Advocacy & Safety - Vehicular Cycling

The intent of this post is to start a discussion on the topic of vehicular cycling (VC), what it is, how it relates to making cycling safer and traffic cycling more fun, how it forms the basis for why cyclists should opposes bike lanes, where you can learn more about it, etc.

I'll start with a brief introduction.

VC stands for Vehicular Cycling.

Vehicular Cycling is cycling in accordance to the principle that "cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles" (coined by John Forester (http://www.johnforester.com))

Some people when they first are introduced to the principle (and some for many years later), make the mistake of thinking the principle means that cyclists "are the same as cars". It doesn't. The principle is simply based on the recognition that cyclists have a choice - to ride in accordance to the vehicular rules of the road, or not, and that if they do, they are more likely to "fare well" than if they don't. "Fare well" in this case generally means getting from A to B reasonably safely and in a reasonable time.

Now you may be able to get there faster (by running red lights, not riding to be visible and predictable, etc.), but that's at a higher risk of getting involved in a collisions, which is generally understood NOT to be faring well.

Similarly, you can also ride at ped speeds on sidewalks and walk your bike across cross walks, but that also generally means not faring very well since it would take so long to get from A to B.

The idea is that a cyclist will generally not "fare as well" if he rides according to any other sets of rules other than vehicular rules. The basic reason for this is that everyone else is used to everyone else operating under vehicular rules, and that if you operate under them too, the others will know how to safely interact with you.

Note that "operating under vehicular rules" does not necessarily mean going as fast as other vehicles. Just because the speed limit is 55 doesn't mean you have to operate at 55 mph to be "vehicular". After all, a basic vehicular rule is "slower drivers keep to the right".

This is just the tip of the iceberg on this topic. One can actually write a book on the topic, and luckily a few people already have (arguablly, the posts I've made on this topic on this forum could comprise a book in themselves!). The "bible" of VC is the book Effective Cycling (EC) by John Forester. Actually, the 600pp covers a lot more than VC, much of it kind of dated and some of it pretty strange. But even critics of John Forester's style and some of his positions (like being against bike lanes) like Jeffrey Hiles, who wrote the essay "Listening to Bike Lanes" (http://www.wright.edu/~jeffrey.hiles/essays/listening/home.html), acknowledges that "The 85-page section of Effective Cycling that describes riding technique is arguably one of the most lucid and thorough guides to cycling in traffic in print." Any cyclist should read at least that part of the book for that reason alone. You should know that the other publications that cover VC very well are the book Cyclecraft by John Franklin (though he writes with a left-bias since he's British), and the pamphlet Street Smarts (http://www.bikexprt.com/streetsmarts/index.htm) by John S. Allen (http://www.bikexprt.com), which you can find on the internet and download.

If you take a cycling safety class (called "Road 1") from the League of American Bicyclists (http://www.bikeleague.org), they will teach you techniques in accordance with the VC principle, as well as other material that essentially comes from Effective Cycling.

I invite others to post further information about, or questions of, vehicular cycling in this thread.

:D

so we should ride in the road and stop for red lights- now tell me something I don´t know-

I am not being argumentative but I am not in a position to take a safety class from the Leage of American bicyclists and am interested to know more (but not so interested that I will go out and buy any books).

Most of what I have read in the forum about vehicular cycling just sounds like basic common sense to me (though I would not be quite so dogmatic about it).

Royalflash, you have it right. VC is basically common sense. I think there are some people who would play Russian Roulette if they heard that VC said that was a bad idea.

And don't buy the book. Check it out from the library. If you want a great book, get Hurst's "The Art of Urban Cycling." It's in paperback. It's better written. And it agrees with Forester about 95% of the time. (Actually, most cycling theories agree with each other about 95% of the time.)

Most of what I have read in the forum about vehicular cycling just sounds like basic common sense to me (though I would not be quite so dogmatic about it).
Yes, when you first learn about it it definitely sounds like common sense and like you more-or-less already do most of it. At least that's the way it was for me.

Even as I was reading Effective Cycling, I wasn't very impressed. That's because I was already basically doing what Forester was advocating. Or so I thought.

What I still can't get over is how significant are the small seemingly insignficant things:

Riding a little bit further to the left than most cyclists.
Not waiting for a gap, but creating one when you need one.
Starting your left turn merge earlier.
Treating the bike lane as a temporary "pull-over" passing zone (not something Forester explicitly advocates, but I think falls out logically from the VC principle).
The body language/communication effect of looking back over your shoulder behind you.
Obeying "first come; first served" by waiting in your place in line.


That's off the top of my head. It's hard to explain. But in the end all these subtle changes add up to a complete mindset change, and that's the most important part: it's about seeing yourself as an equal user of the roadway, not a second-class citizen, and riding your bicycle accordingly.

There's a self-esteem component to it. Have you heard of general self-esteem and specialized self-esteem? Somone might have high specialized self-esteem at work, but not in social situations, etc. Learning vehicular cycling helps with your cycling specialized self-esteem, if you will, especially riding in traffic. It helps you learn to feel "appropriate" in traffic among other vehicle drivers, not like an outsider borrowing whatever pavement the "legitimate" users happen to not be using. Even if you don't recognize that's how you look at it, most cyclists ride as if they do, and are treated accordingly. And, just like in any other area, achieving high self-esteem has a liberating effect.

That's enough for now...

Others?

I guess this is as good a thread to discuss my situation as any.
I ride VC and also do try and follow all road laws (with some exceptions for 4-ways stops)
Every morning I ride thru an active 15mph school zone - it is a 3/4mi stretch of road. The posted signs says "15MPH - NO PASSING"
There are bike lanes on each side of the road and several x-walks (each with crossing guard) and left and right turns.
I of course ride in the center of the main lane (not the BL) and go about 15mph, basically keep up with traffic, if the car in front of me is going 17mph, I go 17mph. If crossing guard stops traffic, I stop.

The bike lanes have kids riding in correct and incorrect direction. Mostly the kids are on the sidewalk though.

1. Is is legal for the cars to be passing the bikes who are using the BL? (It is a no passing zone) Is it legal for me in main lane traveling at 15mph to pass kids riding 8mph in bike lane?
2. The stop guard will stop traffic (including me) and let kids on bikes make left turns from the right BL while some kids go straight. If I instead rode in the BL (slowly) I could go straight and not have to wait behind cars - and this would be controlled by a crossing guard who stops cars from turning right. ;) I would not have to wait in line behind cars.
3. Cars get guidance from crossing guards, as soon as guard puts stop sign down, cars will immedately go and have left hooked me because of this. The x-guard of course only protects the BL and x-walk and drivers see it as they get right of way over me when x-guard puts down stop sign, even if I technically have right of way.

In reading the above it does not seem like much of a big deal, but the fundamental of the question is that in this 3/4mi stretch in the presence of the school zone and crossing guards make BL users primary users of the road and cars secondary. Which leaves me feeling like a third class road users when riding VC thru this area in the main lane and its a weird feeling and often results in the closest call I ever have with cars on my whole commute.

Al

Yes - I must admit that the more I cycle the more I have come to apply the principles that you list above. In effect you are recommending that cyclists ride assertively. All good points if applied with caution. At least for experienced, confident and competent cyclists.

I still think there is a place for the odd bike lane (with appropriate caution) and maybe even a bit of scurrying around like a rodent though (it can be fun in moderation).

It just seems like common sense to me too.

When I read Effective Cycling, it just confirmed what I already felt.

When I investigated causes of bicycle accidents in my area, once again the cyclists who were involved in accidents with motor vehicles were not following VC principles.

Reports by government agencies to improve conditions for cyclists recommend cyclists following VC principles.

It's a no-brainer for me.

I still think there is a place for the odd bike lane (with appropriate caution) and maybe even a bit of scurrying around like a rodent though (it can be fun in moderation).
Bike lanes are generally not a problem for vehicular cyclists: we know to treat them as if the stripe does not exist. If factors/conditions determine that we should be riding where the BL happens to be, we do; if they don't, we don't. The main real problem with BL's is that when we do ride in them, the stripe generally encourages passing motorists to encroach on our safety margin space more than they would if there was no stripe.

The relevance of BLs to VC is in how thinking behind the alleged need for or value of bike lanes hinders the adoption of VC, since BLs foster "separation cycling" (the idea that cyclists should be separated from vehicular traffic), and inhibit the natural learning of VC.

I've done VC when cars are going slow. Here's my question. On my last leg to work in the morning I need to make a left turn on a high speed road with big groups of cars. The cars are going about 45, and usually have a 2 car gap between each car. I'm lucky if I'm going 15. Should I just put my arm out, turn and hope I make it? Little too scary for me. I usually wait it out. I say usually because I have done it before with big gaps between cars.

If you want a great book, get Hurst's "The Art of Urban Cycling."
I second that. Good book.

I've done VC when cars are going slow. Here's my question. On my last leg to work in the morning I need to make a left turn on a high speed road with big groups of cars. The cars are going about 45, and usually have a 2 car gap between each car. I'm lucky if I'm going 15. Should I just put my arm out, turn and hope I make it? Little too scary for me. I usually wait it out. I say usually because I have done it before with big gaps between cars.
Stick your arm out, turn your head and look right at driver and only go when you note car has slowed and/or driver has given some sort of feedback that its OK to merge in front of me. Is the left turn at an intesection where these 45mph cars sometimes need to stop? Practice really helps I've found.
Al

Ok, I too have found myself obeying these rules as I ride more in traffic, the one thing I don't follow are stop signs and stop lights at quiet intersections. Part of this, I admit, is my desire to get where I'm going, but the other part is that instinctually I want to ride solo without cars around me. On a busy urban street with a lot of lights I can drop cars easily and I feel a lot safer having done that. I am always careful when I do this, but I admit there is some risk. It just seems like it balances out. Does anyone else have some instincts to ignore some of these rules because they have the same sort of instinctual safety concern despite thinking most of them are great ideas?

Stick your arm out, turn your head and look right at driver and only go when you note car has slowed and/or driver has given some sort of feedback that its OK to merge in front of me. Is the left turn at an intesection where these 45mph cars sometimes need to stop? Practice really helps I've found.
Al

If the intersection is controlled by a traffic signal, simply do a two-part left turn. First, continue straight ahead, stopping a bit short of the far curb. If there is a right-turn-only lane, stop BEFORE you reach it. While standing, rotate your bike 90 degrees to point in your new intended direction, then complete the turn when you get the green light in this direction. It's simple, it's safe, and I know Serge hates the whole concept, but I use it frequently and unapologetically. If the intersection is timed, as many are, with left turn arrows preceding through green lights, you will often complete your turn sooner, i.e., more "effectively," than if you had fought your away across two or three lanes of fast traffic to make a vehicular left turn.

so we should ride in the road and stop for red lights- now tell me something I don´t know-

I am not being argumentative but I am not in a position to take a safety class from the Leage of American bicyclists and am interested to know more (but not so interested that I will go out and buy any books).

Most of what I have read in the forum about vehicular cycling just sounds like basic common sense to me (though I would not be quite so dogmatic about it).Why are you unwilling to pay for knowledge that would quite likely make your cycling safer and more fun? Do you think that people with knowledge should give it away freely, or should they be fairly compensated? We are very lucky that Serge and others are willing to give us so much on this forum, but sometimes we should be willing to pay. If your "common sense" is also valuable, please give it to me freely. All you give here is your opinion--not knowledge.

If the intersection is controlled by a traffic signal, simply do a two-part left turn. First, continue straight ahead, stopping a bit short of the far curb. If there is a right-turn-only lane, stop BEFORE you reach it. While standing, rotate your bike 90 degrees to point in your new intended direction, then complete the turn when you get the green light in this direction. It's simple, it's safe, and I know Serge hates the whole concept, but I use it frequently and unapologetically. If the intersection is timed, as many are, with left turn arrows preceding through green lights, you will often complete your turn sooner, i.e., more "effectively," than if you had fought your away across two or three lanes of fast traffic to make a vehicular left turn.
Ya, these red, "no-left-turn" arrows can make you wait a lot longer to turn left.

Almost makes me wish I could make that "two-part left turn" in my car!

:D

1. Is is legal for the cars to be passing the bikes who are using the BL? (It is a no passing zone) Is it legal for me in main lane traveling at 15mph to pass kids riding 8mph in bike lane?
Consider a road that has two lanes in each direction. If it says no passing, does that mean that a car going 45 in the left lane is not allowed to "pass" a car going 30 in the right? I don't know the legal definition of passing, but it seems to me that it only applies to going around another slower vehicle that is in your own lane. So traffic moving at different rates of speed in their own lanes, even if one of them is a bike lane, I would not consider a violation of "no passing". As I said, just a layperson's interpretation.



2. The stop guard will stop traffic (including me) and let kids on bikes make left turns from the right BL while some kids go straight. If I instead rode in the BL (slowly) I could go straight and not have to wait behind cars - and this would be controlled by a crossing guard who stops cars from turning right. ;) I would not have to wait in line behind cars.
Sounds reasonable to me.



3. Cars get guidance from crossing guards, as soon as guard puts stop sign down, cars will immedately go and have left hooked me because of this. The x-guard of course only protects the BL and x-walk and drivers see it as they get right of way over me when x-guard puts down stop sign, even if I technically have right of way.
Had to read this a few times to understand what you meant. Am assuming you mean traffic coming from the opposite direction turning left (your right) into you as you attempt to go straight? So you are at the front of the line? (Otherwise, the cars in front of you would keep the left-hookers from turning.) Do you take the whole lane? I would. And while the x-guard has you all stopped, try to make eye contact with the first motorist across from you to make sure s/he sees you.



In reading the above it does not seem like much of a big deal, but the fundamental of the question is that in this 3/4mi stretch in the presence of the school zone and crossing guards make BL users primary users of the road and cars secondary. Which leaves me feeling like a third class road users when riding VC thru this area in the main lane and its a weird feeling and often results in the closest call I ever have with cars on my whole commute.

That's an interesting switch, I never thought about it before. It's probably the unusualness of the situation which makes the motorists less predictable, too.

I wonder if you talked to the crossing guard about it (is it often the same one, or small group of them?), he might alter his routine a bit to accomodate you. Like continue holding up opposing traffic while letting you go through. Or, she might just suggest you use the BL with the kids! :)

One last thought: As I understand it (only through reading other posts here), the two most basic principles of VC are visibility and predictability. In this situation, could it be that in the bike lane with the kids is where motorists expect you to be, and so where you should be? Could this be :eek: a situtation where VC dictates use of a bike lane? (Cue the timpani!) Still not in general, but because the preponderance of children on bikes, and the crossing guard, is actually making people even less likely to take bikes outside the BL into account? Yes, I know that's what some would say about all BL's, but is this one different enough to reach the opposite conclusion, that you should be in the BL? I don't know.

Why are you unwilling to pay for knowledge that would quite likely make your cycling safer and more fun? Do you think that people with knowledge should give it away freely, or should they be fairly compensated? We are very lucky that Serge and others are willing to give us so much on this forum, but sometimes we should be willing to pay. If your "common sense" is also valuable, please give it to me freely. All you give here is your opinion--not knowledge.

I am not willing to pay for common sense knowledge that I already know. I am just not interested in ploughing though a whole book and then at the end not really feeling that I learnt anything new. I just have better things to do.

In any case the internet has changed the way that knowledge is disseminated forever. Knowledge is no longer the preserve of the privileged "man skilled in the art" to be hoarded and dispensed with an eye dropper and dependent on payment or to be passed from master to pupil freemason style. Knowledge is now more freely available and there is no going back. In my opinion this is a good thing. It liberates us and enriches our lives.

You are right though we are lucky to have Serge and the other forum members. Without them and the influence of their posts maybe VC would not be just common sense. They make the bike forums what it is.

I also try and contribute whatever limited knowledge I have on this forum whenever I can.

If the intersection is controlled by a traffic signal, simply do a two-part left turn. First, continue straight ahead, stopping a bit short of the far curb. If there is a right-turn-only lane, stop BEFORE you reach it. While standing, rotate your bike 90 degrees to point in your new intended direction, then complete the turn when you get the green light in this direction. It's simple, it's safe, and I know Serge hates the whole concept, but I use it frequently and unapologetically. If the intersection is timed, as many are, with left turn arrows preceding through green lights, you will often complete your turn sooner, i.e., more "effectively," than if you had fought your away across two or three lanes of fast traffic to make a vehicular left turn.

That's exactly how I do it.

Vehicular cycling only works when the traffic you're trying to be vehicular with recognizes you as a vehicle.

Idealistic, but not realistic enough for my tastes. I prefer a more defensive posture. Being aggressive and acting "vehicular" isn't going to matter when you have a two ton SUV bearing down on you.

The two-part left turn is a last resort for me. I've done it once or twice (literally). The road would have to be a freeway in everything but name. But if it works for you, fine--as long as the government doesn't start requiring cyclists to do it or designing roads with the assumption that cyclists will have to dismount to get through.

As to the cost, I checked out Forester's book and video from my library. I think the cover price of the book ($38 list, $25 at Amazon) isn't worth it. I find that reading about cycling technique helps me hone my common sense.

as long as the government doesn't start requiring cyclists to do it or designing roads with the assumption that cyclists will have to dismount to get through.

Since that's a stupid idea, you know it's only a matter of time...

The two-part left turn is a last resort for me. ... The road would have to be a freeway in everything but name.

Palomar Airport Road, on which I frequently execute this maneuver, has 3 lanes each way and a posted speed limit of 55mph, making it "a freeway in everything but name" for me. If I get a nice break in traffic, I'll take advantage of it to make a vehicular left turn, but there is now way I am going to "create" my own traffic break by working across three lanes of heavy 55mph traffic. The scenario that scares the cr@p out of me is to be in the middle of the three lanes, with a polite, helpful motorist behind me, and then to have some jerk pass this person and merge back into his/her lane before realizing that I am there. Vehicular cycling is a noble ideal, a wonderful theoretical concept which unfortunately cannot be put into practice 100 percent of the time. As always, don't let religious dogma get in the way of responsible pragmatism.


As to the cost, I checked out Forester's book and video from my library. I think the cover price of the book ($38 list, $25 at Amazon) isn't worth it. I find that reading about cycling technique helps me hone my common sense.

John S. Allen's "Street Smarts" and John Franklin's "Cyclecraft" are smaller, much cheaper, and just as helpful on the topic of traffic safety, which is the main reason to buy Forester, anyway. (As others have observed, his chapters on bicycle hardware need some serious updating.)

The scenario that scares the cr@p out of me is to be in the middle of the three lanes, with a polite, helpful motorist behind me, and then to have some jerk pass this person and merge back into his/her lane before realizing that I am there.
Dr. Steven Goodridge, Ph.D, wrote in an email on 13 Oct 2003

The vast majority of car-bike crashes do not involve motorist overtaking; most involve junction maneuvers. In urban areas with the heaviest traffic volumes, the percentage of collisions that involve overtaking is the smallest. In Cary and Raleigh, that figure is around 5%. Speed difference is simply not a leading factor in real-world car-bike collision statistics. The leading causes are wrong-way cycling, sidewalk cycling, left and right turns, and driver/cyclist drive-out at junctions. Of the small number of serious overtaking collisions, many of them occur at night to unlighted cyclists.

Competent cyclists who operate on roadways in travel lanes have the lowest crash rate per mile of any group of cyclists. Sidewalk cycling has a much higher car-bike crash rate and an injury rate over an order of magnitude higher than roadway cycling. Cyclists who operate according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles find their travel to be reasonably safe and efficient; operating by any other set of rules increases their crash rates. Bicycle transportation is safer, per mile, than motorcycle travel or pedestrian travel. Bicycle commuting, which occurs at times and places that many people think of as most challenging for cycling, is statistically one of the safest bicycling activities, because regular bicycle commuters tend to be better than other cyclists at following the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles.

Vehicular cycling only works when the traffic you're trying to be vehicular with recognizes you as a vehicle.If it looks like a vehicle (wheels, steering, brakes, drivetrain, etc.), maneuvers like a vehicle (doesn't pivot, backup or move directly sideways like a pedestrian), and is operated according to the Rules of the Road for vehicles, then the device is recognized for what it is (a vehicle). If it isn't operated according to those rules, it isn't recognized as a vehicle.

Bruce Rosar
Who's been pedaling vehicles in traffic for almost half a century (that's years, not miles :)

In this situation, could it be that in the bike lane with the kids is where motorists expect you to be, and so where you should be? Could this be :eek: a situtation where VC dictates use of a bike lane?
There's already a better design, for all locations, that provides a lane for vehicles which are narrow; stripe a narrow travel lane. It will help other traffic pass the narrow vehicles more easily for the same reason that a bikelane does (i.e., passing drivers know that vehicles outside their marked lane aren't likely to cut them off because the striped line is there) without resorting to class discrimination.

The scenario that scares the cr@p out of me is to be in the middle of the three lanes, with a polite, helpful motorist behind me, and then to have some jerk pass this person and merge back into his/her lane before realizing that I am there.
With the added invisibility supplied by the ubiquitous SUV (hell, I can't even see around those puppies in my car,) it's a real recipe for failure. Visibility is key.

"Competent cyclists who operate on roadways in travel lanes have the lowest crash rate per mile of any group of cyclists. Sidewalk cycling has a much higher car-bike crash rate and an injury rate over an order of magnitude higher than roadway cycling. Cyclists who operate according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles find their travel to be reasonably safe and efficient; operating by any other set of rules increases their crash rates. Bicycle transportation is safer, per mile, than motorcycle travel or pedestrian travel. Bicycle commuting, which occurs at times and places that many people think of as most challenging for cycling, is statistically one of the safest bicycling activities, because regular bicycle commuters tend to be better than other cyclists at following the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles."

This is an entirely true statement, worthy of reflecting upon. But we're not talking about sidewalk cycling.

This is entirely unrelated to John E.'s analysis of the pragmatism of navigating 55 mph., freeway-style, multiple-lane, heavily-trafficked roads for a left turn on a bicycle.

Where I live, drivers navigate 40-mph. roads at 55 mph., and 55-mph. roads at 70 mph.

I always use the road on my bike, and I don't knuckle-under to motorists when asserting my right to the road. But there's a big difference between merging with traffic on a 35-mph. road and merging with motor traffic on a 55-mph. road.

One thing I've learned as a car-driver and a cyclist: obey the rules, but use your experience and intuition.

If it looks like a vehicle (wheels, steering, brakes, drivetrain, etc.), maneuvers like a vehicle (doesn't pivot, backup or move directly sideways like a pedestrian), and is operated according to the Rules of the Road for vehicles, then the device is recognized for what it is (a vehicle). If it isn't operated according to those rules, it isn't recognized as a vehicle.

Why don't you poll a few drivers who don't ride bikes, preferrably in an urban area, and ask them if they would ever yield to a bike, give a bike the right of way at a stop, and so on?

There is no amount of colloquial evidence or anything like it that will convince me that you can act like a car on a bike and be treated like one by a driver. A driver only needs to get a bug up his ass to run you over and you're done. While you're laying on the ground with your mangled frame, be sure to preach Vehicular Cycling theory to him.

. . . There is no amount of colloquial evidence or anything like it that will convince me that you can act like a car on a bike and be treated like one by a driver. A driver only needs to get a bug up his ass to run you over and you're done. While you're laying on the ground with your mangled frame, be sure to preach Vehicular Cycling theory to him.If no evidence will convince you, then why are you taking part in the discussion? On your other point, there are a few drivers who ram cyclists, but I've seen no evidence that shows that a driver willing to commit murder will be deterred by a bike lane stripe.



John S. Allen's "Street Smarts" and John Franklin's "Cyclecraft" are smaller, much cheaper, and just as helpful on the topic of traffic safety, which is the main reason to buy Forester, anyway. (As others have observed, his chapters on bicycle hardware need some serious updating.)
I haven't read Cyclecraft, but John Allen's Street Smarts is based on VC principles. We're everywhere. We're everywhere.

As to the cost, I checked out Forester's book and video from my library. I think the cover price of the book ($38 list, $25 at Amazon) isn't worth it. I find that reading about cycling technique helps me hone my common sense.

I've made my way through most of Forester. Don't buy it. While there is good info in there, it is burried in Forester's pontificating and his government conspiracy theories. Skip the book and watch Jerry Falwell and the X-Files, you won't miss much.

There's already a better design, for all locations, that provides a lane for vehicles which are narrow; stripe a narrow travel lane. It will help other traffic pass the narrow vehicles more easily for the same reason that a bikelane does (i.e., passing drivers know that vehicles outside their marked lane aren't likely to cut them off because the striped line is there) without resorting to class discrimination.

I find it incomprehensible that you would consider bike lanes "class discrimination" but have no problem with "narrow vehicle lanes".

I've made my way through most of Forester. Don't buy it. While there is good info in there, it is burried in Forester's pontificating and his government conspiracy theories. Skip the book and watch Jerry Falwell and the X-Files, you won't miss much.
The pontificating is annoying, but the principles about where to ride on the road are valid. His main point is that most cyclists, with a little thought, can ride in a lot "tougher" traffic than they think they can.



I find it incomprehensible that you would consider bike lanes "class discrimination" but have no problem with "narrow vehicle lanes".
I also find that narrow traffic lanes, with one or two lanes that cars can use to pass me, are by far the best sort of on-road "bike facility." They allow me to take the lane and cars to pass me. They also let me ride in a place from which car tires sweep debris, not to which car tires sweep debris.

The pontificating is annoying, but the principles about where to ride on the road are valid. His main point is that most cyclists, with a little thought, can ride in a lot "tougher" traffic than they think they can..

I think he needed a good editor. The message could probably be more effectively carried in about 1/3 the space.


I also find that narrow traffic lanes, with one or two lanes that cars can use to pass me, are by far the best sort of on-road "bike facility." They allow me to take the lane and cars to pass me. They also let me ride in a place from which car tires sweep debris, not to which car tires sweep debris.

I don't have any problem with the concept, just the ironic position of arguing that a bike-only lane is supposedly "discrimination", but a narrow-vehicles only lane is somewhat not.

The only objection I have to a narrow-vehicles lane, or a slow-vehicles lane, is that it could become harder to define than a bike-lane. It could easily become ambiguous and confusing what vehicles are, and are not, allowed. Beyond that they would be no different to cyclists than current bike lanes. I haven't found bike lanes particularly dirty, but the same problem would potentially exist with a narrow lane placed at the edge of the roadway. And you can take the lane - any lane - regardless of the existance of a bike lane or narrow-lane (in places with legislation forcing the use of bike lanes, the same government might well force the use of the narrow lane as well.)

Maybe we mean different things by "narrow lane." I just meant a normal traffic lane that is a little narrower than normal. Cars could use it just like any other lane. Given that it's just a normal lane, I don't see why legislators would feel the need to add anything to their as-far-right-as-practicable rules.

The pontificating is annoying, but the principles about where to ride on the road are valid. His main point is that most cyclists, with a little thought, can ride in a lot "tougher" traffic than they think they can.



I also find that narrow traffic lanes, with one or two lanes that cars can use to pass me, are by far the best sort of on-road "bike facility." They allow me to take the lane and cars to pass me. They also let me ride in a place from which car tires sweep debris, not to which car tires sweep debris.

You would love a six mile stretch of my daily 12 mile (each way) bicycle commute; narrow (10 foot wide) lanes on a 55mph road; only two traffic lights for the 6 miles, no other intersections; lots of traffic so that drivers have lots of opportunity to negotiate with each other in order to pass a bicyclist; unpaved rough shoulder to catch all debris; no bike facility to tempt a VC bicyclist. At least one trip in darkness six months of the year.

Bliss for a VC aficionado!

Maybe we mean different things by "narrow lane." I just meant a normal traffic lane that is a little narrower than normal. Cars could use it just like any other lane. Given that it's just a normal lane, I don't see why legislators would feel the need to add anything to their as-far-right-as-practicable rules.

Oh, well if that's what you mean I see no point in it. (Actually it sounds pretty typical of some inner lanes of several streets around here.) So you would just end up with a lane too narrow for pick-ups, large trucks, and probably some SUVs. What's the point in that? Unless you specifically bar wide vehicles from using that lane, you would end up with them in there as well. Sounds pointless. What advantage are you seeing to these narrow lanes?

" Bicycle commuting, which occurs at times and places that many people think of as most challenging for cycling, is statistically one of the safest bicycling activities, because regular bicycle commuters tend to be better than other cyclists at following the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles."

...or as I always like to point out, (in my province anyway) commuter cyclists make up 2% of traffic, yet all cyclists are involved in only 1% of traffic accidents.

If no evidence will convince you, then why are you taking part in the discussion? On your other point, there are a few drivers who ram cyclists, but I've seen no evidence that shows that a driver willing to commit murder will be deterred by a bike lane stripe.

Because in this "discussion" I've yet to see anyone mention the fact that you on a 20 lb. bicycle are not in control of your destiny when you're on the road unless the drivers around you give you the right of way. You're in no position to "take" anything, and that's the problem with VC. Not that it doesn't work. It does; however it only works when drivers cooperate.

There are plenty of posts in the advocacy and commuting sections that pretty much prove that your ability to cycle like a vehicle depends more on the cooperation of drivers than anything else.

I don't like that; in fact, I hate it. But it is what it is.

Is it really a discussion, or just "preaching to the choir"? It sounds like opposing viewpoints will not be tolerated here.

I've learned on this site there are two things that can never ever be "discussed."

Critical Mass (I'm just as guilty as anyone else of this one)

And Vehicular Cycling.

Oh, and don't forget Wal-Mart and Campy v. Shimano.

You would love a six mile stretch of my daily 12 mile (each way) bicycle commute; narrow (10 foot wide) lanes on a 55mph road; only two traffic lights for the 6 miles, no other intersections; lots of traffic so that drivers have lots of opportunity to negotiate with each other in order to pass a bicyclist; unpaved rough shoulder to catch all debris; no bike facility to tempt a VC bicyclist. At least one trip in darkness six months of the year.

Bliss for a VC aficionado!
I've always said that bike lanes can work on >45mph roads with limited intersections. The pix you posted seem to fit that bill.



Because in this "discussion" I've yet to see anyone mention the fact that you on a 20 lb. bicycle are not in control of your destiny when you're on the road unless the drivers around you give you the right of way. You're in no position to "take" anything, and that's the problem with VC. Not that it doesn't work. It does; however it only works when drivers cooperate.

There are plenty of posts in the advocacy and commuting sections that pretty much prove that your ability to cycle like a vehicle depends more on the cooperation of drivers than anything else.

I don't like that; in fact, I hate it. But it is what it is.
The key VC point is that cyclists can take a lot more control by using a few simple techniques. Nothing is absolutely safe. Riding in bike lanes also "depends more on the cooperation of drivers than anything else," especially at intersections. In fact, at intersections, bike lane riders depend a lot more on cooperation than vc riders.

What advantage are you seeing to these narrow lanes?Good question. To increase the odds that we're on the same "page", let's have a look at some definitions from Chapter 1 of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).

Bicycle - a pedal-powered vehicle ...
Bicycle Lane - a portion of a roadway ... for ... use by bicyclists
Edge Line Markings - ... lines that delineate the ... edge(s) of a traveled way.
The "travel way" is that portion of the roadway which vehicles are supposed to use while traveling from one place to another. Travel lanes are marked within the travel way. Notice that "Bicycle Lanes" aren't defined as being part of the travel way, or even as lanes (which you might expect from their name), but rather as yet another portion of the roadway.
In Chapter 3 the MUTCD states

Edge line markings may be excluded ... if the traveled way edges are delineated by curbs, parking, bicycle lanes ...
Since "bicycle lanes" mark the edge of the traveled way, they (like curbs and parking) lie outside it. In other words, "bicycle lanes" aren't really travel lanes after all, since they usually lie outside the traveled way (as do curb / parking areas).

Originally these paths were usually routed to the right of Right Turn Only Lanes. That's less frequently the case now, not because their nature changed, but because the following bandaid was applied to the MUTCD

A through bicycle lane shall not be positioned to the right of a right turn only lane.
MUTCD 2003 Edition (HTML version)
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/HTM/2003/html-index.htm

I've learned on this site there are two things that can never ever be "discussed."

Critical Mass (I'm just as guilty as anyone else of this one)

And Vehicular Cycling.

Oh, and don't forget Wal-Mart and Campy v. Shimano.

Oh, c'mon!

What about helmets?

I find it incomprehensible that you would consider bike lanes "class discrimination" but have no problem with "narrow vehicle lanes".To "set the stage" for an assertion about bikelanes, here are some relevant definitions:
Bikelanes - "... for preferential or exclusive use by bicyclists."
Discriminate - to make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit.
<discriminate in favor of your friends> <discriminate against a certain nationality>

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.

Good question. To increase the odds that we're on the same "page", let's have a look at some definitions from Chapter 1 of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).

Ok, I'll buy that as a good source for definitions, although it shouldn't be assumed to be an authoritative source outside the US.



Since "bicycle lanes" mark the edge of the traveled way, they (like curbs and parking) lie outside it. In other words, "bicycle lanes" aren't really travel lanes after all, since they usually lie outside the traveled way (as do curb / parking areas).

I'd have to think about that and read the MUTCD in detail to decide if I agree with the interpretation or not. Regardless of that, it does not apply to me. Under the Ontario Highway Traffic specially use lanes are part of the roadway - see 154. (1)(c), under which authority bike lanes and other special use lanes are created in Ontario.

The same Act defines bicycles as a vehicles 1.(1).

Meanwhile Ottawa by-law 2003-530 defines bicycle lanes as one type of "reserved lane" which is clearly part of the roadway.

Regardless of the local status of bike lanes, I am still curious to know what advantage anyone sees in "narrow lanes". I am also beginning to wonder if there is any point discussing this on an international forum, since most people (a) understandebly argue from their local laws and experience only, and (b) said laws and experience lead to assumptions which may not apply elsewhere.

Anyway, enough time wasted. I have work to do, and I need to keep scowling at the snow.


OHTA: http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/90h08_e.htm#BK212

To "set the stage" for an assertion about bikelanes, here are some relevant definitions:
Bikelanes - "... for preferential or exclusive use by bicyclists."
Discriminate - to make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit.
<discriminate in favor of your friends> <discriminate against a certain nationality>

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.

It depends on what people define as "merit". Bicycles are not discriminated against, we're separated by individual merit. On a 45 mph road, the average car can do 45 mph, while the average bicycle will not. My belief is this difference is why traffic engineers create bike lanes.

Oh, well if that's what you mean I see no point in it. (Actually it sounds pretty typical of some inner lanes of several streets around here.) So you would just end up with a lane too narrow for pick-ups, large trucks, and probably some SUVs. What's the point in that? Unless you specifically bar wide vehicles from using that lane, you would end up with them in there as well. Sounds pointless. What advantage are you seeing to these narrow lanes?
As I said above, in narrow lanes, cars sweep debris out of the way and into the place a bike lane would go. Also, cars can use it during the 99% of the time bikes aren't in it. And an SUV can use a 10' lane. If that's too narrow for it, it can move over a lane or two. Also, in a 10' lane, the effective bike lane is 10' wide. It doesn't do cyclists any good to restict them to 4'-6' when they can have 10'.

Finally, using traffic lanes encourages cyclists to avoid curb hugging (especially at intersections) and encourages cars to move a full lane to the left to pass, again giving the cyclists more room. It also encourages cyclists to turn left from the left lane instead of from the bike lane.



Is it really a discussion, or just "preaching to the choir"? It sounds like opposing viewpoints will not be tolerated here.
I see lots of opposing viewpoints. And everyone seems pretty free to criticize arguments with which they disagree.

It depends on what people define as "merit". Bicycles are not discriminated against, we're separated by individual merit. On a 45 mph road, the average car can do 45 mph, while the average bicycle will not. My belief is this difference is why traffic engineers create bike lanes.

Amen. I think that really is the crux of the whole thing. Seriously.

Contrary to belief here, I believe a bike that rides approximately 20 mph in a neighborhood where traffic moves in the thirties to forties is being inconsiderate if occupying an entire lane. Sometimes bikes can move with the flow of traffic. Other times they can't. Vehicular Cycling advocates, from what I see here in various posts, seem to think whether you can or cannot move with traffic at their normal speed is irrelevant and drivers need to make way for you regardless. That's just not right.

On a 45 mph road, the average car can do 45 mph, while the average bicycle will not.If a road has a minimum speed limit (the average road does not), then the limit applies not to any average but rather to the speed of a given individual vehicle. [/QUOTE]

My belief is this difference is why traffic engineers create bike lanes.
A little over a year ago, Steven G. Goodridge, Ph.D, (http://humantransport.org/ webmaster) wrote the following article

I think there is a common misconception that bike lane segregation striping either increases safety for novice cyclists or reduces the skills required to cycle safely on roadways. Neither is the case. No government study has ever shown a safety improvement due to bike lane striping. In some cases, bike lane stripes have actually increased collision rates by confusing road users about proper operation at intersections.

The origins of bike segregation striping can be tracked back to Nazi Germany (and the countries it occupied during WWII) and to Communist China in more recent times. The totalitarian powers responsible for these facilities saw very large numbers of people on bicycles using the roadways, which reduced the speeds at which the Nazis and the Communist party elite, respectively, could travel by motor vehicle. They developed segregation rules and striping and other barriers to restrict bicyclists from most of the roadway area in order to encourage faster travel by the affluent motoring minority. These totalitarian governments instituted very high fines for cyclists traveling outside of the segregated facilities. The government also told the cyclists that they would likely be killed if they cycled outside the segregated area. This was a lie; there was no evidence to support this, but the people believed it. Thus began the myth that segregation facilities improved safety for cyclists on otherwise ordinary streets. In actuality, the segregation increased problems because segregation by vehicle type conflicted with the ordinary rules of the road at intersections, where users should position themselves according to destination.

In the 1970s, the California department of highways convened a commission of non-cyclists to develop bicycle segregation facilities as a response to the increase in bicycle use at the time. The fear was that the number of cyclists would keep increasing to the point of creating significant delays for motorists (even though the demographic of potential cyclists in the USA would never support such numbers). The commission copied the designs used by the communists and Nazi-occupied nations that experienced high volumes of bicycle use (volumes due to local economics and population density.) California also commissioned a scientific study (the first Cross study) to demonstrate that these facilities increased cycling safety, but the study showed the opposite, due to increased conflicts at intersections. The commission suppressed the study, but not before it leaked to the cycling community, who used it to oppose the worst safety problems (caused by sidewalk-style sidepaths). The bike lane striping remained and became part of the California standard. Bike lane striping alone, assuming it does not direct cyclists into harm's way at intersections or into parked car doors, is not particularly dangerous to cyclists. However, the idea that it improves safety on ordinary wide streets with numerous intersections and driveways is far from the truth.

Bike lane stripes teach an oversimplified message to the public: That bicyclists belong in bike lanes instead of the rest of the roadway, and that staying in them is safe while not doing so is unsafe. The truth is that safe positioning of cyclists on the roadway depends on factors including relative speed and relative destination at junctions. This is state law and is based on the real causes of car-bike collisions. Providing adequate road width for motorists to overtake cyclists at safe distance is a benefit to all vehicle operators, but I believe the segregation striping creates more operational problems than it can possibly solve. Police reports of car-bike crashes involving novice and child cyclists in Cary reveal that it is errors at junctions that are responsible, not overtaking. Segregation striping does nothing to address these junction hazards, and may make them worse by encouraging improper positioning.

Many people believe that segregation stripes improve conditions for cyclists; for many it is unquestionable, despite a lack of any evidence to support it. That is a tribute to the propaganda of the motoring organizations that designed them, but many bicycle-related organizations have also become involved in stripe advocacy. These organizations believe either (1) that they cannot have the extra road space unless it comes striped, or (2) that the (false) promise of safety provided by the stripe will increase cycling by novices, and that this will sell more bikes and trickle down to greater respect for existing bicyclists. Unfortunately, (1) isn't true - wide lanes are just as good for cyclists as striped space, and if (2) novice cyclists ride with a false sense of the probable causes of collisions they will be more likely to get themselves into trouble. Education of basic safe cycling practices will do far more for safety than can segregation striping. I don't think we can afford to limit competent, lawful cycling to "experts" any more we would do the same for motorists.

It would be interesting to get a copy of that Cross study. I wonder if they destroyed it, or if it is archived.


I found it on Forrester's website. Interesting stats. It appears the data for Santa Barbara is different than other places since riding on the sidewalk was not legal. I wonder if this included the younger children in the study's accidents.

It would be interesting to get a copy of that Cross study. I wonder if they destroyed it, or if it is archived.It's available on the web (but only because the token cyclist at the meeting saved their copy).
Jump on over to John S. Allen's bicycle-related research (http://www.bikexprt.com/research/) page and then select the link for Ken Cross's Santa Barbara study.