One of our propaganda units has been arguing with @oceanmaestro on twitter -he believes that
- Hi Viz and bright helmets improve visibility to drivers, so increase reaction time, so improve safety
- "Florscent Bright Color make object bolder & easier to react to, inspires confidence & assertiveness?"
- "CycleLanes may account for 60% of majority of cycle trips & breed a safety complacency for 40% rest of journey"
- Segregated Cycle Lanes increase Cyclist-Pedestrian Collisions in busy Pedestrian areas?
Either Oceanmaestro is an "old school" Vehicular Cyclist, or he's someone trolling the modern cycle campaigners. Whatever: here's the response, including the swearing he was complaining about.
Let's look at the key points of the VC people. The old guard.
- Roads are for cyclists too, aggressively claim them
- Resist cycle paths because they are shit shared use paths
- Resist cycle paths because they encourage complacency that will get you killed on the remaining bits of your journey.
- If people were more confident they'd survive
- All we need is to teach people confidence and they will cycle.
- And today: Hi viz inspires confidence.
This is fucking bollocks.
Cycling has been designed out of modern roads and junctions -and in the eyes of the drivers. It doesn't fucking matter whether or not is it legal, whether or not you are in hi-viz -any junction that forces you to sprint across three lanes of traffic trying to get up on a motorway is not a road for cycling on. Hi viz might keep you alive for longer, but it is not the environment needed to create a mass revolution in cycling.
Same for A roads: if you look at the stats for the "he came out of nowhere" cases on the cycling silk's blog, a lot of them happen on A-roads, dual carriageways, etc. Dual Carriageways have designed out cyclists, A-roads that lead to them are going the same way.
It doesn't fucking matter whether or not you are allowed to cycle on a dual carriageway, it looks like a fucking motorway and people don't expect bicycles on it. That's a harsh truth. We have been designed out of roads where you can drive at 70mph. Which is fine, provided there is something safe and pleasant as an alternative: segregated bike paths that provide safe crossings of all junctions.
The VCs can whine on all the time about how cycle paths encourage complacency and will result in people being forced off the roads -but the roads and the drivers have done that already. All that is left are a few fanatics that the rest of the country views as brave, foolhardy people.
Their fanaticism hasn't resulted in a mass cycling revolution.
What we need are cities safe and pleasant to walk and cycle. Not shared pavements, not shared spaces, but proper pavements that don't have fat lazy drivers parking all over them, segregated cycle paths that aren't just short-stay parking, don't have HGVs driving past 6 inches away, and connect up the city rather than abandon you at the roundabouts.
- Anyone who thinks hi-viz is an alternative to this is someone who has given up and relies on superstition to get to their destination alive.
- Anyone who thinks that training is all people need to get round alive has to explain this: why do many experienced cyclists get killed?
- If the VCs want to put their hi-viz on and cycle along the A38 and A4174, that is their choice -the People's Cycling Front of South Gloucestershire will not stand in their way.
What we will oppose is any attempt from these defeatists to have any say in where the UK cycling money goes. Spending money on training is bollocks because
- It doesn't make the streets any safer
- It doesn't last. You'd need to spend the same amount of money the following year.
- Infrastructure investments are that: investments.
If the VCs are happing going on the ring road -they can. But they have to fuck off when it comes to asking where the money goes, as giving out hi-viz and saying "the ring road is safe, really, provided you have hi-viz and ride aggressively" is a failing strategy. It has failed for thirty years.
The old revolution is over! Cyclists! Arise and create the new Cultural Revolution!
Hard and to the point. I like this.
ReplyDeleteSome ten years ago I found myself putting pretty much exactly the same points to a VCer in Cambridge who insisted that the surrounding A roads were just fine for cycling.
ReplyDeleteLater, I found out how his children got to school: he sent them on the bus. I think that says it all.
I really do think you are the one that is missing the point. You are presenting an extreme position that I think few people actually hold, and then arguing an equally extreme counter position to that straw man.
ReplyDeleteI am what you might refer to as a "Vehicular Cyclist"; I try to apply the principles set out in Cyclecraft and Bikeability, and I would advocate others doing the same. The reason I do that is because the only "cycling infrastructure" on my commute or rides consists of crappy gutter lanes. There is no decent segregated cycle infrastructure anywhere that I know of within a 50 mile radius of my home, and certainly not where I want/need to travel. What would you have me do? Stay at home until such time as there is a wonderful, completely separate cycle network? I'll be long dead before that happens.
Even when there is a significant amount of segregated infrastructure, there will still be a significant amount of road sharing between motor vehicles and bicycles. For that to be made safe requires training and eduction. You suggest we should abandon education completely and put all of the funding into segregated cycle ways.
Do you really think that the Dutch put all their eggs into the segregation basket? If so, then you are sadly mistaken. There are many places where motor vehicles and bicycles share space, and there is massive attention paid to education and training, of both cyclists and motorists.
Why does it have to be one thing or the other? Why can't there be a balanced, sensible approach instead of this black and white, religious zeal. We can aspire to something better, but in the meantime we have to live in the world as it is.
You are correct that there are many places in the Netherlands where motor vehicles and bicycles share space but do not confuse that with vehicular cycling:
Deletehttp://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2012/04/100-segregation-of-bikes-and-cars.html
Organise yourself a study tour. You won't regret it :)
I think there are Vehicular Cyclists, and then there are VC zealots. The difference being that VCists use it as a tool to ride on Britain's roads, whereas VC zealots believe that it's the only proper way to cycle and actively resist anything else - including Dutch-style infrastructure. I think this article is aimed squarely at the VC zealots who promote it as the only option.
Delete@Edward: When you are in a culture that respects cyclists, you don't have to claim the lane to prevent close passes because they don't happen anyway. Unfortunately, that is not currently the case here, for a variety of reasons that are not all to do with segregated infrastructure.
Delete@DfT: Then the title is wrong. It is not about vehicular cyclists, it is about anti-infrastructure advocates.
@MrHappyCyclist
DeleteNo, don't stay home until cycling utopia is built. You are happy playing with the traffic and of course the principles in Cyclecraft are essential.
But what about my young daughter? Do I let her cycle to school on her own, confident that her Bikeability training will keep her alive on our deathtrap streets? No - it is not enough so she and her generation are doomed to our shit car centric world. We must fight for proper infrastructure for them. Don't be selfish.
@Rhode Long. Please explain how I am being selfish here by simply pointing out that vehicular cycling is all we have right now, that "vehicular cyclist" does not mean "anti-infrastructure", and that we should not abandon education and training (as well as a load of other culture-changing interventions as important elements of a balanced approach.
DeleteI think your prejudice is blinding you to what I actually wrote. Please read it again before commenting.
@MrHappyCyclist: Yeah, you're probably right about the title. The problem is that all anti-infrastructure advocates must by definition be VCists, so I think the terms get muddled. We need a simpler way of saying "anti-infrastructure cyclist" as it's just not snappy enough!
Delete@MrHappyCyclist: Maybe we are violently agreeing. If people are advocating Vehicular cyling as the only way (John Franklin approach) then this is wrong and damaging the cause of enabling cycling as a form of transport out to the masses. We need investment in proper segregated infrastructure because our next generation is simply not able to "[cycle] in the world as it is."
DeleteI am a vehicular cyclist too, I even encourage people onto the training schemes - but I think the fact remains that this is only a temporary approach and leads to a transient toe-dipping into cycling for many.
ReplyDeleteJust as body armour may stop some of the bullets getting through it is better in the long term to disarm.
The Dutch progress was slow and started in the 1970s. I dont think anyone is saying here that segregation is the only option.
Actually, they are saying exactly that. I agree that segregation is appropriate in many places, but the people that shout about it rarely mention all of the other factors that affect the culture. For example, an important part of Dutch design seems to involve giving cyclists the priority over motor vehicles in many places. That requires a totally different motoring culture to the one we have here.
Delete@MrHappyCyclist: I do not agree that people are saying exactly that. Complete isolated infrastructure such that cars and bikes shall never meet is simply not possible. Proper cycling infrastructure, which includes large sections of segregation, goes hand in hand with priority over motor vehicles, separate traffic light phases etc. This needs to be in place first before we can hope that motoring culture then adapts and changes. The current culture is the way it is only because the car is king.
DeleteWhat I want to know is where are all these proposals for Dutch style infrastructure that keep being scuppered by zealous VCers? Are these VCers so efficient that they get such proposals strangled at birth so that the only things that gets proposed are crappy shared pavements and narrow lanes? Chapeau to them.
ReplyDeletedoes either of the extremes of VC or segregationist you mention actually exist? I think most cyclists are somewhere in the middle. Quality infrastructure and segregation will be nice, I look forward to it, until that comes along riding primary is probably a good idea.
ReplyDeleteMight even dabble in a bit of hiviz-ery during the darker months, but you know I'm just experimenting, I'm not permanently that way inclined.
Just found this after a fairly lively twitter discussion this morning.
ReplyDeleteI'm convinced that people how promote VC as the only way forward must also enjoy playing Russian Roulette every weekend.
It's like climbers trying to persuade people to climb a building's walls rather than use the lift or stairs