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

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.


Forester certainly seems to not like infrastructure of any sort.
--
duane

James wrote:
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.

Of course. But when you get ****ed off at a bad design that makes sense.
When you dis all infrastructure by rote it doesn't. I use some bike lanes
often. I avoid others just as often and file complaints about the bad
ones. Makes sense to me.

--
duane

On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 1:21:07 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski 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.

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).

I disagree that riding on the roads is joining the existing
culture. I believe I am living proof.

Or haul
your bike to the nearest MUP and cruise back and forth.

That's one choice, sort of.

Or, I suppose,
sit and moan about the horrible dominance of car culture until someone
builds a special path right to your driveway.

Since you consider unloading your bike at the MUP and
riding back and forth amounts to riding a bike, there are
*tons* more choices.

I fact, there are many places where it's feasible to do much
more than simply "ride a bike", and actually get to destinations
without ever touching the road.

But touching (and using) the road is *not* synonymous with
joining the car culture; and yes, one almost has to use
roads to do much of any worthwhile bicycling.

But you've again addressed my statement out of its context,
and missed the point completely. The question was, "Do VC
principles alone promote significantly greater participation?"
The answer is "no", and even the VC "crew" acknowledge that
that is not an objective (though I tend to be charitable
in this and credit it with making some riders feel more
assured and cement conviction in bicycling as a habit).

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.

(Nice of you to leave that in after attacking the first
paragraph on something it wasn't.)

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.

None of any of that implies a lick of common sense.

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.

I learn something new every day no matter what I do.

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.

You can try to put me down with smarmy stupidity, but I think I
was *supporting* your whole VC education business, Frank.

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.

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!original/rec.bicycles.tech/NqF5KQ9lSA0/KLuX1rglL2EJ

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.

Trout fishing and basketball injuries?

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.

So, your answer to the problem of motorist hostility toward
bicycles is, "Get used to it"?

Meanwhile, learning competent cycling (or VC) lets you deal with the
world as it is.

If learning VC will help me deal with motorist attitudes, then
it really must be a religion (the church of "man up and get
used to it"?)

I theorize that increased mode share can ameliorate motorist
attitudes _at the source_, and that there is a tipping point
where the presence of bicycles becomes the default expectation
and experience - where the *absence* of any bicycles is the
anomaly - and motorists must learn to accept them or go crazy.

On 14/05/2014 15:52, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/13/2014 10:54 PM, John B. wrote:
I might also mention that when you
see two tourists over here the fat one is almost always from the U.S.
:-)

Every time I've returned from visiting Europe, my first walk through an
American airport has been a shock. The difference in average body mass
is immediately apparent.

We were amused by our experience at the Grand Canyon. Leave the top and
start walking down one of the paths, and the average BMI shoots down.

(Lots of signs saying things to the effect of "Don't try and go all the
way down and back again in a day - we keep having to pick up the pieces"
and "Yes, even you young fit people". At a ranger station or similar
this young German chap was trying to find out how unhappy they'd be
about him doing it - "I've done a few mountains, so I think I ought to
be ok, but your signs are pretty insistent". The rangers were very
positive and said go for it - I get the feeling that having somebody
obviously fit asking them was a welcome change)

On 15/05/14 10:02, Duane wrote:
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.


Forester certainly seems to not like infrastructure of any sort.


I think because there is so little he has seen (in the US) that is well
designed and useful for cyclists of all capabilities to comfortably use.

--
JS

On Wed, 14 May 2014 12:48:11 -0700 (PDT), 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.

Chee4rs

Singapore is a good example. Nearly totally destroyed in WW II they
gained their independence from Malaysia in 1965 and today is the
second most densely populated nation in the world., and as a result
the numbers of autos on the road has greatly increased, and yet
bicycles are still a common method of transportation.

Singapore has a highly developed public transportation system
encompassing buses and the MRT (subway or Underground) but still at
every MRT station or bus stop you will see bicycles chained and
locked. The Lavender Street MRT station has several hundred bikes
parked there every day.

Bicycle facilities? None that I've seen other than parking stands at
MRT stations.

I suspect that bicycle use is far more dependent on social or economic
conditions, or even historical use, then on the availability or
non-availability of facilities.
--
Cheers,

John B.
(invalid to gmail)

On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 6:00:18 PM UTC-7, James wrote:
On 15/05/14 10:02, Duane wrote:
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...

Surely.

... except in the minds of the zealots.

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

I think that is untrue.

It's probably at least a too sweeping generalization. I think
their ranks are just saddled with some wingnuts.


Forester certainly seems to not like infrastructure of any sort.


I think because there is so little he has seen (in the US) that is well
designed and useful for cyclists of all capabilities to comfortably use.


http://www.dutchcycling.nl/index.cfm?page=News&view=detail&item=Why+the+so+ca lled+%27vehicular+cycling%27+concept+is+creating+a +false+dichotomy

On 5/14/2014 8:04 PM, Dan O wrote:
On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 1:21:07 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

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).

I disagree that riding on the roads is joining the existing
culture. I believe I am living proof.

Dan, you pretend that by disobeying the law puts you into a different
culture. That's true only for the most parochial definition of "culture."

I fact, there are many places where it's feasible to do much
more than simply "ride a bike", and actually get to destinations
without ever touching the road.

OK, I agree, it's possible to ride (probably on a mountain bike)
entirely off-road.

And it's occasionally possible to skulk along through parking lots and
on sidewalks, avoiding all roads, if you're that timid and have only a
short distance to go. To me, that's barely better than riding circles
around your own house.

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.

I learn something new every day no matter what I do.

But you have no idea how much you still 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.

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!original/rec.bicycles.tech/NqF5KQ9lSA0/KLuX1rglL2EJ

Ah. I wondered where you got that. The direct quote of what I said, from
that link, is "I'm sure those drivers don't like me as a motorist,
simply because I'm there." I was clearly and specifically talking about
driving my car, not riding my bike.

So, from the link, it's apparent you've been misrepresenting my
statement all along. Not that I expect a retraction.


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.

So, your answer to the problem of motorist hostility toward
bicycles is, "Get used to it"?

I'd probably phrase it differently. While some fairly sexist statements
have a lot more punch,one might say "Get confident enough that it
doesn't bother you."

What's worked for me is to learn to ride competently and confidently, as
a legal vehicle operator. I know what I'm supposed to do in any road
situation I encounter. I do it with confidence, and I find that almost
all motorists are perfectly cooperative with me.

The very few that are less than civil are not worth whining about. I
almost never get really angry at them; I simply recognize those very few
are being jerks who deserve no respect.

Perhaps I'm treated well because I'm seen as competent and law abiding.
All I can say for sure is that the people who complain the most about
motorists are the ones who don't ride like I do. And I'm far from the
only vehicular cyclist who's noted that.

--
- Frank Krygowski

James wrote:
On 15/05/14 10:02, Duane wrote:
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.


Forester certainly seems to not like infrastructure of any sort.


I think because there is so little he has seen (in the US) that is well
designed and useful for cyclists of all capabilities to comfortably use.

Maybe he should get out more.

--
duane

On 5/14/2014 4:24 PM, Duane 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.

Some bike infrastructure is absolutely incompatible with traffic skills.
One example is a bike lane or sidepath that guides cyclists into the
curb side (blind side) of motorists who might turn across the cyclist's
path. Another example is a door-zone bike lane. And in mandatory
sidepath jurisdictions, the incompatibility is even greater.

Unless you consider it a "traffic skill" to recognize and avoid the very
facilities that so many people lobby to have built. Since you're one of
those touting the facilities, I doubt that's what you meant.

--
- Frank Krygowski