A dangerous detour from safe streets

You might say the vehicular cycling movement is car culture on two wheels.

Vehicular cycling has long been a contentious topic among urban planners, transportation engineers, and cycling advocates. The notion that bicycles should be treated as motor vehicles, sharing the same infrastructure and rules, is impractical and dangerous, especially when considering the diverse range of ages and abilities that make up any given population. 

If you’re unfamiliar with the jargon, here’s a blurb from Wikipedia:

Vehicular cycling (also known as bicycle driving) is the practice of riding bicycles on roads in a manner that is in accordance with the principles for driving in traffic, and in a way that places responsibility for safety on the individual.

The phrase vehicular cycling was coined by John Forester in the 1970s. In his book Effective Cycling, Forester contends that "Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles".

The only effective cycling for all ages and abilities involves paths far away from cars. If you're involved in mobility projects, be careful not to let the vehicular cycling mindset creep in. 

But look, I want every vehicular cyclist to continue riding how they like riding. I say this with zero sarcasm: it's impressive. I also want every vehicular cyclist to understand most people are terrified to be riding a bicycle in mixed traffic.

The Physics Problem

One glaring issue with Forrester's vehicular cycling is the inherent danger posed by the kinetic energy of traffic crashes. The speed and mass of motor vehicles far exceed that of bicycles, making any collision between the two highly dangerous for cyclists. 

By advocating for bicycles to share the same infrastructure as motor vehicles, Forrester's approach effectively ignores the fact that even minor collisions can result in severe injuries or fatalities for cyclists. This isn't a theoretical risk; it's a daily reality for cyclists navigating the streets alongside impatient and distracted drivers. The guy argued against protected bike lanes. With a straight face, he insisted that separating people from motor vehicles created a culture of fear. 

The Diversity Problem

Vehicular cycling fails to acknowledge the diverse needs of cyclists, particularly when it comes to age and ability. Children, seniors, and a large percent of the American population aren’t super confident using bikes as transportation. Survey after survey reveals it’s because riding in traffic is scary. Forester and his disciples ignore the fact that many people who would otherwise try a bike are deterred by the perceived danger of sharing the road with motor vehicles. 

Cities lacking dedicated cycling infrastructure have higher crash and fatality rates among cyclists. Conversely, cities that have embraced protected bike lanes and off-street paths boast not only safer cycling environments but also increased cycling rates across all demographics. The entire community benefits when we plan and design transportation systems for the wobbly, nervous rider.

The Big Picture

Instead of treating bicycles as motor vehicles, we (local governments, advocates, citizens, engineers, planners, parents, and children) should focus on creating an environment that makes cycling a viable choice for everyone. Protected bike lanes, shared-use paths, and traffic calming measures. 

Aggressive traffic calming measures combined with protected bike lanes and shared-use paths will make a world of difference. It’s practical and achievable. 

John Forester died in 2020, and his legacy for cycling advocacy is that children, older adults, and middle-aged normies don't exist. Vehicular cycling is for the athletic adrenaline junkies.

Forester’s ideas about bicycle infrastructure are so easy to ridicule, and based on his reputation, an on-stage debate would've been a riot. Even when he was young, he was a cranky old man. I'll just have to settle for mocking him and his followers post mortem.