Should bikes and cars share the same road

[classic33]

— and the same rules?

Okay not the same country, however similar problmes faced everywhere.

Earlier this week, a new law went into effect in California: drivers must now give bikers three feet of space when passing, or pay a fine.

On its face, this sounds like a great policy for bikers. But there are some bike advocates out there who actually think the benefits of these "three-foot" laws — now on the books in 24 states — are overblown.

These advocates point to a general lack of enforcement of the rules — but they also argue, more broadly, that making slight concessions for cyclists as part of a system designed entirely for cars is no way to make city biking safe and accessible to the casual rider.

This disagreement is part of a broader disagreement amongst cyclists: whether bikers should simply share the road with cars, obeying all of the same rules (a philosophy commonly called "vehicular cycling"), or whether cities should be investing in specialized infrastructure so that bikes and cars don't have to mingle (a position often called "segregated cycling"). This is a guide to that surprisingly contentious debate.

http://www.vox.com/2014/9/19/6404829/vehicular-cycling-bike-lanes

 

[noodle]

somewhere in between i think is the best place. yes have areas set aside for cyclists where its feasible or there is no other way to manage the associated risks. there is no way on earth we should be throwing newcomers children etc to the wolves on the road or have anyone have to put up with trying to safely bike on a 70mph route

 

[Shut Up Legs]

Whoever wrote that misunderstood vehicular cycling, because it's not about following the same rules as motorists, because in most countries that's not optional anyway.

 

[byegad]

From a purely UK viewpoint: Hell yes!

There is no way we can fit in segregated facilities into our crowded towns and the loss of Agricultural land to lanes built on every country road would be stupendous. So we are the traffic just as much as every other road user, be they on 2 or 4 feet or on anything from 2 to 18 wheels!

A three foot rule is a possibility here to follow on from that tremendously successful and so well enforced ban on using mobile phones while driving! Sarcasm mode off.

 

[numbnuts]

It's education (of motorists) not segregation that is needed

 

[sgl5gjr]

The worse thing is around these parts...... Police and local authorities here... appear to like cyclists on the road...as they like to use them as "rolling" traffic calming, recently admitted by a senior council employee and a senior police officer would not confirm or deny this "policy"
We have very few cycleways (most are really shared footpaths in poor condition) and the appalling roads are more attractive to cycle on, the planners have gone stupid over the past 40 years under the Blue coloured political party and us cyclists are way down the pecking order for infrastructure and help to make it a safe transport option for more locals. Instead we have a heavily congested ring road,where us cyclists are moving faster than the cars and end up being pinned to the kerbs by "terrorist" motorists who don't like you getting on better than them.
Needless to say, I campaign to get more cycleways and where they are already in place to keep them clean and maintained...... But I agree ...Motorists need educating.
As a motorist I always pass fellow cyclists wide and indicate to motorists that I am overtaking.....

 

[Sara_H]

Over the last few years since I've been trying to get my son riding as much as possible I've come to realise that we need Dutch style infrastructure. It just isn't safe for children to cycle as vehicular cyclists. I've tried and it scares the shoot out of me. There's nothing, nothing worse than watching your precious child being close passed at speed by a complete nobber. Now I take him on the pavement on anything but the quietest routes.

For me, given my recent experience, I'd like as much segregation as possible. The road I was deliberately run over on was a quiet back street sign posted by my local authority as a "suitable cycling route". What I've realised is that it only takes one driver to lose his rag or to not be paying attention and BOOM, you're down. If you're segregated, this risk is completely removed.

 

[Deleted member 1258]

I must admit that after more than 40 years on the road I'm happy riding as part of the traffic on the road and I'm no fan of cycle paths, the only place where I'd like to see them is alongside national speed limit main roads and dual carriage ways where there's no quiet alternative route.

 

[Drago]

I enjoy the cut and thrust of urban cycling. Despite the moaning and occasional unpleasantness I find most motorists are thoughtful and courteous. I've no issue sharing the same tarmac.

 

[Phil Fouracre]

This seems to be an ongoing subject for discussion on all the forums. Not quite sure why people get so upset with the vehicular cyclist argument. Yes, in an ideal world a completely separate parallel cycle infrastructure would be fantastic, but, it ain't going to happen. A bit of realism please! Reading a bit about the principle, it makes perfectly good sense to me, why not take your very rightful place as you travel to your destination, using the available facilities to the best of your ability. Surely looking, indicating your intentions and manoeuvring are completely logical!

 

[Sara_H]

This seems to be an ongoing subject for discussion on all the forums. Not quite sure why people get so upset with the vehicular cyclist argument. Yes, in an ideal world a completely separate parallel cycle infrastructure would be fantastic, but, it ain't going to happen. A bit of realism please! Reading a bit about the principle, it makes perfectly good sense to me, why not take your very rightful place as you travel to your destination, using the available facilities to the best of your ability. Surely looking, indicating your intentions and manoeuvring are completely logical!

Why do you think it can't happen. It's happened and works exceedingly well in other places. And since many of our towns and cities are now at saturation point as far as private car use goes, do you not see a point when planners will have to start to embrace an infrastructure that will encourage, rather than discourage other transport methods?

 

[Sara_H]

It is a shame that this is what you would like, when all you need is that driver and others of a similar nature off the road.

That's right. But it's seemingly impossible for our police to effectively police the streets. Apparently, the perpetrator of my assault has got a record for previous similar offences, so how is he allowed to drive? How can he afford to insure a car?
And at the end of the day, the police can't be everwhere, if we seperate the two modes, we remove the risk of conflict.

 

[GrasB]

What I've realised is that it only takes one driver to lose his rag or to not be paying attention and BOOM, you're down. If you're segregated, this risk is completely removed.

A colleague of mine was deliberately hit by a thug for a laugh. He is now unable to write with his right hand as he fell off his bike he caught his arm on something & did irreparable nerve damage. At one point there was a chance he'd lose part of his arm. So all you need is a pedestrian in a mood and you could have a life altering injury anyway.

 

[MontyVeda]

This seems to be an ongoing subject for discussion on all the forums. Not quite sure why people get so upset with the vehicular cyclist argument. Yes, in an ideal world a completely separate parallel cycle infrastructure would be fantastic, but, it ain't going to happen. A bit of realism please! Reading a bit about the principle, it makes perfectly good sense to me, why not take your very rightful place as you travel to your destination, using the available facilities to the best of your ability. Surely looking, indicating your intentions and manoeuvring are completely logical!

In an ideal world, it would be fantastic if all drivers accepted that us cyclists are just as much a part of the traffic as they are instead of seeing us as a menace that inhibits their progress when we take our rightful place on the road... but it ain't going to happen. A bit of realism please!

 

[MontyVeda]

I can't 'like' that story, as it's awful, but I agree that talk of risks being 'completely removed' is just silly. When someone's had an accident their ideas about risk are skewed, but cycling still isn't at all dangerous really.

Sara_h was talking about the risks from motorists being completely removed