A good friend of mine did her master's thesis on the different types of bicycle advocate. Here is a quote from something she wrote recently in a bikelane vs. education debate on the arcactive email list. (Vehicular cycling is the type advocated by courses such as Canbike, invovling a disdain for bike lanes and a call for education of cyclists so they feel empowered to "take the lane.")
"Vehicular cycling has its place as a solution for
increasing cyclist safety--but just as bike lanes are not--it is not
and can not be the only solution that we advocate for. Not only is it
insufficient alone, the principles of vehicular cycling are unknown by
the majority of cyclists (the minority that advocate for them are
extremely vocal!) and even if they more well known are difficult for
most people to adhere to. Bike lanes, on the other hand, are --poll
after poll- the most desired and sought-after solution by cyclists and
non-cyclists alike.
[V]ehicular cyclists slam
bikeway advocates for not having enough "hard" science to back up their
position but if you look at the source material that VC is based on (eg
writings of John Forester the primary VC theorist in US) his research
is quite unscientific and based very much on a subjective understanding
of the world.
However the positions of BOTH bikeway advocates and vehicular cyclists
are pro-cycling. We need to get past the either/or dialogue.
In the last couple years I've gotten to learn more about this VC / bikeway rift. I feel, however, that this is more of an issue in the US, especially with someone as vocal as Forrester.
In Toronto, the city staff are going both ways. I'm yet again working with the city of Toroto as a Cycling Ambassador, and also a long-term volunteer with CBN. The staff seem to be pushing hard for more bike lanes and at the same time doing the bikes are law-bound vehicles.
Personally, I can see the wisdom in this too. (Who wrote this master's thesis? I think I know who it is). Getting bike lanes, right to counter-flow riding on one-way streets, etc. is a golden calf. But it will be a long, long time before every street has this, and even then cyclists will be confronted with cars. You just can't get away from it while there is still oil in the Middle East. Cyclists will still need to cross intersections and look out for right or left turning cars.
So... both are needed.
|
A good friend of mine did her master's thesis on the different types of bicycle advocate. Here is a quote from something she wrote recently in a bikelane vs. education debate on the arcactive email list. (Vehicular cycling is the type advocated by courses such as Canbike, invovling a disdain for bike lanes and a call for education of cyclists so they feel empowered to "take the lane.")
- sally mckay 1-26-2004 4:28 pm
In the last couple years I've gotten to learn more about this VC / bikeway rift. I feel, however, that this is more of an issue in the US, especially with someone as vocal as Forrester.
In Toronto, the city staff are going both ways. I'm yet again working with the city of Toroto as a Cycling Ambassador, and also a long-term volunteer with CBN. The staff seem to be pushing hard for more bike lanes and at the same time doing the bikes are law-bound vehicles.
Personally, I can see the wisdom in this too. (Who wrote this master's thesis? I think I know who it is). Getting bike lanes, right to counter-flow riding on one-way streets, etc. is a golden calf. But it will be a long, long time before every street has this, and even then cyclists will be confronted with cars. You just can't get away from it while there is still oil in the Middle East. Cyclists will still need to cross intersections and look out for right or left turning cars.
So... both are needed.
- Herb (guest) 6-11-2004 7:36 am