Brian Ratliff

One question for the bunch of you:

Do you believe that different cycling environments produce different techniques for cycling?

This is the only question I am interested in at the moment. I have no intention of getting back into the "facilities" debate until this question has been competely explored.

I see a lot of responses here that typify the jerk knee reactions I've always seen. I've set myself up on this forum as a "pro-facility" person; this, more than my current remarks in absolute, has garnered the most sever responses. This is interesting as I was not intending on entering the facilities debate again. I am interested in a different question. People here are so entrenched that they cannot see past my previous postions and respond to my current statements.

I've also seen that it has been a logical tactic of "VC'ers" to deny that the environment has anything to do with cycling technique. They are looking for a unification of cycling technique so they have one platform to stand on. It would be difficult for a national group like the LAB (league of American cyclists) or their estranged sister made up of LAB dissidents (I forgot the name) to promote the training of cyclists if the cyclists' needs differed from place to place. Pro-facilities has used the environmental differences tactic also to show that it is the results of local advocacy groups which matter, not some grand unification idea. This is good for pro-facilities people because most local advocacy groups, except for a couple outliers, advocate for facilities. But I want to get past this, since both positions are artificial and only made for debate. Obviously the answer is somewhere between these two extremes, though neither side will admit to that, as it will score a debate point for their opponent.

Driving habits and road design differs from place to place. Take this as fact for the moment. I don't believe it is an accident that the main VC proponent in the US, John Forester, was from auto-centric SoCal, while up in the Pacific NW, vehicular cycling, while a tool, does not rise to the level of a political ringtone. I also don't believe it is an accident that most facilities building is being done in European cities where the percentage of people riding a bicycle is much higher than anywhere in the US.

Tell you all what. Take my statements at face value for a moment and explain what your riding environment looks like. Take pictures if you can. We talk a lot about philosophy here, why don't we take a time out and use this thread to explain where we are coming from and where we have been. Be non-judgemental and assume, just for the moment, that the person who rides in their own environment is the one single expert of how to ride in that environment. VC'ers shouldn't have to be afraid of being called out if they use a facility now and again, and facilities advocates shouldn't be afraid of stating the downside of facilities.

It should become very clear on its own and without argument whether environments affect cyclist behaviors. I am particularly interested in "newbies" to this forum, as most of us regulars are pretty biased and dug into certain argumentative positions. If it turns out that cyclists are the same everywhere, then we can start more detailed arguments starting from that position. If it turns out that it differs, then this thread can become a database of sorts for people who are new to cycling - new from New England? Flip through this thread and find out what it is New England is like from the eyes of a cyclist.