What is “Vehicular Cycling”? (The Arguments For AND Against It)

The question of how cyclists should behave on the road remains a hotly debated topic, and few issues generate as much passionate discussion as the concept of “vehicular cycling.”

The Short Answer

Vehicular cycling is a practice where cyclists behave like drivers on the road, following the same traffic laws and rules. Advocates argue that it increases safety, efficiency, and mutual respect between cyclists and drivers. Critics argue for more investment in dedicated bike infrastructure to promote safer and more accessible cycling.

Advocates for vehicular cycling argue that cyclists should behave like drivers on the road, following the same traffic laws and rules as other vehicles, while those who support dedicated bike infrastructure argue that cycling should be separated from motor vehicle traffic as much as possible.

PICTURED: Bicycle Anatomy 101 Mug (Limited Edition)

In this article, we will attempt to provide an impartial perspective on the idea behind vehicular cycling, the arguments for and against it, and the factors that influence the debate.

What is Vehicular Cycling?

Vehicular cycling is a term used to describe the practice of bicycling on roads in a manner that is similar to how a motor vehicle would operate in traffic.

This means that vehicular cyclists typically ride in the same lanes as cars and other vehicles, and follow the same traffic laws and regulations. Vehicular cyclists are assertive and take up the appropriate amount of space on the road, rather than hugging the curb or riding in the “door zone” next to parked cars.

They also use hand signals to indicate turns or lane changes and use lights and reflective clothing to increase their visibility to drivers.

The core idea behind vehicular cycling is that by behaving like a vehicle on the road, it will encourage drivers to view cyclists as legitimate users of the road.

However, vehicular cycling can also be controversial, as some cyclists and advocates argue that it places too much responsibility on the cyclist to navigate traffic safely, rather than creating dedicated bike infrastructure that can provide a safer and more accessible option for cyclists.

Ultimately, the effectiveness and safety of vehicular cycling may depend on a number of factors, including the specific road conditions, the experience and skills of the cyclist, and the attitudes and behaviours of drivers on the road.

John Forester Vehicular Cycling

John Forester is a transportation engineer and cycling advocate who is considered one of the pioneers of the vehicular cycling movement. Forester developed the concept of vehicular cycling in the 1970s and 80s as a way to promote cycling as a legitimate mode of transportation on roads.

He argued that cyclists should behave like drivers on the road, following the same traffic laws and rules as other vehicles, and that this approach could help to increase safety and promote mutual respect between cyclists and drivers.

Forester’s ideas were controversial at the time, as they challenged the prevailing view that cycling should be confined to dedicated bike paths or lanes. However, his advocacy for vehicular cycling helped to shift the conversation around cycling as a mode of transportation, and his ideas continue to influence cycling infrastructure and policy today.

Forester is the author of several books on cycling, including “Effective Cycling” and “Bicycle Transportation,” and he has been recognized for his contributions to cycling advocacy and engineering. Despite some criticism of his ideas, he remains an influential figure in the cycling community and a proponent of the idea that cyclists should be treated as equal users of the road.

Vehicular Cycling Principles

Vehicular cycling principles, also known as Effective Cycling principles, are a set of guidelines developed by John Forester in the 1970s and 80s that promote the use of bicycles as a legitimate form of transportation on roads. Here are some of the key principles:

1. Cyclists should ride in a straight line, staying as far to the right side of the lane as practicable, but not so far that they are in danger from the edge of the road or hazards.
2. Cyclists should always obey traffic laws, including stop signs and red lights.
3. Cyclists should communicate their intentions to drivers by using hand signals to indicate turns or lane changes.
4. Cyclists should use lights and reflective clothing to increase their visibility to drivers, especially in low light conditions.
5. Cyclists should anticipate and avoid hazards on the road, such as potholes or debris.
6. Cyclists should be assertive and take up the appropriate amount of space on the road, rather than hugging the curb or riding in the “door zone” next to parked cars.
7. Cyclists should be aware of their surroundings and always ride defensively, assuming that drivers may not see them.

Overall, the goal of vehicular cycling principles is to promote safe and responsible cycling behaviour on the road, and to encourage drivers to view cyclists as legitimate users of the road.

However, these principles have also been criticised by some cyclists and advocates who argue that they place too much responsibility on cyclists to navigate dangerous or hostile road conditions, and that more investment should be made in dedicated bike infrastructure.

Why is Vehicular Cycling Hotly Debated?

Vehicular cycling is a hotly debated topic because it represents two competing approaches to promoting cycling as a mode of transportation. On one hand, vehicular cycling advocates argue that cyclists should behave like drivers on the road, following the same traffic laws and rules as other vehicles.

This approach emphasises the need for cyclists to be assertive and take up space on the road, and it is seen as a way to increase visibility and reduce the likelihood of accidents.

On the other hand, advocates for dedicated bike infrastructure argue that cycling should be separated from motor vehicle traffic as much as possible, and that dedicated bike lanes, paths, and bridges are necessary to promote cycling as a safe, practical, and accessible mode of transportation.

This emphasises the need for cyclists to have their own space on the road, free from the hazards and stresses of traffic.

The debate over vehicular cycling is also influenced by a range of other factors, including the specific road conditions and traffic patterns in different areas, the attitudes and behaviors of drivers and cyclists, and the availability of resources and funding for cycling infrastructure.

The debate can also be influenced by political and cultural factors, such as the role of the automobile in society and the extent to which cycling is seen as a legitimate mode of transportation.

Ultimately, the effectiveness and safety of vehicular cycling may depend on a range of factors, and it is important to consider a variety of approaches to promoting cycling as a mode of transportation, including both vehicular cycling and dedicated bike infrastructure.

The debate over these approaches is ongoing, and it will continue to shape the future of cycling infrastructure and policy for years to come.

The Case for Vehicular Cycling

The case for vehicular cycling argues that bicyclists should behave like drivers on the road, following the same traffic laws and rules as other vehicles. Here are some of the arguments in favor of vehicular cycling:

1. Increased safety: Vehicular cycling can help to increase safety for cyclists by making them more visible to drivers and reducing the likelihood of accidents. When cyclists ride in a predictable and consistent manner, it is easier for drivers to see them and react accordingly.
2. More efficient: Vehicular cycling can be a more efficient way to travel, as it allows cyclists to use the same roads as other vehicles, rather than being confined to bike paths or lanes. This can help to reduce travel times and make cycling a more practical option for transportation.
3. Encourages respect: When cyclists behave like drivers on the road, it can help to promote mutual respect between cyclists and drivers. By following the same traffic laws and regulations, cyclists can demonstrate that they are legitimate users of the road, and drivers may be more likely to view them as such.
4. Cost-effective: Vehicular cycling is a relatively low-cost way to promote cycling as a mode of transportation, as it does not require significant investment in new infrastructure or facilities.
5. Empowers cyclists: Vehicular cycling empowers cyclists to take control of their own safety on the road, rather than relying on external factors such as dedicated bike lanes or infrastructure. By teaching cyclists how to navigate traffic safely and effectively, it can help to build confidence and increase the number of people who choose cycling as a mode of transportation.

However, it is important to note that vehicular cycling is not without its critics, who argue that it places too much responsibility on the cyclist to navigate dangerous or hostile road conditions, and that more investment should be made in dedicated bike infrastructure.

Ultimately, the effectiveness and safety of vehicular cycling may depend on a number of factors, including the specific road conditions, the experience and skills of the cyclist, and the attitudes and behaviours of drivers on the road.

The Case Against Vehicular Cycling

The case against vehicular cycling argues that it is not a safe or practical approach to promoting cycling as a mode of transportation, and that more investment should be made in dedicated bike infrastructure. Here are some of the arguments against vehicular cycling:

1. Safety concerns: Vehicular cycling can be dangerous for cyclists, particularly in areas with high traffic volumes or speeds. Cyclists are more vulnerable to accidents and injuries than motorists, and riding in traffic can be stressful and intimidating for many people.
2. Exclusionary: Vehicular cycling may exclude certain groups of people, such as children, seniors, and people with disabilities, who may not have the skills or confidence to navigate traffic safely.
3. Inefficient: Vehicular cycling may not be an efficient way to promote cycling as a mode of transportation, as it can be slow and impractical for many people. Dedicated bike lanes or paths may be more attractive and accessible options for cyclists, particularly for short trips or commuting.
4. Lack of infrastructure: In areas without dedicated bike infrastructure, vehicular cycling may be seen as the only option for cyclists. However, this can be a barrier to increasing cycling rates, as many people may not feel comfortable or safe riding in traffic.
5. Legal challenges: Vehicular cycling may not be legal in all areas, and cyclists may face challenges from law enforcement or other road users if they are seen as obstructing traffic or violating traffic laws.

Overall, the case against vehicular cycling argues that more investment should be made in dedicated bike infrastructure, such as bike lanes, paths, and bridges, in order to promote cycling as a safe, practical, and accessible mode of transportation for all people.

While vehicular cycling may have some benefits in certain situations, it is not seen as a comprehensive or sustainable solution to promoting cycling as a mode of transportation.

Whatever You Think, Just Ride.

To summarize, the arguments for vehicular cycling emphasize safety, efficiency, respect, and empowerment for cyclists. Conversely, the arguments against vehicular cycling raise concerns about safety, exclusion, inefficiency, lack of infrastructure, and legal challenges.

However, regardless of which side you take in this debate, the most important thing is that you cycle. Whether you’re a vehicular cyclist or a dedicated bike lane advocate, keep on pedaling and enjoying the ride!