Cars vs Bicycles vs Pedestrians

For those that have the time, here are two interesting* PSA videos I stumbled across today from the mid-20th century with a pronounced vehicular cycling-centric perspective of bicycle safety:





Watching these, I find myself wondering where this emphasis on vehicular cycling went and when it was replaced with what we have today.

*The monkey masks freak me out, too.

 

"Vehicular cycling" is exactly what america suffers from today: A delusional self-aggrandizing culture of ridership that not only acts recklessly and confrontationally on the road but takes the crusade so far as to actively oppose any kind of bicycle specific or even bicycle-usable infrastructure other than The Road, going so far as to promote deliberately disengenuous studies and statistics to argue that riding anywhere BUT The Road is tantamount to suicide.

If there was not a violently partisan and hostile group of cyclists actively attacking the very idea of bike paths then a lot of areas would probably look a lot more like helsinki or copenhagen. Orlando might finally get back to expanding on its surprisingly decent set of paths.

 

I tend to find that there is a mutual hostility based on mistrust. The problem is, as always, a bike hits a car, not much happens. A car hits a bike and the cyclist is likely to die.

It is not an equal situation.

I continue to argue that there are far more reckless car drivers than there are cyclists. Car drivers, in my experience, and in general, are rarely as good as they think they are.
--- merged: Oct 25, 2011 11:06 AM ---

Interestingly, what we have today is the same. There just doesn't appear to be as much time (money) spent on it as there was when I was a kid in the 70s. We received bike training in grade school. It usually happened just prior to letting us go for the summer. It would be great if they did this for kids. It would be great if PSA money was spent on making commercials for this sort of thing as well.

It would also be great if cities spent money on cycling infrastructure as well.

 

If you want to talk about hostility, talk about the oil and automobile industries that took only decades to all but completely dismantle core public transportation networks utilizing anything other than automobiles over the course of the 20th century. Paved roads were originally built because cyclists were advocating for them, not to exclude them.

If you want to talk about hostility, talk about drivers that systematically ignore laws that were designed to protect and facilitate transportation among all road users, including cyclists, not just car drivers.

Vehicular cycling doesn't work everywhere, but neither do bike paths—and here I distinguish designated bike paths from sidewalks, because it is more dangerous to ride on typically narrow sidewalks, where cyclists compete with pedestrians for space and are much less likely to be seen by cars pulling out of cross streets and driveways. Concerning dedicated bike paths, most municipal governments simply don't have the funds—or the political mandate—right now to build multi-user path networks and bicycle-specific infrastructure separated from the road to enable people to get everywhere they need to without cars and without using roads. Does this mean bikes must be restricted to what little non-road infrastructure—in most cases, recreational paths that don't go anywhere—already exists and be kept off the roads altogether? There are roads that make sense for cyclists to use and there are others that don't; a very necessary skill of vehicular cycling is to recognize where it is safe to ride and where it isn't (like on an interstate highway). For roads where it does make sense for cyclists to ride, they deserve to be respected like any other road user (a tractor trundling down a country road at 15mph in a 45mph zone, for example) so long as they are abiding by the law.

True vehicular cycling is, by its very nature, non-aggressive and non-confrontational. It relies on following laws and rules established for road users, not on bending the rules to take shortcuts and piss drivers off.

• Weaving in and out of cars, cutting to the front of a line of cars at a traffic intersection, or hopping on the sidewalk when it is convenient is not vehicular cycling.
• Riding in a pack of five riders abreast and backing up traffic behind just for the sake of taking up space and making drivers wait is not vehicular cycling.
• Moving into the center of a lane ("taking a lane") when the lane is too narrow for a car to safely pass a cyclist inside the same lane is vehicular cycling, and it is not going to make the world come crashing down for the drivers behind waiting to pass until it is safe to do so.

The problem, as I stated earlier and as Charlatan points out above, is the lack of education for cyclists to know how to operate their vehicles safely and for drivers to know how to interact safely with cyclists. The subsequent problem is that too many—but not all—cyclists ride incorrectly or behave poorly (aggressively, confrontationally, recklessly), and drivers take out their frustration about that bad behavior on every cyclist they see.

 

And here we run into the problem that you're basically saying No True Scottsman Vehicular Cyclist will do exactly what the very loud majority of Vehicular Cycling advocates insist on deliberately doing wherever possible, while they in turn claim that it is in fact you who is not a true Vehicular Cyclist.

As I said the inherent and explicit nature of VC as a culture, the mainstream one and not your kinder and gentler one, is to actively attack anyone who does NOT ride directly in the middle of each and every lane regardless of the suitability of it. It is in fact as far from non-confrontational as possible, advocating taking the most deliberately confrontational behaviors possible.

I mentioned disengenuity, this is where it comes in. The studies cited to pull these figures are deliberately disengenuous, they lump everything from a 7 year old's scraped knees to a 30 year old's emergency room visits together and massage the numbers until it makes sidewalk riding look like it's tantamount to suicide.

The simple truth is that the behaviors which are dangerous on the sidewalk are no less dangerous on the road. If you simply take a sidewalk rider and transpose him 12 feet to the left you now have the same reckless behaviors but now they're on the road where the stakes are disfigurement and death instead of skinned knees and cracked wrists. The road does not magically make people safer cyclists, and if they behave safely on the road then they will be even safer still OFF the road. To claim anything else is, to use an example, the same as comparing a 12 pack a day smoker that wears boots with a health nut that wears sandals and claiming that walking barefoot is connected to reduced incidences of lung cancer.

 

Going 20 mph on the sidewalk: dumb and reckless. Going 20mph on the road: my morning commute with the wind at my back (not dumb and reckless).

 

Among which organizations/groups are you seeing this fierce advocating for the behaviors outlined above? Legit, national organizations like the League of American Bicyclists and Bikes Belong both advocate for proper execution of vehicular cycling principles that don't include those reckless and dangerous behaviors. The philosophy of vehicular cycling is based on eschewing those reckless and confrontational behaviors. If other factions are calling for cyclists to systematically operate in that kind of unsafe manner, they are doing so on their own and, in turn, doing a disservice to the backbone principles of vehicular cycling. They're bad apples. There are a lot of them—too many, as I mentioned above—but that's all they are. And they are bad apples either because they're rebellious or because they don't know any better. And this is why more education is needed.

I didn't claim that the road magically transforms people into safer cyclists. My claim is that education and training can make ignorant cyclists who behave badly (recklessly, dangerously, or improperly) out of ignorance* into better ones. I am also stating that operating a bicycle as a vehicle, which it is, is a more reasonable practice when done on roads that are governed by laws that were designed for all vehicular road users—cars, trucks, farm tractors, bicycles and the like—than on narrow sidewalks designed for pedestrians.

*Continuing on the bad apples argument, there will always be bike riders with sticks up their asses who will want to confront and provoke drivers by riding improperly, no matter what. Similarly, there will always be assholes behind car steering wheels who will behave badly and dangerously, no matter what.

 

Shadow you seem really worked up and pissed off about this.
I can tell you , I live in rural upstate NY, commute almost daily and do a lot of recreational riding as well.
I ride on the road. I treat drivers with respect and by and large get treated the same way.
I have not had any serious conflict with a motor vehicle in at least 10 years, and I am out cycling at least 5 days a week.
So what's the big issue? Why do you want to make this into a huge pissing contest?

 

I don't think I'm making this into a pissing contest. I can tell you, I live in urban/suburban central florida, the Orlando area, and ride my bicycle on an equally regular basis. I don't ride on the road because in this area bicycles do not belong on the road. The speed limits are too high, the roads are not fit for bicycles, and it's simply not safe.

And I am upset about it, not because my commutes are a daily hazard as much from hostile cyclists as they are from the cars who, thanks to the supposedly "few" bad apples, bear an active grudge towards anything with two wheels and pedals, but because people are dying because of this kamikaze culture. Just recently a young man left a newborn fatherless when he tried to pass a turning firetruck on the right.

I'm jealous if where you are these people are the minority but in my and others' experience locally, backed up elsewhere, your situation is the true minority. Vehicular Cycling is as near as I have ever experienced an almost universal culture of active hostility not primarily towards cars, which are simply treated with reckless abandon, but towards other bicyclists that aren't a part of their private jihad.

Of course it would seem neither of us will ever have any headway with the other. Neither of us can say the other's experiences aren't real, so we're left basically arguing over whose vehicular cyclists are the true scottsmen.

 

Sorry that that's the reality you are forced to deal with.
I couldn't live somewhere like that.

 

Bicycles are not legally allowed to ride on the sidewalk. Bicycles *are* vehicles and belong on the road. Cyclists should follow the rules of the road*. They should also drive defensively as people in cars tend to not look for them.

*Rules of the road, as detailed in One Got Fat.

Cars, should make room for cyclists (including looking for cyclists before they open their car doors - having been doored a few times, I can say it's not pleasant).

As with most things in life, compromise is needed. Both cyclists and drivers need to behave properly in relation to each other, and obey the rules of the road.

In my experience as both a driver and a cyclist, I find it's drivers that have way more contempt for cyclists.

 

Maybe in Lion City however here in Florida bicycles are perfectly within their rights to ride on the sidewalk or the road. The catch is that they're required to obey all laws of whichever they choose and transferring needs to be done in an orderly and safe manner. In my case that usually means staying off of the ~45+mph six lane road, catching a greenway, staying off the 50mph highway, and then entering the back streets from a parking lot like a car.

Un-motored Bicycles may be able to go a little faster than rollerbladers and skateboards thanks to gearing but they are still fundamentally unequipped to be an ordinary participant on a road designed for 45mph and higher with automobiles in mind. No matter how much fancy vehicular this and safety-minded that language and wishful thinking is thrown at it bicycles simply need infrastructure concessions.

Now once you start including some REAL infrastructure concessions, like a semi-seperated lane to stop drifters and sharp turners and NY style left turn gathering zones then I'll say we're good. Even if it's as simple as putting turtles to seperate a wide shoulder it's still a damn sight better than praying nobody has wider than normal side mirrors on a 3 foot pass at 50mph.

 

In Chicago, it's illegal to ride a bicycle on the sidewalk if you're older than ~10 years old. It may be a state law, but I'm not sure. The reason is that cyclists just as shitty around pedestrians as cars are. About 2 years ago, an elderly woman was killed by a sidewalk-riding cyclist in my neighborhood. The cyclist went to jail.

I agree that there are places where infrastructure has not been designed with bicyclists in mind, but I've also traveled in Florida enough to know that on the coasts, that's not really the case. Most of the 45+ MPH highways/limited access roads have a breakdown lane that doubles very well as a bike lane. Maybe my anecdotal evidence isn't representative of the overall, but outside of the center of the state (Gainesville/Ocala, etc.), there seems to be plenty of room for both.

 

In Toronto and Singapore, both places I have lived, it is illegal to ride a bicycle on the sidewalk (unless you are a kid).

My bike regularly his speeds of 20km/hr to 30km/hr. Too fast for sidewalks.

 

Actually martian the two roads I live pretty much at the intersection of are both 45-50mph roads with no shoulder. They've got a line right up against the curb and then a sidewalk. That's pretty common in Orlando. There are "bike lanes" in a few places but they're just painted strips barely wider than the average bikes handlebars and can often just randomly terminate.

 

You definitely live in a differently designed place than most of us. Sound like poor design is adding to the stress of the melding of all three forms of transportation (foot, bike, cars).

 

I think that calling it "design" is being charitable.

 

There are some surface highways around Ann Arbor, MI that are frequented by bicyclists. I regularly see cars whipping along well above the speed limit down these roads, with bikes right there on the shoulder of the road moving along as well. No bike lanes plus speeding cars=a very ugly collision waiting to happen. I always give the bicyclists plenty of room, almost moving over the middle line if traffic permits, otherwise slowing the hell down so I don't kill someone. I used to ride quite a bit years ago, so I know all about idiot drivers. My pet peeve was the dickhead who clearly sees you, on a bike, approaching an intersection. The car has the red light, but they block the crosswalk...I guess it was a good thing that I never carried a few nice sized ball bearings or something just for them.

 

Orlando is designed for car traffic, it is design... just very car-centric. The hilarious thing is we actually have some shockingly well designed seperate infrastructure. Cady Way is a great example, its completely seperate and has a bridge over the only major road it crosses and goes straight to fashion square mall.

There's just no middle ground. Either we've got a grade seperated wide paved bicycle highway, a beautiful meandering greenway, or a completely suicidal road with a ~2.5-3 foot wide painted "bike lane" that randomly cuts out.

I've got metal pedals. Anybody gets too close to me they lose paint.