|
|
bike and related ARC / Times Up! / Critical Mass / Bike Toronto / public space / Tino's Bike Lane Diary / Get Out of the Bike Lane / bike [in]justice in texas / Chunk 666 / drumroll nyc / bike courier doc / cbn / toronto cranks / hwn / crazy biker chick |
| sally mckay main page / digital media tree | |
View current page
...more recent posts
A good friend of mine did her master's thesis on the different types of bicycle advocate. Here is a quote from something she wrote recently in a bikelane vs. education debate on the arcactive email list. (Vehicular cycling is the type advocated by courses such as Canbike, invovling a disdain for bike lanes and a call for education of cyclists so they feel empowered to "take the lane.")
"Vehicular cycling has its place as a solution for increasing cyclist safety--but just as bike lanes are not--it is not and can not be the only solution that we advocate for. Not only is it insufficient alone, the principles of vehicular cycling are unknown by the majority of cyclists (the minority that advocate for them are extremely vocal!) and even if they more well known are difficult for most people to adhere to. Bike lanes, on the other hand, are --poll after poll- the most desired and sought-after solution by cyclists and non-cyclists alike.
[V]ehicular cyclists slam bikeway advocates for not having enough "hard" science to back up their position but if you look at the source material that VC is based on (eg writings of John Forester the primary VC theorist in US) his research is quite unscientific and based very much on a subjective understanding of the world.
However the positions of BOTH bikeway advocates and vehicular cyclists are pro-cycling. We need to get past the either/or dialogue.