Helmet Head
Just curious regarding what some of the effects of learning vehicular cycling has or has not been on some of the members of this cycling community.
Effect of learning VC
Pages :
[1]
2
The BikeForums Team
-adv-
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content here.
Ready to buy? Check out these two online bike stores:
- http://www.nashbar.com (you can find the latest bike nashbar coupons in this thread)
- http://www.performancebike.com (you can find the latest performance bike coupons in this thread)
Cya on the forums,
- The BikeForums Team
- http://www.bikeforums.net
Ready to buy? Check out these two online bike stores:
- http://www.nashbar.com (you can find the latest bike nashbar coupons in this thread)
- http://www.performancebike.com (you can find the latest performance bike coupons in this thread)
Cya on the forums,
- The BikeForums Team
- http://www.bikeforums.net
noisebeam
OK, I'll play... ;)
Al
Al
Brian Ratliff
HH: Too bad you don't regard Hurst's book in terms of what it says about technique (I am referring to the cheap shot you gave his book in your poll). Just as with the John Forester detractors, it is the author's separate opinion, to which he is entitled, rather than his advice and analysis, which is judged here. This is no better and no worse than your terminology of "paint 'n path", "bike lane apologists" etc.
Hurst makes a distinction between "strict vehicular cycling", "invisible cycling" in terms of technique. In terms of philosophy, he makes a distinction between "vehicular cyclists" and "neo-vehicular cyclists". If you read his book without an agenda, you will find that it is the "neo-vehicular cyclists" who he is against. You know, the ones who say "never" a lot, and the ones who say there is only one, universal, way of cycling on different roads. He even has some words about the positive role that John Forester played in bicycle advocacy in his day. If the glove fits, wear it. If not; there is nothing to get all hot and bothered about.
As far as learning; I have learned from Forester's book and works, Hurst's book, and I have learned from poster's here. Unfortunately, I have not learned anything from you, since you have impeached your credibility with me so badly.
The bogey here is not VC; the alternative is not "paint 'n path", or sidewalk cycling, or pedestrian cycling Nearly everyone here (including Robert Hurst) agrees that vehicular cycling techniques are the most effective at getting around the urban environment . You are fighting yesterday's battle; and we've got to stop that. Whereas you depict your fight against "others" as some epic battle, it's really a minor squabble over advocacy methods, blown out of proportion. You would do well to realize that the world is a big place and there is room for different people to advocate for cycling differently. Put down the sword... or at least turn around and point it in the right direction.
Hurst makes a distinction between "strict vehicular cycling", "invisible cycling" in terms of technique. In terms of philosophy, he makes a distinction between "vehicular cyclists" and "neo-vehicular cyclists". If you read his book without an agenda, you will find that it is the "neo-vehicular cyclists" who he is against. You know, the ones who say "never" a lot, and the ones who say there is only one, universal, way of cycling on different roads. He even has some words about the positive role that John Forester played in bicycle advocacy in his day. If the glove fits, wear it. If not; there is nothing to get all hot and bothered about.
As far as learning; I have learned from Forester's book and works, Hurst's book, and I have learned from poster's here. Unfortunately, I have not learned anything from you, since you have impeached your credibility with me so badly.
The bogey here is not VC; the alternative is not "paint 'n path", or sidewalk cycling, or pedestrian cycling Nearly everyone here (including Robert Hurst) agrees that vehicular cycling techniques are the most effective at getting around the urban environment . You are fighting yesterday's battle; and we've got to stop that. Whereas you depict your fight against "others" as some epic battle, it's really a minor squabble over advocacy methods, blown out of proportion. You would do well to realize that the world is a big place and there is room for different people to advocate for cycling differently. Put down the sword... or at least turn around and point it in the right direction.
-=Łem in Pa=-
"I learned some VC techniques from this forum"
Ive learned to be more assertive but with that comes the realization
that VC is based alot on the way cyclists think it should be
as opposed to the realities, dangers etc that are really there. I look
at it as a never ending learning process ....when to VC and when not to.
Ive learned to be more assertive but with that comes the realization
that VC is based alot on the way cyclists think it should be
as opposed to the realities, dangers etc that are really there. I look
at it as a never ending learning process ....when to VC and when not to.
Helmet Head
Wow. Only 1 out of 9 respondents has read both EC and UC (that would be me). 2 out of 9, one of which was me, have even read just EC. Yet you have such strong opinions about VC. :rolleyes:
Helmet Head
I've learned to be more assertive but with that comes the realization
that VC is based alot on the way cyclists think it should be
as opposed to the realities, dangers etc that are really there. I look
at it as a never ending learning process ....when to VC and when not to.
Let me guess, you're one of the 7 out of 9 who has not read EC. But, you know enough about VC to make assertions like "VC is based alot on the way cyclists think it should be as opposed to the realities, dangers etc that are really there."
Please don't take this the wrong way, but you have no clue about what you are saying.
that VC is based alot on the way cyclists think it should be
as opposed to the realities, dangers etc that are really there. I look
at it as a never ending learning process ....when to VC and when not to.
Let me guess, you're one of the 7 out of 9 who has not read EC. But, you know enough about VC to make assertions like "VC is based alot on the way cyclists think it should be as opposed to the realities, dangers etc that are really there."
Please don't take this the wrong way, but you have no clue about what you are saying.
webist
Effective techniques for negotiating my place within vehicular traffic add to the pleasure and efficiency of my rides, probably safety as well. My real kick comes from being able to go places or negotiate routes where vehicles generally, can't, won't or just don't usually travel. I enjoy "vehicular cycling" when I ride through the slit in a speed hump, take an MUP diagonally across otherwise vacant land, use a short stretch of sidewalk to avoid potholes or cracked streets or take short cuts down narrow alleys between buildings. I like riding behind the stores in a shopping center. It's also great to make a right turn, a u-turn and another right to avoid a long red light? I enjoy vehicular cycling behavior with a good many exceptions and exemptions based on circumstance. Not even handicapped parking spaces are as close to the entrance as the railing on the porch. I certainly avoid vehicular parking :)
Helmet Head
If you read his book without an agenda, you will find that it is the "neo-vehicular cyclists" who he is against.
Brian, I read his book very carefully. I don't have it in front of me, so I can't give you exact quotes, but what he described as vehicular cycling and vehicular cyclists (which you refer to as "neo-vehicular cyclists", your term, not his), are all cartoonlike figments of his imagination. They don't exist. He sets up a strawman depiction of VC and VC advocates, and then takes a stand against that.
He even has some words about the positive role that John Forester played in bicycle advocacy in his day.
Oh yeah, the back-handed complement. You could almost taste the regurgitated lunch he must have had to reswallow after typing those words.
Brian, I read his book very carefully. I don't have it in front of me, so I can't give you exact quotes, but what he described as vehicular cycling and vehicular cyclists (which you refer to as "neo-vehicular cyclists", your term, not his), are all cartoonlike figments of his imagination. They don't exist. He sets up a strawman depiction of VC and VC advocates, and then takes a stand against that.
He even has some words about the positive role that John Forester played in bicycle advocacy in his day.
Oh yeah, the back-handed complement. You could almost taste the regurgitated lunch he must have had to reswallow after typing those words.
Blue Order
Here's one that's not in your poll: Your style of VC advocacy is such a turn-off for me that I'm biased against Forester before I've ever read a word of what he has to say. Now ask yourself, is that effective advocacy?
-=Łem in Pa=-
Let me guess, you're one of the 7 out of 9 who has not read EC. But, you know enough about VC to make assertions like "VC is based alot on the way cyclists think it should be as opposed to the realities, dangers etc that are really there."
Please don't take this the wrong way, but you have no clue about what you are saying.
I dont take it the wrong way. I expected my opinion to get an opinion in return.
The poll topic is about VC, not EC. Therefore I am commenting on what I know about VC.
That might not be enuff to you, but did you see where I say "its a never ending learning
process" ?? So, I dont make any claims to know enuff, only that I will always be learning more.
But, with 41 years of riding under my belt, I still maintain that a lot of what I read here, no
matter what it is called or what catagory it falls under is not based on the realities I face
on my rides.
Please don't take this the wrong way, but you have no clue about what you are saying.
I dont take it the wrong way. I expected my opinion to get an opinion in return.
The poll topic is about VC, not EC. Therefore I am commenting on what I know about VC.
That might not be enuff to you, but did you see where I say "its a never ending learning
process" ?? So, I dont make any claims to know enuff, only that I will always be learning more.
But, with 41 years of riding under my belt, I still maintain that a lot of what I read here, no
matter what it is called or what catagory it falls under is not based on the realities I face
on my rides.
rando
Here's one that's not in your poll: Your style of VC advocacy is such a turn-off for me that I'm biased against Forester before I've ever read a word of what he has to say. Now ask yourself, is that effective advocacy?
Ditto.
Ditto.
I-Like-To-Bike
Here's one that's not in your poll: Your style of VC advocacy is such a turn-off for me that I'm biased against Forester before I've ever read a word of what he has to say. Now ask yourself, is that effective advocacy?
Of course the opposite is true also. Anyone who is turned on by HH's Style/Methods of Advocacy should be thrilled to read similiar sophistry, dogmatic assertions, wishful thinking and conjuring from Forester.
Of course the opposite is true also. Anyone who is turned on by HH's Style/Methods of Advocacy should be thrilled to read similiar sophistry, dogmatic assertions, wishful thinking and conjuring from Forester.
sbhikes
Most of us get formal education on the rules of the road in driver's training/education, although I hear they no longer offer that in many high schools. In driver's ed you see films, you listen to the teacher, to cops who come in to lecture, you read the State-approved hand-books, you take some quizzes and eventually you take the written test at the DMV. You do NOT read some author's opinion on how to drive a car. You get the rules of the road from approved sources. Then you go out and you learn the spacial coordination and physical skills of operating the vehicle on the street. Again, you get that training from an approved source, not from some business person who sells his own brand of driving.
None of your poll options are State-sanctioned sources. The each can be interesting reading, you can get some valuable tips, but in the end these are just opinions, not a vehicle operator's curriculum to be studied and taken quite as seriously as you tend to do. So the best thing that can come out of your poll is more arguing and opinionating about each others' arguments and opinions about the arguments and opinions in those books.
None of your poll options are State-sanctioned sources. The each can be interesting reading, you can get some valuable tips, but in the end these are just opinions, not a vehicle operator's curriculum to be studied and taken quite as seriously as you tend to do. So the best thing that can come out of your poll is more arguing and opinionating about each others' arguments and opinions about the arguments and opinions in those books.
John E
Wow. Only 1 out of 9 respondents has read both EC and UC (that would be me). 2 out of 9, one of which was me, have even read just EC. Yet you have such strong opinions about VC. :rolleyes:
I am one of the (now) 4 who has read EC. I have also read Cyclecraft, which I prefer over EC. If you have the physical coordination, peripheral vision, lightning reflexes, sprint speed, and in-your-face personality and physical self-confidence to negotiate your own gaps in fast traffic, more power to you. I know my own significant limitations, and I prefer a somewhat more defensive, cautious, though hardly timid, style of riding.
I am one of the (now) 4 who has read EC. I have also read Cyclecraft, which I prefer over EC. If you have the physical coordination, peripheral vision, lightning reflexes, sprint speed, and in-your-face personality and physical self-confidence to negotiate your own gaps in fast traffic, more power to you. I know my own significant limitations, and I prefer a somewhat more defensive, cautious, though hardly timid, style of riding.
JRA
Oh, goody. More Helmet Head VC proselytizing and another loaded poll.
What a joke! The first two options are...
LOL. Gimme a break!
My response to the poll question, "Select all that are true", my answer is, "None of the above, you silly, silly man".
I learned to ride according to the vehicular rules of the road from other cyclists long before any of us ever heard of John Forester or his far-fetched political, psychological and social theories around which others have unfortunately built a cult and a political movement which some of them never seem to tire of obnoxiously trying to shove down everybody's throats.
Learning to ride confidently in traffic is great. You don't have to worship VC, quote the holy book, accept the dogma or agree with VC politics to do it.
What a joke! The first two options are...
LOL. Gimme a break!
My response to the poll question, "Select all that are true", my answer is, "None of the above, you silly, silly man".
I learned to ride according to the vehicular rules of the road from other cyclists long before any of us ever heard of John Forester or his far-fetched political, psychological and social theories around which others have unfortunately built a cult and a political movement which some of them never seem to tire of obnoxiously trying to shove down everybody's throats.
Learning to ride confidently in traffic is great. You don't have to worship VC, quote the holy book, accept the dogma or agree with VC politics to do it.
Laika
Learning to ride confidently in traffic is great. You don't have to worship VC, quote the holy book, accept the dogma or agree with VC politics to do it.
what he said.
what he said.
catatonic
VC was alright from a cyclist point of view, but from a motorist point of view it can get very irritating. Taking the lane is alright when road conditions are bad, but doing it just to stop drivers from being stupid is not going to help anything...it comes off as being disruptive....which is definately not good for the image of bicycle commuters in general.
Just ride straight, signal your intent so those behind you know, be as visible as possible, and pick your routes according to your ability and needs...don't hit a busy 45mph road if you can't hold at least 15mph...it's not good for your safety, since fly-bys will happen just due to drivers not expecting a bike there. Sidewalks are not roads, stoplights are not suggestions... pretty much if you behave like traffic, more drivers are willing to accept you as traffic.
Just common sense really.
Just ride straight, signal your intent so those behind you know, be as visible as possible, and pick your routes according to your ability and needs...don't hit a busy 45mph road if you can't hold at least 15mph...it's not good for your safety, since fly-bys will happen just due to drivers not expecting a bike there. Sidewalks are not roads, stoplights are not suggestions... pretty much if you behave like traffic, more drivers are willing to accept you as traffic.
Just common sense really.
Blue Order
VC was alright from a cyclist point of view, but from a motorist point of view it can get very irritating. Taking the lane is alright when road conditions are bad, but doing it just to stop drivers from being stupid is not going to help anything...it comes off as being disruptive....which is definately not good for the image of bicycle commuters in general.And then throw in some upraised fingers and suggestions about what the annoyed motorist should do with himself, all done with a steely alpha dog demeanor. Yep, that really improves cycling conditions...
Just ride straight, signal your intent so those behind you know, be as visible as possible, and pick your routes according to your ability and needs...don't hit a busy 45mph road if you can't hold at least 15mph...it's not good for your safety, since fly-bys will happen just due to drivers not expecting a bike there. Sidewalks are not roads, stoplights are not suggestions... pretty much if you behave like traffic, more drivers are willing to accept you as traffic.
Just common sense really.+1
And if I might add, extending a little common courtesy towards each other out on the roads doesn't hurt...
Just ride straight, signal your intent so those behind you know, be as visible as possible, and pick your routes according to your ability and needs...don't hit a busy 45mph road if you can't hold at least 15mph...it's not good for your safety, since fly-bys will happen just due to drivers not expecting a bike there. Sidewalks are not roads, stoplights are not suggestions... pretty much if you behave like traffic, more drivers are willing to accept you as traffic.
Just common sense really.+1
And if I might add, extending a little common courtesy towards each other out on the roads doesn't hurt...
KrisPistofferson
Hurst's is probably the one book I would recommend to an aspiring commuting cyclist.
Helmet Head
VC was alright from a cyclist point of view, but from a motorist point of view it can get very irritating. Taking the lane is alright when road conditions are bad, but doing it just to stop drivers from being stupid is not going to help anything...it comes off as being disruptive....which is definately not good for the image of bicycle commuters in general.
Just ride straight, signal your intent so those behind you know, be as visible as possible, and pick your routes according to your ability and needs...don't hit a busy 45mph road if you can't hold at least 15mph...it's not good for your safety, since fly-bys will happen just due to drivers not expecting a bike there. Sidewalks are not roads, stoplights are not suggestions... pretty much if you behave like traffic, more drivers are willing to accept you as traffic.
You write with the ignorance (about VC) of someone who has not read Forester's book, and going by some miscontrued understanding of it.
Am I correct?
Just ride straight, signal your intent so those behind you know, be as visible as possible, and pick your routes according to your ability and needs...don't hit a busy 45mph road if you can't hold at least 15mph...it's not good for your safety, since fly-bys will happen just due to drivers not expecting a bike there. Sidewalks are not roads, stoplights are not suggestions... pretty much if you behave like traffic, more drivers are willing to accept you as traffic.
You write with the ignorance (about VC) of someone who has not read Forester's book, and going by some miscontrued understanding of it.
Am I correct?
sbhikes
VC was alright from a cyclist point of view, but from a motorist point of view it can get very irritating. Taking the lane is alright when road conditions are bad, but doing it just to stop drivers from being stupid is not going to help anything...it comes off as being disruptive....which is definately not good for the image of bicycle commuters in general.
Just ride straight, signal your intent so those behind you know, be as visible as possible, and pick your routes according to your ability and needs...don't hit a busy 45mph road if you can't hold at least 15mph...it's not good for your safety, since fly-bys will happen just due to drivers not expecting a bike there. Sidewalks are not roads, stoplights are not suggestions... pretty much if you behave like traffic, more drivers are willing to accept you as traffic.
You write with the ignorance (about VC) of someone who has not read Forester's book, and going by some miscontrued understanding of it.
Am I correct?
Since you are the primary representative here of Forester and VC, perhaps the misconstrual is partially due to your portrayal of it.
Or else he simply has a point.
Personally, I'm going with the latter.
Just ride straight, signal your intent so those behind you know, be as visible as possible, and pick your routes according to your ability and needs...don't hit a busy 45mph road if you can't hold at least 15mph...it's not good for your safety, since fly-bys will happen just due to drivers not expecting a bike there. Sidewalks are not roads, stoplights are not suggestions... pretty much if you behave like traffic, more drivers are willing to accept you as traffic.
You write with the ignorance (about VC) of someone who has not read Forester's book, and going by some miscontrued understanding of it.
Am I correct?
Since you are the primary representative here of Forester and VC, perhaps the misconstrual is partially due to your portrayal of it.
Or else he simply has a point.
Personally, I'm going with the latter.
catatonic
I'm merely going by the ranting of the various VC zealots I deal with in this area....very nice people overall, but they do more to detract from public opinion of cyclists than advance it. Too much doom and gloom, and way too much anti-car mentality.
Maybe it's just bad advocates, but either way, we don't need any other guide than the state vehicle code, and that nice little fatty glob between our ears :)
Maybe it's just bad advocates, but either way, we don't need any other guide than the state vehicle code, and that nice little fatty glob between our ears :)
randya
You write with the ignorance (about VC) of someone who has not read Forester's book, and going by some miscontrued understanding of it.
Am I correct?
Why would anyone respond to this post in the affirmative after you have pre-insulted them regarding what you think their answer might be?
:rolleyes:
Am I correct?
Why would anyone respond to this post in the affirmative after you have pre-insulted them regarding what you think their answer might be?
:rolleyes:
Helmet Head
Ignorance is not an insult. I'm ignorant about almost everything, and anyone who says that is simply saying the truth, not insulting me.
However, I am not ignorant about vehicular cycling as it is described in the book Effective Cycling, since I have read and studied the book.
Anyone who has not read this book, like Catatonic, who "merely [goes] by the ranting of the various VC zealots in [his] area", is ignorant about vehicular cycling as it is described in the book Effective Cycling.
However, I am not ignorant about vehicular cycling as it is described in the book Effective Cycling, since I have read and studied the book.
Anyone who has not read this book, like Catatonic, who "merely [goes] by the ranting of the various VC zealots in [his] area", is ignorant about vehicular cycling as it is described in the book Effective Cycling.
randya
JF and HH
http://www.aciprensa.com/Banco/images/jesus-pastor.jpg
EC, the book
http://www.daily-bible.com/bible.jpg
http://www.aciprensa.com/Banco/images/jesus-pastor.jpg
EC, the book
http://www.daily-bible.com/bible.jpg
KrisPistofferson
http://www.espiritoshp.hpg.ig.com.br/poltergeist.jpg
This is totally Serge.
This is totally Serge.
I-Like-To-Bike
This is totally Serge.
Topped Ya! I found a picture of the jack donkey mouthing gibberish with the EC™ Puppet Master caught in the act.
Topped Ya! I found a picture of the jack donkey mouthing gibberish with the EC™ Puppet Master caught in the act.
MarkS
I might read EC (its on my wishlist) if it wasn't $25 and not available through the local library system. I'm more likely to buy UC, since its getting good reviews and is only $15. Together, with shipping they'd be about $50. Could buy safer tires, a new helmet, a couple airzounds, or an entire jacket of blinkies for that price. Would it make me that much safer to learn VC principles in more detail than I can already learn here and from other sources that it would justify the cost?
Perhaps practical advocacy would be about taking concrete steps, like getting literature into the libraries and school system. If the information is truly important, and not elitist dogma, it should be freely available online.
Perhaps practical advocacy would be about taking concrete steps, like getting literature into the libraries and school system. If the information is truly important, and not elitist dogma, it should be freely available online.
John E
I might read EC (its on my wishlist) if it wasn't $25 and not available through the local library system. I'm more likely to buy UC, since its getting good reviews and is only $15. ...
The other two "Gospels of John," John S. Allen's "Street Smarts" and John Franklin's "Cyclecraft," are just as educational as "Effective Cycling," but terser, more readable, more current, and cheaper. I own (and have read) copies of all three, and as with any scripture, I learn everything I can from each one, but apply its teachings through my own personal filter of reason, experience, and tradition.
The other two "Gospels of John," John S. Allen's "Street Smarts" and John Franklin's "Cyclecraft," are just as educational as "Effective Cycling," but terser, more readable, more current, and cheaper. I own (and have read) copies of all three, and as with any scripture, I learn everything I can from each one, but apply its teachings through my own personal filter of reason, experience, and tradition.
flipped4bikes
The problem with this poll is that each choice is mutually exclusive of each other. I can see several choices which apply to me, yet I can only choose one...
flipped4bikes
http://www.espiritoshp.hpg.ig.com.br/poltergeist.jpg
This is totally Serge.
Didn't that black hat dude yell, "You're all going to DIE in there!"? So, if we aren't VC, is that going to happen to us? :D
This is totally Serge.
Didn't that black hat dude yell, "You're all going to DIE in there!"? So, if we aren't VC, is that going to happen to us? :D
noisebeam
Wow. Only 1 out of 9 respondents has read both EC and UC
I don't own any cycling in traffic skills books, but have read lots of pages of several of them in libraries and bookstores. I voted NO on reading as I have not read any cover to cover.
Al
I don't own any cycling in traffic skills books, but have read lots of pages of several of them in libraries and bookstores. I voted NO on reading as I have not read any cover to cover.
Al
Roody
The problem with this poll is that each choice is mutually exclusive of each other. I can see several choices which apply to me, yet I can only choose one...
You can pick one, some, all or none. I guess you didn't see the instructions on the poll?
You can pick one, some, all or none. I guess you didn't see the instructions on the poll?
Roody
I might read EC (its on my wishlist) if it wasn't $25 and not available through the local library system. I'm more likely to buy UC, since its getting good reviews and is only $15. Together, with shipping they'd be about $50. Could buy safer tires, a new helmet, a couple airzounds, or an entire jacket of blinkies for that price. Would it make me that much safer to learn VC principles in more detail than I can already learn here and from other sources that it would justify the cost?
Perhaps practical advocacy would be about taking concrete steps, like getting literature into the libraries and school system. If the information is truly important, and not elitist dogma, it should be freely available online.
Most libraries can order just about any book ever published through "Inter-library Loans." Ask a librarian.
And yes, I think (know, from personal experience) that reading any or all of these books should increase your safety on the road.
Perhaps practical advocacy would be about taking concrete steps, like getting literature into the libraries and school system. If the information is truly important, and not elitist dogma, it should be freely available online.
Most libraries can order just about any book ever published through "Inter-library Loans." Ask a librarian.
And yes, I think (know, from personal experience) that reading any or all of these books should increase your safety on the road.
Helmet Head
I might read EC (its on my wishlist) if it wasn't $25 ...
So reducing the chances of being involved in a fatal collision is not worth 25 bucks to you?
Of the 32 poll participants, 16 have said that have not read the book nor taken the course.
Of the remaining 16, 14 (87%) believe that learning VC has significantly reduced the incidence of "close calls" for me. 87 percent.
Now, is there a correlation between significantly reducing the incidence of "close calls" and significantly reducing the chances of being involvedin a fatal collision? I don't have conclusive scientific evidence to show such a correlation, but I think you can decide that for yourself.
So reducing the chances of being involved in a fatal collision is not worth 25 bucks to you?
Of the 32 poll participants, 16 have said that have not read the book nor taken the course.
Of the remaining 16, 14 (87%) believe that learning VC has significantly reduced the incidence of "close calls" for me. 87 percent.
Now, is there a correlation between significantly reducing the incidence of "close calls" and significantly reducing the chances of being involvedin a fatal collision? I don't have conclusive scientific evidence to show such a correlation, but I think you can decide that for yourself.
Brian Ratliff
Brian, I read his book very carefully. I don't have it in front of me, so I can't give you exact quotes, but what he described as vehicular cycling and vehicular cyclists (which you refer to as "neo-vehicular cyclists", your term, not his), are all cartoonlike figments of his imagination. They don't exist. He sets up a strawman depiction of VC and VC advocates, and then takes a stand against that.
No, I just reread his book, like, yesterday. "neo-vehicular cyclists" is his term alone. You may have read his book carefully, but your object was to criticize, not to learn. When you read a book with an agenda, you miss lots of stuff and you end up assuming the author said things he did not say. In this case, you missed the part about the neo-vehicular cyclists; and you misrepresent his characterization of vehicular cycling, assuming the author wrote something he did not. When you read with an agenda, there is also the tendency to insert between-the-lines meanings which the author may or may not have intended.
BTW, same thing happens when people criticize Effective Cycling. There is only one chapter where his is hardline about things, and even that is not that bad. The entire rest of the book is purely instructional. I suggest you re-read Hurst's book with an open mind (if that is possible with you) and report on what he has actually written.
Moreover, if he does actually view vehicular cyclists as some type of "cartoonlike figments of his imagination," there is a reason; perhaps because hardline vehicular cyclists many times act like those cartoonlike creatures.
No, I just reread his book, like, yesterday. "neo-vehicular cyclists" is his term alone. You may have read his book carefully, but your object was to criticize, not to learn. When you read a book with an agenda, you miss lots of stuff and you end up assuming the author said things he did not say. In this case, you missed the part about the neo-vehicular cyclists; and you misrepresent his characterization of vehicular cycling, assuming the author wrote something he did not. When you read with an agenda, there is also the tendency to insert between-the-lines meanings which the author may or may not have intended.
BTW, same thing happens when people criticize Effective Cycling. There is only one chapter where his is hardline about things, and even that is not that bad. The entire rest of the book is purely instructional. I suggest you re-read Hurst's book with an open mind (if that is possible with you) and report on what he has actually written.
Moreover, if he does actually view vehicular cyclists as some type of "cartoonlike figments of his imagination," there is a reason; perhaps because hardline vehicular cyclists many times act like those cartoonlike creatures.
Cycliste
I might read EC (its on my wishlist) if it wasn't $25 and not available through the local library system. I'm more likely to buy UC, since its getting good reviews and is only $15. Together, with shipping they'd be about $50. Could buy safer tires, a new helmet, a couple airzounds, or an entire jacket of blinkies for that price. Would it make me that much safer to learn VC principles in more detail than I can already learn here and from other sources that it would justify the cost?
Perhaps practical advocacy would be about taking concrete steps, like getting literature into the libraries and school system. If the information is truly important, and not elitist dogma, it should be freely available online.
I would recommend taking a BikeEd (http://www.bikeleague.org/cogs/programs/education/course_schedule/) or equivalent class from a local/regional bike coaliton or club for less than the cost of these two books. You will get a hands on learning experience that neither EC nor UC can provide. And I agree that both books and videos should be more widely available from local libraries.
As to BF, great for discussions but not the best learning material.
Perhaps practical advocacy would be about taking concrete steps, like getting literature into the libraries and school system. If the information is truly important, and not elitist dogma, it should be freely available online.
I would recommend taking a BikeEd (http://www.bikeleague.org/cogs/programs/education/course_schedule/) or equivalent class from a local/regional bike coaliton or club for less than the cost of these two books. You will get a hands on learning experience that neither EC nor UC can provide. And I agree that both books and videos should be more widely available from local libraries.
As to BF, great for discussions but not the best learning material.
Eatadonut
Where's the poll choice "I read up on VC, thought it was a good idea, practiced it for 3 months, and finally gave up after getting nailed in the face with a water bottle, almost run off the road by an angry motorist who actually turned around and drove at me, and in general viciously treated for asserting myself on the road"?
Seriously. Loaded poll.
Seriously. Loaded poll.
Helmet Head
You may have read his book carefully, but your object was to criticize, not to learn.
Just curious, how do you know what MY objective was when I read the book over a year ago? For the record, I read it to learn what Hurst has to say about cycling. The same objective I had when I read Effective Cycling: to learn what Forester has to say about cycling.
By the way, I have the book in front of me today. On what page(s) is/are the reference(s) to neo-vehicular cyclists?
Just curious, how do you know what MY objective was when I read the book over a year ago? For the record, I read it to learn what Hurst has to say about cycling. The same objective I had when I read Effective Cycling: to learn what Forester has to say about cycling.
By the way, I have the book in front of me today. On what page(s) is/are the reference(s) to neo-vehicular cyclists?
Helmet Head
I just found one misrepresenation of VC in UC on p. 143. I'll post in the UC thread.
flipped4bikes
You can pick one, some, all or none. I guess you didn't see the instructions on the poll?
Well, duh on me! Too late now...
Well, duh on me! Too late now...
Brian Ratliff
You are reading between lines. Don't bother... here's the line:
"It should be noted that, in addition to legions of resentful pedestrians, a large contingent of serious urban cyclists are staunchly in favor of sidewalk bans. Some of these are strict legalists with good intentions, and others are vehicular cyclists who claim they would likek to see every last off-street bike path rolled up and crushed into gravel but are turned into hypocrites every time they have to go downtown. Lots of idealists in this group."
I guess if the glove fits, then he's gotten a bad impression of you guys. Must have gotten it somewhere.... If it doesn't, then what's your complaint? This is a complaint about a group of individuals. Not a comment about a technique; a comment about individual people, and what they say. Nowhere does he pretend to speak for all self proclaimed "vehicular cyclists."
As for the neo-vehicular cyclists... page 62, second paragraph. Sorry, I got the term wrong. The correct term is: "neo-vehicularists". Close enough. Again, if the glove fits, then the impression must have been made somehow. If not, then what's your complaint?
"It should be noted that, in addition to legions of resentful pedestrians, a large contingent of serious urban cyclists are staunchly in favor of sidewalk bans. Some of these are strict legalists with good intentions, and others are vehicular cyclists who claim they would likek to see every last off-street bike path rolled up and crushed into gravel but are turned into hypocrites every time they have to go downtown. Lots of idealists in this group."
I guess if the glove fits, then he's gotten a bad impression of you guys. Must have gotten it somewhere.... If it doesn't, then what's your complaint? This is a complaint about a group of individuals. Not a comment about a technique; a comment about individual people, and what they say. Nowhere does he pretend to speak for all self proclaimed "vehicular cyclists."
As for the neo-vehicular cyclists... page 62, second paragraph. Sorry, I got the term wrong. The correct term is: "neo-vehicularists". Close enough. Again, if the glove fits, then the impression must have been made somehow. If not, then what's your complaint?
I-Like-To-Bike
Didn't that black hat dude yell, "You're all going to DIE in there!"? So, if we aren't VC, is that going to happen to us? :D
Supposedly your risk is 400% greater if you are one of those "lawless incompetent cyclists" untrained in an approved EC™ course! Or is it 300% greater chance? Heck what's the difference when the claims of relative danger and alleged power of VC training to produce risk reductions are made up of whole cloth for fooling the gullible and logically impaired.
Supposedly your risk is 400% greater if you are one of those "lawless incompetent cyclists" untrained in an approved EC™ course! Or is it 300% greater chance? Heck what's the difference when the claims of relative danger and alleged power of VC training to produce risk reductions are made up of whole cloth for fooling the gullible and logically impaired.
billh
Where's the poll choice "I read up on VC, thought it was a good idea, practiced it for 3 months, and finally gave up after getting nailed in the face with a water bottle, almost run off the road by an angry motorist who actually turned around and drove at me, and in general viciously treated for asserting myself on the road"?
Seriously. Loaded poll.
Amen to that brother. I think these west coast guys don't know what it's like here in the heartland.
Seriously. Loaded poll.
Amen to that brother. I think these west coast guys don't know what it's like here in the heartland.
Treespeed
I've read both books, but 90% of my cycling skills were garnered on the road. I think the majority of these books could be condensed into a simple double sided pamphlet that could be given away to motorists and cyclists. Both of these books are long-winded and use made up jargon where simple language would suffice. It reminds me of the sociological texts where the elite try to create the illusion of secret knowledge and it's all hogwash. There are some underlying truths in these books, but their sheer weight, and pedantry are going to turn off any novice cyclist who comes across them. And Serge, you do a disservice by implying that the reading of these books is mandatory for any discussion of cycling advocacy.
Further, you continue to ignore the other side of the coin which is motorist education. And I see the problem of this with the occasional negative motorist interactions that I have, maybe two a week. If a motorist is ignorant about cyclists rights, seeing me ride VC will not change their mind, it will only reinforce their prejudice of law flouting cyclits. In another thread you recently went off about the danger of Law enforcement being unaware of our rights too. I've had good and bad law enforcement interactions. Obviously any law enforcement education would trickle down to motorists, which would be a good thing.
I am honestly at a loss for why most of the forum react so negatively to VC, I think that for the most part it is the elitist, jargon-filled presentation and the implication that these tools are scientifically validated. But then I don't see anyone really offering any other suggestions.
-Marcus
Further, you continue to ignore the other side of the coin which is motorist education. And I see the problem of this with the occasional negative motorist interactions that I have, maybe two a week. If a motorist is ignorant about cyclists rights, seeing me ride VC will not change their mind, it will only reinforce their prejudice of law flouting cyclits. In another thread you recently went off about the danger of Law enforcement being unaware of our rights too. I've had good and bad law enforcement interactions. Obviously any law enforcement education would trickle down to motorists, which would be a good thing.
I am honestly at a loss for why most of the forum react so negatively to VC, I think that for the most part it is the elitist, jargon-filled presentation and the implication that these tools are scientifically validated. But then I don't see anyone really offering any other suggestions.
-Marcus
noisebeam
I've read both books, but 90% of my cycling skills were garnered on the road. I think the majority of these books could be condensed into a simple double sided pamphlet that could be given away to motorists and cyclists. Both of these books are long-winded and use made up jargon where simple language would suffice. It reminds me of the sociological texts where the elite try to create the illusion of secret knowledge and it's all hogwash. There are some underlying truths in these books, but their sheer weight, and pedantry are going to turn off any novice cyclist who comes across them. And Serge, you do a disservice by implying that the reading of these books is mandatory for any discussion of cycling advocacy.
Further, you continue to ignore the other side of the coin which is motorist education. And I see the problem of this with the occasional negative motorist interactions that I have, maybe two a week. If a motorist is ignorant about cyclists rights, seeing me ride VC will not change their mind, it will only reinforce their prejudice of law flouting cyclits. ....
I am honestly at a loss for why most of the forum react so negatively to VC, I think that for the most part it is the elitist, jargon-filled presentation and the implication that these tools are scientifically validated. But then I don't see anyone really offering any other suggestions.
-Marcus
I totally agree (minus the law enforment part which I cant agree or disagree with), however I haven't read both, but have heavily skimmed both. One of the reasons I didn't buy is cause of so many words written, but no much more said relative to what I picked up elsewhere.
Al
Further, you continue to ignore the other side of the coin which is motorist education. And I see the problem of this with the occasional negative motorist interactions that I have, maybe two a week. If a motorist is ignorant about cyclists rights, seeing me ride VC will not change their mind, it will only reinforce their prejudice of law flouting cyclits. ....
I am honestly at a loss for why most of the forum react so negatively to VC, I think that for the most part it is the elitist, jargon-filled presentation and the implication that these tools are scientifically validated. But then I don't see anyone really offering any other suggestions.
-Marcus
I totally agree (minus the law enforment part which I cant agree or disagree with), however I haven't read both, but have heavily skimmed both. One of the reasons I didn't buy is cause of so many words written, but no much more said relative to what I picked up elsewhere.
Al
JRA
Street Smarts (http://www.bikexprt.com/streetsmarts/) by John Allen is available for free online. It's practical cycling advice.
Robert Hurst obviously has more common sense in his pinky finger than Forester and a room full of VC ideologues have in all of their entire bodies put together.
A person can get a feel for Forester's brand of illogic from his website,
http://www.johnforester.com/. Like the postings of HH on this forum, I find that JF's website is good to read when I want a good laugh. Wear rose-colored glasses, take what The Great One says at face value, worship the ground JF walks on and maybe you too can join the cult of VC, and gain entry to bicycling's Promised Land. Maybe you'll see Helmet Head there selling Forester's book and preaching the Gospel.
Robert Hurst obviously has more common sense in his pinky finger than Forester and a room full of VC ideologues have in all of their entire bodies put together.
A person can get a feel for Forester's brand of illogic from his website,
http://www.johnforester.com/. Like the postings of HH on this forum, I find that JF's website is good to read when I want a good laugh. Wear rose-colored glasses, take what The Great One says at face value, worship the ground JF walks on and maybe you too can join the cult of VC, and gain entry to bicycling's Promised Land. Maybe you'll see Helmet Head there selling Forester's book and preaching the Gospel.
noisebeam
... is available for free online. It's practical cycling advice.
I find BTI a good one stop location for cycling in traffic resources, both the site itself as well as the links to its directors own pages:
http://www.bicycledriving.com/directors.htm
Al
I find BTI a good one stop location for cycling in traffic resources, both the site itself as well as the links to its directors own pages:
http://www.bicycledriving.com/directors.htm
Al
I-Like-To-Bike
A person can get a feel for Forester's brand of illogic from his website,
Honestly, I think those articles on the JF website could have been written for the National Lampoon or The Onion as satires of the "work" of a nutty professor who thinks he is God's gift to the Real Cycling world. But would have been rejected due to their unrelenting over the top absurd pretensions at being the solesource of cycling truth. Presumably the editors of the National Lampoon or the Onion also would reject the work because they would assume nobody is gullible enough to believe that this work could be serious.
Honestly, I think those articles on the JF website could have been written for the National Lampoon or The Onion as satires of the "work" of a nutty professor who thinks he is God's gift to the Real Cycling world. But would have been rejected due to their unrelenting over the top absurd pretensions at being the solesource of cycling truth. Presumably the editors of the National Lampoon or the Onion also would reject the work because they would assume nobody is gullible enough to believe that this work could be serious.
genericbikedude
Drill holes in your hubs and fill them with linseed oil!
Previous - Top - Next
Copyright 1999 - 2007 BikeForums.Net - All rights reserved.
Common bike forum topics in clue bicycles, cycling, mountain biking,
cycling jerseys, shorts, socks, shoes and bike equiptment selection.
Common bike forum topics in clue bicycles, cycling, mountain biking,
cycling jerseys, shorts, socks, shoes and bike equiptment selection.