Advocacy & Safety - Value of Helmet Head's posts

I post a lot here. Some people complain about my approach, others thank me for what they've learned from my posts. I'm trying to get a feel for where I stand over all, to decide what value the time I spend here has.

Thanks for helping me out.

(It's not about safety in numbers, but part of the reason I post here is to reach others. I want to know if I'm reaching others).

I post a lot here. Some people complain about my approach, others thank me for what they've learned from my posts. I'm trying to get a feel for where I stand over all, to decide what value the time I spend here has.

Thanks for helping me out.

(poll is coming soon, please stand by)
Remember to be true to yourself.

If you've helped anyone, good. If you've ticked anyone off, what are you worried about? Going through life without offending anyone has very little reward, except that you gain false kudos and have no opinion of your own to show for it.

No need for a poll. There's no safety in numbers.

Life is a china shop, and YOU are the bull. Go nuts.

I post a lot here.And you're just noticing this?

Dude, not everything is about you. If people don't like your posts, they don't have to read them. It ain't rocket science.

This is just an internet message board. The future of the world is not going to be significantly altered by what does or doesn't get posted on bikeforums.

I voted "My cycling has gotten worse thanks to HH!"

Lighten up.

I chose: "My cycling has neither improved nor gotten worse because while HH is very knowledgable about VC, his presentation style is a turn-off for me." Which is, actually, "Other".

I would have chosen "My cycling has been unaffected from reading HH's posts because I already ride the VC way he advocates", but I don't ride VC because HH's presentation style makes me not want to associate with VC. I ride safely, I ride defensively, and I follow traffic laws. I ride in bike lanes and cross over the bike lane stripe when I need to, just as I cross over the other lane stripes when merging into a left-hand turn lane from the bike lane.

Tim.

I voted "My cycling has gotten worse thanks to HH!"
I figured that was you...


Lighten up? I'm the one who put that choice in the poll!

And, frankly, I don't feel like lightening up on the issue of making cycling safer and more popular.

HH, this just seems like a cry for attention. While you do contribute a lot, I don't think it's really necessary for us to validate (or invalidate) your presence here. Just keep doing what you're doing.

I realized posting this poll thread might look like an "it's all about me" cry for attention, but, frankly, I don't care. People who need to like or respect someone before they will pay attention to what he is saying have probably already found reason to tune me out. I certainly provide enough rationale for such people!

I'm trying to figure out what value, if any, my posts provide for the others, those who learn with their minds, not their emotions, so I can decide if my time here is worthwhile. I don't know of a better way to ascertain this, so, as usual, I proceed despite how it might appear to the emotional judgmental types. I don't know how to reach them anyway.

but I don't ride VC because HH's presentation style makes me not want to associate with VC.
That is a fantastastic reason! Did you know it has been proven that the more you VC, the more like Serge you become.

ps- if you follow closely you will find there are others (Steve, Roody, etc.) who tout the benefits of VC, but haven't (fortunately) turned into Serge clones.

Bottom line is that Serge is a 'personality' on these forums like many others and everyone collectively makes it an interesting place.

Al

I picked other but this is fairly fitting as well. My cycling has been unaffected from reading HH's posts because I disagree with the cycling approach he advocates

While i dont disagree with VC i do disagree with the claim it can and does work every where. Wich btw is the only problem i have with you as well. You simply cant acept the fact that VC doesnt work every where and tend to sugest or imply that its some how the cyclists fault because they do not asert them self strongly enough. Then theres the stuff like showing the driver your the "alpha dog". I do not see how you can asert your alpha dog status on a driver of a 6k pound suv its just not going to happen. VC's biggest problem is its to reliant on the driver behind the wheel.

As a over all concept VC has potential but fails to take the drivers of cars trucks etc in to account. VC can and does work great in some places infact ive never disputed this. Generaly these places where it does work are already cyclist freindly to begin with.

Crickets chirping. Yawn, Yawn, Yawn! I am not interested in reading any of it. So I voted other.

I had to put other because all the discussion about VC is too darn confusing. I don't have time to plow thru threads, but I am interested in improving safety.

What I find missing is:


1. a cheat sheet/overview of what is VC. Not a book but a usuable definition. So many people seem to have their
own definition of VC. Some take it to mean share the road and act predictably like another vehicle. Others seem to take
it to mean hog the road and make drivers wait on poorly designed road segments.

2. a summary table:
ColA-- Riding Situation ColB-- VC response ColC-- nonVC response ColD-- discussion


3. Statistical resource references
URL's of statistical data showing effectiveness of VC riding style.

I simply admire your conviction. :beer:

However, beware the dangers of zealotry.

Helmet Head: I generally accept VC. My only complaint about you is that your advocacy is relentless and can come across as preachy. Ease up a bit on the sheer number of pro-VC posts and the sometimes shrill tone, and your message will get through more effectively.
RGC
ps. that'll be $.02, please.

HiYoSilver - for an overview of VC, click on VC in my signature. I like the summary table idea. Data is hard to find...


Jack and Cooker, I hear you, but i Yam what I Yam. My philosophy is I don't care what anyone thinks of me or my zealous/militant in your face approach or presentation. What matters to me is what, if anything, they get out of the ideas and concepts that I write about.

Is helmet head also the poster that is distinctly liberatarian in his approach to helmet laws?

Lets his kids ride VC in traffic without a helmet, what an IDIOT! and patently dangerous to all who fall sway to his dogma.

Bekologist, though I happen to be a libertarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism), I believe you have me confused with someone else. I would never let my child cycle without a helmet, nor would I ride without one myself.



Lets his kids ride VC in traffic without a helmet, what an IDIOT! and patently dangerous to all who fall sway to his dogma.
Do you normally form your strong negative opinions about others ("IDIOT!", "his dogma") before you're sure of the facts, or is this just an unfortunate exception?

I had to put other because all the discussion about VC is too darn confusing. I don't have time to plow thru threads, but I am interested in improving safety.

What I find missing is:


1. a cheat sheet/overview of what is VC. Not a book but a usuable definition. So many people seem to have their
own definition of VC. Some take it to mean share the road and act predictably like another vehicle. Others seem to take
it to mean hog the road and make drivers wait on poorly designed road segments.

2. a summary table:
ColA-- Riding Situation ColB-- VC response ColC-- nonVC response ColD-- discussion


3. Statistical resource references
URL's of statistical data showing effectiveness of VC riding style.

Don't hold your breath waiting for peer reviewed entries in column three.
I ride the way that I believe is best for me. I also try to follow the laws of my state when riding.

Sorry, HH, I had you mixed up with the helmet law libertarian in here, my apologies.

I still wish you'd lighten up on the 'VC as gospel' bullshizzie though. My mom WANTS bike lanes and paths.

Bekologist, though I happen to be a libertarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism), I believe you have me confused with someone else. I would never let my child cycle without a helmet, nor would I ride without one myself.

Do you normally form your strong negative opinions about others ("IDIOT!", "his dogma") before you're sure of the facts, or is this just an unfortunate exception?
Forget the helmet reference.

I don't have HH/Serge confused with anyone else and I understand his so-called messages and formed VERY negative opinions about him based explicitly on his counterproductive "advocacy" proselytizing all over the Internet.

And he has had ZERO affect on my cycling. I laugh at his presumption of the effectiveness/impact of his preaching.

What I find missing is:
3. Statistical resource references - URL's of statistical data showing effectiveness of VC riding style.

Don't hold your breath waiting for peer reviewed entries in column three.

Don't hold your breath waiting for even non peer reviewed statistical data showing effectiveness of VC riding style, or any other measured result of those who are allegedly of the VC riding style persuasion. There ain't no stinkin' data; zip, zilch, nada. Only speculation and guesswork.

I ride the way that I believe is best for me. I also try to follow the laws of my state when riding.


My philosphy as well.




Serge- I gotta give you a bunch of points for tenacity. I wish I had half the energy & attention span you seem to have!

I did'nt even know you existed until I saw this thread...

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Over the last year or so, I have greatly valued Helmet Head's posts. I have been trying to learn how to have more fun (and be safer) while cycling in traffic. So far, HH's suggestions have worked real well for me. I've never been much of a dogmatist, so I'll let you all know if something does NOT work, too.

Maybe it's harder for you more experienced cyclists to see how valuable his clear and insistent statements can be. I mean, if you're already good, it can be boring to read the same points one more time. Also, if you're very good, you have your own opinions based on your own experience and reading. Often, your ideas might be only slightly different fom his, but to you that tiny difference is important. I mean, to an agnostic, there wouldn't be much difference between a Presbyterian and a Methodist church service, but to the regular churchgoers it seems there are major differences. Small differences seem important when beliefs are passionately held!

I have a strong feeling that if sbhikes, noisebeam, bekologist (and many others) were to actually ride with Serge, they would all be doing pretty much the same thing on the road. I guess genec and HH did ride together, and it went OK, I think?

HH, I think it's good to remember that many of the people who read these posts are not themselves members of this forum. Many new riders, people who are just picking up their first bikes as adults, lurk around here. They need to read about vehicular cycling. Every "serious" cyclist needs to learn about it, because it is the best articulated method of riding with other traffic that has been formulated. (I think the recent "anti-VC" threads proved this point pretty well.) Many of these newbies will not vote in this poll, so, unfortunately, those you help the most may not speak up. But that does not mean they're not out there.

BTW--newbies! It's real easy to register for the forums and post your own thoughts about Helmet Head, VC or anything else. I urge you to register now and vote in this poll. It might be fun!

I have a strong feeling that if ...., noisebeam, ... were to actually ride with Serge, hey would all be doing pretty much the same thing on the road.
Where did you get the impression otherwise? I ride vehicularly every day. Sometimes I challege vehicular methods on this forum when I am struggling to get a specific situation to work for me, but I only do so for the learning process, not for the purpose of proving VC wrong.

The only time I don't is when I go out in my immediate hood for a late night 10min ride where I break every guideline I support and them some. For example did you know that when riding down the sidewalk the wrong way its best not to have a headlight since drivers may see you and stop when they have the right of way? ;) ;)

Al

I suppose I generally agree with you though I admit I have quit reading your posts all the way through if they seem to be going where they usually do. I admire your tenacity and passion about VC. I think it's a great way to ride. Whether your advocacy tactics on BF are effective is essentially unknowable. Some people may learn about VC, some people may feel empowered, some may not care. I don't think you're hurting anything. The problem I have is that the uncontrollable variable in VC is the other V on the road.
Stay safe
Adam

I'm very sure Roody and I ride very similarly. Either that, or I have an alternate personality of which I'm unware that posts as Roody...

I suspect noisebeam rides like genec... very close. Diane (sbhikes)... I suspect she stays in bike lanes and/or keeps to the right as she rides straight through intersections...

Except for Gene, this is all conjecture, of course.

OK, I chose "unaffected" 'cause I already ride that way.

Is there value in the posts... well sure... I honestly have learned more about the laws and other rules/regulations that effect us cyclists.

I find debating some issues to be quite fun... Just as one might debate any aspect in a barroom situation. I also love playing devil's advocate...

I have ridden with HH and I believe I surprised him in where and how I ride. Do I ride just like he does... well, hard to say, it was a group ride, so there might have been some other influences.

I do strongly feel that perhaps a lot of us ride in very similar fashion... because frankly over time, you find what works and doesn't work... or you don't survive.

On the flip side, I don't always ride in the vc style as circumstances and or destination sometimes dictate simply taking advantage of what a bike can do, that is somewhat less then co-operative with other vehicles... jumping curbs, sidewalks and wrong way riding. But this other type of riding is rare for me as most of my cycling is road based and on skinny tires. :D

I think this Message Board would be somewhat boring without him. He does pique interest here and makes folks think about various issues.

But I also think his method of message delivery could be toned down a bit.

HH has brought issues to light that I had not thought of before. While I don't agree with everything he says and certainly find him more argumentative than he needs to be, I appreciate his advocacy. Moreover, due to his posts, I have entered more than one potentially dangerous situattion with more awareness than I would have previously had. I think he is a great asset to the forums.

...Cooker, I hear you, but i Yam what I Yam. My philosophy is I don't care what anyone thinks of me or my zealous/militant in your face approach or presentation. What matters to me is what, if anything, they get out of the ideas and concepts that I write about.

You may not care if they like you, but you do want them to hear you, otherwise you wouldn't post so much, and you wouldn't have launched this poll/thread. My point was that if they are turned off by your style, they won't get your message, no matter how valid it is.
Robert

Yes, I do use bike lanes. Everybody in Santa Barbara rides this way, except for those wrong-way and sidewalk guys. In Santa Barbara it is reasonable to use bike lanes. In other places it is not, and I've been there.

I ride with some folks in Ventura. I get very frustrated with how un-VC they ride. It seems so very unsafe they way some of them ride. But I don't make a big deal of it. I just go ahead and merge over to where I think I should be when I think I should do it and if anybody follows me, fine.

I have found that sometimes riding to the right of a right turn lane is safer than moving left. This is mainly on the freeway where the right turn lane is very very long and traffic is going 65-100mph.

I'm a big believer in regional differences. I ride in Santa Barbara and Ventura. It's easy to ride there. I rode in San Diego in the late 80s. It was easy to ride there. I just got back from Atlanta where I was considering moving. I will not move there. Riding a bike there would be total suicide. Even taking a walk would be suicide. I saw one bike commuter the whole time and he looked like a samurai warrior, battle-weary and hard as steel. I couldn't see riding anywhere in Atlanta except maybe for the one road I saw with a bike lane. It was the only road with breathing room. Everything else was so narrow, so steep and hilly, so twisty with people driving as fast as they possibly could, the only thing I would consider was the sidewalk, if there was one. It was the most amazingly horrible car-culture place I've ever seen. Totally unlivable. California has spoiled me.

I ride however I feel the situation dictates. 99% or the time this is VC like or very similar to what Helmet Serge advocates.

Although I do enjoy riding in bike lanes. There, I said it, now you all know I am a bike lane pansy! Not a died in the wool VC death to all bike lanes kind of manly man! Aaah, the shame, I can't handle it! I'm going to go ride around a neighborhood now. :)

I ride however I feel the situation dictates. 99% or the time this is VC like or very similar to what Helmet Serge advocates.

Although I do enjoy riding in bike lanes. There, I said it, now you all know I am a bike lane pansy! Not a died in the wool VC death to all bike lanes kind of manly man! Aaah, the shame, I can't handle it! I'm going to go ride around a neighborhood now. :)
It makes sense to ride in BLs between intersections here and it fits with the VC concept if you remain aware vehicles as they approach. Traffic is fast and dense - there is no way you could stay in the lane! But in my experience WOLs work just as well if not better round here.

Al

Other.

Sometimes the messenger can drive people away from the message.

It makes sense to ride in BLs between intersections here and it fits with the VC concept if you remain aware vehicles as they approach. Traffic is fast and dense - there is no way you could stay in the lane! But in my experience WOLs work just as well if not better round here.

Al


I also like wide outside lanes when available. I'll take whatever bicycle facilities I can get really. Occasionally will use a bike path too if it is useful or scenic (not usually a commuting strategy though).

I'll take whatever bicycle facilities I can get really.
I agree. Its my weakness as an anti-BL person. My number one preference is a WOL, but if the choice is a NOL or a road with BL I'll take the BL and deal with the problems it creates which are a lesser evil than having to take the lane in high speed & dense rush hour traffic.

What would you rather do? Ride from I-10 to loop 202 on Southern (NOLs) or Guadalupe (BL equiped)?

Al

It's kind of interesting to me to read HH's post as I'm in the middle (well, 80% done) of reading "Effective Cycling." HH basically just restates everything Forester says although, I have to admit HH's writing style is more interesting to me. Not that I don't enjoy Forester's; it's fun waiting to see when he'll make his next hugely broad generalization about cycling/how to cycle. That said, I've learned a lot from EC and it's nice to see someone else as passionate about VC as Forester (HH in this case). Sometimes hearing the same thing over and over again really makes it stick. The biggest improvement I've made to my riding is moving left when either approaching a right turn lane or going through an intersection. It's hard to say whether or not just reading EC would have made me think to try this but I can say all of HH's posts about it haven't done anything to dissuade me from trying it.

I agree. Its my weakness as an anti-BL person. My number one preference is a WOL, but if the choice is a NOL or a road with BL I'll take the BL and deal with the problems it creates which are a lesser evil than having to take the lane in high speed & dense rush hour traffic.

What would you rather do? Ride from I-10 to loop 202 on Southern (NOLs) or Guadalupe (BL equiped)?

Al


Guadalupe anyday! Although occasionally I will grab Ray from Recker and it is mostly WOL and very little BL. Kinda nice to catch all the soon to be gone farms and fields cruising down Recker and Ray in there. Another year and they will all be gone and there will be no scenic options left for me to commute through. :(

Some people complain about my approach, others thank me for what they've learned from my posts.

Have you ever considered that these could be the same folks? In marketing/sales, if people aren't getting your message, you've got to change the way you sell things. Advocacy IS marketing/sales.

Guadalupe anyday! Although occasionally I will grab Ray from Recker and it is mostly WOL and very little BL. Kinda nice to catch all the soon to be gone farms and fields cruising down Recker and Ray in there. Another year and they will all be gone and there will be no scenic options left for me to commute through. :(
I too prefer Guadalupe (one think that makes it good is that the primary outside travel lane is as wide as WOL, then there is a BL added to that). I ride it for 2mi in the AM, but in the PM commute I must take Southern for 2mi. I ride up/down Rural all the time and really like the WOL it has to offer (no bike lanes at all) Just today riding home in the very center of the outside lane on Southern I was closed passed. Yuck.

Did you notice that for the 3 or so months Guadelupe was being resurfaced and the bike lane and its stripe had been ground away that it was just as comfortable to ride on? I found cars gave me more clearance when I rode where the white stripe used to be compared to when I rode on the BL stripe.

Al

I put "improved significantly" because HH usually has the most detailed VC information you get in a response. When I started commuting I knew nothing about VC.

I definitely agree that the tone can sometimes use work. Not always, sometimes HH's posts are fairly reasoned and not too overzealous. But sometimes... It doesn't bother me particularly much, perhaps I'm just used to sifting through that kinda stuff. But I would agree with some of the other comments that adopting a more reasonable tone will definitely reach more people.

Have you ever considered that these could be the same folks? In marketing/sales, if people aren't getting your message, you've got to change the way you sell things. Advocacy IS marketing/sales.
Then why are most commercials so obnoxious? Apparently, the market research shows that messages are often remembered when they are presented in a somewhat grating manner. I wonder how much attention we would pay to HH if was a sweety pie?

Then why are most commercials so obnoxious? Apparently, the market research shows that messages are often remembered when they are presented in a somewhat grating manner. I wonder how much attention we would pay to HH if was a sweety pie?

Hmm, the commercials I remember the most are the funny ones, or the most sarcastic.
I wasn't talking about the posts making him a "sweety-pie", I was talking about the delivery being in a more common language. Since he's already stated that he wants to convince the "elite" at the top, the rest of us will stick to telling others that if we're continuing straight through a light, we need to get out of the right turn lane and be far enough left in the straight through lane so cars will know our intentions. We could always talk about "destination lane positioning", though.
Trying to change City Hall isn't going to get it done. It will only happen when the cyclists on the street are doing it. YMMV

I ride however I feel the situation dictates. 99% or the time this is VC like or very similar to what Helmet Serge advocates.

Although I do enjoy riding in bike lanes.

I'm with you there.
I don't want to make this a bike lane thing, but as far as advocacy methods go, I will say that i started commuting again because of the bike lanes installed on my main route to school. Now, of course, I hate them because they're trashed, they're never cleaned, and it gives cars another stupid reason to honk. However, I have also noticed that others have started riding the same route, and the one's I've talked to are really excited about the bike lanes. If bike lanes = bike riders and they're safe, I'm all for it.
Adam

Nearly one out of four responders say that HH has had a positive effect on their riding. I must say that if I had anything like the positive impact that Serge has had on my fellow riders, I would be pretty pleased with myself.

As to his "tone" or "delivery" I have found that Serge is usually respectful and sticks to facts unless attacked. He has some pretty vocal opponents on these forums who are quick to point out when he is less than civil. Ironically, they are as often as not the ones who first hurl an insult or reopen an old wound.

In summary, it is obvious that I admire HH and his contirbution to these forums. Not only would the forums be less interesting, they would be less informative.

I wasn't talking about the posts making him a "sweety-pie", I was talking about the delivery being in a more common language. Since he's already stated that he wants to convince the "elite" at the top,
Not the "elite" at the top, just those with the inclination, interest and ability to make the effort to understand vc concepts sufficiently to be able to spread them to others (more on this below).



... the rest of us will stick to telling others that if we're continuing straight through a light, we need to get out of the right turn lane and be far enough left in the straight through lane so cars will know our intentions. We could always talk about "destination lane positioning", though.
I hear you, but... regardless of the context, technical terms are used to convey precise meaning concisely, meaning that would have to be conveyed in many, many more "common language" words without the use of the technical terms.

Destination positioning means significantly more than "if we're continuing straight through a light, we need to get out of the right turn lane and be far enough left in the straight through lane so cars will know our intentions.". If I had to fully explain destination positioning in "common language" every time I wanted to refer to the concept, and similarly used "common language" in place of all the other technical terms I use, my already-too-long-to-read posts would only be that much longer. Instead, I choose to use the terms repeatedly, in various contexts, as a way to convey their meaning to others. For those who understand their meaning, I can use these terms to explain higher level concepts. There is a reason doctors, lawyers, and engineers don't use "common language" to communicate - it can't be done effectively in "common language". Sorry, but if you want to participate in serious discussions about traffic cycling, you have to learn the lingo, or there will be no communication. The more of us that use these terms here and in other cycling circles, the sooner they and their meanings, along with the associated concepts, will spread to the public at large.

In a world where VC, WOL, destination positioning, speed positioning, shoulder check, visibility, predictability, ROW, ROW negotiation, appropriate lane position, right/left hook/cross, slow moving vehicle, vehicular segregation, etc. are household terms and concepts, the rights of cyclists to the road are likely to be much more respected, the safety of traffic cycling is likely to be much better understood and practiced, and cycling is likely to be more enjoyable and popular, than in our world as it stands today. Or so I believe. If these terms cannot even be yet used in a forum intended to discuss cycling advocacy, how will they ever be adopted by the public at large?



Trying to change City Hall isn't going to get it done. It will only happen when the cyclists on the street are doing it. YMMV
I agree. That's why I'm not trying to change City Hall. If anything, I'm trying to keep cyclists from changing City Hall.

My goal is nothing short of changing cultural views -- those held by real people, not politicians (though them too, by implication) -- about cycling. I want people to accept cycling as being a safer, more practical, and more enjoyable activity than it is currently generally perceived to be. I believe contemporary cycling advocacy, with its focus on "safe routes to schools", "bike friendly cities", and the "need" for separate "space" for cyclists, works contrary to this goal, making cycling seem more dangerous, less practical, and less enjoyable, than it really is. I believe persuading as many cyclists as I can that to advocate for vehicular cycling, rather than for non-vc cycling (for lack of a better term), is the most effective means I have in working towards this goal at this time. This is why I post here.

Nearly one out of four responders say that HH has had a positive effect on their riding
And that's not counting those who have not yet realized how much their cycling has improved from reading my posts. ;)

And that's not counting those who have not yet realized how much their cycling has improved from reading my posts. ;)

Well of course mines improved after reading your posts.....


I read them then do the exact opisite heheh
Kidding of course. Ive read up on vc and do use some of it some times. Other things ive always done like takig the lane on things like blind curves (normaly staying more to the left to make my self as visable as possible. Course at intersections as well. You know the only problem i have with you so i wont go in to that again. So far my tour of the metro parks plan is still a go so if your up for about a 250 mile tour of the metro parks. Youll then see what i mean bout my roads.

HiYoSilver - for an overview of VC, click on VC in my signature.

broken.... :(

broken.... :(
Works for me; here the full path:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicular_cycling