Helmet-Head

The purpose of this thread is to foster a focussed discussion on the topic of cyclist separatism (CS): the principle that cyclists fare best when they are separated from vehicular traffic (in contrast to the vehicular cycling (VC) principle: cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles).

In particular:

1. Are you more inclined to agree with the CS principle, or the VC principle?
2. Does it make sense to facilitate cycling according to the VC principle on some roads (say the slower ones), but move to the CS principle on faster ones? If so, where do you draw the line? Is it important to draw the line distinctly, or is it okay to have either/or roads?
3. Do you see a relationship or connection between the CS principle and the concept of bike lanes? Do you think bike lanes foster belief in the CS principle, the VC principle, both or neither?
4. How do facilities influenced by the CS principle help or hinder cyclists on various types of roads? What are the benefits of such facilities to cyclists? What are the disbenefits? Do the benefits or disbenefits carry more weight, and how?

That's just a start.

What are your thoughts?

CdCf

I'm a strong supporter of VC (using your terminology).
I hate the law here that bikes have to use a bike lane/path when one is available.
I feel I have as much right to be on the road as everone else.
The bike paths are often full of fine gravel (1-3 mm grains) spread out during winter months to prevent people slipping on the ice.
Oh, I forgot to mention that bike paths here are generally shared by walkways. The gravel is usually left throughout the year, so bike paths are equally destructive and unrideable all year round.
In the, thankfully, unlikely event of a police officer stopping me for not using the bike path, I will use an "out" clause in the law stating that bikes are allowed on the road if that's beneficial to the continued journey. It's of course intended to apply to situations where you have to cross the road to get to another road, and there's no access from the bike path, but I will interpret it as allowing me to continue on my journey and not be stopped by the bike breaking down due to gravel in the drivetrain...
I refuse to allow my bike to wear out prematurely to comply with a law conceived by well-meaning, but ignorant people.

It annoys the hell out of me that bikes aren't allowed on motorways, where there's huge amounts of space on the sides (shoulders are generally 2-3 m wide), and cars are allowed to drive at 110 km/h, but we can ride on "normal" roads without shoulders, where cars are allowed to drive at 90 km/h...
Does that make sense to you?

I would like to see bikes allowed everywhere where cars are.
But I'd also like to see further restrictions on motor traffic.

TrikeMan

Both is needed. When your just starting out you need the path to get use to biking, or if your slower, young or old. When you want to have fun. I have been riding on highways and the busy roads off and on. I like both, when I’m not feeling well I take the path, but when I need to be somewhere I take the roads, it cuts about ½ the time when on the road. When I was just starting out I would never of gone on the roads I do today, if we didn’t have the path up here I would not of started biking full time.

sbhikes

I don't believe that the channelization of bicycles into another lane on the street constitutes separation from traffic.

Helmet-Head

Good point. Certainly channelization into a separate lane does not separate cyclists from traffic in the same way that channelization onto a separated path does.

Never-the-less, given that traffic lanes in general separate one channel of traffic from another one, then certainly bike lanes do separate cyclists from the other traffic lanes in the same respect. Yes?

CdCf

The preferred method here seems to be bike paths, completely separated from the normal road.
They usually look like this:

Helmet-Head

That looks great - as a spot to teach my 5 year old how to ride her bike without training wheels. But as a real transportation route? Yikes!

Cycling separatists... careful what you ask for... you might get it!

sbhikes

They do not separate bikes from traffic. Cyclists on public streets are traffic.

The California Drivers Handbook describes bike lanes as marking an area where automobiles are not allowed, unless they are making a turn. The CA Drivers Handbook does not describe bike lanes as a device to keep cyclists out of normal traffic.

To quote the CA Drivers Handbook

Helmet-Head

Diane, I don't think you answered my question. Whether bike lanes "separate bikes from traffic" is irrelevant to my question of whether bike lanes separate cyclists from the other traffic lanes in the same respect that normal (non-bike) traffic lanes separate channels of traffic from each other.

And regardless of what the driver's manual may state regarding the purpose of bike lanes, the effect of bike lanes may be different. In particular, by prohibiting vehicles from traveling in bike lanes (except for the 200 foot(!) exceptions) a separating distinction is made between bicycles and other vehicles.

The effect of this separating distinction in the minds of cyclists, drivers, traffic engineers, law enforcement, etc., and in particular the role of this separationist thinking as a disbenefit to cyclists, is what I would like to focus on in this thread. But I'm getting a lot of resistance to anyone even acknowledging that the separationist distinction exists (if it didn't, how do we distinguish between those who are and those who are not allowed to travel in bike lanes!), which makes it impossible to move on to discuss its significance (or lack thereof)...

Are you in denial because deep down you are afraid of what you might realize if you do acknowledge that bike lanes inherently require separationist thinking with respect to cyclists and other vehicle drivers?

sbhikes

I just do not buy your arguments. If someone in CA believes any of the silliness you describe about the effect of bike lanes, then they need a refresher by reading the CA Drivers Handbook. If they don't live in California, then that's another story. But YOU live in California, so maybe you need a refresher.

Denial and fear? Of what? I ride in the streets. I enjoy it. I do it as much as I can. And according to the Drivers Handbook, I have all of the rights and responsibilities, including rights to use all the lanes in the street, as any automobile has. I am traffic. Bike lanes do not detract from that at all.

In fact, the Drivers Handbook says that it is against the law for a cyclist to use a right turn lane to go straight and that cyclists should use the left turn lane to turn left. In other words whether or not there are bike lanes, as a cyclist in California you have a responsibility to behave as all other traffic. That does not sound like separated, segregated or anything like that to me.

Helmet-Head

Talk about preaching to the choir! Diane, these words are music to me. Tell me more!

Your serenading me aside, in this thread I'm not trying to discuss the legalities of cyclist rights and bike lanes (which as you know I also enjoy), but the psychological effect of bike lanes on the thinking of cyclists, motorists, etc.

Let me try this:

Just as "truck lanes" require us to distinguish "trucks" from other vehicles, bus lanes require us to distinquish "buses" from other vehicles, "taxi lanes" require us to distinguish "taxis" from other vehicles, "bike lanes" require us to distinguish "bikes" from other vehicles. There is no debate that bikes are distinct in several important operating characteristics from motor vehicles. But bike lanes require us to distinguish them according to these characteristics. Can you agree with me on this much?

bkrownd

Wooo - I'd like to live there. Trees, clouds, nice bike paths...very nice.

vrkelley

Basically this question comes up about every 2 weeks...Plenty of good content and comments here. Do a search for additional details.
Enjoy!

https://www.bikeforums.net/commuting/90006-mandatory-bike-lanes.html
https://www.bikeforums.net/advocacy-safety/91811-skiiing-bike-lanes-right-way-safety.html
https://www.bikeforums.net/advocacy-safety/85098-my-biggest-concern-bike-lanes.html

Helmet-Head

"The question"? What common question do you think all these threads have in common?
What's wrong with bike lanes? Fair enough.

But all this is helping me evolve my thinking about bike lanes and vehicular cycling, and how I present it. I'll tell you one thing, even a few weeks ago Diane and Gene were not preaching the virtues of VC the way they are now (whether they recognize that's what they're doing or not)...

So far, I think the "separatist thinking" concept gets at the core of the bike lane problem better than my other attempts.

patc

Neither. Both represent unreasonable extremes.


Bikes are vehicles and should always behave as such on any road or pathway. Not all roads are cyclist-friendly: that may be due to the speed or volume of traffic, the grade of a hill, the total length of the roadway, number of stops or intersection, or its ability to connect points A and B. That does not mean the road can't be used, merely that it would not be the desired choice for many.

An urban road network (and here I will include pathways and sidewalks) must provide safe, convenient, and comfortable transportation for as many people as possible. Sometimes that may mean offering a pathway giving cyclists the option of going directly from point A to B by-passing a winding road with steep hills and many intersections. Sometimes that means providing expressways for car traffic to go from one region to another quickly. Sometimes that means public-transit only corridors to move large numbers of people efficiently. Sometimes that means adding pedestrian crossings at places other than intersections.

I reject your model of cycling as something divisible or representable as "VC" and "CS". Bikes combine a car's ability to use roads, with a pedestrian's ability to use narrow pathways. A cyclist has a more difficult time than a car with frequent stops and steep grades, and often travels more slowly, but is also more manoeuvrable and does not need wide travel paths.

A good road network can include any combination of roads, bike lanes, and pathways, sidewalks, and other facilities. A good network should allow users a variety of travel options allowing for personal skills, preferences, comfort, convenience, efficiency, and each vehicle's strengths and weaknesses. A blind adherence to what you term either VC or CS principles would result in a road network that fails to satisfy more than a minority of users.


Neither. Bike lanes are spaces on pavement and painted lines. People read into them whatever they want to suit their preconceptions.


I'm not familiar with any cycling facilities influenced by what you call "the CS principle". I am familiar with a city rich in options from moderately good roads (some with bike lanes, some with wide lanes) to three networks of pathways. I hope can continue to enjoy this rich environment, and that dogmatic single vision people never ruin it for us. I want to have options that allow me to decide what mix of relative safety, comfort, and travel time I want given my needs, ability, and even whims.

Helmet-Head

Pat, you confuse me.


What's confusing is that according to this, you feel the "VC principle" is an "unreasonable extreme".

Fine. Yet then you say this: "Bikes are vehicles and should always behave as such on any road or pathway". That seems like a restatement of the "unreasonable extreme" VC principle.

What exactly is unreasonable and/or extreme about the statement, "Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles?"

In particular, how is that substantially different from "Bikes are vehicles and should always behave as such on any road or pathway"?

patc

Let me clarify. Implicit in the VC statements and principles, often expressed as you have it: "Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles" is the equivalence of bikes with other road vehicles. I do feel that bikes are vehicles and should behave as such, but I do not feel that all road vehicles are equal in capabilities, needs, and usage. In fact that's obviously false. A bus can carry 60 or so people, a car 5 or so, a bike typically 1: all are vehicles, all are different.

Having read your posts, Forester, and an array of other sources on vehicular cycling (from the informative to the nauseating) I see that as the basic flaw of VC argument: the assumptions that defining a bike as a vehicle leads to the conclusion that all vehicles are the same.

thelung

1. VC because you are noticed more, its easier, less flats, probably safer, and our taxes fund the creation of roads just as much as automobile drivers.

2. I think the right lanes of all roads should just be a bit wider, (but not seperated) and more driver education should focus on the legal right-of-way of cyclists. The only bike paths I like are ones that go through parks for recreational riding. Bike paths along roads are just glorified sidewalks and do not solve the biggest problem that sidewalks have: motorists ignoring us at intersections.

3. I think motorist lobbies may be pushing bike paths as a form of CS. I think bike paths form a sort of cheap solution that doesnt really solve the problems of road sharing. It ignores the problems. In my city, it has lead to the creation of a few path-equipped roads, and the majority of roads are left quite unfriendly to cyclists.

4.My city's biggest industries are tourism and military bases. Tourism has lead to CS facilities that cater to the tourists and are not particularly useful to most of the actual citizens, yet the city can still claim it has multiple cycling facilities available. In this way, ideas of CS have been twisted to not actually benefit the people who live here.

grolby

1. I am more inclined to agree with the VC principle, but I believe that describing VC and "CS" as opposing principles is fallacious. CS is anything but some unified front working to separate bicycles from traffic and get them off the roads - in fact, it is almost universally made up of the well-intentioned, often misguided attempts to better accomodate bicycles as a mode of transportation and recreation. The problem is a misunderstanding of how cyclists would best be served. CS is the result of trying to accomodate bicycles while maintaining the status quo - the motor vehicle is supreme. VC is about nothing less than challenging that status quo - the motor vehicle is not inherently superior in any way, it only happens to be bigger and faster (and lots of other things as well, but VC pertains only to issues of traffic and safety, not environmental concerns).

2. I frankly don't see the benefit of a bike lane on a 45 mph road versus a bike lane on a 30 mph road. There is nothing about lines on pavement that will somehow make the cyclist safer from faster moving traffic. That said, a bike lane does not necessarily make a cyclist LESS safe, either. It can (and is more likely to make a cyclist less safe at an intersection than it is to make them more safe), but I've used some bike lanes which were well-designed and perfectly safe. The problem is one of perception: the perception by motorists and even cyclists that bicycles do not belong on the same road with cars, and the perception by cyclists and motorists that bike lanes somehow make cyclists safer and make travel more convenient for motorists.

It is obvious that bicycles do not belong on highways where they cannot maintain the legally mandated minimum speed limits, but this is generally not a major concern, since most locations can be accessed by smaller roads. The concern is the increasing number of locations that are beginning to fall out of the "most" category - there is a growing trend of providing access ONLY on large, high-capacity, high-speed roads where bicycles are not legally permitted, and this deeply concerns me.

3. As I said earlier, I do not believe that there is any such thing as a "CS principle." If there were, I do not believe that bike lanes would foster belief in it. I do not know anyone who believes that bicycles are only allowed to travel on the road if there is an available bike lane. If anyone does believe this, I cannot see how bike lanes themselves would lead to this belief. It makes more sense to me that people who believe this started out believing that bicycles have no place on roads, and believe that bike lanes serve the function of permitting bicycles on roads where they were not permitted before. Once again, the bike lane problem is the perception of separation = safety and convenience, not that it fosters belief in either "principle." I should point out that, although VC does exist as a principle of bicycle operation, the vast majority of motorists are not aware of it. How can belief be fostered in a concept that simply does not exist? A motorist who sees a VC rider will notice that they are driving in a manner similar to their own, but very few would conclude that the rider is operating in a manner consistent with any particular theory or principle of bicycle operation.

Also, for what it's worth, bike lanes and signs produce an awareness of bicyclists even when there are none actually using the facilities provided. No one notices VC until they see it. Bike facilities, on the other hand, are highly visible. I do not know whether this is helpful or not (I'm inclined to think that some awareness is a good thing, but there is no way to quantify any influence that it may have), but there it is.

4. Perhaps I should have added that last point here, instead. Bike facilities (I refuse either to call them "CS facilities," or to acknowledge that they are inspired by the CS "principle") increase visibility whether they are in use or not. I do not know if this is beneficial or not; while I am inclined to think that it is to some small extent, it is impossible to quantify and therefore not useful for any kind of scientific analysis. Any benefit provided is probably outweighed by the danger of poorly designed facilities. Well-designed bike lanes I can take or leave - they aren't hurting anyone. Poorly-designed bike lanes can be dangerous (and yet, oddly enough, are not the deathtraps VC advocates would often have us believe).

Further, dedicated bikeways can and DO serve a useful purpose if they are well planned with destination travel in mind. A direct route from Point A to Point B with points inbetween will get traffic. A good bikeway could be much more or at least equally as direct as taking the main roads and, let's face it, while I am willing to deal with traffic, it's nice to just focus on riding sometimes. On the other hand, poorly designed facilities deserve every bit of the criticism they get.

Helmet-Head

If you think that Forester or I mean to imply that that bikes are equivalent to other road vehicles, then we have a major misunderstanding. But I know you're not the only one who has gotten this impression.

Almost three weeks ago, in the opening post of the "Vehicular Cycling" thread under Advocacy I tried to nip this common misunderstanding in the bud:


https://www.bikeforums.net/advocacy-safety/91307-vehicular-cycling.html

I would like to know what Forester and/or I have written that leaves you and others with the idea that we are contending, or are implying, that bicycles are equivalent to vehicles.

The wording Forester has chosen in the VC principle is very precise. I don't know if you've given it the attention it deserves: Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles.

First, he does not say, "when they act as vehicles"; he says, "when they act as drivers of vehicles".
This subtle difference emphasizes the importance of comparing the people, not the vehicles they happen to be operating.

It also underscores the critical realization that we are sharing the road with people, who are sentient, not with cars, which are insentient. A critical aspect of vehicular cycling is communicating with drivers. If one views himself as sharing the road with (insentient) cars, there is no point in even trying to communicate. It's a subtle difference, but these kind of difference can have an effect on one's own thinking, and, in particular, in the subconscious. I believe that remembering and emphasizing the fact that it's drivers who are capable of reading and sending signals back and forth with us that are on the road, and not insentient cars, makes us much more likely to use communications in our traffic cycling, which is an important skill.


Second, he says, "Cyclists fare best ..." The implication here is that operating vehicularly is not perfect, but it is the best option among those realistically available to the cyclist. In other words... "Disagree? Fine, then what behavior other than acting as a vehicle driver do you suggest would cause cyclists to fare even better?"


Third, he says "... act and are treated as drivers...", as opposed to "... are treated and act as drivers...". The order is important, for it conveys the fact that in order to be treated as a driver of vehicle, you must first act as a driver of vehicle; you will not be treated as a driver of a vehicle if you don't act like one. This is a key concept because many cyclists who are resigned to being ignored by "cars" don't even ever try to get recognition on the road. They stay in the bike lanes (relying on the bike lane to keep motorists from hitting them, not the motorists' awareness of the cyclist's presence) and cling to the edge of the road.


Finally, including the "and are treated as drivers" clause emphasizes the fact that "faring well" is never entirely within the control of the cyclist. Acting like a vehicle driver is only part of it; you must also be accepted and treated as a vehicle driver (albeit, the driver of a narrow and low powered vehicle).


But I never interpreted an equivalence of bicycles to other vehicles in the wording of the VC principle or in anything else I've ever read by Forester, and I certainly never meant to imply such an equivalence in anything I've ever written. The implications of such a premise are of course absurd, as you point out. So, again, I would very much like to know what specifically Forester and/or I have written that leaves you and others with the idea that either of us is contending, or is implying, that bicycles are equivalent to vehicles.

Helmet-Head

Grolby - Excellent and very thoughtful post! Thank you!

I did not mean to imply that "cyclist separatism" is some kind of organized movement or "unified front". If anything, it is an unstated principle existent mostly only in the subconscious unquestioned corners of many minds. Of course, I'm no mind reader. I don't know what people really believe - heck, most people don't even know what they really believe. But I can say is that the behavior of most cyclists, and the statements of most people, appears to be consistent with an underlying belief that something like the "CS" principle is true: That cyclists fare best when they are separated from vehicular traffic. You describe these folks better than I:


Indeed, the problem is a "misunderstanding of how cyclists would best be served". They believe that "cyclists fare best when they are separated from vehicular traffic", while we believe that "cyclists fare best whey they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles." Thus, I don't understand why you say that "describing VC and 'CS' as opposing principles is fallacious." One says "X" will make cyclists fare best, and the other says cyclists would best be served with "Y". Sounds opposing to me...


Well, first of all, neither principle really exists explicitly in the minds of hardly anyone. Even very few vehicular cyclists could actually recite the VC principle, and of course I just made up the CS principle. But no one needs explicit awareness of a particular principle to believe it is true or false. After all, I could describe either principle to anyone and ask whether they believe it to be true or not. Their answer would apply before they even heard of the principle (ignoring the fact that thinking about the principle once they hear it stated might cause them to feel differently). In other words, even though no one has ever heard of the CS principle (except the maybe 5 people who have read this thread), many believe it to be true.

Now, consider someone who is not a cyclist, and has never ridden a bicycle in traffic much at all, if ever. They are driving a car down a road, and notice it has a bike lane. They read the driver's manual, which states they may not drive in bike lanes (except for all the exceptions). What do you think bike lanes and their associated separation laws convey to such a person - who has never thought much at all, if anything, about cycling in traffic, about cycling in traffic? It seems to me that bike lanes and the associated laws would cause such a person to be inclined to think that cyclists should be separated from motor traffic. Am I the only one who see the logic in that? Afer all, if motor traffic should not be separated from cyclist traffic, then what would be the point of of bike lanes? This is what I mean by bike lanes fostering belief in the principle, or idea if you will, that cyclists fare best when they are separated from vehicular traffic. And if you still don't buy that bike lanes foster the notion that cyclists don't belong on the roads with cars, and should be separated (at least into their own lanes), then will you at least concede that they reinforce that notion?


I'm not so sure of that. I don't see drivers treating bike lane stripes much different from fog lines or shoulder stripes. I don't believe that they make them think about cyclists. The signs too, I believe, are largely ignored as being irrelevant. After all, what useful information is conveyed to a motorist by a bike lane or bike lane sign? He already knows to stay in his lane (not cross the stripe), regardless of what's to the right of the stripe. What else matters to him?


I contend that motorists are much more aware of me when I am riding vehicularly than when I'm riding in a bike lane. I use a mirror, and I see it in their behavior. When I'm in a bike lane they almost universally pass me as if I'm not even there: they don't slow down, they don't change their lane position. But if I'm taking the lane, they of course are aware of me (or I wouldn't be here to write about it). And even when riding in a wide lane, to the right where drivers of slower vehicles belong, they tend to slow down and shift left much more often then when I'm riding in a bike lane.

Juha

I say both approaches have their place.

In my perfect world there would be a separate, well designed paved path network going everywhere and reserved just for bikes.

[edit for clarity] By "separate" I don't mean bike lanes. I mean something built completely separate from car lanes. [/edit]

In reality, of course, that turns out to be too expensive, not practical (due to e.g. space constraints in cities) or completely unnecessary in lighter traffic areas. Sometimes political will is not strong enough to push for a proper separated path or to maintain it. Still, most of the bike paths CdCf described above are far better than riding amongst the cagers. For once I know what I'm talking about as we have the same approach as CdCf described for Sweden.

During the last decade or so traffic planners here have finally started to pay serious attention in designing these paths. The paths they currently build seldom have obvious design flaws such as blind corners, abrupt changes from one side of the street to another, or too "tight" general layout to accommodate anything faster than 20 km/h. Riding on them is usually very enjoyable. Given a choice of two routes I will choose the one with separate path, even if that route is a bit longer.

There are still issues to deal with: it is still quite common to come across a cut off section of the path due to construction work / whatever, and no indicated alternative route (not really a planner's fault). That would never happen on a road. The paths both here and Sweden are combined ped/bike paths as far as I know. That can be a problem in densely populated areas. And if you're a road racer with an average speed of 45 km/h, you should be on the street. And, as I mentioned at first, these paths will not be built everywhere. So I think vehicular cycling has its place, too.

--J

CommuterRun

I don't like bike lanes, I have found them to be more dangerous than a wide traffic lane, but less dangerous than the sidewalk. However, I have also found bike lanes can work to my advantage when traffic is heavy and slow (it's never heavy and fast on my usual commute), but I could do this with a wide traffic lane.

CdCf

Yes, we have the same approach here. But I still dislike the bike paths.
For the reasons I mentioned. Riding on them seriously damages your bike, and the bike handling riding over that gravel is bad.
I wouldn't mind bike paths if it was up to me to decide when to use them and when not to use them.
But the law says otherwise, and that's why I don't want to see ANY bike paths being built!!!

CommuterRun

I should add that from what I've seen bike paths and MUPs aren't really any better than sidewalks.