CliffordK

Well worth watching. Lots of discussion about how bike lanes and off street bike paths get more people on the road which is a good thing.

An interesting note is the Strava Heat Map even showed those using Strava like the bike paths and bike routes.

epnnf

What is the purpose of the video? Criticize John Forester? Did it end the debate of Vehicular Cycling/bike lanes? Nobody said VC encourages cycling.

livedarklions

I think they just want to make sure he stays dead.

Seriously, he lost the infrastructure debate thoroughly several years before he died so it's hard rto see the point in dredging that up.
I don't think anyone claimed that VC would encourage cycling, but I think the big lie that was exposed was that bike infrastructure wouldn't encourage it.

flangehead

This is a topic that has been beaten to death, dug up, autopsied, burned, and the ashes spread over the Sargasso Sea... maybe it is showing up again now due to the sargasm..

However, it does prompt me to relate a conceptualization I came to recently. I frequent a busy intersection of two arterial four-lane roads which have dedicated left-turn lanes. The intersection was rebuilt about two years ago and advertised as a "Dutch Junction".

I have been going through it both in vehicular mode and using the sidewalks/crosswalks to compare the experience.

In the immediate now of what exists at that intersection, I fare best when I operate as a vehicle. I get through the intersection much faster and without the conflicts that I have about 10% of the time when I use the crosswalks.

Why? The intersection is optimized (design, signals, synchronization, etc.) to move the motor vehicles. Pedestrians, people in wheelchairs, anyone not on the main lanes have priority only slightly higher than pond scum.

I fare best when I operate as a vehicle because the infrastructure prioritizes motorists.

At the end of the day, much of the bike infrastructure I see built maintains the priority of motorists. Without overpass/underpass, priority has to be established, and in my jurisdictions the motorists are the mode prioritized.

CliffordK

That is a recent video that popped up.

This forum still has a big debate between the ride as far left as possible crowd and the ride as far right as possible crowd. I did note that all the clips in the video showing cyclists on main roads without bike lanes showed them all riding to the right.

Anyway, I thought it was a valid viewpoint that offstreet bike paths, bike lanes, and protected bike lanes promote more cycling.

It was also interesting that the Strava heat maps tended to follow the bike lanes and bike paths. Here in Eugene/Springfield I very much cherish the riverfront bike paths and have used them for at least the last 40+ years.

I do prefer using left turn lanes, and will admit that the exit from bike paths onto roads as well as roadside paths isn't always the best thought out by city planners.

There is one median strip bike path that throws me onto an "L" of two crosswalks. And that is the only place that I've been hit by a car in many decades. The car decided to make a right on red turn as soon as my crosswalk sign was activated. I've realized that if I go straight through the first crosswalk, then left through the second one I avoid the right on red problem. Whereas if I go left through the first crosswalk then right through the second one I get exposed to the right on red problem.

daihard 

I happened to watch the video a few days ago. It is well aligned with my personal belief, which is to promote cycling as a viable means of transportation, and to build safe infrastructure that prioritizes people over cars (i.e. "streets for people").

I do utilize the techniques VC encourages, such as taking the full lane rather than riding on the edge, on roads with no bike lanes or unsafe ones. but that's out of necessity (IMO). If a road has reasonably safe bike infrastructure, I will use it with no hesitation.

rebel1916

Isn't there a whole separate sub for people to argue about this?

Korina

I finally worked up the nerve to click on it; three threads, and the latest post is from last November. Surprising but encouraging.

jon c. 

Why is it encouraging?

daihard 

Because no-one has tried to promote VC at least in a few months?

Korina

What daihard said. Vehicular cycling is only good for car drivers and fast roadies.

greatbasin

Insomuch as vehicular cycling is riding in motor vehicle traffic, I enjoy that when it is practical. I am not in opposition to bike lanes, MUPs, and other cycling infrastructure just so that I can be a more staunch advocate of VC. I can appreciate that bike lanes and separate cycling infrastructure might be used to justify prohibiting VC or at least casting practioners of VC as radical activists. Even so, I think VC has more challenges than just potentially available separate infrastructure.

Most roads in the US have become motor vehicle infrastructure. We would have to go back 100 years or more to see them being used by other modes. Over those same hundred years, speeds have increased substantially. Open-top cars used to be popular. Driving a convertible at present-day freeway speeds is just annoying. You would have to wear ear plugs just to avoid hearing loss. While nobody is advocating vehicular cycling on the freeways, the expressways and boulevards are too fast for VC too. While speed limits might be 45, people routinely drive 10 mph over the limit because speed laws are usually enforced at 11mph or more over. So we've got cars going 55 mph on most arterial roads through suburbia and 85 mph on the freeways. I am not mistaken to think that VC means that cyclists need to travel near the speed limit or at the rate of traffic. That's simply not true. Even so, riding in the lane where cars go 55 mph or 85 mph is ill-advised.

Some people think the cars will go underground through tunnels in the future -- Boring Co. and so forth. It seems reasonable. Will we practice VC in the tunnels? It doesn't seem likely. Maybe cyclists will reclaim the surface roads, but it seems improbable. Near where I live, there are two long-awaited by-pass projects on the books.

One of the bypasses will divert heavy truck traffic around the town. The route being bypassed is a state highway that drops down to 25 mph through town. The bypass will probably hurt local businesses that already struggle with the exception of a few coffee and fast-food drive-thrus. The town area already got a MUP last year. It's used heavily by recreational cyclists and dog-walkers. I just don't see cycling being further improved or popularized by the bypass even though it would make VC better.

The other bypass is through the resort/casino area. This area is popular with tourists and it grew up on the sides of the highway. Now the plan has been for a long time to redirect the motor vehicle traffic around the highway to allow a narrowing of the highway and more pedestrian use. I hate to be cynical, but this will probably increase panhandling more than cycling. The other thing it will increase is the rental e-scooter traffic. Cycling is very popular in this area, on the cycling paths. I practiced VC in this area extensively last summer, but I was one of the very few. The tourists love the bike paths though, and their e-bikes.

The city just north of us completed a bypass a few years ago. Formerly, the highway went through town similar to the way it does here. The bypass up there is a freeway with soundwalls (and no cycling). They narrowed the highway through the downtown area after the bypass was completed. It looks prettier, but hasn't increased cycling. A MUP was also opened up there last year, south of the downtown area that was narrowed and pedestrianized a few years ago. That MUP sees little use because it's away from residential areas and passes Walmart, Costco, car dealerships, and drive-thrus.

truthseeker14

In other countries, especially those in Asia, vehicular cycling is the norm. I've biked in Taiwan where traffic is chaotic. Drivers weave in and out of traffic and it's often not clear how many lanes there actually are. However, I feel safer cycling in Taiwan compared to in America. It seems that in Taiwan, and likely other Asian countries, there are two practical rules of the road for car drivers as well as scooters and bicycles: don't hit anyone and don't get hit. And though it seems chaotic, it also works, and leads to drivers being more skilled. Drivers expect scooters and cyclists to be on the road, and they have enough skill not to hit them. They do not take it personally that a cyclist is temporarily slowing them down. In the USA, I wonder how many vehicular cyclist/per mile of road are necessary to get drivers used to bikes on the road and make them skilled in driving harmoniously with slower moving cyclists. There probably is a critical mass, a minimum number.

livedarklions

I don't think this is the popular view of Taiwan road safety.
https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/fea.../06/2003783058

truthseeker14

This article is about pedestrians not bikes. But is the view popular? yes in that it's the practical, unwritten law of the road: don't hit anyone and don't get hit. Right of way seems to exist only on paper. People may not like it, and yes, sometimes people do get hit, but it's practical, and again, I feel safer biking in Taiwan than in the urban city where I live in the USA.

livedarklions

I think the numbers aren't reliable enough to know whether this subjective feeling does or does not reflect reality in terms of probability. I don't doubt that there is at least the perception of safety in numbers, but I also suspect that even if the numbers of cyclists in the US were high, that the strategies would still be different due to the differences in mix of vehicles and the road designs between the two countries. I've never been to Taiwan, so all I know is just stuff I've read, and we know that's never as good as first-hand experience. I am just a bit surprised by yours, but that surprise is almost certainly due to my ignorance.

daihard 

I can only speak to Japan in Asia, but cycling there is ANYTHING but vehicular cycling. In fact, most people who bike for transport/utliity use the sidewalks where available. Recreational cyclists almost always ride near the edge of the road, much more so than those in the US. Sadly, Japanese in general seem to be becoming more and more hostile towards people on bike, based on the local news I read.

Mtracer

I think it's worth noting that many cyclist are only cycling for recreation. In this case, I think it obvious that a dedicated MUP would be preferred over streets. Having said that, where I live (Albuquerque, New Mexico USA), we have a MUP that runs 17 miles, most of it near the Rio Grande river. It's extremely popular for cyclist, walkers, and runners. I ride it often.
But nearby, running parallel is Rio Grande Blvd. I will use this on the weekends, for my recreational riding. Why? Because the MUP has more users on it than I would like on the weekends. I ride at 18-20 MPH, and there's too much slowing and negotiating other users. So, I take to the street. But the street has a pretty good shoulder/bike lane most of the time, and is itself a relatively slow street. Speed limit 25 MPH in places.

We have another very popular MUP running parallel to a very busy and fast road (Tramway Blvd.). Pretty much a 4-lane (2 in each direction) highway with stop lights every half mile or so and no there no driveways into businesses. I think the speed limit is 50 MPH. While this MUP is generally popular, it's not so much with experienced cyclists. We prefer the road. The intersections are just too tricky. Especially with right-turn on red. Drivers just aren't looking for cyclist or anybody else. Fortunately for those of us that prefer to ride on the road, the shoulder is very wide. It is about as wide as a driving lane.

A few years back, the there was some legislation looking to make it illegal to cycle in the road if there were a MUP adjacent to the road. This would have forced us to use this MUP. Fortunately this didn't make it through the legislature.

As to VC or not. I ride to the right when there's as shoulder, I take the lane if there is another lane for cars to use to discourage close passes. I take the lane when it's the only option or at intersections. I prefer to use left turn lanes just like a car. I also use common sense and don't do any of this on the busiest streets in town, when there are less traveled streets I could be using.