Talk:Vehicular cycling/Archive 3

Drivers must pass cyclists

Bicyclists can also filter forward past stopped motor traffic, though this angers drivers[9] who must struggle to safely pass the cyclist again later.

The citation points to an opinion piece in the BBC, not only does it not claim to be scientific research, the author in fact states the article is based on his theory.

The claim that drivers must pass cyclists is not validated in any way. It doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards. Unless a suitable source can be cited, the line should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.225.169.90 (talk) 04:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't say they must pass. It says they must struggle if they are to pass. --B2C 06:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

In addition to being sourced to an opinion piece, it was doubly poorly-phrased, implying not only that drivers must pass, as in the anonymous reader's comment, but also a unity of bad temperament among all drivers.

I've taken it out of the article. — Scott • talk 15:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Laws in France

In France, cyclists must observe the same law as any lane user. They are lane users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcferson (talk • contribs) 09:01, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Biased?

This article seems biased against vehicular cycling by a position strongly pushed in the press these days by people pushing their 'copenhagism" agenda & state control, despite the fact that accidents have & are going up because of their ideas & their infrastructure. That they took over the bicycle advocacy groups & are highly aligned with some politicians & some business interests, as well as using the press & public forums intensely, & unfairly, to sway public opinion, & even, to directly trying to discredited vehicular cyclists outright as radicals, when the opposite is true, & present cyclists by posing what imaginary cyclists might want, using the fake guise of science. "Copenhagism" fails to take into account that the United States of America is a different country with different topography & different people & different structures. As well stating that vehicular cyclists do not adapt at all, when they are the ones coming up with innovative ideas. This article seems biased by the present crusade against vehicular cyclists & a proposition rejected by most people, especially cyclists.

+1 agree — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.201.160 (talk) 22:42, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Complementary options

This article does not take into account any evolution of thought regarding vehicular cycling in regards to offering complementary options. It centers on one person's view from many years ago. Vehicular cyclists are not against "protected lanes" as long as they are not encroaching on other users ability to use the roads. They are against most traffic calming as it unfairly endangers cyclists in most cases, and can limit access & connectivity. They are against narrowing lanes & cutting back on the number of lanes as this forces vehicular cyclists to be in closer proximity to cars, increasing the chance of conflict, as well as making for more nervousness on the road. It, also, fails, to incorporate updates such as the Idaho Stop/Delaware Yield.

“Providing Vehicular Cyclists with Routine Accommodation in the U.S. as Part of Complete Streets" https://thinkbicyclingblog.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/pion-ite-journal-2018.pdf

Nantucketnoon (talk) 16:47, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Completely Biased

This article is incredibly biased against the topic of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.43.129 (talk) 17:06, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Obama is criticized for not being a US citizen. Just because criticism exists does not mean we put in the article, much less in the lead. --В²C ☎ 17:25, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd like a few more opinions on this point. Specifically, do we include in the lede the point - well-evidenced elsewhere - that vehicular cycling is "a controversial approach, criticized as being unsuitable for anyone but skilled, strong riders."?

Oh, people malign it that way, but it's a ridiculous statement. Education programs from the League of American Bicycling, CyclingSavvy, CAN-BIKE etc. teach vehicular cycling techniques to beginners aged 8-80 all the time. The idea that it is unsuitable for anyone but skilled, strong riders is proved wrong by hundreds if not thousands every day. That's why I compared it to noting that Obama is criticized for not being a US citizen in the article about him - it's an equally absurd claim, though the criticism certainly exists out there (made even by the person who is now the current president). Just because criticism exists, does not mean it's credible. Follow the money. In most cases you'll see most anti-VC criticism comes from those who benefit monetarily from the building of cycling infrastructure, and those who are persuaded by their arguments. They see teaching people to be safe and comfortable riding on existing infrastructure (a.k.a roads) to be an impediment to their livelihood. --В²C ☎ 18:23, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

You may disagree but the criticism is made, and it should be reported here. How exactly we word it is a matter for debate of course. Do you have any suggestions? Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:39, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

A more accurate and NPOV version might read something like "As a method for strong and confident riders to cope with fast motor traffic, many recommendations of vehicular cycling are widely accepted. As an approach to allow mass cycling, on the scale seen in countries that have extensive traffic calming and protected facilities to separate riders from fast motor traffic, it has been widely criticized." Comments? Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:07, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I just removed that second sentence. Criticizing vehicular cycling as an approach to allow mass cycling is like criticizing cooking as an approach to carpet laying. Vehicular cycling was never intended to increase cycling; why criticize it for not being that? --В²C ☎ 01:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

New image - appropriate?

Darrelljon included a new image supposedly depicting vehicular cycling, but it shows a group of cyclists riding on what is identified as a "segregated cut-through" in the caption. That's not vehicular cycling. Vehicular cycling is cycling on roads in accordance with the vehicular rules of the road, not riding in space segregated for cyclists operating under different rules, or no rules. This image is not appropriate for this article, and should be removed, I think. --В²C ☎ 00:25, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Removed image Darrelljon (talk) 05:40, 23 November 2019 (UTC)