Originally Posted by
Helmet Head
Well stated, John. Too bad so few will read it.
It is ironic that the VC advocates are often referred to as the ideologues, when we are the ones who practice daily what we preach - that's being realistic - and it's the "bike advocates" who hold Amsterdam, downtown Portland or some other OPAC as the "ideal" round hole into which they wish to pound their segregated cycling square peg, while they (if they cycle at all) basically practice what they denigrate (vehicular cycling) during the times they are present in reality.
#1- while some of us may take issue with your or JF's very particular definitions of (vehicular cycling) I don't necessarily see the basic concept of riding as a vehicle and following the rules of the road and local traffic law being denigrated. I do see the vehicular cycling "ideal", which has no models anywhere in the world to even remotely demonstrate it's effectiveness*, being denigrated as a one size fits all solution.
#2. Having visions of improvements to transportation infrastructure is just as realistic as riding one's bike everyday in whatever fashion safely gets one from point A to B. Do you imagine those of us who cycle regularly but advocate for bikeways as part of an integrated system of transportation by bike ride on sidewalks and the wrong way down highways or not at all until such a system is available?
*edit: I'm sure this will get a rather strident response. But what I mean here is- I have ridden in Amsterdam and cities with extensive bike infrastructures I see how those systems work they are demonstrable in their environments. Please tell me of a city anywhere, particularly in America where I can ride and see vehicular cycling promoted and practiced by a large percentage of cyclists and supported by law enforcement encouraged by the municipality devoid of any other special facilities for cyclists.