Vehicular Cycling: Cycling's Secret Sect

[genec]

yes. the point was Mikhail Cooper-Anderson's unveiling of the secret sect of vehicular cycling. i think most of us here are familiar with the obstructionist message associated with the rabid, militant Vehikular Cyklist and their illusory grail of supreme vehicularity.

Problems come when the VC infiltrate planning departments under the guise of promoting bicycling, like that Dallas bike cooridinator or much of the North Carolina 'bicycle driving' contingent that works with NCDOT to come up with ways to NOT add bike lanes to roadways (16 foot wide lanes haven't they heard of the right hook? sheesh)

Obstructionism to bike specificity of roadscape - that is proven to work in other countries and strongly implicated in the new surge of american bicycling - is the modus operandi of the cult of the supreme vehikularists.

The issue of the Dallas bike coordinator is of course ironically laughable in that his success means his job is not needed. Guess he never thought of that.

[sggoodri]

Steve- if that road is signed anything over 35mph, 'road diet' would be strongly weighted for the inclusion of bike lanes. wide lanes and higher speed traffic are NOT a design accommodation for the vast majority of US bicyclists and would never meet safe routes to school criteria for example without a bikelane or other preferred facility of bicycle traffic.

I think the road is actually signed 25. Speeding was more of a problem before the fronting properties developed. Now drivers will hit 40 sometimes but have to slow down for traffic quickly. All of the capacity limitations on that road are for left turning traffic; there is no capacity reason to have more than one through lane, so a road diet to one through lane is viable as a way to get prudent drivers to limit the speeds of other drivers.

None of Cary's thoroughfare road diets (planned or completed) have included striped bike lanes; they have been wide outside lanes. Some of these locations have on-street parking, with inadequate room for a bike lane outside the door zone; others have a high density of intersections and driveways, such that striped bike lanes would exacerbate right hook concerns. We have good data showing that adding bike lane stripes don't reduce vehicle speeds compared to wide outside lanes.

[Bekologist]

but do wide lanes exacerbate right hooks? and how do cyclists tend to position themselves at intersections with significant right turing traffic? going against FHWA guidelines in a sellout to car traffic? how distinctly autocentric of your community!




anyway, so glad to hear your community is trying to make the roads a more comfortable place to share with high speed multi ton vehicles; worldwide evidence suggests to truly and equitably plan for bikes as transportation much more is merited.

[invisiblehand]

yeah, that's why rural North Dakota and small towns in the great basin don't need bike infrastructure like germany. but most americans live in urban settings, didn't you know that? 80 percent would be characterized as living in an urban pocket or larger.

over HALF of all americans live in cities larger than 200,000.

surely we can do something for at least half of all americans to make their urbanized communities more amenable to bicycle transportation by more americans.

trying, and flailing, to point fingers at population density is no excuse.

The definition of "urban" is quite important to your argument. If you look at a list of US municipalities sorted by population, I think that their density and other important transportation related characteristics have considerable variability. Consider the average travel time to work.** Moreover, most research that discusses urban-rural distinctions in the US rely on the US Census Bureau classifications of urban and rural. Examining recent descriptions of the classification process here and here raises doubt that these stylized urban-rural population statistics adequately describe the beneficiaries of more cycling infrastructure described early in the thread.

[Bekologist]

dubious. the doubting thomas approach. americans live predominately in urban environments. that have streets, stores, etc. that allow the average trip outside the home to be two miles or less, isn't it?

yes, the part time epistemological approach of "too uncertain" to ascertain anything about typical towns and cities in america, and how public rights of way can be better designed to facilitate daily transportational bicycling.

Oregons' approach of widening any new or rework of a highway project to include wide shoulders in rural areas to facilitate safe right of way bicycling is one blanket approach that ANY state could include in their transportation plan to better facilitate those riders that live outside of populated areas and afford them a safe route into town. and travellers interested in wider ranging travel.

It's fairly easy to understand the mechanics of traffic and bike planning; the FHWA guidelines are an excellent place to start if a sense of daunting variability about the different types of streetscapes prevents acceptance of the urbanity of most of america's population.

[invisiblehand]

dubious. the doubting thomas approach. americans live predominately in urban environments. that have streets, stores, etc. that allow the average trip outside the home to be two miles or less, isn't it?

yes, the part time epistemological approach of "too uncertain" to ascertain anything about typical towns and cities in america, and how public rights of way can be better designed to facilitate daily transportational bicycling.

Good to see that "trying and flailing" still describes Bek. I'll keep it simple. The way you use "urban" groups together very different areas making statistics based on that grouping less relevant. Continuing to use it naively as support for your argument will only convince people who already believe your argument.

[Bekologist]

the variety of streetscapes in the wide variety of town and cities in the USA makes planning for bikes in these diverse areas less relevant?

Somehow, distilling how to best plan for bicycle traffic becomes too uncertain when people start using terms like 'urban' for you, invisiblehand?

A generalization that most americans live in what can be considered urban areas is a stumbling block for you?

There's a variety of streetscape and a variety of population density, yep. Detailed in FHWA guidelines for the development of roadway bicycle facilities.

"Having arrived in Bismark, I recognized it wasn't Boston immediately after stepping off the train."

[The Human Car]

but do wide lanes exacerbate right hooks? and how do cyclists tend to position themselves at intersections with significant right turing traffic? going against FHWA guidelines in a sellout to car traffic? how distinctly autocentric of your community!

FWIW A lot of our WOL's at intersections with significant turning traffic get a additional left turn lane, so the WOL disappears and through traffic has to merge into one lane so right hooks are not that much of a problem.

[sggoodri]

but do wide lanes exacerbate right hooks? and how do cyclists tend to position themselves at intersections with significant right turing traffic?

If there is 16' of asphalt to work with on intersection approach, the choices are to leave it as a 16' wide outside lane or to stripe the right few feet as a bike lane, with or without a dashed line.

Many bike lane proponents believe that bike lane striping should end entirely before right turn locations in order to reduce the problem of right hooks. Many believe that education should be used to encourage cyclists to ignore the bike lane stripes at intersections and merge farther left, out of the bike lane, to discourage right hooks. Many believe that mandatory bike lane use laws should be changed to exempt through cyclists from being legally required to stay in the striped curbside bike lane. And some believe that motorists can be educated and enforced to merge right into the area signed as "BIKE ONLY" when approaching a right turn.

By not having a striped bike lane, but just a WOL, there is no visual indication that cyclists should stay curbside and right-turning motorists turn from a position farther left, and no implication that doing otherwise violates the mandatory bike lane use law. Some cyclists will still choose to operate curbside, but they will find it more difficult to overtake on the right, and some motorists will still attempt to pass those cyclists on the left just before turning. However, these problems occur less often with the WOL design.

If the road has additional room for a right turn only lane, then either a wide lane or striped bike lane may be positioned left of a narrow right turn only lane, encouraging cyclists to stay in the through lane and right-turning motorists to move right, avoiding right hooks. But the road diets I've described don't/won't have right turn only lanes, so this not an option.

Note that on road diet projects that will include a raised center median and curb and gutter, 16' is the minimum desired pavement width between the gutter and raised median. This width allows fire trucks and ambulances to pass parked disabled vehicles without climbing over the median.

[rando]

a wide variety of approaches can be used in different situations to accommodate Bikes and peds on roadways, as well as making them more inviting for all. the "no accommodations" attitude promoted by many of the Vehikular Cykling Kult is counterproductive to getting regular people to consider biking.

[chipcom]

No, it's just worthy of discussion. Perhaps the biggest issue being WHY? Is it simply a matter of wanting to be a member of a unique club? Is speed the primary motivating factor, as some suggest? Why is the prevailing attitude "my way IS the highway."

Every pursuit has its hard core extremists. Can't live with em, can't bury em in the back yard.

[genec]

Every pursuit has its hard core extremists. Can't live with em, can't bury em in the back yard.

True that, but do the "hard cores" try to deny that pursuit for others? It would be like NASCAR trying to close down some local dirt track... or the NBA going after neighborhood hoops and pickup games, or PGA trying to close putt putt. "No, you can't do that... it interferes with our rights... bla bla bla"

The ironic thing about my comment is that the VC Sect are not the professionals of the sport... they are just the twisted sisters of cycling... with a spokesman or two.

[chipcom]

True that, but do the "hard cores" try to deny that pursuit for others? It would be like NASCAR trying to close down some local dirt track... or the NBA going after neighborhood hoops and pickup games, or PGA trying to close putt putt. "No, you can't do that... it interferes with our rights... bla bla bla"

The ironic thing about my comment is that the VC Sect are not the professionals of the sport... they are just the twisted sisters of cycling... with a spokesman or two.

Many hardcore zealots try to exclude the masses...and anyone who doesn't do things in their proscribed manner...all the time. It's how they ensure that they can feel superior to everyone else under the guise of protecting the purity of their passion. Hard core Foresterites (which IMO is more accurate than the more general vc label) fit that pretty well, don't you think?

[The Human Car]

I find it rather interesting that AAA (mid-Atlantic division in particular) can lobby , issue statements and policy without polling its members and without any verifiable "facts." And in someways all cycling advocacy falls into a similar trap, where someone "in charge" knows a few that agree with them so they push their issues. Some issues can be fine, some can be tolerated but others are like "seriously where did you pull that out of."

Some overstress bike lanes at any cost, at any width and anywhere, others stress sidewalk cycling (by calling a sidewalk a "trail") and then we have the VC self appointed leader. Not that there are not nice bike lanes, nice sidepaths and trails and nice places to ride VC. It's trying to get one of these in a place or in such a way it is loses its original appeal/safety aspect that bothers me.

In short most of us are subjected to the lack of open debate and limited vision of those "in charge."

[Bekologist]

Many hardcore zealots try to exclude the masses...and anyone who doesn't do things in their proscribed manner...all the time. It's how they ensure that they can feel superior to everyone else under the guise of protecting the purity of their passion. Hard core Foresterites (which IMO is more accurate than the more general vc label) fit that pretty well, don't you think?

Maybe they should be called the SV, the "supreme vehikularists". those that ardently believe the supremacy of just acting like a vehicle trumps any infrastructure planning that includes bike specific elements within the right of way for roadway bicycling.


..and are willing to fight against it or even make a career out of quashing Dallas bicycling for instance.

[squirtdad]

snipped

Many bike lane proponents believe that bike lane striping should end entirely before right turn locations in order to reduce the problem of right hooks. Many believe that education should be used to encourage cyclists to ignore the bike lane stripes at intersections and merge farther left, out of the bike lane, to discourage right hooks. Many believe that mandatory bike lane use laws should be changed to exempt through cyclists from being legally required to stay in the striped curbside bike lane. And some believe that motorists can be educated and enforced to merge right into the area signed as "BIKE ONLY" when approaching a right turn.



.

The Bike lanes I am familar with (San Jose, CA,) have dashed lines at places where cars make right hand turns. it is legal for cars to use the bike lane for that purpose. The length of the dashing appears to directly relate to how much right hand turn traffic there is. (ie right off of curtner at Meridian for san jose locals). I have a choice.....wait behind cars or filter up to the intersection and position at the left of the lane...which still allows drivers room for a right hand turn. All legal.

So to me this is practical cylist behavior...I have a lane, I also share the lane in situations and I deal with it.

If you want to call this VC behavior fine....but I simply think it is practical. just like I take the lane to make left hand turns

I like bike lanes because

* they are not ambiguous....they clearly state to all Bikes belong on the road, This is direct practical education to drivers since few really know the laws. (sharrows in my mind are ambiguous since no one can just look at one and figure it out)

* they do not physically separate bikes from cars, which i think reinforces the idea that bikes don't belong on the road.

* Go far more places than any local MUPs or proposed infrstructure

* are cheap compared to other options

[genec]

Many hardcore zealots try to exclude the masses...and anyone who doesn't do things in their proscribed manner...all the time. It's how they ensure that they can feel superior to everyone else under the guise of protecting the purity of their passion. Hard core Foresterites (which IMO is more accurate than the more general vc label) fit that pretty well, don't you think?

First, I agree that it is the Fosterites we are discussing... the VC Sect as mentioned in the article... I state this emphatically as I ride vehicular and have very few issues at all with cycling specific facilities... my objections being that often such facilities are not well thought out... but then with the minimal support such facilities receive by certain vocal members of the cycling community, is it any wonder that support for them is so poor.

Second, with regard to "hardcore zealots trying to exclude the masses," I honestly cannot think of a good example that parallels what happens in cycling. I am an amateur racing sailor (meaning unpaid non-professional) and regularly race in events with the likes of folks like Dennis Conner and others... and these same folks also attend events and encourage amateur sailors such as myself. Do we follow a set of strict rules... yes we do... Colregs and the racing rules. Perhaps the dichotomy lies in the fact that there are no "facilities" per se for sailors... we all use the same waterways. On the other hand, the "hard core zealots" do encourage sailing for anyone interested.... to the point that there are public events and free training available.

Now perhaps this is not a good parallel, because similar training is available for cyclists... and certainly "if the rules are followed" the Fosterites don't object.

The "issues" arise because of the dichotomies of motor traffic and the use of the roads... the general public does not see that as a good mix, and Fosterites simply don't care about that as an issue... and dismiss it vehemently.

I am really trying to envision a good parallel situations... and I can't, as the issue of the driving public and amateur cycling vrs Fosterites seems to be unique in my mind.

[sggoodri]

It seems to me that there are a very few vehicular cycling advocates who do an exceptionally poor job of explaining their viewpoints, either by being so abrasive as to turn off their audience, or by not taking the time to adequately address the concerns of reasonable skeptics. These advocates don't maintain power for very long.

Many other vehicular cycling advocates do a much better job of explaining their positions, and have had the effect of improving the design of many bicycle facilities, improving laws related to cycling, and improving education about better cycling practices. These vehicular cycling advocates promote cycling for everyone, understand and respect the concerns of skeptics, and promote policies that make it easier and more pleasant for everyone to travel by bicycle.

Some vehicular cycling skeptics attempt to paint the second group as being the same as the first, and cast all vehicular cyclists as opposing improvement of cycling conditions for more cyclists. This strategy does as much or more harm to the skeptics' credibility as it does to the vehicular cyclists' credibility.

[genec]

It seems to me that there are a very few vehicular cycling advocates who do an exceptionally poor job of explaining their viewpoints, either by being so abrasive as to turn off their audience, or by not taking the time to adequately address the concerns of reasonable skeptics. These advocates don't maintain power for very long.

Many other vehicular cycling advocates do a much better job of explaining their positions, and have had the effect of improving the design of many bicycle facilities, improving laws related to cycling, and improving education about better cycling practices. These vehicular cycling advocates promote cycling for everyone, understand and respect the concerns of skeptics, and promote policies that make it easier and more pleasant for everyone to travel by bicycle.

Some vehicular cycling skeptics attempt to paint the second group as being the same as the first, and cast all vehicular cyclists as opposing improvement of cycling conditions for more cyclists. This strategy does as much or more harm to the skeptics' credibility as it does to the vehicular cyclists' credibility.

Agreed.

The problems that do arise tend to occur when a "political approach" is taken to cycling vice a practical approach. The former generally includes long discussion of cyclists' rights, the latter tends to include discussion on improving things for all cyclists.

[Seattle Forrest]

The VC camp is a downright HAZARD to cyclists rights right to the road nowadays, with an appalling action plan to go about repealing protections cyclists are presently afforded under current state laws, and their fairly united VC front against planning for bikes in communities, safe passing legislation, safe routes to schools programs, etc.

"I would never ride on a MUP, so you shouldn't be allowed to, either."

That sums VC up for me. Although the last time this came up in a thread I found myself involved with, you (personally) had a better term for it: obstructionism. It has the end result of keeping far more people off of bikes than on them.

[genec]

"I would never ride on a MUP, so you shouldn't be allowed to, either."

That sums VC up for me. Although the last time this came up in a thread I found myself involved with, you (personally) had a better term for it: obstructionism. It has the end result of keeping far more people off of bikes than on them.

Well stated...

and just for the record, there are those of us that ride in a vehicular manner that don't condone the obstructionism...

[Seattle Forrest]

I tend to ride in a vehicular manner, much of the time. On the other hand, I would never try to be confused for a car. I think being able to run red lights when it's safe to, is part of the bargain of being a cyclist, and I know that rubs VCs the wrong way. I also think traffic jams are made "by and for" autos, and I go around them, even if that means "filtering" to the front - I don't weave through different lanes, but I'll share the rightmost one of them and cut to the front, if I won't otherwise make the light. Avoiding that kind of mess is one of the reasons I cycle instead of driving. ( Mind you, I own a car, and it will take me camping tonight - but my bike is the appropriate tool for commuting. )

On the other hand, I mostly ride on the streets. Almost never on the sidewalks, because that's obnoxious as well as dangerous. I enjoy some MUPs, though. I don't think many VCs would count me as one of their own, even if I act much like a car other than in the ways I've just described. ( High speed, turn signals, lane position, etc. )

I just realize it's not for everyone. The bike advocacy I do tends to be taking newbie friends out for rides; I paid for a rental for a married couple, and one of them has been a bike commuter for a few years since then, having rediscovered how much fun bikes are. I'm more concerned about people like this than about people like us, who more or less know how to navigate the streets. And I'm more interested in using whatever clout we have to get more cyclists on the roads, or the trails. I think more people on bikes translates to more clout for all of us in the long run, and more safety in the immediate term.

So, I have no idea what that makes me ... other than a guy who enjoys cycling. But I do get annoyed at what I see as obstructionism.

[rando]

I agree, it's the obstructionism and the closed-mindedness that irks me.

[electrik]

I agree, it's the obstructionism and the closed-mindedness that irks me.

I think the obstructionism stems from entitlement which some cyclists take too far... this is why i don't run reds or blow stop signs. Keeping the entitlement down helps with the closed-mindedness also. In general it helps to keep things moving smoothly.

[botto]

* North America isn't copenhagen or amsterdam or Europe (not that all of Europe is bike nirvana) and will never be.

amsterdam isn't bike nirvana.