Vehicular Cycling isn't Advocacy

Sometimes you find stuff that makes you reconsider. In this case; "Bike Friendly Oak Cliff." I visit BFOC on occasion. I find that I cheer for some of their posts, such as when they drag bike racks away from the scrap yard to help populate Oak Cliff, shown here, while others make me think, "what a load of ___." I take a skeptical view of what I consider an unwarranted faith in bike lanes, and in politicians wanting to experiment on cyclists to burnish their "green" image.

Recently, BFOC did a post, shown here, on new Portland Cycle tracks. Contrast it with the post on the same subject from CommuteOrlando, shown here. I commented at BFOC, suggesting that such things would be better kept away from my neighborhood. Then came a thought provoker, in a counter comment, from BFOC kahuna mannytmoto:

mannytmoto
September 1, 2009 at 11:17 pm
I can cite hundreds of bad examples of poor car lanes as well, and only yards outside my door. Same for sidewalks, many of which bring very few pedestrians, does that constitute a failed system on the whole? Specifically, the merging of Davis and Fort Worth Avenue is “a bad joke”. As far as your neighborhood, I would direct you to Fort Worth’s recent 2015 plan which announces 470+ miles of bicycle infrastructure, and is far closer to you than Oak Cliff.
I understand exactly where you’re coming from as a Vehicular Cyclist, but the reality is, it simply doesn’t bring anyone out on bicycles. I like to note League Instructor, Paul Dorn, who has not only read and trained under Forester’s Effective Cycling, but is qualified to teach the class:
“I’ve written in the past about the welcome demise of vehicular cycling (VC) among bicycle advocates. As a practical approach to individual cycling, VC makes great sense: “drive” your bicycle as if it were a vehicle, claim your space, signal your turns, ride with traffic.
However, as a basis for bicycling advocacy, VC is negative, pessimistic, and counter-productive. Essentially, VC proponents conceded bicycling’s marginality and didn’t believe the roads could be changed to better accommodate cyclists. Instead they encouraged bicyclists to accept their minority status and adapt to roads designed for high speed vehicle traffic.”

I read it, and then I read it again. I couldn't really find anything I actually disagreed with more than just quibbling. Remember, I did "Yeti" recently. VC is not a basis for bicycle advocacy any more than vehicular motor vehicle operation would be as a basis for wanting freeways. VC is merely the sound practice when operating on roads under law, and it happens to be pretty durn safe even though it contradicts what most people believe about bikes & cars. But advocacy? Probably it is worse than ineffective in a fearful society. On the other hand, I DO feel that freeways should be built consistently with vehicular operation principles, and pedestrian and bike facilities should also be built in accord with proven traffic principles (it would be a stretch to use the term "vehicular" in connection with pedestrians, but they ARE traffic nonetheless). Let the Europeans be the ones to experiment on unsuspecting cyclists.

I think, and I suspect mannytmoto agrees, there's room for all when it comes to facilities (my personal favorites are bike racks and smooth pavement). Personally, I can think of MORE low cost facilities that make things better for bikes, for other road users, and for pedestrians than anybody can afford.

For example, consider the photo at top, shot yesterday afternoon in North Fort Worth. Yes, that's a fence between that cul de sac and the collector street & sidewalk (Coffeetree Drive). No, there's no passage at all through that fence. You can't see it in the photo, but there's an elementary school a tenth of a mile ahead on the left. It cries out for a path. The school has a fence all around it too, but somebody has cut a couple of the bars so kids can squeeze through. If I lived in that cul de sac, I'd use a little path like that. If I was biking locally, I'd bike more often (well, maybe in my case, I'd bike with exactly the same frequency). If I were a kid, maybe my parents might not feel they had to drive me to school - I could WALK. It's SO SIMPLE. Doohickie ID'd a similar situation here. Just make something like the photo at bottom; taken in a Keller subdivision three miles away. John Allen talks about making community connections for pedestrians and cyclists here. Keri Caffrey talks about it here (there were at least four other good ones so go search the blog). Such facilities DO attract people to biking. Also, and importantly, they don't make things difficult for people (motorized and non-motorized) operating under vehicular rules. Giving without taking away avoids backlash.

As a second example, consider that advisory signs telling two wheeled vehicles how to trigger traffic signals (bicycles and motorcycles) are rare as hens' teeth. Putting up such signs (and painting "sweet spots") sends a reassuring message to cyclists, as well as a "bikes belong" message to motorists in addition to their proper advisory function. They might also reduce red light running. Along my commute route, I KNOW how to trigger the lights and, when they can't be triggered, I have alternate routes. How many people out to ride for the day for the first time in 20 years are going to know? They should succeed, not get frustrated waiting for a light that will never change. Nobody should have to read this blog to learn secrets of triggering traffic lights.

Such things are simple, cheap, and are rarely seen, in Dallas or elsewhere (sorry mannytmoto, not even in Portland). Such things WOULD encourage people to come out on bikes. Unlike some proposals, they don't take from one class of road user to give to another, nor do they invite motorist backlash against safe and legal bicycle operation on the roads due to a mistaken impression that bike lane lines are there to keep bikes "over there." On the contrary, they support the notion that bikes ought to be EVERYWHERE. Oak Cliff could certainly use improved ways for cyclists and pedestrians to get across the freeways, railroad tracks, and the river. Let's get some of the stuff ALL cyclists can agree on done. As ChipSeal has noted, perhaps what we need are better advocates, or at least ones that get the meat & potato work done instead of the fluff. Money's short enough that we can't fund all the simple little projects that EVERYONE interested in bikes can support - we can always tackle the expensive, glamorous ones after we sort out how to get our money's worth from them...