The role of attitude in traffic cycling

[Helmet Head]

The role of attitude in traffic cycling

I've been riding bicycles in traffic fairly seriously on and off for over 30 years, tens of thousands of miles, and have been regularly riding my current commute for almost five years. In my early teens I rode with the local bike club, and picked up tips about "club cycling" from other members. I rode centuries. A few years ago I participated in the Big Sur ride (http://www.bigsurride.com). I have never been involved in a collision, and the only incidents of falling off the bike I've had since I was a kid have all been related to getting adjusted to new bikes/pedals and not being able to get unclipped in time. Until about 1 1/2 years ago, I regularly had what I would call "close calls" and uncomfortable moments with cars, but those have all disappeared since my change in attitude.

Before the change I am about to discuss, I believe I felt and rode in traffic like the typical "experienced cyclist". My primary directive was to stay out of the way of cars. Ideally, I would ride where they didn't drive (the logic being: if they never drive on this pavement - they will never hit me on this pavement). Of course, the ideal was not always possible to achieve, but I used extra roadway width, bike lanes, islands, riding off to the side, etc., whenever possible. And when not possible, I was extra vigilant to make sure I was never in the way of cars. It was not just about safety; I felt awkward inconveniencing faster traffic - making them slow down for me. I also felt doing so was contrary to the goals of good traffic flow - it made me feel uncomfortable to cause interruptions in the natural flow. I got very good at riding in "Casper mode" - like I was not even there. But, despite all the care I took, I would still all too often find myself in "difficult situations" like this:


Cagers passing me on my left and then turning right, right in front of me, sometimes causing me to slam on my brakes.
Boneheads pulling out in front of me from driveways or alleys as if I wasn't even there.
Morons pulling out of slow or stopped traffic and turning right without looking, thus cutting me off as I was passing them while riding in a bike lane!
Jerks passing by me too closely.
Busses pulling over and stopping right in front of me, encroaching on my bike lane.
Difficulty getting across multiple lanes of fast/busy traffic to get to a left turn.
Awkwardness finding the right place to wait at a red light at crowded intersections.
Flat tires every few hundred miles.
etc., etc.


I took these events as par for the course. I assumed there was no way to avoid them, that all cyclists encountered them, and there was nothing I could do except continue being as vigilant and careful as I could be. I enjoyed my commute enough to keep doing it, felt safe, but I did not enjoy riding in traffic very much. I looked forward to weekend rides away from traffic.

What happened was that I had problems with a particular left turn on my commute. I often ended up pulling aside and waiting for the two lanes to clear before I merged across. It wasn't a big deal, but something told me there had to be a better way. I looked for help. I wasn't aware of this forum yet, but I emailed for advice to the cycling list at work, as well as seeking help from my club members and local coalition members. No one suggested anything that worked, but a couple people recommended I read a book called Effective Cycling by John Forester. I put the book on my Amazon wish list. How could a book help me with all my experience? It was not a high priority for me. Months went by and nothing changed. I still had trouble with that left turn. Spurred by an Amazon gift certificate I got for my birthday and the desire to get "free shipping",
I finally picked some stuff on my list, include Effective Cycling. I was amazed... 599 pages about cycling? I looked through the table of contents... it did cover a lot of topics. But after 30 years of cycling, what could I learn from a book? I skimmed through the 180 pages on the bicycle and maintenance, and really dug in to the sections on how to ride in traffic. The fact that there was a whole chapter entitled, "Changing Lanes in Traffic", really piqued my interest. I studied those pages. Very carefully. I thought about them. I discussed them with family members, colleagues and friends who were willing to listen, and, most importantly, I tried adopting some of Forester's techniques and practices in my own riding, on my commute in particular.

I did not expect much, for what Forester recommended in the book reminded me a lot of how I already rode. The differences were subtle. But they didn't seem like they would put me in any danger, and they were a little different... why not give it a shot? Per his advice, I stopped worrying about being out of the way, and gave the highest priority to riding visibly and predictably. I stay out of gutters, islands and even bike lanes as much as possible. I started riding more assertively, and not worrying so much about inconvenciencing drivers or interrupting traffic flow. I mean, I wouldn't do it just for the heck of it, but I did start riding further out than I used to, just a few feet to the right of passing traffic instead of nearer the curb. I learned the difference between standard and wide lanes, and what effect that had on where I should ride. At lights, instead of creeping up along the edge of a lane alongside cars, I would just take my place in line, continue with everyone through the green, and then move aside. Not a big difference, and it felt funny at first, but I quickly got used to it. As I approached intersections where I was going straight, I would take a more assertive position in the center of the lane to make sure cross traffic would see me, realizing that that was more important than staying out of the way of someone approaching from the rear. They could either change lanes to pass me, or slow down for a bit, until I got through the intersection and moved aside. My attitude changed, my priorities change. And the difference was incredible. All of a sudden I was interacting with drivers - something I only rarely did before. They noticed me much, much more, and started behaving much more respectfully towards me. But what really clinched it for me was learning from Forester's book how to negotiate my challenging left turn. He has several pages on the concept of negotiating for the right-of-way, which involves asking motorists to slow down for you and letting you in, and cross the roadway, one lane at a time. Prior to reading the book I didn't realize that it would never occur to me to try to cross multiple lanes without first making sure I had a clear gap all the way across. All of the problems I used to have (like those in the list above) all but disappeared, as did the boneheads, jerks and morons that always did that stupid stuff. I learned that as long as I behaved vehicularly, and rode predictably and visibly, the occurence of stupid threatening behavior to me would be drastically reduced. I learned how to preempt all the nonsense.

As safe as I feel I was the first 3+ years of my commute, I know I have been much safer the last 1 1/2 years, and I believe it is all due to a change in attitude, thanks to John Forester and his book. Just as importantly, I've learned to enjoy my commute much more, and learned to enjoy cycling in all kinds of traffic conditions, even fast/busy traffic. Ultimately, it was my attitude that changed. My behavior as a cyclist in traffic changed too, but that was all a result of the change in attitude. Forester taught me to feel differently about myself. He showed me how to think vehicularly as I was riding my bike in traffic, and to think of myself as a driver of a vehicle (not like a driver of a car - like the driver of vehicle, albeit a narrow and relatively slow one - there's a big difference). Only when you really feel like a vehicle driver, can you think like one in realtime situations. And not until you learn to feel and think like a vehicle driver, can you act like one. But once you do, and you're acting like one, the real treat is being treated like a vehicle driver. Forester claims that cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as vehicle drivers, and he's right. I'd never understand and experience the truth of this unless someone had recommended his book to me, and I finally got around to reading it.

Whatever issues you may have - and if you ride in traffic you must have some! - I strongly recommend that you read John Forester's book, Effective Cycling. Don't just read it. Study it. Think about it. Let it sink it. Practice it. Practice on quiet streets at first, and work up to busier ones. You too can learn to feel, think, and act like a vehicular cyclist, so you can finally be treated respectfully as a vehicle driver. Good luck.

Serge

[lilHinault]

I think a decent ability to accelerate from a stop, or from a lower speed helps a lot too. A decent cyclist can perform as well as a moped anyway, and those are best ridden vehicularly all right (a lot of states consider them to be bicycles but you need some kind, any kind will do, of license to ride one most places)

[Bizikleto]

I had a similar left-turn-in-dual-lane problem, and I used to negotiate it like shown, but your way is far better.
(http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=1155507&postcount=1)

Cheers.

[MikeR]

There is an Effective Cycling course, sponsored by the League of American Cyclists, that I just took. They say it is based on the book. The course was great. I think that I'll get the book.

[kurremkarm]

I just wish they would pass carry concealed in Kansas so i could holster a .357.

I think that would get me more driver respect.

:P

[spine of hortus]

I just wish they would pass carry concealed in Kansas so i could holster a .357.

I think that would get me more driver respect.

:P

doubt it , my neighbor has a bunch of guns and i just consider him a millitant fruitloop

[nick burns]

Until about 1 1/2 years ago, I regularly had what I would call "close calls" and uncomfortable moments with cars, but those have all disappeared since my change in attitude.

Serge, what do you do about motorists approaching from the opposite direction who obviously see you, make eye contact, and still make a last second precarious turn in front of you because they think they can beat you, despite the fact that you're riding in a good position in your lane and you're very visible?

Or does that never happen to you?

It happens to me enough times to be very annoying and scary. They are most definitely close calls & also uncomfortable. It's not just a cyclist thing either, motorists do it to each other. Often with fatal consequences. It can be a crap shoot, you never know who's going to wait for you and who's going to try to beat you. Motorists can be very unpredictable. Sometimes you never even know they're planning to turn due to lack of signaling or reduction of speed.

I only bring it up because I'm wary of your above quote. I'm a little concerned that people adopting your methods may be lulled into a very dangerous false sense of security. Having cycled in traffic for a number of years, I have been able to handle those situations safely (so far) by being very aware that it could occur at any time, but inexperienced cyclists may not be so fortunate. I believe a word of warning would be very valuable, rather than claiming close calls will disappear by riding a particular way.

[Daily Commute]

"Pay careful attention" should be a caveat to any suggestions about how to cycle in traffic. On the other hand, I agree with Serge and Robert Hurst about "Casper mode" or ride-like-you're-invisible. If you assume you won't be seen, you can't ride in traffic at all, and you can't even ride in striped bike lanes.

[H23]

Its not attitude that keeps you safe, its behavior.

I much prefer the pragmatism of Hurst's book, The Art of Urban Cycling. Left turns are always going to be a problem in traffic with faster moving vehicles. Its not a sin to pull over and be 100% sure the lanes are clear before crossing over to make a left, if that's what makes you comfortable.

People can go into enormous detail and argument about "exactly" how to negotiate a particular traffic situation, but there are too many details to consider. For example, it may very well be that to make a left turn you have to cross 4 lanes of traffic where the car speed is 50+ mph in the middle lanes. Such a situation is dicey for a cyclist that tries to behave "vechicularly". It _requires_ a lot of cooperation from motorists-- and is perhaps too much to ask of them.

[genec]

"Pay careful attention" should be a caveat to any suggestions about how to cycle in traffic. On the other hand, I agree with Serge and Robert Hurst about "Casper mode" or ride-like-you're-invisible. If you assume you won't be seen, you can't ride in traffic at all, and you can't even ride in striped bike lanes.

Not sure what you are saying here... what do you mean exactly?

[billh]

Its not attitude that keeps you safe, its behavior.

I much prefer the pragmatism of Hurst's book, The Art of Urban Cycling. Left turns are always going to be a problem in traffic with faster moving vehicles. Its not a sin to pull over and be 100% sure the lanes are clear before crossing over to make a left, if that's what makes you comfortable.

People can go into enormous detail and argument about "exactly" how to negotiate a particular traffic situation, but there are too many details to consider. For example, it may very well be that to make a left turn you have to cross 4 lanes of traffic where the car speed is 50+ mph in the middle lanes. Such a situation is dicey for a cyclist that tries to behave "vechicularly". It _requires_ a lot of cooperation from motorists-- and is perhaps too much to ask of them.

I agree. It's not all "my" attitude and behavior that makes the difference. Cyclists require a lot of cooperation from motorists. And the more I minimize what I require of motorists, the better off I am.

For example . . . yesterday pm commute. Traffic was jammed in both westbound lanes on a 4-lane street. This was unusual because usually I can take the outer lane and count on motorists to pass in the inner lane. But the inner lane was jammed so I knew I would back up an entire lane of cars behind me, perhaps 100 cars. They would be jumping hot angry. So I sprinted like heck for a mile. Still, sure enough, a lady got in front of me and blasted me with a verbal tirade. Predictable. She wanted me on the sidewalk. I could have sat in the lane going my regular speed and I believe things would have been worse. I believe by putting forth more effort, I minimized the road rage caused by my presence in the lane. Most of the motorists in that traffic jam were very patient with me. Only one blew her top. It could have been worse.

[CRXican]

Good read, this deserves some more replies I think.

I'm a bike noob looking to ride to work. I'll be riding a BMX bike (probably not the best idea). Lucky for me I have a back way to work and the commute should be no more than 15 minutes.

I wasn't nervous about cars until I started reading what you have experienced. My bike is the same as a car right? I can ride in the middle of the lane if i want to when crossing an intersection? Seems to make more sense than trying to hide next to and ride along side a car.

Any major beginner tips I should know about, maybe another thread I should read?

[genec]

No wonder you found VC such a change:


"Before the change I am about to discuss, I believe I felt and rode in traffic like the typical "experienced cyclist". My primary directive was to stay out of the way of cars. Ideally, I would ride where they didn't drive (the logic being: if they never drive on this pavement - they will never hit me on this pavement). Of course, the ideal was not always possible to achieve, but I used extra roadway width, bike lanes, islands, riding off to the side, etc., whenever possible. And when not possible, I was extra vigilant to make sure I was never in the way of cars. It was not just about safety; I felt awkward inconveniencing faster traffic - making them slow down for me. I also felt doing so was contrary to the goals of good traffic flow - it made me feel uncomfortable to cause interruptions in the natural flow. I got very good at riding in "Casper mode" - like I was not even there."


You really rode as a awkward user of the road. I think I may have ridden in that manner back in the late 70's. But group rides and riding with advocate friends long changed that. Long tours also changed my riding... different areas of the country require command of different riding modes.

BTW my version of "Casper mode" is not "acting as if you are not there..." it is being as visible as possible, but realizing that you may not be seen, even when looked right at. This can be hard to comprehend when you see someone look right at you... but you just do not register in their mind. This is really only true at intersections... you call it "defensive driving..." I call it "Casper mode," simply because I have seen the shocked "look" on motorists faces as they suddenly really saw you... and have seen them mouth "oh my god!" just as if they had seen a ghost. Sometimes I have had to yell just to get the glazed look off their faces.

Now consider that these things have happened to me where bike lanes were not even involved:
Morons pulling out of slow or stopped traffic and turning left without looking, thus cutting me off as I was passing them while riding right in the street... and they were juggling coffee and cell phone... oblivious to anything that did not resemble a "cement truck."
Jerks passing by me too closely.... while I was in the right lane (of thee possible lanes) and they deliberately swooped over and raced the engine, and cut me off to save them "precious" seconds (also cutting off other motorists...)
Boneheads pulling out in front of me from driveways or alleys, or stopsigns as if I wasn't even there, even though I had the whole lane.

Now this is funny: "Flat tires every few hundred miles." I have gone for years without flats and then suddenly get one. (only to sadly discover the glue in my flat kit has long gone dry.) :)

I have long taken command of the roadway where I ride and have been assertive in my rights... however, some drivers take that as an affront and become assertive back... they win by shear mass. That is the one issue that Forester et. al. fail to recognize... that there are motorists out there that will be "aggressive" back... they will fight you for "their" road... they don't give a damn about "your rights." (recall the comments from the Arizona Patrolman that totally dismissed the rights of cyclists? and his job was to enforce the laws... )

The other factor that Forester never dealt with, as it did not exist when he wrote his book is distracted drivers... Cell phone distracted drivers... and this probably caused more of the “look and not see” issues than anything else. They look right at you with glazed eyes and just don't see...

Street cycling is a lot like the war on terrorism... we have to be ever vigilant, because all it takes is one driver making a mistake or just being too aggressive... Be assertive in your riding, signal and indicate and take your place, just remember that all it takes is one driver... either mad, or distracted.

[Dr. Moto]

I had a nice VC attitude moment in my ride the other afternoon. I was rolling down a narrow residential side street (speed limit = 20 mph, my speed around 15), getting ready to turn left into a neighborhood park for a rest. I had just turned onto this street with a left turn, for which I signaled properly. A car followed me onto this street, so I'm pretty sure she saw me signal for the first turn. From a position about 4' from the right shoulder (pretty much centered in the lane), I signaled again for the left turn into the park, and just after my arm came out, I heard her punch the gas as if to pass me. (Maybe she misinterpreted my signal for a wave-through?) While keeping my arm outstretched with the signal, I looked backward, right at her, and moved out to the centerline of the road, watching her the entire time. She then backed off and waited until I made my left turn. Total elapsed time, about 4 seconds. If I had allowed her to pass I would have either ridden past my turn and had to turn around, or come to a complete stop to make it.

[H23]

...
Now this is funny: "Flat tires every few hundred miles." I have gone for years without flats and then suddenly get one. (only to sadly discover the glue in my flat kit has long gone dry.) :)
...


Wow. San Diego must be heaven. All the major Northeastern cities I have ridden yield a flat every few hundred miles. I can't imagine going years w/o flats. Are you exagerating?

[genec]

Wow. San Diego must be heaven. All the major Northeastern cities I have ridden yield a flat every few hundred miles. I can't imagine going years w/o flats. Are you exagerating?

No, I really am serious... in fact, have done long distance tours of 1000 miles or more flat free... and then again I remember one tour with my wife... going from San Francisco to San Diego and I got the ONLY flat in our group of 4.

Every few hundred miles... that sucks.

I have found it quite funny to discover the glue tube was dry... I carry some of those peel and stick patches these days.

San Diego streets are really generally pretty clean... repair as of late has been somewhat of an issue... Oh well.

[Helmet Head]

I think a decent ability to accelerate from a stop, or from a lower speed helps a lot too.
It sure doesn't hurt to be able to accelerate quickly, but I assure you, it's completely unnecessary. How do I know? Experience... experience riding a tandem pulling 60 lbs of trailer with child and stuff. My 85 year old father on his beach cruiser can accelerate faster than we can, but that does not prevent us from cycling on the tandem with trailer vehicularly. On the contrary, learning to ride vehicularly, consistently, has made using the tandem/trailer in traffic much safer, easier and more enjoyable. Just last weekend a man complemented us on how we made a midblock left turn into a parking lot. He said he was impressed with how "professional" we looked. The belief that speed or acceleration is needed to ride a bicycle in traffic vehicularly is a myth.


but your way is far better.
There ya go, folks, vehicular cycling works even in Spain :). Glad to hear it!


There is an Effective Cycling course, sponsored by the League of American Cyclists, ...
I've taken it too, and hope to become certified to teach it myself sometime soon. LAB calls it Road 1, and you can get more info about it on their website, http://www.bikeleague.org. It's a good intro, but you should know that Forester originally designed the course to be 30 hours, and since they reduced Road 1 to something like 9 hours he is no longer allowing them to use the "Effective Cycling" trademark in reference to it. On the other hand, more people are willing to sign up for a 9 hour class than a 30 hour class. I think of Road 1 as an appetizer... you still need to study (and practice from) the Effective Cycling book to get the full meal.


I just wish they would pass carry concealed in Kansas so i could holster a .357.

I think that would get me more driver respect.
I know you're only joking, but it's only funny for those with an attitude that's consistent with the philosophy of Robert Hurst (The Art of Urban Cycling). His attitude is that it's much like a battle or war out there in traffic, and it's very different from Forester's underlying message of cooperation and how to get along peacefully with motorists. Hurst does have some good advice about personal responsibility, and certainly would not advocate waging war - he does advocate keeping cool and not getting angry at motorist's mistakes, and to expect them, but his whole attitude is obsessed with the idea that there is constant danger lurking everywhere while you are cycling. If you think of cycling in traffic like walking through a minefield, it becomes very difficult to relax and enjoy it. That's one of the problems I have with Hurst.


Serge, what do you do about motorists approaching from the opposite direction who obviously see you, make eye contact, and still make a last second precarious turn in front of you because they think they can beat you, despite the fact that you're riding in a good position in your lane and you're very visible?
Good point. Cyclists are prone to the same problems as are motorcyclists -- motorists can look right at us, they can SEE us, but still be UNAWARE of us, and turn right in front of us. That's because they're looking for cars, and human beings tend to only see what they're looking for. But here's the thing: motorcycle handbooks and training courses, designed by folks very aware of this problem, don't teach motorcyclists to ride to the right as a result of this. Be vigilant at intersections, of course. But that goes for motorcyclists, car drivers, and pedestrians as well as for bicyclists. That's defensive driving 101. And this is also why one of the key components of the Effective Cycling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_Cycling) training program is teaching cyclists evasive maneuvers like the instant turn.

In oncoming/turning traffic situations, I always look for signs of awareness from the oncoming motorist. I smile or nod and look for a similar response (it's important, though, not to appear as if you're yielding the right of way). An assertive stance, lane position and a high cadence all help in obtaining awareness, as well as standing up to accelerate, all the time looking for signs of acknowledgment while simultaneously being prepared to evade. Appropriate destination position is critical here, and this is in contrast to what Hurst and Bluejay (Michael, of bicyclesafe.com) recommend, who advocate maximizing SPACE between you and the oncoming turner, which means keep to the right in the lane (Hurst actually makes the mistake of saying keeping to the right of the rightmost lane from which going straight is permitted IS appropriate "standard VC" destination positioning for going straight, when actually the correct position is riding in the center -- between the left and right tire tracks -- of the rightmost lane from which going straight is permitted).


I believe a word of warning would be very valuable, rather than claiming close calls will disappear by riding a particular way.
The word of warning is appropriate, but I never claimed close calls would entirely disappear. I continue to claim that by adopting VC techniques they will be drastically reduced and will all but disappear. But that should never ever cause a false sense of security. Frankly, I'm not too worried about that, because the only way you can feel confident enough to really ride vehicularly is if you know you are being vigilant. Wow. That's a new realization. I think I'll repeat it, in bold: The only way you can feel confident enough to really ride vehicularly is if you know you are being vigilant.


"Pay careful attention" should be a caveat to any suggestions about how to cycle in traffic.
Indeed, and one of the beauties of vehicular cycling is that paying careful attention is inherent in doing it. It's impossible to cycle vehicularly in traffic without paying careful attention to everything going on around you. It's automatic.


Its not attitude that keeps you safe, its behavior.
But behavior stems from attitude - and that's my point. If you have the right attitude, you will behave in a way that keeps you safe (by riding vehicularly). That's the point I'm trying to make.


I much prefer the pragmatism of Hurst's book, The Art of Urban Cycling.
I find some of his advice to be very good, but his overall approach to be near useless. He basically advocates treating each situation anew. There are no rules that guide you. This is in stark contrast to Forester's approach (and to John Franklin's approach, author of Cyclecraft), which I find to ultimately be much more pragmatic. Hurst (and Glowacz for that matter, author of Urban Biker's Tips and Tricks) essentially provide a grab bag of inconsistent and confusing advice.

Here's one example. Forester and Franklin advocate choosing lane position at intersections according to destination, period. Of course, you take into account obstacles and that kind of thing, but basically no matter what the traffic conditions are, if you're going right, keep to the right (but not so far right as to encourage right hooks), if going left, keep to the left, if going straight, ride in between. Simple, and it works like a charm.

Hurst and Bluejay, on the other hand, advocate taking into account the traffic situation. If you're going straight, and there is a car coming from the right, or one from behind, then ride further left (to increase "space" between you and the car on the right, and to discourage right hooks from behind). But if there is an oncoming car who might be turning left in front of you, then keep to the right to maximize "space" between you and it. What they never address is what if you have both situations? A car from the right, and an oncoming car? Now what do you do? No, I find the Forester/Franklin approach to be much clearer, logical, consistent and useful. Hurst's subliminal message amounts to: be scared. I am inspired by the approaches of Forester and Franklin. Hurst makes you want to stay the hell away from the streets. Its one thing to warn the reader about potential problems, and then explain how to evade them (Forester/Franklin). It's another to harp over and over on the dangers and simply throw out some advice that might help, and which them luck (Hurst).


People can go into enormous detail and argument about "exactly" how to negotiate a particular traffic situation, but there are too many details to consider.
I strongly disagree. Forester and Franklin and John S. Allen (Street Smarts) have written three radically different types of books, yet their advice is remarkably almost identical about all kinds of traffic situations. They "get it", and Hurst et. al. do not. The idea that "there are too many details to consider" is a persistent theme of Hurst's book, and you've bought into it, sadly. The fact of the matter is that there are a reasonably small set of simple principles, skills and practices to learn, that help the cyclist negotiate just about any traffic situation. They're not automatic. It does take some effort. In particular, I think you really have to give the principles a lot of thought (which is why I recommend Forester and Franklin over Allen, because they do that much more), and really learn them, so that you can learn to quickly apply them to any traffic situation. But once you do, traffic becomes a joy. You begin to seek situations that challenge your ability to apply the principles. When you start doing that, then you know you "get it" too.


For example, it may very well be that to make a left turn you have to cross 4 lanes of traffic where the car speed is 50+ mph in the middle lanes. Such a situation is dicey for a cyclist that tries to behave "vechicularly". It _requires_ a lot of cooperation from motorists-- and is perhaps too much to ask of them.
Why is it too much? Would it be "too much" for a bulldozer driver, traveling at the same 15 mph as the cyclist, to ask as much cooperation from the motorists? It's only "too much" for the cyclist who does not really feel, deep down, that he too is a legitimate vehicle driver on the roadway, and has as much right to it as do Civic, Yamaha, Hummer, cement truck, moped and bulldozer drivers. Only a cyclist who feels like a vehicle driver, one who has the attitude of a vehicle driver, who doesn't think negotiating for a merge might be asking "too much", can think like one in real time (kudos to Bill Maher (http://www.billmaher.com/)). And only a cyclist who can think like a vehicle driver in real time can act like one. And the only cyclists who will be treated like vehicle drivers are those that act like vehicle drivers.

The vicious cycle
The flipside of this logic is that cyclists who do not act like vehicle drivers will not be treated like vehicle drivers, and, so, are unlikely to see themselves as vehicle drivers, or to have the attitude of a vehicle driver. It's a vicious cycle, and the only way I know how to break it is by studying books like Effective Cycling and Cyclecraft, and, frankly, by avoiding books like Robert Hurst's The Art of Urban Cycling.


I agree. It's not all "my" attitude and behavior that makes the difference. Cyclists require a lot of cooperation from motorists. And the more I minimize what I require of motorists, the better off I am.
The attitude behind this statement exemplifies the exact opposite of the attitude I am advocating. Yes, cyclists do require cooperation from motorists, and the most effective way to get the cooperation you need is to act like a vehicle driver, and the only way to act like a vehicle driver is to feel and think like a vehicle driver: to have the attitude of a vehicle driver. An attitude that feels minimizing what you require of motorists makes you better off expresses exactly what I used to think, before I discovered vehicular cycling. That's exactly what I was trying to describe when I wrote in the 2nd paragraph of the OP:



Before the change I am about to discuss, I believe I felt and rode in traffic like the typical "experienced cyclist". My primary directive was to stay out of the way of cars. Ideally, I would ride where they didn't drive (the logic being: if they never drive on this pavement - they will never hit me on this pavement).
The attitude, expressed by Bill, and which I used to share, causes behavior and actions on the part of the cyclist that lead to many more close calls and uncomfortable situations in traffic than does the radically different attitude of the vehicular cyclist. At least that has been my experience, and I have not ever encountered anyone who has ever also developed the attitude of the vehicular cyclist and had an experience contrary to this.


Any major beginner tips I should know about, ...
Reread this thread. Think about it. Read the reviews about Effective Cycling and Cyclecraft at Amazon (there aren't that many - read them all). Think about them. Then order them. Then read and study them. Keep thinking. You'll get it in no time. And you'll know when you have. Until you do, keep studying and thinking.

Serge

[daver42]

I totally agree that a positive and pro-active attitude has a big role. I've been commuting by bike for seven years and I remember how upset I got in the beginning about situations you described above. The problem was being angry for the rest of the ride, and it distracting me from being safe. As time went on, I realized that those drivers whom we have incidents with have no idea what it's like to be on a bicycle in open traffic. They don't get that a bicycle is a vehicle with the same rights as their own. They don't get that a bicycle can travel 20+ mph and the cyclist that was a few hundred feet away is now right on top of them, braking or swerving to avoid collision. Most of all, they don't think of the possibility of a bicyclist being anywhere near them. Keeping these in mind, I believe, has kept me safe. I've the adopted the attitude of making my presence known, but being prepared to yield. And, I let almost all incidents roll off my back because I know I put myself in danger if I don't keep focused. There will always be incidents as there will always be cars and bikes on the road.

[Helmet Head]

Wow. San Diego must be heaven. All the major Northeastern cities I have ridden yield a flat every few hundred miles. I can't imagine going years w/o flats. Are you exagerating?
I'm in San Diego too, and I know I've ridden at least 5,000 miles since adopting vehicular cycling, all without a flat (I did get 3 flats in a row in one week on my front wheel of a new bike, but I'm not counting this because they were all due to a faulty rim tape issue).

I don't think it has anything to do with San Diego being clean. We have plenty of thorns, metal clippings, broken glass, etc, but, just like everywhere else, they're all swept by moving traffic off of the traveled way into the curbs, shoulders, islands, "missed triangles in intersections" and bike lanes. In other words, all the puncture causing debris is where vehicular cyclists do not ride, and most cyclists do ride.

Reports of thousands of miles between flats are the norm on vehicular cycling forums, regardless of location. And, like I said, I used to get flats much more often. It's all about where you ride - just a few inches can make a huge difference because of how debris is scattered and how it tends to concentrate in the untraveled sections of the roadway. Avoid those, and you'll avoid 99% of the areas where you're likely to pick up puncture-causing debris.

Giant reductions in puncture frequency is one of the great secret side benefits of vehicular cycling (I have not seen it addressed in any of the books).

Serge

[Helmet Head]

I have long taken command of the roadway where I ride and have been assertive in my rights... however, some drivers take that as an affront and become assertive back... they win by shear mass. That is the one issue that Forester et. al. fail to recognize... that there are motorists out there that will be "aggressive" back... they will fight you for "their" road... they don't give a damn about "your rights." (recall the comments from the Arizona Patrolman that totally dismissed the rights of cyclists? and his job was to enforce the laws... )
Gene, on the road, there is acceptable behavior, and there is assault. Nothing in between. Just because they have the ROW, I want it, ask for it, and they don't give it to me, is not an issue. They have no obligation to yield the ROW to me. If they intentionally violate my ROW, that's assault and a call to 911.


The other factor that Forester never dealt with, as it did not exist when he wrote his book is distracted drivers... Cell phone distracted drivers... and this probably caused more of the “look and not see” issues than anything else. They look right at you with glazed eyes and just don't see...
This is essentially covered in a section called Avoiding Motorist's Intersection Errors, which starts with the sentence, "Motorists' errors may be due to their not seeing you".


Street cycling is a lot like the war on terrorism... we have to be ever vigilant, because all it takes is one driver making a mistake or just being too aggressive... Be assertive in your riding, signal and indicate and take your place, just remember that all it takes is one driver... either mad, or distracted.
Right, and riding vehicularly, which inherently requires constant vigilance, makes you as prepared for such a driver as you can possibly be.

[nick burns]

Good point. Cyclists are prone to the same problems as are motorcyclists -- motorists can look right at us, they can SEE us, but still be UNAWARE of us, and turn right in front of us. That's because they're looking for cars, and human beings tend to only see what they're looking for. But here's the thing: motorcycle handbooks and training courses, designed by folks very aware of this problem, don't teach motorcyclists to ride to the right as a result of this. Be vigilant at intersections, of course. But that goes for motorcyclists, car drivers, and pedestrians as well as for bicyclists. That's defensive driving 101. And this is also why one of the key components of the Effective Cycling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_Cycling) training program is teaching cyclists evasive maneuvers like the instant turn.



In oncoming/turning traffic situations, I always look for signs of awareness from the oncoming motorist. I smile or nod and look for a similar response (it's important, though, not to appear as if you're yielding the right of way). An assertive stance, lane position and a high cadence all help in obtaining awareness, as well as standing up to accelerate, all the time looking for signs of acknowledgment while simultaneously being prepared to evade. Appropriate destination position is critical here, and this is in contrast to what Hurst and Bluejay (Michael, of bicyclesafe.com) recommend, who advocate maximizing SPACE between you and the oncoming turner, which means keep to the right in the lane (Hurst actually makes the mistake of saying keeping to the right of the rightmost lane from which going straight is permitted IS appropriate "standard VC" destination positioning for going straight, when actually the correct position is riding in the center -- between the left and right tire tracks -- of the rightmost lane from which going straight is permitted).


Well, you kind of answered my question, except that I was referring not to those motorists who look at you but don't see you, but to those motorists who look at you, see you, and still think they can make the turn in front of you in time (but really can't). There are a lot of people out there with either poor depth perception or difficulty in judging distance & speed. Or maybe some people just don't understand how fast a bicycle can be ridden. They're the ones that cause me concern.

There is really no solution to this problem that I can see, aside from being aware that it is a danger that could occur at any time in the blink of an eye while riding in traffic.

You may never have actually stated that close calls would completely disappear, but you have to admit that you make it sound like they will. That to me is bad information for inexperienced cyclists who are looking for answers.

[Daily Commute]

"Pay careful attention" should be a caveat to any suggestions about how to cycle in traffic. On the other hand, I agree with Serge and Robert Hurst about "Casper mode" or ride-like-you're-invisible. If you assume you won't be seen, you can't ride in traffic at all, and you can't even ride in striped bike lanes.
Not sure what you are saying here... what do you mean exactly?
If you assume cars can't see you, you can't be anywhere a car might go, which makes it impossible to be on the road. Since cars are allowed to use bike lanes almost anytime it's convenient for them (turning, pulling into parking spaces, etc.), that means you can't even use bike lanes.

[genec]

I'm in San Diego too, and I know I've ridden at least 5,000 miles since adopting vehicular cycling, all without a flat (I did get 3 flats in a row in one week on my front wheel of a new bike, but I'm not counting this because they were all due to a faulty rim tape issue).

I don't think it has anything to do with San Diego being clean. We have plenty of thorns, metal clippings, broken glass, etc, but, just like everywhere else, they're all swept by moving traffic off of the traveled way into the curbs, shoulders, islands, "missed triangles in intersections" and bike lanes. In other words, all the puncture causing debris is where vehicular cyclists do not ride, and most cyclists do ride.

Reports of thousands of miles between flats are the norm on vehicular cycling forums, regardless of location. And, like I said, I used to get flats much more often. It's all about where you ride - just a few inches can make a huge difference because of how debris is scattered and how it tends to concentrate in the untraveled sections of the roadway. Avoid those, and you'll avoid 99% of the areas where you're likely to pick up puncture-causing debris.

Giant reductions in puncture frequency is one of the great secret side benefits of vehicular cycling (I have not seen it addressed in any of the books).

Serge


Then according to this claim alone, this verifies that I am a vehicular cyclist. :D

[genec]

If you assume cars can't see you, you can't be anywhere a car might go, which makes it impossible to be on the road. Since cars are allowed to use bike lanes almost anytime it's convenient for them (turning, pulling into parking spaces, etc.), that means you can't even use bike lanes.

Nah... ever ride at night without lights? Not that I recommend this at all... but you can quite easily thread between the cars... and they don't see you.

[Helmet Head]

Nick - a high cadence does help convey speed, as does standing up to emphasize that you're speeding up, not slowing down. A stern look of "don't you dare" doesn't hurt either, perhaps coupled with a shaking left-to-right of the head.

But I think the most important factor is having an assertive position in the center of the lane, that leaves no way for their unconscious little minds to write you off as someone who is turning right.

[Helmet Head]

Then according to this claim alone, this verifies that I am a vehicular cyclist. :D
Yeah, maybe you don't feel, think and act as paranoid as you sound... :)

[randya]

The bionic VC advocate. Sleeps 3 hours a day, types 300 words per minute, rides 35 miles per hour. ;)

[billh]

The attitude, expressed by Bill, and which I used to share, causes behavior and actions on the part of the cyclist that lead to many more close calls and uncomfortable situations in traffic than does the radically different attitude of the vehicular cyclist. At least that has been my experience, and I have not ever encountered anyone who has ever also developed the attitude of the vehicular cyclist and had an experience contrary to this.
Serge

What do I say to a driver who complains that I lack courtesy when taking the lane, vehicularly and legally? We've all had those conversations. I started thinking, "Geez, maybe I am being discourteous?" Can one ride VC and still be courteous? Maybe courtesy dictates riding on the sidewalk in some circumstances.

[Helmet Head]

What do I say to a driver who complains that I lack courtesy when taking the lane, vehicularly and legally? We've all had those conversations. I started thinking, "Geez, maybe I am being discourteous?" Can one ride VC and still be courteous?
In my view, vehicular cycling is inherently courteous.

A cyclist who uses the full lane without good reason is being discourteous, and, in my view, is not riding vehicularly.

A cyclist correctly using the full lane, even though it may hold up some traffic for a bit (the delays vehicular cyclists cause can usually be measured in seconds), is no more discourteous than is a driver of bulldozer driving on the street. In other words, not discourteous at all.


Maybe courtesy dictates riding on the sidewalk.
Such as when?

If you're holding up a bunch of traffic on a 2-lane road where easy passing is not possible, then the vehicular rules of the road dictate that one should pull out and let faster traffic pass. Sounds pretty courteous to me. On a multilane road this is not required because other lanes can be used to pass you. Of course, if the outside lane is wide enough to be safely shared, then the vehicular cyclist will ride far enough right to allow such sharing.

What's not courteous about vehicular cycling?

Serge

[sbhikes]

It's never courteous to ride on the sidewalk. Expedient maybe, but courteous, no. You have every right and a legal responsibility to be in the street unless otherwise directed.

I agree that attitude makes all the difference in the world. This is true for everything in life.

Often when I'm driving a car or my scooter I encounter rude, impatient and downright dangerous people who tailgate unsafely. I very often pull over and let them go. I'm not being courteous or scared or non-vehicular or submissive. I simply do not want these idiots so close to my tail. Self-preservation.

I ride my bike this way as well.

And by the way, I can count on one hand the number of flat tires I've had in my whole life, and I've ridden on all kinds of surfaces, including off-road (before there was such a thing as mountain bikes.) I guess that gains me entry to the VC club even if I'm not a fan of Forrester-esque cycling philosophy.

[webist]

The only exception I take to all of this is when I am stopped in the right lane at a light. Whenever possible, I try to leave enough room for vehicles to make their right-on-red turns. Sometimes I will do so by pulling a bit forward of the stop line or into the x-walk to facilitate the right turns of those behind me.

[H23]

... And by the way, I can count on one hand the number of flat tires I've had in my whole life, and I've ridden on all kinds of surfaces, including off-road (before there was such a thing as mountain bikes.) ...

I'm in San Diego too, and I know I've ridden at least 5,000 miles since adopting vehicular cycling, all without a flat (I did get 3 flats in a row in one week on my front wheel of a new bike, but I'm not counting this because they were all due to a faulty rim tape issue)....


I'm sorry, but I don't believe either of you. It simply is not possible in urban environments. VC and Hurst style riding, are vastly more similar than they are different. Either you are riding somewhere absolutely idyllic or you have some armored tires, or you are BS'ing me.

I admit I ride "racy" tires, I try to avoid as much as I can, and much of my riding is on shoulderless urban roads (parked cars to my right). Even so, I expect a flat every few hundred miles in places like Baltimore, DC, Pittsburgh, NYC, and other cities.

[Helmet Head]

webist - the only intersection where moving forward of the stop line would be required to allow right turners to go by are where the rightmost lane is so narrow that there is not enough room for a cyclist to move left to allow for such movement. How can lane be that narrow? 8 foot lanes? I don't think so.

Or are you saying there is a car going straight to your left, and being to the right of that car puts you in the way of the right-turners? If so, then the problem is that you should be behind that car, or in front of it, not to the side of it. And the only way you should be in front of a car is if you got there first, which means you should have been able to stop behind the stop line.

So I don't understand why you would ever have to go forward of the stop line (or into the x-walk).

Diane - have you ever tried using the slow/stop hand signal (left arm outstretched and pointed downward at 45 degrees, palm out) to get tailgaters to back off? Works for me...

Serge

[genec]

In my view, vehicular cycling is inherently courteous.

A cyclist who uses the full lane without good reason is being discourteous, and, in my view, is not riding vehicularly.

A cyclist correctly using the full lane, even though it may hold up some traffic for a bit (the delays vehicular cyclists cause can usually be measured in seconds), is no more discourteous than is a driver of bulldozer driving on the street. In other words, not discourteous at all.



Such as when?

If you're holding up a bunch of traffic on a 2-lane road where easy passing is not possible, then the vehicular rules of the road dictate that one should pull out and let faster traffic pass. Sounds pretty courteous to me. On a multilane road this is not required because other lanes can be used to pass you. Of course, if the outside lane is wide enough to be safely shared, then the vehicular cyclist will ride far enough right to allow such sharing.

What's not courteous about vehicular cycling?

Serge


Nothing in the cyclists mind... it is the driver that gets twisted over a few seconds... and their agressive actions can be harmful to the cyclist.

Remember, not all motorists understand nor believe that cyclists should even be on the road... and they then make stupid moves and try to justify them later... such as "speeding up to get around the cyclist then suddenly turning right..." Your well practiced and quick response may still put you down on the ground and hurt, albeit not "hit." Who was right? But what might the motorist think and believe... and who is hurt.

My only point here is that yes, cyclists have rights, yes, you can be fully in your rights AND be doing everything correctly, however there are circumstances where it just does not pay to be right. Unfortunatly, that also reinforces that damn motorists' thinking...

Personally I would love to both be right and teach the motorist a lesson...

This is simply an issue for debate.

I have had this also happen while driving... two lanes turning left... both vehicles make the turn, but one then slides over to your lane... That vehicle just violated my ROW... not being agressive, just being dumb... I responded to it by backing off. As we both pulled into the same parking lot... I was able to confront the driver. "Hey, do you know what you just did...?" "Yeah... so what."

Sure I recover just fine... but that jerk goes on thinking "so what..."

So much for courtesy.

[genec]

I'm sorry, but I don't believe either of you. It simply is not possible in urban environments. VC and Hurst style riding, are vastly more similar than they are different. Either you are riding somewhere absolutely idyllic or you have some armored tires, or you are BS'ing me.

I admit I ride "racy" tires, I try to avoid as much as I can, and much of my riding is on shoulderless urban roads (parked cars to my right). Even so, I expect a flat every few hundred miles in places like Baltimore, DC, Pittsburgh, NYC, and other cities.

Then you also have to not believe me too... I won't say it is riding style per se... or the use or non-use of BL, but yes, I have too gone at least a thousand miles without a flat. Why is that such a big deal? Could it be that some of those eastern cities need a good street cleaning? I know that "dense urban" in NYC is vastly different from "dense urban" in San Diego... Cities vary... ever been out west?

[Helmet Head]

I'm sorry, but I don't believe either of you. It simply is not possible in urban environments. VC and Hurst style riding, are vastly more similar than they are different. Either you are riding somewhere absolutely idyllic or you have some armored tires, or you are BS'ing me.

I admit I ride "racy" tires, I try to avoid as much as I can, and much of my riding is on shoulderless urban roads (parked cars to my right). Even so, I expect a flat every few hundred miles in places like Baltimore, DC, Pittsburgh, NYC, and other cities.


I run 700x23s. All kinds of brands. I get about 1,000 miles of wear on a rear, 1500 on the front. Ordinary tubes. How "racy" is that? I never bother patching. The last time I had to replace a tube was not because of a puncture, but because the valve broke, disintegrated, during a tire replacement... that's how old the tube was.

We had a thread on this topic a while ago. I assure you, I'm not BSing you. Why would I? And even if I was, as a disingenuous promotion of vehicular cycling (and why would I do that?), how would you explain the motivation of Gene and Diane, who can hardly be described as VC advocates (yet :) )?

There's a guy who goes on the weekly club ride that I go on that I always give a hard time to for riding too far to the right. When there's a bike lane, he's the guy way in it. At intersection stops, he's way off to the right. If there is an island to ride in, he will. And guess what, he's always getting flats. He says it's his "bad luck". Ha!

Maybe traffic is faster on Southern CA suburban roads than on big city metro streets. The speed of traffic determines the magnitude of the sweeping effect of traffic (break a glass bottle on a freeway and all of the glass will be gone, well, swept into the shoulder, in minutes, if not seconds). But speed isn't everything. Those big fat sticky car and truck tires pick up and drop debris constantly, and the random activity causes the debris to systematically be moved to the sides of the road, away from the traveled way. Ironically, if you ride just outside the traveled way, that's where all the debris collects. Actually, it collects some distance X from the edge of the traveled way, where X depends on the average speed of traffic (the higher the speed, the higher the value of X).

Serge

[webist]

webist - the only intersection where moving forward of the stop line would be required to allow right turners to go by are where the rightmost lane is so narrow that there is not enough room for a cyclist to move left to allow for such movement. How can lane be that narrow? 8 foot lanes? I don't think so.

Or are you saying there is a car going straight to your left, and being to the right of that car puts you in the way of the right-turners? If so, then the problem is that you should be behind that car, or in front of it, not to the side of it. And the only way you should be in front of a car is if you got there first, which means you should have been able to stop behind the stop line.

So I don't understand why you would ever have to go forward of the stop line (or into the x-walk).

Diane - have you ever tried using the slow/stop hand signal (left arm outstretched and pointed downward at 45 degrees, palm out) to get tailgaters to back off? Works for me...

Serge

While I have far more examples on my normal rides where your description applies, and on these I do not pull forward. I do have at least one example where there is a left turn only lane and a straight through/right turn lane combination. The right lane is poorly maintained, narrow and has a shoulder drop off of at least 8 inches. I move forward a bit so that right turners do not suffer the drop off to get around me. I fear getting in line behind the car in the left-only lane would be confusing and dangerous compared to to my alternative.

The only other occasions which come to mind where I pull forward is to allow vehicles behind me to hit poorly set or poorly positioned trip sensors for traffic lights.

[Helmet Head]

webist - of course getting in the left-only lane is not appropriate if you're going straight.

What if a car headed straight gets to this intersection first - it holds up all the right turners, right?

What would you do if riding a motorcycle? Also move up past the stop line? If not, then why not act as if you're a motorcyclist?

How often do you get flats?

Serge

[genec]

Those big fat sticky car and truck tires pick up and drop debris constantly...


Its all the Hummers in So Cal that really do the road clearing work... those fat expensive tires are great for picking up unwanted road debris.


:D

[elsaturnino]

The role of attitude in traffic cycling

I've been riding bicycles in traffic fairly seriously on and off for over 30 years, tens of thousands of miles, and have been regularly riding my current commute for almost five years.

I guess I was lucky because I picked up this book and read it even before I got my bike. :p

[Daily Commute]

If you assume cars can't see you, you can't be anywhere a car might go, which makes it impossible to be on the road. Since cars are allowed to use bike lanes almost anytime it's convenient for them (turning, pulling into parking spaces, etc.), that means you can't even use bike lanes.

Nah... ever ride at night without lights? Not that I recommend this at all... but you can quite easily thread between the cars... and they don't see you.
But you'd still never be able to get far away enough from the curb to go at any decent speed safely.

[lilHinault]

Actually, it's funny, I see far more hummers up here in silicon valley than I ever saw in Newport Beach.

[grolby]

I don't know... I ride mostly according to VC principles, but I don't necessarily see an improvement in the manners motorists show me. I am safer riding the way I do, because they see me, but I also piss more people off. That doesn't concern me, because as I said, the driver that sees me and gets angry is less of a threat than the one who doesn't see me at all, but I've experienced a couple of drivers that angry and dangerous when I ride VC.

For example, one day I was on my way to work. I stopped at a light with a dude in a Big Manly Pickup(TM) behind me. When the light turned green, I proceeded across the intersection. The section of road after the light was up hill, around a bend, with lots of traffic on the other side of the road. I decided that I would stay in the lane until it was clear for the truck behind me to pass, because there simply was not room for him to do so safely. Well, buddy got impatient, and I heard him gun his engine and saw him move to pass on my left. There would have been scarcely enough room for him to pass had I been over to the right, so there was absolutely no way I was about to let him do this. So I pulled even further left and put my left arm out and back while shaking my head. He backed off. I had to do this AGAIN just moments later. When we finally passed the backed-up line of cars, I pulled right and gestured for him to pass. He did so while flipping me the bird out of his rear window.

In this case, I clearly was a lot safer for riding VC. However, in spite of the fact that I make a point of allowing others behind me to pass whenever it is safe to do so, any time that I am in front of motorists, they get angry. Sometimes they honk, sometimes they yell at me, sometimes they get aggressive like Pick-up Man. Bear in mind that this is in Northampton, MA, supposedly one of the friendlier places to bike in the country!

Does VC keep me safer? Oh yeah. Does it get me more respect from motorists? Not in the least. They respect my lane positioning, but not my right to be there in the first place. They would prefer to see me way off on the right side of the road where, incidentally, they probably would never see me at all.

A change in cyclists' attitudes is all well and good, but we need a change in the attitudes of motorists as well.

[Helmet Head]

My claim that cycling vehicularly helps cyclists get respect should not be mistaken for a claim that vehicular cycling guarantees respect from a Big Manly Pickup truck driver. Sure, a jerk like that will probably ignore a submissive cyclist riding in the gutter to defer to faster traffic, and he is more likely to get annoyed and express the annoyment to a cyclist properly using the full narrow lane in front of him, but he won't respect him less than the gutter cyclist he already does not respect.

I do believe that part of the problem is that gutter cycling is the norm, and vehicular cycling is still the anomaly in our society, so a cyclist riding properly often sticks out and may look like he's doing something wrong to the uninitiated, like the Big Manly Pickup truck driver.

Yes, motorists' attitudes must change as well. But I can't think of a more practical and effective way to do this than by example, through them seeing cyclists behaving vehicularly. Sure, the first time they might be surprised and annoyed. But the second time, if seen soon enough, might not be quite so shocking as the first. By the 10th time your Big Manly Pickup truck driver encounter a cyclist riding vehicularly, he is much more likely to be reasonably tolerant of it, like he is of a slow cement truck driver, than in a rare anomalous incident. Every time a cyclist hops onto a sidewalk or rides in a gutter in order to get out of the way of motorists, he is affirming the attitude (held by both motorists and cyclists) that that is the correct and proper behavior for cyclists in that type of situation. And every time a cyclist rides vehicularly, he is challenging the notion underlying that attitude.

Yes, motorists attitudes must change too. But cyclist behavior must change in order for that to happen, and cyclists' attitudes must change before they can change their behavior. If motorists won't change until cyclists change, and cyclists won't change because of the attitude of motorists, we remain in a vicious cycle with no end in sight. If we wait until motorists' disrespectful attitudes towards cyclists changes before we behave in ways that are respectful (riding vehicularly), nothing will ever change.

It will take time to earn the respect of motorists on the road, but the clock measuring that time won't even start until more cyclists start riding vehicularly more often. There is no alternative.

I commend you for doing your part in this effort.

Serge

[sbhikes]

I'm sorry, but I don't believe either of you. It simply is not possible in urban environments. VC and Hurst style riding, are vastly more similar than they are different. Either you are riding somewhere absolutely idyllic or you have some armored tires, or you are BS'ing me.

Maybe I'm riding somewhere idyllic then. These are all the flats I can remember. (I'm not senile yet.)

Two flats at once, hit a grate.
Popped my tire putting too much air in it at the gas station.
Tire went flat by cracking at the stem.
Goat head thorn puncture. There may have been more than one of these, but I haven't had one in ages.

That's all I can remember. I used to even ride all around with the tread part completely worn off and the inner part starting to show, and also with tires that were all cracked along the sides.

Diane - have you ever tried using the slow/stop hand signal (left arm outstretched and pointed downward at 45 degrees, palm out) to get tailgaters to back off? Works for me...
I believe that hand signals for slow/stop, left and right turn are intended to signal one's intentions, not to tell other drivers what to do.

People don't really tailgate me on my bike anyway, but they do hover around back there longer than I like. Just get by me already, I say. So sometimes I do tell them with a wave to go by me.

[Dchiefransom]

My claim that cycling vehicularly helps cyclists get respect should not be mistaken for a claim that vehicular cycling guarantees respect from a Big Manly Pickup truck driver. Sure, a jerk like that will probably ignore a submissive cyclist riding in the gutter to defer to faster traffic, and he is more likely to get annoyed and express the annoyment to a cyclist properly using the full narrow lane in front of him, but he won't respect him less than the gutter cyclist he already does not respect.

I do believe that part of the problem is that gutter cycling is the norm, and vehicular cycling is still the anomaly in our society, so a cyclist riding properly often sticks out and may look like he's doing something wrong to the uninitiated, like the Big Manly Pickup truck driver.

Yes, motorists' attitudes must change as well. But I can't think of a more practical and effective way to do this than by example, through them seeing cyclists behaving vehicularly. Sure, the first time they might be surprised and annoyed. But the second time, if seen soon enough, might not be quite so shocking as the first. By the 10th time your Big Manly Pickup truck driver encounter a cyclist riding vehicularly, he is much more likely to be reasonably tolerant of it, like he is of a slow cement truck driver, than in a rare anomalous incident. Every time a cyclist hops onto a sidewalk or rides in a gutter in order to get out of the way of motorists, he is affirming the attitude (held by both motorists and cyclists) that that is the correct and proper behavior for cyclists in that type of situation. And every time a cyclist rides vehicularly, he is challenging the notion underlying that attitude.

Yes, motorists attitudes must change too. But cyclist behavior must change in order for that to happen, and cyclists' attitudes must change before they can change their behavior. If motorists won't change until cyclists change, and cyclists won't change because of the attitude of motorists, we remain in a vicious cycle with no end in sight. If we wait until motorists' disrespectful attitudes towards cyclists changes before we behave in ways that are respectful (riding vehicularly), nothing will ever change.

It will take time to earn the respect of motorists on the road, but the clock measuring that time won't even start until more cyclists start riding vehicularly more often. There is no alternative.

I commend you for doing your part in this effort.

Serge

What stereotyped group would a woman in a Mini-Cooper that blasts her horn at cyclists and doesn't think they belong in the road belong to??? I'm given a hard time on the road by many more car drivers than by guys in "Manly Pickup Trucks".

[steel_is_real]

Even though I practise VC I think there are certain cases where riding closer to the curb than normal are preferable.

There are a couple of places on this main arterial road on my commute where the lane is narrow and I will ride closer to the curb than usual. I probably would be about 1-2 feet away (not sure whether this would be considered riding in the gutter) but still feel reasonably safe while allowing cars maximum space to pass in the lane.

[Helmet Head]

If you can ride safely in a lane off to the right while motorists pass you within the lane, then you are riding vehicularly. It's only not VC if you're doing that in a lane that is too narrow to be safely shared.

Serge

[Helmet Head]

I believe that hand signals for slow/stop, left and right turn are intended to signal one's intentions, not to tell other drivers what to do.

Car signal lights, including brake lights, are for signaling intentions too. That doesn't preclude motorists from tapping their brakes repeatedly to cause the brake lights to flash to communicate "please back off" to the tailgater behind them. Same principle, but executed with hand signals, works when you're cycling vehicularly...

Serge

[sbhikes]

I was unaware that tapping your breaks means back off. I thought it meant the driver ahead was doing one of the following:
- releasing the cruise-control
- riding the breaks lightly
- simply tapping the brakes.

While I'm on the subject of how people can't always tell what a signal means, the other day I was riding along and gave the right turn hand signal (left arm up at right angle) and a passing cyclists waved to me. That was funny.