Attitude-VC-Facilities

[Helmet Head]

The purpose of this thread is to explore and discuss how the attitude, or notion, that cyclists have an obligation to stay out of the way cars, relates to vehicular cycling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicular_cycling) and on-road cycling facilities (i.e., bike lanes).

Some questions to consider, to get the ball rolling.


Is cycling safety/advocacy helped or hindered by increases in prevalence in our culture of the notion that cyclists have an obligation to stay out of the way cars?
Would cycling safety/advocacy be helped or hindered by greater understanding and acceptance of vehicular cycling by cyclists?
Is practicing vehicular cycling facilitated, inhibited, or unaffected by the prevalence in our culture of the notion that cyclists have an obligation to stay out of the way cars?
Is learning vehicular cycling facilitated, inhibited, or unaffected by the prevalence in our culture of the notion that cyclists have an obligation to stay out of the way cars?
Do bike lanes cause the increase or decrease of the prevalence in our culture of the notion that cyclists have an obligation to stay out of the way cars?
Is practicing vehicular cycling facilitated, inhibited, or unaffected by the presence of bike lanes?
Is learning vehicular cycling facilitated, inhibited, or unaffected by the presence of bike lanes?

[Treespeed]

I would argue that motorists, our audience so to speak, have no idea what we are doing and that the dream of having all cyclists obey a consistent set of rules is unrealistic. I say unrealistic as most motorists cannot even agree on a consistent speed limit for example. I'm heading out the door now to ride home on a mix of residential roads, near freeways, and finally bike lane and I feel that each takes requires its own style of riding and give and take with motorists. I do my best to educate by riding well and predictably, but I would argue that a little more education of motorists and cyclists through the DMV and increased signage would go a long way.

Interesting to see if this one goes anywhere before it devolves into chaos. I'll check back tomorrow.

[genec]

How about simply that slower traffic has an "obligation" to keep out of the way of faster traffic when safe and possible to do so...

Traffic has an "obligation" to yield right of way to traffic in front.

That pretty much sums it all up.

[Helmet Head]

How about simply that slower traffic has an "obligation" to keep out of the way of faster traffic when safe and possible to do so...
How about it? If you want to talk about that, start your own thread! :)

Your rewrite is very different from cyclists have an obligation to stay out of the way of cars, which applies whether or not it's safe and reasonable, and whether or not they're traveling slower than other traffic. This is the notion this thread is about.

If you believe bike lanes reinforce the notion that "slower traffic has an "obligation" to keep out of the way of faster traffic when safe and possible to do so", but NOT the notion that cyclists have an obligation to stay out of the way of cars, then say that.

[Helmet Head]

Al, I noticed you did not select The notion that cyclists have an obligation to stay out of the way cars inhibits practicing vehicular cycling.. I was on the fence about that, but ended up voting true because there are instances where that notion gets in the way, like reducing your chances that someone will slow down and create a gap for you during negotiation. But, for the most part, I agree, vehicular cycling is pretty much just as easy to practice regardless of the prevalence of that notion, if that's what you meant.

I did not select The presence of bike lanes inhibits practicing vehicular cycling., because whatever inhibitive effect bike lanes may have on practicing vc, I don't think it's very significant.

However, I will say that cycling on a utility bike in the suburbs of Munich, it was inhibiting to venture out onto the arterials when EVERYBODY else was cycling on the sidepath sidewalks. But that's different from bike lanes.

[Roody]

How about simply that slower traffic has an "obligation" to keep out of the way of faster traffic when safe and possible to do so...

Traffic has an "obligation" to yield right of way to traffic in front.

That pretty much sums it all up.
True, but I interpreted the "obligation" in this poll to mean a feeling held by individual cyclists that they must stay out of the way of cars.

When I was first teaching my (adult) stepson how to ride in traffic, he kept saying, "But we're in the way of the cars. The cars will get mad at us!" I used the old "we are traffic" slogan, and that helped him to understand the concept that we had a right to the road, and even though we were not going out of our way to impede traffic, at times it was OK to hold tham up a bit in the interest of our own safety. Also he soon saw for himself that the cars didn't get mad at us, probably because we were riding predictably, and what we were doing made sense to them.

(And before HH says anything, I know that cars can't get mad. I just thought it was kind of cute how Jerry said it, and I think the term reflects some of the implicit thought of novice traffic cyclists.)

[Helmet Head]

True, but I interpreted the "obligation" in this poll to mean a feeling held by individual cyclists that they must stay out of the way of cars.

When I was first teaching my (adult) stepson how to ride in traffic, he kept saying, "But we're in the way of the cars. The cars will get mad at us!" I used the old "we are traffic" slogan, and that helped him to understand the concept that we had a right to the road, and even though we were not going out of our way to impede traffic, at times it was OK to hold tham up a bit in the interest of our own safety. Also he soon saw for himself that the cars didn't get mad at us, probably because we were riding predictably, and what we were doing made sense to them.

Gotta wonder how many times he's been admonished, "Jerry! Stay out of the way of cars! They'll get mad at you!"

Many adults don't get past the cycling advice that was given to them when they were seven years old.

[genec]

How about it? If you want to talk about that, start your own thread! :)

Your rewrite is very different from cyclists have an obligation to stay out of the way of cars, which applies whether or not it's safe and reasonable, and whether or not they're traveling slower than other traffic. This is the notion this thread is about.

If you believe bike lanes reinforce the notion that "slower traffic has an "obligation" to keep out of the way of faster traffic when safe and possible to do so", but NOT the notion that cyclists have an obligation to stay out of the way of cars, then say that.

I don't believe that cyclists have an obligation to stay out of the way of cars... which is why I stated what I stated.

I do think that bike lanes facilitate cyclists staying out of the way of faster traffic AND slower traffic... I also believe that bike lanes reduce any issues of "sharing space" that may occur in a WOL or similar situation. Thus I feel that bike lanes help eliminate the ambiguity of shared space and who has the obligation to do what with regard to whom.

I also believe that your poll offered choices along the lines of "when did you stop beating your wife," and, "while you were beating your wife, did she object..." pretty narrow focused to a singular conclusion.

[Helmet Head]

I also believe that your poll offered choices along the lines of "when did you stop beating your wife,"
How so? I thought I avoid that by asking true/false questions about specific statements. They can be false for any reason, including false implied premises. Do you have a specific example/explanation?

[genec]

How so? I thought I avoid that by asking true/false questions about specific statements. They can be false for any reason, including false implied premises. Do you have a specific example/explanation?

Well take these two for instance:

"The presence of bike lanes inhibits practicing vehicular cycling.
The presence of bike lanes inhibits learning vehicular cycling."

Both associate bike lanes with a negative connotation "inhibit," where as some may feel that bike lanes have no effect on vehicular cycling... but that choice was not available.

In fact if one were to examine all the statements... every choice but one, has a negative connotation.

[Ozrider]

Well, I will relate what my coach taught me very early on - all ties go to the bus.
We can rant all we want about idiot drivers and how we have as much right as they do to ride in the streets.
But, here's the reality - they are driving at least 2,500 pounds of steel, plastic and rubber. We are riding 17 or 18 pounds of carbon and rubber. Guess who wins when we try to occupy the same lane.
I have been hit by a car. Not a pleasant experience. I had the right of way and she had a stop sign and a caution bikers sign. Didn't stop her from nailing me and carrying me 65 feet on the hood of her car. Luckily I wasn't injured too seriously. Told the cop she never saw me. He replied balderdash, well he used something stronger, but you get my meaning. She still hit me.
We can talk all we want about the need to educate drivers and for more police patrols and how we have the same rights as motorists, but it ain't gonna happen. This country is autocentric.
Ninety-nine percent of the drivers I encounter on my daily rides are courteous and make an effort to give me room. But there is that one percent that assume that the roads are their's and what to heck is some skinny guy on a bike doing on their roads. Those are the ones that give me the finger, honk their car horns, swerve close to me and think that's funny.
So, the only thing to do is ride defensively and look out.
A final note, I was told after I got hit that I was now a real cyclist. This was from a friend who is a hard core racer. As he said, it's not if you are going to be hit, it's when.

[sbhikes]

I also believe that your poll offered choices along the lines of "when did you stop beating your wife," and, "while you were beating your wife, did she object..." pretty narrow focused to a singular conclusion.
I do, too. Here's why:
Cycling safety/advocacy is hindered by the notion that cyclists have an obligation to stay out of the way cars.
Cycling safety/advocacy would be helped by greater understanding and acceptance of vehicular cycling by cyclists.

These two statements link vehicular cycling with adopting a lane position that is not out of the way of cars (i.e. center-lane-biased), as if taking a lane position out of the way of cars is both not vehicular cycling and a hindrance to safety/advocacy for cyclists. Vehicular cycling, safety and advocacy for cyclists is not exclusive of right-biased or bike lane-biased lane positioning.

The notion that cyclists have an obligation to stay out of the way cars inhibits practicing vehicular cycling.
The notion that cyclists have an obligation to stay out of the way cars inhibits learning vehicular cycling.

These two conflate a lane position in the direct path of cars (i.e. center-lane-biasing) with vehicular cycling and imply that a lane position not in the direct path of cars is not vehicular cycling.

Vehicular cycling is not exclusive of right-biased or bike lane-biased lane positioning.

Bike lanes reinforce the notion that cyclists have an obligation to stay out of the way cars
The presence of bike lanes inhibits practicing vehicular cycling.
The presence of bike lanes inhibits learning vehicular cycling.
These three conflate the use of bike lanes with not practicing vehicular cycling.

Each of these three groups are false.

Furthermore, they are designed to further your objective which is to make center-lane-bias lane positioning and an anti-bike lane attitude equivalent to vehicular cycling, cycling safety, and cycling advocacy.

Vehicular cycling is perfectly executable without center lane biasing and an anti-bike lane stance. As is cycling safety and cycling advocacy.

Bike advocacy and safety would be better served by ceasing these relentless attempts to equate anti-bike-lane attitutes and center-lane-bias lane positioning with safety, advocacy and vehicular cycling.

[Brad M]

In fact if one were to examine all the statements... every choice but one, has a negative connotation.
This is a HH VC poll. Did you really expect to be anything other than one-sided?

[I-Like-To-Bike]

This is a HH VC poll. Did you really expect to be anything other than one-sided?
Only doofuses who take HH's line of BS theories and circular logic seriously, take his BS "polls" seriously.

[John E]

You know where I stand, Serge. I believe some bike lanes are properly designed, and I use and endorse these. I side with you and strongly oppose improperly engineered bike lanes, such as those in door zones or to the right of right-turn lanes. A little courtesy to motorists, such as riding to the right of the fog line IF the shoulder is decent, is constructive.

[Helmet Head]

These two statements link vehicular cycling with adopting a lane position that is not out of the way of cars (i.e. center-lane-biased), as if taking a lane position out of the way of cars is both not vehicular cycling and a hindrance to safety/advocacy for cyclists. Vehicular cycling, safety and advocacy for cyclists is not exclusive of right-biased or bike lane-biased lane positioning.
Once again, Diane, please cite your source for the definition of vehicular cycling that you're using. Or, if you're rolling your own, that's fine, but please specify what that definition is.

[Helmet Head]

Well take these two for instance:

"The presence of bike lanes inhibits practicing vehicular cycling.
The presence of bike lanes inhibits learning vehicular cycling."

Both associate bike lanes with a negative connotation "inhibit," where as some may feel that bike lanes have no effect on vehicular cycling... but that choice was not available.

In fact if one were to examine all the statements... every choice but one, has a negative connotation.
So what? There is nothing implied if you answer false. If you contend that the presence of bike lanes does not inhibit practicing vc, there is no implication that bike lanes still have some effect on vc.

Contrast that to the "are you still beating your wife?" question. Whether you answer yes or no, the implication is that, at least at some time in the past, you did beat your wife.

There is no such implied premise loaded into my questions, and it's unfair and a waste of time and resources for you contend that there is.

[Bekologist]

Loaded!

[Brian Ratliff]

Once again, Diane, please cite your source for the definition of vehicular cycling that you're using. Or, if you're rolling your own, that's fine, but please specify what that definition is.

Haven't you, yourself, indicated that it is okay by "VC rules" to ride in a bike lane (which is inherently right biased)? Doesn't your VC page in Wikipedia state as one of its misconceptions that VC does not necessarily mean riding in the way of cars all the time?

Or are you playing off the "obligation" theme? If so, the opposite of "feeling obligated" to stay out of the way of cars is not "vehicular cycling" but it is "not feeling obligated" to stay out of the way of cars. This is the point that Diane is trying to make.

BTW, I don't vote in polls which have my name attached, expecially when they are of a true/false type nature and are not representative of all the options. A poll of this nature is inherently faulty from a statistical basis because of the limited sampling, and a poll with my name attached can lead to a retorical trap where I now have to defend opinions which are not of my own making. Your arguments hinge on slight differences in wording, so I can't have you be making my arguments for me. Some of these problems with polls of this nature can be mitigated by correct wording, but you make little effort at this. I do believe you post polls like this simply to generate cannon fodder.

I only vote in polls where my name is not attached simply so I can see the chart when I flip to the thread. Simply for entertainment is all.

[genec]

So what? There is nothing implied if you answer false. If you contend that the presence of bike lanes does not inhibit practicing vc, there is no implication that bike lanes still have some effect on vc.

Contrast that to the "are you still beating your wife?" question. Whether you answer yes or no, the implication is that, at least at some time in the past, you did beat your wife.

There is no such implied premise loaded into my questions, and it's unfair and a waste of time and resources for you contend that there is.


You did not select an option to vote for. Please press back to return to the poll and choose an option before voting.

Hey, I voted... but the system doesn't record all negative votes... so the poll doesn't work and therefore is a waste of time.

[Helmet Head]

Hey I voted... but the system doesn't record all negative votes... so the poll is a waste of time.
That's a completely different argument. This particular poll was an after thought, a tool to generate discussion, not really to collect data. I realize it's weak. If nothing else, it needs a "none of the above" option.

[genec]

That's a completely different argument. This particular poll was an after thought, a tool to generate discussion, not really to collect data. I realize it's weak. If nothing else, it needs a "none of the above" option.

Is it really a "different argument" or does it simply prove that the poll is one sided?

[Helmet Head]

Haven't you, yourself, indicated that it is okay by "VC rules" to ride in a bike lane (which is inherently right biased)?
Yes, sometimes. But right bias in the absence of same direction traffic makes no more sense for a bicycle than it does for a motorcycle, tractor or any other type of vehicle. Note that the bike lane is typically designated on a section of road that would normally not be used by through traffic if it were demarcated for bikes only or not. It's non-vehicular (not to mention unnecessarily hazardous) to travel so far right for no good reason. Now, if there is faster same-direction traffic present, then, yeah, no problem.


Doesn't your VC page in Wikipedia state as one of its misconceptions that VC does not necessarily mean riding in the way of cars all the time?
Of course.


Or are you playing off the "obligation" theme? If so, the opposite of "feeling obligated" to stay out of the way of cars is not "vehicular cycling" but it is "not feeling obligated" to stay out of the way of cars. This is the point that Diane is trying to make.
Nothing I've written or even thought was based on the idea that the opposite of "feeling obligated" to stay out of the way cars is vehicular cycling (which of course it is not). However, vehicular cycling is not possible if one feels obligated to stay out of the way of cars.


BTW, I don't vote in polls which have my name attached, expecially when they are of a true/false type nature and are not representative of all the options. A poll of this nature is inherently faulty from a statistical basis because of the limited sampling, and a poll with my name attached can lead to a retorical trap where I now have to defend opinions which are not of my own making. Your arguments hinge on slight differences in wording, so I can't have you be making my arguments for me. Some of these problems with polls of this nature can be mitigated by correct wording, but you make little effort at this. I do believe you post polls like this simply to generate cannon fodder.
Agreed, except it's to generate discussion, not "cannon fodder".

[Helmet Head]

Is it really a "different argument" or does it simply prove that the poll is one sided?
It's one sided because there is no way for anyone to "vote" false on all questions and be recorded. If I had thought of that earlier, I would have added a none of the above question.

This is the first time I posted a poll that consisted of a series of true/false questions. The format of polls here restricts how one may do this, and the approach of marking only those that are true is the only way I could figure out how to do it. What I forgot to consider is the member who would want to "vote" false on all of them. I won't make this mistake next time.

But your original complaint was about the wording of specific questions, comparing them to the "are you still beating your wife" question. That's not inaccurate, unfair, and a waste of time.

[Brian Ratliff]

So what? There is nothing implied if you answer false. If you contend that the presence of bike lanes does not inhibit practicing vc, there is no implication that bike lanes still have some effect on vc.

Contrast that to the "are you still beating your wife?" question. Whether you answer yes or no, the implication is that, at least at some time in the past, you did beat your wife.

There is no such implied premise loaded into my questions, and it's unfair and a waste of time and resources for you contend that there is.

There is nothing unfair about questioning the wording of a poll question. The validity of polls is entirely dependent on the wording of the question. Ask the same question two different ways, and recieve different answers. Couple this with the fact that a name is attached to the poll (that it is not anonomous), wording is even more important.

If you commission a poll, prepare to be challenged on your wording as a general rule.

As for the "wife beating" aspect to the two statements:


"The presence of bike lanes inhibits practicing vehicular cycling.
The presence of bike lanes inhibits learning vehicular cycling."

a person answering false can be of one of two opinions: either that the presence of bike lanes reinforces practicing/learning vehicular cycling, or that the presence of bike lanes is neutral with regard to vehicular cycling. So at best, an answer of false will indicate nothing, at worse, it can be used to misconstrue a person's true opinion.

The overall wording of the poll is very negative toward bike lanes. If you believe bike lanes help cycling, you are in the position of voting false for every option. There is also a progression in the questioning, where the voter is first walked through the option s/he is almost undoubtably going to answer true (that the obligation of staying out of the way of cars is hurtful to good cycling practice). Then, in the next 3 questions, the reader is introduced to the idea that VC is opposite of the "obligation to stay out of the way of cars." Next, the link between bike lanes and the idea of "obligation" is made through the question. If a person answers false to this question (question 5) then s/he is forced by the logic of the first 4 questions to answer false to the next two, regardless of his or her actual opinion.

[Helmet Head]

There is nothing unfair about questioning the wording of a poll question.
Indeed. I have no problem with being question. I have a problem with inaccurate comparisions.


The validity of polls is entirely dependent on the wording of the question. Ask the same question two different ways, and recieve different answers. Couple this with the fact that a name is attached to the poll (that it is not anonomous), wording is even more important.
Go ahead, try to trip me up.


If you commission a poll, prepare to be challenged on your wording as a general rule.
I'm prepared.


As for the "wife beating" aspect to the two statements:
yes?


a person answering false can be of one of two opinions: either that the presence of bike lanes reinforces practicing/learning vehicular cycling, or that the presence of bike lanes is neutral with regard to vehicular cycling. So at best, an answer of false will indicate nothing, at worse, it can be used to misconstrue a person's true opinion.
Maybe you would use it to misconstrue a person's true opinion, but I wouldn't. Anyway, this has nothing to do with the wife beating question, which makes it impossible to answer accurately (assuming you never have beaten your wife).


The overall wording of the poll is very negative toward bike lanes. If you believe bike lanes help cycling, you are in the position of voting false for every option.
So? Setup a poll where a VC advocate would have to answer false to every question. Bring it on! Are you saying that there is some kind of preference to answering "true" over "false"? If so, I admit I certainly did not consider that.


There is also a progression in the questioning, where the voter is first walked through the option s/he is almost undoubtably going to answer true (that the obligation of staying out of the way of cars is hurtful to good cycling practice). Then, in the next 3 questions, the reader is introduced to the idea that VC is opposite of the "obligation to stay out of the way of cars." Next, the link between bike lanes and the idea of "obligation" is made through the question. If a person answers false to this question (question 5) then s/he is forced by the logic of the first 4 questions to answer false to the next two, regardless of his or her actual opinion.
Exactly. The whole point is to is illuminate which positions are logical, and which are not.

Note that you cannot setup a similar poll that would force me into an illogical situation, because my opinion is based on logic.

[Brian Ratliff]

Exactly. The whole point is to is illuminate which positions are logical, and which are not.

And we get to the root of your intent. Have your fun.

[genec]

Meanwhile, every user of the roadway makes exactly the same logical decisions... Right? :rolleyes:

[Helmet Head]

And we get to the root of your intent.
Like I had to point it out explicitly?

Gene, I don't understand the relevance of your last post to this thread.

[genec]

Like I had to point it out explicitly?

Gene, I don't understand the relevance of your last post to this thread.

Quite simply that applying logic and reason to an problem that is not a "logic problem" will result in inconclusive answers. (you are married... right?)

While the basic rules of the road are quite logical... mixing cyclists with motorists is not, neither is the reaction of most motorists... from their first decision on what vehicle to by ("I just fell in love with it") to their reactions on the road when facing any obstacle... be it cement truck to cyclist, to why they might carry a gun in the car.... emotion is often the ruling factor, not logic.

[Helmet Head]

Quite simply that applying logic and reason to an problem that is not a "logic problem" will result in inconclusive answers. (you are married... right?)

While the basic rules of the road are quite logical... mixing cyclists with motorists is not, neither is the reaction of most motorists... from their first decision on what vehicle to by ("I just fell in love with it") to their reactions on the road when facing any obstacle... be it cement truck to cyclist, to why they might carry a gun in the car.... emotion is often the ruling factor, not logic.
Oh, man.

"Emotion is often the ruling factor", to use one of your own statements, is a logical assertion (either it is true, or it isn't).

Just because the subject is dominated by emotion does not mean we cannot make relevant logical assertions about it, and determine whether they are true or false.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

This particular poll was an after thought, a tool to generate discussion, not really to collect data.
I believe that like I believe everything else Head pontificates about NOT!

I assume that Head will cherry pick these polls for an "analysis" that will provide the predertermined desired conclusions and will then be used for extravegant extrapolation to the cyclists of the world; just like his guru's MO. Wait for the upcoming Head tome on bicycling technique and read how Head will use his interpretations of your retorts. Remember what his good buddy DC wrote, every retort and negative reply to HH's BS really is a confirmation of HH's BS theories, premises and ka-ka conclusions.

[LittleBigMan]

Loaded!
He, he...do ya think? :D

I answered the first 4 in the affirmative.

[sbhikes]

To repeat myself:
Your poll has been designed to equate the use of bike lanes and right-biased lane positioining with not practicing vehicular cycling.

Once again, Diane, please cite your source for the definition of vehicular cycling that you're using. Or, if you're rolling your own, that's fine, but please specify what that definition is.

Haven't you, yourself, indicated that it is okay by "VC rules" to ride in a bike lane (which is inherently right biased)? Doesn't your VC page in Wikipedia state as one of its misconceptions that VC does not necessarily mean riding in the way of cars all the time?

Yes, sometimes. But right bias in the absence of same direction traffic makes no more sense for a bicycle than it does for a motorcycle, tractor or any other type of vehicle....

Your last statement here proves that you are trying to change the definition of vehicular cycling--a definition which you yourself has says does not preclude the use of bike lanes or right-biased travel--to conform to the belief you have that it makes no sense to be right-biased in the absence of same-direction traffic.

[Helmet Head]

Diane, for the third time, please specify the definition of vehicular cycling you're using.

Are you contending that you're going with the definition in Wikipedia, and I'm the one deviating? Or are you saying the one in Wikipedia deviates from the "real" definition? I can't tell. If you would just specify what definition you're using, that would clarify everything.

[noisebeam]

IInteresting to see if this one goes anywhere before it devolves into chaos.
;)

[sbhikes]

Diane, for the third time, please specify the definition of vehicular cycling you're using.

Are you contending that you're going with the definition in Wikipedia, and I'm the one deviating? Or are you saying the one in Wikipedia deviates from the "real" definition? I can't tell. If you would just specify what definition you're using, that would clarify everything.
Didn't Brian answer your question?

Can you show us a definition of VC that doesn't expressly state that your center-lane biasing technique is a requirement and that isn't a definition you wrote?

[Roody]

Diane, for the third time, please specify the definition of vehicular cycling you're using.

Are you contending that you're going with the definition in Wikipedia, and I'm the one deviating? Or are you saying the one in Wikipedia deviates from the "real" definition? I can't tell. If you would just specify what definition you're using, that would clarify everything.
I think the confusion may stem from your definition of "obligation" in the poll. To many people, this word means "a moral or legal duty, usually externally applied." As in "citizens are obligated to pay taxes."

I think you meant it as "an inner feeling that one must do something." As in "He felt obligated to return his library books on time."

[Treespeed]

Oh, man.

"Emotion is often the ruling factor", to use one of your own statements, is a logical assertion (either it is true, or it isn't).

Just because the subject is dominated by emotion does not mean we cannot make relevant logical assertions about it, and determine whether they are true or false.

Serge, it's just funny that you only accuse others of getting emotional, but never admit to how emotionally clouded you are regarding the issues of BL's and VC. Not to be too relativistic, but there are multiple ways to ride down the road and arrive safely at your destination. The idea that BL's can influence wether someone can ride VC or not is laughable. You want it both ways, you move over when there is traffic, but assume that if there is a bike lane then you'll have to move over all the time. What the heck is wrong with there being a place to be the majority of the time, then you can use your acquired VC/Alpha dog skills anytime you need to merge left and leave the bike lane. In the end, I think you are making this way more complicated than it needs to be.

[Bekologist]

Helmet, as far as this forum is concerned, you ARE the wikipedia article on VC 'method'. You've admitted it yourself, in your sig.


"Wikipedia- the largest source of misinformation on the internet!"