genec

I know of no such example... Everywhere Vehicular Cycling has been promoted as "Effective Cycling," transportation cycling is limited to 1% or less.

I know of no movement among Vehicular Cycling proponents to increase the uptake of cycling by the masses.

ChipSeal

Ennis Texas is a good example. Until February 2008, (When I moved here.) there were no Transportational cyclists in the entire city.

After I began promoting VC here, there has been a more than a 10,000% increase in both vehicular cycling and Transportational cycling in Ennis! In fact, next year, if I can recruit just one more person to ride a bike, we will double the cyclists here!

genec

Having been raised in Fort Worth, I can tell you you are brave.

Yeah, I rode a bike when I live there...

CB HI

Genec, you already know that Oahu has a BikeEd (VC) program for 4th graders and you already know that Oahu has greater than your set limit of 1% modal share (Even given many hills on the island, trade winds and many complain that Hawaii is simply too warm to ride to work/school).

Well above the national average.

Can you list the locations that VC has so strongly been promoted?

CB HI

Why does that have to be the only exclusive goal. What is wrong with simply wanting to make cyclist safer on the roads, as a goal?
VC instruction seems well equiped to accomplish the safety goal.

pacificaslim

1) Some of us don't really care how many cyclists there are - I'm not selling bicycles for a living and I've got much more effective solutions in mind for cutting our carbon footprint.
2) If your argument is that cycling in the road is "dangerous" and this keeps people from becomming cyclists, you'll need to show some support for that: I figure safety probably comes in at about a 10% factor at best (50% too lazy and fat, 30% live to far away to get there by bike in the short time they have available for travel, 10% terrain is too tough compared to high participation countries, and maybe 10% think it's too dangerous and this is the only thing stopping them).
3) I used to live in Japan where we have a much higher cycling population and we all ride in the roads (and on the sidewalks and anywhere else we feel like it) - I never even saw a bike path. But people aren't fat and lazy and we have a great train system to allow cycling to be useful.

Saving Hawaii

Buddy, you just stuck me in the 0%... I have to bring a vehicle to work. I've thought of simply leaving my vehicle in the parking lot at work, but that'd seem rather silly.

Saving Hawaii

CB HI,

The thread that's running in the main forum with JacobJacob and his dean/PO is exactly what happens when you create a car-centric road network. Something as simple as a bike lane or even an adequate shoulder could have resolved his entire problem, but as we both know car-centric transportation designs are not designed around vehicular cycling, and you will never be accepted in traffic. You can cope for sure, but you'll never get the respect and consideration from drivers that you deserve. Not that bike lanes or MUPS are the everytime, everywhere solution - but they're part of a solution in infrastructure planning that encourages cycling.

Shoot man, the only reason half the people around here have cars is for road trips. Not much for road trips in Hawaii. What gives?

CB HI

Flat out wrong, Saving Hawaii, there are the JAMs (about 1% of motorist) out there that hate cyclist no matter what. Bike lane or not. I am almost never harassed on multi-lane roads with narrow lanes as I take the right lane. But put a bike lane in, that I often have to move out of to avoid glass and other debris, the harassment becomes significant.

One day, a road maintenance crew put the "left lane closed" sign blocking the entire bike lane. Traffic was moving at 14 mph due to the closed lane, so I slowed from 20 mph, signaled and moved into a large gap in the next left lane. The guy behind me went into a rage that I dared move out of the bike lane. He raced his car up to tailgate, his face turned red, he gave a steady horn until 20 yards later when I moved back into the bike lane. I was picking up speed as soon as I moved right. He raced up to move along side me to yell "stay the f*** in the bike lane", AS HE ALMOST REAR ENDED THE CAR AHEAD THAT WAS STILL MOVING AT 14 MPH.

Bike lanes do not solve ignorance, education does.

Jacob does not need a bike lane, he needs some less ignorant adults around him.

By the way, you do not even cycle commute, do you? Yet you claim the main reason for cars in your area is for road trips! Right.

How about answering this question:
Why does more butts on bikes have to be the only exclusive goal. What is wrong with simply wanting to make cyclist safer on the roads, as a goal?
VC instruction seems well equiped to accomplish the safety goal.

Besides, if people begin to understand just how safe VC riding is, then you could get some more butts on bikes, with real safety; rather than just the false feeling of being safer because of a bike lane.

Saving Hawaii

And we all have stories about bike lanes, just like plenty of us have horror stories about riding along the shoulder, or having impatient drivers pass within inches while taking the lane. Why don't you guys try "education"? Before I started cycling, I think the first time I ever thought of laying off the gas was when a pedestrian ran in front of me and started banging on my window. Guess what though, it worked and I think we do a very good job around here having no tolerance for reckless drivers. I know it's a night and day difference between where I grew up and where I live now. But what's the real key to cyclists being respected by the majority of drivers. It needs to not seem anomalous, bizarre, or poor, and most importantly they need to have seen enough cyclists to expect it. When you have a cyclist for every fifth driver in town, that happens. But you can't put the cart before the horse; those cyclists were encouraged by adequate infrastructure such as several very good, wide MUPs that ran useful routes, as well as an excellent system of bike lanes and streets designed for cycling and local access. They were also encouraged by living in a compact town where the distance to anywhere seemed pretty reasonable. But you cannot put these steps in the wrong order; bicyclists being able to assert themselves becomes safe when drivers also understand that bicyclists are able to assert themselves in traffic. Until you have a significant modal share on cycles, drivers are never going to accept cyclists - and you will never achieve a significant modal share until you stop pretending that they're little hot wheels cars, and realize that they are very appropriate in some forms of traffic and struggle to cope in others.

As for Jacob, he's going to have problems cycling so long as he lives in suburbia. If he had a bike lane, it would have alleviated this entire problem, but instead he has a narrow and shoulderless stretch of highway that most drivers don't feel he has any right to be on. They should know better, but until they start to see cyclists as normal they won't do so. And given the long distances to anywhere and the sheer lack of roads that are well-suited to vehicular cycling in his area - there's never going to be enough cyclists for drivers to get used to it. His community is a penultimate example of everything that's wrong with car-centric designs and vehicular cycling and the fact that this kid is being told he can't ride his bike is a synopsis of the potential of vehicular cycling conjoined with car-centric city planning.

And I would instantly commute to work if offered that choice, and I'm not. I can show up to work and be told to report to another location a hundred miles away, and they'll expect me to be timely in arriving at that second location. I would if I could, but I've taken the time to speak to my supervisors and cycling to work simply wouldn't be feasible. If I worked in an office 9-5 like the average person, it would be a very different story.

-----

Simply put, more butts on bikes means more awareness. When drivers become accustomed to seeing cyclists all over the place, they start looking for them. It also means fewer drivers and less bike parking, but the awareness thing is what I'm really into. Drivers can be trained to watch for cyclists, and I know that around here they are excellent about it.

CB HI

Most motorist (99+%) have accepted my cycle commuting since 1982, and there was no special infrastructure back then. It was even in San Jose, CA. So no, the cart is not before the horse. Seems some are trying to shove the horse into the cart.

As to your excuse for not cycle commuting, which one is the real excuse?

The one you gave this forum: Or the excuse you gave another forum:

PS: I could really care less about your non-cycle commuting. Jacob has made his choice on commuting and seems to be doing quite well, less some ignorant adults. So just lay off him. I don't even know why you felt you needed to bring it up in this thread, so why not just drop it here and take it back to the original thread on the subject?

CB HI

Odd, I live in suburbia, and we do not have ANY bike lanes in my rather large suburb. Yet we do not have any principles forbidding students from riding to school. Must be that VC BikeEd thing you guys hate so much.

Seems to me that most suburbs with their cul-de-sacs tend away from car-centric as you describe it.

Febs

Where exactly would they put the bike lane on his "narrow and shoulderless stretch of highway"?

Bekologist

..and the vc chestbeat and proudly proclaim "look at me, I CAN RIDE autocentric roads"


Portland has just announced an 8 percent modal share by bicyclists. And vehicular cyclists live in Portland too!

I think honolulu, oahu is a GREAT example of a community that has recognized the deluterious effects autocentric roads planning has on quality of life, cycling and pedestrian use of public rights of way.

The climate and economic hardships on the working class living in a very expensive city could just as easily explain the paltry 1.5 percent modal share on oahu as the 'education' efforts that doesn't even reach all the schools on the island, just a few thousand kids in the last few years.

insinuating educating a few thousand kids makes the difference in a LARGE american city? please. what a vacuous smokescreen.

here's a statement from Honolulu's city government and their recognizance of the failings of their community design. a 'vc' would speciously proclaim little or no remediation to the roads in honolulu is needed becasue , gosh darn it, a little education and everything just falls into place.

official statement from honolulu city government in their bike master plan.....

"One hallmark of a livable city is that its public spaces are
actively used, that it has places to walk and ride, and that
the outdoors can be enjoyed. Like many U.S. cities, Hono-
lulu has matured as a city dominated by the automobile, to
the detriment of alternative travel modes such as walking,
bicycling, and transit. Increasingly, this auto-dependence
is affecting the quality of life in our City.

While the auto provides an important means to move about
the City, increasing congestion is making it difficult, time
consuming, and expensive to use. Favorite destinations,
such as beaches, parks, shopping centers, schools, and
work places, are becoming harder to get to because of traffic
congestion and limited parking. Our streets are designed
more to accommodate the rapid flow of automobiles than
for pedestrians and bicyclists. Traffic noise and the physi-
cal barriers imposed by our streets provide those not in
autos a constant reminder of our auto-dependency."


Portland or honolulu, folks??

CB HI

Bek, your off topic. Why not go hammer some city that is below the national average of 0.4% modal share rather than trying to attack me with your repeated Honolulu rants?

genec

It is a well accepted premise that more cyclists on the road increase motorist visibility and acceptance of cyclists and therefore the safety of cyclists.


Also regarding vehicular cycling, there is no evidence that vehicular cycling actually makes cyclists safer. No study has been done that isolates vehicular cyclists from non vehicular cyclists to show that vehicular cycling is safer.

Now on the flip side to that last statement, I will readily admit that beyond the basic tenants of vehicular cycling, the act of riding "more left" in the street should increase ones visibility to motorists, which in itself should make cyclists safer.

CB HI

It is a well accepted premise that vehicular cycling on the road increases motorist visibility and acceptance of cyclists and therefore the safety of cyclists.


Also regarding more cyclist, there is no evidence that more cyclist actually makes cyclists safer. No study has been done that shows more cyclist makes cycling safer.

See how easy it is to flip your statements and still be just as accurate. Interesting you are willing to accept a premise for your position but you demand a study to prove the other position!

genec

It is interesting you state this, as I too tend to believe this, but this whole attitude is generally dismissed by both Helmet Head and John Forester, who I deal with constantly on our local advocacy board... they both feel that educating cyclists is sufficient, and that those educated cyclists will "train" all the other road users by example.

Are you finding motorists of Hawaii are "getting it" yet?


The problem is people look at the basic physics of 200 lbs cyclist and bike out there with 3000+ vehicles and they just shake their heads in disbelief... just as motorist clamored to SUVs as they too were perceived safer, when in fact statistics say just the opposite. Perhaps the line from MIB will help... "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it."

Back to getting more butts on bikes... more butts, greater acceptance.

genec

Yes, I stated that visibility is increased... however, no study shows that VC increases acceptance of cyclists.

Robinson, D.L., 2005, Safety in numbers in Australia: more walkers and bicyclists, safer walking and bicycling, Heath Promotion Journal of Australia, Vol. 16, Issue 1, p.47-51.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...t=AbstractPlus
This study finds that as the number of cyclists increase, rates of injury reduce.

Jacobsen, P.L., 2003, Safety in numbers: more walkers and bicyclists, safer walking and bicycling, Injury Prevention, Vol. 9, pp. 205-209.
https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cgi/...stract/9/3/205
This paper found that as the numbers of pedestrians and cyclists increase, the level of road traffic injury reduces. It concludes by saying that policies that increase the level of walking and cycling improve their level of safety.

I have intentionally left off Puchers' papers as so many hard core VC cyclists disagree with them... but I provided two sources of other studies that indicate that more cyclists equal more safety.

No, you are not "just as accurate." Find me one independent study (not from Forester) that shows Vehicular Cycling is safer than facilities assisted cycling.

LCI_Brian

Apples and oranges. You're looking at the effectiveness of a few individuals promoting VC versus a much larger effort to promote a facilities based agenda. To do a valid comparison you would need a place where VC is embraced and promoted by advocates and various levels of government - not just a strategy of keeping the status quo and calling that "VC promotion".

genec

There was no facilities based agenda earlier in Great Briton, yet their ride share never exceeded 2%. There is a "facilities" agenda there now. And motorists are being limited in their use of motor vehicles by congestion taxes.

There was no facilities based agenda earlier in the US... in the '60s, when this 1963 film "One Got Fat" was made... yet again, no significant uptake in cycling.

Can you explain why various levels of government do not promote VC if it is the "safest way?"

Febs

Some do. For example, Pennsylvania has a Bike Driver's Manual which states:

genec

The interesting issue there is no one has substantiated John Forester's claims...

There have been no peer reviews of John Forester's work, to the best of my knowledge.

Also let me comment... pretty cool that such a bike drivers manual even exists.

Febs

Indeed, and to be honest, I had completely forgotten about it until your last post jogged my memory.

I-Like-To-Bike

Exactly, the author of the Street Smarts, from which the PA Bike manual is extracted, bought into Forester's statistical sleight of hand and data juggling act about the safety record of vehicular cyclists (i.e. "according to scientific crash studies"), hook line and sinker, and repeats Forester's safety claims and conclusions as gospel. And that glaring lack of judgment makes the entire tract suspect and less than "cool."