# Short destruction of vehicular cycling nonsense



## RoyFokker (Apr 21, 2010)

I found this succinct demolishment of the vehicular cycling crazies in a blog:


sheffield cycle chic said:


> ... Vehicular cycling is non-inclusive by definition as it scares the sh1t out of anyone with the slightest imagination. U*nfortunately the majority of car drivers have never ridden a bike on the road and haven't the faintest idea how their actions are so dangerous. It is a sad fact that asking cyclists to "share the road" is about as ridiculous as dumping a toddler in the middle of a bunch of teenage lads playing football and telling them to "play nicely".* ...


That was too apt to not share more widely.

Which was linked to in a Copenhagenize post:
Copenhagenize.com - Bicycle Culture by Design: Vehicular Cyclists - Cycling's Secret Sect

If you want to see what cycling looks like were at least 20% or more of trips done are by pedal power, you should check out that blog along with this dedicated to explaining to the Anglosphere the infrastructure available in the Netherlands:
A view from the cycle path


----------



## ghettocruiser (Jun 21, 2008)

It feels really strange that I am about to sort-of argue *for* VC in this post given all the time what I spent pretty much doing the opposite again JF et al back in my BF A&S days, but there are some keys points in favour that are valid, IMO, and whatever form of modern cycling we argue for, we cant let them slip through the cracks:

1. Arguing that riding in traffic is basically suicidal is an advocacy problem any way they try to slice it. I have a 25km round trip to work. Zero meters of this trip have bike lanes, on street or off. My old commute was 40 km round trip with 120 meters of bike lane. I rather enjoyed both of those routes, which are all-urban and suburban roads. I did not get the impression that I was cheating death with every ride. VC guys would say I should take the lane. Bike lane guys seem to be suggesting I should not ride to work.

2. If we say riding on the sidewalk is dangerous, we need some real reasons why building another sidewalk a foot wider and calling it a "separated bike lane" is safe. I haven't heard any yet.

3. I have yet to see any bylaws passed here (in Toronto) that mandate use of a bike lane or sidepath (i.e. a prohibition on riding on the road). But I remain unconvinced such laws won't be made. Bike lanes are full of snow all winter and sidepaths are full of pedestrians all summer. I need to use the road sometimes. I'm not suicidal, I need to get to work.

4. In Toronto, the standard of care that is used when off-street bike paths are closed is not on the same planet as when a road is closed. They just block it. There is no advanced warning, there are no signs ahead to advise, there are no detours set up. If you're lucky you get an orange fence and a sign saying "no admittance". If you're unluckly you round a corner and nearly hit a parked truck. And suddenly roads don't seem so bad....

5. The posted speed limit on bike paths here was recently lowered from 20kph to 15kph. There was no explanation or public consultation. Just big new signs. Forgetting the fact that this is barely a qualifying speed for a Boston Marathon jogger, I'm trying to picture what the reaction would be like here if the speed limit on the highway was dropped from 100kph to 75kph with no reason given.


Maybe other people live in places where bike lanes and bike paths are smooth and fast and always open and they have no reason at all to ever ride on a busy road. But I can't imagine myself ever being one of those people... so yeah, I'm gonna "pretend to be a car" if that's what they must call it. Vroom Vroom?


----------



## dskunk (Jan 13, 2004)

I agree with ghettocruiser


----------



## newfangled (Sep 13, 2010)

This is funny, because I was thinking about creating a Forester thread after I stumbled on this:

New Report: Every Bicyclist Counts | League of American Bicyclists



> The results are sobering, eye-opening, and critically helpful in informing the current debate about the need for a non-motorized traffic safety performance measure.
> 
> We learned, for example, that a much higher percentage of fatal crashes than expected -- *40% of fatal crashes with a reported collision type -- were "hit from behind" incidents* -- that's important to know for our education program.


I actually have no real problem with vehicular cycling, and generally practice it, but:

VC takes as an article-of-faith that you will not be hit from behind. And that is WRONG. So. Very. Wrong. And continuing to preach that is irresponsible.

It seriously pisses me off when VC zealots actually advocate AGAINST cycling infrastructure, all because of their unwavering faith in that completely bogus and completely wrong Doctrine of the 0.3%.


----------



## BrianMc (Jan 5, 2010)

^ The incident rate may be low but the death rate (consequences are very high). People have trouble with those sorts of statistics in truly understanding them and their implications. I used to ride with no mirror. Got one, and my constipation was fixed. Geez, but they came close before slowing! We recently discussed a 3 foot rule to the side how about to the rear!? So began my search for daytime conspicuity so that they had time to factor me into their plans. It is better, but there is still a sort of you are asking for it and it is not their fault if they run over my butt when people talk to me about riding on the road. That attitude has got to be changed. It should not be open season on your fellow Americans just because they are pedestrians or cyclists.


----------



## Surestick Malone (Jan 24, 2004)

RoyFokker said:


> I found this succinct demolishment of the vehicular cycling crazies in a blog:
> 
> That was too apt to not share more widely.
> 
> ...


So the argument against vehicular cycling, as I understand it, is that a lot of the people enjoying the privilege of holding a driver's license are incapable of operating a motor vehicle in a way that respects traffic laws and is safe for cyclists and therefore people shouldn't exercise their right to ride a bike on the road.

I think I see a way to solve road congestion and pollution problems _and_ make things safer for cyclists! As an added benefit bike shops and public transport would start seeing a large influx of customers too!

Or we could start doing the "logical" thing that most police departments seem to love and start ticketing cyclists for their own safety...


----------



## SimpleJon (Mar 28, 2011)

RoyFokker said:


> I found this succinct demolishment of the vehicular cycling crazies in a blog:
> 
> That was too apt to not share more widely.
> 
> ...


You honestly believe that one anecdote you found on a blog is a succinct demolition of people cycling on roads with cars?
Have you ever ridden on a road? Its mostly OK - 99.9% of the drivers are fine they overtake giving you space, of the ones that pull the left hooks, drive too close most are on their phones or just being careless and I think they should be punished. Thankfully the "I hate cyclists and am going to run them over in my car" brigade are very few and far between.
I don't see any existential crisis between cars and bikes 
please show me some relevant statistics that back up your position that cycling on road is dangerous? Say more dangerous than riding in a car, riding a motorbike, being a pedestrian


----------



## ghettocruiser (Jun 21, 2008)

SimpleJon said:


> Its mostly OK - 99.9% of the drivers are fine they overtake giving you space


I gotta say that percentage in my home town is not quite that high.


----------



## minte (Sep 26, 2013)

I'm both an avid cyclist, and a practicing traffic engineer. I really appreciate many of the techniques used and advocated by vehicular cyclists. I think riding on the road with traffic works fine in many circumstances. However, there are roads and conditions present that you'd have to be insane to actually try vehicular cycling in. I also like bike lanes, bike boulevards and paths; and I'll even ride the sidewalk for a short distance if I'm dressed up and just want some coffee nearby. I know that riding on the sidewalk is where I'm most at risk, but I weigh those risks and trade off's for most situations. I don't have any evidence that well designed bike lanes are more dangerous than riding on the road as VC'ers insist they must be; neither do they. In fact, like anything in traffic, there are risk factors and ranges between when something is safe verses when it becomes risky. Take marked, midblock crosswalks. For years nobody could really tell you if they made things safer for pedestrians, or death traps. finally a good study came out that said both of those are true, but it depends on other things like speeds, lanes and the number of cars on the road. Bike infrastructure will have the same characteristics; which is why I detest VC'ers insistence that bike infrastructure is bad no matter what. Its more nuanced than that. Now they have taken the position that its really not about the infrastructure, but the laws that have been passed. Ok, next argument... 

Personally speaking, I like most of their ideas, but VC'ers are kind of like the crazy uncle in the family. You invite them to parties because its the right thing to do, and they are kin, after all. However, you don't let them drink to much, or talk to long, and you never, ever, ever hand them a microphone!


----------



## Rustedthrough (Aug 19, 2014)

Local ordinances confuse the issue further. I had never lived in a place where it was legal to cycle on the sidewalks (pavements) until I moved to Kalamazoo, here it is recommended if not required where a "suitable surface exists."

Local motorists are not fond of bikes in the roadway, however, they seem to make some distinction between a cyclist with lights, panniers, and a helmet and a bike on a road. The former is considered a fool who thinks he is a car, the latter a fool who lost his license and needs to be hazed.

I cede the lane whenever I can, and ride with lights, helmet, vest, mirror, etc. taking the lane when I need to for a turn. As long as paths are constricted, under construction, under snow from roadway plowing and so on, we must have the same rights as motorists. As long as we don't wish to die on our bikes, we should be considerate while riding, and lobby our representatives for more plowed pathways.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

I use the best of what's available to me. 

If I have to ride on the road, then I practice some elements of VC. I don't take the whole lane all the time, because that's just being an *******. I take the whole lane when the road surface is crap and I have to weave around potholes, debris, and roadkill. I take the lane when I am trying to protect myself from "the squeeze" due to narrow lanes. I take the lane when I'm riding past a row of parked cars along the curb to get out of the door zone. But when I have space, I move over and let cars pass me without needing to change lanes. If the parking lane is empty, I will ride in it.

I will ride on sidewalks if they are in good shape and there aren't too many driveways, cross streets, and shopping center entries. It's not illegal where I live, and now that we have a complete streets ordinance that's slowly being implemented, some of the sidewalks are being upgraded such that they're being made wider, better connected, and a bit safer where they do cross streets and driveways.

I use bike lanes. Some of them are poorly designed. Thankfully, the city is upgrading some of the poorly designed ones even while they're adding more elsewhere. If the bike lane is junk, then I will use the street.

I will use bike paths where available, too. I use them at night illegally, too, because that ordinance is stupid. Again, thankfully we've got a pretty big local push to get 24hr access to the greenway paths. There's supposed to be a vote this month regarding extending access. The city's new greenways master plan considers the greenway paths a component of the transportation network, even though the greenways are currently managed by the parks dept and they currently are given the same operating hours as nonlinear parks. 24hr access is vital to that, and the League of American Bicyclists has made it clear that 24hr access is one component that will be necessary for the city to be upgraded from a bronze rated bike friendly city to a silver rated bike friendly city.

I think that a bicycle transportation network needs to be considered a separate entity from the automotive transportation network. Efficient auto traffic typically follows interstates and other major highways, which are garbage corridors for bikes. Efficient bike traffic requires an entirely separate facility that shares many components with a car's freeway system. At some level, there needs to be mixing of traffic, because you can't have roads AND separate cycletracks accessing every address. I would be thrilled if that mixing only needed to occur on roads with auto traffic of 35mph or less, and that casual riders who rarely go more than 10mph had plenty of wide sidewalks to choose from so they could avoid roads altogether.


----------



## newfangled (Sep 13, 2010)

One other thing, is that if cycling is ever going to be a realistic transportation choice for more people for more of their trips, then there needs to be the ability for people to cycle together.

Partly because humans like to be social, and "well, I guess we'll just meet up again at the restaurant. Good luck" won't fly. Partly because finding a group of people who are all equally skilled at VC is pretty tough. And partly because even if riders are all equally skilled, it's still really easy to get separated at lights/stopsigns/turns.

If you're an antisocial, bearded, old dude who's only interest is going "fast" (the obsession of VCers) then VC is fine. And if I'm commuting, I certainly don't want to go slow. But if I'm riding with my wife (who will never be much of a cyclist) to a restaurant, I'd sure love some infrastructure to make that easier.


----------



## cjohnson (Jul 14, 2004)

"Vehicular cycling". I have not been to this forum for awhile and today is the first time I have seen this term and I saw it often. I think the term sounds silly and sounds a bit pretentious. I see the term was coined in the 1970's, a decade full of academic pretensions. Thank goodness that term has not caught on. Did the OP write that book? 


Any bicycle on the road is a bicycle no matter why that bike is being ridden. Any cyclist on the road deserves to be safe and pigeon holing the "style" of riding as "vehicular" makes my skin crawl. Yuck.

That's all I got out of this thread.


----------



## Straz85 (Mar 20, 2009)

cjohnson said:


> "Vehicular cycling". I have not been to this forum for awhile and today is the first time I have seen this term and I saw it often. I think the term sounds silly and sounds a bit pretentious. I see the term was coined in the 1970's, a decade full of academic pretensions. Thank goodness that term has not caught on. Did the OP write that book?
> 
> 
> Any bicycle on the road is a bicycle no matter why that bike is being ridden. Any cyclist on the road deserves to be safe and pigeon holing the "style" of riding as "vehicular" makes my skin crawl. Yuck.
> ...


I've been on this forum for a while and haven't heard that term until the OP brought it up. As you will learn, the OP of this thread likes to label anyone who doesn't agree with him 100% as not a real cyclist. I'm sure you noticed a lot of his arguments in here. Take it with a grain of salt. Some cyclists take the lane more than others, we don't have to label different "styles" of riding.


----------



## newfangled (Sep 13, 2010)

I only know about VC because of listening to funding/planning debates for bikelanes. 

VC's only real relevance as a "movement" in this day and age is that it is cyclists who advocate against any-and-all cycling infrastructure. And they do that through dodgy statistics, arrogance, and beards.


----------



## Rustedthrough (Aug 19, 2014)

Just how many VC would be VC if they had a clear lane or path? I will stand for the right to cycle in traffic when no other option exists, but, it is my least favorite type of cycling.

Terminology is always sketchy. As a bearded guy (part time logger) I am concerned that hipsters and "vehicular cyclists" are bringing back McCarthyite responses. Both groups demonstrate a disregard for their own safety and that of others, both blame some other group.


----------



## rogbie (Jun 20, 2011)

Bike-specific infrastructure is alright, until it ends. Then what? Separated and protected bikes lanes are nice, except when you want to make a turn onto an intersecting roadway. There is a lack of education for motorists and cyclists alike on how to use bike-specific infrastructure. Add to that, there is little to no standards on infrastructure between jurisdictions and in some cases within single jurisdictions. For example: in Denver, some on street bike lanes have dashed lines at intersections for right turning vehicles. On other streets these dashed lines don't exist. This creates a conflict between right turning motor vehicles and through going cyclists. Many times bike infrastructure forces cyclists to engage in risky behavior: passing on the right, riding in the door zone, unsafe turns across multiple lanes of traffic; not to mention, a part of the motoring traffic sees bike infrastructure as auxiliary loading zones.

There's some saying about a path to hell and good intentions. I'd rather not be marginalized by bike infrastructure, but as it is implemented here, that seems to be the end goal: Move cyclists to the side of the road to get them out of the way of the cars.


----------



## cjohnson (Jul 14, 2004)

Bike travel via non-bike specific infrastructure is OK, until bike specific infrastructure begins, then bike travel is awesome. See what I did there?


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

SimpleJon said:


> Have you ever ridden on a road? Its mostly OK - 99.9% of the drivers are fine


I would say that's generous, 95% maybe, but it doesn't matter. A tiny percentage taking risks with your life still feels like far too many!


----------



## SimpleJon (Mar 28, 2011)

Mr Pig said:


> I would say that's generous, 95% maybe, but it doesn't matter. A tiny percentage taking risks with your life still feels like far too many!


I cycle on pretty busy roads to work, it seems to be human nature to assume that something that appears dangerous (high consequence) is automatically high risk, something that actually is dangerous.

Looking at combined injury and fatality statistics where I live in 2013 there were 64 accidents per 10,000 motor vehicles - 6,426 cases in total, note that this includes any accident where any medical treatment is required, even a check up.
Assuming that no motorist had more than 1 accident in 2013 this indicates that 99.64% of drivers were not involved in any accidents that involved any in injury whatsoever. It is also worth noting that Singapore has 970,000 registered motor vehicles with land mass (including several large reservoirs and outlying islands) of 270 square miles meaning there are 3592 motor vehicles per square mile which is very high.

The total number of RTA fatalities in 2013 was 159.
72 of that number were Motorcyclists and pillion riders and 44 were pedestrians. The rest are made up of cyclists, car drivers passengers and folks in the back of goods vehicles (which is legal here unbelievably). 
The Traffic Cops did not publish the number of cyclists killed, but we have a pretty small community here and it always get reported as far as I can tell - for 2013 the following were the reported fatalities for cyclists that I have found:
Jan - 2 school kids killed by a cement truck on a pedestrian crossing
Feb - Construction Worker dies at a junction hit by a bus
May - Construction worker dies at junction hit by a bus
May - Another construction worker dies at the same junction 1 day later hit by a bus
May - Construction worker dies hit by a tipper truck performing an illegal u turn at a junction
May - Cyclist practicing for a Time trial rear ends a stationary truck and dies
I found 10 reports of serious long term injuries due to road accidents involving cyclists in 2013.
It should be noted that many of these very low paid foreign construction workers cycle on walmart type bikes with no lights or safety gear during the hours of darkness.
That makes a total of 7 fatalities that I can find - conservatively assuming that the number is double that that makes 14. (figures for 2008 to 2011 - 4 years show that 70 cyclists died in total which shows 17.5 on avg per year given downtrend each year for fatal / injury accidents from 93 in 2009 to 66 in 2013 this would show 14 to be a reasonable figure.

Getting data on how many cycling journeys there are per day is difficult in Singapore. A study from the Land Transport Authority in 2009 based upon CCTV outside of subway stations gave an average of approx 20 journeys per hour over an 18 hour period. There are 108 MRT stations in Singapore assuming that 100% of all cycling journeys pass MRT stations - I don't pass any and many of the popular cycle commute routes do not pass them, many commutes here are undertaken by low paid foreign construction workers who stay in camps they will generally not pass MRT's, also there are a lot of older people and housewives who commute 1 or 2 Km by bike to the stores that will probably not pass MRT stations. So in all likelihood 75% to 80% of all cycling journeys do not pass MRT's.
Conservatively this would lead to 20 jph x 18hrs x 200 commuting days x 108 MRT Stations / 14 Fatalities per year ~ 1 in 550,000 chance per year of croaking it cycle commuting in 2013 in Singapore.

It is interesting to note that there were no rear ending fatalities, which are the ones that scare me most, and only one serious injury report I could find for that. Since 2010 I found 2 rear endings and 2 side swipe (left hook) fatalities.
Most fatalities occurred at junctions and involved large vehicles at dawn or dusk and school kids, low paid workers on cheap bikes who generally ride with no lights during darkness (anecdotal based upon my observations), in In 3 out of 7 of them the bike was on a pedestrian crossing. remove these groups and you are looking closer to 1:2,000,000 per year. These risks are much less than those published for Motorbikes or road use in general - go and look it up if you don't believe me

RoyFokkers statement that Vehicular Cycling is ludicrously dangerous has no basis in fact (Crude Population based figures from Oxford university from 2005 / 2006 show US/UK to be 1:350,000 to 1:400,000 Risk of dying in an RTA on a bike)

At 99.64% I was closer with my guess of 99.9% of Singapore drivers are not dangerous than Mr. Pig at 95%  The odds would become alarming at 95% of drivers being involved in Injury or fatal accidents. 0.5% compared with 5% would mean 140 cycling deaths per year not 14!!!!

BTW - This is not a intended to be a peer reviewed PHD thesis, just an attempt to apply a somewhat crude empirical process to some of the uninformed and wild claims of Risk I see and hear all the time. I don't believe there is any evidence to show that cycle commuting on road is in anyway more dangerous than any other form of road use - including being a pedestrian and that is the sole intent of this.
Where I have made controversial assumptions I have tried to be as conservative as possible and explain them. The statistics came from the Singapore traffic police website, the Singapore LTA and newspapers /blogs of traffic accidents. All available from Google - but do feel free to rip me apart if you feel I have made any big error here.


----------



## newfangled (Sep 13, 2010)

^ every locale and situation will be different.

But the League of American Bicyclists found that 40% of fatal collisions were from behind:

New Report: Every Bicyclist Counts | League of American Bicyclists

The Royal Society for Prevention of Accidents found that in a quarter of fatal collisions the front of the vehicle hit the rear of the bicycle:

Cycling Accidents - Facts and Figures | Cycling Safety Advice and Information | Road Safety | RoSPA

Toronto found that "Motorist Overtaking" was the cause of 12% of injury/fatality collisions:

http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/contentonly?vgnextoid=24a30995bbbc1410VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD):

And from Alberta (where I'm from) 13% of injury/fatality collisions were from the rear:

http://www.transportation.alberta.c...uction/BicycleInvolvedCollisions2004-2008.pdf

And all of that is to contrast John Forester's often repeated claim that the chances of behind hit from behind are 0.37%, based on a dodgy interpretation of data from the 70s. And which is then used as the basis for the claim that bike infrastructure should not be installed anywhere, at any time, for anyone.

But I don't actually think cycling is dangerous. The best breakdown I've seen of that was done by Ken Kifer (sadly, Ken Kifer was killed by a drunk driver): Is Cycling Dangerous? -- The Risk of Bicycle Use -- Accidents, Fatalities, Injuries, and Benefits


----------



## rogbie (Jun 20, 2011)

cjohnson said:


> Bike travel via non-bike specific infrastructure is OK, until bike specific infrastructure begins, then bike travel is awesome. See what I did there?


You're ignoring the fact that there are little to no standards of implementation for bike infrastructure. Here in Denver, many on-street bike lanes are measured from the curb. However, this measurement includes an 18" wide gutter with storm drains that are unridable. So, over a third of the bike lane is unusable. On streets with bike lanes outside of parking lanes, the bike lane is shadowed by the door zone. Bike's are marginalized to a dangerous area: between moving traffic that won't give three feet, and the door-zone. Technically, in CO with the 3-foot-passing law a motorist has to pass a cyclist by three feet even if the cyclist is in a bike lane. But motorist assume the cyclist must remain in the bike lane at all times. The door zone shadow gives cyclists about a foot of bike lane to use.

I tried an experiment this week: I changed my route and rode to work on streets with bike routes and on-street bike lanes. My normal route is main arterials into the city. In 8 days of commuting using bike routes I had bottles thrown at me, two instances of near-dooring, 4 right-hooks, two near collisions with motorists running red lights, 4 near calls when motorist rolled stop signs, passed aggressively more times that I could count.

It would take months to accomplish that list on my normal route. This of course is anecdotal.

I'm saving my pennies for a camera. It's time people are held accountable for their imprudent, callous behavior.

I saw what you did, and in spite of your lack of constructive conversation, I engaged you anyway.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

rogbie said:


> I'm saving my pennies for a camera. It's time people are held accountable for their imprudent, callous behaviour.


I agree with you but in the UK the cops do nothing, video or no video.


----------



## NDD (Jul 22, 2013)

That's very true in the US as well, Mr. Pig. Near me some cyclists were assaulted on a shop ride by some guy in a pickup. Guy got knocked off his bike. There was video and the cops said they couldn't do anything.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

Honestly, the cops are lazy, useless... In the UK they're like glorified social workers. This wasn't the way I used to feel but after a few dealings with them I'm sorry but they are hopeless.


----------



## Straz85 (Mar 20, 2009)

NDD said:


> That's very true in the US as well, Mr. Pig. Near me some cyclists were assaulted on a shop ride by some guy in a pickup. Guy got knocked off his bike. There was video and the cops said they couldn't do anything.


It's a sad world we live in that you can have video evidence of a crime against you and the police won't do a thing because of the public's prejudices towards cyclists.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

Straz85 said:


> It's a sad world we live in that you can have video evidence of a crime against you and the police won't do a thing because of the public's prejudices towards cyclists.


It's not because of public prejudice towards cyclists, it's because they're lazy b*******!

They want to hand out parking fines, prosecute people for using harsh language and generally badger people who won't fight back. Big numbers on their weekly report sheets, minimum effort.

Actually do some work or tackle an angry person? Sod that...


----------



## cjohnson (Jul 14, 2004)

I seriously don't get the point of dismissing bike infrastructure completely. I see plenty of bad bike infrastructure. However, I am excited about the transition to it, and also realize there is going to be a learning curve.


----------



## BrianMc (Jan 5, 2010)

There has been some learning needed:

Cyclist?s construction complaint leads to apology, more signage | Toronto Star

Check out Niagara Falls May 19, 2013:

Tom's Excellent Adventure: May 2013

Then there is the popular dead end:









But no problems!


----------



## ghettocruiser (Jun 21, 2008)

ghettocruiser said:


> In Toronto, the standard of care that is used when off-street bike paths are closed is not on the same planet as when a road is closed. They just block it.


Speak of the devil.....










This is actually on my main drag. This week, after the complaint, they just kind of let us ride through the middle of their active construction site. Which I guess is not so bad.

Note also in this photo that the pavement-coloured bollard located in the middle of the trail (unrelated to the closure) has no hi-viz stripping or reflective tape. One rainy November night, I suddenly noticed that a similar bollard that had been absent for a year had returned. I noticed this very, very suddenly.

Wonder what would happen if they put that thing on a road used by cars.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

cjohnson said:


> I seriously don't get the point of dismissing bike infrastructure completely. I see plenty of bad bike infrastructure. However, I am excited about the transition to it, and also realize there is going to be a learning curve.


That's a good point. I find cycling provision depressing as much of it is bad but the fact that they are doing it at all gives reason for hope.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

rogbie said:


> You're ignoring the fact that there are little to no standards of implementation for bike infrastructure. Here in Denver, many on-street bike lanes are measured from the curb. However, this measurement includes an 18" wide gutter with storm drains that are unridable. So, over a third of the bike lane is unusable. On streets with bike lanes outside of parking lanes, the bike lane is shadowed by the door zone. Bike's are marginalized to a dangerous area: between moving traffic that won't give three feet, and the door-zone. Technically, in CO with the 3-foot-passing law a motorist has to pass a cyclist by three feet even if the cyclist is in a bike lane. But motorist assume the cyclist must remain in the bike lane at all times. The door zone shadow gives cyclists about a foot of bike lane to use.
> 
> I tried an experiment this week: I changed my route and rode to work on streets with bike routes and on-street bike lanes. My normal route is main arterials into the city. In 8 days of commuting using bike routes I had bottles thrown at me, two instances of near-dooring, 4 right-hooks, two near collisions with motorists running red lights, 4 near calls when motorist rolled stop signs, passed aggressively more times that I could count.
> 
> ...


 I thought I had it bad here in MA. I have had good luck running daytime blinky lights front and rear, yourself?


----------



## rogbie (Jun 20, 2011)

leeboh said:


> I thought I had it bad here in MA. I have had good luck running daytime blinky lights front and rear, yourself?


The problem isn't visibility. The problem is on-street bike lanes are located on, usually, wide streets which encourage speeding; streets with many intersections; parking lanes that minimize bike lanes to ~1ft wide because of the door zone; disappearing bike lanes, with no signage for drivers or cyclists, that reappear a block away; varying widths of bike lanes from block to block; bike lanes measured from the curb with ~18" of the bike lane unusable due to a gutter and storm drains; to top it all off, very minimal effort in educating all road users on how to operate in and around bike infrastructure--infrastructure with little to no standards of implementation.

Bike infrastructure in the US serves two purposes, to appeal to leisure cyclists and to keep bikes off most roads. A common complaint I hear from motorists is the trope: Why are you riding on the road? There's a bike path for that. Well, bike paths are great from going no where. I wish my job was in the field the path decidedly ends in (after a blind corner with no warning, or course), but it's no where near a bike path or on-street bike route. So, I take the surface roads, and like it or not, I am allowed to use those roads on any vehicle I chose. And it is the duty of all other road users to make sure they do not harm other road users, no matter what vehicle they're operating. It would be nice if the transportation world put an emphasis on slowing down. That goes for all modes of transportation: motorists, cyclists, mass transit (except high speed trains, we need more of those suckers!), pedestrians. Everyone is in a huge hurry to go no where fast. Race to the next signal/sign, ride as close to the person in front of you as possible, speed everywhere-road, MUP, doesn't matter, just go ****ing fast! faster!! fastest!!!-.

rant rant rant

back to filing bronze


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

I agree that speed control is KEY. 

It's also very true that a lot of bike lane designs suck sweaty monkey balls. Some don't, though. My city has a couple plans in play to make some pretty substantial improvements to a few bike lanes. I haven't seen detailed plans yet, but the general idea is that a few painted bike lanes are getting converted to protected lanes/cycletracks. I don't know if they will have counterflow lanes or not, but our one existing cycletrack does.


----------



## Medic Zero (Jun 8, 2011)

RoyFokker said:


> I found this succinct demolishment of the vehicular cycling crazies in a blog:
> 
> That was too apt to not share more widely.
> 
> ...


Bah! Copenhagenize has an agenda, and vehicular cycling is at odds with it, not surprised they are taking a ridiculous stance like this.

I ride 3-7 days a week, about 9,000 miles in the last three and half years, and about 2,000 hours on the street. Most of my riding is "vehicular" and I haven't been hit yet.

While it'd be nice someday to have something like Copenhagen's infrastructure elsewhere, until that day I still have to get around, and vehicular cycling isn't "non-sense", it's logical, sensical, and it works.

It sounds like some people are conflating a few vocal, overzealous proponents of VC with VC itself, which is a silly mistake. Broad brush and all that.


----------



## ghettocruiser (Jun 21, 2008)

Medic Zero said:


> It sounds like some people are conflating a few vocal, overzealous proponents of VC with VC itself, which is a silly mistake.


This is because the *zealot* in question was the one who coined the term, isn't it?

As discussed, I do indeed ride much in the manner described by this term, but I prefer to just call it "riding my bike on the road".

Anyways, the quote of the day:



Chevrolet spokeswoman Annalisa Bluhm said:


> access to music and access to calls is now a critical part of the driving experience and so we're looking at innovative ways to provide that.


Critical?

Really?

I usually think of "critical" as things like... not plowing into a bridge abutment.


----------



## BrianMc (Jan 5, 2010)

Medic Zero said:


> Most of my riding is "vehicular" and I haven't been hit yet. While it'd be nice someday to have something like Copenhagen's infrastructure elsewhere, until that day I still have to get around, and vehicular cycling isn't "non-sense", it's logical, sensical, and it works. It sounds like some people are conflating a few vocal, overzealous proponents of VC with VC itself, which is a silly mistake. Broad brush and all that.


+1 (Though less miles). They forgot to put sidewalks in in most of this town. They are finally building some MUPs. This has been the least bike-friendly place I have lived so I am curious to see how well they execute.



ghettocruiser said:


> As discussed, I do indeed ride much in the manner described by this term, but I prefer to just call it "riding my bike on the road".


When there is nothing but roads to ride there is no alternative if you want to at least leave the car sit for some trips. Even more so if you have gone car=free. Being at the bleeding edge of a change in paradigms is problematic at times.



ghettocruiser said:


> I usually think of "critical" as things like... not plowing into a bridge abutment.


Yes, Life looking where the H you are going is critical. Being predictable and following some semblance of traffic laws is another (e.g. staying in your lane). Open bottles were made illegal in enforcement of lowering drinking and driving. Are we going to see cell phone inspection for recent calls as part of any traffic stop or accident investigation? The stats say a driver testing is at least as bad as a drunk driver, though it is possible the source was overstating the case.


----------



## newfangled (Sep 13, 2010)

Just stumbled upon a review of Art of Cycling: Staying Safe On Urban Streets: Robert Hurst, Marla Streb: 9780762790050: Amazon.com: Books









Some snippets from the review: The Retrogrouch: The Art of Cycling:



> "Next to the absentminded anarchy practiced by many novices, the vehicular cycling principle is a stellar guideline. Just by obeying traditional traffic-law principles and riding predictably, a bicyclist eliminates a large portion of the danger of cycling. However, the vehicular-cycling principle has a big hole in it: The strict vehicular cyclist who has eliminated many of his or her own mistakes by riding lawfully will still remain quite vulnerable to the mistakes of others."





> "Some cyclists have added a very confrontational tone to the framework of Forester's message. It is a small group, but a very visible and loud group. Through their riding habits in traffic, which are often deliberately, theatrically antagonistic, they seek to make some kind of point to their special audience of other road users."





> If there is an overall theme to the advice put forth in The Art of Cycling, it would be that responsibility is more important than blame. If someone in a car runs a red light and hits a cyclist, then of course the driver is at fault -- we can assign blame to the driver. But assigning the blame to the driver does little to help the injured cyclist who would clearly be better off if he/she had not been hit by the car in the first place. Hurst maintains that it is the responsibility of the cyclist to remain vigilant -- to be alert and watchful of what might potentially happen, and to be prepared for it at all times.


The review is really good, and makes the book sound pretty interesting.


----------



## ghettocruiser (Jun 21, 2008)

Robert was a regular contributor to the bikeforums A&S threads back in the day and often had, IMO, much more convincing arguments than the VC-is-the-solution posts that Forrester himself would make. Sheldon Brown was an occasional contributor back then too, IIRC. Yep, those were the days....


----------



## newfangled (Sep 13, 2010)

Today's cartoon from Bikeyface is pretty perfect:

Bikeyface Â» A Zoo



> I have to bicycle vehicularly most of the time because there's not much infrastructure yet. But I'd prefer not to. What I can't understand why anyone would argue against protected bike lanes.
> 
> I wonder how the argument would go if applied to other things- like a zoo?


----------



## TenSpeed (Feb 14, 2012)

Humans are the smartest, yet dumbest creatures on the face of this earth.


----------



## rogbie (Jun 20, 2011)

Protected bike lanes are nice, but they have limits and inconsistencies. 

Comparing cycling on the road, as an operator of a vehicle, to a zoo is a stretch. The reverse of that cartoon's logic is: "Pen all the cyclists in a protected lane to keep them from getting in the way of motorized traffic. And everyone lives happy caged lives."

No one's happy in a cage. Isn't that why motorists are always so impatient, disgruntled, angry, callous.


----------



## ghettocruiser (Jun 21, 2008)

BrianMcs Link to the Thestar.com said:


> There has been some learning needed:
> 
> Cyclist?s construction complaint leads to apology, more signage | Toronto Star
> 
> "Construction near the Don River Valley bike trail is expected to end early next week."


That was in *EARLY AUGUST*.

Now, show of hands, who thinks that construction finished *seven months ago* like they said it would?

Now, who thinks that as of yesterday, the section of path in question is still a muddy mess with active construction activity and pieces of metal and knocked-over signs on the bike path?



Bikeyface said:


> I can't understand why anyone would argue against protected bike lanes.


I can.


----------



## RoyFokker (Apr 21, 2010)

rogbie said:


> Comparing cycling on the road, as an operator of a vehicle, to a zoo is a stretch.


No, it is not an exaggeration, it is 100% apt. Someone on foot or on a bicycle allegedly competing for space on the roads with cars weighing an average of 3500+ lbs(1588 kg) is exactly like saying in a zoo every animal should compete for the same space in a big pen.

What is inappropriate or invalid is saying the opinions of sports cyclists on such matters is valid, since such people not only have motor vehicles, but they actually tend to actually use their motor vehicles more, precisely because they are sports cyclists. All that driving for groups rides, to bicycle shops, to trail heads, etc. It is easy to have convenient views that lead to your benefit when using your feet to get around or a bicycle is only for very prescribed circumstances and the car is taken in most cases for the needs of daily life.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

RoyFokker said:


> Someone on foot or on a bicycle allegedly competing for space on the roads with cars is exactly like saying in a zoo every animal should compete for the same space in a big pen.


I'm sorry but that's idiotic. People, whether on bikes, foot or in cars, are not actively trying to kill one another for food and are in fact capable of learning to cooperate reasonably well if the correct stimulus is applied. Your analogy is flawed and useless.


----------



## RoyFokker (Apr 21, 2010)

Animals in a zoo don't have to kill each for other food either, since the carnivores will be feed regularly by zoo staff. And it is not my analogy it is that of the bikeyface cartoon. Analogies are not 1 to 1, hence the term analogy. However that analogy is more valid than the lame claims of vehicular cycling and its advocates. Nominal laws that establish alleged equality on the roads or equal access don't mean much given the disparities of physicality and speed when comparing bicycles to cars. Similarly at a zoo, if every animal was in the same cage it wouldn't do the zebras anything if after the fact that zookeepers punished a lion that killed a zebra in a shared cage. Dead is dead, maimed is maimed, the size and speed disparity is the killer, innate and beyond the idiotic "good drivers" versus "bad drivers" and "good cyclists"(who use idiot VC principles) and "bad cyclists"(who do what they must to cycle and feel safe in a hostile environment even if it is technically illegal or not allowed or offends vehicular cycling cranks) discourse.

The "good motorist versus bad motorists" discourse is only attractive to fair weather or sports cyclists. Driving a motor vehicle and motor vehicle dominated policies creates innate difficulties for pedestrians and cyclists. This is no matter what kind of driver is behind the wheel. Given the speeds of a motor vehicle, in a heavy downpour it is hard to avoid splashing nearby cyclists and pedestrians with nasty rainwater unless you go slow enough to provoke other motorists and slow greatly the flow of traffic, etc. In the winter in my area, streets are plowed, but not sidewalks. So to benefit motor vehicles who travel around in the most inefficient manner, at the expense of pedestrians the sidewalks are often filled in many areas with their normal snowfall, plus the extra and down-right disgusting snow plowed over from the road. And that is done with tax-dollars, too. I could go on and on.


----------



## rogbie (Jun 20, 2011)

The problem is using words like "competition" to describe cycling in a multi-modal system. The implication is vehicle operators are in a "race". _Since, wild analogies are flying around, it's like calling police, soldiers: the implication being they're at war with the public._

Also, to clarify: I haven't owned a vehicle for over a decade. I transport all my needs by bicycle. Where I live, cycling infrastructure is inconsistent, in design and continuity, poorly maintained, and there is no concerted effort to educate cyclists and motorists on how to use and operate around the new infrastructure. Often, poorly designed infrastructure places a cyclists at greater risk. At the same time, the state statues for operating a vehicle clearly define the use of a bicycle as a vehicle; in a lane on any road; with exceptions defined. Again, the problem is a lack of education for all vehicle operators.

All the infrastructure in the world will not solve the problem if the public is unaware how to use the infrastructure.

There is no "car vs. bike". The roads are for the public and all forms of transportation. And right now, the roads are unsafe for everyone. That point is undeniable. The failure of our transportation system is not entirely for lack of infrastructure, rather lack of education and understanding of the complexity of operating a vehicle (motorized especially, due to the large potential forces).

Here's a not funny joke:

:Why are American driver's so bad?

:hysics is no longer a required course in high school.


----------



## rogbie (Jun 20, 2011)

RoyFokker said:


> In the winter in my area, streets are plowed, but not sidewalks. So to benefit motor vehicles who travel around in the most inefficient manner, at the expense of pedestrians the sidewalks are often filled in many areas with their normal snowfall, plus the extra and down-right disgusting snow plowed over from the road. And that is done with tax-dollars, too. I could go on and on.


So, the solution is more infrastructure, paid for with tax dollars, that receives no winter maintenance, while the streets are still plowed? Why not ride in the road? Roads cleared of snow to facilitate the movement of vehicles that includes bicycles.

If the argument against riding in the road is cars are big and scary and dangerous, that's on the people in cars to know and respect. That's the duties and responsibilities part of holding a driver's license. So, the problem rises again: a lack of education of the duties and responsibilities of vehicle operators. *A driver's license grants no rights to its holder, only duties and responsibilities. Paramount among them: the safety and due care of all other road users.*


----------



## RoyFokker (Apr 21, 2010)

Thank you for replying to show what dolts the vehicular cycling loonies are.

NO AMOUNT of education or law will reduce the physical and speed inequality of a bicycle on the road versus huge cars on the same road competing for space. Further people make mistakes. Even simply walking(which I highly suspect you don't do very often given your extreme pro-motor vehicle orientation); from time to time you will mis-step, misjudge a crack and slip and fall. On a bicycle from time to time you will sort of lose control, your attention will wane, maybe you will even fall or crash. Well on a car such mistakes much more often will kill and maim, because they are too big and go too fast. We also have the phenomenon of lots of Westerners into intoxication and drug culture who when behind the wheel(unlike when walking or bicycling) are huge threats to the public safety and in the suburbs these people aren't getting rides or taxis most often.

This has nothing to do with education, you vehicular cycling loonies. The motor vehicle is innately polluting, a huge waste of taxpayer money and dangerous to society. Further your tone and mentality is best exemplified by your callous, heartless attitude when it is pointed out how the roads are plowed at taxpayer expense but not the sidewalks. *What are pedestrians supposed to do? Vehicular wakling!!!!* Another example of the innate imbalances that motor vehicle bias creates is how vigorous the police are with fining people who don't plow their cars parked in the streets that are left snowed in, with how lax they are about home-owners who don't shovel their sidewalks. Everyone with with a social conscience who is about more than distracting themselves knows that the legal system and policing are all about discriminating against those with the least money in favor of those with the most money and resources, so the stances on plowing streets and fining are in total conformity with what should be expected from a society with codified inequality. I seriously doubt someone who believes such nonsense as you is anything but a motorist who cycles very rarely.


----------



## NDD (Jul 22, 2013)

Always with the ad hom's, Roy. I agree with you, believe it or not, about inequality in society and how cars are a part of that. More so, I truly believe that owning a car will become so expensive that only those in the upper middle class and above will be able to own and operate a car. Maybe even part-time commuters are ahead of the game, then? There is simply no need to be so rude and assumptive and doing so is vapid.


----------



## Rustedthrough (Aug 19, 2014)

Sorry guys, I got lost in all the name calling. What was the discussion about?

I had never thought to call it "vehicular walking" but, that is what folks in my neighborhood do all year round. I don't quite understand it but, we walk on the roads and bike on the sidewalks until they get too rough, then we take the lane.


----------



## RoyFokker (Apr 21, 2010)

@NDD: 
It is not an ad-hom it is reality. I seriously doubt vehicular cycling advocates really bicycle more to get around than they use a car. Look at Jon Forrester himself... What we have is a bunch of people greatly exaggerating their bicycle usage for daily life activities, supporting a motor vehicle centered ideology and that is a dangerous misrepresentation of people who actually don't own motor vehicles. Such ninnies like to sidetrack the discourse away from the INNATE, yes INNATE downsides and dangers of automobiles into endless off-topic tirades about good drivers who are buddies with good cyclists in some non-existent social reality(that would likely make a good sci-fi but certainly not a good depiction of what happens in reality on the roads) doing battle with bad motorists and bad cyclists on the road...

Further you are likely relying on hopium. Recently I visited Greece in huge economic recession and economic decline since 2009. At my paternal village, the villagers still drove to the local kafenio(coffee shop/bar) a few hundred or thousand feet away from their homes instead of walking.

@Rustedthrough:
Who are you, the always offended _tone police_?


----------



## NDD (Jul 22, 2013)

RoyFokker said:


> @NDD:
> It is not an ad-hom it is reality. I seriously doubt vehicular cycling advocates really bicycle more to get around than they use a car. Look at Jon Forrester himself... What we have is a bunch of people greatly exaggerating their bicycle usage for daily life activities, supporting a motor vehicle centered ideology and that is a dangerous misrepresentation of people who actually don't own motor vehicles. Such ninnies like to sidetrack the discourse away from the INNATE, yes INNATE downsides and dangers of automobiles into endless off-topic tirades about good drivers who are buddies with good cyclists in some non-existent social reality(that would likely make a good sci-fi but certainly not a good depiction of what happens in reality on the roads) doing battle with bad motorists and bad cyclists on the road...
> 
> Further you are likely relying on hopium. Recently I visited Greece in huge economic recession and economic decline since 2009. At my paternal village, the villagers still drove to the local kafenio(coffee shop/bar) a few hundred or thousand feet away from their homes instead of walking.


The bit about driving a few hundred feet is just sad. That's all I have to say about that. I feel that way not necessarily because of hope, but because the town where one of my jobs is has seen a big spike in poverty and homelessness and a corresponding spike of all year round bike commuters (on DUI-guy bikes with bar ends sticking straight up). I just see it as a trend. It's a pretty personally informed prediction, I'll admit.

As for some of the other comments:

I think most people are honest about how much they ride. I know I am. Last year I rode (not only commuted, though) about 3,500 miles in 12 months, and probably 70% of that was done getting from home to school or home to work. I think this is pretty modest and believable. In the suburbs, miles will just add up, because you have to bike at least 8 miles to get anywhere.

Also, perceived reality or not, ad hominem is poor argument form. Look, I'll admit, internet forums aren't necessarily the place where most people are concerned with such things and I'm mostly here just to pass time day to day. I just think you could say what you've said in a more appealing and less isolating way, unless you're just here to let off steam. That's cool. We all get kicks in our own ways.


----------



## Rustedthrough (Aug 19, 2014)

Roy, if you are trying to stir the great awakening of the proletariat, you are barking at the wrong crowd.

Those of us who use shoes, cars, and bicycles to get around, are much more likely to check mirrors and watch sidewalks than those who only use cars. 

Serious economic deprivation often leads people to maintain behaviors they can barely afford, often as an attempt to maintain a sense of normalcy. I'm not sure I buy NDD's prediction of cars becoming too expensive for the working class in the near future, but, there will be a lag of several months to a few years between the economic reality and any shift away from individually owned cars.

I am not offended by your tone, I am annoyed by your refusal to present a cogent argument.


----------



## NDD (Jul 22, 2013)

Rustedthrough said:


> Serious economic deprivation often leads people to maintain behaviors they can barely afford, often as an attempt to maintain a sense of normalcy. I'm not sure I buy NDD's prediction of cars becoming too expensive for the working class in the near future, but, there will be a lag of several months to a few years between the economic reality and any shift away from individually owned cars.


You're probably right, Rusted. People will just get loans and go broke to own and drive a car in the US anyway. There are countries today where poverty is bad enough that most people can't drive, but the US isn't one and probably won't be one in any of our lifetimes. Do you think more people will bike for economic reasons, though?


----------



## Rustedthrough (Aug 19, 2014)

I think they will, once it is socially acceptable to bike. The number of bikes rolling my neighborhood this winter was at least twice what it was in 2006 when I moved in. As much as infrastructure sucks here, bikes have begun to overcome a major marketing problem.


----------



## rogbie (Jun 20, 2011)

I knew it was risk responding to this thread again.

I'm not an advocate for anything, cars or bikes. I'm one person cycling for all my needs and using the road as defined by the statues of my state and local municipalities. I use bike specific infrastructure if it is advantageous and safe to do so. Otherwise, I ride in traffic as a vehicle operator and defined by the state legislature and local officials.


----------



## Shayne (Jan 14, 2004)

rogbie said:


> I use bike specific infrastructure if it is advantageous and safe to do so. Otherwise, I ride in traffic as a vehicle operator and defined by the state legislature and local officials.


¡This!


----------



## Carton (Sep 15, 2014)

NDD said:


> Do you think more people will bike for economic reasons, though?


It's not going to be the economics that does driving in, it'll be the ongoing cultural shift towards more progressive, less risk-tolerant public policies. Wikipedia cites a WHO estimate of 1.24 million "traffic-related" deaths in 2010. That means that that motor vehicle incidents will kill more people on any given day than the worst terrorist attack in recorded history and that more people are killed on average on the roads every 6 hours than the second deadliest attack on that list. So I personally do expect automated cars with far better safety records to start taking over from human drivers in developed countries fairly soon, possibly even within the next two decades. However, given its population density, I'd venture that automated cars may remain a significant transit option in the US for over a century, maybe even several centuries.

Until then, though, even the best transit networks for cyclists will continue to involve at least a stretch of mixed vehicle road riding the vast majority of riders. Establishing better rules for all users and above all getting drivers (and more than 90% of americans drive to work) involved in sharing those roads more safely will result in thousands upon thousands of lives saved just from road incidents, not counting the hundreds of millions more whose lives would be greatly improved by a more cycling and pedestrian friendly world.


----------



## rogbie (Jun 20, 2011)

Not sure if I posted this before or not, but it's relevant to the discussion. Particularly, the last quote:

"Murder Machines: Why Cars Will Kill 30,000 Americans This Year"

"'The people who really get it today, in 2014, know that the battle isn't to change rules or put in signs or paint things on the pavement,' Norton continues. 'The real battle is for people's minds, and this mental model of what a street is for. There's a wonderful slogan used by some bicyclists that says, 'We are traffic.' It reveals the fact that at some point, we decided that somebody on a bike or on foot is not traffic, but an obstruction to traffic. And if you look around, you'll see a hundred other ways in which that message gets across. That's the main obstacle for people who imagine alternatives-and it's very much something in the mind.'"


----------



## RoyFokker (Apr 21, 2010)

Yeah, it is only in the mind that cars have 15x to 25x the weight of a bicyclist or pedestrian. It is only in the mind that on majory roadways with 45 mph speed limits the cars are actually going 55-60 mph, far faster than any bicyclist can hope to go.

It is only the mind... Are you vehicular cyclist proponents actually trying to make fools of yourselves through black satire? The physics, weight and speed involved is what makes cars dangerous and a menace. It is not a legal, moral, education or mentality problem. Let us get real. If cars somehow weighed as much as a go-kart and topped out at 35 mph, I wouldn't really feel very threatened by them.

Just read the article which was good and this a more relevant:


Collectors Weekly said:


> Murder Machines: Why Cars Will Kill 30,000 Americans This Year
> "If you look at newspapers from American cities in the 1910s and '20s, you'll find a lot of anger at cars and drivers, really an incredible amount," says Peter Norton, the author of Fighting Traffic: The Dawn of the Motor Age in the American City. "My impression is that you'd find more caricatures of the Grim Reaper driving a car over innocent children than you would images of Uncle Sam."


That is what really hints at what needs to happen. The successful propaganda of the motor vehicle lobby(of which Forrester and vehicular cycling are a part of) needs to be countered somehow. Cars are not less any dangerous or socially damaging as they were back then. It is just the propaganda war has been lost. A View from the Cycle Path blog often mentions that Dutch children as young as six are often able to be independent and go to school themselves because of local roads that block thru-traffic and low speed limits, combined with an expansive dedicated bicycle infrastructure that makes it safe for them to do so. Motor vehicle propaganda hides from Americans such downsides that they never think of. If streets were safe and dedicated infrastructure existed they wouldn't have to helicopter parent, chauffeur their kids until they could finally drive themselves.


----------

