Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 138
  1. #1
    Dominatrikes sbhikes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Still in Santa Barbara
    My Bikes
    Catrike Pocket, Lightning Thunderbold recumbent, Trek 3000 MTB.
    Posts
    4,920
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    What good is it if it isn't for everybody?

    I read the following in the Anti-VC thread and it bothers me:
    [VC is...]
    - not for granny going to do her weekly shopping.
    - not for 8 year olds going to school.
    - not for the businessman in the suit.
    - not for a couple, one sitting on the rear rack, going to a movie.
    - not for the mob of students returning cases of beer bottles for refunds.
    - not for mum with a 6-month old toddler.

    Don't kid yourself, it's not an all-inclusive ideology.
    What makes you think I believe VC is an all-inclusive ideology?
    Your list describes what Jeffrey Hiles ("Listening to bike lanes" - have you read it?) refers to as folk cyclists.
    But even folk cyclists who may never have the inclination to master VC, could only be made safer by learning at least some of it.

    Learning VC helps the sidewalk cyclist be more aware of, and better prepared for, the dangers of sidewalk cycling.
    Learning VC helps the bike lane cyclist be more aware of, and better prepared for, the dangers of bike lane cycling.
    Learning VC helps cyclists learn the dangers of, and to be better prepared for, bike path/roadway transitions and crossings.
    Learning VC helps folk cyclists understand the dangers of wrong-way cycling.
    It seems to me that VC is being shoved down our throats here as some kind of God-given solution to all bicycling problems, and yet it's admittedly not a methodology intended for so-called "folk" cyclists. I agree that everyone can benefit from learning vehicular cycling, but what good is it to advocate for some kind of methodology at the expense of all other tools that is admittedly not for the benefit of all?

    That list above is of real people who use their bicycles for real transporation What kind of advocate writes off these people as "folk" cyclists, as if that's some kind of subset of lesser cyclists who can maybe learn a few tricks, but won't ever be full-fledged members of the "club"? How can anyone consider it bicycle advocacy if it isn't for everybody?

    In my mind, bicycle advocacy should serve the needs of everyone who uses bicycles for transportation. Otherwise it's just elitism.

    What do you think? What should advocates advocate for so that granny and the 8 year old and the suited businessman and all the rest can get where they need to go by bike?
    ~Diane
    Recumbents: Lightning Thunderbolt, '06 Catrike Pocket. Upright: Trek Mountain Bike.
    8.5 mile commute. I like bike lanes.

  2. #2
    totally louche Bekologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    A land that time forgot
    My Bikes
    the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
    Posts
    18,026
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    My mom is NEVER going to ride VC, steely eyed into 35MPH traffic with arm outstretched and eye contact alpha dogging her right to the road.

    Would as many people bike in Portland if there weren't as many bike lanes? I seriously doubt it. And if all the stripes were replaced tomorrow with wide outside lanes, I think less people would bike in Portland.

    Regardless of my personal riding style, If VC's net effect on bicyclists is less people on bikes, it's not helping. I think bicycle advocacy should be for all people who bicycle, not just those who bike for transportation.

  3. #3
    Sophomoric Member Roody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Dancing in Lansing
    Posts
    20,459
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I imagine the granny and the suited businessman can pretty much take care of themselves. I think it's good general cycling advocacy to provide adult cyclists with the information that bicycles are considered vehicles, and they have a right to ride them on public streets if they want to. That is simply the law of the land, and a good option for many adults who do a lot of cycling. I doubt if anybody here would disagree with that. Fortunately, almost all of the cycling information I have read does include that information, that bikes are OK on the public right of way.

    VC advocacy is another issue. As I understand it (and I might be wrong), VC advocates argue that all adult cyclists always fare best when they ride as vehicles. A number of people on this forum, along with many cagers, do not agree with this opinion.

    I believe that all cyclists should be exposed to the accepted principles of riding safely on streets, roads, trails, MUPs, bike lanes, and sidewalks. (They should also receive information about riding with other cyclists and learn how to do sarety checks of their bicycles.) Whatever limited knowledge we have about the relative risks of different riding environments should also be provided. Then, as adults, each cyclist will follow his own preferences about where and how he rides.

    After that, it is up to VC avocates to provide the information (their own informed opinions) about the alleged benefits of vehicular cycling. Cyclists who are interested in VC will listen to this information, others will not. (Both will probably end up posting on this subforum anyway. )

    As for the "8 year old going to school": I think it's unfortunate that the OP included children in this discussion, as that is a totally different issue. Obviously, young children must be TOLD how to ride; they are not yet able to form their own opinions about vehicular cycling and the like.

  4. #4
    Sophomoric Member Roody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Dancing in Lansing
    Posts
    20,459
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bekologist
    My mom is NEVER going to ride VC, steely eyed into 35MPH traffic with arm outstretched and eye contact alpha dogging her right to the road.

    Would as many people bike in Portland if there weren't as many bike lanes? I seriously doubt it. And if all the stripes were replaced tomorrow with wide outside lanes, I think less people would bike in Portland.

    Regardless of my personal riding style, If VC's net effect on bicyclists is less people on bikes, it's not helping. I think bicycle advocacy should be for all people who bicycle, not just those who bike for transportation
    .
    I tend to agree with you. However, I think that many "folk cyclists" do not ride very often, and many only ride for a few months before they give it up. Setting aside safety issues, cycling is generally less efficient when it is done exclusively on paths, trails and sidewalks. Not all areas are served by paths and trails, and even the sidewalk eventually ends. "The road goes ever on," however, and usually with better pavement and higher practical speeds.

    My question is, how many "folk cyclists" would spend more time on their bikes if they felt able to ride in the street? I myself would not have continued cycling if I felt confined to the sidewalks and trails. Street avoidance is not practical cycling, and in the long run, it isn't much fun for most adults either. At least inform people that they have a realistic option to ride in the street,then let them make up their own minds.

  5. #5
    Senior Member late's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Southern Maine
    Posts
    8,252
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hi,
    when I saw your post, it reminded me of something. I was walking down a street in Italy when a school let out. Suddenly there was at least a hundred kids on bikes just filling the road.

    I take a thoroughly pragmatic approach to riding. There are places where VC is the way to go. And there are places where
    a break down lane works better if the traffic is a lot faster than you are.

    Vehicular Cycling is about insisting on our fair share of the road.
    You are taking it out of context, which likely happened before you were born. The Highway Lobby wanted bikes off streets completely. There was a lot of hostility against cyclists.

    Big subject, I ought to know about it than I do. But I am lucky,
    things have gotten markedly better in this area for cyclists.

  6. #6
    Dominatrikes sbhikes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Still in Santa Barbara
    My Bikes
    Catrike Pocket, Lightning Thunderbold recumbent, Trek 3000 MTB.
    Posts
    4,920
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I agree with all of you that vc (small letters) is a valuable thing for everyone to learn. However, as I read the above quotes I got the sense that some of these so-called advocates write these "folk cyclists" off.

    I know some of these granny-types and they would definitely not ever ride in town if there were no bike lanes, or if they had to somehow negotiate a WOL with 55mph traffic. They would take the bus because they do not drive. That they are over 60 and over 90 and out there riding bicycles should be something to celebrate, and encourage, not work against.

    I am just bothered that the big "alpha dog" VCers in these forums seem to write them and their needs off. What good is a cycling advocacy that works against legitimate users? Maybe those who would prefer a 100% VC no-cyclist-facilities-ever-world should compromise a bit.
    ~Diane
    Recumbents: Lightning Thunderbolt, '06 Catrike Pocket. Upright: Trek Mountain Bike.
    8.5 mile commute. I like bike lanes.

  7. #7
    your nightmare gal chipcom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    The Cracker Factory
    Posts
    24,353
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sbhikes
    I read the following in the Anti-VC thread and it bothers me:

    It seems to me that VC is being shoved down our throats here as some kind of God-given solution to all bicycling problems, and yet it's admittedly not a methodology intended for so-called "folk" cyclists. I agree that everyone can benefit from learning vehicular cycling, but what good is it to advocate for some kind of methodology at the expense of all other tools that is admittedly not for the benefit of all?

    That list above is of real people who use their bicycles for real transporation What kind of advocate writes off these people as "folk" cyclists, as if that's some kind of subset of lesser cyclists who can maybe learn a few tricks, but won't ever be full-fledged members of the "club"? How can anyone consider it bicycle advocacy if it isn't for everybody?

    In my mind, bicycle advocacy should serve the needs of everyone who uses bicycles for transportation. Otherwise it's just elitism.

    What do you think? What should advocates advocate for so that granny and the 8 year old and the suited businessman and all the rest can get where they need to go by bike?
    1. A cyclist is a cyclist, don't matter if they are man, woman, young, old, black, white, mauve, gay, straight, Republican, Democrat....shall I continue?

    2. If you want to be a 'cycling advocate', IMHO you should fight hardest for the issues that have the greatest benefit for all cyclists - yes you represent Granny the sidewalk rider, Flash the Roadie, MoonUnit the BMXer, etc. etc. etc.

    3. If you wish to represent just one aspect of cycling, then you should qualify yourself and not pretend to speak for or be acting for all cyclists. Road cycling advocate, BMX cycling advocate, Pedestrian cycling advocate and, yes, Vehicular cycling advocate.

    (off topic, but Wasn't it the VCers that came up with the contradictory term 'Pedestrian cyclist' in the first place?)

    4. IMHO, technically VCers should represent all cyclists, because VC is not their own idea, methodology or ideology. VC derives it's tenents from proven safe, lawful riding technicques that have been in practice, albeit in varying amounts) for as long as people have piloted bicycles. ('piloted' sounds better in that sentence than 'ridden', don't you think?) Forrester and others merely borrowed that existing body of knowledge, packaged it and gave it a their 'brand' - Vehicular Cycling.

    Obviously these are my own opinions, take them as you like.
    "Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey

  8. #8
    Sophomoric Member Roody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Dancing in Lansing
    Posts
    20,459
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sbhikes
    I agree with all of you that vc (small letters) is a valuable thing for everyone to learn. However, as I read the above quotes I got the sense that some of these so-called advocates write these "folk cyclists" off.

    I know some of these granny-types and they would definitely not ever ride in town if there were no bike lanes, or if they had to somehow negotiate a WOL with 55mph traffic. They would take the bus because they do not drive. That they are over 60 and over 90 and out there riding bicycles should be something to celebrate, and encourage, not work against.

    I am just bothered that the big "alpha dog" VCers in these forums seem to write them and their needs off. What good is a cycling advocacy that works against legitimate users? Maybe those who would prefer a 100% VC no-cyclist-facilities-ever-world should compromise a bit
    .
    Please don't jump to conclusions. I pretty much agree with you.

    But it's not just VCers who ignore "folk cyclists." The most hurtful comments I have read about these cyclists were on the roadie forum and the commuting forum, not here. If I were half the man I want to be, I would try to help these folk cyclists, not by telling them how to ride, but by helping them to get their bikes fitted and fixed, or maybe giving them a blinkie or something. The other day I saw a big guy riding a cheap old BMX while somehow carrying a huge duffel bag in both arms. The whole frame was swaying like a broken dow old horse. Clearly, he needed something besides advice on which lane to ride in. (Actually, to demolish a stereotype, he was riding vehicularly! )

    But you know what? Don't sell the grannies short either. Several months ago, I posted an anti-VC post about an older lady I work with. She had just bought a comfort bike, and was scared to ride it the four blocks or so to the MUP where she wanted to ride. How, I asked Serge and others, was VC going to help her? I never did get an answer. However, that lady did start riding on a rail-trail near her vacation home, and got in good condition and began to feel confident riding her bike. Late this summer, she bought a new hybrid, one of the sportier ones. Now she is riding on streets all over her neighborhood as well as on the MUP. Her goal for next year is to ride across town to work. She would not have done this if I (or somebody else) had not explained that it is feasible to ride with cars. That was good advocacy on my part. I gave her the information that she may ride on the public right of way with all the other vehicles.

    But much more importantly, she would not have made this progress if she had not felt free to ride her bike in her own style,until she had the conditioning, skills and self-confidence to move it onto the streets.

    Sometimes the bicycle is its own best advocate!
    Last edited by Roody; 10-09-05 at 07:19 PM.

  9. #9
    Sophomoric Member Roody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Dancing in Lansing
    Posts
    20,459
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by chipcom
    [ . . . ]
    (off topic, but Wasn't it the VCers that came up with the contradictory term 'Pedestrian cyclist' in the firs)t place?
    Actually, I don't think this is off-topic at all. Bicycles can be ridden safely in "pedestrian mode." (By definition, this is not vehicular cycling.)

    Don't you agree that there are certain safety rules that make pedestrian riding safer? Like riding slowly, looking for traffic in all four directions when crossing a street or even a driveway, yielding to true pedestrians, etc. Obviously, a lot of sidewalk cyclists don't follow these guidelines. They put themselves and others at risk. If I'm reading Diane's OP right, she is suggesting that advocates should inform these cyclists of the principles of safe pedestrian cycling?

    I would add that they should also be told, at least, of the feasibility of riding vehicularly, since ped. riding will probably prove inadequate for most of them, sooner or later. Many will probably either graduate to vehicular cycling, or give up their bike altogether.

  10. #10
    lws
    lws is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    211
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    like, riding on the sidewalk which is on the right side of the road, rather than the one on the left.

  11. #11
    Dubito ergo sum. patc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Ottawa, ON, Canada
    My Bikes
    Bessie.
    Posts
    1,735
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sbhikes
    It seems to me that VC is being shoved down our throats here as some kind of God-given solution to all bicycling problems, and yet it's admittedly not a methodology intended for so-called "folk" cyclists. I agree that everyone can benefit from learning vehicular cycling, but what good is it to advocate for some kind of methodology at the expense of all other tools that is admittedly not for the benefit of all?
    I couldn't agree more. I was hit with it from my first day on these forums.

    The problem isn't just that they shove VC down our throats: its that they shove their version of VC down our throats to the exclusion of all else (e.g. the bike-lane phobia common with so many VCers). There is a group of VCers, well represented here, who believe they have the one and only answer to "correct" cycling.


    Quote Originally Posted by sbhikes
    What do you think? What should advocates advocate for so that granny and the 8 year old and the suited businessman and all the rest can get where they need to go by bike?
    Honestly, the first thing advocates should do is to get rid of extremists. I say that based on being politically active my whole adult life. The extremists are not team players, they will de-rail your advocacy effort and alienate everyone, "friend" or "foe".

    To better answer your question, though, I will go back to something I said before: we must advocate for a full range of cycling facciilties which reach out to all cyclists and consider the safety, convenience, and comfort of each type of cyclist. A cycling network must include pathways and bike lanes and marked bike routes and more. If we feel the need to advocate for just one thing, it should be for the development (municipal, regional, national, whatever) of comprehensive cycling networks that are as inclusive as possible.

    I primarily use roads for cycling, with pathways for scenic longer distances and never side-walks. I appreciate a good bike lane. I am faced daily with the challenges of cycling on roads and I have no doubt at all that it is beyond many people's abilities, never mind "ice stares" and all that non-sense.

  12. #12
    Been Around Awhile I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Burlington Iowa
    My Bikes
    Vaterland and Ragazzi
    Posts
    19,836
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by patc
    I couldn't agree more. I was hit with it from my first day on these forums.

    The problem isn't just that they shove VC down our throats: its that they shove their version of VC down our throats to the exclusion of all else (e.g. the bike-lane phobia common with so many VCers). There is a group of VCers, well represented here, who believe they have the one and only answer to "correct" cycling.

    Honestly, the first thing advocates should do is to get rid of extremists. I say that based on being politically active my whole adult life. The extremists are not team players, they will de-rail your advocacy effort and alienate everyone, "friend" or "foe".
    I would suggest that at least as far as the Bike Forums Lists are concerned, a separate list be set aside for those who wish to discuss the ideology and promotion of "Vehicular Cycling". It would be similar to the Living Car-Free list where those who hold even extreme ideas on the topic are safe from anyone "insulting" their personal beliefs/dogma/ideology, even when counterproductive to bicyclists in general, as long as it is kept on the appropriate list. This proposed Vehicular Cycling Promotion/Free VC Expert Advice List would be a criticism free place for VC™ true believers and inquiring minds, safe from skeptics who may "insult" them with a dose of reality. Then the rest of the world of cyclists could seriously discuss bicycling safety or advocacy; or at least enjoy blessed silence and relief from endless VC™ proselytization about the needs/desires of "we-VCers."

  13. #13
    Dubito ergo sum. patc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Ottawa, ON, Canada
    My Bikes
    Bessie.
    Posts
    1,735
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
    I would suggest that at least as far as the Bike Forums Lists are concerned, a separate list be set aside for those who wish to discuss the ideology and promotion of "Vehicular Cycling".
    Great idea, but the extreme VCers would no more respect that setup than they do the current one.

  14. #14
    Sophomoric Member Roody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Dancing in Lansing
    Posts
    20,459
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The definition of an extremist: "Anybody who holds a strong opinion that is not in accord with my equally strong opinion."


    "Think Outside the Cage"

  15. #15
    Senior Member filtersweep's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    2,615
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bekologist
    My mom is NEVER going to ride VC, steely eyed into 35MPH traffic with arm outstretched and eye contact alpha dogging her right to the road.

    I love that visual... my wife won't even stay on my wheel as I ride like that to barrel into a left turn lane.

  16. #16
    Al noisebeam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    AZ
    My Bikes
    Cannondale SuperSix, Lemond Poprad. Retired: Jamis Sputnik, Centurion LeMans Fixed, Diamond Back ascent ex
    Posts
    13,916
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sbhikes
    I agree with all of you that vc (small letters) is a valuable thing for everyone to learn. However, as I read the above quotes I got the sense that some of these so-called advocates write these "folk cyclists" off.

    I know some of these granny-types and they would definitely not ever ride in town if there were no bike lanes, or if they had to somehow negotiate a WOL with 55mph traffic. They would take the bus because they do not drive. That they are over 60 and over 90 and out there riding bicycles should be something to celebrate, and encourage, not work against.

    I am just bothered that the big "alpha dog" VCers in these forums seem to write them and their needs off. What good is a cycling advocacy that works against legitimate users? Maybe those who would prefer a 100% VC no-cyclist-facilities-ever-world should compromise a bit.
    A few random comments
    1. I do see many 'folk' cyclist who would greatly benefit by adopting some of the principles of vc. (riding a bit further from curb, riding in same direction as traffic, turning from correct lane)
    2. I have a problem with the assumption that adding facilities would help 'folk' cyclist. The roads with facilities that 'folk' cyclist primarily use I noticed a much greater level of 'breaking' traffic laws and good vc riding techniques - simpy because it is easier to get away with it on these slow moving low volume roads. Then the higher speed roads where bike lanes are added, any cyclist must have the skills to merge left/right in traffic and destination position oneself at intersections. Bike lanes do nothing to help here - what good are the 1/2-1mi stretches between intersections with nice bike lanes if the difficult part for any cyclist (experienced or not) is the intersections?

    Al

  17. #17
    Feral Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Roma, Italia
    My Bikes
    yes, I have one.
    Posts
    2,645
    Mentioned
    36 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I don't have anything to add at this point, just wanted to say thanks for your post, sbhikes. Nicely said.
    Quote Originally Posted by KrisPistofferson View Post
    Did you just say "minarchist?" I'm going to start a 10-page vaginathon because only Libertarians can define Libertarianism. Also, you're mean.

  18. #18
    Dubito ergo sum. patc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Ottawa, ON, Canada
    My Bikes
    Bessie.
    Posts
    1,735
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by noisebeam
    Then the higher speed roads where bike lanes are added, any cyclist must have the skills to merge left/right in traffic and destination position oneself at intersections. Bike lanes do nothing to help here - what good are the 1/2-1mi stretches between intersections with nice bike lanes if the difficult part for any cyclist (experienced or not) is the intersections?
    Bike lanes are a great help to "folk" cyclists in those conditions. They don't need to negotiate intersections as such: If going straight, just go straight through*. If turning and not comfortable changing lanes, they get off the bike at the intersection and use the crosswalks. I do see people riding this way - very inefficient, but if it makes them comfortable then great.

    For some people, a bike lane on a busy road may be the ONLY way they will ever cycle from point A to point B.

  19. #19
    Al noisebeam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    AZ
    My Bikes
    Cannondale SuperSix, Lemond Poprad. Retired: Jamis Sputnik, Centurion LeMans Fixed, Diamond Back ascent ex
    Posts
    13,916
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by patc
    Bike lanes are a great help to "folk" cyclists in those conditions. They don't need to negotiate intersections as such: If going straight, just go straight through*. If turning and not comfortable changing lanes, they get off the bike at the intersection and use the crosswalks. I do see people riding this way - very inefficient, but if it makes them comfortable then great.

    For some people, a bike lane on a busy road may be the ONLY way they will ever cycle from point A to point B.
    Well I simply never see this. 'Casual' or 'folk' cyclists seem to stick to the sidewalks even when a nice passable bike lane is present. And those folks so rarely (approaching never) dismount to cross the x-walks or side streets with implied x-walks. I've observed this for years from both car and bike. Basically from what I've seen is that once folks use the x-walks, they stick to the sidewalk too.

    Al

  20. #20
    Senior Member sggoodri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Cary, NC
    My Bikes
    1983 Trek, 2001 Lemond, 2000 Gary Fisher
    Posts
    3,068
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    If we define vehicular cycling as being obedience of the normal vehicular traffic laws while operating on a particular road, then vehicular cycling is absolutely for everybody who rides on that road. Contrary operation is illegal and dangerous.

    If we instead define vehicular cycling as being instantly able to use every roadway and every turn lane safely and comfortably, then no, it takes some practice and skill to get there, even for physically fit cyclists, and there are some places where even an experienced cyclist will have difficulty merging over to a left turn lane. Heck, I experience similar difficulties in my car.

    Starting out on slower and lower volume streets helps one develop the skill and confidence to ride safely and comfortably on more and more busy and faster streets, just like when learns to drive a car. But even with just a beginner's level of learning, vehicular cycling provides safe and comfortable access to a very broad network of pleasant roads. Using those roads in a way contrary to the rules of the road would make them less safe, and so vehicular cycling skills are very useful.

    So what do we do about the unpleasant roads, where only the most confident, seemingly physically fit cyclists seem to be comfortable riding? There are couple of strategies that I think are useful here:

    - One strategy is for the government to promote better connections between low-speed low-volume roads, so that traffic-averse cyclists can reach more destinations on the easier roads.

    - Another strategy of is for the less pleasant roads to be re-engineered in ways that cyclists will be safer or feel more comfortable (as long as the design for comfort does not actually reduce safety). Wider pavement in the area where cyclists will operate near overtaking motor traffic may be useful here. This can be accomplished by reducing the lane count, shifiting lane lines toward the inside, removing parking, or widening the road. Also, high-speed right turn lanes and merge lanes can be avoided. However, I don't believe that traffic control devices that demand cyclists operate contrary to the normal vehicular rules (such as "bike boxes", door-zone bike lanes, narrow bike lanes on steep descents, bike lanes to the right of right-turn-only-lanes, and mandatory-use sidepaths) are useful for improving safety.

    -Another strategy is more vigorous enforcement of traffic laws for motorists, in conjunction with education efforts for motorists to drive safely around cyclists on busy roads.

    -Last, but not least, cyclists can dismount and make pedestrian-style left turns where they find traffic volumes to be so high that merging into the left lane safely would be too difficult. Better engineering of pedestrian facilities such as sidewalks, crosswalks and pedestrian signals can assist with this. Note that dismounting and following pedestrian rules is not a violation of vehicular rules. It isn't an example of vehicular cycling, but it doesn't conflict with vehicular cycling either.

    I support, and practice, all of the above in the appropriate context. As a member of the Cary NC Planning and Zoning Board, I promote better residential street connectivity, better pavement width on major roads, avoidance of high-speed merge and right-turn-only lanes where they would create problems for slower cyclists, Better motorist law enforcement, and better pedestrian accommodations. I ride all over town pulling my two year old son in a Burley trailer, usually slowly, and I never violate the vehicular rules of the road, and I don't ride on sidewalks, although I do avoid some major roads and I do make an occasional pedestrian left turn, or dismount to cross a street while stopping on the median like a pedestrian.

    I find vehicular cycling to be very useful. There are some linear park paths that I ride on occasion, but those paths will never get me everywhere I want to go the way roads can, unless they get built as sidepaths, in which case I find a pleasant roadway to be far superior. I have not had any trouble teaching these techniques to the friends and family who join me on my rides. I am sorry if others have more difficulty.

    -Steve Goodridge
    Last edited by sggoodri; 10-10-05 at 03:08 PM. Reason: Spelling

  21. #21
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Roody
    VC advocates argue that all adult cyclists always fare best when they ride as vehicles. A number of people on this forum, along with many cagers, do not agree with this opinion.
    False. This is typical VC criticism - strawman arguments based on mischaracterizations and misrepresentations, in this case the insertion of the all modifier in the VC principle, "Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles". No "all" is used or implied by any VC advocates I have read or heard.


    Quote Originally Posted by sbhikes
    However, as I read the above quotes I got the sense that some of these so-called advocates write these "folk cyclists" off.

    I know some of these granny-types and they would definitely not ever ride in town if there were no bike lanes, ...
    Jeez. My own mother is a granny-type folk cyclist who is never going to vc. If you think I'm writing her off, or any other folk cyclists, you couldn't be more wrong.


    Quote Originally Posted by sbhikes
    What good is a cycling advocacy that works against legitimate users?
    Uh, no good, of course. Now, please explain to me how VC advocacy works against any cyclists. I'm not holding my breath. Typical VC criticism. Launch a baseless claim implying something outlandish about VC, and ignore any and all requests to explain how that is.
    Last edited by Helmet Head; 10-10-05 at 04:11 PM.

  22. #22
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Roody
    But it's not just VCers who ignore "folk cyclists."
    This is pissing me off because it's personal. Both of my parents are in their mid 80s and are pure folk cyclists. My Dad is too blind to ride in the streets vehicularly. I resent the implication that I advocate for something that ignores people like my parents.

    So, please, explain, what is it that "folk cyclists" need, that needs advocacy, and is not part of VC advocacy. If you can't explain this, then please stop making these statements with absurd and offensive assumptions.
    Last edited by Helmet Head; 10-10-05 at 04:09 PM.

  23. #23
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Please try to put the definition of VC in the first post.
    Good luck getting any kind of definition of VC out of Diane or any other VC critic.

  24. #24
    Sophomoric Member Roody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Dancing in Lansing
    Posts
    20,459
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    This is pissing me off because it's personal. Both of my parents are in their mid 80s and are pure folk cyclists. My Dad is too blind to ride in the streets vehicularly. I resent the implication that I advocate for something ignores people like my parents.

    So, please explain, what is it that "folk cyclists" need, that needs advocacy, and is not part of VC advocacy. If you can't explain this, then please stop making these statements with absurd assumptions that I find offensive
    .
    Sorry, dude, I certainly didn't have you in mind when I wrote that. I'm not aware of any VCers being against "folk cyclists," I was responding to Dianes's assertion that this has happened. I went on to say that I have read negative comments on other forums. I do believe that many folk cyclists in my area (and that would be the vast majority of cyclists in my area) find most safety lectures to be unnecessary. Most of them do their best to avoid all motor traffic. I'm sure that VC training would be beneficial to them, but they probably aren't interested, and that's their option. Again sorry that I inadvertantly offended you or your parents!

    There are areas of interest to "folk cyclists" that advocates ignore. Many folk cyclists ride poorly fitted and maintained bicycles. This can be a major cause of cyclist injuries. Their bikes are often poorly equipped, lacking lights, reflectors, helmets, even brakes.
    Last edited by Roody; 10-10-05 at 04:27 PM.


    "Think Outside the Cage"

  25. #25
    Dominatrikes sbhikes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Still in Santa Barbara
    My Bikes
    Catrike Pocket, Lightning Thunderbold recumbent, Trek 3000 MTB.
    Posts
    4,920
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    HH you are the one who wrote
    What makes you think I believe VC is an all-inclusive ideology?
    Your list describes what Jeffrey Hiles ("Listening to bike lanes" - have you read it?) refers to as folk cyclists.
    But even folk cyclists who may never have the inclination to master VC, could only be made safer by learning at least some of it.
    The tone and context led me to believe that you do not believe VC is an all-inclusive ideology. Then you put a lable on that list of cyclists: "folk cyclists." Folk cyclists are the ones not included in your ideology, although you feel they can benefit somewhat.

    I agree with you that learning at least some VC is beneficial to them, but I just get a sense, a feeling if you will, that these cyclists are sort of written off as less capable and not the focus of your ideology. But if they aren't the intended audience for your ideology--which is pretty much your advocacy--how useful can your advocacy be?

    Definition time:
    I consider VC to be the ideology and vehicular cycling to be the practice.

    Vechicular cycling means you adhere to the same laws that motor vehicles do. Additionally, you adhere to the laws specific for bicycles. Examples include obeying traffic signals and stop signs and using the appropriate lane for the direction of travel. Vehicular cycling places no negative value judgments on the use or existence of special cycling facilities except when they will cause a true hardship (not simply an inconvenience) or hazard.

    VC is the ideology that takes vehicular cycling a step further. VC places value judgments on road facilities and the people who make up the category of vehicles called cyclists. VC places a higher value and on road facilities intended for motor vehicles and a lower value on road facilities intended for bicycles, going so far as to develop parallels to racial segregation and other negative forms of separatism when considering the use of specialized road facilities for cyclists. VC ideology places a higher value on cyclists who are literate and physically strong than on those who are not. VC ideology places the highest value on cyclists who have taken certain courses, read certain books, and who share their views. VC ideology appears to have as its intent the promotion of education courses for cyclists.
    ~Diane
    Recumbents: Lightning Thunderbolt, '06 Catrike Pocket. Upright: Trek Mountain Bike.
    8.5 mile commute. I like bike lanes.

Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •