It's happening! Um... sort of.

On 5/14/2014 11:20 AM, Duane wrote:

Well if you insist on riding only on roads then maybe that's valid.
The problem I have with VC is not the strategy but the religion that
makes all other options sins.

VC is one of the religions with the fewest adherents in the world. Their
beliefs are even more ludicrous than some of the mainstream religions.

On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 2:36:27 PM UTC-4, sms wrote:
On 5/14/2014 11:20 AM, Duane wrote:



Well if you insist on riding only on roads then maybe that's valid.

The problem I have with VC is not the strategy but the religion that

makes all other options sins.



VC is one of the religions with the fewest adherents in the world. Their

beliefs are even more ludicrous than some of the mainstream religions.

It's painfully obvious that you have never been to nor looked at areas where vehicular bicycling is very widespread. Many Asian countries have masses of bicycle traffic.

Sometimes i think that the biggest problem for many North Americans to become vehicular bicyclists, or to simply ride on roads in traffic, is that they don't know how to behave in traffic themselves. At least bicyclists who are also drivers have an understanding of how to navigate in traffic. Many non-drivers simply have no idea how to ride safely in traffic. That is part of the reason i think there is such a push for bicycle lanes or other facilities - rather than learn how to mingle with motor traffic just separate bicycles from motor traffic and the problem(s0 go away. Unfortunately when the bike facilities end these bicyclists without knowledge of navigating in traffic are left high and dry because they still don't know how to merge/mingle or ride on roads with traffic.

Chee4rs

On 5/14/2014 1:43 PM, Dan O wrote:

While VC is often presented as an enabling strategy, I think
it's proponents acknowledge that it doesn't get people out of
cars and onto bikes. It doesn't shift the transportation
landscape away from the car culture. In fact its very
existence is based on accepting car culture dominance and
*joining* it.

If you want to ride a bike in the Westernized world, you have three
choices: Ride on the roads (i.e. join the existing culture). Or haul
your bike to the nearest MUP and cruise back and forth. Or, I suppose,
sit and moan about the horrible dominance of car culture until someone
builds a special path right to your driveway.

VC is fine FWIW. VC principles are very helpful in those
situations where bicyclists _have to_ share the same space
with cars, which is going to be the case for the foreseeable
future where the car culture dominates.

But it seems to me that VC is just common sense for anyone
reasonably versed in traffic rules and conventions. Many
people have a lot of trouble understanding what seems simple
and obvious to me, though, and I think educational opportunities
for them is a good idea.

In the classes I've taken and taught that covered vehicular cycling
techniques, there were people who had used their bikes for commuting and
utility for many, many years. There were people who had toured by bike
a great deal, including coast-to-coast and internationally. There were
also "sport" riders, the "fast recreational" types. And there were
relative beginners.

There were _no_ individuals who claimed they had not learned enough to
make the course well worthwhile, at least in the ones I taught. And in
fact, when I took a Cycling Savvy class a couple years ago, I felt that
I learned some valuable tips.

So you may think it's all just common sense. Perhaps you're the
unusually brilliant person who already knows it all. However, I think
you're more probably just another person who doesn't know what they
don't know.

Frank is on record saying, "they dislike us simply because
we're there".

You've mentioned that several times. I'm very curious about the source,
and the context. Because while I'm sure some people dislike bicyclists,
that's hardly unique. Every group is disliked by _some_ people.


First, let me say (again) that *most* drivers are very nice
(that many of these have negative feelings toward us is some-
thing to consider, but they deal with it internally and at
least manage decent social interaction with us anyway).

But way too many are not so nice.

I'll file that with all the other vague "way too many" regrets - e.g.
way too many people don't brush their teeth properly, way too many
people aren't saving enough for retirement, way too many people don't
drink eight glasses of water per day, etc.

I had a motorist yell at me the other day. Was that "way too many"?
Hardly. He was the first yell this year, and he yelled only because he
was caught in a really stupid mistake, and was embarrassed by my "What
the hell???" hand motion. It's no different than what happens
motorist-to-motorist thousands of times daily in any city.

If you expect all sweetness and light on the roads - or even in bike
lanes, cycle tracks or MUPs - you'll have to wait for another universe.
Meanwhile, learning competent cycling (or VC) lets you deal with the
world as it is.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/14/2014 2:20 PM, Duane wrote [about Vehicular Cycling]:


Well if you insist on riding only on roads then maybe that's valid.
The problem I have with VC is not the strategy but the religion that
makes all other options sins.

If you call VC a religion, that's direct evidence that you know very
little about it.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/14/2014 3:48 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 2:36:27 PM UTC-4, sms wrote:
On 5/14/2014 11:20 AM, Duane wrote:



Well if you insist on riding only on roads then maybe that's valid.

The problem I have with VC is not the strategy but the religion that

makes all other options sins.



VC is one of the religions with the fewest adherents in the world. Their

beliefs are even more ludicrous than some of the mainstream religions.

It's painfully obvious that you have never been to nor looked at areas where vehicular bicycling is very widespread. Many Asian countries have masses of bicycle traffic.

Sometimes i think that the biggest problem for many North Americans to become vehicular bicyclists, or to simply ride on roads in traffic, is that they don't know how to behave in traffic themselves. At least bicyclists who are also drivers have an understanding of how to navigate in traffic. Many non-drivers simply have no idea how to ride safely in traffic. That is part of the reason i think there is such a push for bicycle lanes or other facilities - rather than learn how to mingle with motor traffic just separate bicycles from motor traffic and the problem(s0 go away. Unfortunately when the bike facilities end these bicyclists without knowledge of navigating in traffic are left high and dry because they still don't know how to merge/mingle or ride on roads with traffic.

There's nothing wrong with learning how to ride with traffic.

The thing is that traffic skills and infrastructure like bike lanes are
not mutually exclusive except in the minds of the zealots.

On 5/14/2014 1:24 PM, Duane wrote:
On 5/14/2014 3:48 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 2:36:27 PM UTC-4, sms wrote:
On 5/14/2014 11:20 AM, Duane wrote:



Well if you insist on riding only on roads then maybe that's valid.

The problem I have with VC is not the strategy but the religion that

makes all other options sins.



VC is one of the religions with the fewest adherents in the world. Their

beliefs are even more ludicrous than some of the mainstream religions.

It's painfully obvious that you have never been to nor looked at areas
where vehicular bicycling is very widespread. Many Asian countries
have masses of bicycle traffic.

Sometimes i think that the biggest problem for many North Americans to
become vehicular bicyclists, or to simply ride on roads in traffic, is
that they don't know how to behave in traffic themselves. At least
bicyclists who are also drivers have an understanding of how to
navigate in traffic. Many non-drivers simply have no idea how to ride
safely in traffic. That is part of the reason i think there is such a
push for bicycle lanes or other facilities - rather than learn how to
mingle with motor traffic just separate bicycles from motor traffic
and the problem(s0 go away. Unfortunately when the bike facilities end
these bicyclists without knowledge of navigating in traffic are left
high and dry because they still don't know how to merge/mingle or ride
on roads with traffic.

There's nothing wrong with learning how to ride with traffic.

The thing is that traffic skills and infrastructure like bike lanes are
not mutually exclusive except in the minds of the zealots.

Precisely. The VCZs don't want even well-designed bicycle infrastructure.

But there are so few adult non-drivers that his premise is false to
begin with.

On 15/05/14 04:20, Duane wrote:
On 5/14/2014 1:43 PM, Dan O wrote:

While VC is often presented as an enabling strategy, I think
it's proponents acknowledge that it doesn't get people out of
cars and onto bikes. It doesn't shift the transportation
landscape away from the car culture. In fact its very
existence is based on accepting car culture dominance and
*joining* it.


Well if you insist on riding only on roads then maybe that's valid.

In Australia we have little choice. Ride on the road for most practical
uses of a bicycle, or don't bother.

The problem I have with VC is not the strategy but the religion that
makes all other options sins.

The sins I see are poorly designed alternatives to road infrastructure,
and a law that says I pretty much have to use the poorly designed
infrastructure where it exists in my direction of travel.

Here's a snippet of what I recently wrote to our local roads authority
on the subject;

quote
Your engineers are obviously not competent cyclists or educated about
properly designed bicycling infrastructure. Why don't you ask "us", the
people who are actually out there riding as many kilometres as many
people drive?

Here's an example of more failed infrastructure. Just a couple of days
ago, a mate tried to use the relatively new facility on Kent Avenue in
Croydon. He said, "Councils have no idea when designing infrastructure.
I nearly broke my neck on a brand new piece of bicycle infrastructure on
Kent ave croydon at 60kph (the speed limit) when the bike lane suddenly
raised 4" over the distance of a foot. It was painted to look invisible.
It bucked me and I landed front wheel first only about 12" from a truck
also doing 60. It buckled a $500 wheel and gave me the biggest fright. I
thought I was going to die under those truck wheels because the council
didn't want to dig up a gutter when designing a bike lane."

Yep, another failure, and it's brand spanking new! When I saw what the
construction gang were doing I complained to council, and to the
designer at GTA Consultants, and to Vicroads, and to Bicycle Network
(who endorsed the design) and to the Ombudsman. I suggested much better
alternatives and reasons why the design was faulty - but alas, once the
concrete is poured, no one really listens. No one really cares.

As another example, I recently rode down Hartland Rd in Vermont South.
There is a nice wide bike lane there, but half way along, on a down hill
run, the bike lane suddenly narrows to half width where there is a small
raised traffic island with a metal post and sign. Nice life threatening
obstacle course! Further down there is a traffic calming chicane, where
the bike lane becomes a narrow footpath off to the side. Good luck if
you don't know it's coming up. I bailed out when I saw it, and had to
brake and swerve right, behind a car that was going passed.

These attempts to provide a safe haven are all wrong. Do you get it?
/quote

VC is fine FWIW. VC principles are very helpful in those
situations where bicyclists _have to_ share the same space
with cars, which is going to be the case for the foreseeable
future where the car culture dominates.


Like I said, some of it makes sense. Defensive driving (riding) makes
the most sense to me. Doesn't preclude bike lanes IMO.

snip

No, of course it doesn't preclude bike lanes. It is a method to best
coexist with motor traffic. So when a new facility makes it harder to
coexist with motor traffic, or is simply more dangerous to use than the
road, competent cyclists get ****ed off.

--
JS

On 15/05/14 07:35, sms wrote:
On 5/14/2014 1:24 PM, Duane wrote:
On 5/14/2014 3:48 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:


There's nothing wrong with learning how to ride with traffic.

The thing is that traffic skills and infrastructure like bike lanes are
not mutually exclusive except in the minds of the zealots.

Precisely. The VCZs don't want even well-designed bicycle infrastructure.


I think that is untrue.

--
JS

On 5/14/2014 3:48 PM, James wrote:
On 15/05/14 07:35, sms wrote:
On 5/14/2014 1:24 PM, Duane wrote:
On 5/14/2014 3:48 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:


There's nothing wrong with learning how to ride with traffic.

The thing is that traffic skills and infrastructure like bike lanes are
not mutually exclusive except in the minds of the zealots.

Precisely. The VCZs don't want even well-designed bicycle infrastructure.


I think that is untrue.

I don't. They might be okay with _perfectly_ designed bicycle
infrastructure. But based on their posts their position on bicycle
infrastructure always centers around complaints that the infrastructure
that's being built is either not sufficient to be useful or that their
are minor flaws in the design.

On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 7:09:04 PM UTC-4, sms wrote:
On 5/14/2014 3:48 PM, James wrote:

On 15/05/14 07:35, sms wrote:

On 5/14/2014 1:24 PM, Duane wrote:

On 5/14/2014 3:48 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:





There's nothing wrong with learning how to ride with traffic.



The thing is that traffic skills and infrastructure like bike lanes are

not mutually exclusive except in the minds of the zealots.



Precisely. The VCZs don't want even well-designed bicycle infrastructure.





I think that is untrue.



I don't. They might be okay with _perfectly_ designed bicycle

infrastructure. But based on their posts their position on bicycle

infrastructure always centers around complaints that the infrastructure

that's being built is either not sufficient to be useful or that their

are minor flaws in the design.

A bicycle facility/lane that suddenly ends and dumps the unsuspecting bicyclist into traffic is not a minor flaw.

Cheers