My perspective on segregated cycling infrastructure is that quiet streets are great for casual cycling around your neighborhood, but if you're trying to go somewhere further it's much nicer if you can join the bike highway and encounter minimal motor traffic. In a place where there are no dangerous streets, I guess there's no need for any more cycling infrastructure — I only have experience with cycling in cities clogged with traffic, where driving is the norm.

Where it's good, such infrastructure is safer — for the same reason that many highway systems segregate large trucks (lorries) from passenger motor vehicles. A crash involving two bikes is different to a crash involving a bike and a car, for example.

I'm not sure what you mean with the 'little brother with cancer' example… Obviously “only for the strong” is a hyperbolic statement, but it's meant to convey what used to be the general attitude, nothing more.

Ok, that's something demonstrated by the document Amsterdamize has linked in his post. I'm ok with that: more segregated infrastructure = more cyclists.

But what does “more cyclists” mean? Less pedestrians? (bad) Less cars? (good) Less public transport users? (mmm bad/good?)… the rise in number of bike commuters isn't a good measure.

“Cycling in SF has long been an activity for the strongest (bike messengers, those in training, those with the right “gear”) and my parents were thought to be insane when they used to ride around with my sister and me on their bikes”

Again you are using examples a bit polarised, don't you think? like “what if I have to drive my bike on a street full of 14 ton trucks, while sick and with my little brother with cancer on the back?”. Sorry if it sounded a bit rude, I only wanted to say something funny.

I don't know SF, sorry, but here in my city we have plenty of peaceful streets where you can drive your bike at a slow speed without many risks. In fact there are very few really dangerous streets, and you can easily trace alternative routes.

“What confuses me — and, perhaps, many people commenting here and elsewhere — is why you insist that cycling infrastructure is therefore incompatible with certain places.”

Segregated insfrastructure is not incompatible with vehicular cycling, as Nick said before he uses both bike lanes and the road. What I'm trying to say is that segregated infrastructure is, in the better of the scenarios, suspicious of being unnecessary (in the worst scenarios it's dangerous and unconvenient, you've seen the video). Out there(tm) you can find examples of “share the road” policies, with successful results (Galway, Hackney) so I think the point is not if segregation is compatible with VC or not: the important thing is if the same (or better) results could be possible without it.

Now, let's see you take on break dancing :-)

In San Francisco, the cycling infrastructure is getting better and, like many on this blog have been saying, the better the infrastructure the more cyclists we see — of all ages and abilities. Cycling in SF has long been an activity for the strongest (bike messengers, those in training, those with the right “gear”) and my parents were thought to be insane when they used to ride around with my sister and me on their bikes. Now it's much more common, and I see lots of cyclists in casual or work clothes pedaling around (especially in the flat areas).

In Portland, where I now live, the cycling infrastructure is probably closer to NL. And what do we see? HUGE numbers of cyclists, super-courteous drivers (for the most part), bikes being used for every sort of travel from shopping to commuting to exercise to lazy Sunday strolling to….

Your point about Spain is well taken. Cycling infrastructure that *doesn't* work is at best useless, and at worst even more dangerous than so-called “vehicular cycling”. And, as many have said, it's not an “either or” scenario, as cyclists must use vehicular techniques when they ride in motor-vehicle traffic (which will always be necessary in mixed-traffic cities/towns/villages). What confuses me — and, perhaps, many people commenting here and elsewhere — is why you insist that cycling infrastructure is therefore incompatible with certain places.

It seems to me that such infrastructure needs to reach a “critical mass” of some sort before it's effective: that is, there need to be enough cycling lanes, bike paths, signage, alternative routes, etc. before the infrastructure can have any real impact. This is why cyclists' advocacy groups usually push for very large campaigns to implement LOTS of infrastructure at once: an extra 3km of bike lane here and a little sign there won't do any good.

(apologies for the length of my comment — it never occurred to me before that anyone who actually cycles might be actively against more/better cycling infrastructure)

Nick, I think is more insulting to assume that cyclists can not drive on the road, don't you think?

“As for the practice of vehicular cycling, the techniques mentioned make sense - but in fact they're simply common sense - and what I always do anyway when I cycle unsegregated from traffic”

Yes, vehicular cycling is all about common sense :-)

“What I don't understand is why one of these aspects of cycling should be promoted by deriding the other.”

I can understand your point of view, you live in The Netherlands and you are used to segregated infrastructure. In my city we have CERO km of bike lanes, years ago we had two kilometers, but no one used that bike lane so it became car parking (sic).

But, even without bike lanes, some people (very few) still used their bikes to move around, and they became used to drive on the road, like other vehicles do. I think is normal for those people to assume that bike lanes are not neccessary. Worse than that, when Spanish cities try to copy your model this is what happens:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xt2fdoqDkgw

Whe have *hundreds* of examples of that shit. Dangerous bike lanes that are mandatory: you have to drive in the bike lane, good or bad, by law. Then is when you look at the road and you realize that it was actually easier to drive there.

That's why some people (again, very few) are cuestioning if the money invested in bike lanes could not had been invested in more important things like slowing down the traffic.

Many people argue against vehicular cycling because it's not for everyone, and sure it isn't. But I think you have to meet certain criteria to drive a vehicle in the city, precisely to maintain the safety of other road users. But anyway, they will still proclaim vehicular cycling is unsafe and not for childs or disabled people.

I have an example from the other side, it's just an example, but this is an stupid comment on a small blog, not a thesis, so I think I can write about it. I know a guy here in my city who has some sort of cerebral paralysis. He drives his trike around the city (on the road) and still I haven't seen him crying, drivers become amazed when they see him and treat them with respect. Is only a little example, but he made me start to think about the utility of segregated infrastructure.

Just don't tell anyone that my Xtracycle has battery lights…

Also, I would like to point out that if Vehicular Cycling is safe somewhere, that would probably be NL. The reason is quite simple. Everyone here rides a bike when they are not driving, so they really respect cyclists. Yet, the prefer segregated paths…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segregated_cycle_f... (not a neutral article on the Wikipedia, but it summarizes our point of view).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycle_path_debate

Vehicular cycling is also an old topic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicular_cycling

Again, all those articles on the wikipedia aren't neutral, but if you are interested in learning something about vehicular cycling could be useful.

The fact some people get so angry about us just demonstrates their ignorance about the topic.

Thanks for the try, but your questions will be in vain…as you'll find out if you check that other post :).

A sincere question for those who are against segregated bike lanes: How do you reconcile the drastic difference in speed between automobiles and bicycles? Say, a road (with only a single lane going each way) has a 40mph speed limit, as is common with American roads, especially in suburbia. A commuter bicycle takes the lane and goes 10-15mph. This effectively changes the speed of all vehicles on that road to 10-15mph, causing dramatic traffic back-up, delays, frustration, etc., on a road that was designed for 40mph traffic. How do you suggest to resolve this?

Then there is also the question of winding roads, where a fast-moving car may not see a slow-moving bicycle until it is too late to brake effectively. On some American roads with 40-50mph speed limits, it is quite possible for a slow-moving bicycle to get hit from behind by a car that is following the legal speed limit.

If these are old questions that have already been addressed elsewhere, please fill me in or direct me to the previous discussions.

Congrats on the move! Yeah, I know fietsstraten, also saw his posts about it. You got it all now!

I used to cycle all day long in Edinburgh in those cursed shared lanes for bus, taxi and cycles, and every time a double-decker overtook me I was scared to death that the turbulence it created would throw me off my bike (and I'm no newbie to urban cycling).

The whole point these people are missing is that bicycle infrastructure eventually claims back the space taken cars.

BTW, just moved to Nijmegen and I live now on a “fietsstraat” go visit David Hembrows blog and go look for it, he explains what it is. Anyway, I love it, I can cycle almost everywhere without ever having to meet a car. Well, I see them obviously, but I never need to cross their path.

I think one problem is that many people (like me) have experienced bike lanes built to keep bikes out of the way of motorists. When you build a lane for that reason you'll get silly things like lanes to nowhere, lanes ion the door zone, lanes that put cyclists in danger, because the designers designed a road and put a bike lane in. When I go to other places where the bike lanes were designed to help cyclists, it's like chalk and cheese: suddenly it's not stresfull anymore. I'm really looking forward to experiencing cycling in the NL in September for that reason.

Vehicular cycling is a great tool which I use a lot for the gaps between bike lanes. Please don't try and tell me that riding with a small boy on the back of the bike, while being overtaken bay a 48tonne truck is safer than a bike lane. This is what happens on the way to the kindergarten in the village. There is an alternative route but it's indirect, and I still have to cross the main road. This isn't going to encourage people to cycle.

In fact, if motorists want bikes off the road, and infrastructure for bike is a way to get cyclists of the road, then Amsterdam and Copenhagen, and Freiburg, and Münster, and Konstanz, and Tübingen, and Mannheim, and Heidelberg, have failed miserably as the cycleways and roads are choked with cyclists. The best way to keep cyclists of the road is to give them no facilities.

If we look at the way road building works, we see the same pattern. If you build a road, it fills up, and so do the roads leading to that road, and the villages and towns on the route, because traffic (cars, bikes, whatever) expands and contracts depending on infrastructure. You build an Autobahn/motorway/freeway and you get more traffic because you make driving the easiest way to get from A to B. . (I note, by the way that we don't say motorists are treated as 'second class' because they are 'pushed onto motorways to keep them out of villages') The reverse is also true: if you don't build new roads, vehicle traffic remains constant after a point because there isn't the space to fit more in. If you narrow a road and put a light rail/bike corridor in, you get more cyclists and transit riders, and less cars.

BTW, Sports riders need not worry about pesky bike infrastructure in Germany, because a racing bike is not classified as a bike if it fulfils certain criteria, so the rules are different, and they can use the road at all times.

One more time. Read. In the 50's, 60's and 70's: NL roads were becoming more and more 'vehicular', the one thing you're pushing for. We changed that, because it was clear that with growing motorized traffic risks for people in all modes of traffic became greater. One of the measures was segregating were it was called for, to better regulate and therefor make our roads safer, specially while looking into the distant future (as you know, all societies so far have been based on the growth model).

Hence, it is THE argument against vehicular cycling. If you don't see that (Mr 'That-Document-Gives-A-Lot -of-*facts*-But'), don't you and I are done. I hand you the wheel, and you go for it. I'm out.

Btw, do you have any idea how much work goes into creating a video like that? And I do have a day job. Unless you wanted to just say that you're looking forward to it, dot dot dot.

You didn't understand the Hackney issue, I'm beginning to think my bad english is the main problem. We said Hackney experienced an increase in commuting cyclists without needing cycling infrastructure, just that. I provided links, you provided other links… we aren't going anywhere.

As I said before, I really appreciate Amsterdam and your bicycle culture, it really works… there. But some cities here in Spain are trying to apply bicycle segregation policies partially inspired in your success… without much success.

From your document:

“A high bicycle share (more than 30%) for Amsterdam, Eindhoven, Enschede and Copenhagen - cities that never saw the arrival of a ‘bicycle use-devouring’ public transport system and where bicycle traffic had always been a regular component of traffic policy. Accepting the cyclist as a ‘normal’ traffic participant with equal rights in the ’50s and ’60s has been a crucial factor in these cities.”

“It is regularly asked why there is so much cycling in the Netherlands. A difficult question – although
the answer clearly lies in a combination of factors. [...] Historical-
cultural factors also play a major role. Cycling is so embedded in the Netherlands that virtually
every child gets the first bicycle around the fourth birthday – and learns to use it.”

Here we don't have that luck. We lost almost 50 years of urban cycling development, so I think is normal to think twice before applying policies based on your success.

Is true, that document gives a lot of *facts* about an increase in bicycle commuters by means of segregated infrastructure. But it isn't an argument against vehicular cycling.

By the way, I thought you were going to post the second part of your Bilbao video, in which you where supposed to experience some vehicular cycling and write some thoughts about it…

Having just moved back to Portland from London, it is like a breath of delicious, fresh air to once again be cycling in a place where I don't have to compete with black cabs for my safety (and get shouted at in the process!). Mmm… sweet lazy pedaling with a basketful of groceries….

Cheers!

The world clearly doesn't work that way though. Our actions effect other people, we belong to something more than ourselves (humanity) and we are dependent on each other, to varying degrees.

That means it's important to work together to find solutions to issues that many people feel comfortable with, not just the most virile, athletically inclined 2%. When you do something that creates benefit for the lowest common denominator in society, you do something that creates benefit for the whole society.