Advocacy & Safety - Are you a vehicular cyclist?

Are you a vehicular cyclist?

That is, do you ride in accordance with the vehicular rules of the road, obeying traffic rules, generally keeping to the right of faster traffic, using the full lane when it is too narrow to be safely shared, or when it is necessary for other reasons, like merging left for a left turn, using bike lanes only when it is safe and appropriate to do so for the current conditions and situation, using negotiation to cross multiple lanes of traffic, one lane at a time, always doing a shoulder check before moving laterally on the roadway, signalling your intentions to other vehicle drivers, positioning yourself to be visible and predictable, using speed positioning between intersections and destination positioning at intersections, and generally riding as just another vehicle (albeit a slow and narrow one) driver in traffic, rather than as an outsider?

Speed positioning, which vehicle drivers use between intersections, means positioning yourself on the road according to speed - slower traffic keeps to the side.

Destination positioning, which vehicle drivers use at intersections, means positioning yourself according to destination. For drivers of slow vehicles, this generally means using the rightmost lane that serves their direction (e.g., right most left turn lane if going left). This also means positioning within the lane according to destination if travel from that lane is allowed in multiple directions. For a through-or-right lane, for example, it means keeping to the right if turning right, or keeping to the left if going straight.

other:
messenger, so sometimes I do, sometimes I dont, im not afraid to act like a car, but sometimes thats counter productive

Hopefully you're acting more like a car driver, or even better, a slow motorcycle driver, than like a car!

Cars don't act!

Also, getting killed, or laid up in the hospital, is pretty counterproductive too.

Overall, I find that acting vehicularly doesn't hold me up much at all, and is often faster than doing the "sly cyclist" thing.

Overall, I find that acting vehicularly doesn't hold me up much at all, and is often faster than doing the "sly cyclist" thing.

I used to think so too, until I started riding for a living. Breaking the law here and there on a busy day can shave 2hrs of street time off my day.I dont think sly really applies, its more experience and sheer brute strength really. Knowing what traffic lights will do wherever I am just by glancing at one of them, and where I can easily beat the system in some places where others its dangerous. Brute strength and stamina means being able to out sprint cars when needed late in the day after doing 40-60 miles with a 48/16 or better hauling stacks of paper here and there stop after stop. Speed is an essential tool downtown, average car here does about 18mph or less if there's much traffic, and there's lots of 5 lane one ways, so if you go faster they they do, you can decide at will how to ride and where.

Then there's sidewalks and the bike equivalent of jaywalking or an illegal turn.Picture a big office tower block, 3 buildings side by side, you need to goto the middle one.My method, ride down the street till close to the front of that building, make an illegal mid block turn and bunnyhop the curb and lock up at the bike rack right in front.VC method, ride to end of block, dismount, wait for crosswalk signal, and walk to bike rack. The 3 minutes or so that takes equals 1/4-1/2 a delivery run, it adds up very quickly.

Outside of downtown in the suburbs is a different issue, in those places you dont have the speed advantage or lanes to use most of the time, in that situation, yes I ride VC most of the time, alleycat races notwithstanding(thats anarchy on wheels).

I answered, "No but I practice VC most of the time" because I AM still practicing. But I believe in VC and aspire to be one. Also, I don't ride in many of the situations you described because I'm not ready for them. But I guess that's being VC, too. :)

pedex - I see how the minute savings here and there could quickly add up to being significant for a messenger who does repeated short urban trips all day. I guess that's the reason a bike is faster for messengers than even a motorcycle - the ability to take "illegal" short cuts.

Be careful!

I voted VC. There are a few exceptions. I will ride short distances on the sidewalk to a location on the same side of a busy street. I sometimes enjoy riding diagonally across the city's grid, through parking lots and alleys and so forth, riding like a 14 year old with no particular place to go. Sometimes I ride on MUPs and dirt trails, like taking the scenic route in a car.

But most of the time I'm in the city traffic, working my way across town with the cagers in a vehiculr fashion. I honestly do enjoy that!

generally, i ride vc. i've had exceptions, like blowing stop signs in the middle of the night on side streets (which could actually be considered vc, i guess), passing reds on the solid side of a three way red, some filtering and the use of crosswalks/sidewalks a block from home...
but then again, i decided to ride completely vc the other night, and had my bike destroyed by a car from behind while brightly lit making a left the other night, narrowly escaping with my life by utilizing the amazing power of my astounding leap. you better believe i'll be taking crosswalks when nearing my destination from now on.
by the way, should i ask for a new bike of my choice, within reason, weighing the factor of funeral costs the guy avoided?

I am the walrus. Oink.

I am the walrus. Oink.
So I guess you voted other?

The walrus was Paul. Kookookachoo.

I was riding tonight and had my light and rear blinkie, and was cool and waited for a car to go ahead and decided to do the cool, relaxed, two turns around the intersection instead of the left-turn-lane thing, and I was kinda glad I was riding in a relaxed way because the car turned out to be a cop car! Of course speeding up and taking the left-turn lane and using that would have been ok too, I'm just a bit more relaxed and cautious at night often. I wonder if that cop was hanging back there runnning my license plate (LOL!!)

behind while brightly lit making a left the other night, narrowly escaping with my life by utilizing the amazing power of my astounding leap. you better believe i'll be taking crosswalks when nearing my destination from now on.
by the way, should i ask for a new bike of my choice, within reason, weighing the factor of funeral costs the guy avoided?
Are you dealing directly with the driver that hit you, or through his insurance company?
I hope you reported this accident to the police.
Of course he should pay the replacement cost of your bike (which in practical terms means NEW BIKE), plus any other costs associated with the accident and replacement of any damaged accessories.

i made a police report on site. it wasn't my fault. he was a young driver, about twenty, and being the kind hearted creature i am, i agreed that it was best to go outside of the insurance (although i have the information). the bike wasn't terribly expensive, but it was my sole means of transportation (public bus and trains aside).

also, i have been looking to upgrade; searching for a decent road bike, but in three months i've found nothing used that fits. what can i say? i'm a shortie! it's a bit of a moral dilema. i feel i'm entitled, but don't have the heart to drop the bomb. oh, does that sound bad?

Oh go ahead and get a decent bike, don't go overboard but you can get a decent road bike for a grand. And buying new, it's easy to get a nice small frame.

One thing I've noticed about VC is it seems to presume a fair amount of ability to ride/accelerate fast. As pedex said, speed is your friend in traffic. If you're a slower rider, you'll just snarl up a left turn with a bunch of cars behind you, whereas pedex would get around the turn faster than they could dream of, and thus stay out of trouble.

There are some places where the "sidewalk sneakie" makes the most sense, they are few but they do exist.

I use VC pracitces most of the time. Unfortunately there is a part of my commute which forces me to use the sidewalk/unoffical bike path. Without using this I get spit out onto a very busy five lane highway. It's hard to be VC on the sidewalk, no?

The only problem I have with the term "Vehicular Cycling" is that it needs to be mentioned at all. It reminds me of place in Colorado named "Table Mesa," which in essence means, "Table Table."

A bicycle is a vehicle, therefore it should be driven according to the general principles of vehicular traffic. If a bicycle is not a vehicle, it's a toy. The problem is that in America, it's too often marketed as a toy, hence the need to coin the redundant phrase, "Vehicular Cycling."

For clarification only, don't want a debate:

1 - For the purposes of this poll does using bicycle lanes when appropriate count against being vehicular?

2 - Likewise for MUPs?

Appropriate meaning that they are available, relatively safe and aren't unreasonably inconvient to the trip at hand.

No, using bike lanes and MUPs appropriately does not count against being vehicular.

But, I like Forester's definition of "appropriately" better... paraphrased, it goes like this: pretend the bike lane stripe is not there. Where would you ride? If you would be on the pavement demarcated by the bike lane stripe anyway, then it's "appropriate" to be in the bike lane.

For me, that means not mindlessly riding in the bike lane just because it's there. It means continually evaluating the current situation and factors, and deciding and adjusting lateral position accordingly - which usually means moving in and out of the bike lane considerably more than the average non-VC cyclist. For example, it means moving out of the bike lane when approaching an intersection where you're not turning right (unless the bike lane is painted to the left of a right turn only lane).

I hope this helps!

Ha. I voted "other," but I'm not going to specify in my post.

NOW who's wrecking the curve?

What is VC? Start learning about Vehicular Cycling.
Why oppose bike lanes? Find out about the bike lane debate.
Are you a member of the League of American Bicyclists (LAB)?
Make LAB more about protecting cyclist rights and promoting VC through education: LAB Reform.
Yes!
I'm also a member of LAB and an LCI.

I went ahead and voted VC since that's what I consider myself but I figure a couple of notes are in order.

I haven't seen a true bike lane anywhere I ride so haven't had to deal with them.

It is a crap shoot as to availability of sidewalks and the few problems I have experienced involved them. I avoid them unless there is a compeling reason to be there and then I slow down and take it real carefully. Can't remember the last time it happened.

I do have access to a few MUPs that are nice to ride on. Clear, good condition, don't have to deal with as much exhaust and they actually go some place usefull. I use them if they can reasonably get me where I'm going.

I do have to deal with some high speed collector roads that feature wide (>12')shoulders of the same material (generally concrete) and condition as the traffic lanes. I make use of the shoulders but am extra vigilant for intersections and other hazards. Alternative would be riding in 60 mph traffic and pissing off motorists unnecessarily.

I chose: No, but I practice VC much of the time

I ride on the local roads, and follow vehicle code in most circumstances. But, I do wonder if in some definitions did I answer improperly because whenever available, and it is suitable material and condition, I ride the shoulder.

There are not any bike lanes here, and I do ride MUPs for recreation occasionally and even (on rare occasions) to conveniently get from point A to B.

I used to think so too, until I started riding for a living. Breaking the law here and there on a busy day can shave 2hrs of street time off my day.I dont think sly really applies, its more experience and sheer brute strength really. Knowing what traffic lights will do wherever I am just by glancing at one of them, and where I can easily beat the system in some places where others its dangerous. Brute strength and stamina means being able to out sprint cars when needed late in the day after doing 40-60 miles with a 48/16 or better hauling stacks of paper here and there stop after stop. Speed is an essential tool downtown, average car here does about 18mph or less if there's much traffic, and there's lots of 5 lane one ways, so if you go faster they they do, you can decide at will how to ride and where.

Then there's sidewalks and the bike equivalent of jaywalking or an illegal turn.Picture a big office tower block, 3 buildings side by side, you need to goto the middle one.My method, ride down the street till close to the front of that building, make an illegal mid block turn and bunnyhop the curb and lock up at the bike rack right in front.VC method, ride to end of block, dismount, wait for crosswalk signal, and walk to bike rack. The 3 minutes or so that takes equals 1/4-1/2 a delivery run, it adds up very quickly.

Outside of downtown in the suburbs is a different issue, in those places you dont have the speed advantage or lanes to use most of the time, in that situation, yes I ride VC most of the time, alleycat races notwithstanding(thats anarchy on wheels).

Even though it's been sometime since I messengered, this still describes my riding style. More aggressive as in the tight urban core and way more VC as I move through the rest of the city. 95% of the time I focus on being polite and predictable, plus with a baby on the way I'd rather get there 5 minutes late. As I've said before I ride almost exclusively VC with a few minor and safe exceptions, but more importantly I know when the exceptions are safe because of my experience. Like understanding that there are times when it's acceptable to sidewalk cycle as long as I act like a slow, super alert predictable ped.

The only problem I have with the term "Vehicular Cycling" is that it needs to be mentioned at all. It reminds me of place in Colorado named "Table Mesa," which in essence means, "Table Table."

A bicycle is a vehicle, therefore it should be driven according to the general principles of vehicular traffic. If a bicycle is not a vehicle, it's a toy. The problem is that in America, it's too often marketed as a toy, hence the need to coin the redundant phrase, "Vehicular Cycling."
:beer:

I never even heard of this phrase before I joined these forums. It's twisted that the phrase even exists.

When the term becomes irrelevant, that's an achievement. I simply have no patience for any actions that promote an agenda that does not confront the fundamental truth that bikes are NOT cars. They're not toys, that is one thing to drum into people's heads. But they also are not the same as cars, and deserve their own space. Period.

That said, I do ride VC much of the time when on the road with cars, but that is only because it's the safest thing to do. But I sure as hell get sick of hearing about "VC". Start confronting the more fundamental and seriously twisted aspects of the car-worshipping culture if you want to achieve real change.

Hey, surprised I was the first to vote No. I regularly ride on MUPs and sidewalks and, gasp, the wrong way on sidewalks. I commute on my MTB, I don't ride fast as my total trip is 2 miles, so I take it easy on the sidewalk and cruise. Ahhh, I'm ruining it for all cyclists, cars will never respect us now!

Hey, surprised I was the first to vote No. I regularly ride on MUPs and sidewalks and, gasp, the wrong way on sidewalks. I commute on my MTB, I don't ride fast as my total trip is 2 miles, so I take it easy on the sidewalk and cruise. Ahhh, I'm ruining it for all cyclists, cars will never respect us now!
Don't be surprised. Anyone who doesn't answer with the "correct" answer (as determined by the pollster) can expect to be brow beaten by the VC/Bicycling Correctness Enforcer/Proselytizer(s) to explain his/her lack of - skill, knowledge of "law" (i.e. VC dogma and kooky theories) and/or intelligence.

Don't be surprised when the VC pedants chastise you for anthropomorphizing "cars". Repeatedly making such obtuse grammer correction is a favorite dopey and irrelevant quirk/tactic of a few of the most smug anal retentive VC preachers.

Since I fall between "No, but practice VC much of the time" and "Yes," I answered "Other." Although I do practice VC most of the time, I do routinely deviate from VC orthodoxy under a few common scenarios:

1) If I want to turn left from a high-speed prime arterial, I make a vehicular left turn only if I can EASILY merge across two or three lanes of through traffic to the left-turn-only lane. Otherwise, I routinely make one of those two-part left turns that Serge is so quick to deride.

2) When approaching a free merge, I often stop and wait for a gap in traffic. I sometimes have to resort to the same tactic at free diverges.

3) I suffer from "cyclist inferiority." We may be morally superior to motorists and legally equal, but let's not deny our physical vulnerability. I have worked around electrical and electronic systems all of my life, and I can do so safely because I respect electricity and what it can do to me. My attitude toward traffic, whether I am driving, cycling, jogging, or walking, is similar.

4) Going east-west through northern Oceanside, I have a choice between the San Luis Rey River MUP and the Highway 76 expressway, which has several freeway-style onramps and offramps. I usually choose the MUP.

I voted "some" because VC happens to coincide with the way I ride some of the time. I stop at stop signs and red lights and generally observe the rules of the road. I try to stay as visable and predictable as possible. That said, a bike is not a car. The cyclist has to be improvisatory and flexible; with exceedingly rare exceptions, he or she lacks the power to maim and kill. The driver of a car or a truck has to follow a strict and proscribed set of rules in order not to hurt others. There are police to enforce those rules and penalties for breaking them. Cyclists are better off learning whatever rules are safest for them, and being prepared to break those rules when they need to get out of harm's way. #8 is a case in point. He managed to save his own neck through good judgement and fast reflexes. Now he's doing what he has to do to be safe on the roads he rides.

You know the roads you ride and your abilities as a rider and the dangers you face better than anyone else, in the concrete sense as opposed to the abstract. Better to trust your own judgement over a book by Forrester or whomever.

Also, cyclists are pedesterians in the sense that we use our legs and feet to get around instead of burning gas and dammit I think we deserve special privileges for doing the right thing. So if you like to blow the occasional red light and hop up on the curb and weave between cars and you can do it all safely, by all means do it! In a major city center, riding a bike is the way to go. The rider shouldn't have to pretend that it's a car.

I do VC most of the time, but behave like a ped when it's convenient for me AND doesn't inconvenience anybody else. E.g., I'd ride (slowly and carefully) on an empty sidewalk for short distances (e.g., to avoid crossing a fast four-lane road twice, just to get to the corner and then make a left); I use MUPs occasionally; I roll through stop signs after making sure there are no pedestrians or vehicles.

I also prefer to cross the street, reposition myself quickly and cross again, instead of doing a left turn. This happens, for example, on my commute home, at an intersection of two major streets. First, I don't like changing lanes when there is lots of fast-moving traffic (but lately I've been doing that a lot more just to practice). But even more importantly, if I go into the left turn lane I'll typically be stuck behind a dozen or so vehicles (lots of the buses and trucks, so think being suffocated by exhaust fumes). It takes up to four traffic light cycles to let them on through, so crossing twice is much faster. I saw cyclists just ride up to the front of the left turn lane but I hate to squeeze myself between two lines of cars (there isn't much space between the line of left-turning vehicles, and the line of cars waiting for the green light going straight). So I practice VC almost all the time, but I choose a non-VC options occasionally, when they seem faster or safer (usually not both though :)) or healthier (no exhaust :)).

I do VC most of the time, but ... various reasons
We all have our reasons for why we cycle the way we do; remember there is no need to make excuses or apologize to the VC ideologues for your actions. Only self absorbed fools would dispute with ANY reason given by the various posters.

We all have our reasons for why we cycle the way we do; remember there is no need to make excuses or apologize to the VC ideologues for your actions. I am not apologizing, I am explaining. One DOES not need reasons to apologize for being non-VC in situations when one doesn't break the law (e.g. you can get off your bike and walk it across every intersection if you prefer), but one should have some good justifications for breaking the law. I certainly must justify taking certain actions to MYSELF.


Only self absorbed fools would dispute with ANY reason given by the various posters. Oh, yeah? How about "I love to ride on the sidewalks cause the peds jump in such an amusing manner to escape my bike" ?...

Oh, yeah? How about "I love to ride on the sidewalks cause the peds jump in such an amusing manner to escape my bike" ?...
Do you really? I hadn't read that excuse/reason before, or any remotely like it, from anybody else except perhaps as a straw man/bogey man hypothesis from a VC correctness enforcer.

...It's hard to be VC on the sidewalk, no?... Good question.

Does riding on the sidewalk/pathway/BL make you un-VC? IMO I think not. To me, VC means the "rules" you are compling with are vehicular rules. In Florida, the only time a cyclist is "require" to obey vehicular rules is when they are on a public roadway in which they ARE define by state traffic law as vehicles.

Leaving the roadway to ride on a sidewalk/pathway means the rules of operation are changed. You now are required to follow pedestrian rules of traffic.

Does riding on the sidewalk/pathway mean that you don't ride VC? I don't think so. As long as you ride VC where your supposed to ride VC then you are riding VC. Riding on the sidewalk (IMO) would not subtract from your claim that you ride VC all the time.

d.tipton

Good question.

Riding on the sidewalk (IMO) would not subtract from your claim that you ride VC all the time.

My question is - WHY be concerned about making such a claim, OR explaining why you can/can't make such a claim?

Do you really? I hadn't read that excuse/reason before, or any remotely like it, from anybody else except perhaps as a straw man/bogey man hypothesis from a VC correctness enforcer. No. But there are plenty of invalid excuses. For example, there is NO good excuse to ride on the wrong side of the road if it inconveniences and endangers other riders... but lots of people do and they must excuse it to THEMSELVES somehow. One cyclists I talked said she thought it was LEGAL to do that for cyclists and ILLEGAL to ride on the right side of the road. But even after I pointed it out to her that she had it backwards (even though, according to you, I shouldn't've said anything as this is "arguing with her reason to ride as she does"), she said she'll CONTINUE to do that because it feels safer. That's her reason. A pretty damn lousy reason, if you ask me, and I'll argue with a reason like that too. Saying that you can't argue with any reason is saying that anybody can ride a bike any way she pleases.


My question is - WHY be concerned about making such a claim, OR explaining why you can/can't make such a claim?

1) Because in many situations non-VC = illegal. Do I have to explain why illegal in general is bad and why you should justify illegal actions?

2) Because in many other situations non-VC = dangerous or inefficient. If it's dangerous, especially for other road users, there is actually no good reason to do it, so you shouldn't be explaining but should just be quitting that behaviour. Or if you think it's not dangerous, you can try to explain that to the other people, and they either will or will not convince you otherwise. If it's inefficient, you want to explain to yourself why you are choosing it. You might also want to ask for advice on how to improve.

3) Because VC riders set a good example for other cyclists and show the motorists that bikes DO belong on the road. The more such people are out there and the stricter the adhere to the VC philosophy, the greater the effect.

There is a big difference between being aware of what VC is and being able to ride vehicularly when appropriate vs. being completely ignorant of VC and the benefits of it and therefore not riding vehicularly when it would be the safest option.

I'd say if you have been on this forum for more than a few days you know what VC is and probably have tried it at some point. Only then can you have the basis and experience to know when to ride VC vs. not and can make an informed decision of the safest way to ride.

What most annoys folks who ride safely (which usually entails a good percentage of VC) is encountering all those other (non forum ;) ) cyclists who ride completely non-VC and are clearly endangering themselves and other cyclists and setting a bad example.

Bottom line for most aspects of life is that to become a master you should first know(internalize and demonstrate proficiency) the rules before taking the step of breaking/bending them.

Al

I'd say if you have been on this forum for more than a few days you know what VC is and probably have tried it at some point.
Then howdo you explain I-like-to-bike, who can't get it despite years of exposure. Low IQ?

Then howdo you explain I-like-to-bike, who can't get it despite years of exposure. Low IQ?

Enjoying conflict? I've got a daughter like that.

No. But there are plenty of invalid excuses. For example, there is NO good excuse to ride on the wrong side of the road if it inconveniences and endangers other riders... but lots of people do and they must excuse it to THEMSELVES somehow.?


Again the straw men. NO ONE on this forum thread offered such an "excuse." What's next, repeating what you heard on talk radio or maybe what you read in the Letters to the Editor of your local tabloid?


1) Because in many situations non-VC = illegal. Do I have to explain why illegal in general is bad and why you should justify illegal actions?
And in many cases "non-VC" = legal, whether you and your fellow dogmatists like it or not; and as decided by the concerned cyclist preferable to alternatives . Examples are cycling to the far right, in bike lanes (yes even in door zones) or on the sidewalk. Other examples are choosing routes and techniques that place personal comfort over any emphasis on speed or efficiency.



2) Because in many other situations non-VC = dangerous or inefficient.
Inefficient? See above. Dangerous? I have read nothing more dangerous than some of the wacky so-called VC theories of HH. Read all about the "dynamic-whatever-the-F-he-calls it" weaving all over the road in an attempt to force all passing motorists to notice him and reduce speed ; apparantly based on his wacky theories of danger from drifting motorists and unique interpretations of vehicle law. The all purpose solution/mantra of VC enthusiasts for every cyclist concern "Just Take the Lane" regardless of local situation is nearly as dangerous.



3) Because VC riders set a good example for other cyclists and show the motorists that bikes DO belong on the road. The more such people are out there and the stricter the adhere to the VC philosophy, the greater the effect.
You really have bought into the program/dogma; hook, line and sinker. What makes you think ANY of this is fact, besides wishful thinking?

Enjoying conflict? I've got a daughter like that.
How 'bout a healthy skepticism for the product of smug know-it-all, self appointed experts endlessly trying to sell (figuratively, if not literally) a program based on the fraudulent claims/theories attributable to the statistical juggling of an arrogant charlatan.

Then howdo you explain I-like-to-bike, who can't get it despite years of exposure. Low IQ?

The mature response is to call other people names and/or insult them when they don't agree with you...


I voted other. too many variables and I've been hit from behind too many times (cars turning left; cars pulling into a curbside parking spot) to tow the VC line. I always stop at red lights (unlike some cars...so I'm not VC that way); I've done "rolling" stops at stop signs (like many cars...so is that VC or un-VC/non-VC); there is one bike lane I use whenever I ride a certain road in downtown Minneapolis; If i'm "forced" to the sidewalk I slow WAY down, and give the peds right-of-way...

reality is, Minnesota law (169.222) states I have "all the rights and duties applicable to the driver of any other vehicle," BUT in the case Bikerider v. Car , the judgement is usually against Bikerider, and it isn't always a pretty case.

(cars turning left; cars pulling into a curbside parking spot)

sorry...i mean cars turning RIGHT...havn't been hit by any turning left...but maybe tomorrow

The mature response is to call other people names and/or insult them when they don't agree with you...
I don't insult I-like-to-bike because he doesn't agree with me. Lots of folks disagree with me, and I don't say insulting things about them.

I insult I-like-to-bike because that's all he ever does. Click on his name, and look at his last 100 posts or so (http://www.bikeforums.net/search.php?do=finduser&u=20232). See if you can find even one with a positive or constructive comment in it. Good luck.

How 'bout a healthy skepticism for the product of smug know-it-all, self appointed experts endlessly trying to sell (figuratively, if not literally) a program based on the fraudulent claims/theories attributable to the statistical juggling of an arrogant charlatan.

It sounds like someone needs to loosen their tin foil hat. Seriously dude, have you offered any other constructive alternative? All you ever do is rant without adding anything to the dialogue. And could you please check out this site so that you can point out some other logical fallacies besides a strawman.

http://web2.airmail.net/capella/aguide/falsarg.htm

Click on his name, and look at his last 100 posts or so. See if you can find even one with a positive or constructive comment in it. Good luck.
Constructive or positive in Helmet Head/VC speak means to take his BS seriously. If you actually hint at agreement with some facet of his wacky VC dogma salespitch you can expect fawning, smarmy praise.

No thank you, I'd prefer to be insulted by such a character rather than be praised for being so obtuse as not to recognize kooky and unsafe theorizing as the dross it is.

It sounds like someone needs to loosen their tin foil hat. Seriously dude, have you offered any other constructive alternative? All you ever do is rant without adding anything to the dialogue. And could you please check out this site so that you can point out some other logical fallacies besides a straw man.
Why? "Straw man" fits the bill and described perfectly the arguments being used.- "Caricaturing a position to make it easier to attack"; "Creating an inaccurate illusion of a position which is easier to attack than what is really being asserted".

Ah, but I have offered a very useful AND constructive alternative. Bicycling advocates who endlessly promote an advocacy dead end/black hole (Effective Cycling Training and Materials) should stick a sock in mouthing mantras as a solution. Or, come back when you can actually substantiate prepostrous claims of risk reduction; or can even substantiate that VC cyclists actually do "FARE BEST" by any known metric (safety OR satisfaction.)

As previously stated -the public has spoken on the issue of demand for your product - get over it, and deal with the reality outside of the wacky world of Effective Cycling Ideology. Silence would be a far more useful Bicycling/Bicyclist Advocacy program than the counter productive blathering from promoters of self described expert opinion.

Constructive or positive in Helmet Head/VC speak means to take his BS seriously.
False.

Or, come back when you can actually substantiate prepostrous claims of risk reduction; or can even substantiate that VC cyclists actually do "FARE BEST" by any known metric (safety OR satisfaction.)
This is the type of thing I was referring to in the SCUBA thread.

In the SCUBA diving community, no one demands that anyone substantiate that trained divers actually do "FARE BEST" by any known metric (safety OR satisfaction).

Knowing how to ride a bike is to traffic cycling what knowing how to swim is to SCUBA diving (more or less).

the public has spoken on the issue of demand for your product - get over it, ...
Hmm. It appears that the fact that 79 out of the 94 forum members that participated in this thread's poll have identified themselves as either vehicular cyclists, or as cyclists who use VC most of the time, is getting under Stanley's skin.

That's what happens when cyclists are actually exposed to the vehicular approach to traffic cycling described by John Forester (Effective Cycling), John Franklin (Cyclecraft), John S. Allen (Streesmarts), Robert Hurst (The Art of Urban Cycling), Jeffrey A. Hiles (Listening to Bike Lanes) and many others... they adopt it.

Your attempts to compartmentalize VC as being all about Forester and Effective Cycling per se are pathetic. You act as if these alternative and independent views of VC do not even exist, like you've never even read these books (though that doesn't stop you from pontificating about the subject, as if you have any actual expertise in it). I can't recall that you've even ever acknowledged the existence of the VC concept - I believe you insist on always referring to Forester's EC program. If you didn't expose your dark and angry soul so often, I might even feel some sympathy towards you.

Knowing how to ride a bike is to traffic cycling what knowing how to swim is to SCUBA diving (more or less).

false...so very, VERY false.
NAUI doesn't require (or didn't when I received my SCUBA certification) a person know how to swim for SCUBA certification...you have to tread water, but not swim...your analogy doesn't hold, well, water (here or the other thread you started...)