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
Darren_S
To each his own.
Sun, 05/09/2010 - 14:44John I cannot fault you for your beliefs but think it will be very hard to get the changes you want recognized. Especially since you also want to turn equity onto its head. Will be a lot of work for little gain.
Immediately seizing peoples' cars when they do stupid things is showing, so far, to be more effective. Less stupid people on the road, less chance they get to kill.
trikebum (not verified)
herb...
Sun, 05/09/2010 - 15:10have you taken over this conversation for Seymore?
If you wish to debate fairly with me please go back to the questions I've put to you as a CB instructor. Please reread and lets discuss point-by-point where you and I disagree. Blanket negative and personal descriptives such as stupid, bullsh*t:, ridiculous, simplistic, unrealistic etc
tend to shut down fair and logical debate. Or could that be your intention?
> And who will give them these 'tips'? Other people who ride in bike lanes? The answer I was hoping for from a CanBike instructor was that while everyone is waiting for BLs they should learn to ride on the road according to the rules of the road, and the best way to that would be to take an accredited training course.This is what Effective Cycling and CanBike were created for. Do you not agree?
> **
> " Novice cyclists could certainly use some tips on getting into and out of bike lanes. I encourage them to take a course, but it also looks like most of them figure it out. "**
>
> I don't think wrong-way riders, sidewalk riders and scofflaws have it figured out at all. Do you?
> In pursuing an agenda of building BLs on the premise of attracting people to take up cycling, the newcomers will be innocent pawns in a game of politics. They are the ones who will come to harm, not the ones who have road training or have 'figured it out.'
>
> I would like think that a CanBike instructor would not merely suggest, but to actively promote education as the cornerstone in any programme designed to increase cycling. Right now, those who clamour for BLs only give lip service to education, if they consider it at all.
> I'd really like to know how many people took a CB course in TO in the last few years as compared to how many newbies. Do you have any figures? Any guesses?
herb
bike-specific facilities reduce risk to cyclists
Mon, 05/10/2010 - 21:22Let it be known, @trikebum, that I only ever used those words to describe your wild leaps of logic, unsubstantiated claims, and crazy conclusions.
Let's work from the evidence.
"Evidence is beginning to accumulate that purpose-built bicycle-specific facilities* reduce crashes and injuries* among cyclists, providing the basis for initial transportation engineering guidelines for cyclist safety." (The impact of transportation infrastructure on bicycling injuries and crashes: a review of the literature, Conor CO Reynolds, M Anne Harris, Kay Teschke, Peter A Cripton and Meghan Winters. Environmental Health 2009, 8:47)
They arrived at this conclusion because the literature review they did of academic studies showed that: "the presence of bicycle facilities (e.g. on-road bike routes, on-road marked bike lanes, and off-road bike paths) was associated with the lowest risk."
Given that bike facilities tended to have lower risk than regular roads, I don't feel that there needs to be any particular instruction to cyclists on how to navigate bike lanes that is any different from navigating regular roads. CAN-BIKE does not treat bike lanes any differently.
CAN-BIKE does not teach that bike lanes are dangerous, nor does it say that bike lanes take cyclists out of the field of vision of drivers. Nor does CAN-BIKE teach that "the persons causing most cyclist accidents are cyclists themselves" The literature does not bear out your conclusions about bike lanes. These are yours (or others) opinions.
The CAN-BIKE instructor you quote, Christine Code, is way out of line to make these opinions in the name of CAN-BIKE. They are not the official position of CAN-BIKE; they are not in the instructor manual, or in any of the courses.
It would be futile to try to get CAN-BIKE to take a position on such things because the organization does not do any of its own statistics gathering of risky infrastructure. It relies just as much as we do on the scientific consensus. And from what we can find, the consensus is building that bike facilities reduce risk.
trikebum (not verified)
You still haven't answered..
Sun, 05/16/2010 - 08:56my questions from May 9, 2010 - 2:10pm. re: education and 'tips' herb, or don't you have a good answer?
Seymore Bikes
Proofiness
Sun, 05/09/2010 - 16:58Trikebum - At least you are tenacious,...yawn.
I have offered compromises, I tried to find middle ground, I have provided data from NYC and I have asked for specifics to support your claim. So I'll ask one more time to put up some conclusive data that Bike Lanes are more bad than good, because I still haven't seen any.
I have influenced others to start commuting to work by bike. From speaking with them I know that their decision to do so was based mostly on their ability to make their trip, either in whole or in part, along a Bike Lane. Yes there are some that feel reluctant to take to the city streets on two wheels, and some training would help empower them to ride, but in that case they would likely still use Bike Lanes given the choice. At the risk of repeating myself, I have been cycling for nearly 40 years, and I still use routes that have Bike Lanes because I know it makes good sense.
locutas_of_spragge
I agree Darren.
Mon, 05/10/2010 - 03:32Setting out to name (and punish) the most egregious acts by drivers that result in death as murder would mean investing a great deal of time. On the other hand, raising the extremes of driver misbehaviour, and our justice systems' inadequate response to them, clarifies two important issues when we debate "vehicular" (and politically accommodationist) cyclists.
First, it clarifies the reason many sensible people don't like to bike in regular traffic. Cycling in traffic means going armed and unprotected in a space where the majority of other people have weapons and the law has largely shirked its responsibilities. Telling cyclists we have the right to the lane and shouldn't fear cars ignores the reality of the way motorists actually behave, and the way the law actually fails to restrain them. Bike lanes at least act a a visually educating device, telling drivers clearly that bikes belong on the roads, and indicating the same thing to people interested in cycling.
Second, understanding the nature of the bargain we have made with the car undermines the accommodationist argument. Citing the extreme cases help illustrate the hundreds of different ways we privilege the private car and the motorist. It debunks the argument that our road culture exists the way it does because people have chosen to drive, for no other reason than that they (we) want to drive.
I believe this simply addresses the issues you raise in your post from a slightly different perspective.
geoffrey
The ‘safety in numbers’ delusion
Thu, 05/13/2010 - 13:32Timely this:
http://crapwalthamforest.blogspot.com/2010/05/safety-in-numbers-delusion...
The safety in numbers precept is considered in the context of infrastructure to provide the perception of safety. Vehicular bicycling is all well and good but remains a barrier to those who fear being hit sharing the road with motorists of questionable capability and emotional stability.
Seymore Bikes
Pudding Proof
Sun, 05/16/2010 - 12:06Trikebum - It's time for you to put up or shut up.
You have been asked to provide evidence to support your claim that bike lanes are unsafe, and all you do is ask irrelevant questions in response.
I did a google search for study results on cycling infrastructure and found the following information:
http://www.cher.ubc.ca/PDFs/reviews/infrastructure_cycling.pdf
So, are you avoiding the question, or don't you have a good answer?
trikebum (not verified)
Education more important for safety than bike lanes
Mon, 05/17/2010 - 08:37http://www.stlbeacon.org/content/view/102287/74/
> The sense of security bike lane
> stripes give novice cyclists is illusory: very few car-bike crashes, which
> is what concerns most cyclists, are the result of a bicyclist being hit by a
> motorist from behind.
Seymore Bikes
Not Worthy
Mon, 05/17/2010 - 10:43Trikebum - When I asked for evidence I was hoping for a study on the safety, or lack of it, pertaining to bike lanes. The article you provided is from an online (only) community news website.
Sorry but it's hardly convincing.
You remind me of the people that make false claims where safety is concerned, sort of like those who were saying that the vaccine for Swine Flu was unsafe. I remember people who said that seat belts were unsafe, reasoning that if a car was involved in an accident that people could become trapped in their seat belts.
The reason we have Transportation Engineers is so educated people can design safe facilities. So when cities like: Chicago, New York, Montreal, Portland, Minneapolis, Copenhagen, Paris, London, Berlin, Toronto, Vancouver, Tokyo, put in bike lanes they do it on the basis of factual information and not baseless assumptions and opinions.
Darren_S
Where does this come from?
Mon, 05/17/2010 - 14:14"...which is what concerns most cyclists, are the result of a bicyclist being hit by a
motorist from behind."
Where does this info come? Rarely have I heard any cyclist make a complaint as you are suggesting. I have heard cyclists express concerns about being hit from behind but it is nowhere near the top of their list of concerns. I have seen this statement so many times yet have never seen anything to substantiate it. Is it only what you are assuming cyclists are concerned about or do you have some other proof.
I will even take it a step further and suggest it is propogated because it fits and/or distracts from the main issue. In short, a red herring.
Pages