Advocacy & Safety - The role of attitude in traffic cycling

So, some guy is on his way home, sees a cyclist on the road, and knowingly runs them down, on purpose, because he feels he's in his way?

If he's bothered by a cyclist who is in his way, he already has a purpose: he's trying to get somewhere. The last thing such a person would want is to deal with the probable delay and hassles associated with hitting a cyclist and bicycle.

As to the odds of winning a lottery versus the odds of being hit this way? We hear about lottery winners all the time. A cyclist hit intentionally because he was in the way? Of course I don't KNOW it has NEVER happened. But, if it ever happened, I, for one, have never heard of it. I just believe it's so extremely unlikely (much less likely than winning the lottery) that it does not even warrant consideration, much less worry, concern or alteration in behavior. Especially when the worry, concern or behavior change significantly diminishes one's ability to ride safely and enjoyably in traffic.

Serge

...
Drivers are like sheep. Act like the shepherd, and they will follow.



Indeed. They will follow about 2 feet behind you. Everyone will get stressed and your ride will be ruined. Getting run over is highly unlikely, but there are other unpleasant things that can happen.

The odds of it happening? Kinda odd semantically... how are you defining "better?"

Read post #95.

As to the odds of winning a lottery versus the odds of being hit this way? We hear about lottery winners all the time. A cyclist hit intentionally because he was in the way? Of course I don't KNOW it has NEVER happened. But, if it ever happened, I, for one, have never heard of it. I just believe it's so extremely unlikely (much less likely than winning the lottery) that it does not even warrant consideration, much less worry, concern or alteration in behavior. Especially when the worry, concern or behavior change significantly diminishes one's ability to ride safely and enjoyably in traffic.


Please stop spewing this. Just because you don't think it's likely and you have never heard of it doesn't mean it's not

a) a lot more likely then you think it is
b) happening with greater frequency than you know of

Your post basically means nothing other than admitting you don't know something but then going on to assume things about this unknown quantity. Good job.

You are doing a disservice to other cyclists with your biased view.

Operator, what about you and your biased view? What about the disservice to cyclists you are doing?

Do you know of any instances, much less a significant number of such instances, where a motorist knowingly and intentionally hit a cyclist because he was in his way?

Basically, your position seems to be: we have no idea how often it happens. Maybe it happens all the time and we just don't know about it. So let's ride as if it happens all the time, just in case.

Hokum!

One thing we do know for certain is that humans make errors. Even a maniacal driver who wants to brush by you close enough to teach you a lesson has the potential to make an error and hit you. Even if this has never happened, I wouldn't want to be the first one to have it happen to.

So, some guy is on his way home, sees a cyclist on the road, and knowingly runs them down, on purpose, because he feels he's in his way?

If he's bothered by a cyclist who is in his way, he already has a purpose: he's trying to get somewhere. The last thing such a person would want is to deal with the probable delay and hassles associated with hitting a cyclist and bicycle.


Unfortunately, I don't think road ragers are this rational. If they really thought it through, they would wait the extra 10, 20 seconds. A lot of drivers aren't thinking out there but reacting. It's not always a physical response, but even the verbal assaults take their toll, at least on sensitive souls like me. :)

Motorist are not going to hit cyclists or anybody else on purpose for one reason:

It takes to long to fill out the paperwork.

Some motorist may enjoy swerving over at you, or passing too close, but thats about it.

So, some guy is on his way home, sees a cyclist on the road, and knowingly runs them down, on purpose, because he feels he's in his way?

If he's bothered by a cyclist who is in his way, he already has a purpose: he's trying to get somewhere. The last thing such a person would want is to deal with the probable delay and hassles associated with hitting a cyclist and bicycle.

As to the odds of winning a lottery versus the odds of being hit this way? We hear about lottery winners all the time. A cyclist hit intentionally because he was in the way? Of course I don't KNOW it has NEVER happened. But, if it ever happened, I, for one, have never heard of it. I just believe it's so extremely unlikely (much less likely than winning the lottery) that it does not even warrant consideration, much less worry, concern or alteration in behavior. Especially when the worry, concern or behavior change significantly diminishes one's ability to ride safely and enjoyably in traffic.

Serge

Serge,

This lottery analogy is really poor logic on your part. Just because we don't hear about something happening, doesn't mean it's not happening. Further, millions of people play the lottery and the news has along with lottery commissions have a vested interest in getting news about winners out, finally people like to hear about lottery winners, but not about cyclists being ran over.

You also seem to want to make a big deal about intent and seem to be arguing that motorists who would intentionally hit a cyclist make a rational decision about this choice. If you did a search on this forum and of news services you know that you would find more than a handful of intentional bike/car accidents. I know for a fact that I've written about being intentionally struck to you in this forum too. And just this weekend I had a Mercedes driver brush me with his mirror because I was, "outside the bike lane!" That it was actually the shoulder line and the shoulder was filled with parked cars fell on deaf ears. This guy who couldn't wait to get around me was more than eager enough to pull over and now waste the afternoon picking a fight with me. He only drove off when I pulled out my cell and started dialing 911. If he had been a bit off in passing me and struck me would it have mattered if it was intentional?

An event like this won't change the way I ride, taking the lane of a substandard lane. Nor am I arguing against a VC riding style, or for bike lanes for that matter. My only issue is that claiming that irrational motorist behavior doesn't occur does little to boost your argument. Further it makes it seem like you are arguing that the cyclist is at fault for all interactions that go poorly, that if proper VC is was adhered to in all situations that nothing could go wrong. Maybe that isn't your argument, but saying that motorists never drive in a homicidal manner is just as risky as saying they do all the time.

-Marcus.

OK, let's put this discussion in perspective. The contention held by advocates of vehicular cycling is: cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as vehicle drivers. "Fare best" does not mean "are invincible". It means that they do better for themselves than any of the known alternatives to acting and being treated as vehicle drivers.

One way to understand this is to consider the following claim: Cyclists fare best when they use helmets. The claim is that cyclists fare better when they use helmets than when they don't. Does that mean that in every conceivable type of accident a cyclist is necessarily better off with a helmet, than without? No. Of course not. It's like air bags for cars. Sure, in some cases air bags can actually cause injuries and even fatalities, but in most cases they benefit the occupants. That's why one could claim that, car occupants fare best when they occupy cars with air bags.

So just because one can come up with a hypothetical or even real example where a cyclist acting like a vehicle driver, or a cyclist wearing a helmet, or a car occupant disabling the air bag, does worse than if he had chosen the alternative, does not dismiss the respective "fare best" claim.

Consider the following three questions.


If you ride vehicularly, are you more or less likely to be targeted by a homocidal maniac intent on running over cyclists who are in his way than is a cyclist riding non-vehicularly?

If you ride vehicularly, are you more or less likely to be targeted by a jerk intent on teaching you a lesson by driving too closely to you than is a cyclist riding non-vehicularly?

If you ride vehicularly, are you more or less likely to fall victim to an incident that causes injury or death than is a cyclist riding non-vehicularly?


Can we agree that questions 1 and 2 are simply subsets of question 3? Can we agree that question 3 is the main question here, and should determine the question of whether one should ride vehicularly or not, not an evaluation that gives unreasonable bias to questions 1 and 2?

What percentage of total incidents that affect cyclists in terms of injury or death do you believe are related to questions 1 and 2? I contend that it's some small fraction of 1%.

With that, for the sake of agreement, let us assume that questions 1 and 2 are answered unfavorably with respect to vehicular cycling. Even so, these issues are so minor, compared to the big question 3, and vehicular cycling wins so decisively in the 99+% of other incidents covered by question 3, that I believe questions 1 and 2 are simply inconsequential. At least as inconsequential as is giving consideration to the downside of using airbags and helmets vs. not using them.

In short, the alternative for a cyclist acting like a vehicle driver is not acting like a vehicle driver, which is clearly less safe, less enjoyable and less effective.

Choosing to not ride vehicularly is like turning off your airbag in your car or cycling without your helmet. There's a chance you'll be better off, but the probability is that you'll be much better off if you ride vehicularly, keep your helmet on, and leave your airbag turned on.

Although it doesn't mention bicycling, I found some information on road rage (http://www.aaafoundation.org/resources/index.cfm?button=ragetest). A snippet:

The Mizell research uncovered 10,037 incidents of violent aggressive driving between January 1, 1990 and August 31, 1996, the nearly seven-year period studied. At least 218 men, women and children are known to have been killed as a result of these incidents, and another 12,610 were injured. The problem is national in scope, not just a phenomenon of congested urban areas.

And the problem has been getting progressively worse. In 1990, there were 1,129 reported incidents of violent aggressive driving; that figure has grown steadily each year during the 1990s, reaching 1,708 at the end of 1995. The figure through the end of August, 1996 (the end of the study period) was 1,201, putting us on track to reach another record of about 1,800 reported incidents in 1996. That's a compounded annual growth rate of nearly 7 percent.

...

Violent traffic disputes are rarely the result of a single incident, such as a stolen parking space or being cut off in traffic by another driver. Rather, they seem to be the result of personal attitudes and the accumulation of stress in the motorist's life.


The article also states that in 35% of the cases the weapon of retaliation was a car, and 37% of the time it was a gun. The rest of the time it was every conceivable type of weapon.

That it isn't logical for someone who appears to be in a hurry to waste their time hitting you with their vehicle fails to understand that road rage is not triggered by logic. And to state that taking the lane with an air of confidence will shield you from retaliation from motorists is also failing to understand that road rage isn't about your singular action.

Cyclists do fare best when they act and are treated as vehicle drivers. But it's that second part, the "treated as vehicle drivers" part that really matters. Acting like one doesn't guarantee you'll be treated like one. Further, being treated like a vehicle driver doesn't guarantee you will not be the trigger to somebody's road rage.

Cyclists do fare best when they act and are treated as vehicle drivers. But it's that second part, the "treated as vehicle drivers" part that really matters. Acting like one doesn't guarantee you'll be treated like one. Further, being treated like a vehicle driver doesn't guarantee you will not be the trigger to somebody's road rage.

Of course it's not a guarantee. But one thing is for sure, if you don't act like a vehicle driver you're much less likely to be treated like one than if you do act like one.

I understand that road rage is not logical. But I also understand that cyclists are much more likely to fall victim to all kinds of causes of injury and death than anything related to road rage.

Any behavior change whose purpose is to reduce the likelihood of falling victim to road rage in exchange for increasing the likelihood of falling victim to all kinds of other causes of cyclist injury and death seems to me to be a very bad deal, and choosing non-VC over VC seems to be exactly such an exchange.

Of course it's not a guarantee. But one thing is for sure, if you don't act like a vehicle driver you're much less likely to be treated like one than if you do act like one.

I understand that road rage is not logical. But I also understand that cyclists are much more likely to fall victim to all kinds of causes of injury and death than anything related to road rage.

Any behavior change whose purpose is to reduce the likelihood of falling victim to road rage in exchange for increasing the likelihood of falling victim to all kinds of other causes of cyclist injury and death seems to me to be a very bad deal, and choosing non-VC over VC seems to be exactly such an exchange.


The problem is that you don't know the root cause of "injury and death that does befall cyclists" and yet you tout VC as a "cure all" with amazing results. I was beginning to wonder if it cured cancer too...

Try to keep in mind that all the statistics you tend to fall back on, are pre-Road Rage, and pre-Cell Phone... unless you decide to quote something besides Forester's Book. You also push for the elmination of all bike lanes "past, present, and future" based on logic... while admitting "that road rage is not logical."

Sometimes cyclists "fare best" when there are alternatives to riding in dense, high speed, tense traffic.

Most everyone, including Hurst in his 2004 book, comes up with the same basic conclusions as does Forester about "the root cause of 'injury and death that does befall cyclists'".

In short, the alternative for a cyclist acting like a vehicle driver is not acting like a vehicle driver, which is clearly less safe, less enjoyable and less effective.

You don't have to "not act like a vehicle driver" all the time. Only when it's the safer alternative.

Also, I don't think road rage is a minor problem anymore. Road rage and aggressive driving is more commonly to blame for negative motorist experiences that I have had while cycling. Distracted drivers is second most to blame. Since most of the rest of the drivers are driving more or less responsibly, VC works great most of the time.

But, motorists have accidents all the time. As a cyclists we have to be extra careful and willing to abandon any preconceived ideas of what's right and proper in order to stay alive. That's just the facts. In a way, that makes us lucky compared to drivers. We can evade the maniacs by abandoning acting like a vehicle driver, while they cannot. And we can avoid dangerous situations sometimes by using sidewalks, becoming pedestrians for a moment (I did that today to avoid riding through raw sewage being pumped into the street) and by taking advantage of good bike facilities where they exist.

Relative to all factors that actually cause injury or death to cyclists, and given the rate of incidence of road rage cited by your statistics, I just don't believe road rage is a significant factor in actual injuries and deaths.

Further, whatever road rage against cyclists exists out there, it seems to me that vehicular cycling, if it has any effect on it at all, reduces it. As you might imagine from my writing, I ride relatively assertively with regard to my rights. Yet I go for weeks if not months without anyone honking at me, which I don't even consider to be road rage, much less actually encountering real Level 1 road rage.

This is about as bad as it gets:

Man in pickup, pulling along side me and about 30 other cyclists on a club ride: "you boys have fun out riding today?"
Serge: "It's a nice day".
Man: "... you all were in the driver's lane!" (expressing some anger in his voice)"
Serge: "Sir, we have the same right to ride in the roadway as you do".
Man: "And you run red lights". (light turns green, he takes off, we shrug our shoulders, and continue).

Who cares? And that's about as bad as it ever gets.

Now, like I've said before, I feel I was mistreated more when I rode less assertively.

Serge

OK, let's put this discussion in perspective. The contention held by advocates of vehicular cycling is: cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as vehicle drivers. "Fare best" does not mean "are invincible". It means that they do better for themselves than any of the known alternatives to acting and being treated as vehicle drivers.

One way to understand this is to consider the following claim: Cyclists fare best when they use helmets. The claim is that cyclists fare better when they use helmets than when they don't. Does that mean that in every conceivable type of accident a cyclist is necessarily better off with a helmet, than without? No. Of course not. It's like air bags for cars. Sure, in some cases air bags can actually cause injuries and even fatalities, but in most cases they benefit the occupants. That's why one could claim that, car occupants fare best when they occupy cars with air bags.

So just because one can come up with a hypothetical or even real example where a cyclist acting like a vehicle driver, or a cyclist wearing a helmet, or a car occupant disabling the air bag, does worse than if he had chosen the alternative, does not dismiss the respective "fare best" claim.

Consider the following three questions.


If you ride vehicularly, are you more or less likely to be targeted by a homocidal maniac intent on running over cyclists who are in his way than is a cyclist riding non-vehicularly?

If you ride vehicularly, are you more or less likely to be targeted by a jerk intent on teaching you a lesson by driving too closely to you than is a cyclist riding non-vehicularly?

If you ride vehicularly, are you more or less likely to fall victim to an incident that causes injury or death than is a cyclist riding non-vehicularly?


Can we agree that questions 1 and 2 are simply subsets of question 3? Can we agree that question 3 is the main question here, and should determine the question of whether one should ride vehicularly or not, not an evaluation that gives unreasonable bias to questions 1 and 2?

What percentage of total incidents that affect cyclists in terms of injury or death do you believe are related to questions 1 and 2? I contend that it's some small fraction of 1%.

With that, for the sake of agreement, let us assume that questions 1 and 2 are answered unfavorably with respect to vehicular cycling. Even so, these issues are so minor, compared to the big question 3, and vehicular cycling wins so decisively in the 99+% of other incidents covered by question 3, that I believe questions 1 and 2 are simply inconsequential. At least as inconsequential as is giving consideration to the downside of using airbags and helmets vs. not using them.

In short, the alternative for a cyclist acting like a vehicle driver is not acting like a vehicle driver, which is clearly less safe, less enjoyable and less effective.

Choosing to not ride vehicularly is like turning off your airbag in your car or cycling without your helmet. There's a chance you'll be better off, but the probability is that you'll be much better off if you ride vehicularly, keep your helmet on, and leave your airbag turned on.

I think we need to take a step back and think about what "riding vehicularly" means for a bicycle. It means something different than "driving vehicularly" for a car. The bicycle is a unique vehicle; therefore, one expects that riding vehicularly is unique from driving vehicularly. You seem to want to limit vehicular riding to the streets, and more specifically to the same space for cars. Why? Why not expand the domain of where bicycles can be ridden vehiculary in accordance with the characteristics of the vehicle?

You don't have to "not act like a vehicle driver" all the time. Only when it's the safer alternative.

Also, I don't think road rage is a minor problem anymore. Road rage and aggressive driving is more commonly to blame for negative motorist experiences that I have had while cycling. Distracted drivers is second most to blame. Since most of the rest of the drivers are driving more or less responsibly, VC works great most of the time.

But, motorists have accidents all the time. As a cyclists we have to be extra careful and willing to abandon any preconceived ideas of what's right and proper in order to stay alive. That's just the facts. In a way, that makes us lucky compared to drivers. We can evade the maniacs by abandoning acting like a vehicle driver, while they cannot. And we can avoid dangerous situations sometimes by using sidewalks, becoming pedestrians for a moment (I did that today to avoid riding through raw sewage being pumped into the street) and by taking advantage of good bike facilities where they exist.

I'd argue that riding a bicycle on the sidewalk is no more being a pedestrian than using the street is being a motorist. Both together are the unique domain of the bicycle, and the choice of which to use depends on the situation.

I'd argue that riding a bicycle on the sidewalk is no more being a pedestrian than using the street is being a motorist. Both together are the unique domain of the bicycle, and the choice of which to use depends on the situation.
I was a pedestrian as I pushed my bike around some raw sewage in the street. I wasn't riding at the time.

I was a pedestrian as I pushed my bike around some raw sewage in the street. I wasn't riding at the time.

Raw sewage just doesn't fit my view of SB! Back when I lived in Pasadena and was somewhat fit, I did the SB County Triathlon. Beautiful area. We also went up there for the wine festival. Great time.

Further, whatever road rage against cyclists exists out there, it seems to me that vehicular cycling, if it has any effect on it at all, reduces it. As you might imagine from my writing, I ride relatively assertively with regard to my rights. Yet I go for weeks if not months without anyone honking at me, which I don't even consider to be road rage, much less actually encountering real Level 1 road rage.

Serge

Welcome to the fantasy world of Serge... it just ain't like that everywhere Serge... that is the point I think many of us are trying to tell you... (Hello, are you listening).

Check this little blurb out from Cars Suck dot Org (http://www.cars-suck.org/littera-scripta/LAB-talk.html)



For those of you who regard rider skills as paramount, consider this striking, and disturbing, finding from our Killed By Automobile study of road fatalities in New York City.

First, remember that most driving in the five boroughs is by men — we estimated 75%, taking account of taxis, buses, trucks, and other male/female employment differences.

So, all things equal, 75% of cyclist fatalities here would have come from bike crashes with motor vehicles driven by men, and 25% from crashes with vehicles driven by women, right?

Not even close.

Over the four-year period we studied, with 71 bicyclist fatalities, and the driver identified for 63 of them, 61 of the drivers who killed bicyclists were male and 2 were female. That’s a 97%/3% gender split, rather than the expected 75/25.

Per mile driven, male drivers killed bicyclists at 10 times the rate of female drivers.

The grossly disproportionate number of male cyclist-killers strongly suggests that driver aggression (and not just cyclist impulsiveness or incompetence) plays a significant role in killing bicycle-riders in New York City — a finding confirmed in a later report showing that the foremost behavior that’s killing cyclists is aggressive passing by drivers.


Look at that last line again... "the foremost behavior that’s killing cyclists is aggressive passing by drivers." Yup... driver's attitudes... So it is your attitude against theirs... only they have a 4000 pound club to back it up.

Ride carefully out there.

Letter to the editor in today's paper:
"Drivers here crazy
May. 18, 2005 12:00 AM
I drove for a living in the New York tri-state area for over 30 years and I have never seen such crazy driving. First, you need good radar control; in New Jersey they even use helicopters to intercept speeders and rage drivers. Next you need a speed task force - a DPS unit made up of full- and part-time traffic-control people. That will free up the police for crime duty.

People are afraid to drive on the 101, 202, 303, 60 and 10. On Maricopa and Riggs roads are crazy drivers driving close to 100 mph. Red lights are a joke in the Valley. People know that there is little or no coverage by DPS, so they drive like nuts. "
Mainly about the freeways, but the behavior is no different on the arterials. I've been passed a very few times by cars that must have been going at least 90mph in 50mph zones and witness red light running several times a day. I see traffic accidents (almost always at intersections) at least once per week. I spend more time dodging broken car lights/reflectors than any other debris type.

Al

Sadly, it is not "Right of Way" it is too often "my way is right."

Do you chose the way you ride because of the truly rare homocidal driver, or to pretect yourself against the much more common merely negligent driver? If you stay more visible (farther to the left) you will protect yourself better from the negligent. You can't plan your life around the false assumption that everyone else is a homocidal maniac.

DC, I think these last few posts are in response to Serge who said in response to me that when a beer truck came barreling down on me from behind, clearly signalling to me that I should get the heck out of his way, Serge thought I should have gotten more into the road, more into his path to show I wasn't budging and knew my rights as a vehicle driver, rather than shrink off to the right like I did. I chose to shrink off to the right out of self-preservation.

Do you chose the way you ride because of the truly rare homocidal driver, or to pretect yourself against the much more common merely negligent driver? If you stay more visible (farther to the left) you will protect yourself better from the negligent. You can't plan your life around the false assumption that everyone else is a homocidal maniac.

I ride based on the group think of people... people generally obey the rules, people generally want to get along. However, it is the individual that makes life difficult... they do and think what whatever suits them at the moment.

To make claims that a particular system works in all cases is not real.

While I depend on what works most of the time, I watch for the deviations, as they individually can cause me the most harm.

If in any given day only 1-2% of the individuals you meet are deviant, then in encountering 200 people on a commute, you have 2-4 individuals of whom you must be extra vigilant. Tell me which 2-4. I also am aware that certain times of day can bring out the bad side of folks... stressed in traffic, and later in the day after consumption of alcohol... these issues compound any commuting situation.

To put it in perspective... Riding beside parked cars along the road, most of them will be empty and pose no threat... yet it is taught, touted and I bet you ride as if all parked cars all the time can be a threat.

Think about it.

1-2 percent are not homocidal. Incidents of drivers intentionally hitting cyclists from behind are so rare that it makes no sense to plan around them.

DC, I think these last few posts are in response to Serge who said in response to me that when a beer truck came barreling down on me from behind, clearly signalling to me that I should get the heck out of his way, Serge thought I should have gotten more into the road, more into his path to show I wasn't budging and knew my rights as a vehicle driver, rather than shrink off to the right like I did. I chose to shrink off to the right out of self-preservation.

I've had large semi-trucks intimidate me like that before as well. I remember one rainy morning, when traffic was really bad due to accidents, I was stopped in the outer lane at a red stop light, and this construction trailer truck start blaring its horn maybe 100 meters back, BROOOOOOOONK, BROOOOOONK. Clearly he wanted me to move so he could make a right on red without stopping. Big hurry. I hesitated. BROOOOOONK!!!! Then I got the hell out of the way. I really believe he would have run me over. I won't play chicken with a 5-ton truck. These "Tianmen Square" incidents happen more frequently than we'd like to admit.

1-2 percent are not homocidal. Incidents of drivers intentionally hitting cyclists from behind are so rare that it makes no sense to plan around them.
How 'bout incidents of distracted, innattentive, sleepy, disturbed, under the influence, or otherwise less than perfect drivers hitting all sorts of people, vehicles, and anything else unfortunate enough to be in their way at the wrong time?

The issue is not intentional incidents caused by drivers intent on murder, a straw man argument if ever I saw one. The issue is the results of drivers' bad attitudes, lack of attention and carelessness that leads to dangerous conditions for cyclists. Expecting mitigation of the real risks caused by sloppy/reckless driving, through bicyclist's steely gazes, positive thinking and cryptic posturing is a dang joke that is not funny.

Then I'd rather be where I'm the most visible (farther to the left) so even drivers paying less attention have a better chance to see me.

Then I'd rather be where I'm the most visible (farther to the left) so even drivers paying less attention have a better chance to see me.
Your preference presumably is based on your personal assumption that you are in fact "most visable" or even more visable when cycling farther left, and more importantly, that innattentive/careless drivers are looking where you happen to be 100% of the time, can instantly determine the distance and speed differentials and/or will respond in the appropriate manner if and when they do recognize that an immenient collision will occur unless someone alters couse.

Then I'd rather be where I'm the most visible (farther to the left) so even drivers paying less attention have a better chance to see me.

:rolleyes: there are drivers out there paying so little attention, they don't even see other cars.

Now don't get me wrong... I do ride in a VC manner...

But VC is not the "cure all," "do-all" solution that some seem to think it is. As good as it is, we cannot all be "human speed bumps" in all situations, nor can all cyclists use "attitude" or "steely gazes" to intimidate traffic... Nor are all cyclists "in decent enough shape;" these "requirements" simply miss the fact that all cyclists are not created equal, that all bikes are not created equal and finally that all locations are not created equal. Therefore, in some cases, VC may not work; and perhaps a bike facilility may be the right answer. But to go on and act as if it is the ultimate solution for everything is simply foolish.

Acceptance of this fact by strict VC advocates can be the beginning of a united stand to improve cycling, across the board, for all cyclists.

To further illustrate the irony behind some advocates' thinking... I know of at least one person here that toutes "Safe for 30 years..." and yet has only used VC for the last year and a half... I wonder what kept him "safe" for the other 28 and a half years?

But VC is not the "cure all," "do-all" solution that some seem to think it is.

What part of "fare best" do you not understand, and how that's different from "cure all"?

I think it boils down to what sbhikes said. To paraphrase/extend: If you ride like a vehicle you get treated like a vehicle and that comes with the good and the bad of being treated like and involved as a vehicle.

This means if you ride VC you very well may be less likely to have an incident, but if you do have one it will be more vehicular in nature (i.e. sideswipe/someone merges into you in your lane, rear ended while stopped at light or going slow) Vehicular accidents tend to be more severe due to higher speeds, crushing forces and other secondary vehicles involved.

But if you ride in a more pedestrian style way you will perhaps be more likely to get into an accident of a pedestrian nature (i.e. right hook, bumped from sidewalk, crash (trip) on an obstical, drain, debris, pedestrians) There may very well be a higher likelyhood of these type of incidents, but they may be more minor in nature due to lower speeds involved and less chance for secondary vehicles to be involved.

But this above is just my thinking out loud, hence the frequest use of the words 'may' and 'perhaps' etc.

Al

Genec,
You extended my point far beyond what I said. VC is not a cure-all. The main point is that most cyclists can ride in heavier traffic than they think they can. As for the 30-year cyclist who learned VC 18 months ago, my guess is that he meant that he could ride safely in heavier traffic than he previously could.

Noisebeam,
We can extend you point farther, by actually becoming pedestrians or drivers of cars, we can totally eliminate the risk of being hurt in a bicycle accident. And right hook is NOT a pedestrian accident. It is very much a vehicular accident.

It all comes down to VC principles and attitude helping cyclists to ride in heavier traffic than they otherwise would be able to ride in. But it won't help you to navigate the Dan Ryan in Chicago.

And right hook is NOT a pedestrian accident. It is very much a vehicular accident.

I'm not convinced of that. I have never even come close to having a right hook while driving. Many times I have had right hooks, some with very close calls while walking across a x-walk. Maybe its just a matter perspective as from the perspective of the vehicle driver, right hooking a ped is a vehicular accident.

Al

I merely suggest that there are situations where getting the heck out of the way is not a submissive, second-class citizen, inferiority complex, but rather a rational response to irrarional motorist behavior.

My position is also that some roads are clearly not designed in a way that a reasonable cyclist can safely and/or easily travel, and in those cases, bike facilities can facilitate easier/safer movement of bicycles a lot easier than "attitude", "steely gazes" (from behind my shades, no less) and fitness (which I've got plenty of, minus the speed.)

I merely suggest that there are situations where getting the heck out of the way is not a submissive, second-class citizen, inferiority complex, but rather a rational response to irrarional motorist behavior.

My position is also that some roads are clearly not designed in a way that a reasonable cyclist can safely and/or easily travel, and in those cases, bike facilities can facilitate easier/safer movement of bicycles a lot easier than "attitude", "steely gazes" (from behind my shades, no less) and fitness (which I've got plenty of, minus the speed.)
I agree. You sound like a VC cyclist. No one said it was a cure-all.

The real dispute is which roads "are clearly not designed in a way that a reasonable cyclist can safely and/or easily travel. . . ."

What part of "fare best" do you not understand, and how that's different from "cure all"?

You say "fare best," but then you go to life threatening extremes:



I assume you saw him coming in your mirror?

In any case, I would have moved a foot or so to the LEFT, to make it clear I wasn't going to give up my rightful right of way, and he could only take it from me over my dead body, literally. Nothing gets you respect, even from a homocidal maniac, like assertively putting your life on the line. I know of no, zero, nada, cases where a motorist intentionally hit a cyclist. Is it possible? Sure, anything is possible. But some things are so improbable that it makes sense to assume it's simply not going to happen. I'm willing to make that assumption about motorists knowingly hitting cyclists. Are you?

Drivers are like sheep. Act like the shepherd, and they will follow.



So this was not an instance when it might be better to abandon VC instead of trying to be a human speed bump (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=95202&highlight=human+speed+bumps) ?

Your statement above had a real tone of finality to it....

This kind if thing, coupled with the admonition that one needs an "attitude" in traffic is what I question. VC works, but one should also recognize that there are instances where "faring best" is getting the heck out of the way.

Sometimes that means that a bike facility or even a sidewalk might be a more suitable alternative. Of course if you want to take it to the extreme of "your dead body" that is your choice... others may not feel the same.

You need to learn to recognize the difference and have the wisdom to exercise alternative choices... and preach that along with your constant message of "getting respect, alpha dog etc.... "

I'm over the alpha dog. Got a new one.

"Motorists are like sheep. Act like a shepherd, and they will obey."

I'm over the alpha dog. Got a new one.

"Motorists are like sheep. Act like a shepherd, and they will obey."

LOL... gotta play the game...

OK, except for the wolf in sheep's clothing. :eek:

It all comes down to VC principles and attitude helping cyclists to ride in heavier traffic than they otherwise would be able to ride in. But it won't help you to navigate the Dan Ryan in Chicago.

No? Why not? You previously indicated that you thought VC principles would be suitable for navigating the Lake Shore Drive in Chicago (if only those Chicago meanies would allow it). What makes the Dan Ryan worse for exercising VC Rights, Attitudes and Principles than the LSD? At least the Dan Ryan has a shoulder (if I recall correctly) to bail out on, if and when common sense prevails before the inevitable mishap caused by dogmatic application of VC "principles" in inappropriate situations.

No? Why not? You previously indicated that you thought VC principles would be suitable for navigating the Lake Shore Drive in Chicago (if only those Chicago meanies would allow it). What makes the Dan Ryan worse for exercising VC Rights, Attitudes and Principles than the LSD? At least the Dan Ryan has a shoulder (if I recall correctly) to bail out on, if and when common sense prevails before the inevitable mishap caused by dogmatic application of VC "principles" in inappropriate situations.
You were the one who was OBSESSED with Lake Shore Drive. I pointed out that, under Chicago law, bikes are barred from all roads near a bike path.

I never use the sidewalk...

...even I do (use the sidewalk)

Make up your mind.

I ride like I was taught in elementary school, which is how the road code says: To the right, but out of debris, parked cars doors and grates. The rest is ajusting to particular situations and this comes with experience, not a book.

You say "fare best," but then you go to life threatening extremes:




So this was not an instance when it might be better to abandon VC instead of trying to be a human speed bump (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=95202&highlight=human+speed+bumps) ?

Your statement above had a real tone of finality to it....

This kind if thing, coupled with the admonition that one needs an "attitude" in traffic is what I question. VC works, but one should also recognize that there are instances where "faring best" is getting the heck out of the way.

Sometimes that means that a bike facility or even a sidewalk might be a more suitable alternative. Of course if you want to take it to the extreme of "your dead body" that is your choice... others may not feel the same.

You need to learn to recognize the difference and have the wisdom to exercise alternative choices... and preach that along with your constant message of "getting respect, alpha dog etc.... "

As well, I can't square the Tianmen-esque attitude of "standing up to the tank" with somehow promoting cooperation between motorists and cyclists. Seems like compromise promotes cooperation.

Erick - I enjoyed your photos. Beautiful places. I also like how you identified the plants and animals.

Al

Make up your mind.

I ride like I was taught in elementary school, which is how the road code says: To the right, but out of debris, parked cars doors and grates. The rest is ajusting to particular situations and this comes with experience, not a book.

That approach, "To the right, but out of debris, parked cars doors and grates. The rest is ajusting to particular situations and this comes with experience", worked quite well for me too.

But after 30 years of experience using that technique, I still found certain situations challenging or difficult. So, per someone's advice, I looked to the book Effective Cycling for advice. Not only did it help, but I found that adopting the assertive attitude in traffic espoused by Forester, along with his specific techniques and practices, has transformed my ability to travel safely and enjoyably in traffic. YMMV.

Serge

As well, I can't square the Tianmen-esque attitude of "standing up to the tank" with somehow promoting cooperation between motorists and cyclists. Seems like compromise promotes cooperation.

I think you're taking this out of context.

I cooperate and compromise with motorists all the time.

I'm just not willing to yield my ROW and pull over and stop for some jerk barreling down at me from behind, in a lane that is too narrow to be safely shared side-by-side, because he thinks I should just get out of his way instead of he merging into the adjacent lane.

I think you're taking this out of context.

I cooperate and compromise with motorists all the time.

I'm just not willing to yield my ROW and pull over and stop for some jerk barreling down at me from behind, in a lane that is too narrow to be safely shared side-by-side, because he thinks I should just get out of his way instead of he merging into the adjacent lane.

You fare well when you refuse to yield ROW. I fare well when I yield ROW. Who's to say who fares best, eh? Would you now rescind your earlier statement that my attitude is the exact wrong one to have in traffic. It all depends on the situation, doesn't it.

I also fare well when I yield ROW... when it is safe and reasonable to do so.

I didn't say your attitude was wrong in absolute terms, I said it was exactly opposite of the attitude I was advocating. That is, your attitude, along with the attitude conveyed by Hurst, is to be consumed with fear. A healthy fear is one thing, but the attitude conveyed by your posts, and the writing of Hurst, seems to go far beyond that, to the point of fear being the primary concern of the cyclist. I believe that extreme fear is not the right attitude to have to ride safely and effectively in traffic.