Cycling and bicycle discussion forums. 
   Click here to join our community Log in to access your Control Panel  


Go Back   > >

Advocacy & Safety Cyclists should expect and demand safe accommodation on every public road, just as do all other users. Discuss your bicycle advocacy and safety concerns here.

User Tag List

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-09-07, 06:27 PM   #1
skanking biker
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Madison, WI
Bikes:
Posts: 2,209
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
What am I?

Ok--silly question, but an honest one.

[I usually don't hang out here so I'm pretty much a newb in this forum. I have become more interested in cycling safety and advocacy over the last year as last Sept. I began commuting to work on my bike when practical. I've been trying to convince more people in the ofice to take their steeds in once it gets nicer out.]

I really don't understand this whole vehicular cycling/adaptive cycling debate. I am certainly not a "pedestrian cyclist," that is, I don't ride the wrong way down the street, don't ride on sidewalks, etc. All the definitions I've seen for VC/AC seem to be self contradictory. I will describe the way I ride and would like to know how others "classify" it.

1. I believe bicycles have the same right to use the roads as any other vehicle and should follow the rules of the road when practical. What I mean by that last caveat is that if I am riding in city traffic I will occassionally "break" the "rules of the road" in order not to be killed or hurt. For instance, if a car suddenly stops, I will take evasive action, even if that means hopping on the sidewalk for a bit or passing on the left (in a car you simply hit your brakes and enjoy the ride until the collision)

2. I do not beleive cyclists should be "restricted" to bike lanes and MUPS but do find these facilities useful. While I believe I have every right to be on the road, there are some roads that I find impractical to ride on and will use a MUP or alternative, less-congested back streets---Times when I find street riding impractical include a suburban/urban 2 lane thouroughfare at 45 mph during rush hour where both lanes start and stop so there is no realistic chance to "take the lane" and there is not a sufficient shoulder to ride on. I know I have every "right" to be on this road, but I chose not to due to: 1) the danger, 2) the inefficiency, and 3) the annoyance and hastle of being honked at by every single car that passes me.

3. I certainly do not "bob and weave" during traffic or blow red lights (unless a JAM behind me is physically pushing my bike). However, I rarely come to a complete stop at suburban stop signs unless there is a vehicle approaching. I certainly slow down and look, but I am not gonna come to a complete stop, unclip, dismount, and then go when there is no traffic around. On the other hand, when I come to a 4 way stop w/ motor vehicles, I insist they proceed following the appropriate rules of right of way---i.e. I won't go in front of the guy to my left even though he is waving me on through.


So I really don't know the above attitudes and behaviors make me. In sum, I beleive and try to follow the rules of the road when practical because I beleive that the more motorists see a cyclist as a vehicle on the road that is predictable, the safer the roads will be for us and the more respect they will have for us. On the other hand, I am not going to blindly follow the "rules of the road" if doing so is dangerous in any given circumstance. Also, as a realist, I choose sometimes not to ride on the road where there is an available MUP nearby (or alternate less congested road) and the road/driving conditions aren't conducive to riding in traffic because, quite frankly, I don't like getting run off the road, honked at, sweared at, etc. etc., and one of the main reasons I decided to start commuting was to avoid the hastle of rush hour traffic and be able to enjoy a quiet ride into the city.

I am just curious as to how some here would label that type of cycling/attitude because I genuinely don't understand some of the terms being thrown around here. [I really don't care one way or another---I just want to know into which group people here think I fall so i know how terms are being used]
skanking biker is offline  
Old 03-09-07, 06:38 PM   #2
deputyjones
Striving for Fredness
 
deputyjones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: West Michigan
Bikes: Old Giant Rincon
Posts: 1,190
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by skanking biker
Ok--silly question, but an honest one.

[I usually don't hang out here so I'm pretty much a newb in this forum. I have become more interested in cycling safety and advocacy over the last year as last Sept. I began commuting to work on my bike when practical. I've been trying to convince more people in the ofice to take their steeds in once it gets nicer out.]

I really don't understand this whole vehicular cycling/adaptive cycling debate. I am certainly not a "pedestrian cyclist," that is, I don't ride the wrong way down the street, don't ride on sidewalks, etc. All the definitions I've seen for VC/AC seem to be self contradictory. I will describe the way I ride and would like to know how others "classify" it.

1. I believe bicycles have the same right to use the roads as any other vehicle and should follow the rules of the road when practical. What I mean by that last caveat is that if I am riding in city traffic I will occassionally "break" the "rules of the road" in order not to be killed or hurt. For instance, if a car suddenly stops, I will take evasive action, even if that means hopping on the sidewalk for a bit or passing on the left (in a car you simply hit your brakes and enjoy the ride until the collision)

2. I do not beleive cyclists should be "restricted" to bike lanes and MUPS but do find these facilities useful. While I believe I have every right to be on the road, there are some roads that I find impractical to ride on and will use a MUP or alternative, less-congested back streets---Times when I find street riding impractical include a suburban/urban 2 lane thouroughfare at 45 mph during rush hour where both lanes start and stop so there is no realistic chance to "take the lane" and there is not a sufficient shoulder to ride on. I know I have every "right" to be on this road, but I chose not to due to: 1) the danger, 2) the inefficiency, and 3) the annoyance and hastle of being honked at by every single car that passes me.

3. I certainly do not "bob and weave" during traffic or blow red lights (unless a JAM behind me is physically pushing my bike). However, I rarely come to a complete stop at suburban stop signs unless there is a vehicle approaching. I certainly slow down and look, but I am not gonna come to a complete stop, unclip, dismount, and then go when there is no traffic around. On the other hand, when I come to a 4 way stop w/ motor vehicles, I insist they proceed following the appropriate rules of right of way---i.e. I won't go in front of the guy to my left even though he is waving me on through.


So I really don't know the above attitudes and behaviors make me. In sum, I beleive and try to follow the rules of the road when practical because I beleive that the more motorists see a cyclist as a vehicle on the road that is predictable, the safer the roads will be for us and the more respect they will have for us. On the other hand, I am not going to blindly follow the "rules of the road" if doing so is dangerous in any given circumstance. Also, as a realist, I choose sometimes not to ride on the road where there is an available MUP nearby (or alternate less congested road) and the road/driving conditions aren't conducive to riding in traffic because, quite frankly, I don't like getting run off the road, honked at, sweared at, etc. etc., and one of the main reasons I decided to start commuting was to avoid the hastle of rush hour traffic and be able to enjoy a quiet ride into the city.

I am just curious as to how some here would label that type of cycling/attitude because I genuinely don't understand some of the terms being thrown around here. [I really don't care one way or another---I just want to know into which group people here think I fall so i know how terms are being used]
Definitely AC, IMHO. Using your experience, training and education to find the best possible solution for YOU at any given time under any given circumstances. I think most people here would fall under that definition.
deputyjones is offline  
Old 03-09-07, 06:46 PM   #3
skanking biker
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Madison, WI
Bikes:
Posts: 2,209
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I just don't see things as black and white as some people here suggest. It would be great if there were a long list of rules we could all memorize that would make every cyclist predicable.---But that's impossible because motor vehicles are not predictable. I am genuinely interested in learning about how to be safer when cycling in urban traffic and agree with many of the principles I see VC people here express. But I also have read some posts by VCers expouse "rules" that are so inflexible that are not practical in my view. Maybe I just don't have enough experience or maybe these views aren't indicative of what VC is, I truly can't tell. On the other hand, I don't beleive in complete anarachy on the roads and abhore people who just do whatever they want (like riding the wrong way, riding on sidewalks when there is no need to, bobbing and weaving between lanes of traffic like they are playing Frogger, etc.)--I don't know if that is what "adaptive cycling" means either.
skanking biker is offline  
Old 03-09-07, 06:56 PM   #4
deputyjones
Striving for Fredness
 
deputyjones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: West Michigan
Bikes: Old Giant Rincon
Posts: 1,190
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by skanking biker
I just don't see things as black and white as some people here suggest. It would be great if there were a long list of rules we could all memorize that would make every cyclist predicable.---But that's impossible because motor vehicles are not predictable. I am genuinely interested in learning about how to be safer when cycling in urban traffic and agree with many of the principles I see VC people here express. But I also have read some posts by VCers expouse "rules" that are so inflexible that are not practical in my view. Maybe I just don't have enough experience or maybe these views aren't indicative of what VC is, I truly can't tell. On the other hand, I don't beleive in complete anarachy on the roads and abhore people who just do whatever they want (like riding the wrong way, riding on sidewalks when there is no need to, bobbing and weaving between lanes of traffic like they are playing Frogger, etc.)--I don't know if that is what "adaptive cycling" means either.
You touch on the crux of most of the arguments in here. There are lots of experienced riders here who use their experience, their education from kindergarten to college to books they've read on the subject, and training (in driving, cycling, etc.) to come up with the best solution for them. Others espouse ideas from one or two books they have read and say that they are the alter to which we should all bow and pay homage.

I know it seems ridiculous, as it did to me when I started reading in here, but that is the truth. There really are those in here that truly believe that they should follow John Forrester if he choose to drive off a cliff, and ride within his tight guidelines all the time. Not to say that won't keep you safe, but common sense should tell the rest of us to supplement those types of theories with our own experience and knowledge of our particular cycling environment. It is kind of sad really.
deputyjones is offline  
Old 03-09-07, 07:01 PM   #5
Helmet Head
Banned.
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Bikes:
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by skanking biker
Ok--silly question, but an honest one.

[I usually don't hang out here so I'm pretty much a newb in this forum. I have become more interested in cycling safety and advocacy over the last year as last Sept. I began commuting to work on my bike when practical. I've been trying to convince more people in the ofice to take their steeds in once it gets nicer out.]

I really don't understand this whole vehicular cycling/adaptive cycling debate. I am certainly not a "pedestrian cyclist," that is, I don't ride the wrong way down the street, don't ride on sidewalks, etc. All the definitions I've seen for VC/AC seem to be self contradictory. I will describe the way I ride and would like to know how others "classify" it.

1. I believe bicycles have the same right to use the roads as any other vehicle and should follow the rules of the road when practical. What I mean by that last caveat is that if I am riding in city traffic I will occassionally "break" the "rules of the road" in order not to be killed or hurt. For instance, if a car suddenly stops, I will take evasive action, even if that means hopping on the sidewalk for a bit or passing on the left (in a car you simply hit your brakes and enjoy the ride until the collision)

2. I do not beleive cyclists should be "restricted" to bike lanes and MUPS but do find these facilities useful. While I believe I have every right to be on the road, there are some roads that I find impractical to ride on and will use a MUP or alternative, less-congested back streets---Times when I find street riding impractical include a suburban/urban 2 lane thouroughfare at 45 mph during rush hour where both lanes start and stop so there is no realistic chance to "take the lane" and there is not a sufficient shoulder to ride on. I know I have every "right" to be on this road, but I chose not to due to: 1) the danger, 2) the inefficiency, and 3) the annoyance and hastle of being honked at by every single car that passes me.

3. I certainly do not "bob and weave" during traffic or blow red lights (unless a JAM behind me is physically pushing my bike). However, I rarely come to a complete stop at suburban stop signs unless there is a vehicle approaching. I certainly slow down and look, but I am not gonna come to a complete stop, unclip, dismount, and then go when there is no traffic around. On the other hand, when I come to a 4 way stop w/ motor vehicles, I insist they proceed following the appropriate rules of right of way---i.e. I won't go in front of the guy to my left even though he is waving me on through.


So I really don't know the above attitudes and behaviors make me. In sum, I beleive and try to follow the rules of the road when practical because I beleive that the more motorists see a cyclist as a vehicle on the road that is predictable, the safer the roads will be for us and the more respect they will have for us. On the other hand, I am not going to blindly follow the "rules of the road" if doing so is dangerous in any given circumstance. Also, as a realist, I choose sometimes not to ride on the road where there is an available MUP nearby (or alternate less congested road) and the road/driving conditions aren't conducive to riding in traffic because, quite frankly, I don't like getting run off the road, honked at, sweared at, etc. etc., and one of the main reasons I decided to start commuting was to avoid the hastle of rush hour traffic and be able to enjoy a quiet ride into the city.

I am just curious as to how some here would label that type of cycling/attitude because I genuinely don't understand some of the terms being thrown around here. [I really don't care one way or another---I just want to know into which group people here think I fall so i know how terms are being used]
Given that a vehicular cyclist is someone who practices vehicular cycling when riding on the road -- you're a vehicular cyclist.

The fact that you sometimes get off the road or even if sometimes you don't follow the rules of the road does not mean you are not a vehicular cyclist (just like a skier who also snowboards is still a skier).

Why some people recoil from the term I don't know. Regardless of what you call it, the concept of bicycling on roads in accordance to the rules of the road exists, and if we want to maintain our right to continue doing so, it's essential to have a term to refer to the concept we seek to protect our right to engage in. That term is vehicular cycling. Those of us who engage in vehicular cycling are vehicular cyclists.

As to whether you're an adaptive cyclist or not is impossible to tell, because there is no definition to go by.
Helmet Head is offline  
Old 03-09-07, 07:02 PM   #6
Ed Holland
8speed DinoSORAs
 
Ed Holland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Oxford, UK or Mountain View, Ca
Bikes:
Posts: 2,749
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Basically, I think everyone strikes a balance between:

Adapting & learning to ride in a particular environment - such that one feels safe and in control

AND

Choosing a particular riding environment that feels safe

Now of course the importance of these criteria are different for everyone, so we have some who will only ride quiet roads or cycling facilites, trails and the like. On the other hand there are those determined to ride a given route (and assert the rights of the cyclist, as seen in the A&S forum).

As a commuter and road cyclist, out of necessity I must ride through town and mix with traffic to complete the journey. However, there are route choices I can make to avoid certain intersections - left turns on 6 lane roads for example. I ride on the road, but use on-road "striped" bike lanes where provided. I stop at stop signs and lights. I choose not to use trails, bike paths (with one exception in the UK), multi-user paths etc. At the weekend I can choose to avoid all of this, relax a little and ride on the roads out of town.

Good thread, the world is certainly not black and white

Cheers,

Ed
__________________
Get a bicycle. You will certainly not regret it, if you live.
Ed Holland is offline  
Old 03-09-07, 07:09 PM   #7
chipcom 
Infamous Member
 
chipcom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ohio
Bikes: Surly Big Dummy, Fuji World, 80ish Bianchi
Posts: 24,366
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
There is no AC vs vc debate. AC is all inclusive, you ride in the manner that best fits your environment and situation. Vehicular cycling is just one tool in the toolbox and if it fits your needs, by all means use it.

The only debate comes because some vehicular cycling zealots cringe at the concept that there can be any way but their way - that they are just one tool in the box rather than the whole toobox, despite the fact that they admit to not being advocates for ALL cyclists and indeed have a narrow definition of what a cyclist is.

So in a nutshell, adaptive cycling is just a term for the way most of us already ride. It's riding a bike, no dogma required.
__________________
"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

Last edited by chipcom; 03-09-07 at 07:16 PM.
chipcom is offline  
Old 03-09-07, 07:10 PM   #8
deputyjones
Striving for Fredness
 
deputyjones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: West Michigan
Bikes: Old Giant Rincon
Posts: 1,190
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by skanking biker
I just don't see things as black and white as some people here suggest.........I don't know if that is what "adaptive cycling" means either.
I apologize for getting off on a tangent there, but to answer your question look at this thread:
Adaptive Cycling (AC) Defined

It defines AC. Which is again using your own judgment based on your experience, education and training to find the best possible solution for you at any given time. Whether that solution be riding in the road, on the sidewalk, MUP, bike lane, drainage ditch, etc.
deputyjones is offline  
Old 03-09-07, 07:10 PM   #9
Helmet Head
Banned.
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Bikes:
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by deputyjones
You touch on the crux of most of the arguments in here. There are lots of experienced riders here who use their experience, their education from kindergarten to college to books they've read on the subject, and training (in driving, cycling, etc.) to come up with the best solution for them. Others espouse ideas from one or two books they have read and say that they are the alter to which we should all bow and pay homage.
What???

There is no one here that I know of who even comes close to fitting the category of "espouse ideas from one or two books they have read and say that they are the alter to which we should all bow and pay homage".

The two groups here are:

1) those who go by what they've learned from direct personal experience only
2) those who go by personal experience including personal experience gained by applying in practice what they've learned indirectly elsewhere, including from studying books like Effective Cycling (John Forester), Urban Cycling (Robert Hurst, who posts here), Cyclecraft (John Franklin), Tips and Tricks (Dave Glowacz), Streetsmarts (John S. Allen) etc.

Quote:
I know it seems ridiculous, as it did to me when I started reading in here, but that is the truth. There really are those in here that truly believe that they should follow John Forrester if he choose to drive off a cliff, and ride within his tight guidelines all the time. Not to say that won't keep you safe, but common sense should tell the rest of us to supplement those types of theories with our own experience and knowledge of our particular cycling environment. It is kind of sad really.
DJ, I'm really surprised by this. Overall, very little of we talk about here has anything to do with Forester. Judging by how you (mis)spelled his name, I'm guessing you've never read any of his books either. But don't let that stop you from forming your opinion about his "tight guidelines".
Helmet Head is offline  
Old 03-09-07, 07:11 PM   #10
deputyjones
Striving for Fredness
 
deputyjones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: West Michigan
Bikes: Old Giant Rincon
Posts: 1,190
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by chipcom
There is no AC vs vc debate. AC is all inclusive, you ride in the manner that best fits your environment and situation. Vehicular cycling is just one tool in the toolbox and if it fits your needs, by all means use it.
Yup, the toolbox. I think of that analogy every time I read in this forum.
deputyjones is offline  
Old 03-09-07, 07:14 PM   #11
Helmet Head
Banned.
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Bikes:
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by deputyjones
I apologize for getting off on a tangent there, but to answer your question look at this thread:
Adaptive Cycling (AC) Defined

It defines AC. Which is again using your own judgment based on your experience, education and training to find the best possible solution for you at any given time. Whether that solution be riding in the road, on the sidewalk, MUP, bike lane, drainage ditch, etc.
All that means is that AC is a superset of VC, as VC only applies when riding on roads (where the rules of the road for vehicle drivers apply), unless AC calls for not riding in accordance to the rules of the road when riding on roads, which I haven't heard anyone claim.
Helmet Head is offline  
Old 03-09-07, 07:20 PM   #12
randya
Senior Member
 
randya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: in bed with your mom
Bikes: who cares?
Posts: 13,689
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
^^ You should start a poll!



randya is offline  
Old 03-09-07, 07:25 PM   #13
chipcom 
Infamous Member
 
chipcom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ohio
Bikes: Surly Big Dummy, Fuji World, 80ish Bianchi
Posts: 24,366
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
All that means is that AC is a superset of VC, as VC only applies when riding on roads (where the rules of the road for vehicle drivers apply), unless AC calls for not riding in accordance to the rules of the road when riding on roads, which I haven't heard anyone claim.
AC doesn't require one to use vc when riding on the roads if it does not fit the situation. Jumping a curb is hardly following the rules of the road for vehicles, yet sometimes we gotta jump a curb. Riding for a stretch in the opposite traffic lane is not following the rules of the road for vehicles, but sometimes we gotta do it. Not stopping for a stop sign or signal is not riding according the rules of the road for vehicles, yet sometimes we do it. I'm sure Mr. Caveman Biker Bek can cite tons of situations where a cyclist doesn't follow the rules of the road for vehicles while on the road. The only 'rule' for adaptive cycling is to do what works best for you in the situation and environment you are in.

You admitted yourself in another thread that you often break the rules of vc, so yes HH, even you are an adaptive cyclist.
__________________
"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
chipcom is offline  
Old 03-09-07, 07:36 PM   #14
deputyjones
Striving for Fredness
 
deputyjones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: West Michigan
Bikes: Old Giant Rincon
Posts: 1,190
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
The two groups here are:

1) those who go by what they've learned from direct personal experience only
2) those who go by personal experience including personal experience gained by applying in practice what they've learned indirectly elsewhere, including from studying books like Effective Cycling (John Forester), Urban Cycling (Robert Hurst, who posts here), Cyclecraft (John Franklin), Tips and Tricks (Dave Glowacz), Streetsmarts (John S. Allen) etc.
I don't agree and it appears the OP noticed that this is not the case either, but no big deal.

Quote:
DJ, I'm really surprised by this. Overall, very little of we talk about here has anything to do with Forester. Judging by how you (mis)spelled his name, I'm guessing you've never read any of his books either. But don't let that stop you from forming your opinion about his "tight guidelines".
I didn't name any names, but you have to be feeling a bit guilty if you responded to this.

O BTW, My apologies to Mr. Forester on the misspelling. FWIW, I don't discount his theories. I just don't think they are the only way.
deputyjones is offline  
Old 03-09-07, 08:31 PM   #15
bragi
bragi
 
bragi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: seattle, WA
Bikes: LHT
Posts: 2,911
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
To the OP: I wouldn't worry about definitions. The whole AC/VC thing may seem really important on this forum, and it can be hugely amusing at times, but when I'm on my bike I don't really think about the issue at all. Just ride your bike safely, and have a nice time doing it. (Though personally, I think all of us ride AC whether we admit it or not...)
bragi is offline  
Old 03-09-07, 09:23 PM   #16
sbhikes
Dominatrikes
 
sbhikes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Still in Santa Barbara
Bikes: Catrike Pocket, Lightning Thunderbold recumbent, Trek 3000 MTB.
Posts: 4,920
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
To the OP: I would say you're just an ordinary, experienced, level-headed cyclist, and if you really need to know where you fit on the AC or VC spectrum, I'd say you fit on the AC end.

Unless you have a strong political position that bike lanes are the devil's spawn and must be eliminated and John Forester channels the Word of God, you aren't VC.

VC is all about identity politics. It's all about who you are, not what you do. Even people who rarely ride their bikes claim to be world-class VC-ers. And many VC cyclists, including John Forester himself, are really pro-car/pro-suburban-sprawl advocates who are paid to speak against bicycle advocacy. I know this because John Forester spoke in my town, and was paid for by a pro-car organization.

Adaptive cyclists are just cyclists. There is no such thing as being an Adaptive Cyclist as an identity. We only invented the term about a week ago here on Bike Forums.

VC-ers will want to put people like you (and me) in a box, call you paint-n-path, or unskilled, or inexperienced, or low IQ or whatever. Don't believe them. They are angry people.
sbhikes is offline  
Old 03-09-07, 11:08 PM   #17
kalliergo 
Senior Member
 
kalliergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: SF Bay
Bikes: Trek Valencia+, Dutch cargo bike, Karate Monkey, etc.
Posts: 708
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sbhikes
VC-ers will want to put people like you (and me) in a box, call you paint-n-path, or unskilled, or inexperienced, or low IQ or whatever. Don't believe them. They are angry people.
This is pretty funny. It's hard to imagine that reading a few weeks of posts here in A&S would lead any rational person to conclude that it is the vehicular cycling advocates who are "angry people."

Is it the vehicular cyclists, for instance, who tend to lace their posts with slurs and insults, or is that sort of behavior more likely to be observed in the writings of certain others -- others who are vehement in their rejection of VC as a model?

I think the evidence is pretty clear. One might review posts by sbhikes, for example.
kalliergo is offline  
Old 03-09-07, 11:34 PM   #18
Bekologist
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Posts: 18,025
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
VC is like evangelical cycling and AC is like a unitarian congregation.
Bekologist is offline  
Old 03-10-07, 12:34 AM   #19
AlmostTrick
Yabba-Dabba-Doo!
 
AlmostTrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Bedrock, IL
Bikes: 1968 Schwinn Orange Krate, 5 speed stick shift
Posts: 4,799
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by skanking biker
I usually don't hang out here so I'm pretty much a newb in this forum...

I really don't understand this whole vehicular cycling/adaptive cycling debate.
Oh boy, here we go again... See what you started now?

Really, all any newbie to A&S needs to do is read any of the multi page threads (like this one in a couple days) and everything will be clear as mud! (slinging ) Once you get through all the mud, (you have fenders on your bike I hope) there is often some good information to help you keep youself safe. Use the ideas and advice that works for you and don't worry about the stuff that might work great for someone else. There's little need to worry about placing a label on how you like to ride.

Last edited by AlmostTrick; 03-10-07 at 01:12 AM.
AlmostTrick is offline  
Old 03-10-07, 12:36 AM   #20
UmneyDurak
RacingBear
 
UmneyDurak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: NorCal
Bikes:
Posts: 8,576
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26 Post(s)
You are a meat pop sickle.
UmneyDurak is offline  
Old 03-10-07, 01:04 AM   #21
SingingSabre 
BF's Level 12 Wizard
 
SingingSabre's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Tucson, AZ
Bikes: Diamondback Sorrento turned Xtracycle commuter
Posts: 1,425
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
VC? AC? DC? AC/DC?

You're really just an Advanced Intelligent Evolutionarily Gifted Good Decision Making Living Breathing Cyclist

Yes, AIEGGDMLBC is what you are.



You cycle well, man. Welcome to the forum!
__________________
Shameless plug (my sites):
Work
Photography
Vanity
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bklyn
Obviously, the guy's like a 12th level white wizard or something. His mere presence is a danger to mortals.
SingingSabre is offline  
Old 03-10-07, 01:31 AM   #22
skanking biker
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Madison, WI
Bikes:
Posts: 2,209
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
thanks for the responses. IHMO it seems from the reponses that most people pretty much ride the same way--they just put a diffrenent label on it and are arguing over semantics. ---But I am drunk right now--so what do i know????
skanking biker is offline  
Old 03-10-07, 06:31 AM   #23
Tom Stormcrowe
Out fishing with Annie on his lap, a cigar in one hand and a ginger ale in the other, watching the sunset.
 
Tom Stormcrowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: South Florida
Bikes: Techna Wheelchair and a Sun EZ 3 Recumbent Trike
Posts: 16,120
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Wow, a fellow realist! Adaptive is your technique, so adaptive yr be, Laddie Buck! AC ye is!
Quote:
Originally Posted by skanking biker
Ok--silly question, but an honest one.

[I usually don't hang out here so I'm pretty much a newb in this forum. I have become more interested in cycling safety and advocacy over the last year as last Sept. I began commuting to work on my bike when practical. I've been trying to convince more people in the ofice to take their steeds in once it gets nicer out.]

I really don't understand this whole vehicular cycling/adaptive cycling debate. I am certainly not a "pedestrian cyclist," that is, I don't ride the wrong way down the street, don't ride on sidewalks, etc. All the definitions I've seen for VC/AC seem to be self contradictory. I will describe the way I ride and would like to know how others "classify" it.

1. I believe bicycles have the same right to use the roads as any other vehicle and should follow the rules of the road when practical. What I mean by that last caveat is that if I am riding in city traffic I will occassionally "break" the "rules of the road" in order not to be killed or hurt. For instance, if a car suddenly stops, I will take evasive action, even if that means hopping on the sidewalk for a bit or passing on the left (in a car you simply hit your brakes and enjoy the ride until the collision)

2. I do not beleive cyclists should be "restricted" to bike lanes and MUPS but do find these facilities useful. While I believe I have every right to be on the road, there are some roads that I find impractical to ride on and will use a MUP or alternative, less-congested back streets---Times when I find street riding impractical include a suburban/urban 2 lane thouroughfare at 45 mph during rush hour where both lanes start and stop so there is no realistic chance to "take the lane" and there is not a sufficient shoulder to ride on. I know I have every "right" to be on this road, but I chose not to due to: 1) the danger, 2) the inefficiency, and 3) the annoyance and hastle of being honked at by every single car that passes me.

3. I certainly do not "bob and weave" during traffic or blow red lights (unless a JAM behind me is physically pushing my bike). However, I rarely come to a complete stop at suburban stop signs unless there is a vehicle approaching. I certainly slow down and look, but I am not gonna come to a complete stop, unclip, dismount, and then go when there is no traffic around. On the other hand, when I come to a 4 way stop w/ motor vehicles, I insist they proceed following the appropriate rules of right of way---i.e. I won't go in front of the guy to my left even though he is waving me on through.


So I really don't know the above attitudes and behaviors make me. In sum, I beleive and try to follow the rules of the road when practical because I beleive that the more motorists see a cyclist as a vehicle on the road that is predictable, the safer the roads will be for us and the more respect they will have for us. On the other hand, I am not going to blindly follow the "rules of the road" if doing so is dangerous in any given circumstance. Also, as a realist, I choose sometimes not to ride on the road where there is an available MUP nearby (or alternate less congested road) and the road/driving conditions aren't conducive to riding in traffic because, quite frankly, I don't like getting run off the road, honked at, sweared at, etc. etc., and one of the main reasons I decided to start commuting was to avoid the hastle of rush hour traffic and be able to enjoy a quiet ride into the city.

I am just curious as to how some here would label that type of cycling/attitude because I genuinely don't understand some of the terms being thrown around here. [I really don't care one way or another---I just want to know into which group people here think I fall so i know how terms are being used]
__________________
. “He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.”- Fredrick Nietzsche

"We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." - Immanuel Kant
Tom Stormcrowe is offline  
Old 03-10-07, 07:31 AM   #24
specq
King of the Ramsey Hills
 
specq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Saint Paul
Bikes:
Posts: 320
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Hi there. I'm new here. The name's Kansas. I was just wonderin'...am I a slave state or a free state?
specq is offline  
Old 03-10-07, 07:45 AM   #25
I-Like-To-Bike
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Posts: 23,846
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by specq
Hi there. I'm new here. The name's Kansas. I was just wonderin'...am I a slave state or a free state?
What's the definition of "slave"? What's the definition of "state"? What's the definition of "free"? That's for me to know and for you to find out.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  
Closed Thread


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:11 AM.