Cyclaholic

I have come to the conclusion that VC doesn't work. Here's my reasons in the hope that we may have some positive discussion.

VC makes no sense to me, it's like having no footpaths and legislating that pedestrians have the same rights to the road as drivers. Would it be reasonable to expect pedestrians to walk on the road and practice "Vehichular Walking"? sounds ridiculous but look at it fron the driver's point of view, not much difference in the level of disruption to the traffic, or in the chance of hitting a cyclist rolling along taking the lane and a pedestrian doing the same thing, even if the pedestrian had a little red blinkie clipped on his belt. Both are much slower than traffic, both are the ones that die when hit by a car. Yet pedestrians have a totally separate infrastructure to facilitate walking without it having to be shared with any other mode of transport, not just a white stripe painted on the road but physical separation.

VC asks me to put my life, essentially, in the hands of the lowest common denominator that qualifies for a license - and even lower considering the number of unlicensed drivers out there. In a car-bike collision we are on the receiving end, a car may receive relatively minor cosmetic damage and the driver will be barely even aware of the collision that would permanently disable or even kill us, the driver of the car is oblivious to that because s/he is insulated from bodily harm, regardless of how much education is provided they will never be in actual physical danger, so having and 'accident' with a cyclist has no immediate consequences. The average driver sees those sort of 'minor' collisions as little more than an inconvenience. That's the relatively good drivers, then there's the obnoxious aggressive a$$oles that think they own the road and we have no right to it, regardless of how wrong they are they have a four wheeled weapon. I have come to the conclusion that putting myself in the middle of the road in front of a slightly sociopathic moron, an incompetent driver, or an unskilled driver often enough puts me in an unacceptably high risk of getting killed. That's why VC doesn't work for me. If 30% - 50% of vehichles on the road were bicycles that would be different, and in the future it may happen, but that's not how it is. At the present time I'm usually the only bike in a sea of cars, so being the odd one out puts the odds against me. Think about it, every time you take the lane you have no way of knowing if the car behind you is the one that will kill you, your life is 100% in the hands of a complete stranger.

Bike lanes are better but you still have drivers that may or may not have seen you (or may have seen you but not particularly care) flying past you and all it takes is one of them to make a mistake and hit you from behind. It would be MUCH better if the bike lanes were physically separated with some sort of substantal barries from the car lanes, and not provided an easy place to park a car.

I think an even better alternative is to develop existing 'rights of way' like laneways, disused train tracks, walkways through parks, even wide footpaths into a bicycle network. It's happening here in Sydney and it works really well. There are so many opportunities to develop a cycleway if you think outside the box, like the water supply pipeline here now has the equivalent of a bicycle highway running along the previously unused easement, it goes for miles and has shorter 'local' bike paths feeding onto it. railway lines are another opportunity, the possibilities are vast. I now do most of my traveling 'off-road' and it's so stress free, I could complain about the pedestrians that have no clue how to share the paths with bikes but if that's my only gripe I say that's a good gripe to have compared to the VC alternative. Bikes need so much less width than cars, and can share the same pathway with pedestrians that it's really not that hard to create viable cycle networks.

VC doesn't work for me, I think it gives you a false sense of security and is an unacceptable substitute for truly functional cycling infrastructure. I don't think drivers and cyclists can safely share the same roadway, human beings make mistakes, in this case the driver's mistake is just too likely to be fatal to the cyclist for VC to work.

LCI_Brian

I practice and support VC, but I don't have the time to write a reply. I'm sure others will chime in, and hopefully this will be an interesting discussion.

In the meantime, have you read this article supporting VC? This addresses some of the issues you point out, such as why we don't have "vehicular walking".

https://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/page3.html

Helmet Head

I rest my case.

jeff williams

I'm coming back to post. Ya. On 'faves'.

jeff williams

Sick cycling skills save my a$$, not playing 'car'.
I've bunny hopped stuff ABOVE 25 MPH TO SAVE MY LIFE.
I 'VC' in traffic to help the cagers judge my motion etc.
Anything can change in an instant cycling in traffic.
I've outridden accidents.

CB HI

VC and a mirror have worked well for me for the last 23 years.

77Univega

--- That article is a clear endorsement of vehicular cycling and in their table:
https://www.humantransport.org/bicycl...tics1/img6.gif
they prove that the "Road with on street bike-lane facility" has the lowest rate of crashes.

galen_52657

First, there are lots of places and plenty of times when pedestrians must 'walk vehicularly'. Out in the country, there are no sidewalks. I see people walking and jogging all the time out in the road.

In the metro areas, during heavy snow storms, the plows throw 4' of snow up on the sidewalks. Folks who use the bus and other pedestrians just walk out in the road. I don't see a problem with it.

As far as a complete and seperate infrastructure of MUP's - it just won't happen in any eastern seaboard US cities. There is just not enough room or money or want to build that sort of thing.

I don't follow the complete VC doctine, but I cycle in the road 3-5 times a week and hold my lane possition - 2' +/- left of the white line.

Blackberry

"For example" is not proof. Not having a mirror and having no idea what VC means has worked for me for over 23 years.

I've cycled in more than a dozen countries. I've always preferred bike lanes and especially true bike paths, which separate us from exhaust- belching, loud, dangerous vehicles and which make cycling a true pleasure.

Bekologist

I don't have any problems riding in the road. I also like bike paths.

I think the real problem with VC isn't the cyclist, it's the drivers

mandovoodoo

I can't imagine being able to get the places I go on special paths ever. I'm happy the roads around here are paved, which is a big burden on our county.

Where on earth would the money for these special paths come from? The money for maintenance etc?

What I've noticed is that where a badly designed, near lethal, low speed path exists that law enforcement and drivers expect me to use it, even if I can't maintain any kind of reasonable speed. Paths that I've seen are never actually safe to cycle on. They won't handle the speed, they're too narrow, and they're full of things. Debris, bumps, stop signs, posts, blind curves, strollers, scooters, walkers, dogs, squirrels.

ROAD bike. ROAD bike. I like ROAD bike. I don't need PATH bike with training wheels.

nova

As i said vc is worthless with out driver ed. Great idea that just doesnt work with out the education of drivers.
Not happened so much recently but i use to have drivers tell me to get my bike off the road because it is illegal to ride them on the road.Others told me i was only allowed on the far right lane as close as possible to the curb.

Vc cant work as long as there are drivers who think its illegal to ride bike in the flow of trafic. Some drivers think bikes are to be ridden agaisnt the flow of trafic. Id say in a real study of drivers wed see some frightenting misconcptions driver have about bikes and bike riding relating to riding on the roads.

Id love it if summit county built bike only roads criss crossing this county. Ther are so many places i could go if they even set up a 5 mile grid of bike roads (as in 5 miles between one road and another with points of intrest exits). There was such a project planned years ago and you can see some of it here and there along highways. If you live in ohio look off to your right and left as you drive on highways leading to other states like kentucky wva etc. Youll see areas where the gaurd rail is set inward like 5 feet from the pavement edge and weird 7 foot support rail extension on many bridges along major highways such as 76 77 and 21. What this is is the left overs of the planed ohio vally bike web. Construction was started but never compleated. Then in places like new york there are finished examples. Like the brooklen bridge if i recall has a totaly segragated bike lane on the bridge. Totaly isolated from the car lanes. Im sure there are many other examples of unfinished and cancled projects and finished ones in the us.

Some of the trails found in this map were going to be part f it this also shows desegnated bike routes that cross the state and in a few cases link to other bike routes and trail systems in other state (like indiana for example)
https://www.dot.state.oh.us/bike/MAPList.htm . Who needs vc when you got trails for bikes (road bike ridable) where yu can crss the entire state.

Blackberry

And who is suggesting that cyclists only ride on paths? No one.

nova

Man you must live in a place with sucky trails. All trails will tend to have blind turns. Here i can ride 8 miles with out hitting ruff areas in the tow path. That area is about 3/4 miles long. After that i can ride i think 18 more miles on hard packed smooth lime stone and black top. I dont get going much above 18 mph. But of corse 18mph on the tril will let you cover the same distance as going 25 mph on the roads. Fewer stops fewer hills fewer hassles.and a more enjoyable ride. If your trails are in bad condition get ahold of your parks dept. Here they only go out 2x a year for repairs checks and when reports come in. Im going to donate my time next year (they require 40 hours a season min) to check on trail conditions etc. I do way more than that in time on the towpath any how so might as well make it official.

royalflash

VC is a nice idea and often makes the best sense as a cycling strategy (in its less extreme forms) when sharing the road with car-traffic but where the VC advocates go badly wrong is in then (after having luckily survived a few years) triumphantly extrapolating this strategy out of all proportion and concluding that cyclists are best served by sharing roads with drunken speeding motorists and crazy cement truck drivers. Hence, there is no need for any special cycling facilities (no segregation).

If this dictum is ever questioned by querying how for example can total segregation be more dangerous than cycling on the road then the VCers just respond "yes well that would be better but total segregation can never be achieved in practice".

So VC advocates just end up supporting more or less the status quo and blocking improvements. Obviously supporting the status quo and arguing that any improvements are too difficult is logic which is hard to overcome (however wrong it is). If that is what VC advocacy is about (just accepting the status quo and making the best of it) then OK but stop pretending that VC on roads with traffic is the best option.

The original poster had some valid points to make comparing cyclists with peds. You could also look at the situation from the opposite point of view. What if airport runways were abolished and cars were forced to share the roads with large and extremely fast jet aircraft? would that be safe? surely if only they would drive vehicularly

galen_52657

That has got to be the dumbest analogy ever posted. If cars could fly... maybe??? Airplanes LAND on the runways dude... The actual use for airplane transportation is IN THE AIR......

And flying vehicles of every size and speed share the airspace....

bshow1

That makes no sense. VC has nothing to do with what drivers think is legal or illegal. It has to do with how drivers deal with other vehicles around them, so they can get where they're going without hitting anything or being hit.

It's simply based on the idea that if you want to ride in traffic, you can do so most safely if you act like a vehicle (obey the rules of the road, ride with traffic, slower vehicles stay to the right, etc.). It's makes one assumption: that no driver is going to intentionally run you down. But you have to make that assumption to be a car driver as well, so I don't see the big deal.

Why expect drivers to learn some new set of rules for dealing with cyclists (e.g. what are the rules for bike lanes?) They already know how to deal with other vehicles; act like one and they'll know how to deal with you.

noisebeam

I gather from your post you are not so much anti-VC, instead you seem to be advocating minimized road use, with primary bicycle travel on separated paths. It is important to separate the issues.

Paths vs. roads (with no to some bike facilities) is one discussion. This seems to be the direction you are going.
VC vs. not-VC while on the roads is another discussion.

There also seem to be some misconceptions about VC:
VC is not 'taking the lane'
VC is not blocking traffic
VC is not avoiding bike facilities
VC is not relying 100% on others around you so accidents don't happen.
VC is not a personality

A simple way to say what VC is to ride you bike primarily in a visible and predictable manner and with that gained visibility negotiate/communicate with drivers or get out of the way (move to secondary position or worse case bail) when that communication does not occur. Predictable means following the rules and conventions of the road (pass on left, use turning lanes, etc) None of this prevents the use of bike lanes or prevents one from using a sidepath.

Al

LittleBigMan

If you have reached that conclusion for yourself, who am I to argue?

As for me, I have been bicycling to work for about a decade, and my route for most of that time has been on a variety of normal roads, none of which have significant shoulders. My round-trip is 30 miles, all during rush hour traffic in the metro Atlanta area, a place the fear-mongers all say is a bad place to ride. In the morning, I take the same route I would take if I had to drive my car.

It seems to be working just fine for me. Thank goodness I don't have to wait for some governmental authority to build me a separate facility to take me to work, I'd be waiting until I was old and gray (well, I already have some gray.) I'm still having the time of my life!

I would never try to minimize your decision, it's a personal one. Just like my decision is.

chipcom 

That is a given. But, hard cold reality is that no matter what level of laws, driver education, bike paths, bikes lanes, etc we implement, you can't overcome the 10% factor. No matter what you do, 10% don't get with the program, thus 10% of all drivers will always be a danger to other drivers, cyclists, peds, pets and property.

So while we can agree that the problem is the driver, the solution is not with laws, education, etc - the solution is the cyclist. Be aware of everything going on around you and always plan on the other guy, whether it be a car, ped or another cyclist, doing the stupidest thing possible, allowing us to proactively protect ourselves, rather than just reacting when stuff happens. It's worked for me both in a car and on a bike for a lot of years, knock on wood.

Personally, I like the idea of a combination of better, cycle friendly roads, bike lanes, MUPS and MUS (multi-use sidewalks). The more options you have to get from point A to point B, the better.

slagjumper

When ever I am on the road I am mostly VC. I have changed some of my commute for a VC alternative. Even on the most wicked area for cars, I can do it. But, I do not allways use the streets. And I occasionally blow off controls if there is no one around, or if an average pedestrian would do it.

I would support laws that enforced the idea that bikes on the road are to be considered as cars. This means giving moving violation tickets to cyclsists, and more "share the road" signage. I would not support removing existing MUPs or Bike Lanes, and support more education for mass transit, police and delivery drivers. Some bike right of way questions on drivers license tests would be useful too. I am not 100% car free and not 100% VC.

Helmet Head

What exactly do these 10% do?

Run red lights? Handled - defensive drivers don't enter intersections even on a green without making sure it's safe and clear.

Left hook? Handled. Don't assume they are aware of you until proven otherwise.

Right hook? Handled. Move left, monitor with mirror. In the rare case where moving left does not deter them from right hooking, you've got "escape space" on your right...

Right cross? Handled. Move left, don't assume they are aware of you until proven otherwise.

Etc. etc.

So, yeah, there is still the drunk driver who careens across the road from the oncoming lanes without warning, but that's hardly 10%... that's more like .000001%.

I think it's disabling to view the "uncontrollable" as significant a figure as 10% - that makes it seem like your safety is much more out of your control than it really is.

Remember, the primary defensive driving principle is that all collisions can be avoided by either driver behaving defensively. There is no reason that cannot apply to cyclists.

Blackberry

If that's the case, maybe I'm VC after all. I feel like the guy who said, "I've been speaking prose all my life and never even knew it."

Helmet Head

Blackberry - All experienced cyclists are at least partially VC. See the link in my signature for a more detailed description of VC at Wikipedia.

royalflash

I don´t think the analogy is that far off- imagining totally dissimilar vehicles with different speeds sharing the same space but that isn´t the main point