Have you read the book Cyclecraft by John Franklin?

If so, what did you think?

Expand on your poll rating in a post below!

What do you think of the primary/secondary riding position concept covered throughout the book?
Do you employ it in your own riding?

I asked my library to order it about a month ago. They say it takes a good six weeks to get a book in, and Cyclecraft moves in and out of print. So I'm still waiting. I may ask for an inter-library loan if it isn't in soon.

Is Cyclecraft about riding motor scooters?

Have you read the book Cyclecraft by John Franklin?

No.

Have you read Catch 22? Good book.

Here's a quote from "A Night of Serious Drinking" by Rene Daumal, a French Surrealist and pupil of Gurdijieff. If you liked Catch-22, you'd love this one

"Clear discourse presupposes three conditions: a speaker who knows what he wishes to say, a listener in a state of wakefullness, and a language common to both. But it is not enough for a language to be clear in the way that an algebraic proposition is clear. It must also have a real, if not simply a possible, content. Before this happens, the participants must have, as a fourth element, a common experience of the thing which is spoken of. This common experience is the gold reserve that confers an exchange value on the currency which words are; without this reserve of common experiences, all our pronouncements are checks drawn on insufficient funds; algebra, in fact, is nothing more than a vast intellectual credit exercise, a counterfeiting operation which is legitimate because it is acknowledged: each individual knows that it has object and meaning in something other than itself, namely arthimetic. But it is still not enough for language to have clarity and content, as when I say, "that day, it was raining" or "three plus two makes five"; it must also have a goal and an imperative.

Otherwise, from language we descend to chatter, from chatter to babble,and from babble to confusion. In this confused state of languages, men, even though they have a common experience, have no language with which to exchange its fruits. Then, when this confusion grows intolerable, universal languages are invented, clear and hollow, where words are but counterfeit coins no longer backed by the gold of authentic experience, languages that allow us from childhood to swell our heads with false knowledge. Between the confusion of Babel and these sterile esperantos, no choice is possible."

Here's a quote from "A Night of Serious Drinking" by Rene Daumal, a French Surrealist and pupil of Gurdijieff. If you liked Catch-22, you'd love this one
I think I would like to read that one. Certainly more than anything that inspires Cycling Babble from a "VC Enthusiast."

Here's a quote from "A Night of Serious Drinking" by Rene Daumal, a French Surrealist and pupil of Gurdijieff. If you liked Catch-22, you'd love this one

"Clear discourse presupposes three conditions: a speaker who knows what he wishes to say, a listener in a state of wakefullness, and a language common to both. But it is not enough for a language to be clear in the way that an algebraic proposition is clear. It must also have a real, if not simply a possible, content. Before this happens, the participants must have, as a fourth element, a common experience of the thing which is spoken of. This common experience is the gold reserve that confers an exchange value on the currency which words are; without this reserve of common experiences, all our pronouncements are checks drawn on insufficient funds; algebra, in fact, is nothing more than a vast intellectual credit exercise, a counterfeiting operation which is legitimate because it is acknowledged: each individual knows that it has object and meaning in something other than itself, namely arthimetic. But it is still not enough for language to have clarity and content, as when I say, "that day, it was raining" or "three plus two makes five"; it must also have a goal and an imperative.

Otherwise, from language we descend to chatter, from chatter to babble,and from babble to confusion. In this confused state of languages, men, even though they have a common experience, have no language with which to exchange its fruits. Then, when this confusion grows intolerable, universal languages are invented, clear and hollow, where words are but counterfeit coins no longer backed by the gold of authentic experience, languages that allow us from childhood to swell our heads with false knowledge. Between the confusion of Babel and these sterile esperantos, no choice is possible."

This is a perfect description of what happens on these forums. A babble of language, of people talking past each other. It's fun for a while, I suppose.

of people talking past each other.
Are you speaking for yourself, or for others as well, Brian?
In your Practical Cycling thread, for example, you made some interesting posts, which I took the time to read and give careful consideration, then took more time to respond to, including asking pointed questions regarding what you said, all of which you ignored. Is this an example of people talking past each other, or just past your closed mind?

By the way, Gene and I arguably "talked past each other" for months on this forum, until we finally found some common ground from which to communicate rather effectively, if I may say so myself.

This is a perfect description of what happens on these forums. A babble of language, of people talking past each other. It's fun for a while, I suppose.
Hey, I'm reading a real good Elmore Leonard novel, "Killshot." Just started last night and will finish it this afternnon as I can hardly put the book down, to take a a BF break. Plenty of clear and concise dialog; no babble, no misunderstanding at all. This novel makes more sense than a lot of the facts espoused by some would-be authors of cycling non-fiction.

So far I'm the only one who has read this book here. Interesting. I wonder how much my thinking was influenced by this book. Perhaps more than I realize.

So far I'm the only one who has read this book here. Interesting. I wonder how much my thinking was influenced by this book. Perhaps more than I realize.
Previously you reported that your cycling epiphany occurred after reading "Effective Cycling". I haven' t been reading your shills for Forester's (s)creeds lately.

My but you are fickle with your affections. What's up wit dat? A lover's quarrel?

Are you on Kifer's bicyclingadvocacy list? Apparently not.

Are you speaking for yourself, or for others as well, Brian?
In your Practical Cycling thread, for example, you made some interesting posts, which I took the time to read and give careful consideration, then took more time to respond to, including asking pointed questions regarding what you said, all of which you ignored. Is this an example of people talking past each other, or just past your closed mind?

A general comment, perhaps. Looking back on your responses to my thread, I left only one unanswered, and it appeared to be a statement of position needing no response. Regarding your questions, I regard direct interrogations to be retorical in this setting.

As for closed minds, we all have them... it's just the ones who don't realize it who are dangerous.

So, Brian, is treating my non-rhetorical questions as being rhetorical an example of how you manage the realization of you having a closed mind?

Interesting, my approach is opposite. My recognition of me having a closed mind, like anyone else, causes me to tend to err on the side of not assuming a given question is rhetorical, and I do my best to answer it. A hallmark of a closed mind, it seems to me, is how it prevents one from going in certain directions, like by causing one to assume a pointed question is rhetorical and thus "allowing" him to ignore it and protect him from "going there", so he can remain in the safe cocoon of his closed mind, and able to avoid having to reconcile the logical inconsistencies of the premises supporting the ideas he holds within his closed mind.

is this thread about reading books?


I always liked Brautigan.

Passionate people have passionate arguments.

So what?

If you can't stand the heat, go ride your bike.

So, Brian, is treating my non-rhetorical questions as being rhetorical an example of how you manage the realization of you having a closed mind?


Yes, yes, that must be it...I will now bow out in deference to the great VC professor. Since I disagree, I have a closed mind, and I realize that now. I have come to the realization that I deserve the insult, even though it was not provoked. I humbly ask your forgiveness.

One last thing. What right do you have to seek to control the debate by asking pointed questions? You have no authority among the company you keep on these forums. Doesn't need an answer. Just something to consider.

Yes, yes, that must be it...I will now bow out in deference to the great VC professor. Since I disagree, I have a closed mind, and I realize that now. I have come to the realization that I deserve the insult, even though it was not provoked. I humbly ask your forgiveness.

One last thing. What right do you have to seek to control the debate by asking pointed questions? You have no authority among the company you keep on these forums. Doesn't need an answer. Just something to consider.
So these are rhetorical questions? Are they pointed as well?

No one has the ability much less right to control these discussions, except the moderators, of course.

We had a great opportunity to address the fundamental questions in the Practical Cycling thread, stuff like finally really exploring why or why not vehicular cycling advocacy IS cycling advocacy, but there was no interest in doing so. They are viewed as fundamentally different within these minds, and for them there is nothing to question on this point. It's axiomatic. From their perspective, vehicular cycling advocacy only address a tiny percentage of the cyclists, period. They want to focus on all the others. To question that premise, well, that's unthinkable, at least to their closed minds. Asking pointed questions about their fundamental premises? Well, that's "controlling" the debate.

Some of these folks show such promise in terms of being intellectually honest. Until you pose a pointed question, or raise an issue, about one of their fundamental premises, and bam! That's the slamming of the closed mind's door you hear slamming. It's disappointing.

Since I disagree, I have a closed mind, and I realize that now.
No. You realize very little. Disagreement is not evidence of a closed mind, of course. What demonstrates closed mindedness is refusal to answer questions, address issues, and discuss points that identify underlying premises in your assertions and stated beliefs and raise fundamental questions about them.

This post is an example of exactly what I'm talking about. You make a simple statement, but it rests on a premise: that you simply disagreeing with me is what makes me think you have a closed mind.

I identify that premise, above, and refute it. You are likely to ignore this. Now, maybe I'm wrong about something here. If I was, I would hope that you would point it out. But I think what's more likely is that I'm right, and the reason you will not respond is due to a closed mind, a mind impervious to reason and logic.

bam!

ham

Cyclecraft sounds like an interesting book to read. Some of us enjoy reading about riding. Some don't.

Do any of you anti-VCer's (for lack of a better word) have suggestions for good books on riding techniques that don't come from a VC perspective? If so, please list them. I'd be interested in checking them out.

No. You realize very little. Disagreement is not evidence of a closed mind, of course. What demonstrates closed mindedness is refusal to answer questions, address issues, and discuss points that identify underlying premises in your assertions and stated beliefs and raise fundamental questions about them.

This post is an example of exactly what I'm talking about. You make a simple statement, but it rests on a premise: that you simply disagreeing with me is what makes me think you have a closed mind.

I identify that premise, above, and refute it. You are likely to ignore this. Now, maybe I'm wrong about something here. If I was, I would hope that you would point it out. But I think what's more likely is that I'm right, and the reason you will not respond is due to a closed mind, a mind impervious to reason and logic.

Dude, I am just being silly. You're the one throwing the first barb. Why do you feel the need to insult me? Unprovoked, no less.

I think the old boy is just frustrated. This is no echo chamber. The vocabulary and arguments the VC'ers have built in their email lists lack universal meaning or respect here. We trade insults and barbs; and we talk past each other. How many of these posts you have written have dealt with simply clarifying what you have said previously? 50%? Why do you feel the need to have the tag line along the lines of: "If something I say doesn't make sense or sounds wrong, ask me about it..."? Why are you constantly making others point out "where you were wrong"?

I don't consider myself closed minded, but that's not for me to decide; if I am, then so be it. Like you with me, I have heard all your arguments before, we keep going 'round and around from day one. I've refuted some, brushed off others, agreed with you a little; and you with mine. There has been nothing new here for the past few months. We poke holes in each other's posts, but we don't do anything constructive. We bicker quite a bit about definitions, and minutia of the like. Like we are doing now.

My discussions with you have actually forced me to the other side. I, too, was influenced by Forester's book, he gives good advice and has a lot of experience, so I trusted his observations about politics and human nature as well. In arguing for bike lanes, starting with the first post, I was taking a side for the sake of argument. In fact, I can, just as easily, take the side you are on... but what's the fun of that when you are here? Funny thing happened though. In arguing so strenuously, I have convinced myself that bike lanes have positive qualities, in certain environments, which cannot be brushed off so easily. I started looking around and noticing differences in the environment between where you, Al, and Gene live, verses where Pat, Diane, and myself live. Combining the two, I can see that the genesis of the anti-bike lane arguments is in environmental issues which are not universal.

You have convinced me that vehicular cycling is a starting point. By itself, it is effective everywhere, but not necessary the best option for all environments; it is not the ideal system. In the worst of environments, it is a good survival tool. It enables cycling where it is not obvious it is possible. However, we can do better, and some places in the US have. Bike lanes are not perfect, but they solve many more problems then they create, with the right implementation. For good bike lane implementation, the road must be vastly altered; keeping the road the same leads to bad bike lanes. Where the road is altered to implement bike lanes effectively, cycling in the bike lane is much easier than trying to share a traffic lane that was not meant for sharing. Cycling becomes easier as a whole than simply relying on vehicular cycling.

bam!

...thank you ma'am.

Cyclecraft sounds like an interesting book to read. Some of us enjoy reading about riding. Some don't.

Do any of you anti-VCer's (for lack of a better word) have suggestions for good books on riding techniques that don't come from a VC perspective? If so, please list them. I'd be interested in checking them out.
Now that I finished the Elmore Leonard novel, I am now reading an interesting biography about Wolfgang Lüth, a German WW2 submariner. I expect to get as much useful guidance about cycling technique from it as I expect to get from any book recommended by the VC gang.

For the record, I think you do have a pretty hard head (takes one to know one), especially when it comes to your belief that you're open to and understanding of all sides. I don't think you're as open as you think you are. I've gone back and reread some of the posts in the Practical Cycling thread to which you did not respond, including 214, 216, 217, 219, 228 and 234, and I really think you don't see or understand the fundamental issues I was raising. Some of that is made evident in your latest post in this thread, but I won't get into it now. However, I do believe you are very intelligent and have the capacity for a lot of growth. If anything I say about you happens to be insulting, rest assured that the point is not to insult.

Have a good Thanksgiving, Brian, and say hello to your Dad. I miss his thoughtful contributions to our discussions.

I will never forget his account of the terrible accident he was in.

Serge

I don't like green eggs and ham!

I love the bicycling section in my old copy of "The Last Whole Earth Catalog"


There's also a lot of other, useful stuff. In the Last Whole Earth Catalog, I mean.

Am thinking of starting a thread to discuss "Cyclecraft"

Excellent book, by the way. Have only minor disagreements with minor details. Ditto, by and large, "Effective Cycling". Recommend "Cc" when teaching safe traffic cycling to local police.

Do any of you have suggestions for good books on riding techniques that don't come from a VC perspective? If so, please list them. I'd be interested in checking them out.

Have you tried the Art of Urban Cycling by Robert Hurst. He has a pretty solid approach that melds VC and Invisible perspectives.

My only complaint about the book are that he doesn't know how to fall.

Have you tried the Art of Urban Cycling by Robert Hurst. He has a pretty solid approach that melds VC and Invisible perspectives.

My only complaint about the book are that he doesn't know how to fall.
Hurst wrote a good book. I thought it was basically VC without Forester's acidity, but it seems that many people who say they are anti-VC seem to like it, too.

Well, there you have it, of those who have read it, 100% recommend it highly.

Well, there you have it, of those who have read it, 100% recommend it highly.
Well, that would be your conclusion wouldn't it; from a poll where only two of 27 ever read the book, and one of them is the polltaker who had the conclusion in his pocket even as he posted the so-called poll. Why not save time? Post the conclusion first and skip the poll.

Maybe I'll start a poll. Who has read, or had read to them "Green Eggs and Ham"? Would you recommend it?

Bet it will get a far greater percentage of readers, also a 100% recommendation rating, and my preformed conclusion, validated by the poll results, will be just as relevant to bicycling advocacy or bicycling safety. There you have it.

Hurst wrote a good book. I thought it was basically VC without Forester's acidity, but it seems that many people who say they are anti-VC seem to like it, too.

+1 Hurst speaks highly of vehicular cycling without making an absolute of it. He has lots of good advice about technique and attitude. Forester's book is a good reference. I would recommend reading Hurst cover to cover. Not familiar with Cyclecraft - I'll have to look for it.

Hurst speaks highly of vehicular cycling?
Darn, I've got to get around to writing my review of that book.