Verbose

You're pretty much right on point with how things are set up here. The newer communities (Baldwin Park, for the locals), specifically those built around more of a "village" concept of being all-inclusive, have clearly built their bike lanes and paths from the ground up to mesh well with the city layout. Other areas on the other hand either have no lanes, or the small 3-foot wide "shoulder" style lanes that are essentially just move the white line a few feet over.

Orlando has a fair amount of cyclists in small areas, but very few in relation to population. Finding someone who commutes more than 2-3 miles by bicycle is pretty rare (sans-students) and most cyclists from my experience stick to the trails and away from the street. This is a combination of poorly designed roads, and poorly kept roads.

The "Bike Bus" has been the one progressive thing I've seen in the area in recent years. While it is still relatively new, it is definitely doing a fair job of teaching drivers how to handle encounters with cyclists on non-bike-friendly roads.

dynodonn 

I had incidents like these in a motor vehicle, and I still pulled over at the safest opportunity. From experience, it doesn't do me any good to further escalate the situation then and there, I've found that sending the aggressive motorist a notice via local law enforcement is a better option.

mnemia

I don't see the latter ever really happening in the United States unless car use declines significantly. The reason is simple: we simply don't have the political will for it. Creating the physical space necessary to put in suitable infrastructure equal to that which is available for cars would be an incredibly expensive and disruptive undertaking for most of the U.S.

So, I think the way forward within our existing infrastructure is to advocate for neighborhood zones that don't allow high speed motorized traffic, an expansion of connector trails that make biking and walking at least as convenient as driving, better education and enforcement of traffic laws, and so on. The connector trails concept alone could make biking far less intimidating, because then it would be possible to travel from street to street across a whole area on lightly traveled roads (since cars would not be able to pass through the connections). But again, the will has to be there even for such modest changes.

I personally doubt that non-motorized transportation will ever make huge gains in mode share in this country until and unless gasoline becomes much more expensive than it currently is. Whether that happens via taxation or just macroeconomic forces, I think it will happen. And then we'll see some real changes. Until then, we're always going to be nibbling around the edges and fighting huge battles just for minor accommodations.

Doohickie

But I don't see how teaching VC technique keeps that low.

gcottay

Back here in the real world experienced, novice and even prospective cyclists benefit from vehicular cycling skills as well as well designed bike lanes/trails. I consider those who try to make it an either/or worse than useless.

genec

It doesn't. Insisting that VC alone is all you need to cope with our nations roads is what keeps ridership low.

I agree with mnemia and others that it is a combination of VC technique and well designed infrastructure is will get folks out there and riding. VC techniques work quite well at low speeds... "human scale speeds" if you will. Even Forester states that when there is a speed differential greater than 15 MPH negotiation becomes difficult between cyclist and motorist...

So the bottom line is that while we do have roads that need very little in the way of modification to be comfortable for most people to cycle upon, we also have roads that even the most experienced cyclists might find to be of a white knuckle nature... We need to find suitable solutions to those problems... whether it be a separate path, or an alternate traffic calmed road, or something else such as a buffered bike lane... we cannot insist (as some VC "evangelists" do) that all roads are just fine. Of course the flip side is that some cycling infrastructure just sucks... really.

But as far as teaching VC... I have no problem with it... in fact I would like to see cycling techniques taught in public schools... and as a prerequisite for learning how to drive... also taught in public school (as it was when I went to school at Southwest High School).

So it is not the teaching of, but the insistence that VC is all you need that is the problem.

As a classic example I offer the fact that London has reached a point where cyclists now outnumber motorists in the city core...
https://cyclelondoncity.blogspot.com/...were-anti.html

The above didn't happen solely through the use of VC techniques, but a combination of vehicular cycling, congestion charges (too many cars), and new bike facilities (blue lanes and bike "highway").

genec

Agreed!

genec

While you might feel that the threats are about the same... if you stop your car in the middle of the lane, you will control it. No one can pass thru you and at worse you may end up being pushed about by a raging motorist, but you are not likely to be seriously threatened. That is somewhat difficult to do with a narrow 25 pound bike. (if you lay the bike down, it can easily be run over... so much for "control.")

Digital_Cowboy

I think that probably the reason that most won't talk about it is, because we all know what'll happen if/when the motorist isn't cooperating.

Sadly, I have to agree with you in that there is a segment of society that for whatever reason abhors cyclists. It would be nice if we could all just get along.

Here's a good question, I can't help but wonder what that small segment of society is going to do when/if we finally run out of gas? And all they have left as an option is horse and buggy or bicycle.

sggoodri

Lane control skills are useful for improving safety and convenience for most urban cycling trips, making such skills indispensible for utility cycling, but not all roads need to be designed to require lane control. Some roads perform better for both cyclists and motorists when the pavement width is engineered to allow motorists to pass cyclists at safe distance without changing lanes. Cyclists who promote development of lane control skills to empower other cyclists to reach more destinations more safely and efficiently (and with greater enjoyment) do not generally oppose engineering that allows motorists to pass without changing lanes. They are, however, more skeptical about overemphasis on such treatments, and are quick to point out flaws in poor implementations.

In communities where a high percentage of useful through roads feature high posted speed limits and narrow lanes, cyclists who feel uncomfortable with controlling a travel lane with a high posted speed limit will be very disappointed with the transportation infrastructure. Other cyclists who are comfortable controlling such travel lanes themselves will be be highly defensive of their legal right to control such lanes, but freely admit that the infrastructure would be more pleasant for cycling, and encourage more people to cycle, if lower speed, lower volume routes, and truly wide outside lanes or properly designed, non-door-zone bike lane facilities were more widely available. They just don't see such facilities as a panacea for cycling safety or encouragement, and are frustrated when facility proponents label them as either insane or militant for unapologetically using the existing roads in the manner that works best for them.

Digital_Cowboy

Genec,

Agreed, speeds today are way too fast. As we've said before, the speed limit within city limits needs to be slowed down to about 30 - 35MPH or maybe slower. Leave the "high speed" for the interstate system. But within city limits keep the speed limit down so that cars, bikes, and pedestrians can all coexist safely.

As you said back then we didn't have (or really need) bike lanes as the speeds were much slower. As well as that the car wasn't the center of the transportation model. It was just one of many transportation options. It be nice if we could convince more people that there are other transportation options than the car.

Doohickie

You know, you have to dig around quite a bit to find their anti-infrastructure bias. It's there, sure, but I don't see their politics of infrastructure affecting the teaching of VC techniques in any way.

Digital_Cowboy

Thank you. I was talking with one of the traffic engineers here a short time ago. And he told me that the reason that some of the streets have had bike lanes added to them is because they (the bike lanes) "fit." I'm sorry, but that is one piss poor of a reason to add a bike lane to a road. Just because it "fits" it doesn't follow that it'll be safe to add it to the road in question. And could end up making things worse and more dangerous for cyclists, which as we know does end up happening.

genec

Agreed... transportation diversity is the future... whether we are ready to embrace it or not... dependence on the single passenger gas guzzling automobile is unsustainable.

genec

As I said, I have no problems with teaching VC... It does work. I use it and respect it. It is VC as "the only way" that is the problem.

gcottay

The phrase "control the lane" does seem mildly wrong.

I have never in my life in any vehicle including large trucks been in control of a lane. The only vehicle I can control is the one I am riding or driving. Pretending to be in control of other vehicles or drivers just leads to problems.

I "take the lane" when appropriate as a matter of my own safety and as a courtesy to others. It is a positional signal that the situation does not allow for safe passing in the lane and and that only, just a signal.

Digital_Cowboy

Agreed, the answer is a melding of VC and dedicated bike infrastructure. Not an insistence that one or the other is the best way to go.

As has been pointed out on slower less frequently traveled roads bike lanes/infrastructure really isn't need and is a waste of taxpayer money. And the worst is the substandard and often dangerous infrastructure that get's shoved down our throats for our "protection." Add to that some states like Florida have passed mandatory bike lane laws.

Which sadly have resulted in some in of the states the LEOs so intent on "punishing" cyclists that they don't fully understand the law(s) that they're suppose to be enforcing. As most states do allow cyclists to exit the lane for safety reasons. Yet, some LEOs and motorists don't realize that.

Agreed, those who see only one mode of bicycle travel is the best/only way to go. The best answer as has been said before is a combination or merging of both VC, bike infrastructure, dedicated bike infrastructure.

And dedicated bike infrastructure shouldn't be so "safe" that cyclists are still left being "invisible" to motorists. Such as placing us so far to the right side of the road that there is a line of on street parking "separating" us from traffic.

The problem with that is that traffic then doesn't see us (granted one can say that they don't "see" us now) and increases the chance of conflicts at intersections.

Digital_Cowboy

I guess the real question is how do we convince the car dependent/addicted amongst us that the bicycle, walking, public transportation, etc. are all viable forms of transportation. And that by engaging in such "alternative" modes of transportation doesn't make one a "freak" or other derogatory term that people want to hang on people who wish to make use of "alternative" modes of transportation.

sggoodri

I've been experimenting with different names for using the center of the lane. The term "taking the lane" has the disadvantage of sounding like the cyclist is taking something away from someone else, as if it doesn't naturally belong to the cyclist. "Controlling the lane" has the disadvantage of not being technically correct as you point out - the edges of the lane can still become occupied by other traffic - but it does imply the purpose of affecting other traffic flows without sounding like "stealing."

I like John Franlkin's terminology - "primary position" and "secondary position" referring to the center of the lane to discourage same lane passing and the edge of lane to facilitate it. However, this terminology requires explanation, since many people may assume that the right edge or shoulder is the primary position for a bicyclist. https://www.adventurecycling.org/reso...n_Schubert.pdf


Most advocates of lawful and assertive roadway cycling have given up the "vehicular cycling" label because it can confuse the audience by focusing on the conveyance definition rather than the operator's actions. They now prefer the term "bicycle driving" to convey the relationship between the operator and the rules for drivers. (In some states, bicycles are not defined as vehicles, but their operators are defined as having the rights and duties of drivers, which is the important point.) Bicycle driving is about a wide range of traffic negotiation practices that includes lane position selection as a small but important part. One can drive a bicycle on a road or a greenway path using the same principles of traffic negotiation with other users.

genec

By making it easier to use other forms of transit such as walking and cycling and not insisting that the car is king and should have access "everywhere." Let's face it, right now there are places your car can go that you as a walking human cannot... it is as if you need the car as part of an entry pass. (the classic easy example for the naysayers is the lack of access, except the drive thru window for cars only, at some late night fast food joints.)

I-Like-To-Bike

Who besides yourself, the late Bruce Rosar, and unspecified "advocates" ever use the stilted phrase "bicycle driving" vice bicycling or riding a bicycle when talking to anyone but themselves'? Don't believe I have ever seen that phrase used in any medium except a few Internet discussion lists where you and Bruce have posted this term.

I-Like-To-Bike

Probably start by using less insulting, self righteous rhetoric to describe those who don't share your special knowledge of their transportation requirements.

Seanholio

I believe the problem is larger than whether cycling, walking, or public transportation are considered viable forms of transportation. We have a huge problem in the form of social mores dictating that common auto ownership is necessary to be whole as a human being, but even beyond that, the automobile has abstracted us from each other. It pervades our language, even. People say, "That Honda just cut me off!" or "That bike is going too slow." Neither the Honda nor the bike did anything independently; the driver and rider operating the Honda and bicycle did.

We have no empathy for vehicles because they're not human, and we have no empathy for the drivers because we can see them, and therefore they don't really exist at a subconscious level.

Digital_Cowboy

Agreed, we need more PSAs extolling the virtues of walking, riding a bike. Like how it's good for the environment, how it's good individual's economy, i.e. the money that they save by not driving their car everywhere. They could save enough to take a nice vacation somewhere, or to buy a really good bike. Or a really good bike and a really good bicycling kit and//or accessories and/or tools.

We need employers who encourage their employees to ride or walk to work instead of taking their car.

Digital_Cowboy

True, it's a culture and mindset that we have to get people to "break" away from. Despite what too many drivers think the car is NOT the center of the transportation universe. There is room for bicycles, public transportation, and walking. We've just got to get people to wake up and realize that.

It would also help if employers did things to encourage car pooling and using a bicycle or public transportation. Like maybe working with the local bus system to provide reduced fare bus passes or something.