City Cycling and the Vehicular Cycling Theory

As one of the pre-trip assignments, students were prompted to read chapter 6 of City Cycling, a chapter written by Peter Furth in Putcher and Buehler book.  This section of the text covers the differences in American and European policy on bicycle infrastructure, and analysis of different bike-ways, and finished with a discussion of bicycle infrastructure funding options.  What struck me the most about the reading was the section on “Vehicular Cycling” (VC) theory and how it has shaped the United States cityscapes.  In my own biking around California (before the reading), I have always wondered why more bicycle infrastructure is not integrated into street design.  Our climate is certainly not a contributing factor to low bicycling rates, and among other reasons, why have our politicians and engineers not made more of a conscious effort.  To me, it is a no-brainer.  I feel safer riding on separated bike-ways than in a bike lane on the street and wish there were more of them.  Another aspect to my cycling “upbringing” is the few bicycle riding classes I have participated in.  These classes taught the VC theory packaged as an “empowering” movement to take lane, be more visible to drivers and basically “stand up for yourself as a cyclist”. I was kind of shocked to read section of the vehicular cycling theory.  From what I have gathered the “empowerment movement” and the sentiment that cycling in the street is safer further perpetuates the ability for government to decrease the “slice of the budget pie” for bicycle infrastructure.  It just blows my mind and answered the lingering questions I had about why bicycling isn’t as prevalent in the United States.  IT’S OUR OWN FAULT!  We have created a bicycling culture similar to sink or swim.  You either jump on the “empowerment” bandwagon and (in my opinion risk your life) cycling in the middle of the lane or just forget cycling and hope in the car for your transport.  This part of the reading answered a lot of my “why” questions and I am excited even more for the rest of the trip to see the European separated bike-way philosophy. 

I came across this website which further spreads the VC sentiments: http://www.johnforester.com.  The author vehemently advocates for effective cycling and encouraging the government to treat cyclists the same as drivers of automobiles.  He turns the VC argument into an equality discussion stating that for a long time, cyclists have been treated like second class citizens which seems a bit harsh but one could see where he is coming from.   The policy in the Netherlands for bike infrastructure is to separate bicyclists from the traffic stream and also make intersection improvements to increase visibility and safety of cyclists to other drivers.  I think both philosophies are aiming at the same goal: encouraging cycling, and increase safety of all cyclists, young and old.   It is interesting to see how with the same goal in mind, there are two philosophies that come to two different conclusions on how to accomplish these goals.