Originally Posted by
livedarklions
Good discussion!
Here's where I think the VC label is one to be avoided because it's associated with a radical view that segregation of bike traffic from car traffic in any form is wrong. I agree that the key word in FRAP is "practicable" and I read it to give me fairly wide discretion as a cyclist but it is clearly not so subjective as to swallow the rule. But the doctrinaire VC insists that the FRA part is a form of segregation and therefore wrong, and bolster that view with wildly exaggerated statements about being invisible in that position, statements I know from experience as both a rider and a driver not to bear much relationship to reality.
Thanks, LDL. I don't believe all forms of car/bike segregation is wrong, or that FRAP is either. Maybe some VC proponents do, but that to me is no reason to reject the entire VC strategy of staying safe on the roads, which mostly DON'T have suitable bike infrastructure. A cyclist can do much worse than following a VC strategy, and I'd argue that most do!
I also agree one is practically as visible off to the right as they are in the lane. But they are not as relevant. ANYTHING directly in a motorists path will demand more attention than the same thing not in their path.
"Visibility" goes beyond overtaking traffic. Being in the lane gives riders and motorists better sight lines at any crossings, blind corners, and such.
I disagree vehemently with the probability arguments you made above, I strongly believe that if you had more bicyclists riding "in the lane" you would see at least a proportional increase in bicycle-involved crashes there.
I don't believe I made any "probability arguments" above. I did say I'd like to transport to someone's area where they say VC would never work, and ride around with an on board camera. Maybe doing this would prove them right! (but I doubt it) I do agree that more cyclists in the lane would likely equal more wrecks there. Would it be more or less than proportional? We all can make our guesses but we won't know unless it were to happen and be properly studied.
Drivers don't intend to hit trucks and cars either, yet plenty of collisions occur there between them.
I believe that cars and trucks are at higher risk of being hit simply because they are so common. A cyclist in the lane sets off alarms in the motorists mind that forces attention that a car traveling at 15 mph would be much less likely to get. Surely you've been in the lane and noticed this.