Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 38
  1. #1
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    HH's version of VC v.s. what?

    I think a lot of bandwidth is wasted here with assertions about the way I present vehicular cycling as being biased, or incorrect, or twisted, etc. Lately, these have mostly come from Chipcom, Bekologist and Brian Ratliff.

    For the record, I'm the originator and the major editor of the vehicular cycling entry in Wikipedia (see my signature). Others have edited and contributed.

    If there is some other definition of vc, please present it here, or provide a pointer to it. Or at least state clearly what specifically is different about the vc presented by me in these posts, or that presented in the Wiki article, with "the real vc", or whatever you want to call it. Also, please cite my actual words, not an interpretation of my words.

    Otherwise, let's put these nonsense assertions to rest and stop wasting so much time and bytes on it.

    Thank you.

  2. #2
    Senior Member Brian Ratliff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Near Portland, OR
    My Bikes
    Three road bikes. Two track bikes.
    Posts
    9,635
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Ratliff
    The term "vehicular cycling" describes a method of cycling which the cyclist makes use of the full width of road; asserting his or her space by taking the lane at times and utilizing destination lane positioning prior to intersections.

    That's all. Everything else, from sidewalk, door zone, and wrong way riding to lane positioning, merging, and "alpha dog attitude" falls naturally from this description. The rest of the discussion is simply over techniques on how best to "cycle vehicularly," which is based mostly on personal experience and on which reasonable people can disagree without rancor.

    We really need to drop all this talk about terminology, philosophy, dogma, insults, causes and politics; and get back to the strength of the concept of vehicular cycling; which is that it is a practical method of cycling in traffic, regardless of the road markings or environment.
    Here. Concise, unbiased, correct, and untwisted. It speaks to the strength of the vehicular cycling technique, and it carries no extra political, sociological, or philosophical baggage.
    Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
    "If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --the tiniest sprinter

  3. #3
    Sophomoric Member Roody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Dancing in Lansing
    Posts
    20,578
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Ratliff
    Here. Concise, unbiased, correct, and untwisted. It speaks to the strength of the vehicular cycling technique, and it carries no extra political, sociological, or philosophical baggage.
    I don't see much difference between Helmet Head's version and Brian Ratliff's. Well, HH's is more fully articulated and he probably has put more time and thought into it. If either could explain any core or fundamental differences, I'd appreciate it. But if you start arguing about trivial **** I'll just leave you to it.
    You both tend to get carried away about the politics, but you actually agree on about 99.9 % of the stuff. That's what gets a little tedious: trying to follow the arguments over such fine distinctions. Reformation versus counter-reformation versus counter-counter Reformation. Whatever.

    It seems that bike lanes are the major point of contention (and definitely not a trivial point). But VC as a riding method must approach bike lanes as a reality. They exist, and we have to ride on them or around them, or whatever. The political issue, "Should bike lanes be extended or removed?" Is really a separate topic from "How should we ride our bikes in traffic?" I thought that had been decided, but apparently the ghost of bike lanes still haunts all VC discussions! Again, I really fail to distinguish the bones of dissention that remain, and I'm beginning to doubt that anybody will ever explain it in terms that are simple enough for me to understand.


    "Think Outside the Cage"

  4. #4
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Brian: And how is that any different from what I have been promoting/advocating? Again, please use my actual words (including words from the Wiki article) to compare/contrast, not an interpretation of my words.

  5. #5
    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
    I don't see much difference between Helmet Head's version and Brian Ratliff's. Well, HH's is more fully articulated and he probably has put more time and thought into it. If either could explain any core or fundamental differences, I'd appreciate it. But if you start arguing about trivial **** I'll just leave you to it.
    You both tend to get carried away about the politics, but you actually agree on about 99.9 % of the stuff. That's what gets a little tedious: trying to follow the arguments over such fine distinctions. Reformation versus counter-reformation versus counter-counter Reformation. Whatever.

    It seems that bike lanes are the major point of contention (and definitely not a trivial point). But VC as a riding method must approach bike lanes as a reality. They exist, and we have to ride on them or around them, or whatever. The political issue, "Should bike lanes be extended or removed?" Is really a separate topic from "How should we ride our bikes in traffic?" I thought that had been decided, but apparently the ghost of bike lanes still haunts all VC discussions! Again, I really fail to distinguish the bones of dissention that remain, and I'm beginning to doubt that anybody will ever explain it in terms that are simple enough for me to understand.
    Exactly. And, yet, they make assertions as if "my version" is somehow significantly different from some other mystical version of vc, without ever stating how that is.

    I'm tired of it. It's time to state once and for all what the significant differences are, or stop asserting that there are any, admit that there are none, and move on already.

  6. #6
    your nightmare gal chipcom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    The Cracker Factory
    Posts
    24,363
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    VC™ is all yours. Enjoy.
    "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

  7. #7
    Senior Member Brian Ratliff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Near Portland, OR
    My Bikes
    Three road bikes. Two track bikes.
    Posts
    9,635
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    I'm tired of it.
    Victory is yours. I concede.
    Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
    "If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --the tiniest sprinter

  8. #8
    nub Brad M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    The Hammer, Ontario
    Posts
    263
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Wikipedia is bad. Whoever takes that thing for fact must be ********.

  9. #9
    genec genec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    san diego
    My Bikes
    custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
    Posts
    22,822
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Well the two things that stand out in my mind are the DCBLLP or what ever it was and the comments you made about bumping stop signs.

    Beyond that, anything that advocates violating the laws of the road as a regular course of action is not vc.

    Your whole anti bike lane attitude is not vc... and you have even stated that using bike lanes is not anti-vc.

    Your alpha dog attitude is not vc as vc should and can work for anyone on the road... from grandma to newbie... with or without an attitude.

  10. #10
    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
    13,964
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by genec
    Your alpha dog attitude is not vc as vc should and can work for anyone on the road... from grandma to newbie... with or without an attitude.
    I agree that ADA is not vc, but I don't think vc must work for eveyrone on any road. Just as newbie drivers shouldn't start driving on arterials without more residential road experience, I don't think newbie cyclist should be expected to ride (vc or not) on arterials without some other experience under their belt.

    Al

  11. #11
    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 Brad M
    Wikipedia is bad. Whoever takes that thing for fact must be ********.
    The fact that you can't take Wikipedia for fact does not make it bad.
    The fact that I can't take your posts, or anyone's posts, for fact, does not make them bad either.
    Some Wikipedia articles are persuasive, some are not.
    Some posts here are persuasive, some are not.

    But it's all good.

  12. #12
    nub Brad M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    The Hammer, Ontario
    Posts
    263
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by noisebeam
    I agree that ADA is not vc, but I don't think vc must work for eveyrone on any road. Just as newbie drivers shouldn't start driving on arterials without more residential road experience, I don't think newbie cyclist should be expected to ride (vc or not) on arterials without some other experience under their belt.

    Al
    The arterials are usually the only way to get from A to B. What do they do then? My small city is split east/west by a freeway (typical) with only two fast one-way bridges crossing it. Luckily there is a two-way bike lane across one of them. It's not perfect, but it's a start.



    Oh and back on topic, who can forget the pack-o-roadies as one vehicle argument a while back. I seem to recall that being VC™ too.

  13. #13
    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
    13,964
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Brad M
    The arterials are usually the only way to get from A to B. What do they do then? My small city is split east/west by a freeway (typical) with only two fast one-way bridges crossing it. Luckily there is a two-way bike lane across one of them. It's not perfect, but it's a start.
    That describes where I live. Until I gained the skills, experience and confidence to ride on heavily used arterials, I used the bike for recreational rides, running errands and took the bus to work. I re-learned cycling after not riding for over 20yrs and it took me about 6mo. before I was ready to cycle the commute to work. It would have been irresponsible of me to try these arterials during rush hour even if they had perfect bike lanes.

    Al

  14. #14
    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 genec
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    Or at least state clearly what specifically is different about the vc presented by me in these posts, or that presented in the Wiki article, with "the real vc", or whatever you want to call it.
    Well the two things that stand out in my mind are the DCBLLP or what ever it was and the comments you made about bumping stop signs.

    Beyond that, anything that advocates violating the laws of the road as a regular course of action is not vc.

    Your whole anti bike lane attitude is not vc... and you have even stated that using bike lanes is not anti-vc.

    Your alpha dog attitude is not vc as vc should and can work for anyone on the road... from grandma to newbie... with or without an attitude.
    You're confusing specific methods I've developed and promoted with something I presented as vc. If you think about it, you will realize I have never talked about specifics like "use a mirror to check for approaching faster traffic from the rear every 3-5 seconds" in the context of a presentation of vc. In particular, you will note that none of this is part of the Wikipedia article on VC, and never has been.

    I have never advocated violating the laws of the road as a regular course of action.

    I have never presented my anti-BL arguments as being part of vc (though I believe they are part of VC advocacy, which is very different).

    Again, please provide my specific words, not a (mis)interpretation of them.

  15. #15
    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 Brad M
    Oh and back on topic, who can forget the pack-o-roadies as one vehicle argument a while back. I seem to recall that being VC™ too.
    Your recollection is faulty. I only raised the question of whether a pack of cyclists acting as a single vehicle behaves consistent with VC. I never presented it as being a part of VC, as is supported by the fact that this issue is not addressed in the Wiki article, and never has been.

  16. #16
    Conservative Hippie
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Wakulla Co. FL
    Posts
    4,271
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Actually, I think HH and I agree about more than we disagree about. However, that is not to say I believe there are no other cycling techniques out there that may be effective for a given area.

  17. #17
    Sweetened with Splenda
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Brooklyn, Alabama
    My Bikes
    Too many 80s roadbikes!
    Posts
    2,335
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head

    Otherwise, let's put these nonsense assertions to rest and stop wasting so much time and bytes on it.
    And let's begin the process of reducing time-wasting by starting YET MORE USELESS THREADS about our own behavior.
    Falling down is not exercising.

  18. #18
    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)
    Helmet Heads assertions in just the last 24 hours have been doozys!!!

    "Bad drivers can be herded"

    "If I don't have a mirror, I don't take the lane as much, but still use traffic approaching from behind as my reference point for lane positioning on high speed roadways"

    "when faced with an 8 foot wide bike lane, with 8 feet of parked cars to the right, take the travel lane because of traffic approaching from behind on a little travelled, slow speed roadway."

    There's plenty more gaffes in the last 24 hours, but I'll be damned if I'm going to go over helmet heads' illogical absurdities over and over again....
    Last edited by Bekologist; 01-18-06 at 05:31 PM.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  19. #19
    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 CommuterRun
    Actually, I think HH and I agree about more than we disagree about. However, that is not to say I believe there are no other cycling techniques out there that may be effective for a given area.
    I agree. The only area of disagreement I've been able to discern is whether VC includes cyclists having to obey the part of the traffic law that recognizes a distrinction between cyclists and drivers of other slow vehicles, and treats them differently.

    (note the extra effort expended in saying the above without using baggage-laden terms like segregation and discrimination).

  20. #20
    genec genec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    san diego
    My Bikes
    custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
    Posts
    22,822
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    You're confusing specific methods I've developed and promoted with something I presented as vc. If you think about it, you will realize I have never talked about specifics like "use a mirror to check for approaching faster traffic from the rear every 3-5 seconds" in the context of a presentation of vc. In particular, you will note that none of this is part of the Wikipedia article on VC, and never has been.

    I have never advocated violating the laws of the road as a regular course of action.

    I have never presented my anti-BL arguments as being part of vc (though I believe they are part of VC advocacy, which is very different).

    Again, please provide my specific words, not a (mis)interpretation of them.
    I am not the only one "confused," go back and look at the thread called "
    Vehicular cycling vs. cycling legally - what's the diff?"

    You will see several replies from folks that have read your vc messages interspersed with your other "concepts" and could not separate the two.

    And specifically in the opening post you stated:
    Quote Originally Posted by HH
    It's not legal to slow down as you approach a stop sign, make sure it's clear, and roll through the stop sign without first coming to a complete stop, but it's vc.
    I am pretty sure that is not out of context nor misquoted. But just in case, the thread is here:
    Vehicular cycling vs. cycling legally - what's the diff?

  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 genec
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    It's not legal to slow down as you approach a stop sign, make sure it's clear, and roll through the stop sign without first coming to a complete stop, but it's vc.
    So stating that constitutes "advocating violating the laws of the road as a regular course of action"?

    Don't you think that's something of a stretch?

    Stating that it's consistent with vc to stop, or roll (in that particular situation) -- which is what I basically said -- is not necessarily advocating one or the other.

    If I simply point out that "hanging 10" is a surfing technique, am I necessarily advocating hanging 10?

  22. #22
    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)
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    You're confusing specific methods I've developed and promoted with something I presented as vc. If you think about it, you will realize I have never talked about specifics like "use a mirror to check for approaching faster traffic from the rear every 3-5 seconds" in the context of a presentation of vc. In particular, you will note that none of this is part of the Wikipedia article on VC, and never has been.

    I have never advocated violating the laws of the road as a regular course of action.

    I have never presented my anti-BL arguments as being part of vc (though I believe they are part of VC advocacy, which is very different).

    Again, please provide my specific words, not a (mis)interpretation of them.
    How about Center Lane Biasing (case insensitive) being presented as VC (case insensitive). Or if you don't like those exact words, can you prove you have never said anything remotely similar to "the center lane as a default position is VC" (case insensitive)? Or can you prove that you have never linked or implied a link between center lane biasing or center lane as the default position and vc (case insensitive) by mentioning center lane biasing or center lane as the default position only in posts or threads that weren't discussing vc (case insensitive)?

    Sheesh I almost sound like a lawyer.

    In fact, Serge, you have to take the body of your work as a whole and not the exact words used in post number xyz. The whole of your body of work here links vc, center lane biasing, mirrors and anti-bike lane arguments all as one and the same. And lately you can add treating the laws as suggestions to follow only when convenient.
    ~Diane
    Recumbents: Lightning Thunderbolt, '06 Catrike Pocket. Upright: Trek Mountain Bike.
    8.5 mile commute. I like bike lanes.

  23. #23
    genec genec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    san diego
    My Bikes
    custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
    Posts
    22,822
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sbhikes
    In fact, Serge, you have to take the body of your work as a whole and not the exact words used in post number xyz. The whole of your body of work here links vc, center lane biasing, mirrors and anti-bike lane arguments all as one and the same. And lately you can add treating the laws as suggestions to follow only when convenient.
    +10

  24. #24
    genec genec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    san diego
    My Bikes
    custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
    Posts
    22,822
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    So stating that constitutes "advocating violating the laws of the road as a regular course of action"?

    Don't you think that's something of a stretch?

    Stating that it's consistent with vc to stop, or roll (in that particular situation) -- which is what I basically said -- is not necessarily advocating one or the other.

    If I simply point out that "hanging 10" is a surfing technique, am I necessarily advocating hanging 10?
    Something of a stretch... heck no, which is why I argued against it on that thread... I thought you were promoting vc as violating laws, and I stated just that... even though as a practice I often do just that. That does not make it right... but the way you stated it, it was "gospel."

    Remember you have made yourself the unequivocal "VC expert" here... therefore your words tend to carry the weight of the expertise you profess.

    You want to be a cyclist with an idea... well that is different... but that is not the tack you took.

  25. #25
    Been Around Awhile I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Burlington Iowa
    My Bikes
    Vaterland and Ragazzi
    Posts
    20,214
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bekologist
    There's plenty more gaffes in the last 24 hours, but I'll be damned if I'm going to go over helmet heads' illogical absurdities over and over again....
    Especially when a couple of the VC™ jesters believe in the loony logic of Planet Serge that going over those gaffes and illogical absurdities adds credence to them.

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •