Advocacy & Safety - Vehicular cycling vs. cycling legally - what's the diff?

In #100 you're asking questions that were all answered in #99, posted 3 minutes earlier.

Really, you advocate using overtaking traffic as your cue to your road position on high speed roadways? And this is done without a mirror?

And on roads without a mirror, you use a different lane positioning technique than riding with one?

Serge, the difference between my posting about riding bikes vehicularily,

and your posts describing some version of how you think bikes get ridden vehicularily,

is some of us actually ride our bikes.

Really, you advocate using overtaking traffic as your cue to your road position on high speed roadways? And this is done without a mirror?
Riding 3 feet or 1 meter to the right of faster traffic (in lanes wide enough to be safely shared side by side) is classic advice. This is what is written in every book I've ever read on the topic of traffic cycling, taught in LAB's Road 1 courses, and practiced by every vehicular cyclist I know.

So yes, I advocate using overtaking traffic as a cue to road position. And I'm far from the only one.

By the way, I'm not engaging in your ridiculous (and typically unsupported) remarks about my alleged lack of cycling. If Gene wishes to step in here on this point, who has ridden with me and witnessed me cycle commuting while he was driving, I would appreciate it. But that's up to him.

I'm an armchair cyclist this week. Have been since Jan-13 due to knee problem. I hate it. I nearly ran a few commuters off the road this AM as I was near stalking them in jealosy. ;)

Al

... I advocate using overtaking traffic as a cue to road position.I also sometimes use overtaking traffic as a factor:
My primary travel position when lanes aren't marked (i.e., painted) is as far right within the traveled way as practicable*
When lanes are marked, my primary travel position is the middle of the right most thru lane
When traveling in a marked lane that can be shared efficiently and safely with traffic that will be significantly delayed if they can't pass within the lane, my secondary position is as far right within the travel lane as practicable*.*From Streetwise Cycling (http://brucewr.home.mindspring.com/images/SCpage5.jpg)
What does practicable mean? There is no hard and fast definition.
In one situation, it might mean two feet; in another, eight feet.
Just how close "practicable" is depends on the road, the surface, the
traffic, the speed of the rider, and other factors. For example, you
can ride far enough to the left to avoid a roadside hazard (like a
drain grate, a parked car door, right turning cars or debris).

I'm an armchair cyclist this week. Have been since Jan-13 due to knee problem. I hate it. I nearly ran a few commuters off the road this AM as I was near stalking them in jealosy. ;)

Al
I hope you feel better soon. :)

And thanks for giving me a whole other category of motorists to be wary of -- jealous, would-be cyclists....

Reason and logic, expressed politely and respectfully, are the currency of productive debate. Thanks.

So how about practicing what you preach?

Thanks Helmet Head for clarifying vc. I thought I was riding according to vc principles but now I realize that I don't, and gladly so.

I use the hand signals before every turn.
I will come to a full stop at every stop sign.
I'll never blow a stop light.
The only times I am in the lane is when there are obstructions to my right or I am facing an intersection waiting to make a turn.

Thanks Helmet Head for clarifying vc.
I don't ride according to vc principles, and gladly so.

I hope you feel better soon. :)

And thanks for giving me a whole other category of motorists to be wary of -- jealous, would-be cyclists....
I rode this AM as I couldn't take it. My knee twinged. I shouldn't have. After my PM commute I wont be able to ride again until mid-next week and I was deperate.
(I know/hope you know I was joking about nearly running commuters off the road, in jealousy but for the record I was far from doing that, passing cyclists by merging to the adjacent lane.)

Al

Riding 3 feet or 1 meter to the right of faster traffic (in lanes wide enough to be safely shared side by side) is classic advice. This is what is written in every book I've ever read on the topic of traffic cycling, taught in LAB's Road 1 courses, and practiced by every vehicular cyclist I know.

So yes, I advocate using overtaking traffic as a cue to road position. And I'm far from the only one.

By the way, I'm not engaging in your ridiculous (and typically unsupported) remarks about my alleged lack of cycling. If Gene wishes to step in here on this point, who has ridden with me and witnessed me cycle commuting while he was driving, I would appreciate it. But that's up to him.


Won't help with Bek, he has me down as a motorist that yells at cyclists... so we both have no crediblity with him.

I noticed in a post he made the other day that he mentioned his own driving... so I suppose we could blow that all out of proportion too and cite his driving as proof that he is not a "real cyclist." :rolleyes:

Nah, just not worth the hassle... easier to simply read past those that only post jabs and not honest real opinions.

...and not honest real opinions.

As defined by you and HH? Or maybe opinions only become honest and real when numerous objections are made (AKA "jabs" in Genec/HH speak)?

Nah, just not worth the hassle... easier to simply read past those that only post jabs and not honest real opinions.
I cannot recommend enough the ignore feature. Just click on a user's profile and select "add this user to my ignore list". I suspect many have used it on annoying me.

I do think it's fair to let people know that they're being ignored, why, and for how long. I think if we all start doing this, the forum can only improve.

Anyway, it's liberating to finally ignore the members that are so annoying, which is hard to do without using this feature.

I cannot recommend enough the ignore feature. Just click on a user's profile and select "add this user to my ignore list". I suspect many have used it on annoying me.

I do think it's fair to let people know that they're being ignored, why, and for how long. I think if we all start doing this, the forum can only improve.

Anyway, it's liberating to finally ignore the members that are so annoying, which is hard to do without using this feature.
:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:

I really have to laugh here... as you are the one that advocates simply ignoring those motorists that honk and make noise and otherwise "jab" cyclists for no apparent reason.

Here I am simply ignoring their posts... should be easy for a thick skinned cyclist like yourself to ignore "empty posts..." eh? :D

(Sorry, but the "turnabout" was just too good to pass up... )

Fair enough, Gene. I guess we're just different in where we find it easy or difficult to ignore others.

How do you like my new sig? It was sparked by a chipcom remark regarding "certain" advocates who do not represent the majority of cyclists and have a "narrow political agenda". Decided to be clear about my "narrow political agenda", just in case...

Fair enough, Gene. I guess we're just different in where we find it easy or difficult to ignore others.

How do you like my new sig? It was sparked by a chipcom remark regarding "certain" advocates who do not represent the majority of cyclists and have a "narrow political agenda". Decided to be clear about my "narrow political agenda", just in case...

Honestly, it does point out that individuals do have different tolerances for "noise." That alone should help you "walk a mile in my shoes" regarding my intolerace for certain types of "noisy" motorists.

As far as your sig...

"Agenda: saving cyclist lives; encouraging cycling by conveying the reasonable safety of vehicular cycling (mostly my work), and opposing the notion that traffic cycling is inherently dangerous and cyclists should therefore stay out of the way of cars, and opposing initiatives that support and reinforce that and related anti-cycling notions."

It works up to "(mostly my work)." While I understand what you mean by that, it smacks of the "I did this and I did that" of the writings of Forester.

The rest "and opposing the notion that traffic cycling is inherently dangerous and cyclists should therefore stay out of the way of cars," OK... I understand that... but it sure doesn't flow off the tongue does it.

Now the very last bit "and opposing initiatives that support and reinforce that and related anti-cycling notions." sounds stilted and convoluted... especially the "and related anti-cycling notions."

I know some of the anti-cycling notions you are addressing are bike lanes... and while there may be some that are truely "anti-cycling" I believe that most working for bike lanes are doing with the best intentions in the belief that BL encourage cyclists...

Might I suggest something vastly simpler: "Agenda: saving cyclist lives; encouraging cycling by conveying the reasonable safety of legal vehicular cycling, and opposing the notion that traffic cycling is inherently dangerous. "

It works up to "(mostly my work)." While I understand what you mean by that, it smacks of the "I did this and I did that" of the writings of Forester.
I put that in because Ratliff said citing my own work without disclosing it to be my own work is deceitful or something. Got a better way to word it?

Thanks for the other suggestions too.