Originally Posted by Helmet Head
Here's another problem I have with Brian's argument.
One of the oft-stated criticisms of vc is that there are so few cyclists doing it; it's supposedly "strange" or unexpected, for a cyclist to act like a driver of a vehicle. It's said that the problem is that it's not accepted. The obvious solution is to increase the numbers of cyclists riding vehicular, to make it more of the norm.
But Brian's argument is that as you have increased numbers of vehicular cyclists, something (the cycling, the motoring, both?) gets harder, to the point where the roadway system cannot "sustain" motor traffic and such a large number of vehicular cyclists simultanously, though he does not specify what exactly happens as result of the "nonsustainability" (as opposed to his duct tape analogy, where what happens is clear: the broken bumper falls off).
In short, Brian's argument amounts to:
Cyclists must stay out of the way of motorists. Sure, with small numbers of cyclists, the "system" can tolerate it, but as the numbers of cyclists increase, cyclists getting in the way of motorists is not sustainable; motorists must be able to proceed as if the cyclists are not there. Therefore, we need separate cycle facilities to keep cyclists out of the way of motorists, and bike lanes, though far from perfect, are a step in the right direction
.
No?
No. Nice try to get my argument to fit your world, but you present a strawman in the grandest sense. I did outline what I thought would happen. Drivers would take to playing "dodge the cyclist" and we would get negotiation by horn. There are examples of this in developing countries. In fact, this is probably the way a car negotiates a bicycle crowded street in China you cited in a previous post. A ROW system (such as we have) fundamentally cannot stand vehicles having to change lanes every few seconds in order to take into account shared lane users.
You keep coming back to the phrase "as if the cyclists are not there;" hammering it as if it is a political talking point. If you are meaning in the same sense that they pass other same direction cars as if they are not there, then YES,
as if the cyclists are not there. However, if you mean that cars simply don't treat cyclists, don't notice, don't take them into account, then NO,
not as if the cyclists are not there. Which is it? You cannot have it both ways.
I expect a system which lets cars pass with the same care and awareness as is given other same direction traffic in adjacent lanes. No more, no less. When you pass a car (in a car) on the highway in an adjacent lane, do you give them wide berth? If you are like every other driver on the road, you do not. Yet you are aware of the car you are passing, and you watch it to make sure it does not drift into you. It is this casual awareness I am after and think that our traffic system should strive for as it seeks to integrate cyclists.