Vehicular Cyclists - Cycling's Secret Sect

Moonbiker

Lots of "sect" member on theese forums?

http://www.copenhagenize.com/2010/07/ve ... -sect.html

I can understand being against bad cycle lanes but some people seem against any cycle lanes, i suppose because 95% of the UK ones are bad.

adr82

Moonbiker wrote:

I can understand being against bad cycle lanes but some people seem against any cycle lanes, i suppose because 95% of the UK ones are bad.

Yes, I think this is exactly it. A vast amount of the total mileage of cycle lanes in this country are simply not fit for purpose, eg the extremely common "narrow strip of paint in the gutter, with bonus risk of dooring" type. Yet councils keep on painting them even after years of people pointing out how dangerous they are! If it's a choice between building more cycle lanes of that type and encouraging people to risk injury by using them, or having none at all, it's actually better to have none at all. As long as the councils can claim they're spending money on "sustainable transport improvements" by slapping a bit of paint on the road we're not going to get any semi-usable cycling infrastructure!

The vehicular cycling "sect" does have some pretty silly opinions, but it's worth remembering they're at an extreme end of the spectrum. If you do have to ride on the roads, there are many circumstances where behaving as if you were a vehicle undeniably makes sense. I don't see how anyone can argue with that. If you're mixing with motor vehicles without any cycling infrastructure to help you, you're going to be safer following the same rules the rest of the traffic does. Things like signalling your intentions, getting into the right lane approaching a junction and so on. The problem with "vehicular cycling" is that they seem to promote it as the only possible way for cars and bikes to coexist, and it's obviously not the only way because there are lots of countries and cities where properly designed segregated infrastructure has been proven to work.

chewa

adr82 wrote:

Moonbiker wrote:

I can understand being against bad cycle lanes but some people seem against any cycle lanes, i suppose because 95% of the UK ones are bad.

Yes, I think this is exactly it. A vast amount of the total mileage of cycle lanes in this country are simply not fit for purpose, eg the extremely common "narrow strip of paint in the gutter, with bonus risk of dooring" type. Yet councils keep on painting them even after years of people pointing out how dangerous they are! If it's a choice between building more cycle lanes of that type and encouraging people to risk injury by using them, or having none at all, it's actually better to have none at all. As long as the councils can claim they're spending money on "sustainable transport improvements" by slapping a bit of paint on the road we're not going to get any semi-usable cycling infrastructure!

The vehicular cycling "sect" does have some pretty silly opinions, but it's worth remembering they're at an extreme end of the spectrum. If you do have to ride on the roads, there are many circumstances where behaving as if you were a vehicle undeniably makes sense. I don't see how anyone can argue with that. If you're mixing with motor vehicles without any cycling infrastructure to help you, you're going to be safer following the same rules the rest of the traffic does. Things like signalling your intentions, getting into the right lane approaching a junction and so on. The problem with "vehicular cycling" is that they seem to promote it as the only possible way for cars and bikes to coexist, and it's obviously not the only way because there are lots of countries and cities where properly designed segregated infrastructure has been proven to work.

A lot of sense here. I tend not to use cycle lanes, preferring to ride on the road, and act like a "vehicle" where I need to. The important thing is to be decisive, make intentions clear etc.

But then, as I was (again) telling my neighbour who advised "Your ears would be burning at the weekend" as they had been scared by some roadies "slicing" past them without warning on a shared path, I'm also a motorist and motorcyclist, (and not the spokesman for cyclists everywhere) so am pretty hazard aware when mixing it with traffic.

Cyclepaths have a function, but there is a lot to be said for getting more cyclists on the roads, so that all road users have to learn how to co-exist.

cougie

I see their point. A lot of the bike lanes here are pointless. Going down the pavement and adding the danger of people pulling out of their drives and the hassle of giving way at every side street. Badly thought out and implemented.
But then there are great shared paths that mean I can avoid main roads and the only cost to me is to slow it down a bit as I'm sharing with walkers and sheep.
That's a fair deal to me.

95% of my ride will be done on the roads though.

snorri

It might interest some to know that John Forester described as the guru of vehicular cycling in the linked article in the OP is now a speaker for ADC, the American Dream Coalition http://americandreamcoalition.org/