Category: Vehicular cycling

So let’s unravel the American ‘Vehicular cycling’ movement by looking at it from a Dutch perspective.

1) John Forester, while correctly identifying the need for bicyclists to behave as responsible traffic participants (in his words: ‘Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles’), made a historical error in overlooking the obvious: speed differentials and material differences between motor vehicles and bicycles make it dangerous (and impractical, but that is a minor factor in comparison to the massive safety issue) to ride a bicycle on main carriageways where traffic speed and density exceed certain thresholds.

To be fair, Mr. Forester’s ideas originated between the 1940’s and 1970’s and his ideas are best understood in the context and circumstances of his time. That is a subject that deserves a closer look, but not one that helps us solve today’s problems.

2) His ideas were subsequently used by urban planners and traffic engineers to conveniently overlook the needs of cyclists in their designs (if they considered cycling at all).

3) His (Forester’s) ideas were adopted by risk-adept sports cyclists with an unfounded sense of safety, pretty much the only category of cyclists you get when there is no adequate infrastructure for everyday cycling in the post-1970’s urban setting. These ideas allowed them to superimpose their interests on everyone else who might benefit from using the bicycle: the young, handicapped, elderly, frail, sick, parents accompanying children, those men and women riding to work and not willing to arrive all sweaty, and those unwilling to let their livelihood depend on the attentiveness of a single driver in a single moment.

On U.S. bicycling advocacy blogs, such as peopleforbikes.org and shifter.info, heated discussions can be found on the topic of ‘Vehicular cycling’. Proponents of this school of thought are convinced that it is better to ride on the roadway than on separate cycle paths or tracks. In essence, this means mixing people on bicycles with motor vehicles in a single traffic lane, which, I would argue, is dangerous. They seem to be of the opinion that driving a bicycle as a vehicle (which it is), requiring interaction with other traffic participants (which it does), somehow eliminates the need for bicycle paths and other infrastructure adaptations that facilitate safe bicycling.

Another school of thought tries to convince the Vehicular cycling people that it is safer to separate the human powered vehicles from the motorized ones, on the obvious ground that large speed differentials will put the lives of the most vulnerable of the two categories in danger of accidents. If you doubt this: reduction of speed differentials has been the reason to make highways for motor vehicles only. It is also why pedestrians usually walk on sidewalks and are not encouraged to walk in traffic lanes.

Contrasting ‘Vehicular cycling’ with ‘Segregation’ as schools of thought is offering a false choice.

Here is why. If you are going to ride a bicycle (outside of a sports stadium or closed track), you are going to be a traffic participant. There is no environment, no matter how bicycling friendly it might be, where you on your bicycle at some point are not going to deal with other traffic participants, be it people on bikes, driving motor vehicles, or walking.

Having grown up in the Netherlands, I have used a bike during all of my school years – 12 miles one-way in high school – and then for decades for most of my urban transportation needs and a good portion of my recreation. Like any cyclist in the Netherlands (there are approximately 17 million of them) I am very much a ‘Vehicular’ cyclist although that term is not known there (in general we do not have significantly different opinions on cycling). I know how to move around in traffic and how to do so safely in any weather conditions.

I can make do with just a few feet width of asphalt to get to where I want to be on a bike, snow, rain or shine. At the same time, I highly value the safe and pleasant cycling environment that is the product of decades of common sense improvements and investments in the Netherlands (which, by the way, is so much an integrated part of life that it is not a common topic of conversation among the Dutch).

The truth is that good infrastructure for bicycles AND riding a bicycle in a responsible way are necessary and DO NOT exclude each other. In other words: as a cyclist (meaning a person riding a bicycle) you will always need to interact with other traffic participants. You will have to signal, make eye contact with drivers and riders, yield, stop at red lights, and otherwise keep the rules of the road.

‘Vehicular cycling’ proponents in the United States often emphasize the legal right to use the roadway on a bicycle under U.S. law. This seems a bit strange. To use an analogy with smoking: while it is legal to smoke, insisting on smoking while it is known that it is hazardous to your health is nevertheless not a great idea. The same proponents, who are often called ‘serious’ or even ‘elite’ cyclists (compared to what or who?) frequently use the argument that having to use a cycle path or bike lane would slow them down, and hence, they oppose the creation of safe cycling infrastructure for everyone else. A short visit to the Netherlands could convince them quickly that, in fact, good bicycling infrastructure could speed you up and make you a very happy ‘serious’ cyclist.

Underlying these difficulties is the difference in mental representations that people may have when using the word ‘cyclist’. For the so called ‘serious’ cyclists, this is probably the image of the rider of a race bike (in the U.S. referred to as ‘road bike’), dressed in cycling outfit, primarily riding to put in physical exercise and performance.

For the everyday cyclist, it is the person of any age or ability using a bike in the course of everyday life to get from A to B. It is important to be aware of this difference when discussing cycling policy and facilities.

The primary aim of this blog, if it wasn’t clear, is to support the use of the bicycle as everyday mode of transportation. This goes back to my ingrained Dutch experience of cycling as a way of life. Competitive cycling is a part of that, but only a part, and certainly not the most important one.

A good way to evaluate the suitability of existing facilities for the kind of cycling I am talking about here, is to ask yourself: how would you like the idea of a (your?) 8 year old child riding home from school or to their friend’s house? If you can’t imagine a child riding there, it is probably not suitable for everyday cycling. That is, if you agree that cycling should be safe for people of all ages and abilities, and indeed be an integral part of our public infrastructure.

To wrap up: everyone who rides a bicycle in traffic is riding a ‘vehicle’ and has to deal with others in a mature and responsible way, so every cyclist is, or should be, a ‘Vehicular’ rider. This does not eliminate the need for proper cycling infrastructure. Well designed cycling infrastructure greatly enhances safety and comfort by reducing speed differentials, and will result in more people cycling. And, if the public wishes to do so, it can create noise- and pollution free routes through farmland and nature. This may happen sooner in the United States when the discussion about ‘Vehicular cycling’ can be left behind.