bike lanes.
However, there are relationships. As I've pointed out countless times:



Bike lanes inhibit novice cyclists from learning VC.
As there are not bike lanes leading to each and every doorway, cyclists will learn to ride in a VC manner on roads leading to bike lanes.



Bike lanes discourage experienced cyclists from using VC.
How? An experienced cyclist will know when and where to leave a bike lane much as other users of a roadway know when to change lanes for turns. Many experienced cyclists ride in such a VC manner, learned through their experience.



Bike lanes support the notion held by many motorists that cyclists should not be riding vehicularly.
With proper signage, bike lanes can teach even motorists how to better, more predictably use the road; such as signs that indicate "Merge here, yield to bicycles," that encourage motorists to both use the far right part of the road AND to look for approaching cyclists. Encouraging motorists to co-operate with cyclists will decrease tensions for all users of the roadway.



Riding in bike lanes causes the cyclist to yield the right-of-way in the adjacent main travel lane that he would otherwise have control over.
Riding in a bike lane allows a cyclist to proceed on a roadway where automotive speeds may otherwise be unmanagable by a cyclist, or to proceed, albeit with caution, in a thru manner where automotive traffic is stopped.


I don't see any way that the use of Bike Lanes is prohibited by riding in a VC manner. While you have your beliefs, I have mine. I believe in both VC riding techniques and in the use of bike lanes where available. I see nothing in VC riding that excludes the use of bike lanes. It is simply your limited beliefs that exclude bike lanes.

[Treespeed]

Gene,

excellent post. I don't see why this has to be such an either/or debate. We have HOV lanes, pullouts on mountain passes, speed restrictions for tractor trailers, restrictions from using the left lane except for passing. No matter what solution we come up with there will be accidents, as pointed out before cars are very visible, and behave vehicularly all the time and yet they plow into each other constantly.

[Bruce Rosar]

We have HOV lanes, pullouts on mountain passes, speed restrictions for tractor trailers, restrictions from using the left lane except for passing. BTW, not one of those involves class or group discrimination.
HOV lane restrictions are based on the occupancy of individual vehicles.
pullouts on mountain passes are based on individual vehicle speed
tractor trailer rig restrictions are based on the extraordinary danger that the operation of a piece of heavy equipment within a public way poses to the person and property of others
passing restrictions apply to every vehicle (not just those in a given class or group)

Unlike the examples above, BLs segregate drivers by class and not by individual merit. In general, a segregated facility (BL, school, place of employment, etc.) does have the short term advantage of reducing exposure to the situation which the individual perceives as threatening. Unfortunately, what feels good (as comfort food does) often isn't the best (as health food is).

A better approach is more integration of traffic. Not only is integration fairer to all the individuals involved, it's also more effective. That's primarily because traffic (including bikes) can't avoid the potential need to integrate (i.e., cross paths) with other traffic at intersections, driveways, alleys and points where U-turns can be made.

[Dchiefransom]

BTW, not one of those involves class or group discrimination.
HOV lane restrictions are based on the occupancy of individual vehicles.
pullouts on mountain passes are based on individual vehicle speed
tractor trailer rig restrictions are based on the extraordinary danger that the operation of a piece of heavy equipment within a public way poses to the person and property of others
passing restrictions apply to every vehicle (not just those in a given class or group)

Unlike the examples above, BLs segregate drivers by class and not by individual merit. In general, a segregated facility (BL, school, place of employment, etc.) does have the short term advantage of reducing exposure to the situation which the individual perceives as threatening. Unfortunately, what feels good (as comfort food does) often isn't the best (as health food is).

A better approach is more integration of traffic. Not only is integration fairer to all the individuals involved, it's also more effective. That's primarily because traffic (including bikes) can't avoid the potential need to integrate (i.e., cross paths) with other traffic at intersections, driveways, alleys and points where U-turns can be made.

If pullouts on mountain passes are based on individual speed, which is "merit", then so are bike lanes based on individual speed, which would be "merit", and not "class". There's no difference between a truck going much slower than the normal traffic speed, and a bicycle going slower than the normal traffic speed, except that if someone hits the truck, it survives.

[Bigmikepowell]

You're all potty.

Bike lanes are a good thing. It's like trying to argue that you should get rid of the sidewalk and get people to walk in the road with the other traffic. In places where there is no side walk this is of course what you have to do, but sidewalks are better right?

If the bike lanes are bad, campaigne and agitate for better bike lanes. Look at Holland you can have excellent bike lanes that are well maintained.

Segragating vehicles by speed, and direction is a good idea, where it's possible.

Thats why you arn't allowed to cycle on the sidewalk.
You arn't supposed to drive on the wrong side of the road

[Bruce Rosar]

If pullouts on mountain passes are based on individual speed, which is "merit", then so are bike lanes based on individual speed, which would be "merit", and not "class".Remember the definitions from the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)? Bicycle - a pedal-powered vehicle upon which the human operator sits.
Bicycle Lane - a portion of a roadway that has been designated by signs and pavement markings
for preferential or exclusive use by bicyclists.Nothing about speed (or lanes) in the definitions. Just the vehicle class (and a portion). Now I don't expect anyone to take my word about this, so here's the URL for anyone who cares to search the MUTCD themselves (hint: the definitions are in Chapter 1).
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/HTM/2003/html-index.htm

Bruce "Would you like fries with your portion?" Rosar

[Bruce Rosar]

It's like trying to argue that you should get rid of the sidewalk and get people to walk in the road with the other traffic.Here are some excerpts from an article about a relatively new approach to road design which originated in the NetherlandsThe cure for traffic chaos? Remove the signs, lines, lights.
By Mark Rice-Oxley

LONDON - It's the London you've always imagined ... hostile
terrain for the lowly pedestrian, who is encouraged to avoid the
street-level chaos on Exhibition Road by using a dingy underground
walkway instead.

Annoyed at how their upscale neighborhood has been ruined by
incessant traffic, local authorities are planning to unveil a radical
solution Monday: remove the conventional insignia of the road -
traffic lights, white lines, guardrails, sidewalks - and create a
single "shared space" for everyone, motorized or not.

At first glance, the idea seems a little reckless. After all, it is
only the presence of the crossing signals on Exhibition Road that
seems to keep the bewildered, stray tourists from a nasty accident.
And governments the world over have long since concluded that the
safest way to avoid catastrophe on the roads is to segregate vehicles
from pedestrians.

But the experience from Europe would suggest otherwise. The
Netherlands in particular, has pioneered a completely new approach to
traffic and public space.

The idea of "shared space" is to denude a street of most of its
conventional markings and features and create a different urban
landscape in which motorists and pedestrians are put on an equal
footing, so to speak. Drivers start to behave in a very different way
amid the new uncertainty, moving slowly, making eye contact with
pedestrians, and becoming aware of much more than whether the lights
have gone red.

Evidence from Dutch towns is impressive. Safety records have
improved, local officials report, and accidents, when they do happen
are far less serious, because of the slow speeds.

Yet overall cross-town speeds are no slower than before, because
intersections are far more fluid and snarl-ups are rare...

Several British cities and towns, from Ipswich in the east to Bath
and Bristol in the west and Manchester in the north, are catching on
...

... a driver will happily ignore a sign telling him to drive at 20 miles per hour,
but will rapidly assimilate signals from a changed
environment. If he drives onto a campsite for example or into a
parking garage, he will kill his speed, start looking out for
pedestrians and behave in a totally different fashion. This is the
essence of what "shared space" is all about.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0127/p01s03-woeu.html

Oh, BTW, it's not just EuropeIn the US, traffic engineers are beginning to rethink the dictum that the car is king and pedestrians are well advised to get the hell off the road. In West Palm Beach, Florida, planners have redesigned several major streets, removing traffic signals and turn lanes, narrowing the roadbed, and bringing people and cars into much closer contact. The result: slower traffic, fewer accidents, shorter trip times. "I think the future of transportation in our cities is slowing down the roads," says Ian Lockwood, the transportation manager for West Palm Beach during the project and now a transportation and design consultant. "When you try to speed things up, the system tends to fail, and then you're stuck with a design that moves traffic inefficiently and is hostile to pedestrians and human exchange."
Today some of the most car-oriented areas in the US are rethinking their approaches to traffic, mainly because they have little choice. "The old way doesn't work anymore," says Gary Toth, director of project planning and development for the New Jersey Department of Transportation. The 2004 Urban Mobility Report, published by the respected Texas Transportation Institute, shows that traffic congestion is growing across the nation in towns and cities of all sizes. The study's conclusion: It's only going to get worse.

Instead of widening congested highways, New Jersey's DOT is urging neighboring or contiguous towns to connect their secondary streets and add smaller centers of development, creating a series of linked minivillages with narrow roads, rather than wide, car-choked highways strewn with malls.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.12/traffic.html

[Bigmikepowell]

Interesting but I think you are missing the point.

A) Exhibition road.
I cycle up this every day. There where actually a number of agenda's here
The main issue was where exhibition road crosses cromwell road a main arterial route into the heart of london.

1) Reducing traffic flow of traffic into London.
Acheived by, in places reducing the road width by removing one lane form three to teo and expanding the sidewalk. (Segregated space).This was all part of move to intruducing conjestion charging in London which attempts, and has been pretty successful in reducing the number of cars in london. (Come back to that in a bit)

2) A concept of removing the side walk railings that pen pedestrians in.
These pens where originally put in to channel pedestrians to the controlled crossing point and literally provide a physically protected space from cars trucks and bus's. They where removed but have now been put back. I haven't found out why yet. Interestingly an extra set of cages have been installed half way up exhibition road!

So no, at the end of all this they didn't merge useage, they just reduced the ammount of space for the traffic and increased the space for pedestrians The underpass they talked about, it's still there and in general use. When it's raining (Which is often in London) it is rammed.

Don't beleive everything you read.


By the way for some reason cycling got completely left out of this review even though both roads are heavily used by cyclists and could be made much safer by the installaton of cycle lanes and some cycle prioritised cross traffic turns.

B) Mixed space in town centres in the UK.
This is more a reasignment of priority rather than a move to mixed mode traffic. The vast majority of road space in these cities (I haven't been to all of them so my comments here are generalised) is still segregated with side walks and roadway.
I places in the city centres the roads have been pedestrianized so cars are excluded. At low pedestrian traffic times they allow vehicles in but pedestians have priority.

C) The dutch experience.
I am not familiar with the examples in Holland but have travelled there a lot, mostly to Amsterdam and Enschade. In both towns the same general approach is adopted and works well.

Pedestrianised centre where pedestrians have priority, some areas are mixed mode at certain times with priority for pedestrians. As you move out of the town centres with high predestrian traffic you have road way, cycle way, sidewalk. Depending on the junction they are controlled, uncontrolled and priorities generally clearly shown. They work excellently and most of the time why anyone would want to cycle on the carrige with other traffic is beyond me.

Further out of town there are roads where there is no cycle path and no side walk but in general there is a well maintained cycle path running alongside.


So. You can't use the above as a general arguement for getting ride of cycle paths/lanes and supporting the position that they way forwards is exclusively vehicular cycling.

A bit of common sense should prevail. In areas of high traffic density segregation can be good if done well, it enhances cycling not diminshes it.

Where speed differences are high segregation can be useful.
At junctions and turns (Where most accident happen) segregation can be useful. Finding a way to segregate out trucks would be even)

Back to congestian charging in London. It has lead to a reduction in motorised vehicles in the centre of london (With the exception of Powered two wheeled vehicles (motor bikes to you and me)). I think it is too early to say but it seems to have lead to a reduction in the number of deaths and reported accidents involving cyclists. It has lead to an increase in cycling.
Here is the rub, it has involved not only measures to reduce cars and trucks, but has also gone hand in hand with a massive increase in cycle lanes, some physically segregated most just painted. Also some junctions where priority has been changed to give more time to Bicycles and pedestrians. Not just in the central conjestion zones but over the whole of greater london and the UK in general.

Not all the cycle lanes are well thought through or executed. Some make matters worse because of poor design, but by and large they improve the lot of cyclists, making it safer and making cars and lorries more aware of cyclists. I am not advocating cycle lanes everywhere, although if it could be done and executed properly it would be brilliant.

It flies in the face of the evidence to argue that all cycle lanes are bad.

A more reasoned approach is to

Design cycle lanes to take into account the needs of cyclists
Consider junction design and priority on the needs of the traffic that uses it not just blindly prioritising cars.
As the world can't change overnight, teach cyclists how to cycle safely and effectively in mixed mode traffic.

Get an action group together to audit inappropriately build cycle facilities and get the local council to change them to how you want them.


Finally. The big increase in cycling in london has had an interesting effect. Many cyclists are dreadful and have zero road craft skills. A significant percetage just completely break the law, cycling through red lights, making unsignalled turns, cycling without lights at night.....
I am expecting a significant upturn in the accident and death rate. Hasn't happen yet though largley down to the good driving skills of motorists! How to deal with this problem or if you eve have to I am not sure.

[Bruce Rosar]

By the way for some reason cycling got completely left out of this review ... Cyclists get more of a mention in some of the other ones, and they appear in the 3 colour photos of The end of the white line (http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,12389-1225348_1,00.html) pieceThe first attempt to cross the lineless junction was the most scary experience I've yet had on a public road, writes Max Glaskin. The lack of stop lines and the knowledge that any vehicle, bike or pedestrian is perfectly entitled to take any route it wants over the junction is enough to make you freeze - paralysed with indecision.

As my foot dithered between brake and accelerator, a lorry hung a left across my path and a person in a wheelchair zipped down the other side. Half a dozen cyclists streamed calmly past and a mother pushed a buggy over my intended exit route. This is the kind of situation that would have put the fear of God into the Green Cross Code Man and been strictly banned by the Tufty Club. I was rooted to the spot.

A van and a car waiting behind me finally hooted with impatience so I grasped the wheel with both hands and slid between some cyclists, a Smart car, a Ford Focus, a moped and two pedestrians to the safety of the other side. I had survived; I hadn't hit anyone or anything and nobody had collided with me. After a little yogic breathing it was time to try again.

The second attempt was less frightening, as I realised that a new approach to the situation was needed: I didn't have to look down the road for a gap in the traffic. Instead, I started to look at the other people making the crossing. Make a move, watch the faces of the nearest drivers, cyclists and pedestrians to make sure that I had permission to complete the manoeuvre. It was almost like mind-reading, but it certainly made sure that I was paying attention.

[genec]

Remember the definitions from the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)? Bicycle - a pedal-powered vehicle upon which the human operator sits.
Bicycle Lane - a portion of a roadway that has been designated by signs and pavement markings
for preferential or exclusive use by bicyclists.Nothing about speed (or lanes) in the definitions. Just the vehicle class (and a portion). Now I don't expect anyone to take my word about this, so here's the URL for anyone who cares to search the MUTCD themselves (hint: the definitions are in Chapter 1).
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/HTM/2003/html-index.htm

Bruce "Would you like fries with your portion?" Rosar


Which sadly just goes to prove how flawed a document the MUTCD is... their proposed bike lane designs go right to the heart of their misunderstanding of cyclists on the roads... their designs place bike lanes right up against and parallel to parked cars.

I believe your concept of simply another "travel lane," albeit narrower, is one that deserves greater promotion. This concept shows both understanding of cyclists needs and potential on the roadway.

[catatonic]

best way to think of a bike lane from a driver's view is it's just an extension of the curb...basically the driver should just act like that lane doesn't exist, but should pay attention to things in it much as you would the sidewalk if it was immediately to your right.

From a cyclist's view...I appreciate the room a bike lane offers...but I'd rather if the lane was just wider and didn't have that marking, since drivers often subconsciously treat it like a sidewalk, and will turn in front of you....it's a huge pain.

In this city, I have issues with u-turn drivers...they don't understand that 2mph u-turns are bad enough that I will have made it an entire block by the time they are almost done...or they just u-turn and nearly clip me as I go by.....grr

Problem is drivers are still confused by vehicular cycling. They either don't know what to think of it (let alone react to it), or think we are trying to be a detriment to their transit experience.

It would be nice if the DMV would start including small pamphlets on this, covering such things as the basic bike specific laws, and how to react around bikes.

I noticed out here nobody trusts a guy on bike....I had to chew a guy out to go on my right to make his right turn since I'm trying to cross an 8-lane and it will be a while. Then we have folks that don't understand why I get mad at them for staying 12 feet behind me when I'm at a red light....fortunately the ones out here work better than the ones in san jose....they react to bikes.

[Bigmikepowell]

Cool idea. Any planning that thinks about cars bikes and pedestrians is smart.

I don't see that this is a peice against bike lanes however, it looks like part of an integrated traffic managment system when all users are taken into account at a point in the road where there are lots of crossings rather than mainly linear traffic flow.

[patc]

best way to think of a bike lane from a driver's view is it's just an extension of the curb...basically the driver should just act like that lane doesn't exist, but should pay attention to things in it much as you would the sidewalk if it was immediately to your right.

Ontario law requires this: while a car can merge through a bike lane, it can never merge into it, not even for a right turn.


It would be nice if the DMV would start including small pamphlets on this, covering such things as the basic bike specific laws, and how to react around bikes.

Why not make one?

The Ontario Driver's Manual mentions bikes in several places, but I'm sure many people blank over that, and only read the Manual when they need to re-take the test. I have been thinking of photocopying a few pages from it, the Ontario Cycling Guide and the Ottawa Cycling Guide and handing them out if I run into driver issues. (Yeah, I would be breaking copyright owned by the Queen's Printer for Ontario, but I think Her Majasty would forgive me ;) )

[John E]

Narrow width travel lanes differentiate on a basis of individual merit (relative width of a given vehicle).
Bikelanes differentiate on the basis of class (bicyclist), which is a basis other than individual merit.
Therefore bikelanes are discriminatory but travel lanes of a narrow width are not.

OK, let's either abandon the Interstate highway system or open it up to bicycles.

In many areas, the most direct route from Point A to Point B is a bicycles-prohibited freeway link.

[FarHorizon]

In general, VC - yes. In specific situations, VC - no. Sometimes the ONLY safe thing to do is either change your status from "vehicle" to "pedestrian," or to deliberately violate traffic laws. In certain circumstances, the latter is the way to minimize your exposure to traffic hazards and get away from danger. Also, one often has to turn into bike paths that have no traffic access lane (I do a specific one regularly where to get to the bike path entrance, one must turn left from a 4-lane road near a BUSY intersection). I could walk the bike across the 4 lanes, but I then encounter more traffic exposure because of the increased time in traffic lanes. Alternately, I can ride across the 4 lanes, (**not** a VC method!) but minimize the time I'm exposed to high-speed traffic. There will always be exceptions to the rule where breaking the VC code is the safest thing to do.l

[John E]

In general, VC - yes. In specific situations, VC - no. Sometimes the ONLY safe thing to do is either change your status from "vehicle" to "pedestrian," or to deliberately violate traffic laws. In certain circumstances, the latter is the way to minimize your exposure to traffic hazards and get away from danger. ... Thank you, FarHorizon. You and I seem to be pretty well aligned. VC is a noble theoretical ideal, but there are A FEW specific situations in which a non-vehicular maneuver is the safest option FOR ME personally. I shall not criticize those who relish the challenge of merging across three lanes of heavy 60 mph traffic to reach a left-turn lane, but they are wrong to flame me for choosing to make a two-part turn, instead.

During extensive road construction on La Jolla Village Drive, Serge will soon have to choose between (evidently technically illegally) cutting through the UCSD campus on a pedway or taking a 50mph traffic lane on a significant upgrade. For me, the choice is a no-brainer, but I have already admitted to being chicken.

[Bruce Rosar]

I don't see that this is a peice against bike lanes however, ...bikelanes require signs and markings, and those aren't a part of the new design approach (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.12/traffic.html)
Riding in his green Saab, we glide into Drachten, a 17th-century village that has grown into a bustling town of more than 40,000. We pass by the performing arts center, and suddenly, there it is: the Intersection. It's the confluence of two busy two-lane roads that handle 20,000 cars a day, plus thousands of bicyclists and pedestrians. Several years ago, Monderman ripped out all the traditional instruments used by traffic engineers to influence driver behavior - traffic lights, road markings, and some pedestrian crossings - and in their place created a roundabout, or traffic circle. The circle is remarkable for what it doesn't contain: signs or signals telling drivers how fast to go, who has the right-of-way, or how to behave. There are no lane markers or curbs separating street and sidewalk, so it's unclear exactly where the car zone ends and the pedestrian zone begins. To an approaching driver, the intersection is utterly ambiguous - and that's the point.

Monderman and I stand in silence by the side of the road a few minutes, watching the stream of motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians make their way through the circle, a giant concrete mixing bowl of transport. Somehow it all works. The drivers slow to gauge the intentions of crossing bicyclists and walkers. Negotiations over right-of-way are made through fleeting eye contact. Remarkably, traffic moves smoothly around the circle with hardly a brake screeching, horn honking, or obscene gesture. "I love it!" Monderman says at last. "Pedestrians and cyclists used to avoid this place, but now, as you see, the cars look out for the cyclists, the cyclists look out for the pedestrians, and everyone looks out for each other. You can't expect traffic signs and street markings to encourage that sort of behavior. You have to build it into the design of the road."

[LittleBigMan]

What Bwileyr is suggesting is that mixing cyclists with motor traffic actually works in favor of cyclists, whereas segregating cyclists with signage and markings works against cyclists, and ultimately, everyone. All this, Bwileyr says, is supported by the results of a new design concept adopted in some European towns.

I'm fascinated, not skeptical. When I think about my interactions with motorists as a pedestrian in downtown Atlanta, I have noticed that motorists turning across a crosswalk on a green light pay little attention to the little white hand that lights up to signal pedestrians that it's "safe to cross." They see the green light and go, even though I, the pedestrian, have the right-of-way.

But if a pedestrian is J-walking (illegal,) motorists yield right-of-way to them. Go figure. (They might cuss 'em good, but they yield.)