Talk:Vehicular cycling: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 18:04, 19 July 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Vehicular cycling article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3

The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

John Forester (talk · contribs)

Reverts

NebY, please check the cited source and the article before reverting. Specifically the source says: "Although vehicular cyclists continue to oppose roadway designs that separate bicyclists from motorized traffic, research from the last decade demonstrates networks of separated bike lanes improve bicyclist safety and are necessary to meet the needs of the vast majority of the public who want to bicycle but feel unsafe in many traffic contexts." These results are already elaborated in the criticism section, which also states demographics of vehicular cycling advocates, so the lead is summarizing the body appropriately. As RS point out, cycling in traffic is most effective for fit and non-disabled individuals, especially men, which is an important limitation of vehicular cycling. I'm not sure why you removed the VC position opposing separated cycling infrastructure because that is an important aspect of the movement already covered in the article. (t · c) buidhe 22:16, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad we've moved to the discussion phase. I'm in the wrong timezone to continue this now, so for now all I'll say is that my concerns began when I saw you'd introduced material into the lead with a reference that was not in the body of the article, and the quotation above, which seems to equate a type of cyclist with a type of advocate, reads more as advocacy itself. NebY (talk) 22:34, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is the article about? Bicycling on roads or the movement known as "vehicular cycling"? It should be the latter because that is what independent RS say when you search for "vehicular cycling" on Google Scholar. Road cycling is a separate article. (t · c) buidhe 22:42, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

buidhe, while some critics of vehicular cycling, which is indeed distinct from mere road cycling, may interpret the term as referring to a "movement" which promotes vehicular cycling, that's conflation of terminology. Vehicular cycling is a particular form of road cycling: it's road cycling with the mindset and behavior of a driver of a vehicle. If you want to write an article about a movement promoting vehicular cycling, or a section about that, please do (though good luck finding any reliable source material on such a movement), but this article is not and has never been about that. I'm with NebY on the inappropriateness of the content that was added, and have reverted accordingly. Please don't make the mistake of interpreting "road cycling" literally as only cycling on roads; road bikes handle bike infrastructure quite well. And don't conflate anyone's opposition to legally requiring cyclists to use bike infrastructure and not the adjacent roadway as opposition to bike infrastructure. Even Forester did not take that position. --В²C ☎ 06:31, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the sources I cited and provide other, equally authoritative ones that disagree, and we could have a conversation about it. Wikipedia cannot promote an editor's point of view over what reliable sources say about a topic. (t · c) buidhe 07:32, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not about the movement. It’s about the practice. Finding sources about the movement does not dictate the topic of this article. —-В²C ☎ 08:50, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The movement that promotes a certain practice, is not distinguishable from the practice itself. As you could tell if you checked the sources, which mention both aspects. (t · c) buidhe 00:39, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"The movement that promotes a certain practice, is not distinguishable from the practice itself." That's not true. The movements that promote civil liberties, education, support for unpaid carers, low taxation, free speech, rambling, or cycling are completely distinguishable from the practices of civil liberties, education, support for unpaid carers, low taxation, free speech, rambling and cycling. NebY (talk) 11:30, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's the case. For example, we have Libertarianism, an article that covers both principles espoused by libertarians as well as the organizations and movements that promote libertarianism. Anyway, I am still waiting for any RS coverage that distinguishes between what you consider separate topics, even though both are originated by the same people, have the same name, etc. (t · c) buidhe 16:26, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's the case. Can we be clear about this? You've said that a movement that promotes a practice is not distinguishable from the practice itself, and your evidence for this is that Wikipedia has one article on the promoters of and principles of libertarianism? Is it also your opinion that there is no difference between the Ramblers and walking, between Cycling UK and cycling, or between Carers UK and caring? Do you regard all cycling and all caregiving as advocacy? Or can you countenance that not everyone who sometimes does something or sometimes uses a technique is an advocate for it and an opponent of all alternatives, that not all cyclists decry driving and not all butterfly swimmers decry the crawl? NebY (talk) 17:25, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please cut out the strawman argument and provide a reliable source that distinguishes between what you consider separate topics in relation to this article? (t · c) buidhe 04:38, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a strawman argument - see Straw man for clarification. You made a general statement "The movement that promotes a certain practice, is not distinguishable from the practice itself" and I've provided examples showing that statement to be wrong. That error on your part seems to be colouring your use or understanding of the sources you're presenting. Those sources are using "vehicular cycling" and "vehicular cyclist" to describe an advocacy they find abhorrent (much as some others use "cyclist" to describe someone who wants everyone to cycle and no-one to drive). That is a secondary and tendentious meaning; the primary meaning is as documented in the current article: a practice or set of techniques for riding a bicycle on road with other vehicular traffic. NebY (talk) 18:01, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is a strawman since I never claimed any of these things that you are suggesting. In fact articles like walking contain a lot of information about the organisms that walk! (t · c) buidhe 15:17, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is vehicular cycling?

Since there is some disagreement by editors on this point, I will quote what RS say:

After Davis, California, became the first community in the United States to build a network of bike lanes, a new brand of bicycle advocacy, vehicular cycling (VC), formed to oppose efforts to separate bicyclists from motorized traffic based on fears of losing the right to use public roads. (Schultheiss 2018, abstract)

Having succeeded in overturning the city's ordnance he then published a polemical book, Effective Cycling, and launched the vehicular cycling movement (by the same name) in which he argued that cyclists need training in good road...
— Norcliffe 2016

In a similar vein, we won't address explicitly the “vehicular cycling” (vC) subset of the bicycle movement, which views access to the main roadway lanes as the paramount issue for the movement...
— Golub 2017

Nonetheless, separation has not been universally accepted as a desirable bicycle safety strategy – notably in the United States where there has been a historically significant movement in support of ”vehicular cycling” which advocates...
— International Transportation Forum Research Reports Cycling, Health and Safety - Page 174

the IHPVA conformed to the “unique, indigenous American style” of bicycle advocacy known as “vehicular cycling”...
— Stoffers 2015 pp. 39-40

Furness 2010 pp.70-77 repeatedly discusses "VC advocacy", "VC proponents" as a movement, eg. "the growing emphasis on vehicular cycling advocacy marked a clear shift away from conceptualizing bicycling as part of the larger project of progressive urban reform toward a paradigm that simply emphasized the right to bike" It's also described in various sources as a concept or philosophy, which isn't wrong, but also needs to cover the movement that promotes the concept or philosophy.

It's also claimed above that Forester didn't oppose cycling infrastructure. RS contradicts this claim:

Forester remains adamant that providing bikeways is a retrograde step for the health of cycling... Forester still believes bikeway provision to be an evil (Reid 2018, pp. 158–159)

(t · c) buidhe 08:09, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Critics of a subject are not reliable sources for that subject. I’ll find other sources later. But to establish that someone opposes something you need reliable sources of what that person said or wrote demonstrating the opposing position in question. In any case the practice and the movement promoting the practice are two different topics. Let’s not conflate them. The primary topic of this article is the practice. —-В²C ☎ 20:48, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whether a source is pro or con does not affect its reliability; see WP:BIASEDSOURCES. All the sources I've found mention both recommendations for cycling in a certain style as well as advocacy of cycling in that style; the topics (if you consider them separate at all) are not distinguishable into separate articles. It may be that sources written from the vehicular cycling perspective emphasize the how-to while independent sources cover the historical context, effects, and so forth to a greater extent. However, Wikipedia articles may not be based on primary sources (see WP:NOR) and such sources do not determine due weight. (t · c) buidhe 00:35, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here, critic Reid refers to “vehicular cycling” as a “concept”, “the concept that cyclists ‘fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles.’” [1] —-В²C ☎ 04:42, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here it’s defined as “A term coined by John Forester to describe riding a bicycle as if it were a motor vehicle.”, in which “cyclists must constantly evaluate traffic, looking back, signalling, adjusting lateral position and speed, sometimes blocking a lane and sometimes yielding, always trying to fit into the “dance” that is traffic.” Nothing about it being a movement. [2]. —В²C ☎ 04:50, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, both a concept and a momement that promotes said concept. What makes cycling-embassy.uk a reliable source? (t · c) buidhe 04:52, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you’re ultimately arguing that the primary topic for “vehicular cycling” is the movement, not the practice. I don’t think you’ve shown that, and I’ll counter more, but even if you did, that’s an argument to move this article, perhaps to Vehicular cycling (practice). In any case, it’s not justification to change the topic of this article, which has been stable for over 15 years. —В²C ☎ 02:47, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are saying there are two separate topics here (that happen to have the same name, same content, same people involved, etc.), without providing any sources to back it up. (t · c) buidhe 04:34, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I keep saying. Two separate topics. I thought it was obvious. But plenty of sources back it up, including your own, like "Furness 2010 pp.70-77 repeatedly discusses 'VC advocacy'," demonstrate the existence of two distinct topics. There can be no "VC advocacy" if there is no "VC" (just like there can be no "cycling advocacy" if there is no "cycling"). Many of your sources explicitly refer to the "vehicular cycling movement". If "vehicular cycling" alone refers to only a movement, then the "movement" is redundant. Anyway, the main point is you cannot have an "X movement" or "X advocacy" without X. As to reliable sources for "vehicular cycling" (the practice), the topic of this article, see, for example, the chapter "Beyond Vehicular Cycling" in Robert Hurst's "The Art of Urban Cycling". Then there's the entire text of John Franklin's Cyclecraft. While Franklin, a Brit, doesn't use the (American) term in his book, he refers to the practice as a "style" in this article: "the style of cycling whereby cyclists ride as part of the general traffic mix, enjoying the same rights as the drivers of other vehicles and accepting the same responsibilities." Forester's original curriculum, and LAB's current curriculum based on that, as well as the CyclingSavvy education program which is heavily influenced by it, all stand as examples of the practice. But, yes, it's true, just like many cyclists are cycling advocates, many vehicular cyclists are vehicular cycling advocates, and sometimes the term "vehicular cycling" alone is used to refer to the movement; but that's always clear from context. Anyway, that doesn't make the two related concepts one and the same, nor does it justify our conflating them in this article. I do think a subsection on the movement would be appropriate at this time, and maybe it could eventually fork off into its own article. --В²C ☎ 05:55, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an article in Forbes in which Carlton Reid himself refers to "vehicular cycling" as a method. Yes, a method that Forester advocated, but "vehicular cycling" is the method, and the advocacy is a separate concept. "Forester advocated for what became known as 'vehicular cycling,' a method of riding with motor traffic." And here is an interesting Streetsblog article referring to the Madrid style of vehicular cycling. This is yet another example of current usage referring to the practice as "vehicular cycling". Also, before you protest about whether sources are sufficiently reliable, remember we're looking at the usage of the term "vehicular cycling", you know, where it's used. That doesn't have to be only in scholarly articles. --В²C ☎ 06:14, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, only reliable sources count for determining what the topic is. Wiktionary may have different inclusion criteria. (t · c) buidhe 15:13, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

People interested in what the late Mr. Forester thought might want to look at the history of this article from July-August 2010, plus /Archive 2, when he actually turned up to comment. There was also a lot of discussion about the nature of advocacy and criticism of the topic of this article. — Scott • talk 12:46, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's absolutely inappropriate to look at online comments that may or may not have been made by a particular person—certainly not a reliable source and should not influence content in any way. (t · c) buidhe 15:14, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was obviously him talking to me, I'd stake my mop on it. It's just extra flavor for people's thoughts at this point. — Scott • talk 15:27, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. That's definitely and obviously Forester. --В²C ☎ 05:39, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vehicular cycling advocacy

This is a very rough first draft for a potential new section for the article. Needs sources, etc., etc.

Advocacy of vehicular cycling primarily consists of education programs and defending the legal rights of cyclists to operate in accordance with the vehicular rules of the roads on roadways. The latter goal includes opposing laws that restrict such rights, including those that mandate cyclists use segregated facilities adjacent to the roadway. Arguments against such laws often lead to explanations for why cyclists may prefer riding in the roadway to using a bikeway, and such explanations have often led to descriptions of problems with bikeways and riding in them. These situations often turn into arguments about the bikeways, framing vehicular cyclists as opposing the bikeways, when ultimately they just want to not be forced to use them, and for others to understand why that's the case.

--В²C ☎ 06:39, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would cut the last sentence short, keeping only "These situations often turn into arguments about the bikeways, framing vehicular cyclists as opposing the bikeways." We can't read the minds of people who employ vehicular cycling techniques or of advocates for vehicular cycling, and we need to avoid conflating the two.

I have no expectation that this would remain the sole paragraph of the new section but it might well last as a good opening. NebY (talk) 13:41, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have to go with what the reliable sources say not with what you think about the subject. Starting a draft in the absense of sources usually requires throwing it out and starting over since you start based on your preconceptions not with what the RS says. (t · c) buidhe 15:15, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LAB

Clearly League of American Bicyclists has changed its position at least somewhat. The current website emphasizes "obeying laws" including riding to the right side and the advice for left turns is limited to "sticking your left arm out". Vehicular cycling of course dictates making left turns from the left lane. 2004 version of website explicitly advocates vehicular cycling, though I didn't see any specific advice regarding left turns. The challenge is coming up with WP:RS and avoiding WP:OR. Presently, I'm considering adding weak statements baked up by Wayback links, but I'm hoping someone can find sources. Michaelmalak (talk) 10:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The smart cycling program has not changed fundamentally. LCIs are teaching the same as they did 20 years ago. If anything there has been more emphasis on full lane use since the advent of BMUFL signs and sharrows. Plus Forester’s vehicular cycling never emphasized full lane use all that much anyway. He’s edge riding in his own training videos. Forester considered keeping right a normal vehicular rule of the road for slow traffic, including cyclists. Edge riding and using bike lanes is consistent with vehicular cycling. The material in Smart Cycling courses is still heavily based on vehicular cycling. It has to be. To teach anything contrary would be illegal, by definition. —В²C ☎ 18:04, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]