I am going to start off by expanding a bit on Herb’s intro to Vehicular Cycling and John Forester. These posts are not an attempt at an wholesale assassination on ‘Vehicular Cycling’. There are many good things about Vehicular Cycling that one would be wise to consider putting into practice. I agree with Herb that some parts of Vehicular Cycling should be considered as part of a balanced approach to riding on our streets. That said, there are some suggested practices and pieces of information in Vehicular Cycling that range from questionable to dishonest to dangerous. This is troubling because quite frequently these problem areas are in the forefront, being used to obstruct the progression of all things cycling, whether it is a bike lane or legislative relief. While Vehicular Cycling converts like to describe their entire approach as a proven theory, the problems being explored in these posts will suggest that Vehicular Cycling contains a mix of various theories and hypotheses.
Vehicular Cycling is explained as the, “...practice of driving bicycles on roads in a manner that is visible, predictable, and in accordance with the principles for driving a vehicle in traffic...” What is missed in most of these definitions is the political component of Vehicular Cycling. Read any Vehicular Cycling literature and it clearly asks its converts to advocate its tenets where ever and whenever they can. Vehicular Cycling contains a political philosophy that is strongly influenced by staunch conservative values and encourages followers to promote it with religious fervor. This is not a criticism: any sort of advocacy group has different political influences and different ways of delivering their message. It is, however, important to understand how these influences present themselves, and how they shape suggested practices. In the case of Vehicular Cycling, it holds to true conservative values of preserving the way things are and resisting radical change, regardless of how beneficial change may be.
To begin this discussion it is important to start with a key definition. Every set of practices or laws relating to how to operate a vehicle on a road have a common goal; that is, to make the use of the roads “safe”. It is important to understand how this word is used to understand the goals of any proposed “safe” practice, and how it is interpreted.
How is “safe” defined? Dictionaries use an “either or” definition, you are “safe” if you are free of harm otherwise you are not “safe”. In general usage though the definition is more comparative. We ask, “Is it safe?” Meaning is there less risk than an act one is familiar with. For instance, “Is roller blading safer than taking a car?” No one assumes that any act is completely safe.
"Risk" is an easier word to define as it deals with the probability of harm occurring and is subject to less opinion. Everything else being equal, you or I have the same risk of being struck by lighting. Yet our views could be at odds when asked if riding in a lighting storm is “safe”. You may view it is “safe” practice because it has an acceptable risk factor, I not.
The word “safe” when discussing cycling takes on a lot more opinion and emotion in its definition. “Safe” in cycling discussions contains two major parts, a quantitative and qualitative assessment. Risk, usually measured through statistics, is the quantitative assessment. I would argue that the qualitative assessment is opinion gained through one’s experience, perception or interpretation. The qualitative part is very powerful to cyclists or potential cyclists when they act. In some cases so strong that they will ignore the quantitative assessment altogether. A perfect example of this is riding a bicycle on a sidewalk. There is a wealth of statistics that clearly states that this practice is far more risky than riding on the road. Typically the practice of riding on the sidewalk is driven by the discomfort of sharing the road with much larger vehicles or just the road itself. This decision can also be influenced in a large part by factors that are not easily identified by statistics. A good example here would be the aggression cyclists face from drivers while riding on the road, whether the cyclist is in compliance or not with the rules of the road. Rarely do cyclists get hit by these aggressive drivers but it can make riding very unpleasant. Some time ago I heard cycling advocate Ben Smith-Lea describe the desire and importance by cyclists to have a pleasant ride described as the “quality of life on the road”. A quick read of any cycling advocacy website or face-to-face discussion amongst cyclists shows how important quality of life really is.
It is extremely important to understand that cyclists’ concerns are not unique nor do cyclists suffer from any sort of mass mental health issue as suggested by Vehicular Cycling. Drivers have the very same issues and they too will favour the qualitative assessment, and with good reason. Unlike cycling, there is more quantitative evidence supporting their assessments. They too have discomforts like sharing the road with large vehicles, non adherence to rules of the road, aggression, and so on, which bears out in statistics. In a stunning statistic referred to in an open letter by Ian Law published in the Toronto Star, nearly one in 17 cars in Ontario was involved in a collision in 2006. Other statistics point to aggression being the cause of up to 80% of collisions. This begs the question of how “safe” it is to advise cyclists that they are “safest when they behave like vehicles”? Especially when motor vehicle drivers and the conventions established for them to operate on the road that Vehicular Cycling practices have been modeled on are in such turmoil themselves.
Vehicular Cycling attempts to address the qualitative issues with questionable results and sometimes even uses unsupported “facts” to achieve this. Vehicular Cycling even attempts to dismiss the qualitative concerns by cyclists altogether by labeling them as a disease. This “disease” will be dealt with more directly in the second part of my post. There are three articles I have referenced in the following three paragraphs I would like to draw your attention to. One deals with the contrasts between a cyclist interested in not only being safer but in the quality of life and a Vehicular Cycling practitioner. The second makes a quantitative argument as to why cycling is “safe”, arguing that cycling is safer than most any other transportation choice. Finally the third takes a direct look at the qualitative assessment.
“Bike Lanes: A Motorist Invention” in The Urban Country by James D. Schwartz highlights the contrast between issues of quality of life versus the tenets of Vehicular Cycling. There may be a slight miss in the article when the Vehicular Cyclist is not challenged when he states that cyclists should not be given any special consideration on the roads. This conflicts with a Vehicular Cycling practice of “filtering”, a practice to give a cyclist an advantage in slow moving traffic. “Filtering” is in a legal gray area in several jurisdictions including Ontario. In others it is widely practiced even if illegal.
Ken Kifer makes an excellent quantitative argument that cycling is safe, even boasting that, “...bicycling is nearly six times as safe as living!” He also argues that the fatality/ injury rates could even be further reduced if more cyclists practiced Vehicular Cycling. Unfortunately he supports this reduction based on some of the more questionable attributions’, like the source of a cyclist's fear, of Vehicular Cycling.
Sociologist Dave Horton takes a hard look at the factors involved in qualitative assessments that are made by cyclists. This is a very well researched article and makes some excellent points. He does seem though to somewhat share a “conspiracy theory” with Vehicular Cycling of the invention of cycling as dangerous: “...The road safety industry, helmet promotion campaigns and anyone responsible for marketing off-road cycling facilities all have a vested interest in constructing cycling - particularly cycling on the road - as a dangerous practice...”
There is a myth in the cycling community that Vehicular Cycling tells cyclists to behave and drive like cars. This follows with protests that a bicycle can never be like a motorized vehicle. In its most base form Vehicular Cycling is proposing that we have a common approach to the road in order to best communicate with other road users. Any reasonable proposed practice to use on our roads would pretty much have to rely on similar mechanics.
The problem is that Vehicular Cycling founding father, John Forester, surrendered to the automobile before even considering any other approaches to use to communicate with other road users. He freely admits admits as much. Google Videos has a lecture by Mr. Forester where he provides his interpretation of history and how the car took the dominant role.
He chose to integrate his approach into the system of rules of the road that were established for the automobile; a system that was flawed even before he promoted Vehicular Cycling. Other forms of transportation: pedestrians, planes, and ships, for instance, have much lower incidents of collisions than automobiles. You had a much greater chance of dying in a car on 9/11 than you would have had had you been flying or been on a ship. These other modes of transportation use a much higher level of active communication that what is found in the rules of the road. Approaches like “Complete Streets” and “Naked Streets”, which Herb will deal with in greater detail, have proven how flawed the current rules of the road and street designs are.
There, too, is the problem that to this day the bicycle is not universally accepted, even in some North Americas jurisdictions, as a vehicle. Even if it is considered a vehicle, several jurisdictions treat the bicycle in its driver education manuals and highway laws as a nuisance. It could be argued quite easily, however, that this is not a flaw of Vehicular Cycling but a flaw created by lawmakers. A more relevant problem with Vehicular Cycling is that it is rigid and adverse to change, something that, again, we will later on touch on in greater detail. Things change, societies change, needs change, understandings change and any proposed method must be able to adapt. If it fails to adapt it becomes irrelevant and out of touch.
In my second part to follow I will take to task both some minor and major issues with Vehicular Cycling. I will be encouraging you to take another look at some so-called facts promoted by Vehicular Cycling enthusiasts. There will also be some simple social and driving (yes, with a car) experiments you can carry out on your own that may offer you a basis to alternative explanations to those of Vehicular Cycling dogma. I will also make a case as to why the “cyclist inferiority complex” is more junk psychology than it is fact.
Comments
Anony (not verified)
Superb Start
Mon, 04/26/2010 - 15:27I like where this is going... Can't wait for part two
locutas_of_spragge
excellent article...
Tue, 04/27/2010 - 17:35let me emphasize once more that planes and ships have a higher level of safety precisely because the laws governing ships and planes stress safety as an absolute priority. Particularly in aviation, safety concerns trump any consideration of efficiency. Road crashes have their genesis not only in the design of the roads, but also in the laws that govern them and the philosophy that dictates both road design and the laws that govern roads.Aviation laws, for example, state quite clearly that safety trumps all other factors. Nowhere I know of does the Ontario Highway Traffic Act make a similar simple declaration. A pilot who refuses a clearance on the grounds of safety has the absolute support of aviation law and of the aviation community. Anyone who has refused to turn right on a red with an impatient motorist behind them knows that does not hold true on Ontario roads.
Peter Rosenfeld (not verified)
Not exactly what Vehicular Cycling is about
Thu, 04/29/2010 - 11:51As you imply, Vehicular Cycling looks at the statistics of safety rather than the "comfort" of bicycling.
And most experienced bicyclists would agree with the vehicular method of safely bicycling on a road.
For a moment, let's ignore Foresters perhaps unfortunate way of talking about why many bicyclists are afraid of bicycling on the road, even when the road is perfectly safe. (He calls it "cyclist inferiority complex" and says it develops because society pushes the idea that people in bigger and more expensive vehicles have more right to the road).
The contentious area involves bicycling infrastructure. Most vehicular cyclists are OK with bicycle facilities as long as they are safe and don't lead to a reduction of our right to use the roads. We worry about the latter because in the USA it is unlikely that all our destinations can be linked by decent infrastructure and we don't want to lose our right to use bicycles as transportation and recreation.
A vehicular cyclist would look at a side path and say it is more dangerous than riding on the road because it makes the intersections, where most collisions with cars take place, more dangerous. A facility advocate would argue that a slight increase in danger doesn't matter if it makes the bicyclists feel more secure, since bicycling is pretty safe if any case. They would also argue that the facility would get more people bicycling and the safety might even improve due to a possible "safety in numbers" effect..
The vehicular cyclist is somewhat skeptical of the "safety in numbers" effect and would argue that even if true it is unethical to design a facility that gives the illusion of safety to bicyclists when it actually increases their danger.
Tom Trottier
Separation Anxiety not misplaced
Mon, 05/03/2010 - 16:50A Copenhagen study before and after a separated bike lane was installed showed more accidents at intersections and fewer between. Overall, there were about 10% more accidents but 20% more bike riders.
Certainly intersections are a major problem of separated facilities. There needs to be special care, special stoplight cycles, special attention paid, and yes, there are more delays for all.
Ideally, it would be nice to close off the minor intersections to cars and just leave the signalled intersections.
But the anxiety of cyclists cycling in traffic is not misplaced. The 2003 Toronto study found hit-from-behind accidents were only 11% of the total, but about 36% of the fatalities.
tOM
Darren_S
Stats.
Thu, 04/29/2010 - 18:07VC relies almost exclusively on observational statistics, observing what happens and then recording the result. This is somewhat problematic. There are very strong arguments for and against this manner of collecting results regardless of what context it is used in, cycling or not.
What is very problematic is that VC attributes a lot of assumptions as to why a particular result occurs.
In addition, one must also be very careful with how the stats are presented. While a certain VC practice may decrease the number incidents it may in turn increase the severity of an incident. Instead of twelve cyclists with broken arms you may have one dead one.
The issue of losing rights to the road is fear mongering. While there may be an odd instance of some unworkable restriction placed against cyclists, cyclists will not be stripped wholesale of access to the roads.
JFJ (not verified)
Re: stats
Fri, 04/30/2010 - 08:49Quote, "VC relies almost exclusively on observational statistics ..."
Really? Perhaps you need to look at some of the work done by Lisa Aultman-Hall, Phd (a civil engineer not an advocate) on commuter cyclists in Ottawa and Toronto for the US Transportation and the Journal Accident Analysis & Prevention.
If there's any doubts about the need for cyclists to acquire vehicular skills and ride on roadways when they have a choice between roads and sidpaths or sidewalks, her work should put them to rest.
Darren_S
Lisa Aultman-Hall study
Fri, 04/30/2010 - 11:07Unless I missed something this is a measure of observation and outcome. This again is in no way a criticism of the approach, it is a valid method. There is no examination of why in the face of overwhelming evidence why people still choose to ride on sidewalks. VC makes a lot of guesses as to why but nothing that can be supported.
JFJ (not verified)
Auktman-Hall's work
Fri, 04/30/2010 - 21:52Nothing can be supported? You didn't look at Aultman-Hall's work closely enough.
She surveyed 3,000 commuters and compared incident rates on-road vs paths/trails. She separated them into two groups, sidewalk cyclists and road cyclists. A sidewalk cyclist was defined as one who cycled on the sidewalk for any part of a commute.
Markers for vehicular cycling in addition to riding on the road rather than sidewalk are:
. cyclist making a left turn from the left lane,
. use of busy streets rather than avoiding them, and
. membership of a club or had taken a training course.
Since sidewalk cyclists were,
. less likely to make a left turn from the left lane when on the road
. more likely to avoid busy streets when an alternative existed, and
. less likely to be a member of a club or to have taken a training course,
road cyclists could be equated with a greater propensity to ride in a vehicular manner
Results:
Those that chose to ride on sidewalks when there were adjacent roadways had higher accident rates both off-road and on-road compared to those that didn't, and all cyclists, sidewalk or not, had higher accident rates off-road.
Conclusion: lower application of VC skills and use off-road facilities each separately increases the risk of accident.
Darren_S
Aultman-Hall study
Mon, 05/03/2010 - 14:54@JFJ
I think you misread what I wrote. I am not claiming anything is wrong with the study or its methods at all. Like any other study that measures by observation and outcome it does not study what cognitive processes went on when the cyclist acted. Again this is par for the course for this type of study.
Beany (not verified)
This was brilliant!
Thu, 04/29/2010 - 19:52Well written and I can't wait to read the rest.
John Brooking (not verified)
Surrendered to the automobile?
Thu, 04/29/2010 - 21:01You can say that Forester "surrendered to the automobile", but you could also say that he faces the reality that to use the bicycle for practical transportation, it is currently and for the foreseeable future required to ride on existing roads that also carry motor vehicle traffic, and given this presence of motor vehicle traffic, vehicular cycling is the best combination of safety and convenience. Or at least that's my view, I can't speak for him. Sure, if there were no cars, we wouldn't need such "unnatural" rules governing our interaction with each other on the road, as there were not in the pre-auto age, but that's not the world we live in now. It is both physically and fiscally impossible to build physically separate infrastructure to all possible destinations, and history shows that "separate but equal" never works out in practice. One group always has more power than the other.
Darren_S
Co-existing, not submission.
Thu, 04/29/2010 - 22:40John Brooking there is a difference between co-existing and submission. Cars and cyclists can co-exist on the roads while respecting each others differences. Submitting to a flawed system as it is now and was before VC imitated it is not very effective.
No one is calling for infrastructure to all possible destinations.
Seymore Bikes
Army of Darkness
Thu, 04/29/2010 - 22:16Does Vehicular Cycling suggest that bikes behave like cars where lights are concerned.
Plenty of unlit cycles I see (or not).
trikebum (not verified)
Yes Seymor.....bikes need lights af night...just like cars.
Sat, 05/01/2010 - 12:10That is the law. I would suggest that riders of unlit cycles probably never had any proper road training...or cared to.
Are you implying these people are VCs?
> Does Vehicular Cycling suggest that bikes behave like cars where lights are concerned.
>
> Plenty of unlit cycles I see (or not).
Seymore Bikes
light-en up
Sun, 05/02/2010 - 21:16That was sarcasm Trikebum, but thanks for sharing.
Richard Froh (not verified)
Segregated bike facilities promoters
Fri, 04/30/2010 - 09:32In defense of the principles and tenants of VC:
Your admit that, "the bicycle is not universally accepted, even in some North Americas jurisdictions, as a vehicle. Even if it is considered a vehicle, several jurisdictions treat the bicycle in its driver education manuals and highway laws as a nuisance. It could be argued quite easily, however, that this is not a flaw of Vehicular Cycling but a flaw created by lawmakers."
Your statement above is valid, and the contention by many "Vehicular Cyclists" that the promotion of segregated bicycle facilities (usually "bike/pedestrian" facilities) leads to incompetent bicycling practices and a perception that bicyclists are just "rolling pedestrians" (not legitimate road users) is also valid. We competent VC's are constantly fighting the tide of misinformation promoted by well-funded armies of bike facilities pimps. Rather than correcting the flaws in our frequently "incomplete street" infrastructure in order to enhance safety for all road users, segregated facilities promoters strive to build new segregated infrastructure - much of it of questionable design from the standpoint of safety.
This bombardment of misinformation and segregation leads to highly illogical, superstitious beliefs.
For example: I live in a relatively rural coastal region that is visited by commercial bicycle tour groups. Our coastal village roads were designed for horses and carriages, so it is difficult to claim that the roads here are particularly unsuitable or "dangerous" for slow-moving road users such as bicyclists, who are often faster than the tourist traffic. However, when I recently visited local Inns and B&B's to promote my bicycle rental business, many of the innkeepers exclaimed that our area needs more bike paths and bike lanes, and that our roads are too dangerous - even as other innkeepers promote bicycle touring on these very same roads! Our entire county only has exactly 0.9 miles of paved bike path - so where are these people getting their hunger for bike paths from? Are our roads really "too dangerous", or are our road users "too dangerous"?
Local public and law enforcement perception of bicyclists' proper place is negatively influenced by bike path promoters using examples like Portland, OR. - even though there is little resemblance between urban Portland and our local rural/coastal village area. On the other hand, we can be pretty sure that If a group of Amish families from PA. moved into our region and used their horse-drawn carriages and wagons for transportation, local police would have no difficulty enforcing traffic laws in an equitable manner to assure the rights of all to safely use the roads. We wouldn't be promoting a labyrinth network of segregated paths for Amish buggy drivers. Our local police currently finds our laws protecting bicyclists to be (quoting a local police chief) "unenforceable". Would he find laws protecting Amish buggy drivers "unenforceable".
Public tolerance for other classes of slower-moving vehicles is much higher than it is for bicyclists. Bicyclists are discriminated against as a "class". There absolutely IS a cultural bias against bicyclists among a large portion of the motoring public, and many misunderstandings as to the proper place for bicyclists to ride. Promoting segregated bicycle facilities certainly does imply and reinforce the notion that bicyclists don't belong on roads, and that bicyclists can and should continue to operate incompetently - anywhere else except on roads "belonging to" motorized raffic.
The needed cultural change would best be accomplished through education - unless many private individualsare willing to deed their own property over to use for segregated bike highways! Regions like ours don't have wide roads or public lands on which to create segregated bicycling facilities, so we either successfully promote VC, or else we competent cyclists suffer the harassment inflamed by the well-funded, politically-connected, and politically-motivated "bike-friendly" (NOT bicyclist-friendly) lobbying juggernaut.
RANTWICK
hmmm.
Fri, 04/30/2010 - 09:45I am suspicious of anybody who feels the need to tear down other peoples' approach to things. When it comes to bike advocacy, popular support is overwhelmingly behind bike lanes and paths and so on right now. It seems to me that you are spending an awful lot of energy disproving something that very few people seem to believe in anyway.
Every movement will have its dogmatic wack jobs, but it seems to me smart people pick and choose the best way for themselves to operate from the various opinions out there. Speaking of being dogmatic, most VC people I have read or follow online are anything but, so I'm not sure where you are getting that. In some ways I have become quite VC and appreciate how it has improved my "quality of life on the road". On the other hand, some bike lanes are really nice and do their job well and I enjoy using them. Sometimes I share lanes with cars that strict VC-ers would not. In short, I try things out and adopt the ones that enhance my experience and safety on the road, which are most often directly linked.
I have one specific beef with what you have written: "it holds to true conservative values of preserving the way things are and resisting radical change" It seems to me that telling everybody to go out and ride in the street like a real vehicle is radical change. If everybody did it the culture of speed in which we live could be changed somewhat for the better, I think. Preserving the way things are would be to stick to the gutter or ride on the sidewalk, it seems to me.
I guess I'm just kind of puzzled by what might be motivating this "series"... do you think the VC movement and its relatively small number of followers are doing some kind of harm?
Jenni X (not verified)
... You're a conservative
Fri, 04/30/2010 - 14:40I can't believe you called all of us conservatives. Your politics might be conservative, but us vehicular cyclists think you can kiss our liberal commies behinds. :)
Jenni X (not verified)
oh, and one more thing
Fri, 04/30/2010 - 14:42... many of us want to end the car culture, make people more important than cars, public space more important that car-parking, and most of all, to change YOUR mind about, "what driving is for".
Peter Rosenfeld (not verified)
Studies of safety fo facilities vs. perceived comfort
Fri, 04/30/2010 - 15:04Review the before and after study the city of Copenhagen did recently , where they measured the car/bike collisions and other accidents that took place on roads unimproved for bicycles, then repeated the measurements after the improvements. They attempted to take into account any increase in bicyclists on a given road due to the improvements so the statistics are normalized.
What they found was that the more comfortable a facility made the bicyclists, the higher the bicycle accident rate. In no cases did the accident rate decrease after the facilities went in and on a few types of facilities, the type bicyclists said they felt most comfortable on, the accident rate went up significantly.
This is observational, not cause and effect. But as has been noted by traffic engineers for generations, the more complicated a flow pattern, the more accidents. Intersections have vastly more accidents than straight sections of roads without turns. It's almost intuitive why this would be. Most bicycle facilities are designed to make bicyclists feel separated from cars on straight sections, where few serious accidents take place ( at least in urban and suburban regions), and make the intersections worst, which is where the accidents take place.
Since most of the car/bike accidents happened in intersections and these accidents increased significantly with, say, side paths, one is strongly tempted to say that the complication in the intersection due to the side paths is the reason.
I can speculate on a lot of other reasons for this - maybe the bicyclists are so comfortable on the facility that they are less cautious when they reach an intersection.
The Copenhagen study had a different guess -saying that some of the facilities made a street less convenient for parking, so the drivers parked on cross streets, increasing the risk of collision due to possibly higher traffic on the cross streets due to parking cars.
Perhaps - but this goes against thousands of traffic studies that say any complication in intersection design increases accidents, including car/bike accidents.
Whatever the causes, except for fully separated paths with no at-grade intersections, no scientifically performed study has shown a safety improvement from the standard bicycle facilities and many/most have shown negative impacts.
The Dutch recognize the intersection problem, so often put signals with bike-only phases on intersections with any significant traffic. This is probably an unacceptable solution in most US cities due to the large impact on travel time more signals would have, both to auto drivers and bicyclists ( the bicyclist is almost guaranteed to have to wait through a signal cycle at each intersection).
Most professional bicycle facility advocates know all this, so they rely on other arguments for facilities, mostly on ones that rely on the fact that bicycle facilities sometimes increase the number of bicyclists. The two main ones I hear are:
1) Even if they decrease the safety, it is a small decrease for a safe activity so it doesn't matter; and
2) The increase in bicyclists will, in the long run, increase safety due to a safety-in-numbers effect even if initially there is a decline in safety.
Spleen (not verified)
university avenue madness
Fri, 04/30/2010 - 19:18Fortunately, i live in the east end, but this 'bike lanes for university ave' plan simply shows the bike lobby enslaved politicians to be on a war against the car. Even though cars will be pollutant free in ten or twenty years, they rail about the environment obliviously.
Look, i have nothing against bike lanes and paths, in fact, take all of Beverly and St. George, and all of Church or even Yonge and turn them into no car zones, so bicycles and pedestrians can frollick in their car-free Eden, but don't deliberately sabotage University or Jarvis , which are the main thoroughfares for vehicular traffic! We can't all pedal home from Home Depot with the new BBQ balanced on the handlebars! And bass players like me don't cotton to hauling our amps on the bloody "Bitter Way"!
Serge issakov (not verified)
"What is missed in most of
Fri, 04/30/2010 - 15:56You're confusing "vehicular cycling" with "vehicular cycling advocacy". The Wikipedia article cited does have a section entitled Advocacy, albeit a short one. But the political/advocacy component is not part of the definition of vehicular cycling, which is simply operating a bicycle on roadways in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles.
To the contrary, vehicular cycling advocates seek radical change, radical change in the behavior of the vast majority of bicyclists, because currently very few bicyclists even see themselves as having the same rights and responsibilities as drivers of vehicles, much less behave accordingly.
As far as change in the area of transportation modal use, nothing in vehicular cycling, the practice or philosophy, says anything about that. But vehicular cycling advocates tend to either favor major changes in the direction of reducing personal motoring use, or believe that cycling will have little influence in that area and that resources are best spent on preserving our rights.
Seymore Bikes
Must I Ex-Spleen?
Fri, 04/30/2010 - 21:35Spleen - The lanes on University are a trial over low volume months, the issue has been studied by experts and there has been open consultation with the building operators in the area. University might be a busy street, but it is also an eight lane roadway that should work well for cyclists.
Considering that there are two bike lanes that will feed into these lanes on the north (Wellesley & Hoskin) I suspect that these lanes will get plenty of traffic.
Just so we're clear on Jarvis, the city decided to remove the centre lane per the recommendation of a study on restoring the public area (streetscape), bike lanes were an after thought and had nothing to do with the removal of the centre lane.
"Calling bike lanes a ‘war on the car’ is like calling parks a war on buildings".
- V. Dodge
Mark Nockleby (not verified)
I have no idea where this is going
Sat, 05/01/2010 - 00:54Is there an alternative to Vehicular Cycling that is going to be discussed. So far the only advice is don't ride on the sidewalk, which is totally consistent with VC.
What should I do on the road that is different than what I do now (ride a bicycle in accordance to the rules of the road for vehicles)?
Serge Issakov (not verified)
Alternatives to vehicular cycling
Sat, 05/01/2010 - 10:04Mark, short of abandoning cycling on roads, the only alternative to vehicular cycling is riding on roads contrary to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, by definition. Few will advocate doing so explicitly, but the characterization of vehicular cycling as being elitist or exclusive clearly implies it.
Many of the strongest opponents of vehicular cycling advocacy are, paradoxically, practitioners of vehicular cycling. What they oppose is not the practice, but the advocacy of the practice. I think this is because vehicular cycling is safe and comfortable cycling on roadways integrated with other drivers, including motorists, and this necessarily implies that segregated facilities are unnecessary. They hate that.
herb
twisted logic
Sun, 05/02/2010 - 07:47@Serge. The first problem with the logic here is to define a term "vehicular cycling" (writ large) as encompassing "riding according to the rules of the road" and thereby exclude all other ways of cycling on the road or lane. Vehicular Cycling (with the capital V and C) is a philosophy, not a practice of all rule-abiding cyclists. One can be a road-rule abiding cyclist in a bike lane or bike path. One can be rule-abiding by sitting in a bike box waiting to make a left turn on an advance bike signal.
The VCers (like Serge) have now taken to seeing themselves as the enlightened Greeks with all other cyclists as being the barbarians at the gates. The VCers are truly under attack and VC must be defended against by the hordes of chaotic, inexperienced and unruly cyclists.
VC, according to myself, is a passive movement because it basically says: whatever the laws for vehicles, cyclists must obey them, so long as cyclists have the right to ride on the road. From what I can tell it provides no coherent approach to making cities safer through infrastructure, signage or landscape. It has nothing to say about calming motorized traffic, and it has never bothered to differentiate between different types of bicycle facilities out there (other than broad categories of "lane", "cycle track", "bike path") as if one could categorically reject them all if one is found to be defective.
I counter that just because a cyclist behaves in a regular, predictable, and lawful manner does NOT make them a Vehicular Cyclist. It may just be a cyclist that sees predictable behaviour as being safe, but doesn't follow the entire program of Vehicular Cycling (which includes so much more than simply following the rules of the road, which in no traffic act in any jurisdiction - from what I know - defines how a cyclist should make a left turn). This cyclist may end up bending the rules now and then by riding in a predictable manner contra traffic on a quiet one way residential street (I suggest it is predictable partly because many cyclists do it and drivers expect it).
This cyclist will also know that just because lawmakers made a law doesn't make it perfect, and that more than likely they didn't take cyclists or pedestrians fully into account when coming up with the Highway Traffic Act or in re-designing the roads for automobiles. This cyclist knows that we're not simply receivers of laws from heaven but that we can fight to get them changed and improved. They can see the usefulness of a law that puts the burden of responsibility on the largest, fastest vehicles; they can see the usefulness of well-constructed separated bike lanes on major arterials; and they are fine with riding in regular traffic but want separated facilities where traffic is heavy, fast, and unruly so that even the young and the old can be comfortable.
JFJ (not verified)
Herb states, " ... more than
Sun, 05/02/2010 - 15:11Herb states, " ... more than likely they (lawmakers) didn't take cyclists or pedestrians fully into account when coming up with the Highway Traffic Act ...".
He makes this statement from admitted ignorance on the matter, hence the qualifier "more than likely ".
From a cyclists' s point of view, Ontario's Highway Traffic Act is one of the most unrestrictive pieces of traffic legislation in Canada. Cyclists are drivers of a vehicle and have the same rights as motor vehicle drivers. There are only a couple of rules mentioning a bicycle and they don't restrict cyclists any more than do similar ones applying to motor vehicle drivers. If he were in Quebec or BC, he would find quite a few anti-cycling laws. In these provinces, cyclists are not drivers of vehicles and thus do not have the same rights as other drivers.
Unfortunately people like Herb feel they are entitled to rights that violate existing rules of the road like passing on the right (and then in some cases moving left to occupy so-called "bicycle boxes").
As cyclists we are better off when we have the same rights and fulfill the same obligations as drivers of other vehicles. That of course would require all cyclists to spend some time in cyclist's "drivers ed" - 15 hours or so, apparently something advocates for segregated facilities are not willing to support.
... and we haven't even started to talk about how segregation INCREASES THE RISK to less than competent cyclists. (See Aultman-Hall post above.)
herb
why not give cyclists even more rights under the HTA?
Sun, 05/02/2010 - 23:22@JFJ: In terms of access to roads, perhaps it's true that Ontario has given the most rights to cyclists in Canada. But if we were only to use Canada as a baseline for determining good cycling and pedestrian legislation then we would be sorely missing the big picture. I don't see why we should accept Ontario as the cream of the crop when there are even better jurisdictions out there.
I believe that instituting "Strict Liability" as it exists in various European jurisdictions such as The Netherlands and Denmark would help immeasurably towards making motorists a bit more humble and a bit more careful while careening down streets. Strict Liability is explained here:
Or, here's another good law. In Germany cyclists are allowed to go contra motorized traffic down one way residential streets. I'm sure this horrifies some VCers but it works well, mainly (I think) because of drivers' expectations of cyclists being there and because of calmed traffic. Toronto cyclists unceasingly ride contra traffic on side streets. And the huge reason they do so is because of the lack of infrastructure on main streets and because Toronto is full of one way streets to prevent vehicles from going in a straight line.
By the way, JFJ, I don't think I ever told you I thought cyclists were "entitled to rights that violate existing rules of the road like passing on the right". In fact, the HTA allows any vehicle to pass on the right as long as it is safe to do so. For example, if you're on a four lane road the vehicle in the right lane can pass the vehicle in the left. I see it all the time. But perhaps you're referring to trying to pass a car on the right when they are already in front of you and have moved over to the right to make the turn (and they've got their signal light on - a rare occurrence in Toronto). Then, of course, I cyclist (or car) would be doing this unsafely and illegally.
This makes no difference if there is a bike lane or not; the motorist must first merge safely into the bike lane while not cutting off cyclists and then turn. And cyclists must either wait behind or pass on the left. This is why Toronto made the bike lanes dotted at the intersections to indicate to cyclists and motorists that turning vehicles should merge into the bike lane to make a turn.
I don't even buy this idea: "As cyclists we are better off when we have the same rights and fulfill the same obligations as drivers of other vehicles." As I said before, I think it would be great if cyclists and pedestrians, who are both more vulnerable than motorists, had more rights on the road than motorists, and that motorists had much more obligation than the other two groups. And I would hold to that for the times when I'm in a car, being careful around vulnerable road users. Let me give one example: children have the "right" to bike on the sidewalk because as a society we feel they are safer to bike there than on the road. Motorists, however, do not have the right to drive their cars on the sidewalk (although they often will). I'd say this situation is pretty good and pretty safe for the kids. We don't want give kids on bikes and adults in cars the same rights and obligations.
So I'm not convinced at all by the false logic that the only situation that can exist is if all road and street users must have the same rights and obligations, when we can imagine situations where giving one group more rights or another group more obligations may lead to an even safer melange.
JFJ (not verified)
Facts are in order
Mon, 05/03/2010 - 11:02Geez Herb,
Before you post check your facts.
From The Highway Traffic Act of Ontario, under the heading of "Civil Proceedings"
(1) When loss or damage is sustained by any person by reason of a motor vehicle on a highway, the onus of proof that the loss or damage did not arise through the negligence or improper conduct of the owner, driver, lessee or operator of the motor vehicle is upon the owner, driver, lessee or operator of the motor vehicle.
(2) This section does not apply in cases of a collision between motor vehicles or to an action brought by a passenger in a motor vehicle in respect of any injuries sustained while a passenger
JFJ (not verified)
Don't know what caused the
Mon, 05/03/2010 - 11:05Don't know what caused the server to change the section number for "Onus of disproving negligence".
Anyhow it is section 193. of the HTA not section 1.
JFJ (not verified)
Server error on that HTA post
Mon, 05/03/2010 - 11:07The server changed the section number.
Anyhow, that was section 193 not section 1 of the HTA
JFJ (not verified)
More HTA Facts
Mon, 05/03/2010 - 17:12Herb claims, "... the HTA allows any vehicle to pass on the right as long as it is safe to do so".
Not any vehicle, just motor vehicles.
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90h08_e...
Section 148. (5) Vehicles or equestrians overtaking others
Every person in charge of a vehicle or on horseback on a highway who is overtaking another vehicle or equestrian shall turn out to the left so far as may be necessary to avoid a collision with the vehicle or equestrian overtaken, and the person overtaken is not required to leave more than one-half of the roadway free
Section 148. (8) Passing vehicle going in same direction
No person in charge of a vehicle shall pass or attempt to pass another vehicle going in the same direction on a highway unless the roadway,
(a) in front of and to the left of the vehicle to be passed is safely free from approaching traffic; and
(b) to the left of the vehicle passing or attempting to pass is safely free from overtaking traffic.
Section 150. (1) lists exceptions but applies to motor vehicles only.
herb
motor vehicles passing on right
Tue, 05/04/2010 - 09:26You're right, JFJ, it does say motor vehicles. I had quickly looked it up in my CAN-BIKE manual but looking back I see that the manual says that motor vehicles can pass on the right when it is safe to do so, and that for cyclists this is a grey area.
This would be a great example of where the HTA lawmakers completely forgot about non-motorized vehicles. Taken to its extreme it would mean that in every case where a car could safely pass on the right of a stopped or slowed vehicle a bike would be prohibited from doing so even though bikes are required to stay as far to the right as is practicable. If it were safe for a motorist to pass on the right wouldn't there also be a good chance that it's also safe for a cyclist?!
CAN-BIKE takes the approach that there are situations where a cyclist can safely pass on the right, even though its a "grey area" of the law.
JFJ (not verified)
Herb, you say, "This would be
Tue, 05/04/2010 - 10:44Herb, you say, "This would be a great example of where the HTA lawmakers completely forgot about non-motorized vehicles".
It's your assumption that they forgot. Perhaps it was deliberate. There is the example of two cyclists killed in Portland, Oregon in October 2007 in separate incidents but both involving cyclists riding up the right side into truck drivers' blindspots.
... and Herb you really need to familiarize yourself with Ontario traffic law. Once again you misinterpret it, this time you say, "... bikes are required to stay as far to the right as is practicable". Not so,
Section 147. (1) Slow vehicles to travel on right side
Any vehicle travelling upon a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at that time and place shall, where practicable, be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic or as close as practicable to the right hand curb or edge of the roadway.
(end quote)
This rule applies to drivers of any type of vehicle types not just cyclists. Also it recognizes non-laned roads which explains the phrase structure.
If there is a centre line or are lane lines, all a driver or cyclist has to do to comply is to drive or ride in the right hand lane (ie must not drive in a lane to the left). If there is no line at all, as on dirt roads and some residential roads, then the driver or cyclist must stay right. All of this is dependent on travelling at less than the normal speed of traffic then and there. If there's no other traffic around then this rule has no effect. Also if there is a group of cyclists and just one faster vehicle, it can be argued that the normal speed of traffic is that of the group of cyclists.
Often this rule is wrongly used by police to force groups of cyclists to ride single file.
David (not verified)
Of course he makes the
Tue, 05/04/2010 - 00:33Of course he makes the statement with a qualifier: the laws were passed generations ago in an era of expanding car use which brought about the requirement to have many of these laws in the first place. Strictly speaking it's possible that lawmakers had cyclists in mind, but given both the context of when it was passed and the end product, it's exceedingly unlikely. We're all ignorant as to the intentions of the original lawmakers unless we happen to have their memoirs or look up the debates in Hansard, and even then we're unlikely to know. You're just creating a red herring.
The fact that Ontario's HTA is among the least cyclist-unfriendly highway codes is as much dumb luck and inherited equestrian-oriented codes than anything else.
Here's a philosophical question: if the other vehicles have stopped, is a cyclist passing them on the right passing them or just going past stationary objects? If a vehicle isn't in motion, is it a vehicle? While the HTA doesn't spell that out, there is an implicit assumption of motion built into the definition.
Or suppose you're being passed by a bus (I use it since it's longer and easier to visualize, but theoretically any vehicle will do) that then slows and stops... are you supposed to start slowing once its velocity goes below yours and match its slowing to bring yourself to a stop when it does? If cyclists are out group riding - which is legal in Ontario - does that mean that cyclists on the right can't go "pass" those to their left, say, as might happen around a right-hand bend? The passing-on-right issue is actually made worse by VC advocates' support of wide curb lanes as the preferred form of cycling-supportive facility since these lanes are much harder to 'take' all the while making it easier to pass on the right.
And speaking of buses, I guess those dual right-turn + bus stop lanes with advanced straight ahead greens for buses must really offend your sensibilities since they enable passing on the right by buses (albeit in a different lane) and then preferential treatment at the beginning of the next light cycle. Or the rule that requires other vehicles to yield to a bus attempting to reenter traffic (something that goes against the usual principle that entering traffic must yield to existing traffic). These all violate existing or preexisting rules, after all.
It would be great if all cyclists took a "drivers ed" (sic) course (I have, fwiw), but how would you actually compel this nirvana into existence? Cyclists (like pedestrians and equestrians and other operators of non-motorized vehicles) have an unfettered common law right to use the public highways. A law would have to be passed to change this, and, well, once lawmakers actually start thinking about cycling and cyclists we might not like the results (yes, I added a qualifier). It could be made part of the regular requirement for getting a driver's license, which would also have the benefit of making motorists more aware of cyclists since they would have to pass the cycling component first, but this won't strictly cover everyone who cycles nor would it matter to existing cyclists and motorists. It could be done at the school level, so that covers all future citizens who grow up here, but it doesn't cover migrants from elsewhere nor the existing cyclist and motorist population. The upshot is that while education holds the potential to be enormously beneficial, the practical fact of the matter is that it won't help in any meaningful way for the best part of a half century. The reason that most cycling advocates (of any type) are unwilling to call for mandatory cycling lessons is because it will just
As for myself, I'm unconvinced by both segregated facilities (which have to be designed to a high standard to work safely) and pure VC advocacy, which has basically failed miserably to increase cycling above a percentage point or two, a level far too low for a 'safety-in-numbers' scenario to work since it still means that only a very small group is cycling (more valuable than more cyclists alone is more motorists who are also cyclists). It also doesn't help that its lead advocate is a shill for the 'American Dream Coalition' (!) along with discredited pro-sprawl, pro-car, anti-urban, anti-transit luminaries like Wendell Cox and Randal O'Toole:
http://americandreamcoalition.org/speakers.html
David (not verified)
Last line of penultimate
Tue, 05/04/2010 - 00:35Last line of penultimate paragraph got lost somehow:
The reason that most cycling advocates (of any type) are unwilling to call for mandatory cycling lessons is because it will just decrease the number of people who cycle.
JFJ (not verified)
VC Advocacy misrepresented
Tue, 05/04/2010 - 09:53Under the heading of "Of course he makes the ..." the writer states that VC advocacy has failed to increase cycling above a percentage point or two.
That's not so surprising since VC advocacy doesn't have that as its purpose. Forester's website at: http://www.johnforester.com/ shows VC advocacy to be concerned with "preserving bicycle transportation" and for the "right of cyclists to cycle properly and safely". Elsewhere he states "Vehicular cyclists believe that cyclists should operate on the roadway according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles".
Personally I think the world would be better place if more people used a bicycle for health and recreation purposes, and when practicable, for transportation. It will not be a better place if the system that allows more people to have a better standard of living globally is crippled.
The last paragraph of the writer's post reveals an advocacy that is less about safe cycling and more about radical environmentalism.
4 season cyclist (not verified)
Herb, I believe you're under
Sun, 05/16/2010 - 17:07Herb, I believe you're under some misapprehensions about VC, and especially what constitutes predictable behaviour:
"It may just be a cyclist that sees predictable behaviour as being safe, but doesn't follow the entire program of Vehicular Cycling (which includes so much more than simply following the rules of the road, which in no traffic act in any jurisdiction - from what I know - defines how a cyclist should make a left turn). "
Every jurisdiction explains how a vehicle should make a left turn. Unless there's a separate rule for bicycles, that's also how a cyclist should make a left turn (for example, in Ontario) because a bicycle is a vehicle.
"This cyclist may end up bending the rules now and then by riding in a predictable manner contra traffic on a quiet one way residential street (I suggest it is predictable partly because many cyclists do it and drivers expect it)."
Many cyclists ride the wrong way, that doesn't make them predictable. They also ride through red lights and stop signs without even slowing after just a quick glance, change lanes or lane positions without so much as a shoulder check, jump from road to sidewalk and back, ride at night without any lights or reflectors, squeeze between lanes of traffic or in tiny spaces between buses and curbs. None of this is what VC means by 'predictable', though because of these practices many motorists may 'predict' that cyclists are road anarchists.
I can tell you that riding according to the HTA is recognized as predictable by other road users because motorists do see other vehicle operators driving that way (more or less), or at least remember it from their driver training once a Vehicular Cyclist reminds them by providing a good example of correct road behaviour.
Riding contra-flow is a good way to get into an accident, both because the closing distance is faster than drivers expect (everything else a motorist encounters on her side of the road is either stationary or moving in the same direction as the motor vehicle), or because right turning motorists will pull out into a wrong-way-cyclist's path since they're not looking that far down the road to their right. In fact they're only looking to their right for something moving a walking pace, then to their left for fast approaching traffic before pulling out.
trikebum (not verified)
So what's wrong with
Sat, 05/01/2010 - 09:21operating a bicycle on roadways in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles.? It's the safest, fastest, most direct way to get where you're going, if you cycle for transportation.
There are not enough public funds to build bikelanes to all the places a transportation cyclist needs to go, which is also where motorists need to go: shopping, work, doc's appointments, business meetings etc. And what will novice cyclists do to get where the BL begins and when the BL stops if they have no road training or experience? The sidewalk?
I would have more time to listen to pontifications from the bike facility crowd if they first learned to ride on the roads in a proper and safe manner. Why do these people eschew education but complain about motorised traffic being unsafe? And that is what Forester's book is all about. If you don't like his take, try John Franklin's book Cyclecraft (North American version). You will get the same information: be predictable by riding in a vehicular manner and be visible with good lane positioning.
The course offered by the CCA and TBN is CanBike which derives from Forester's Effective Cycling. This is taught Canada-wide with a similar LAB course in the states. For the price of a helmet you can learn to ride confidently in traffic.
If the City of Toronto seriously wants to encourage cycling by addressing novice fears and concerns it would be cheaper to give everyone who wants it, a free course than big spending on infrastructure. And everyone would get where they want to go..... safely
.
herb
we're running out of public funds?
Sun, 05/02/2010 - 08:19@trikebum. So we're running out of public funds to build bike lanes? Even though city council can simply allocate more money to bike facilities, it doesn't help that motorized traffic hogs the vast majority of public resources by requiring the building of more and more expansions of highways and roads to accommodate all those single person vehicles.
The quickest, most effective way to get more people cycling is to slow down city traffic; put in bike lanes and paths were appropriate (quiet roads don't need bike lanes); and to provide some level of cycling education in school or later.
The truth is that the cities can not continue to build exclusively for the car. Not only is there not enough room, but there are little things called acid rain and climate change. The best way to get people to find alternative modes of travel, including cycling, is to make the landscape more comfortable for them to do it. Cycling education, on its own, cannot make this shift. People simply aren't taking CAN-BIKE in droves and they aren't going to start riding on suburban arterials where the driving is way too fast and the roads too narrow and full of potholes. It's simply not comfortable, and it feels very dangerous, even for an experienced commuter and CAN-BIKE instructor like myself.
trikebum, perhaps it's time to change your strawman. You're just as likely to find a bike lane loving person teaching CAN-BIKE (myself included) as you are in the general public. If it makes you feel better you can continue to believe that bike facility folk "eschew education" though it is clearly wrong.
By the way, TBN doesn't offer CAN-BIKE. In Toronto it is offered by the City's Parks and Rec department.
trikebum (not verified)
That's not what I said herb...
Sun, 05/02/2010 - 11:06> @trikebum. So we're running out of public funds to build bike lanes? Even though city council can simply allocate more money to bike facilities, it doesn't help that motorized traffic hogs the vast majority of public resources by requiring the building of more and more expansions of highways and roads to accommodate all those single person vehicles.
What I said was:
> There are not enough public funds to build bikelanes to all the places a transportation cyclist needs to go, which is also where motorists need to go: shopping, work, doc's appointments, business meetings etc.
The fact is 98% of taxpayers will not want to pay for 2% of the population to 'feel comfortable' on Toronto streets, no matter how environmentally concerned they might be. And as a concerned environmentalist I don't support expanding and building roads to accommodate motorized traffic.As the saying goes: expanding roads to fight congestion is like loosening your belt to fight obesity. Gridlock is a traffic calmer causing more people to get out of cars and onto bikes and public transit.
But the question I had, after that first sentence was:
> And what will novice cyclists do to get where the BL begins and when the BL stops if they have no road training or experience? The sidewalk?
As a CanBike instructor what would your advice be?
Thanks.
anthony
Share the benefits of these facilities
Sun, 05/02/2010 - 12:42"They" (that is the 98%) don't need to pay. The city's bike budget accounts for less than 1% of the Transportation Budget, and is easily paid for by the taxes that the 'cyclists' paid into the pool.
The historical reality is the Bike Dept rarely spent its full capital allocation; that is it has been spending less than it was allocated. Imagine what the city would look like if the Bike Dept had spent it's full capital Budget every year!
But with this logic, what would be your answer for for why "we" all pay for wheelchair accessible buildings when so few people have disabilities? My answer is that the buildings which are accessible benefit more than their 'intended' audience, as it becomes easier for the elderly to use, as well as parents with young children in strollers.
These benefits often extend well beyond the 'intended' audience, and "we," all of us, ultimately share the benefits. The same is true of bike lanes; everybody gets to share the benefits 'intended' for a mere few.
trikebum (not verified)
What 'cyclists' paid how much?
Sun, 05/02/2010 - 16:38> "They" (that is the 98%) don't need to pay. The city's bike budget accounts for less than 1% of the Transportation Budget, and is easily paid for by the taxes that the 'cyclists' paid into the pool.
What 'cyclists' paid how much into what pool? Even if they paid a full 2% of the total transportation taxes it would not be enough to pay for a comprehensive bicycle infrastructure that some clamor for.
> But with this logic, what would be your answer for for why "we" all pay for wheelchair accessible buildings when so few people have disabilities? My answer is that the buildings which are accessible benefit more than their 'intended' audience, as it becomes easier for the elderly to use, as well as parents with young children in strollers.
>
> These benefits often extend well beyond the 'intended' audience, and "we," all of us, ultimately share the benefits. The same is true of bike lanes; everybody gets to share the benefits 'intended' for a mere few.
That is not the same at all. Wheelchair accessibility is for those with physical disabilities. They don't have other choices. In private buildings these facilities are paid for by the owner. It's nice though that folks with strollers can enjoy the benefits too.
A lack of BLs do not prevent cyclists from accessibility to Toronto streets. And competent cyclists who ride according to the rules of the road don't find most BLs a benefit. In fact I find them a detriment to the vehicular cycling principle of being visible. Gutter bunnies are not easily noticed by motorists and that's why they get unintentionally buzzed by motorists who didn't 'see' them.
Kevin (not verified)
Vehicular Cycling: What to do, faut de mieux
Sun, 05/02/2010 - 17:43Here is my take on Vehicular Cycling.
I would love for Toronto to have Dutch-style cycling infrastructure in which cyclists have fast, safe, direct and convenient travel between any two points in the City. And car drivers have to take indirect routes that maximise the safety of cyclists and pedestrians. So that car drivers cannot cut through residential neighbourhoods and the downtown is car-free.
Unfortunately, we are not quite there yet. So when using the grossly inadequate and unsafe infrastructure that we do have, I am a vehicular cyclist. On lanes less than 5.6 metres wide (which is almost all of Toronto's roads) you will find me taking the lane and riding in the centre of the lane. Because it is unsafe for a motor vehicle to pass me in the same lane if the lane is less than 5.6 metres wide.
The same is true with bike lanes that are less than two metres wide or where the centre of the bike lane is the most dangerous place on the entire road to ride because it is in the door zone. I simply refuse to put my life in danger by using such dangerous infrastructure and always take the centre of the general traffic lane adjacent to substandard bike lanes.
Whenever harassed by a car driver I always (OK, almost always... sometimes I'm on tight schedules) take out my cell phone, call 911 with the car's license plate number and ask that charges of Dangerous Driving be laid against the criminal driver. I always state that I am willing to testify in court against the violent criminal driver.
I never engage in "gutter bunny" riding, I never ride on the sidewalk, I never wear a helmet and I never ride at night without lights.
It is my sincere belief that if everyone else did the same, we would all be much better off. Which is why I do strongly urge everyone to do exactly the same things.
Kevin Love
Riding my Pashley in beautiful Toronto, Ontario
Seymore Bikes
@ trikebum
Mon, 05/03/2010 - 07:17Cities like New York, Minneapolis, Chicago & Portland have expanded their cycling infrastructure and can relate it to an increase in the numbers of cyclists; I haven’t seen anything on how traffic congestion has a similar effect – that seems like a dubious claim to me.
I agree that people will feel more confident cycling on the road with the benefit of some education. However, most people site safety concerns as the main reason they don’t bike on the road, and bike lanes are the best way to deliver on that need. I don’t think we need to build them on every street and I don’t think cycling should be limited to bike lanes alone, but Toronto is significantly lacking in bike facilities.
In 2001 the city rolled out its Bike Plan, now 9 years later we have less than half of it installed, and it’s not for a lack of money. Toronto’s budget allocates $800,000,000 over a 5 year term on road repair – that’s $438,000 a day. Public policy is the reason that we don’t have better bike facilities, period.
If you want an example of how (often misguided) public policy trumps money consider that City Councillors like Rob Ford, Gloria Lindsay-Ruby & Mike Feldman have had approved bike lane installations halted in their respective Wards, and it was not because of financial concerns.
As a home & car owner I pay for roads. So instead of leaning on the 2% theory, I suggest that we redefine our roads as being inclusive to all users. It’s a solution that works, it’s a sound investment, and it will certainly serve our transportation needs better than a traffic jam.
PS - The 2% measure of cyclists is over the entire GTA, if you look at the area in the city centre the numbers are much higher - this is where bike lanes are needed the most.
trikebum (not verified)
I really don't believe...
Mon, 05/03/2010 - 08:18...that cycling infrastructure grows cyclists.
> Cities like New York, Minneapolis, Chicago & Portland have expanded their cycling infrastructure and can relate it to an increase in the numbers of cyclists
It's the other way around; first there are large numbers of cyclists, then there are demands for infrastructure, and the reason cities bow to these demands is because they've reached a 'nuisance number' and they want to get those pesky cyclists out of the way of motorists to improve traffic flow. Segregated facilities were first introduced in Europe in the 1920s for precisely that reason. In the 30s in Germany, cyclists were forced to segregated facilities because Hitler didn't want them visible on the roads when he hosted the 1939 Olympics. German cyclists protested vigorously to no avail.
A recent post from a cyclist living in Germany:
> I had mentioned before that there was a petition to the German
> parliament to remove the necessity for cyclists to ride on separated
> paths under certain circumstances (in other words it is illegal for
> cyclists to ride on the roadway if there is an adjacent side path
> marked with a bike path sign).
>
> Unfortunately this petition was stopped in a committee before even
> considered by the Parliament. The only party voting for the passing on
> of that bill was the Green Party. read more: http://tinyurl.com/27mlhcf
Most motorist groups including CAA and AAA support BLs. Why do you think?
The Federal Highway Administration (FHA) promotes BLs. And one of their 3 'Vital Few Priorities'
is Congestion Mitigation.......http://tinyurl.com/6gbpxk
Most vehicular cyclists I know don't want BLs because most motorists expect cyclists to 'be where they belong'. I have been honked at and harassed when I choose not to use a BL for safety reasons.
locutas_of_spragge
Do cyclists...
Mon, 05/03/2010 - 03:45have the same rights under the HTA as motorists? Those who ask that question show they do not understand a basic legal and philosophical distinction. We each have the right to move about freely; that right has existed in common law from the beginning, and nearly every document speaking of rights in the English Common Law tradition has referred to the procedures for asserting it, going back to the thirteenth century. However, when we go out, we have no corresponding right to operate a motorized vehicle in a public place. Hence the term license, for driver's license. The government cannot, and must not, make a right the subject of a license. This explains why we need no license to do any of the things we have a right to do. A license, by definition, refers to a permission to do something we have no intrinsic right to do. For example, I can copy, perform, adapt, and distribute software and literature I have written, and music I have composed. But to distribute someone else's work, I need their permission; I need a license from them. Likewise, to operate a technology as intrinsically hazardous as a motor vehicle in public, I need permission from the people whose lives I will endanger if I do not operate safely. I need a license. That very word tells me I do not have a right to drive. So, motorists do not have any rights on the road: they (we) have permissions and responsibilities.
What, then, about cyclists? As of now, most jurisdictions (albeit with the occasional grumble) recognize, by default, the right to cycle, since they do not license cyclists. In most jurisdictions subject to constitutional restrains (Canada and the United States, among others), a good argument for the right to cycle exists, based on the right, which I mentioned above, of personal mobility. Since governments haven't attempted to restrict the right to cycle by issuing licenses, the issue has not come up for a ruling in the courts. Under current laws, then, cyclists have rights, based on the common-law right of personal mobility. No corresponding right to drive a motor vehicle exists, only a conditional permission.
JFJ (not verified)
Rights and privileges in Ontario
Mon, 05/03/2010 - 17:43John G. Spragge seems to be confused about the claim that cyclists have the same rights in Ontario as drivers of other vehicles. He seems to have interpreted this to mean the converse, that motorists have the same rights as cyclists, which of course they don't.
Ontario's HTA expressly states that driving (a motor vehicle) is a privilege and drivers are subject to licensing.
All citizens including new born babies have an inherent right to use public highways (other than specific vehicle rights of way such as freeways and busways). Cycling along with riding a horse is included in this inherent right and derives from common law as Spragge mentions.
trikebum (not verified)
Sorry first block quote includes response
Mon, 05/03/2010 - 08:21had trouble with preview feature. My apologies.
Tom Flaherty
Believe In Bike Lanes
Mon, 05/03/2010 - 12:15Trikebum
Believe what you want about Bike Lanes, but there is some data from the NYC Dept. of Transportation that connects the expansion of infrastructure to increases in the number of cyclists.
Using their counts (18 hour periods/day), the number of cyclists goes up by more than 50% between Sept. 2007 (27,859) and Sept. 2009 (42,295). What is particularly interesting is that between June 2006 and June 2009 NYC also added 200 miles of Bike Lanes, nearly doubling their Bike Network. So the number of cyclists grew at nearly the same rate as the Bike Lanes.
I consider myself a VC, but I will gladly use the Bike Lanes on busy routes like the ones on bridges and arterial streets. I recently got “doored” on Bloor St., and that probably wouldn’t have happened if I was in a Bike Lane.
PS – The CAA recently made a deputation to the Public Works and Infrastructure Committee to ask the city to stop and re-study the proposed separated Bike Lanes on University Ave.
Pages