If that correlation is true, what’s the cause? What’s the mechanism?

I think it’s likely to be the opposite of what most people think it is. I suspect the cause is a culture that respects cycling as transportation. The effect is a larger population of cyclists with good cycling skills.

Here’s one view of that theory:

http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/2009/03/17/strategy-for-a-cyclist-friendly-community/

1. Do VC riders believe that their riding style will increase modal share? I don’t see much evidence that it does. Why is this important? Because if it cannot, then VC is simply a method of coping with the existing conditions of an auto-centric society, making a cyclist safer on the road. Not a bad thing in and of itself!

2. Does separate facilities help increase modal share? Some will point to Portland and other cities that it can. Many new cyclists will tell you how they love their bike paths and bike lanes and how it gives them the confidence to ride on a street. However, others will blow holes in this argument, citing that will their might or might not be an increase, you have(acurately I think)continuing safety issues, costs, and the fact that you will never have facilites to go everywhere a cyclist needs to go.

To me, it’s all about increasing modal share. Some studies provide evidence that increasing the number of cyclists on the road changes motorist behaviors, and this translates into safer cycling. If this is true, then the question is, how do we get there, and will getting there be safe?

I remember visiting family friends in Davis since I was 6 years old in the 1960s, and riding bikes in their hot summers, and yes, Davis was Platinum bike friendly before even the first bike lane stripe was conceived, much less painted.

Jim wrote: “We can do both.”

Sounds good, but what does “doing both” really look like, and how do you define progress, much less success, in this “doing both” paradigm?

3A is “Establish separated networks as quickly as funding can be found”. Why? Why is this so important that it must be done “as quickly as funding can be found”? Does the reasoning have anything to do with cyclist safety? If so, what? The implication of even trying to “establish separated networks as quickly as funding can be found” is that it is necessary to make cyclists safe… that bikes and cars do not mix… that bikes do not belong on the same roads with motor vehicles. These are the inescapable messages of any efforts that seeks to “establish separated networks as quickly as funding can be found”.

3B is “Protect and Improve existing on road/integrated access by effecting users behaviors”. Why? Why is this even worth doing unless it is believed that bikes and cars can and do mix, that cycling can be done safely and comfortably in traffic, that bikes do belong on the same roads with motor vehicles.

I can understanding supporting separated facilities that bypass limited access routes on which cyclists are not allowed, as quickly as funding allows, but genuinely pushing to “establish separated networks as quickly as funding can be found”, while at the same time working to “protect and improve existing on road/integrated access by effecting users behaviors”, creates a cognitive dissonance that is more than this mind can manage.

KC wrote: “If we [vehicular cycling advocates] seem a little strident, it’s from years of frustration that “bike advocates” keep demanding so much less — to the point of putting unsuspecting cyclists in harm’s way by catering to their fears with illusory facilities.”

Exactly.

Serge

So… the facilities also explain the brewpubs, coffee shops, and indie book and record stores? Try “demographics” for what’s happening in the places you mention, not facilities. It’s all inter-linked, and it’s root is a demographic skew that can’t be repeated by facilities construction.

Aside from the question as to whether this is what the Dutch actually do, those concerns do matter in terms of bicyclists’ safety and mobility — even more so in the USA and Canada, because we start with a built infrastructure that requires longer trips, and we often have to deal with more demanding terrain than in table-flat Amsterdam.

For now, I’ll just throw in a few observations to support these contentions.

Here’s a page about effective and low-cost measures that that are crucial to bicyclist mobility in the “broccoli subdivisions” mentioned in an earlier post in this thread, but irrelevant in dense, pre-automotive cities such as Amsterdam:

Suburban Sprawl as it affects bicyclists.

Here are a blog entry and a video,

HAWK Beacon at E. Burnside and 41st Avenue, Portland, Oregon.

pointing to some rather sloppy engineering, and possible inprovements, in a bicycle facility in Portland, Oregon, the mecca of mode share.

Here’s a video showing the depth to which facilities design can sink in a major North American city when concerns for increasing mode share completely override issues of bicyclist travel time and avoidance of traffic conflicts:

Bicycling on the boulevard de Maisonneuve, Montreal

Well, enough for now.

To claim that facilities universally create increased mode share is to drastically over simply the specific causative factors, which vary from area to area. More importantly it is a false dichotomy to directly compare facilities advocacy with education programs; their goals are different. Education programs are aimed at decreasing an individual cyclists’ exposure to known crash causes; please see these slides (12-27) for examples:
http://www.cyclistview.com/ITC-Intro/slide12.htm

Facilities programs are not aimed at decreasing individual cyclists’ risk exposure, because special facilities cannot replace the traffic skills needed to negotiate the crossing conflict areas where the majority of car-bike crashes occur; this point is summarized on slide 27 above. Learning traffic skills will reduce an individual cyclist’s exposure to crash causes; this result is independent of whether there are a lot of special facilities in a given area, or none!

When the traffic laws are non-discriminatory, cyclists can always choose to use travel lanes, or they can choose optional special facilities. Such laws make all facilities designs inclusive; only when laws force special facilities use are the interests of cyclists preferring “integrated behavior” and those preferring “separated behavior” and/or “segregated behavior” put into conflict, thus creating a divisive design. Please see these slide for details:
http://www.cyclistview.com/inclusivepdintro/slide09.htm
http://www.cyclistview.com/inclusivepdintro/slide39.htm

With equitable laws, all roads + bikeways combinations are inclusive, with each cyclist being free to choose the behavior they prefer. I’m not interested in forcing Paul, or anyone else to use a travel lane, if he would instead prefer to use a bike lane or a path, and I hope he and others would respect my right to choose a travel lane instead.

“There are more bicyclists per capita in Davis, CA than anywhere else in the U.S., and it was clearly the facilities, not any VC education campaign.”

Historical records show that there were huge and increasing numbers of bicyclists in Davis before bike lanes were introduced there. Like elsewhere, the bicycle facilities merely contracted bicyclist space and rights.

Wayne

There is a lot of misunderstanding about driving in traffic, which I assume is covered in your book (I’ve not read it, yet). But, whatever misconceptions exist about driving motor vehicles in traffic, I’m sure they pale in comparison to the ignorance and superstitions associated with riding bicycles in traffic. I’m delighted you’ve discovered the “very deep pool” of vehicular cycling, which may perhaps be thought of as blasting these superstitions and “starting over” in terms of thinking about bicycling and traffic. I look forward to a second edition of your book which will describe the journey on which you are now embarking, and what you learned along the way. I encourage you to look for the new North American edition of “Cyclecraft” by John Franklin, which is to be published shortly. I think the ability to easily, effectively and comfortably apply the practices explained in this book – originally written in the U.K. – to riding on the roads in the U.S and Canada, challenges the notion that the difference in driving cultures makes a significant difference in how one should behave to be safe.

I agree with you that it’s hard to imagine many people riding on the roads depicted in Dan and Brian’s video, but that’s ultimately probably because of the superstitions that I hope you will help us slay. Let us not just continue to build and support the facilities that reinforce these false notions, and do very little, if anything, to make cycling actually safer.

“Position on the road is by far the most important influence that a cyclist has over his safety.” -John Franklin, “Segregation: Are we moving away from cycling safety?”

http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/vehicular.pdf