CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!

"Vehicular Cyclists - Cycling's Secret Sect"

(22 posts)

No tags yet.


  1. chdot
    Admin

    This article is nearly as old as CCE, though I've only just noticed it.

    Still interesting/relevant.

    Perhaps more so...

    "

    I explained this Vehicular Cycling theory to my colleagues in brief. Saying that this group fight tooth and nail against virtually any form of separated bicycle infrastructure because their theory is based up on the premise that bicycles are 'vehicles' and therefore should act as the vehicles in the traffic, using the car lanes just like cars.

    "

    http://www.copenhagenize.com/2010/07/vehicular-cyclists-secret-sect.html

    Posted 10 years ago #

  2. gembo
    Member

    Quite liked his sarcastic tone.

    Think wrong to group John Franklin in the same category. The bicycle drivers need to go fast. Franklin has always been more about safety in my head - take primary etc.

    I do see parallels with the need for speed dudes on the NEPN. These cats will get to work a couple of minutes later if they slow down around other users of the path. They may even observe the world they are bombing through. How green it has become recently, the wee birdies singing merrily, the slight increase in temperature, the sap rising etc.

    Vehicular cyclists do not understand human nature according to MCA in this article.

    You can make lots of people smile if you smile at them. If you doff your cap and say good morning, they can be quite taken aback. Getting good infrastructure is crucial. Some people will still behave badly.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  3. sallyhinch
    Member

    Franklin has had a similar deadening effect on campaigning as Forester - particularly his page (I'm not going to give it any more google-juice here) listing the research on the supposed dangers of cycle tracks. Lots of cherry-picked evidence, none of it very up to date, which still gets found and cited by the unwary.

    I started compiling this page as a hopefully more useful alternative http://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/wiki/research-docs

    Posted 10 years ago #

  4. gembo
    Member

    I won't click on it then. I knew he was anti separate cycle paths but I thought this was because he wants to make roads safe for all? Cycle craft quite a sensible book.

    Maybe I misjudged him? Perhaps he overlaps with IAMS (the proper drivers not the cat food)

    Posted 10 years ago #

  5. sallyhinch
    Member

    Oh you can click on my link, that's to the alternative!

    It may be he just wants to make roads safer for everyone (who doesn't?) but in my opinion he's going about it the wrong way and has a very blinkered approach to what will achieve that.

    You could probably argue the same for me of course

    Posted 10 years ago #

  6. i
    Member

    Here's an angry strongly worded post about John Franklin.

    There's an old (2007) google tech talk by John Forrester, you can judge it for yourself if you have a hour to kill.

    On John Franklin's research summary page:

    "This list is intended to be without bias, but little evidence has been found to suggest that cyclists are safer on paths than on roads. If you know of other research, please contact John Franklin."
    Anyone tried?

    Posted 10 years ago #

  7. algo
    Member

    I probably misuse the term "vehicular cyclist", but I refer to myself as one. I do want to have segregated paths for all, and believe that is the safest way for cyclists to travel, but whilst on the road I do take primary, and behave as a vehicle in the way a lot of cyclecraft teaches.

    I hope that at some point there will be infrastructure in place to support safe active travel, and that society will realise the benefits. In the mean time, while there are excellent campaigners such as sallyhinch, it is still relevant to have some guidelines on how to travel sensibly in amongst traffic in the flawed existing road network.

    It has been suggested to me that by employing techniques such as filtering on the right, I am just hindering the advancement of genuine good infrastructure, as I appear to be accepting the current situation. I don't buy that, but am ready to be persuaded that my cycling style should be modified.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  8. amir
    Member

    The techniques in vehicular cycling are needed because:

    - currently there is no massive move to good cycling infrastructure

    - even if there were it would take ages to implement

    - and finally it probably wouldn't cover all routes

    I really do hope that we start to get good infrastructure in place and soon. In the meantime, the number of cyclists does seem to increasing quite quickly, both commuting and for fun/fitness/etc and both in town and out of town.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  9. wingpig
    Member

    I have seen (and still see) "but if there's a cycle path then they'll MAKE me use it and I'll not be able to go WHOOSH" but didn't know about the campaigning against cycle infrastructure, nor 'bicycle driver'. Perhaps MC-A, Hembrow, and others who occasionally refer to Franklin/Forrester as being responsible for the deaths of cyclist who have died on roads should reiterate citations of campaigning against infrastructure at the start of such pieces, so that it doesn't look like they're getting-at-by-association anybody who currently sometimes cycles on roads.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  10. SRD
    Moderator

    @algo agree

    i find the implication that *if we're really committed to cycling infra* that we shouldn't cycle at all (especially not with our kids) OR that we should cycle on the pavement really perverse.

    this is why i get fed up with cycle infra advocates who bash people who wear hiviz, multiple lights, or putting helmets on our kids/letting our kids cycle.

    sometimes it feels like they would really rather we all stopped cycling.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  11. Morningsider
    Member

    I find all this a bit silly - we have to deal with the world as it is, in a way we feel comfortable doing. If that means taking primary or cycling at speed then so be it. If it means wearing a helmet or hi-viz then its all good to me. How you cycle or what you wear has no bearing on whether you want to see better cycle infrastructure - you are simply taking to the road in the way you feel most comfortable.

    I suppose from the rarified viewpoint of Copenhagen or Amsterdam our cycling culture could seem messy, aggressive, compromised or confusing. It's easy to stand on top of 30 years of significant public investment in cycling and exclaim "My goodness, you are doing this cycling thing all wrong!"

    Instead, I think current UK cyclists should be applauded (not for bravery, or anything silly like that - we are only going to work/shops/school) but for being at the vanguard of making our cities more liveable.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  12. Roibeard
    Member

    Forester's lecture is unconvincing, "Amersterdam is too narrow for cars to have taken off, unlike America" and then "America has no space for bike lanes".

    His premise "bike lanes exist because drivers thought cyclists were too stupid to learn to use the road, yet I can teach an 8 year old to use the road" doesn't address the risks presented by drivers. He dismisses only one type of collision (rear-end) as being rare (as it is), ignoring all other collisions.

    BTW "bike lanes" are onroad lanes rather than segregated routes.

    He also appears to believe that bike/car collisions are 50% caused by cyclists and collision rates are reduced by 75% by training cyclists. That wouldn't be the UK experience...

    68% collisions caused by drivers

    60-75% collisions (involving adults) caused solely by drivers

    The US may, or may not, be different...

    56%, 51% or 84% caused by drivers

    On the other hand, I'm a reluctant proponent of Franklin's Cyclecraft, but that's only for the fit, the brave and the thick-skinned, and I'm playing the odds. I'd much prefer to rely on engineering to protect me, than my own fitness/awareness.

    Robert

    Posted 10 years ago #

  13. wishicouldgofaster
    Member

    Years ago I would never use cycle paths as they would slow me down. Nowadays I often use them as the number of cars using the roads has significantly increased while driving standards and behaviour have got much worse.

    There are however some cycle paths that are so poor I will still prefer to take my chances on the road.

    I suspect though that the day isn't that far way when cyclists will be forced onto cycle paths regardless of how unsuitable they are. :(

    Posted 10 years ago #

  14. fimm
    Member

    I agree with algo.

    I am of the opinion that some people who are anti-infrastructure fear that all cyclists will be forced to use infrastructure built to current British (lack of) standards.

    I have seen a David Hembrow (I think) video where he is illustrating a poor by Dutch standards cycle path and he eventually nips on to the road to get past the bunch of teenagers that he has got stuck behind.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  15. chdot
    Admin

    "

    "Old men in limos" were comprehensively outfought by campaigners in PR battle

    "

    http://road.cc/content/news/153735-london-cycling-commissioner-cycle-superhighways-came-close-not-happening

    Posted 10 years ago #

  16. minus six
    Member

    The infrastructure isn't merely poor, its often round the houses / back of beyond in that traditionally perverse sustrans style.

    Over the years I've observed that while cycling at an average speed of around 18mph, my primary presence is mostly tolerated as acceptable on the main arterial roads around Edinburgh.

    One day my average speed will drop sufficiently that I'll be forced to consider the alternatives.

    OR the infrastructure will evolve smartly to the stage that it is far preferable to mixing it on the main roads.

    I'd much prefer the latter, but doubt it will come to pass, due to the UK media's endless portrayal of this mode of transport as socially deviant.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  17. Baldcyclist
    Member

    "...but didn't know about the campaigning against cycle infrastructure..."

    Yes, I see it a lot in my neck of the woods, not campaigning as such, but ridicule from other cyclists when you suggest cycle infrastructure as maybe being a good thing.

    I've had "education for all, not infrastructure for some" banded at me on more than one occasion. The notion being that cyclist needs being part of the driving test, and bike-ability / cycle start will sort all our ills, you know, like teaching speed limits has...

    Posted 10 years ago #

  18. gembo
    Member

    I had cycling holiday in the Alps around bourg St Maurice a couple of years back. Going up the hills nice wide roads shared with lorries etc, going down a bit hairier. On the valley floor a great cycle track has been built as cycling through tunnels etc really not good. You could still do it if you wanted to but why would you? The cycle track was better.. I would not say my average was 18mph but on empty stretches you could thump along.

    Switching to paths in Richmond park London, and I think Hyde park recently, the police have enforced speed restrictions and fined cyclists for going too fast.

    I am keen for more infrastructure and keen to be able to use the roads as in my French Alps holiday.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  19. minus six
    Member

    keen to be able to use the roads as in my French Alps holiday

    as the proprietor of the expensive cigar shop once remarked to me..

    "You're not on the continent now, sir"

    Posted 10 years ago #

  20. gembo
    Member

    @bax, I have had that all my life. Whereas my mates would drink 5-10 pints of tartan special, I preferred an espresso, a pastis and a glass of water. You try ordering that in a Glasgow boozer in 1983.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  21. chdot
    Admin

    Talking of France.

    I went to that Paris once.

    198odds.

    Borrowed a bike, 'I'll manage somehow' (with the notorious traffic).

    Very surprised/pleased at how much space/courtesy I got.

    'National sport and all that'.

    Would be nice to think that 'Wiggins, national treasure and all that' would make the average driver 'better', but I think (MUCH) better infrastructure will be easier!

    Posted 10 years ago #

  22. PS
    Member

    Paris is great fun for the confident* cyclist - drivers tend to notice cyclists and, bizarrely, do not react by trying to cut them up or bully them out of the way.

    *or Armagnac-fuelled

    Posted 10 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin