Advocacy & Safety - Furthering or Hindering the cause of VC?

Do you believe that the continuous (some might say incessant) discussion and advocacy for VC (or whatever current PC word might be appropriate) on this forum has advanced the cause of VC in the overall Bicycling Community?

Do you believe that the continuous (some might say incessant) discussion and advocacy for VC (or whatever current PC word might be appropriate) on this forum has advanced the cause of VC in the overall Bicycling Community?
The incessant proselytization by a few individuals obsessed with interpreting/reinterpreting VC™ dogma has made Vehicular Cycling appear to be the ideology of zealots.

The overall Bicycling Community will be severely hampered if the general public ever associates Bicycling Advocacy with the loonier VC legal conjuring and wacky VC cycling techniques based on the power of alpha dog attitudes.

I don't know if they've hurt or helped the cause of VC. I feel there has been a valuable clarification made recently of what the term VC actually represents when you use it here. And now that I know what it means, I can use the term better.

The incessant proselytization by a few individuals obsessed with interpreting/reinterpreting VC™ dogma has made Vehicular Cycling appear to be the ideology of zealots.

The overall Bicycling Community will be severely hampered if the general public ever associates Bicycling Advocacy with the loonier VC legal conjuring and wacky VC cycling techniques based on the power of alpha dog attitudes.
The implied acceptability of VC in ILTB's rhetoric is new, and this alone indicates enormous advancement of the cause of VC.

No difference.
Has this stuff changed anyones opinion on this subject, ever ?

The implied acceptability of VC in ILTB's rhetoric is new, and this alone indicates enormous advancement of the cause of VC.

Grasping at straws? :D

I don't like the direction I see the discussions going, but I know that past discussions of VC helped me to become a better rider. I guess that means the discussions helped the community, to a small extent at least.

By it's original definition, VC was really the only sane and safe way to ride a bike in traffic. Newer definitions are conflictual, controversial and needlessly confusing.

The same discussion just keeps moving from thread to thread with the same limited number of participants. We get the idea, already!

I still don't understand why everyone gets so bent about discussions on the internet about VC. It's not as if someone is riding with you, looking over your shoulder and telling you how to ride. If you don't like the discussion, change the channel. Serge puts VC into the title of the majority of his posts, and yet despite ILTB and the rest of the VC haters protests you'll find them replying to almost everyone of his posts. You'd think HH actually had the power to destroy bike lanes or enact legislation the way you folks complain about VC. It's sounds like one guy's interpretation of VC, besides Bek, Diane, Gene, and a few other names that escape me at the moment I don't see anyone else offering anything other than criticism. All this BS about censoring or moving the VC discussion is pathetic. No one is forcing anyone to discuss VC or keeping folks like dnvrfox from starting new threads. I for one have enjoyed the VC discussion, I don't always agree with everyone, but what would be the point of that?

I still don't understand why everyone gets so bent about discussions on the internet about VC. It's not as if someone is riding with you, looking over your shoulder and telling you how to ride. If you don't like the discussion, change the channel. Serge puts VC into the title of the majority of his posts, and yet despite ILTB and the rest of the VC haters protests you'll find them replying to almost everyone of his posts. You'd think HH actually had the power to destroy bike lanes or enact legislation the way you folks complain about VC. It's sounds like one guy's interpretation of VC, besides Bek, Diane, Gene, and a few other names that escape me at the moment I don't see anyone else offering anything other than criticism. All this BS about censoring or moving the VC discussion is pathetic. No one is forcing anyone to discuss VC or keeping folks like dnvrfox from starting new threads. I for one have enjoyed the VC discussion, I don't always agree with everyone, but what would be the point of that?


+10

The implied acceptability of VC in ILTB's rhetoric is new, and this alone indicates enormous advancement of the cause of VC.
Dream on! http://deephousepage.com/smilies/jestera.gif

Dream on! http://deephousepage.com/smilies/jestera.gif
Yet you ride by so many of the VC principles, even while demonizing the use of the collective term. :p

Yet you ride by so many of the VC principles, even while demonizing the use of the collective term. :p

Which goes back to the point I have made ever since I joined BF and got involved in these discussions - riding safely, predictably, according to the applicable rules or laws of the road, has been practiced since long before the term VC was coined. They are not VC principles, VC is a brand that attempts to take ownership of those principles as a basis for promoting additional wacky techniques, dogma and advocacy representing a minority of cyclists. The term itself is tame and nobody would have a problem with it, if it had not been used as the rallying cry of advocates who want to promote their own minority viewpoints, many times in opposition to the wishes of the majority of the cycling community.

Which goes back to the point I have made ever since I joined BF and got involved in these discussions - riding safely, predictably, according to the applicable rules or laws of the road, has been practiced since long before the term VC was coined. They are not VC principles, VC is a brand that attempts to take ownership of those principles as a basis for promoting additional wacky techniques, dogma and advocacy representing a minority of cyclists. The term itself is tame and nobody would have a problem with it, if it had not been used as the rallying cry of advocates who want to promote their own minority viewpoints, many times in opposition to the wishes of the majority of the cycling community.
Chipcom beat me to the punch. Cycling sensibly and adapting to the local environment with intelligence, is independent of accepting the extra baggage of the "VC ™educational" agenda and pseudo science/nutcase legal theorizing of the VC™ ideologues and their gullible/logicly disadvantaged acolytes.

You'd think HH actually had the power to destroy bike lanes or enact legislation the way you folks complain about VC.
Actually, a friend of mine told me he sits on some major state (California) committee on cycling. I mentioned his name to him and he immediately knew who he was and started going on and on about how much his efforts have done to hurt bike advocacy at the state level.

Actually, a friend of mine told me he sits on some major state (California) committee on cycling. I mentioned his name to him and he immediately knew who he was and started going on and on about how much his efforts have done to hurt bike advocacy at the state level.

Well, if that isn't depressing news....what an dipshizzle. Helmet Head doesn't even ride his bike very much, less than half the days. I've done the math.

So, a guy that admittedly does not ride for transportation the majority of the time, and

does not know how to position his bike on roads with bicycle accomodations,

is on a state committee on bicycling, and another CA bicyclist has stated to you HH has hurt bicycling advocacy at the state level?

Helmet Head is a real gem. sometimes blowhard know-it-alls should be disqualified from seeking public positions.... I read something like that in Thomas More's 'Utopia'...people seeking public office would be prohibited from doing so....

sometimes blowhard know-it-alls should be disqualified from seeking public positions.... I read something like that in Utopia once...people seeking public office would be prohibited from doing so....

I'm your proof to support that statement! :eek:

The current VC discussions and multitude of postings have hurt the cause of VC in the Bicycling Community

I would rephrase that to: The current VC discussions and multitude of postings have hurt the Bicycling Community.

I would rephrase that to: The current VC discussions and multitude of postings have hurt the Bicycling Community.

Okay - do your own poll! :D

Chip, don't be so hard on yourself- let the other posters do that for you :D

Which goes back to the point I have made ever since I joined BF and got involved in these discussions - riding safely, predictably, according to the applicable rules or laws of the road, has been practiced since long before the term VC was coined.
True, but there was an effort in California in the early 70s to provide bikeways and only allow cycling on them, prohibiting cycling on "normal" roads. As a result, it would seem that a name such as "VC" would have needed to have been created, in order to contrast with mandatory cycling on facilities.



The term itself is tame and nobody would have a problem with it, if it had not been used as the rallying cry of advocates who want to promote their own minority viewpoints, many times in opposition to the wishes of the majority of the cycling community.
I know that Chip wants to advocate for all cyclists, and I agree with him on that. But it would be naive to think that we can "all just get along" in every instance.

As an example, in my area, there are the "casual" cyclists and the "road" cyclists. (There are other groups, but these are the two main categories.) Whenever a new housing development is proposed in my area, the neighborhood activists complain that there's not enough trails in the proposed development. I don't object to trails, but in one case the activists (representing the "casual" cyclists) wanted to eliminate the shoulders on an existing road in order to make room to install a two way sidepath. The "road" cyclists would rather retain the shoulders than a have a two way sidepath. For a number of reasons I support retaining the shoulders. Since there are more "casual" cyclists than "road" cyclists, in this case I would be advocating what could be considered a minority viewpoint. Do you see anything wrong with this?

There was an effort in California in the early 70s to provide bikeways and only allow cycling on them, prohibiting cycling on "normal" roads.
Can you provide some reference for this "effort" to permit cycling ONLY on bikeways in California and nowhere else, and how serious this "effort" was? My impression is that this "effort" is a conjured strawman argument originating in the fevered rhetoric of John Forester. If I am wrong, I will be glad to be enlightened.

As an example, in my area, there are the "casual" cyclists and the "road" cyclists. (There are other groups, but these are the two main categories.) Whenever a new housing development is proposed in my area, the neighborhood activists complain that there's not enough trails in the proposed development. I don't object to trails, but in one case the activists (representing the "casual" cyclists) wanted to eliminate the shoulders on an existing road in order to make room to install a two way sidepath. The "road" cyclists would rather retain the shoulders than a have a two way sidepath. For a number of reasons I support retaining the shoulders. Since there are more "casual" cyclists than "road" cyclists, in this case I would be advocating what could be considered a minority viewpoint. Do you see anything wrong with this?

If I were on the governing body, I'd tell you all to get your ducks in line amongst yourselves and report back with your recommendations, otherwise I'd have to opt for the wishes of the majority and/or the developers, within the existing planning/zoning regulations for subdivisions.

If I were on the governing body, I'd tell you all to get your ducks in line amongst yourselves and report back with your recommendations, otherwise I'd have to opt for the wishes of the majority and/or the developers, within the existing planning/zoning regulations for subdivisions.
This course of action is reasonable for a governing body. But as a cyclist what would you do?

This course of action is reasonable for a governing body. But as a cyclist what would you do?

I'd do the same thing. I'd say, folks, we need to get together and come up with a unified recommendation that represents area cyclists as a whole and not fight this out in public. Doing that would require compromise...and if I were part of the minority, which I probably would be in this case, I'd realize that compromise was our only acceptable course of action, because in the end the majority is going to get what they want unless we want to be disruptive and present a public split in the cycling community. Doing so might get us what we want today, but it will hinder our efforts in the future where we might need that majority, whom we just got done screwing.

Can you provide some reference for this "effort" to permit cycling ONLY on bikeways in California and nowhere else, and how serious this "effort" was? My impression is that this "effort" is a conjured strawman argument originating in the fevered rhetoric of John Forester. If I am wrong, I will be glad to be enlightened.
Many states have statutes that say if a side path is available cyclists must use it. If it's not in the state statutes it can be done by local ordinance.

I'd do the same thing. I'd say, folks, we need to get together and come up with a unified recommendation that represents area cyclists as a whole and not fight this out in public. Doing that would require compromise...and if I were part of the minority, which I probably would be in this case, I'd realize that compromise was our only acceptable course of action, because in the end the majority is going to get what they want unless we want to be disruptive and present a public split in the cycling community. Doing so might get us what we want today, but it will hinder our efforts in the future where we might need that majority, whom we just got done screwing.
In this case, there was no room for compromise. This is a right-of-way in which there is no reasonable alternate route. In the planning meetings, "casual" cyclists insisted the road was too dangerous and a path was needed. "Road" cyclists would likely have flooded city council chambers to save the shoulders (although they did not; see below), as this was part of an existing popular route.

In a sense, there is already a known split in the cycling community, as it's recognized in planning circles in my area that "casual" cyclists and "road" cyclists have different wants and needs: bike paths and trails for the "casual" cyclists; bike lanes, wide outside lanes, and shoulders for the "road" cyclists. (I know I'm oversimplifying here, as there is some overlap.) So most of the time on-street accommodations don't come at the expense of off-street accommodations, and vice versa.

In this particular example, it ended up being a win-win situation. The "casual" cyclists wanted the sidepath instead of the shoulder. But the developer pushed back, saying that the bicycle master plan for the area had required shoulders. Given that, there was no need for the "road" cyclists to enter the debate. The "casual" cyclists pushed harder, and the developer agreed to cut further into the hillside to make room for the path while retaining the shoulders.

Anyway, my purpose in bringing this up was just to point out that advocating for all cyclists is fine, but sometimes it comes down to advocating for some cyclists over others. Bicycle advocacy groups have this challenge also.

Can you provide some reference for this "effort" to permit cycling ONLY on bikeways in California and nowhere else, and how serious this "effort" was? My impression is that this "effort" is a conjured strawman argument originating in the fevered rhetoric of John Forester. If I am wrong, I will be glad to be enlightened.
I've had verbal conversations with other California advocates who say Forester's recollection is largely true, although his involvement in "saving the day" may have been overstated. But given that California ended up with a mandatory bike lane use law, I'm inclined to think the situation could have been much worse without cyclist involvement.

Anyway, my purpose in bringing this up was just to point out that advocating for all cyclists is fine, but sometimes it comes down to advocating for some cyclists over others. Bicycle advocacy groups have this challenge also.

And as you can see from many of these threads, doing so has hurt their reputation and credibility, as well as eroded their support among the majority of cyclists. Sometimes you gotta weigh the short term tactical benefits of winning a battle to the long term strategy of winning the war. Not saying one way or another concerning the specific battle you mentioned. ;)

Many states have statutes that say if a side path is available cyclists must use it. If it's not in the state statutes it can be done by local ordinance.
And how many of those states actually have "sidepaths" (not bike lanes) in any significant amount, and are any cyclists, in fact, negatively affected?

More to the point, the "issue" raised by LCI Brian describes an "effort" in California in the 70's to remove cyclists from the normal roads and restrict them to a network of sidepaths that were to be built presumably by some nefarious conspiracy California.

I asked, is there any credible evidence of such an effort to remove all cyclists from the normal roads of California or is it, as I suspect, another VC™ myth/bug-eyed nightmare scenario hatched and promulagated by John Forester and his acolytes?

I've had verbal conversations with other California advocates who say Forester's recollection is largely true, although his involvement in "saving the day" may have been overstated.
"Overstated" is one way to describe this "recollection". I would select a less charitable term.

Don't you think that a serious "effort" to construct bike side paths throughout the state of California, accompanied with a plan to kick all cyclists off all normal roads would have some written documentation somewhere? Somewhere, that is, besides the writings/recollections of one John Forester who claims to single handedly have saved the day for cycling?

Personally, I don't place much faith in the abilities of such California advocates to discern fact from fiction when they believe/repeat Forester's more blatant statistical and factual misrepresentations without any other source of credible evidence.

And as you can see from many of these threads, doing so has hurt their reputation and credibility, as well as eroded their support among the majority of cyclists. Sometimes you gotta weigh the short term tactical benefits of winning a battle to the long term strategy of winning the war. Not saying one way or another concerning the specific battle you mentioned. ;)
The sad thing is that there are some that advocate their point of view in a divisive way, when in most cases this is not necessary. The example I gave is a rare instance where the interests of some cyclists would conflict with the interests of others.

Hey, I think this is been a good discussion about advocacy, without invoking "hot buttons" such as VC, bike lane debate, etc. Don't ya think?

Uh, the bottom line is that the only effect any discussion here has on the "cycling community" is to those few cyclists that are on line and come to this forum.

Face it folks, we are but a tiny tiny drop in the bucket of cycling.

About the only thing the VC discussions here do is help clairify the rhetoric for those that sermonize it.

Just for grins, I wonder how many books have been sold relative to VC cycling compared to the number of bikes sold; further compare that to the number of helmets sold. I think these numbers might really show an interesting contrast.

Uh, the bottom line is that the only effect any discussion here has on the "cycling community" is to those few cyclists that are on line and come to this forum.
That would be about 40 - 50 cyclists +/-. However, I'm sure some of us take discussion of these issues out into the larger community.

In a sense, there is already a known split in the cycling community, as it's recognized in planning circles in my area that "casual" cyclists and "road" cyclists have different wants and needs: bike paths and trails for the "casual" cyclists; bike lanes, wide outside lanes, and shoulders for the "road" cyclists. (I know I'm oversimplifying here, as there is some overlap.) So most of the time on-street accommodations don't come at the expense of off-street accommodations, and vice versa.

In this particular example, it ended up being a win-win situation. The "casual" cyclists wanted the sidepath instead of the shoulder. But the developer pushed back, saying that the bicycle master plan for the area had required shoulders. Given that, there was no need for the "road" cyclists to enter the debate. The "casual" cyclists pushed harder, and the developer agreed to cut further into the hillside to make room for the path while retaining the shoulders.

Anyway, my purpose in bringing this up was just to point out that advocating for all cyclists is fine, but sometimes it comes down to advocating for some cyclists over others. Bicycle advocacy groups have this challenge also.
Talk to any urban transportation planner who is trying to encourage more people to cycle in his or her community. Neither 'serious road cyclists' nor 'skilled urban cyclists' are created overnight, and you need to start by encouraging people to ride who likely have little or no cycling experience, or long-ago childhood misperceptions of the place of a cyclist in the transportation environment, and whose biggest fear of cycling is motor vehicle traffic. In contrast to the small number of existing 'serious' and 'skilled' cyclists (in most places in the US the mode split for cycling is well below 5%, and the highly skilled cyclists that are comfortable in traffic is an even smaller subgroup), there is a vast pool of these unskilled potential cyclists out there that the urban planners are designing for. While I agree that you need to accomodate all cyclists, and in time the number of serious and skilled cyclists will rise, right now the planners are all about creating alternatives to taking your bike out into the lane on an arterial street - they are interested in things like bike lanes, side paths and low traffic neighborhood streets that can be turned into 'bike boulevards' and the like, to meet the needs of the less skilled. Since we all know that these types of facilities vary in quality, I think the best thing we can be doing as experienced cyclists is to help ensure that designs are improved and that bad designs are not only discontinued, but that existing facilities that were built to substandard designs are replaced with something better. New designs such as 'sharrows' appear to hold some promise, as well. The existing built environment will always also factor as to what exactly is possible when designing to accomodate bicycles (or choosing not to). Finally, as the numbers of experienced cyclists rises, I think it will be easier to 'take it to the street'.

BTW - I think subdividing cyclists into only two groups - 'casual' and 'road' - vastly oversimplifies the situation. I would place cyclists on a skill-level continuum. I also know many skilled urban cyclists that don't do any 'road work' at all; and visa versa, I see many fully kitted out 'roadies' riding in the urban environment that don't seem to have a clue.

That would be about 40 - 50 cyclists +/-. However, I'm sure some of us take discussion of these issues out into the larger community.

Sure they do, but how much reach does that have? I happen to know for instance that Helmet Head is a member of a local club and the local advocacy group... But the club has how many member? And the advocacy group, which supposedly represents all of San Diego, is also pitifully small in number...

Therefore a strong advocate such as HH might have some influence on perhaps a couple thousand people... and those are the ones interested in joining something... There are perhaps (and yeah this is a guess) some 10X that number that ride casually or as simple transportation in this area.

And then there are those like me who have been riding for years (30+) and just are not joiners (I did just join the advocacy group... which I have known about for about 10 years).

My influence (which is probably typical of most of us here) is to the handful of folks that I casually ride with... and from them, I doubt anything goes further.

So say there are 5 HH type activists here... They influence what, a total of 10K riders throughout the world, then there are about 45 folks like me... we influence about another ~250 or so riders...

Heck, I bet more then 20K bikes are sold a year, world wide... so how much influence do we as BF members have?

Granted I think the discussions are great, and help gel in my mind any arguments I might present to motorist or fellow cyclists... but looking at the big picture... I don't believe we here on BF A&S are going to change the biking world in any noticable way.

In fact, realistically, has John Forester or Sheldon Brown actually effected the overall biking world?

BTW - I think subdividing cyclists into only two groups - 'casual' and 'road' - vastly oversimplifies the situation. I would place cyclists on a skill-level continuum. I also know many skilled urban cyclists that don't do any 'road work' at all; and visa versa, I see many fully kitted out 'roadies' riding in the urban environment that don't seem to have a clue.
Yes, I'm oversimplifying the situation, but for my area it's not as much of an oversimplification as you might think. In an urban area I can see how you'd have a "spectrum" of cyclists. But I'm in a new affluent suburban area with high speed arterial roadways (45-65 mph). I would say there are more club cyclists per capita here as compared to other areas, but very few commuters or utility cyclists. Even though most of the arterial and collector roads have bike lanes, the "casual" cyclists find the road environment intimidating, One might argue that the roadway environment accentuates the division between the types of cyclists.

The one class I am missing is the working poor "invisible cyclists" as described in the Bicycling magazine article. Since my area is very far from where they live, they take their bikes on the bus and only ride from the bus stop to their place of employment. But since they have to take the bus anyway, most of the carless will simply walk from the bus stop to work. I see the "invisible cyclists" more in the older suburban areas, where the retail commuting destinations are spread out along major arterials, rather than grouped together in "strip malls" as they are in the newer suburbs.

The sad thing is that there are some that advocate their point of view in a divisive way, when in most cases this is not necessary. The example I gave is a rare instance where the interests of some cyclists would conflict with the interests of others.

Hey, I think this is been a good discussion about advocacy, without invoking "hot buttons" such as VC, bike lane debate, etc. Don't ya think?

Yep, it can be done...I have a lot of experience at dealing with other subjects without invoking hot buttons like Democrat, Republican, liberal, conservative, etc. Issues don't kill debates, labels do. ;)

Talk to any urban transportation planner who is trying to encourage more people to cycle in his or her community. Neither 'serious road cyclists' nor 'skilled urban cyclists' are created overnight, and you need to start by encouraging people to ride who likely have little or no cycling experience, or long-ago childhood misperceptions of the place of a cyclist in the transportation environment, and whose biggest fear of cycling is motor vehicle traffic. In contrast to the small number of existing 'serious' and 'skilled' cyclists (in most places in the US the mode split for cycling is well below 5%, and the highly skilled cyclists that are comfortable in traffic is an even smaller subgroup), there is a vast pool of these unskilled potential cyclists out there that the urban planners are designing for. While I agree that you need to accomodate all cyclists, and in time the number of serious and skilled cyclists will rise, right now the planners are all about creating alternatives to taking your bike out into the lane on an arterial street - they are interested in things like bike lanes, side paths and low traffic neighborhood streets that can be turned into 'bike boulevards' and the like, to meet the needs of the less skilled. Since we all know that these types of facilities vary in quality, I think the best thing we can be doing as experienced cyclists is to help ensure that designs are improved and that bad designs are not only discontinued, but that existing facilities that were built to substandard designs are replaced with something better. New designs such as 'sharrows' appear to hold some promise, as well. The existing built environment will always also factor as to what exactly is possible when designing to accomodate bicycles (or choosing not to). Finally, as the numbers of experienced cyclists rises, I think it will be easier to 'take it to the street'.


Good post! You are thinking past the present situation and taking a long term view...are you sure you are an American, comrade?

Granted I think the discussions are great, and help gel in my mind any arguments I might present to motorist or fellow cyclists... but looking at the big picture... I don't believe we here on BF A&S are going to change the biking world in any noticable way.

In fact, realistically, has John Forester or Sheldon Brown actually effected the overall biking world?

Horsepucky Gene. This thread is just one example of how we can and do effect positive change one cyclist at a time: http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=166594&highlight=chipcom

One person influences others and the results can balloon beyond comprehension. Just look at the impact Ken Kifer had on literally thousands of people, including me, just by writing about his own experiences and opinions.

The sad thing is that there are some that advocate their point of view in a divisive way, when in most cases this is not necessary. The example I gave is a rare instance where the interests of some cyclists would conflict with the interests of others.

Hey, I think this is been a good discussion about advocacy, without invoking "hot buttons" such as VC, bike lane debate, etc. Don't ya think?

Given infinite money perhaps there would rarely be conflict. But there is far from infinite money. Every dollar spent on anything for anyone is one dollar less to spend elsewhere. I find many of the bikepaths out there quite useful (when in the right mood). But there are a few that are just dollars wasted. Recently they put in the orange line. The plan included a bike path next to it. A path that is of no use to any rider actually trying to travel farther than the next bus stop. But the path is perfect for getting drivers to ask why is anyone riding a bike on the road? And that path cost lots of dollars, dollars that could have been used to patch potholes or repave bad sections of road.

Horsepucky Gene. This thread is just one example of how we can and do effect positive change one cyclist at a time: http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=166594&highlight=chipcom

One person influences others and the results can balloon beyond comprehension. Just look at the impact Ken Kifer had on literally thousands of people, including me, just by writing about his own experiences and opinions.

Sure, you effected one potential cyclist, and Ken perhaps thousands... But all and all that is a drop in the bucket of ALL the cyclists out there...

I wonder how many in France, Holland, China, and a whole bunch of other countries even have ever heard of Ken Kifer... how about all those "invisible" cyclists mentioned by LCI_Brian? I know for every cyclist I see that might be interested in any kind of "VC cause" (which BTW, did you pass on to your new potential rider?) there are a several handfull that most likely don't even use a computer, or give two hoots about VC... which is what this thread is all about.

So you influenced one rider... and may or may not have even mentioned VC... meanwhile how many other bikes were bought that day by other cyclists uninfluenced by anybody... except for their desire to either buy a "toy" or cheap transportation?

Chip, I am not saying that what you did didn't effect someone... what I am saying is that any influence from BF is just the very tip of the iceburg... and so so much more remains hidden beneath, untouched.

Think about Ken Kifer or John Forester... Then the next time you are casually riding somewhere, ask a cyclist if they have ever heard of those guys... go you one better... go to your LBS and see how many of the employees there have ever heard of these guys.

I have been on my city's Bicycle Advisory Committee for over ten years, and have also been a member of the local bicycle advocacy organization for about the same duration. I have also served on other transporation-related advisory groups, such as one that helped set development standards for bike parking for new construction.

While at times the work I do on these advisory committees can seem frustrating, and I don't always agree with all the decisions that are made, I do know that progress is surely occurring (albeit oftentimes too slowly, IMO), which extends beyond what I do or don't say to the dozen or so members of the advisory committee. It also certainly helps to have sympathetic and supportive local politicians and a demonstrated local cycling constituency.

My personal bias in most of these situations is to support what is practically doable, whether it be a separated on or off road facility, or a recommendation not to stripe bike lanes at specific locations because of lack of demonstrated need or due to the inability to safely engineer them. There are places I am glad to have a bike lane to ride in, other places where the bike lane as installed is in my opinion too unsafe to use, other places where I feel bike lanes are either unnecessary or unsafe and cyclists do in fact fare best in traffic, and finally, separated paths that are safe and allow cyclists to more conveniently reach actual real-life destinations.

Sure, you effected one potential cyclist, and Ken perhaps thousands... But all and all that is a drop in the bucket of ALL the cyclists out there...

I wonder how many in France, Holland, China, and a whole bunch of other countries even have ever heard of Ken Kifer... how about all those "invisible" cyclists mentioned by LCI_Brian? I know for every cyclist I see that might be interested in any kind of "VC cause" (which BTW, did you pass on to your new potential rider?) there are a several handfull that most likely don't even use a computer, or give two hoots about VC... which is what this thread is all about.

So you influenced one rider... and may or may not have even mentioned VC... meanwhile how many other bikes were bought that day by other cyclists uninfluenced by anybody... except for their desire to either buy a "toy" or cheap transportation?

Chip, I am not saying that what you did didn't effect someone... what I am saying is that any influence from BF is just the very tip of the iceburg... and so so much more remains hidden beneath, untouched.

Think about Ken Kifer or John Forester... Then the next time you are casually riding somewhere, ask a cyclist if they have ever heard of those guys... go you one better... go to your LBS and see how many of the employees there have ever heard of these guys.


That wasn't my point Gene, my point is that each and every one of us influences one or more people when it comes to cycling, and each of those people in turn influence others, yada, yada. Stuff don't change overnight, it changes one person at a time.

My personal bias in most of these situations is to support what is practically doable, whether it be a separated on or off road facility, or a recommendation not to stripe bike lanes at specific locations because of lack of demonstrated need or due to the inability to safely engineer them. There are places I am glad to have a bike lane to ride in, other places where the bike lane as installed is in my opinion too unsafe to use, other places where I feel bike lanes are either unnecessary or unsafe and cyclists do in fact fare best in traffic, and finally, separated paths that are safe and allow cyclists to more conveniently reach actual real-life destinations.

Not to get off on a tangent..but I will anyway...separated paths sometimes really irk me. I have one that runs parallel to the parkway that is about half of my commute. The part that bothers me is where it is right next to the road, but they put concrete parking slabs on the line, I guess to make sure cars could not cross into the path. Trouble is, there I am on the road, narrow single lane in each direction, no shoulder at all, MUP right next to me but not accessible. I get honked at to get off the road despite the 'share the road' and bicycle signs everywhere, and I can see why motorists would be irked that I am essentially in their way when there is a perfectly good path right next to me...but I can't get to it unless I jump the barriers. I'd like to find the 'engineer' who had that brainchild. Had a particularly nasty jerk try to run me off the road on the way home tonight in one of those spots...sorry I blew up. :D

That wasn't my point Gene, my point is that each and every one of us influences one or more people when it comes to cycling, and each of those people in turn influence others, yada, yada. Stuff don't change overnight, it changes one person at a time.

And my point is that no matter how many we all influence, the group of "uninfluenced" will grow at a larger enough pace that we are very negligible in the overall picture.

Ask yourself for instance why the original Wheelmen back in the 1890's who did have influence on the construction of roads and the direction of cycling's future, became so powerless in such a short time. Why didn't their messages resonate through the ages and become embraced by all future cyclists?

While we would like to think that we can and do influence future cyclists by our debates here... at best, we might be able to influence some of our local cyclists, and some road projects, but that's about it. ***

Look at it this way... imagine all the bike paths that have been laid down anywhere... now, compare that to all the motorvehicle roads being built daily... The bike paths represent our collective influence... the roads represent all the cyclists now and their future growing numbers...



*** Certainly all this boils down to acting locally... at least one may be able to influence something... but the overall effect of anything any of us do may or may not be carried out over generations and generations to amount to anything.

I keep thinking about some nice bike paths that once existed in San Diego, that in about 20 years of use, have degraded to cracked, worn, weed torn shadows of their former grandeur.

Overall the pace of change (entropy) is far greater than the pace of influence.

And my point is that no matter how many we all influence, the group of "uninfluenced" will grow at a larger enough pace that we are very negligible in the overall picture.


Geesh, and they call me cynical! :p
“A journey of a thousand miles must begin with a single step.”
- Lao Tzu

Geesh, and they call me cynical! :p
“A journey of a thousand miles must begin with a single step.”
- Lao Tzu

Hey, that doesn't mean to stop trying... Lao Tzu was right... and who knows, perhaps I will be proven to be quite wrong based on sudden future changes in oil, economy or some other unforeseen situation.

At any rate... I know I won't stop spreading positive influence when I can... inspite of how futile it may sometimes seem.

BTW, I was just expressing my thoughts RE this particular BF thread... not what I actually do...

Act locally, think globally.

Somewhat aside, but none the less interesting... I saw a Kaiser Hospital commercial yesterday that really had me applauding... I don't remember the exact opening... but it went along and promoted healthy lifestyle changes... one scene was someone pulling up to a fast food joint with the logo "minisize me," and the last frame was a superhiway filled with cyclists...

It was very cool and somebody "influenced" that commercial designer...

Which goes back to the point I have made ever since I joined BF and got involved in these discussions - riding safely, predictably, according to the applicable rules or laws of the road, has been practiced since long before the term VC was coined. They are not VC principles, VC is a brand that attempts to take ownership of those principles ...
Driving motor vehicles safely, predictably, according to the applicable rules or laws of the road, has been practiced since long before the term "defensive driving" was coined. They are not "defensive driving" principles; "defensive driving" is a brand that attempts to take ownership of those principles. :rolleyes"



...as a basis for promoting additional wacky techniques, dogma and advocacy representing a minority of cyclists.
Such as? (please provide specific examples in the actual words of a VC advocate, not your twist on them)



The term itself is tame and nobody would have a problem with it, if it had not been used as the rallying cry of advocates who want to promote their own minority viewpoints, many times in opposition to the wishes of the majority of the cycling community.
Oh, so it's an irrational emotional response. That explains the general lack of reason expressed by those who tend to oppose the minority viewpoints expressed by VC advocates (most notably, the opposition to most bike lanes).

Wow. I'm surprised and pleased that out of 44 respondents so far, less than 25% chose "hurt the cause of VC". Judging from all the antagonism expressed towards VC advocacy in posts recently, I expected this to be closer to 90%.

Anyway, I hope the "what's the diff?" thread effectively addresses what appears to be a key conceptual misunderstanding, and we can move on with much less haranguing.