genec

The publicity issue I feel is indeed something that is largely missing. The American public is not trained on how to ride a bike properly, nor are American drivers trained to respect cyclists as equal users of the road. These are the two key missing ingredients that tend to lead to much of the "troubles" cyclists may encounter on the road.

As for bike lanes, I know these are generally abhorred by certain vehicular cycling promoters... and in some respects I fully agree that the implementation of BL often leaves a lot to be desired... I have found freeway shoulders (8+ feet wide) far more accommodating, in spite of the higher motor vehicle speeds on such roadways. Narrow, 5 foot or less BL on high speed roads (50MPH+) leave a lot to be desired.

I agree that overall, roads should be designed with all the users in mind, and should not focus on some misguided concept that motor vehicles have priority. While cyclists can take the lane on any road, and posted speed should not be metric which motorists work to achieve, the reality is that certain roads ARE designed for high speed traffic, and slower traffic can present a "navigation hazard;" in such cases provisions such as BL are one workable solution, as are alternate pathways that still serve the same destinations. The reality that mixed speed traffic can pose "issues" to the smooth and safe flow of said traffic is a concept that needs to be understood and acknowledged.

John Forester

While there is much good in the discussion, the good part is irrelevant. Ever since the 1930s, America has had a policy of incompetent bicycle operation and restriction of that operation on the grounds that it is incompetent. Almost all that has been done since then by American society and governments has both facilitated and strengthened that policy. This is fact. Remember, when a sociologist examines a social or legal policy he doesn't place much faith in the words in which it is expressed (except as a contrast) but reaches his conclusions on the basis of the acts produced with respect to that policy. Given the history and strength of this anti-cyclist policy, it is my estimate that only an unpleasant and frightening societal cataclysm will cause America to reverse that policy. Neither such cataclysms nor their results can be predicted with any reasonable reliability.

Those who recognize that cycling competently and lawfully according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles is by far the better method must both recognize that they are operating contrary to the American social norm, and must also work out methods of preserving their legal right to do so, regardless of what the rest of a society ignorant of, and opposed to, safe cycling chooses to do. Vehicular cyclists are all alone on the road and in society; preserving their future is what only they can and will do, and preservation is not at all assured.

ianbrettcooper

I agree with the OP. Cyclists are forced to ride on roads most of the time (unless they drive to a trail, bike it, bike back, and then drive home - which seems kinda like using the bike as a mere toy rather than as a vehicle). I also don't see the point of the separation - especially since it seems to be mostly used for people to post snarky comments about VC. If there is to be a VC forum, then it needs to be moderated with a heavy hand so that people can get to the point, rather than just call each other names.

Maybe the forum name should be changed to 'Vehicular Cycling Advocacy' so that it's clear that the forum is for VCers to discuss their issues, and so VCers can do that without getting reams of criticism from the peanut gallery.

Bekologist

the terms 'vehicular cycling' and 'advocacy' appear to be mutually exclusive, as evidenced by comments from those that mostly obstruct and fight against the rest of american bicycling advocacy that is supported and endorsed by highway, public health and bicycling transportation planners cognizant of the actual issues surrounding public roadway bicycling participation.

additionally, i suspect this is the place reserved for posters to fabricate wild, off base commentary about the state of cycling advocacy and cyclists' rights.

this is the subsection to tell other posters California law prevents vehicular cycling, that maryland law requires cyclists to operate as far right as possible , that if you don't want to ride on a narrow laned, high speed busy road you're an incompetent bicyclist, etc.

a place for vehicular cyclists to mislead and misinform about cyclists rights. maryland bicycle law being misinterpreted it requires cyclists operate as far right as possible is an excellent example of the heinous misinformation plied here.


this forum IS the peanut gallery, ian.

ianbrettcooper

That's the anti-VC view, but to assume that it's objectively factual is arrogant in the extreme. American bicycle advocacy includes both VC and non-VC voices, and it's disingenuous and combative to say that VCers are by definition not bicycle advocates. I've been a bicycle advocate all my life, and I've been against bicycle paths ever since I saw the first one - not because I read books by VC gurus or listened to VC arguments, but because I saw the serious dangers inherent in bike paths of all kinds for myself. I saw them in England, Holland and Germany 25 years ago. Heck, the safest places I found to cycle were the places that either didn't have too many bike paths at the time for whatever reason - places like France, Spain, Italy, Yugoslavia and Greece.

Me, 26 years ago in Greece, on a break from travelling perfectly safely on a road.

In 40 years of cycling I have yet to see a bike path that I felt was as safe or as useful as the road that it supposedly supplanted. Now pro-bike path advocates may argue that safe and useful bike paths are coming, but until they arrive they are merely a fantasy. I don't see any point in supporting something that is a mere utopian dream that in actual practice has proven time after time to be useless and a waste of money. As far as I'm concerned, bike advocates would be far better served arguing for a blanket 10mph lowering of road speed limits - it would be cheaper and far more effective than the standard issue bike path, which is a twisty too-narrow unmarked, poorly-lit trail made of slippery gravel that allows pedestrians to wander willy-nilly on one side or the other. Heck, the only serious accident I've ever had on my bike was a collision I had with a pedestrian on a German bicycle path. In my experience, bike paths are infinitely more dangerous than the road.

My bike, also 26 years ago, a few days after having hit and knocked over a confused old lady pedestrian on a German bicycle path.

There may be a bike path worth the name - a relatively straight path, at least 12ft wide (allowing a good 6ft between opposing traffic) with sidewalks for pedestrians, but until I see it, I stand against them BECAUSE I AM A BICYCLE ADVOCATE and I want cycling to be safe and efficient. You might not like that I don't agree with you, but that doesn't mean I'm not a bicycle advocate.

I could make the same criticism you do about VCers about non-VCers. I mean, it's hardly 'bicycle advocacy' to support bike paths when it can be argued that such paths have been shown to be more dangerous to cyclists than riding on the street. Does that make you against bicycles? Of course not. As I see it, you're just an idealist who disagrees with those of us who are realists. There should be room for both viewpoints.

And in the VC forum, non-VCers who criticize VC are, by definition, the 'peanut gallery'. If you don't see that, then you don't understand the meaning or the etymology of the phrase.

Bekologist

Posters that blatantly mislead about cyclists rights actually head up the peanut gallery here, ian.
this forum IS the peanut gallery, ian.

despite your errant belief, The VC forum is NOT a VC pledgefest despite your misconception.

an example of a topic likely to be discussed in this forum would be:

does maryland law require cyclists to operate as far right as possible? ANSWER: NO!



In this forum, it comes up quite often that bikeways and vehicular cycling are not mutually incompatible, that AASHTO complaint on road bikeways work in concert with vehicular cycling techniques, the VC and bikeways planning do not stand at odds with one another despite some of the 'peanut gallery' -your words - insisting otherwise.

Bekologist

you do understand that in a world filled with billions of people, your personal beliefs are not absolute?


a discussion on the validity of off road bike paths as part of an integrated transportation plan also comes up quite often. some of the posters do understand the validity of Class I bikeways including a contemporary cycling advocacy, history and education author, Robert Hurst.

a quick - or exhaustive - ride around the cities of Minneapolis or metro Denver might clear up some of those misconceptions you have about class I bikeways.

If you want cycling to be 'safe' and 'efficient', that statement puts you in the camp of those actually endorse class I bikeway networks like those seen in metro Denver or Minneapolis!!!!

sggoodri

Most of the threads in the main A&S forum result in cyclists encouraging one another to operate according to the rules for drivers of vehicles, denouncing laws or police actions that prohibit acting like drivers of vehicles, and supporting one another when they are harassed for acting like drivers of vehicles. There are many posts giving guidance about fine points of vehicular cycling such as when to take the lane versus share it. Most of the participants there don't claim to be advocating vehicular cycling, but that's exactly what they are doing.

The VC subforum isn't really about vehicular cycling. It's really just the catch-all for debates about bicycle-specific facility designs, laws, and policies that may potentially conflict with vehicular cycling. But rather than calling it the Bicycle Specific Traffic Control subforum, which would be more accurate, it has been called Vehicular Cycling because (1) that is the default traffic control paradigm against which bicycle-specific traffic control is compared, and (2) proponents of bicycle-specific traffic control prefer to keep the spotlight on their skeptics rather than draw attention to themselves.

ianbrettcooper

I'm not going to be drawn further into a debate on what seems to be your favourite subject. You can say what you believe as many times as you want, but saying it more won't make it true.

Ian (happy to see that these forums have a handy 'ignore' feature so that I don't have to bother with folks who make multiple posts with plenty of sound and fury signifying nothing).

Bekologist

and you too, can say what you think about class I bikeways, maryland bike laws, etc, but saying them more doesn't make them true, ian!


please, what about the rest of that post?

your interests mesh nicely with well considered class I bikeways of the type seen in denver or minneapolis..

Bekologist

theres' good cause to be skeptical of forum users that INCESSANTLY post the mistaken belief California laws like CVC 21202 prohibit vehicular cycling!


a lot of the discussion is about MISINFORMATION posted by some of the 'vc' about cyclists rights, what the laws mean ,etc. its not just about the efficacy of bikeways planning in normalizing roadway bicycling in america.

sggoodri

Plenty of vehicular cycling advocates (like myself) support bike paths that meet certain design characteristics. Those characteristics are generally consistent with treating cyclists as drivers of vehicles, particularly where traffic control at junctions are concerned, but also horizontal and vertical alignments, sight lines, etc. compatible with cycling at the speeds that make cycling enjoyable and convenient for so many avid cyclists.

Bike paths are also more useful when they create a connection that doesn't exist for other vehicle traffic, or where the roadway connections would be much less convenient. And just as a low-traffic street connection doesn't need to be built to freeway standards, a low-traffic bike shortcut doesn't need to be 12 feet wide. The appropriate design principles for nonmotorized bicycle facilities closely resemble the principles behind road design, because bicyclists fare best when treated as drivers of vehicles.

Vehicular cycling advocates don't oppose bikeways for being bicycle specific; they oppose designs that conflict with normal vehicular traffic control and engineering principles, resulting in greater danger or delay for cyclists than a facility that treats cyclists as drivers of vehicles.

Bekologist

steve, the FHWA sets standards for 'normal' vehicular traffic controls and engineering principles' in this country, and they have a policy directive to ensure those standards. Bikeway networks as per AASHTO design standards ARE IN COMPLIANCE with these principles.

Traffic management infrastructure that includes bikelanes does not automatically conflict with vehicular bicycling. i suggest most of what is seen in the AASHTO green book is wholly in compliance with normal traffic engineering principles.


Yes, you are correct, the vc should be able to get behind bike master plans that fairly support roadway vehicular cycling with implementation of quality bicycle specific infrastructure along select road cooridors identified as significant for bicycle transportation.

sggoodri

Cyclists' complaints about bicycle-specific traffic control laws derive directly from police actions against them for operating according to normal vehicular rules. Part of the problem is police prejudice, but that prejudice is exacerbated by bicycle-specific traffic control laws that at least appear to treat cyclists differently from other traffic. Effective bicyclist advocacy therefore requires argument against the discriminatory bicycle-specific laws that can be interpreted as restricting cyclists from using the roadways normally as equally entitled drivers, while at the same time arguing in defense of cyclists ticketed under such laws while operating vehicularly.

ianbrettcooper

I believe it does, so that if a cyclist on one side of the path falls into the road, he will tend not to fall into the path of cyclists travelling in the other direction. In my view, any bike path that is much narrower is, by definition, more dangerous than it ought to be. This is the same reason I believe the 3ft margin for passing a bicycle (law in many states) is similarly dangerous and unrealistic. Both cases assume that no fall will occur - a dangerous assumption whenever two-wheeled transport is concerned.

sggoodri

Except that FHWA guidelines are often not in compliance with vehicular transportation engineering principles. For example, adequate clearance distances are a fundamental principle of travel lane design, and yet FHWA's green book endorses bike lanes that are mostly in the door zone. Move the bike lane completely out of the door zone, with an adequate buffer, and eliminate junction conflicts, and most of the complaints from vehicular cycling advocates will go away.

sggoodri

I'm not talking about sidepaths. I'm talking about short cut paths, like between a neighborhood and a shopping center behind it, where there is no parallel road. Depending on volume or distance, 8 feet may be enough, or even 6 feet, like a single lane low volume driveway is enough for some small/home businesses, and some very low volume bridges are only a single lane.

Bekologist

steve, in a discussion of california vehicle code, an understanding that the general vehicle law is much more restrictive of cyclists rights is ancillary to the conversation. Removal of bike specific law in California would be a significant restriction of cyclists express rights to operate vehicularly.

Bekologist

some of those concerns are overblown -

funny that, bufffering and improving bikelanes (to partially mitigate the vc's obsessive fear of the 'door zone' -which is not exclusive to roads with bikelanes but ALL roads with streetside parking)- is exactly what is happening in cities that use bicycle specific infrastructure all over the country, steve.

new, buffered class II bikeways are in use in NYC, Portland, SF, Seattle, and likely many more. So you postulate the vc camp should be able to get behind and endorse these improvements - developed in part thru the reiterative loop process to evaluate and improve bikeway networks.

Doohickie

VC is a tool; so is a bikeway network. I use both every time I ride to work. They are not necessarily either-or propositions or in coflict with each other.

It's just that John Forester tries to make it that way because he likes to think think VC is the greatest thing EVAR and everything else sucks, which is why they relegated talk of VC to a peanut gallery subforum.

Tom Stormcrowe

I could make the point that the same could be said about your position...that it's not an absolute.

squirtdad

+1 Agree 100% both are tools and the reality is both are going to be in play. There is no way there will ever be bike infrastructure covering every place a cyclist wants to go......

IMHO In all fairness, if you are going to call out JF you should also call out Bek. His position that bikeways are the solution to all and everything else, especially JF, sucks is not helpful. He has what seems to be a constant vendetta against VC and JF in particular that I feel takes away a lot of meaning full discussion.

Bekologist

absolutely.

but take the example of maryland traffic law -

some posters opining in this very thread posit that cyclists are required to operate as far right as possible and then use this type of erroneous statement to frame their argument.

however, Maryland law expressly states cyclists only operate as far right "as is practicable and safe", which is entirely different statutory language and legally allows a radically different road position than a poster that mistakenly thinks riding at the edge is a requirement.

MY statements are verifiable about maryland state laws and accurate in my portrayal of Maryland law, versus other posters' versions of them.

That's just one example.

In many (most all) cases, Tom, much of what i am posting IS substantiated and backed up by laws, the federal highway administration, the League of American Bicyclists directives to instructors about the efficacy of bicycle facilities, recent peer-reviewed meta-analysis of bicycling interventions that support bicycling, etc.

sggoodri

Just because Andy says that many cyclists don't get hit while riding in door zones doesn't make door zones a good location to encourage cycling. It conflicts with best practices and what we teach in the LAB courses, which is why there is so much debate over the internal LAB document you quote from.

Striping a generous buffer between the parking spaces and bike lane is a good idea, like you say. But that's not what's in the AASHTO guide; the AASHTO guide, like the MUTCD, is seriously flawed wrt bike lane placement at on-street parking.

Bekologist

that's far from accurate. I can discuss traffic law without resorting to a discussion of bikeways. I would actually prefer if every thread DIDN'T devolve into a bikeways discussion to be perfectly honest but some posters insist on bringing their flawed notions of 'incompetent cycling on bikeways' into every conversation. that's not me.

however, your perception of me is entirely inaccurate. the vast majority of roads in a city with a bikeway network need no bikeways at all! imagine that.

My point of view is supported and in concert with the commonly held standards of bikeway network design held by the FHWA, the League of American Bicyclists, etc.