US Cyclists Are Challenging the Old Idea That Riding With Cars Is Safest

The long-standing belief that cyclists are safest when they ride like cars is facing a serious challenge. A debate unfolding on Reddit has called into question one of the most influential ideas in American road design: that the best way to protect cyclists is to put them in traffic and treat them as drivers.

The philosophy, known as vehicular cycling, was championed by John Forester in the 1970s and 1980s. Forester, an engineer often described as the father of vehicular cycling, fought against Dutch-style bike infrastructure in the U.S. and argued that mixing with motor vehicles taught cyclists to behave predictably. His mantra—'Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles'—long shaped how transportation agencies approached bike safety.

But the Reddit debate turned that logic around. In response to the old saying, one rider offered a very different standard: 'Cyclists fare best when they do not collide with cars. And the best way to achieve this is physical separation.'

The case for separation draws on evidence that has built pressure on Forester's approach. A 2011 study of cycle tracks in Montreal found that separated bike lanes cut injury rates by 28%. And when compared by distance traveled, cyclist fatality rates in the Netherlands are roughly one-fifth of those in the U.S. Those numbers have reshaped the way many riders think about street design.

At the center of the argument is a question that goes beyond cycling culture: Who are streets really built for? If safe riding means having the confidence to share a lane with fast-moving cars, then children, older adults, and people who do not ride regularly are effectively excluded. That has broader consequences. When biking feels like a realistic option, neighborhoods can see less traffic, lower transportation costs, quieter streets, and fewer short car trips that add pollution.

Still, the conversation is not a simple argument for every bike lane that gets painted on pavement. Many commenters pointed out that poorly designed lanes can make riding worse, especially when they end abruptly, collect debris, or push cyclists into awkward merges at intersections. As one rider put it: 'As a semi serious road cyclist I hate using bike lanes, but they're objectively good and correct for like 90% of people on bikes.'

Another commenter struck a similar note: 'Vehicular cycling is a skill that all regular riders should have, but bike lanes make cycling more accessible and safe.' That distinction—between what works for experienced road cyclists and what works for the general public—is becoming central to the policy debate.

The discussion also reflects a broader shift in U.S. transportation planning. For decades, streets were largely designed to move cars as quickly as possible. Now, as cities rethink public space, the demand is for cycling infrastructure that is continuous, physically separated, and properly maintained. The Reddit thread drew more than 100 comments, many of them focused on how street design often ignores the physical reality of riding alongside vehicles that weigh hundreds of times more than a person on a bike.

Several commenters pointed to European examples, especially the Netherlands and Belgium, where cycling is woven into daily life and bike networks are treated as essential infrastructure. Even there, riders acknowledged, challenges remain—including how to accommodate both fast cyclists and casual riders without creating conflict.

What the debate makes clear is that the old rules are no longer settled. The question now is not whether cyclists can behave like cars, but whether streets should be designed as if everyone has the option to drive one.