Advocacy & Safety - The role of attitude in traffic cycling

One man's fear is another's folly...

What one may deem is "extreme fear," may be another's "heathy fear... " how can one judge the internal feelings of another?

What color is red?

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.

I think its good to identify the fear as part of the attitude. I agree there is reasonable fear and irrational fear. We are all at different places along the spectrum of fear based on our personal experiences. Research should help shape our attitudes, but if I'm afraid based on experiences on my personal route, I'm less likely to trust that research results generalize to my situation. I mean, there are no studies of road rage, incidents, and fatalities on Big Bend Blvd between Shrewsbury Ave and Laclede Station Rd between the hours of 8-9am and 5-6pm M-F, St Louis, Missouri, that I know of. If there were, they would include one cyclist who was killed and several that have been hit, as well as some generally nasty driver comments. It's difficult in this environment to keep a good attitude.

I think some of us are misunderstanding the usage and intent of the word "fear" in this context. It certainly can mean cowardly gutter riding-- but no one advocates that as the norm. In this context, "fear" is interchangable with the phrase "awareness of risk".

Awarness of risk is very valuable, it can be learned by advocacy and mentoring or it can be learned by experience.

For example, novices often ride blithely through low-speed congested strip mall areas near their homes unaware that these are among the most dangerous places for cyclists. These same cyclists will then express concern about whether or not a country road 20K outside the city limits has a "wide enough" shoulder. They are lacking in a proper "awareness of risk". They don't realize that they are far more at risk in a Walmart parking lot than they are rolling past a pig farm on a two lane black-top. One of the most important roles of advocacy and education is to properly align such preceptions of risk in the heads of cyclists.

I think some of us are misunderstanding the usage and intent of the word "fear" in this context. It certainly can mean cowardly gutter riding-- but no one advocates that as the norm. In this context, "fear" is interchangable with the phrase "awareness of risk".

Awarness of risk is very valuable, it can be learned by advocacy and mentoring or it can be learned by experience.

For example, novices often ride blithely through low-speed congested strip mall areas near their homes unaware that these are among the most dangerous places for cyclists. These same cyclists will then express concern about whether or not a country road 20K outside the city limits has a "wide enough" shoulder. They are lacking in a proper "awareness of risk". They don't realize that they are far more at risk in a Walmart parking lot than they are rolling past a pig farm on a two lane black-top. One of the most important roles of advocacy and education is to properly align such preceptions of risk in the heads of cyclists.


Very well put... also as BillH puts it personal experience may act as a multiplier in some cases of what one percieves as dangerous or not...

So it is really an understanding of the reality of what may happen coupled with what one experiences in real life... And as always, "your milage may vary."

I fear, in the sense that H23 defines the term, the paralyzing attitude of fear that seems to be conveyed by Hurst in his book, and others here on this forum.

There are different levels of paralysis with respect to the attitude of fear I am talking about. At one end is the affliction that affects tens if not hundreds of millions of Americans - who are too afraid, or too concerned with the risk, of even riding a bike on the road, much less in traffic.

Less serious, but never-the-less damaging, is the fear that prevents many good cyclists from learning how to ride effectively in traffic, because they fear too much is out of their control. That too is paralyzing, and the kind of fear that I find Hurst conveying in his book, and expressed by many posters here.

Serge

Awarness of risk is very valuable, it can be learned by advocacy and mentoring or it can be learned by experience.

For example, novices often ride blithely through low-speed congested strip mall areas near their homes unaware that these are among the most dangerous places for cyclists. These same cyclists will then express concern about whether or not a country road 20K outside the city limits has a "wide enough" shoulder. They are lacking in a proper "awareness of risk". They don't realize that they are far more at risk in a Walmart parking lot than they are rolling past a pig farm on a two lane black-top. One of the most important roles of advocacy and education is to properly align such preceptions of risk in the heads of cyclists.

Amen. And, I believe this is exactly what Forester does.. he "properly aligns perceptions of risk in the heads of his readers and students".

Hurst, on the other hand, relies much more on gut feeling than true risk analysis, and ends up, I believe, misaligning perceptions of risk in the heads of his readers.

Amen. And, I believe this is exactly what Forester does.. he "properly aligns perceptions of risk in the heads of his readers and students".

Hurst, on the other hand, relies much more on gut feeling than true risk analysis, and ends up, I believe, misaligning perceptions of risk in the heads of his readers.


Why this fixation on Hurst/wrong, Forester/right? Its not like you can pull out "hurstian" and "forestian" accident stats and then compare and contrast, can you? Of course you can't, so why even try to judge one against the other?

I mean, even you concede that the two authors give essentially the same advice as far as working the traffic situations go. Honestly, it doesn't matter which philosphy or "attitude" one chooses to follow. The ultimate behavior will be very similar, and that's what matters.

Honestly, it doesn't matter which philosphy or "attitude" one chooses to follow. The ultimate behavior will be very similar, and that's what matters.

I agree that the behavior is what ultimately matters, but disagree that the underlying philosophy or "attitude" does not matter in terms of determining that behavior. In particular, I don't see how anyone who adopts Hurst's philosophy/adopt could truly ride vehicularly, regardless of the apparent similarities between many of his surface recommendations and those of Forester.

One of these days I will explain this in full detail in a review of his book.

Serge

Why this fixation on Hurst/wrong, Forester/right? Its not like you can pull out "hurstian" and "forestian" accident stats and then compare and contrast, can you? Of course you can't, so why even try to judge one against the other?

I mean, even you concede that the two authors give essentially the same advice as far as working the traffic situations go. Honestly, it doesn't matter which philosphy or "attitude" one chooses to follow. The ultimate behavior will be very similar, and that's what matters.

Amen. The VC maxim is all about behavior . . . "cyclists fare best when they ACT like . . . ." I don't see anything about attitude. I haven't read Forrester. Are there any verses on attitude?

How's this?

"If you learn effective cycling technique, discover the confidence that it provides, develop your enjoyment of your chosen style of cycling, and participate in as much cycling as you want, then, even if you don't consciously intend to think about it, you will develop an appreciation for what is right about cycling and a growing confidence in the accuracy and propriety of your opinion. I wish you all many miles and much enjoyment in your years awheel, and a steadfast understanding of what it means to be a cyclist".

John Forester, "Effective Cycling", page xii

Now that's what I call a positive attitude. Contrast this to Hurst's closing words... "Be afraid". Blech!

To be fair....

The first thing Forester mentions her is "learn effective cycling technique," i.e., behavior. Also I recall that Hurst does write about the joys of cycling. I don't have the book here to quote him.

Yes,Hurst extolls the joys of cycling (and does a great job of it), but NOT cycling in traffic.

Amen. And, I believe this is exactly what Forester does.. he "properly aligns perceptions of risk in the heads of his readers and students".

Hurst, on the other hand, relies much more on gut feeling than true risk analysis, and ends up, I believe, misaligning perceptions of risk in the heads of his readers.

Not to be a fear monger... but perceptions of fears from Forester are based on statistics... a bell curve of the average user. And while most drivers will fulfill that premise most of the time... all it takes is the oddball one time to cause a cyclist great grief.

I find that I can ride with a dependence on what most motorists will do, but I keep a very sharp eye out for the oddballs... the individual that does not fit the mold. Some call this defensive driving... others call it personal paranoia... it is all in the eye of the beholder.

Compare this to a typical situation and see what you think: Ride along a long length of parked cars and most of them are going to sit right there and be empty and harmless... but all it takes, is one door to fly open as you ride by. So do you ride close to the parked cars or further out... expecting the odd chance that one parked car is the oddball? Healthy fear? or not?

How's this?

"If you learn effective cycling technique, discover the confidence that it provides, develop your enjoyment of your chosen style of cycling, and participate in as much cycling as you want, then, even if you don't consciously intend to think about it, you will develop an appreciation for what is right about cycling and a growing confidence in the accuracy and propriety of your opinion. I wish you all many miles and much enjoyment in your years awheel, and a steadfast understanding of what it means to be a cyclist".

John Forester, "Effective Cycling", page xii

Now that's what I call a positive attitude. Contrast this to Hurst's closing words... "Be afraid". Blech!


Man are you in deep... I never read those "xii pages." :D

Not to be a fear monger... but perceptions of fears from Forester are based on statistics... a bell curve of the average user. And while most drivers will fulfill that premise most of the time... all it takes is the oddball one time to cause a cyclist great grief.

I find that I can ride with a dependence on what most motorists will do, but I keep a very sharp eye out for the oddballs... the individual that does not fit the mold. Some call this defensive driving... others call it personal paranoia... it is all in the eye of the beholder.

Compare this to a typical situation and see what you think: Ride along a long length of parked cars and most of them are going to sit right there and be empty and harmless... but all it takes, is one door to fly open as you ride by. So do you ride close to the parked cars or further out... expecting the odd chance that one parked car is the oddball? Healthy fear? or not?

Gene, everything is subject to a cost/benefit analysis. You swim in the cove despite the fact that you may be eaten for lunch by a shark because the odds of that are so low. Your only alternative is not to swim in the ocean. There is no perfect solution.

Same with door zones. Riding in a door zone is a risk. Riding further left, outside of the door zone, is a risk too. The issue is is whether either risk is significant enough to warrant avoiding the related action.

An unhealthy fear is one that prevents you from acting in your own self interest despite the extreme unlikelihood of harm coming to you if you do act.

For example, if one avoids an important trip to the opposite coast because of a fear of flying, that's an unhealthy fear, given the high unlikelihood of a plane crash.

If one avoids swimming in the ocean in southern CA, solely because of a fear of being eaten by a shark, that's also an unhealthy fear.

What Forester tries to do is separate the true risk from the very unlikely risks.

I know there are sharks out there. I realize some drunk driver might cross over and ram into me no matter what I do (except stay home on the couch). But I can't worry about that, because there is nothing I can do about it (by definition). But I can do something about riding in or outside a door zone. I can do something about riding on streets, or sidewalks. I can do something about riding in the gutter, or in a more assertive lane position. That's what VC is about.

Sharks! Where? :D

My perspective is that their are more oddballs out there... Statistics don't show this... this is brought on by personal experiece. But then, odd balls don't fit statistical curves.

Just this afternoon at lunch at UTC... I was almost hit by two clowns hot rodding through the parking lot, while I was walking... these are the oddballs. One was going backwards at about 15MPH... no way he could see well out his rear window at people around parked cars. Very unpredictable behaviour.

I guess I don't know how to reconcile that some high percentage of the time traffic (as in the mass of most motorists) are going to be very predictible, but it is the "odd bolts of lightening" that can can cause the most harm.

I have never been harmed by "most of the drivers," I have been hurt by the one or two oddballs... for them, I have what may be considered an unhealthy fear. So my actions at intersections for example, may be more agressive, more timid, more big, more of what others might do who otherwise expect traffic to simply stay behind the red lights. I also probably jump a bit higher to the honk of horns... as these are the oddballs... the potentially unpredictable ones. Most people don't honk. Most motorists just flow with the others; those motorists are not the ones to be feared.

Sharks! Where?

My perspective is that their are more oddballs out there...
You're relying on what you can see, Gene. Because you can't see the hundreds of sharks that are able to swallow your leg before you even realize what's happening doesn't mean they are not there.

My point is that if you concentrated on making yourself as aware of the numbers and types of sharks out there in the cove as you are about the number of "clowns hot rodding around", you probably wouldn't get in the ocean.

And that would not be a healthy fear.

Speaking of clowns at UTC, you ever see a guy riding around on an oversized push scooter that looks like this (http://www.xootr.com/xootr/images/street.jpg)?


http://www.xootr.com/xootr/images/street.jpg

You're relying on what you can see, Gene. Because you can't see the hundreds of sharks that are able to swallow your leg before you even realize what's happening doesn't mean they are not there.

My point is that if you concentrated on making yourself as aware of the numbers and types of sharks out there in the cove as you are about the number of "clowns hot rodding around", you probably wouldn't get in the ocean.



Sorry... But as a long time diver and swimmer and a former SCUBA instructor... the cove is pretty benign. There are a lot of sharks out there... but most of them are either too small to worry about, or tend to feed on such small things it would amaze you (such as the well known 5 foot+ Leopard sharks that frequent the area)

http://www.mbayaq.org/efc/living_species/organism_images/lsl_kelp_m017.jpg

But then nothing in the sea has ever hurt me... Unlike some unpredictable motorists...


And that would not be a healthy fear.

Speaking of clowns at UTC, you ever see a guy riding around on an oversized push scooter that looks like this (http://www.xootr.com/xootr/images/street.jpg)?


No...

Who or what is he?

Back to subject at hand...

So you see the odd dilemma... I am fine with most motorists, but constantly look for the odd ones. I point them out all the time to my wife and son... and I make predictions on what they might do... sometimes right and sometimes wrong... thus unpredictable.... but always something odd.

There are a lot of sharks out there... but most of them are either too small to worry about...
Specify "most".

Do you want to compare the risks of ocean swimming vs the risks of cycling?

How many saves did the lifeguards have just last Saturday? Two hundred and something?

On a per hour of activity basis, swimming in the cove is probably an order of magnitude or two more dangerous than cycling vehicularly in traffic.

Specify "most".

Do you want to compare the risks of ocean swimming vs the risks of cycling?

How many saves did the lifeguards have just last Saturday? Two hundred and something?

On a per hour of activity basis, swimming in the cove is probably an order of magnitude or two more dangerous than cycling vehicularly in traffic.

:roflmao:

Are you comparing the risks of newbie swimmers getting eaten by sharks compared to newbie cyclist being hit by cars... because that is the only accurate way to look at those numbers of folks that were pulled out of the ocean.

Most folks don't swim when they go to the ocean... they jump in the water and play and barely go out 50 to 100 yards... depending on how deep the water is and how much their little toes can touch bottom.

Compare those folks to the ones that only ride bicycles in the park on Sundays and you have an accurate picture.

Now go one further and look at the life guards... their job is to watch, enforce and rescue the users of the ocean. How many of those guys have the attitudes of some cops toward cyclists? Such as "cyclists do not belong on roads and they deserve what ever may happen to them..." Of course, this is not to say that all police feel this way... but far more police have that anamosity toward cyclists than life guards have toward beach goers.

Go you one further... you would no way call those "sunday park riders" a "cyclist" based on your definition of a need for an "attitude", and "reasonable good shape" any more than I would call most beach goers "swimmers."

I do not like to swim in the ocean and avoid it at all costs. I feel like a floating snack. I get panicky if the current is too strong, or if I can see the bottom, or if I start thinking about fish, or if I feel seaweed or something touch my toes. I'm sure I'll drown. It's better I just stay out of the water, wouldn't you agree?

Does that mean I'm not a vehicular cyclist?

I do not like to swim in the ocean and avoid it at all costs. I feel like a floating snack. I get panicky if the current is too strong, or if I can see the bottom, or if I start thinking about fish, or if I feel seaweed or something touch my toes. I'm sure I'll drown. It's better I just stay out of the water, wouldn't you agree?

Does that mean I'm not a vehicular cyclist?

No, just not a "swimmer."

My wife loves the ocean, she is a certified SCUBA diver... was before she met me... she will not swim out in the water unless she can see all the way to the bottom. She loves Catalina Island for that reason... clear water all over the place, and she will put on a mask and snorkle all over the place. I would not however, call her a swimmer.

If she swims, she's a swimmer.

Perhaps she's not an Effective Swimmer? :)

I wouldn't want to argue against research and statistical results for general rules of riding. For example, I agree that in general sidewalk riding is more dangerous than riding in the street. I think I formed this opinion in Road I class from the stats the instructor presented. And it squares with my experience in almost getting hit when speeding across driveways by motorists pulling out of the Jack-in-the-Box drive through. But . . . I guess what I'm arguing is that individual streets and situations may not fit the general rules. These are the exceptions that prove the rule. For example, St Louis is really hilly. You can barely ride without encountering a sizeable hill. Great for fitness by the way. But for applying the general rules of VC, I think maybe I need to tweak the rules for the situation. My latest example is narrow lanes on an uphill with a nearby sidewalk clear of peds and full view of intersections. I'm creeping up the hill at 8mph anyway. I'm finding it harder and harder to justify riding in the street under these circumstances. Am I still riding effectively? Vehicularly? I think so. I'm not driving a car, after all. I'm riding a bike.

Couldn't tie this into the swimming analogy, other than to say no one ever swims in the Mississippi River. Too muddy and too much debris. But I hear there's catfish that can swallow a live man whole! Yikes!!!

8 mph is hardly creeping - that's more than double the speed of most pedestrians, perhaps triple their speed on a hill.

Having said that, choosing to ride in "pedestrian mode", including riding at pedestrian speeds on sidewalks and crosswalks, on occasion when it is appropriate for the circumstances is not contrary to anything any VC advocate or instructor that I know of teaches or advocates.


Am I still riding effectively? Vehicularly? I think so.
No, when you're riding on a sidewalk you're most certainly not riding vehicularly, since riding vehicularly means riding "in accordance to the rules of the road for vehicle drivers".

There are two sets of rules of the road, one for vehicle drivers and the other for pedestrians. Cyclists can ride under either set. When you're riding on the street you should ride vehicularly... in accordance to the vehicular rules. When riding on sidewalks and crosswalks you should ride in accordance to pedestrian rules. Most importantly, when you transition between the two, be extra careful and yield the ROW to both vehicle drivers and pedestrians, since during the transition you don't have ROW in either system.

If you think of yourself as riding "vehicularly" when you are riding on sidewalks you are using a definition of "vehicularly" that is something other than "riding in accordance with the vehicular rules of the road". What is it?

Serge

If she swims, she's a swimmer.

Perhaps she's not an Effective Swimmer? :)

Right... she doesn't practice Vessel Swimming techniques... or is that Ichtho Swimming...

Oops no books on "Effective Swimming," just Fastest Swimming."

However, all joking aside... are you willing to say that anyone that rides a bike is a cyclist? It is an issue of semantics, and previously you did mention that one had to be in "reasonable shape," which even Forester alludes to... There are as we well know, folks that use a bicycle for transportation, that are not in "reasonable shape." Are they considered "cyclists?"

There are as we well know, folks that use a bicycle for transportation, that are not in "reasonable shape." Are they considered "cyclists?"

Hey! I'm in reasonable shape.... ROUND! :D:D:D
>300lbs of perfect shape
I'm not a cyclist, I just ride a bicycle

You're right, Gene, the term "cyclist" is generally used to refer to someone who cycles regularly.

On the other hand, it is appropriate to refer to anyone riding a bicycle as a cyclist.

Like with most words, context is critical to meaning. If at some given time someone is swimming or bicycling, at that moment they are a swimmer or a cyclist.

But if you're sitting at your desk, it's only correct to refer to you as a swimmer or cyclist only if you swim or cycle regularly.

As for the "reasonable shape" issue, whatever shape is good enough to ride a bicycle on a path, sidewalk, or bike lane, is good enough to cycle vehicularly.

Serge

You're right, Gene, the term "cyclist" is generally used to refer to someone who cycles regularly.

On the other hand, it is appropriate to refer to anyone riding a bicycle as a cyclist.

Like with most words, context is critical to meaning. If at some given time someone is swimming or bicycling, at that moment they are a swimmer or a cyclist.

But if you're sitting at your desk, it's only correct to refer to you as a swimmer or cyclist only if you swim or cycle regularly.

As for the "reasonable shape" issue, whatever shape is good enough to ride a bicycle on a path, sidewalk, or bike lane, is good enough to cycle vehicularly.

Serge


It is still a misnomer... the folks I see do cycle regularly... but with a cigarette hanging from their lips and probably no further than a mile...

I also see UCSD students that cycle regularly... slowly and in street clothes, and again probably less than 1 mile.

While they probably CAN ride in a vehicular manner... teaching this to them and having them use it I bet would be quite difficult. In both of the cases I mention, these riders are essentially "fast pedestrians."

As far as practicing vehicular methods... This is where we part ways... these folks are going at such a slow speed that they are essentially pedestrians... albeit, moving at about 6-8MPH most of the time. I think motor traffic would find their "attitude" quite lackadaisical and they would probably be subjected to considerable "attention" by motorists.

Is there any reference for pedestrian rules? I'm serious. I think both modes apply to the bicycle. It's probably helpful to think of the two as separate modes and that the bicycle can span them both. If so, I would think VC instructors should include a section on the pedestrian mode, ie. without denouncing it. Does Forrester? I can think of some laws that apply to pedestrians (no jaywalking) and some safety standards (look both ways before you cross) but don't know of a comprehensive philosophy like "Effective Walking". I would think a VC instructor could teach students how to merge the two modes.

There are classes that teach the "pedestrian mode." They're called kindergarten. Don't be a baby. Ride in the street.

In the Road 1 class and in Forester's book, pedestrian mode is mentioned.

The problem I am portraying is that "attitude" for Vehicular Cycling doesn't work for some bike riders... Yet seems to be a requirement.

So are those regular users of bicycles, not "cyclists?"

VC works well when one can blend in with the motor traffic... at say 13-25MPH or so, with a cyclist being a slighly slower version of a very narrow vehicle on most roads... But if VC doesn't work well for very slow vehicles, whose operators are not displaying attitude... how well does it work when the speed of the other vehicles is much much faster than 13-25MPH... such as on major arterial roads where motor traffic may be moving at 50MPH and the cyclist is riding uphill (a situation billh presented) at say 8MPH. Then essentially you are a pedestrian as far as the motor traffic is concerned, eh? But are you?

Speed differentials are irrelevant to the question of whether you are riding in accordance to the vehicular rules of the road. Either you are, or you are not. If you are, then you are cycling vehicularly.

Speed differentials are irrelevant to the question of whether you are riding in accordance to the vehicular rules of the road. Either you are, or you are not. If you are, then you are cycling vehicularly.

Then I should be able to walk "Vehicularly" too.

If you walked in accordance to the vehicular rules of the road, then, yes, you would be walking "vehicularly".

Pedestrians, however, fare best when they act and are treated not as vehicle drivers, but as pedestrians.

While speed differentials are irrelevant to the question of whether you are riding in accordance to the vehicular rules of the road, they are not irrelevant to the question of whether one would "fare best" if acting as a vehicle driver or as a pedestrian.

Generally, at pedestrian speeds cyclists riding according to ped rules works fine. But when you start doubling ped speeds (6-7 mph) and faster, then vehicular rules work best.

If you will look at my last post on the "Sidewalk" thread, you will see that a person's attitude is what is really irrelevant. Behavior can be systematically recorded, analyzed, and revised. But a person's attitude cannot be analyzed. What we have here is a methodology of cycling (VC based upon "attitude") that cannot be scientifically-based, as it cannot be analyzed. Only the behaviors can be analyzed. Behaviors have consequences, as I discussed on that thread. Those consequences either promote safe behaviors, or serve to be a dis-incentive. Helmet Head, when he says VC needs to have the proper attitude, really means that they have to behave like vehicles, and if they (we) do, we will be safer. This behavior can be analyzed. But the attitude he discusses cannot.

John

PS-I enjoyed the analogy to "vessel swimming," as "effective swimming" amoungst large ships. As a fin swimmer, and diver, I feel that is actually appropriate to bring up here. Maybe we should discuss this with the manatees;).

If you will look at my last post on the "Sidewalk" thread, you will see that a person's attitude is what is really irrelevant. Behavior can be systematically recorded, analyzed, and revised. But a person's attitude cannot be analyzed. What we have here is a methodology of cycling (VC based upon "attitude") that cannot be scientifically-based, as it cannot be analyzed. Only the behaviors can be analyzed. Behaviors have consequences, as I discussed on that thread. Those consequences either promote safe behaviors, or serve to be a dis-incentive. Helmet Head, when he says VC needs to have the proper attitude, really means that they have to behave like vehicles, and if they (we) do, we will be safer. This behavior can be analyzed. But the attitude he discusses cannot.

John

PS-I enjoyed the analogy to "vessel swimming," as "effective swimming" amoungst large ships. As a fin swimmer, and diver, I feel that is actually appropriate to bring up here. Maybe we should discuss this with the manatees;).Bulltwinkies. Social scientists have many methods of measuring attitude and attitude change. So do more practical types like market researchers and political pollsters. So evidently does Serge. :)

I didnt read all the pages here, but ive seen cycling on sidewalk mentioned a few times, in most places its illegal, not usually enforced, but illegal nonetheless.It isnt enforced here where I ride for a living.

My observations on this are, the 8-10mph a really part time rec rider or newbie rides at, is often times downright dangerous in a downtown type environment, may in fact be safer on the sidewalk in some areas.Also, the act as a vehicle method is probably best in most situations, but sometimes it isnt, experience is the only way to learn that, against the law or not, rule number one is survival.Sometimes you just have to face the facts that streets and cities arent always meant for bike traffic, and often times breaking the law is indeed much safer than obeying it.

Cyclist?Up to interpretation, I dont consider myself one, and I ride in excess of 16,000 miles per year, but im doing it for a living, and half the stuff I see most rec riders do on group rides and solo sometimes isnt always all that good of an idea on the street in traffic, but they do it anyway, funny how they tend to avoid urban areas though, at least locally anyway.You definitely have to adapt to the surroundings, I ride differently downtown than I do in the burbs.Guys like me ride very very agressively downtown, you have to, if you cant do 30mph on flat road cars will literally have their way with you, OTOH, going as fast or faster than they are gives you the power to move freely along with them, and they generally live and let live, its amazing how docile and timid a driver will be when you pass them doing 30+ in a 25mph zone weaving thru traffic on a 5 lane one way during rush hour.Like anything else, most drivers respect power,speed, and decisive purposeful riding.Takes years to develop that too.

Ive heard many many times that every bike rider represents the rest of the bike riders and we should act accordingly, sounds good on paper, reality is a different story.People in cars do notice how you ride, and how you dress, and whether or not your actively trying to either keep up or stay out of the way, and they usually act accordingly.Wearing a messenger bag and moving swiftly thru traffic in my experience usually keeps heckling and issues with drivers to a minimum.Bottom line, ride within your limits,and stay visible and out of the way when you need to, and if your strength/skills arent up to the task, act accordingly.

There are classes that teach the "pedestrian mode." They're called kindergarten. Don't be a baby. Ride in the street.

Are you saying you ride in the street in EVERY situation? And never even consider the sidewalk? If so, you are not taking full advantage of the capabilities of your vehicle.

For example, yesterday was trash day. 2-lane residential street. street parking both sides. trash truck parks in the middle of the road backing up traffic behind him. Oncoming traffic is proceeding slowly past. I simply hop on the sidewalk, bypass the truck, and merge into the street a couple driveways up. Traffic behind me is still stopped. Are you saying you would wait behind the garbage truck for miles? No way. Take advantage of the sidewalk when the situation presents itself.

Speed differentials are irrelevant to the question of whether you are riding in accordance to the vehicular rules of the road. Either you are, or you are not. If you are, then you are cycling vehicularly.

It sure as heck makes a difference to me under the right conditions, eg. add to the speed differential narrow lanes and an available sidewalk and angry motorists. The only issue, how to get back in the street safely at the top of the hill. That is a problem.

I didnt read all the pages here, but ive seen cycling on sidewalk mentioned a few times, in most places its illegal, not usually enforced, but illegal nonetheless.It isnt enforced here where I ride for a living.

Bicycling on a sidewalk is perfectly legal in Missouri, except in a business district.

This just in!

http://www.kmov.com/localnews/stories/kmov_sports_050524_giantcatfish.2a81aca6d.html

Illinoisan hooks 124-pound catfish
04:44 PM CDT on Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Alton, IL (AP) -- The 124-pound catfish a man from the St. Louis area town of Godfrey, Illinois, caught in the Mississippi River is getting a new home in Kansas City, Kansas.
The Illinois Department of Natural Resources says the 58-inch-long fish is the largest catfish ever caught in Illinois and the largest blue catfish every caught in the world. The largest blue catfish caught previously weighed in at 121 pounds, eight ounces.
It took more than a half-hour for Tim Pruitt to drag the mammoth fish into his boat after he hooked in late Saturday below the Melvin Price Lock and Dam on the Mississippi River at Alton.
The Natural Resources Department says the fish has been kept alive and will be on display in a tank at the Cabela's Outfitter store in Kansas City.

While speed differentials are irrelevant to the question of whether you are riding in accordance to the vehicular rules of the road, they are not irrelevant to the question of whether one would "fare best" if acting as a vehicle driver or as a pedestrian.

Generally, at pedestrian speeds cyclists riding according to ped rules works fine. But when you start doubling ped speeds (6-7 mph) and faster, then vehicular rules work best.
I agree that speed differentials are irrelevant to riding VC. However I find that riding VC is much easier if one is at a higher speed and has the ability for fast accereration. This is a delimma faced by beginer cyclists, and not totally understood by more experienced and fit cyclists, even those who tow a trailer and can't achieve higher speeds.

I wonder about this rule of thumb about ped speeds, what about runners who depending on fitness range between 6-12mph, should they be on the sidewalk or running vehicularly?

Al

Jogging at 6mph is no problem on sidewalks, but running at 12mph really requires a track or offroad trails and the such (or a course on streets that are closed).

Jogging at 6mph is no problem on sidewalks, but running at 12mph really requires a track or offroad trails and the such (or a course on streets that are closed).
Well, you wont find me running 12mph unless on a track for shorter distances.
But 8mph is not unusual for many recreational/fitness runners. Where should they be?

Al

Well, you wont find me running 12mph unless on a track for shorter distances.
But 8mph is not unusual for many recreational/fitness runners. Where should they be?

Al

Stick out your left arm and take a lane... don't forget to look over your shoulder when you need to move left across several lanes of 45MPH traffic to make the left turn. Stay in the right tire track of the vehicle in front of you. :rolleyes:

Oddly enough, this is exactly the speed I climb a local hill at on my bicycle... Thus I am moving at a running pedestrian speed. I don't merge into the other lanes as much as I look for no traffic and cross... just like a pedestrian, but with wheels. I do just slightly better than joggers that run the hill on the dirt or the sidewalk (on just one side of the road).

Now there is a Bike Lane... and I stay in it, just as if I was a motorist driving up a steep mountain incline slowly, and using the slow turnout lanes on such a road.

If it were a narrow road vice a fast wide road, I would take the lane and hold it until such time as I could allow a motorist to pass... But because it is a fast wide road... up a steep hill, I am essentially a wheeled pedestrian on the side of the road.

Stick out your left arm and take a lane... don't forget to look over your shoulder when you need to move left across several lanes of 45MPH traffic to make the left turn.
You laugh? I when running and merging across a street I do look over shoulder (right one because I run counter flow) I've even caught myself about to signal - somehow my brain get into a mode where I am pushing it, heart pounding, hmm, am I on a bike or on foot. ;) At road crossings when running in quiet residential areas I even 'take the lane' so it is clear to motorists that I am crossing street and not making a turn.

Al

When I am jogging in my neighborhood at around 8-10pm, I run vehicularly. This prevents people who are pulling out of their driveways from failing to see me.

When I am jogging in my neighborhood at around 8-10pm, I run vehicularly. This prevents people who are pulling out of their driveways from failing to see me.

It's also important to run far enough left in the lane so you are visible to motorists approaching from the rear! :)

Actually, when I jog on the streets, I usually run counterflow as well. I think I was taught this somewhere in grade school. Something about being able to jump laterally out of the of an approaching vehicle better on foot than on the bike. I guess that's true. I never questioned it. Maybe I should rethink this. Maybe there is something to this "vehicular walking" thing!