In theory, biking sounds like it should be relatively simple (and it certainly is in principle), but in reality, there is a lot of minute details and technical considerations to keep up with. The average person is likely oblivious to the fact that these competing views are so well organized, but they certainly have a real impact on ridership.
Over the last few years, there has been an ongoing battle in regards to what the proper method of planning and designing for bikes should be. Eulogies (which is a charitable description in some cases) have been written to vehicular cycling, the less-prominent of the two philosophies in modern advocacy. Most of them focus on acknowledging that its techniques do have relevance as a coping strategy in car-centric environments, but using it as an entire advocacy platform is ridiculous.
This then is not another eulogy but more of a look at the why of how we are finally being freed from the scourge of that deadly policy position. There should be little need to go over the extensive history of vehicular cycling both here in America as well as elsewhere. The focus now is why it is finally dying and what that means moving forward.
Vehicular cycling really gained a foothold in the 1970s, long before the internet was available in a device in the hands of the majority of people around this country and the world. And while perhaps there might have been some photographs and film clips of Amsterdam shown from time to time, it was even prior to much of the academic research that has since been conducted regarding bike infrastructure.
Thus, when John Forester started his “experiments” in Palo Alto and later sounded the alarm to [primarily sporting-focused] bicyclists around California about proposals of various types of bike facilities, he was able to have an outsize influence on the creation of the eventual standards. Despite the limited communication tools of the day, he was able to marshal sufficient opposition to the “worst” of the bike facility proposals to get them nixed from budding design manuals.
But in the modern era, things are vastly different. The proliferation of the internet, online services, and smartphones has fundamentally change the world in general and no stone, including bicycle design philosophy, has remained untouched in that regard. Researchers now have access to a vast supply of bike-related studies done by the Belgians, Dutch, Danish, Germans, Norwegians, Swedes, and others. Meanwhile, practitioners have access to the design standards and guidelines developed based on the results of those studies, many times for free. (For those that require payment, the internet still makes the process much easier, with people being able to search for, shop, and pay all from the comfort of their own homes.)
Additionally, people outside of the fields of academia or the transportation planning have started to tell their own bike stories using various tools of the internet over the last two decades or so. A number established blogs and photo journals, all showing that biking can be better. These have resulted in a number of contributions including fine details and descriptions of different bike treatments, the writers’ experiences while out riding, and international trips and what they saw while on them. Put together, they really make an effort to provide readers with a comprehensive understanding of how much better biking could be than it was where they lived.
But while scores of studies exist which all generally disprove to some degree or another the central premise offered by vehicular cycling and people can write about their own experiences both in their towns as well as what they experienced on visits to places with better biking, there is nothing quite like videos to directly contradict various claims made against various types of bikeways to really put the theory to rest. Thus, perhaps the most influential change to come onto the scene has been YouTube. As the saying goes, “a picture is worth a thousand words” and video relies on dozens of them per second. So from the the well-produced videos from the likes of BicycleDutch or Streetfilms to snippets shot on cellphones by kids, there is now no shortage of content which also draw the claims of vehicular cycling seriously into question.
Finally, the growth of the numerous social media sites and platforms has helped supercharge the above, providing the ability to connect people all over the world with the information in the blog posts and videos that they may never have found on their own and broaden the reach of the original creators to every corner of the globe. All of that has had an incalculable impact on bike advocacy.
With all that in mind, it should be no surprise to see that by the late 2000s, cities were really starting to thumb their nose at the conventional wisdom and standards from organizations like AASHTO that, due to decades of vehicular cycling influence, have been against bike-specific infrastructure that is more common in societies where biking is more popular. Instead, they started to try their hand at those same sorts of facilities. Now, what was once a trickle of “experiments” from places like NYC has now spread to projects all over the country. From big cities to small towns, the desire to build bike networks has been ignited and the agencies are increasingly saying “yes” to the very same separated facilities that for decades have been frowned upon.
Most communities likely are not destined to become the next Amsterdam or Copenhagen, with bike ridership constituting more than 40% of all trips and making up the largest single category of transportation options. Nevertheless, it absolutely is true that biking can be more accessible and safer than it currently is in those places. It probably is realistic for most communities to reach the ~15% mode share for bikes which Rotterdam had prior to their more recent work to upgrade their biking facilities, but that simply will not happen under vehicular cycling. Thanks to the internet, cities no longer have to try.
So while there remains a long road ahead of agencies all over the place to provide access to safe and convenient bike facilities to their communities and vehicular cycling certainly will be necessary in plenty of areas which have yet to be upgraded, vehicular cycling as a position of advocacy to be preferred has been dealt a fatal blow. People no longer will tolerate being gaslit about their experiences when they can pull up countless examples of something better at their fingertips. For everyone interested in seeing more and better biking in their community, help is on the way.