musings on what it means to be a Vehicular Cyclist

Earlier this month, Mikael at Copenhagenize posted on Vehicular Cycling as a philosophy. His posts usually make a LOT of sense to me, and the two or three of you who read my musings often enough know I quote him from time to time--probably more often than most blogs I read.

In this post, he explains Vehicular Cycling in ways I had not considered. Prompted by this, I pondered my own outlook on VC, as I certainly consider myself a Vehicular Cyclist.

He has a lot of valid points. More or less separate infrastructure for cycling, even to the exclusion of cars from certain urban areas, would be wonderful. I would love to see bike lanes like those in Copenhagen in Louisville--all over the place, used all the time, cleared of snow before the main roadways, and all that.

I'm pragmatic enough to know that just about any philosophical position will have inherent compromises, though. VC is no different, to me, as there is a severe lack of political will to create the infrastructure like that in Copenhagen, let alone the dollars to do so. There is, in many places, a severe lack of room to emulate the Danish model. We are a young country by European standards, and much of our cityscape has been fashioned in the post-World-War-II era, with the assumption that if you were you would drive everywhere instead of walking/riding public transit/bicycling. There simply was no impetus for leaving room for bicycles in the traffic plan, such as it was. VC is thus a compromise, cognizant that unless our politicians develop brain functions more complex than, "I must work to be reelected to this office or a higher one," and the citizenry who bother to vote develop more of a conscience than to simply say, "it's so much more convenient for me to drive than to walk/ride/cycle, I won't vote for anyone who threatens my status quo as a driver!"

In the comments attached to Mikael's post, Anna opined, in part:

My opinion on this is different, because I can partially understand this behavior. It is not that "vehicular cyclists" are against bicycle infrastructure (although they might not know that themselves), but they are against crappy bicycle infrastructure.

I could not agree more. "Crappy bicycle infrastructure" is far worse than nothing, in many ways. Creating it, municipalities say, in effect, "Cyclists are inferior/second-class road users, so we leave them with inferior lanes so as to discourage them from using the roadways. Let the trash/debris/detritus from the traffic build up in the lane we leave them, further discouraging them from obstructing traffic with their fly-weight machines. Then rail against them even more when they refuse to use obviously-more-dangerous-than-necessary lanes we made for them." Sort of a parallel to the Jim Crow laws, in a way, if you will allow the analogy.

An anonymous respondent typed, "This is a strawman depiction of Vehicular Cycling." To some degree, I agree. Another opinion was that realists like Anna, whom I quoted above, are quite different than hard-core Vehicular Cyclists who decry ANY bicycle-specific infrastructure.

Yeah, I've heard that one before, too. I went through a brief phase of that myself, some years ago. I quickly figured out, though, that Multi-Use Paths (MUP) have their place in giving folks a place to ride as leisure riders, or semi-neophyte riders, or those of us who have the skill set and the confidence to ride on the roads but who want a low-stress alternative for a different style of ride, or whatever.

Since I'm all about getting folks on bikes, I figure that having a place for those with less of a chip on their shoulders than I to ride is a good thing.

Just don't tell me I have to ride there to the exclusion of roads that take me where I want to go.