joejack,

when a lane position is safe and acceptable for use, it is safe and acceptable for use.


when a road position for a bicyclist is safe and acceptable for use and it is a bike lane, it is safe and acceptable for use.

you don't default to the travel lanes when there is a safe and acceptable position on the road in a safe and accpetable bike lane.

a vehicular bicyclist will default position in a bike lane on a well accomodated roadway - wether there are cars or not - when that lane position is safe and accpetable.


simple, no?

a vehicular bicyclist does NOT ignore a safe and acceptable lane when there is NO traffic, then swerve into the bike lane when traffic is present. that is NOT vehicular bicycling.

a vehicular bicyclist will use a road as it is designed for vehicles, including bicycles.


if there is traffic on a well accomodated roadway, a vehicular bicyclist defaults to the bike lane.

if there is NO traffic on a well accomodated roadway, a vehicular bicyclist defaults to the bike lane.


bikelanes safe and acceptable on a well accomodated roadway are NOT inconspicious, and a rider need no lane mods to increase anything.

head's' "peek-a-boo" back and forth, back and forth, in and out of a bike lane, totally dependant on traffic still a good distance behind him, is NOT vehicular bicycling. these are paraniod armchair musings of a blowhard that actually doesn't ride much outside of his 'dialed' and bikelaned commute he rides a couple of times a week, and group rides with 'TEAM FRED' on weekend pelotons.

head, for example, is a "commuter" that isn't really that concerned about his lighting setup, for example.....that is what you call a RED FLAG, that everything is not as it seems...

Even beginner commuters - and i talk with a lot of them, i work in a bike shop- that are just starting to commute for the first time are concerned about their lighting system and general visibilty. when a bicyclist becomes a dedicated commuter, conspicuity via clothes and active lighting systems becomes even more important.....

but helemt head is incredibly cavalier about his passive/active visibilty setup.....

RED FLAG RED FLAG RED FLAG

regarding my original post, which still stands:

a vehicular bicyclist doesn't default to the travel lanes when a safe and acceptable position exists in a bike lane on a well accomodated roadway. cars or NO cars.

Are you denying that drivers are more likely to drive off a road due to inattention when they are the only ones on the road then when there are others they are following?

I would assume that the presence or absence of other traffic doesn't have a significant impact on the rate at which drivers screw up due to inattention.

Do you have any independent evidence (e.g., traffic/accident studies) to back up your assertion here?

It's a lost cause, Bek. These guys will never get it. Least of all JoeJack.

I showed them photos of happy multitudes of cyclists using really innovative accommodations in Copenahge and all they could talk about was all same crummy conditions of their own bike lanes.

In the face of overwhelming actual physical evidence (i.e. photographs of more cyclists than you'll ever see in Joe's or Serge's home town; photos of clean, safe and usable Seattle bike lanes; and photos of cars crossing the median to avoid hitting me in my clean, wide bike lanes) these guys just keep whining away their tired, useless nonsense.

i tend to agree, diane. these blowhards are all about how they don't need bike accoms because they are 'experienced' bicyclists. i see it at the local advocacy level as well, blowhard 'advanced' traffic bicyclists trying to derail all the bike lane plans because 'they don't need a bike lane' to ride roads......

and i've seen guys from behind riding like helmet head describes, riding peek a boo, in and out, in and out, endlessly, in and out of a safe bike lane on a well accomodated roadway, and you WOULD NOT believe the amounts of dangerous traffic conditions it creates for traffic behind and approaching.

it's patently unsafe.....compared to using well accomodated roads in the manner in which they are designed for vehicles, including bicycles.... (well, maybe you would believe the clusterfuzzle behind peek a boo riders....)

same old tired story

Why don't you just answer the questions, Bek?

It's a lost cause, Bek. These guys will never get it. Least of all JoeJack.

I showed them photos of happy multitudes of cyclists using really innovative accommodations in Copenahge and all they could talk about was all same crummy conditions of their own bike lanes.

In the face of overwhelming actual physical evidence (i.e. photographs of more cyclists than you'll ever see in Joe's or Serge's home town; photos of clean, safe and usable Seattle bike lanes; and photos of cars crossing the median to avoid hitting me in my clean, wide bike lanes) these guys just keep whining away their tired, useless nonsense.

You showed photos of a bike lane that hides cyclists from other traffic until they reach the most critical point for cyclist visibility which is at the intersection. That's crummy conditions for cycling. The same page went on to talk about how they are trying to deal with collisions that are taking place at these intersections. They're applying bandaids on top of bandaids and you want me to be impressed? At least here in Delaware the bike lanes put you in a spot where you could potentially be seen if someone was looking for you. Do they have X-ray vision in Copenhagen?

a bike lane on a well accomodated road deemed safe enough to ride in when traffic is present, is just as safe, if not safer, in the absence of traffic.

if a rider like helmet head thinks a bike lane position is safe when traffic is still a good distance behind him, it is also safe when there is no traffic present. the lack of traffic does NOT make a bike lane unsafe.

approaching an intersection does NOT make a bike lane on a well accomodated road automatically unsafe. a vehicular bicyclist will continue default positioning from a bike lane on a well acocmodated road until actual road conditions require them to leave the lane for potential or upcoming hazards, if neccessary, and then the vehicular bicyclist defaults back to a bike lane on a well accomodated road.


simple, joejack.

lane positioning on well accomodated roads is a LOT easier than you and helemt head make it out out be, joey. its simple default lane positioning, using roads as they are designed for vehicles, including bicycles.

I challenge you, JoeJack, to count the number of cyclists you see riding on your next ride. Count them all. Count the sidewalk ones, the wrong-way ones, all of them. I bet you don't see one tenth of the number of cyclists I see on my average ride, and I bet you don't see one sixty-fourth of the number you'd see in Copenhagen.

I challenge you, JoeJack, to count the number of cyclists you see riding on your next ride. Count them all. Count the sidewalk ones, the wrong-way ones, all of them. I bet you don't see one tenth of the number of cyclists I see on my average ride, and I bet you don't see one sixty-fourth of the number you'd see in Copenhagen.

Let's not even mention counting the number of cyclists one sees in the lane, versus the number that one sees on the paths, MUPs, bike lanes, sidewalks, etc.

What HH, JJ and other 'advocates' refuse to accept is that the majority of people on bicycles think riding in the lane with traffic is dangerous and made their preference for paths, bike lanes, etc. known long ago to the folks that hold the purse strings. I don't happen to agree with that perception of danger and associated remedies, but unlike certain people, I don't run around trying to force my will on others, because I know darn well I am in the minority...and even kind of like it that way. More cyclists on the street would be a PIA for me, it's bad enough dealing with doofus drivers, I don't need doofus cyclists added to the equation. I also don't mind riding on those paths and in those lanes if it suits my purpose, unlike the hardheaded zealots.

Personally, I think it's best to just let them rant on...all they are doing is alienating a lot of current and future cyclists, ensuring that they remain in the minority and politically powerless. Why do you think HH brings his pulpit to BF? Because the decision makers pay attention to the group with the most voters/taxpayers, not the the fringe loons with no base of popular support. That's why he is so big on cyclist education, rather than any other means to make cycling safer...because he hopes to win converts to his brand to help him get some, any, political base. Of course, we've seen how well that's going, judging by the reputation the A&S forum is getting. :lol:

I challenge you, JoeJack, to count the number of cyclists you see riding on your next ride. Count them all. Count the sidewalk ones, the wrong-way ones, all of them. I bet you don't see one tenth of the number of cyclists I see on my average ride, and I bet you don't see one sixty-fourth of the number you'd see in Copenhagen.

What's that have to do with lane positioning? For the record, I saw no cyclists this morning besides me in the 37F temps with 20mph winds.

I love bike lanes.

Would you prefer to answer the questions or end the discussion? This is going nowhere.

nice, flawed paraphrase, joejack....what's your problem?


my statement, "a vehicular bicyclist will default to a safe and acceptable bikelane on a well accomodated roadway" stands, budddeeeyy....

I would assume that the presence or absence of other traffic doesn't have a significant impact on the rate at which drivers screw up due to inattention.

Do you have any independent evidence (e.g., traffic/accident studies) to back up your assertion here?
No, it just seemed blatantly obvious to me.

I've never heard or read of anyone just driving off the road while in traffic. Not once. That doesn't mean it's never happened, but it does indicate it is probably quite rare.

Every time I've heard or read about someone driving off the road they were the only ones on the road at the time (except for maybe an unnoticed cyclist or pedestrian in the shoulder or bike lane that they hit in the process). Again, that doesn't mean it always happens that way, but it does indicate it probably usually happens that way.

I also know that when I attend to distractions while driving, I allow myself more time if there is no one in front of me as opposed to if I'm following someone who is just a few car lengths in front of me. I've observed the same in other drivers.

No, it just seemed blatantly obvious to me.

Many things may seem blatantly obvious (especially to you)...but it doesn't mean that they're true.

I've never heard or read of anyone just driving off the road while in traffic. Not once. That doesn't mean it's never happened, but it does indicate it is probably quite rare.

You've never heard of drunks doing this? Or, people with medical issues? Or, teenage girls who are trying to change the CD while they're talking on their cell phone?

Bottom line...yet another assertion from you, with absolutely no independent evidence to back it up. :rolleyes:

Many things may seem blatantly obvious (especially to you)...but it doesn't mean that they're true.
I'm well aware of that, SSP. Unfortunately, we don't have definitive evidence for a lot of stuff. But we still have to decide what we believe is likely to be true based on our limited information, and what is probably safer accordingly. What's the alternative?

You've never heard of drunks doing this? Or, people with medical issues? Or, teenage girls who are trying to change the CD while they're talking on their cell phone?
No, I can't recall witnessing, hearing or reading of a single instance of someone driving off the road while they're driving a few car lengths behind someone else.

In fact, drunks in particular are notorious for being so good at following cars in front of them, that they will actually "follow" a vehicle in front of them that is stopped in the shoulder.

To be clear, are you contending that whether a given driver is following someone else is NOT a significant factor that affects the likelihood of whether he will drift out of his line of travel?

What's that have to do with lane positioning? For the record, I saw no cyclists this morning besides me in the 37F temps with 20mph winds.

So, counting all cyclists possible to count, you saw nobody but yourself. Looks like your type of advocacy is working great.

Meanwhile, I encountered dozens.

I'm well aware of that, SSP. Unfortunately, we don't have definitive evidence for a lot of stuff. But we still have to decide what we believe is likely to be true based on our limited information, and what is probably safer accordingly. What's the alternative?

Like I said before...traffic and accident studies. You don't really think that you're the first person to think about these issues do you?

And since this particular contention is crucial to your bizarre theory, it's incumbent upon you to provide the evidence to back it up...no matter how "obvious" it may appear to you.

To be clear, are you contending that whether a given driver is following someone else is NOT a significant factor that affects the likelihood of whether he will drift out of his line of travel?

Yes...that would be my contention.

Yes...that would be my contention.
Fair enough. I'll try to dig up something in traffic and accident studies that could shed some light on this issue. If you (or anyone else) encounters something relevant, please let me know.

To be clear, are you contending that whether a given driver is following someone else is NOT a significant factor that affects the likelihood of whether he will drift out of his line of travel?

Yes...that would be my contention.

I'll try to dig up something in traffic and accident studies that could shed some light on this issue.


Well, that was easy. I googled for "car-following and driver attention" and found this (http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/vrtc/ca/capubs%5CCarFollowingRpt.pdf):


DOT HS 809 723 April 2004

Driver Eye Glance Behavior During Car Following

This document is available to the public from the National Technical Information Service, Springfield,
Virginia 22161.


It was also found that glance durations away from the road scene ahead during car following
were, on average, shorter than those reported in other studies where car following was absent. This might be
interpreted to indicate that the drivers were keeping their glances away short in case the driving situation should
change.

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/vrtc/ca/capubs%5CCarFollowingRpt.pdf

It is evidence that supports what I'm saying:


Whether a given driver is following someone else IS a significant factor that affects the duration of how long he will takes his eyes away from the road ahead
If a given driver is NOT following someone else he is more likely to allow for longer durations of taking his eyes away from the road ahead.
Since long durations of taking one's eyes off the road ahead are a contributing factor to drift, a driver following someone else is less likely to takes his eyes off the road long enough to drift significantly out of his intended path than is someone driving where car following is absent.


If you (or anyone else) can find any studies with evidence to the contrary, i would be interested in knowing about that. In the mean time, I'm going to believe it's very likely to be true, and will adjust my lane positioning accordingly. I suggest you do the same.

Well, that was easy. I googled for "car-following and driver attention" and found this (http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/vrtc/ca/capubs%5CCarFollowingRpt.pdf):


DOT HS 809 723 April 2004

Driver Eye Glance Behavior During Car Following

This document is available to the public from the National Technical Information Service, Springfield,
Virginia 22161.


It was also found that glance durations away from the road scene ahead during car following
were, on average, shorter than those reported in other studies where car following was absent. This might be
interpreted to indicate that the drivers were keeping their glances away short in case the driving situation should
change.

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/vrtc/ca/capubs%5CCarFollowingRpt.pdf

It is evidence that supports what I'm saying:


Whether a given driver is following someone else IS a significant factor that affects the duration of how long he will takes his eyes away from the road ahead
If a given driver is NOT following someone else he is more likely to allow for longer durations of taking his eyes away from the road ahead.
Since long durations of taking one's eyes off the road ahead are a contributing factor to drift, a driver following someone else is less likely to takes his eyes off the road long enough to drift significantly out of his intended path than is someone driving where car following is absent.


If you (or anyone else) can find any studies with evidence to the contrary, i would be interested in knowing about that. In the mean time, I'm going to believe it's very likely to be true, and will adjust my lane positioning accordingly. I suggest you do the same.


So you're going to intentionally ride in front of someone who is more likely to not be looking at you?? :rolleyes:

So you're going to intentionally ride in front of someone who is more likely to not be looking at you?? :rolleyes:
No.

I'm going to be riding in front of someone who is more likely to look away for long durations so that I can get his attention prior to him reaching me so that he is NOT looking away from the road during one of the long durations while he's finally overtaking me (prior to which time I will move aside if it's safe and reasonable to do).

I want to give him a reason to not look away from the road for a relatively long duration despite the fact that he is not following another car. The only way I can think of to do that is to move into his intended path up ahead of him where he is most likely to pay some attention if he is being distracted at all.

Do you really not understand this, or are you just playing dumb?

The main point is that when faster same direction traffic is absent, that they will be eventually approaching is a reason to be centered (to be more conspicuous to them to discourage them from looking away for long durations as they get closer), not to be off to the side.

I'm going to be riding in front of someone who is more likely to look away for long durations so that I can get his attention prior to him reaching me so that he is NOT looking away from the road during one of the long durations while he's finally overtaking me (prior to which time I will move aside if it's safe and reasonable to do).

And you really think all that will make you safer from the infintesimally small chance of an "inadvertent drift" collision than using conspicuous clothing, staying near the BL stripe, and monitoring with a mirror?

If so, how *much* safer do you estimate your PowerWeave technique to be?

nice, flawed paraphrase, joejack....what's your problem?


my statement, "a vehicular bicyclist will default to a safe and acceptable bikelane on a well accomodated roadway" stands, budddeeeyy....

Your statement falls flat on it's face because you have absolutely no sound reasoning or evidence to support it yet you bandy it around like it's gospel. That's my problem.

And you really think all that will make you safer from the infintesimally small chance of an "inadvertent drift" collision than using conspicuous clothing, staying near the BL stripe, and monitoring with a mirror?

If so, how *much* safer do you estimate your PowerWeave technique to be?
Because the likelihood of falling victim to inadvertent drift is already small, any technique reducing that already tiny likelihood can only make you slightly safer at best. I've never denied that.

Again, the main point is that when faster same direction traffic is absent, that they will be eventually approaching is a reason to be centered (to be more conspicuous to them to discourage them from looking away for long durations as they get closer), not to be off to the side.

That's the point because the ONLY REASON anyone would have for riding off to the side is that faster same direction will be eventually approaching. I'm simply trying to show that this reasoning is flawed to those for whom this reason is so significant that it overrides all the other much stronger reasons to be further left (in particular, to be better positioned for potential conflicts with cross traffic that you could not even have noticed yet, much less adjusted for, if you're just riding along in the bike lane).

Your statement falls flat on it's face because you have absolutely no sound reasoning or evidence to support it yet you bandy it around like it's gospel. That's my problem.
The absence of sound reasoning or evidence is not significant to someone who does not make his decisions based on sound reasoning or evidence.

Your plea for logic and reason falls on deaf ears with an emotional basketcase like Bek.

I'm simply trying to show that this reasoning is flawed....You've failed.

Every single time. Give it up already.

You've failed.

Every single time. Give it up already.
Okay. Since you asked. And with such compelling arguments. :rolleyes:

Okay. Since you asked. And with such compelling arguments. :rolleyes:The compelling argument is that you haven't converted a single soul in your mission "to save cyclist's lives."

And if you really want to save cyclist's lives, hang up your cell phone while you're driving, instead of making lame excuses about how your cell call is more important than our right to ride safely.

The compelling argument is that you haven't converted a single soul in your mission "to save cyclist's lives."

And if you really want to save cyclist's lives, hang up your cell phone while you're driving, instead of making lame excuses about how your cell call is more important than our right to ride safely.

And yet another reason to hang up the cell phone:


A new study shows a link between cell phone use and infertility in men.

The study conducted by researchers at the Reproductive Research Center at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio found that men who used their cell phones for more than four hours a day had a 25-percent lower sperm count than men who never used a cell phone.

The findings were presented at the American Society for Reproductive Medicine annual meeting in New Orleans.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/kgtv/20061024/lo_kgtv/10146423

Psh, Gene, that's going to make me want to talk more.

I don't need any fetuses or dilemmas on what to do with them right now in my life. I'm certain my girlfriend feels the same way.

The compelling argument is that you haven't converted a single soul in your mission "to save cyclist's lives."
Not according to the PMs I get.

making lame excuses about how your cell call is more important than our right to ride safely.
Huh?

Huh?Playing dumb isn't becoming, Mr. Head. You are playing, I presume? Here's one of your posts on the subject:

4 times more likely? Big deal! 4 times a tiny fraction is still a tiny fraction. I see innumeracy remains rampant, at least judging from most forum members. Each of the millions who are phoning and driving right now is extremely unlikely to crash. Despite this extreme unlikelihood, you want to make their behavior illegal. That is unjustified curtailment of liberty, as I see it.

The issue is not your life versus someone else's right to make a phone call. It is, bluntly, between the lives of a very small number of people per year versus the right of hundreds of millions to make billions of phone calls per year while driving.

4 times more likely? Big deal! 4 times a tiny fraction is still a tiny fraction. I see innumeracy remains rampant, at least judging from most forum members. Each of the millions who are phoning and driving right now is extremely unlikely to crash. Despite this extreme unlikelihood, you want to make their behavior illegal. That is unjustified curtailment of liberty, as I see it.

The issue is not your life versus someone else's right to make a phone call. It is, bluntly, between the lives of a very small number of people per year versus the right of hundreds of millions to make billions of phone calls per year while driving.

Wow, based on that logic, I wonder where drunken driving fits into his world? After all, most drunk drivers do get away with it... so why unjustifiably curtail that "liberty?"

jeesh, helemt head truly is reprehensible with that line of argument.


regarding my original post, none of your weak, flawed arguments against safe lane positions in bike lanes have any validity against the compelling and factual default position for a vehicular bicyclist, defaulting to the bike lane on a well accomodated roadway.

OK, here are my words, by which I stand: "The issue is not your life versus someone else's right to make a phone call. It is, bluntly, between the lives of a very small number of people per year versus the right of hundreds of millions to make billions of phone calls per year while driving."

Here is Blue Order's spin: "your cell call is more important than our right to ride safely"

That's not at all what I said. No one cell call is more important than anyone's right to ride safely. But, it's a matter of numbers. For example, we know that about 40,000 people die per year from car crashes. Yet, we allow the driving of cars. Why? Because the right for all of us to drive cars is valued more than 40,000 lives per year.

Similarly, the right for hundreds of millions of us to make billions of cell calls while driving is valued more than the very small number (especially compared to the 40,000) of lives that might be lost because of this.

Wow, based on that logic, I wonder where drunken driving fits into his world? After all, most drunk drivers do get away with it... so why unjustifiably curtail that "liberty?"
Because we value the lives that are lost due to driving while drunk more than the right to drive while drunk.

The right to make cell calls while driving, which is valued very highly, is valued much more than the right to drive while drunk, which is valued by very, very few. That's the difference.

The compelling argument is that you haven't converted a single soul in your mission "to save cyclist's lives."

It should be obvious that the poll I just posted was prompted by this comment.

It should be obvious that the poll I just posted was prompted by this comment.

Well, except for the fact that your poll didn't ask how many people have adopted your "PowerWeave", aka "Peek-a-Boo", aka "DLLP" technique. :rolleyes:

Well, except for the fact that your poll didn't ask how many people have adopted your "PowerWeave", aka "Peek-a-Boo", aka "DLLP" technique. :rolleyes:
What you don't get is that my purpose is not to promote DLLP, per se. My purpose is stated in my signature.

One of my goals is to help people get over the sense, if they are burdened with it, that their main objective is to stay out of the way of same direction traffic.

Writing about DLLP is one technique I use to try to achieve that goal. It's an attempt to change the way people think about traffic approaching from behind, and, in particular, to address the compulsion to make being out of its way the highest priority.

What you don't get is that my purpose is not to promote DLLP

BS - you've submitted literally hundreds of posts trying to explain and justify your goofy technique.

The basic techniques of safe cycling have been known for decades...your new-found "religion" brings nothing innovative or useful to the discussion.

BS - you've submitted literally hundreds of posts trying to explain and justify your goofy technique.
I'm not denying that. But, again, what you don't seem to get is what my purpose is when I'm posting hundreds of posts that explain and justify the technique.

Don't get me wrong, I would love to see everyone adopt the technique. But that's not my goal or purpose. By goals and purposes would be satisfied if many just become less glued to that right edge of the road.

Not according to the PMs I get.



We always suspected you got PMS, thanks for confirming. :eek:

What you don't get is that my purpose is not to promote DLLP, per se. My purpose is stated in my signature.

One of my goals is to help people get over the sense, if they are burdened with it, that their main objective is to stay out of the way of same direction traffic.

Writing about DLLP is one technique I use to try to achieve that goal. It's an attempt to change the way people think about traffic approaching from behind, and, in particular, to address the compulsion to make being out of its way the highest priority.

Your purpose is to be a big shot. You might fool yourself to the contrary, but you ain't foolin nobody else.

Your purpose is to be a big shot. You might fool yourself to the contrary, but you ain't foolin nobody else.
Fair enough. But I don't want to be a "big shot" without earning it.

What HH, JJ and other 'advocates' refuse to accept is that the majority of people on bicycles think riding in the lane with traffic is dangerous and made their preference for paths, bike lanes, etc. known long ago to the folks that hold the purse strings. I don't happen to agree with that perception of danger and associated remedies, but unlike certain people, I don't run around trying to force my will on others, because I know darn well I am in the minority...and even kind of like it that way. More cyclists on the street would be a PIA for me, it's bad enough dealing with doofus drivers, I don't need doofus cyclists added to the equation. I also don't mind riding on those paths and in those lanes if it suits my purpose, unlike the hardheaded zealots.
I agree that "the majority of people on bicycles think riding in the lane with traffic is dangerous and made their preference for paths, bike lanes, etc. known long ago to the folks that hold the purse strings." But I haven't given up on trying to change that. I think believing that riding in the lane with traffic is dangerous makes cycling much less pleasant more troublesome than it can be, and, so, that thinking works against making cycling more popular.

Personally, I think it's best to just let them rant on...all they are doing is alienating a lot of current and future cyclists, ensuring that they remain in the minority and politically powerless. Why do you think HH brings his pulpit to BF? Because the decision makers pay attention to the group with the most voters/taxpayers, not the the fringe loons with no base of popular support. That's why he is so big on cyclist education, rather than any other means to make cycling safer...because he hopes to win converts to his brand to help him get some, any, political base. Of course, we've seen how well that's going, judging by the reputation the A&S forum is getting. :lol:
Yes, I am trying to increase the size of the political base of those who prioritize the rights of cyclists to act as vehicle drivers on surface roads above all other cycling advocacy initiatives. That is, nothing should be seen so important to cycling advocacy that it justifies compromising our rights to act as vehicle drivers on surface roads.

..increasing the political base is more important than providing accurate and safe riding advice then.

well provided roads virtually beg to be ridden in a vehicular manner, using the roadway in the manner in which it is designed, including bicycles.

there IS compelling rationale to follow roadway rules and regulations, signs and striping, joejack...its how to ride a bike. roadway stripes are meant to be adhered to, and that includes safe and clean bike lanes on well accomodated roads.

vehicular bicyclists will default to a clean and safe bike lane on a well provided roadway when there is no traffic present. a vehicular bicyclist will also default to the same lane position when traffic IS present.


simple lane positioning, using well accomodated roads in the manner they are designed. vehicularily.

I agree that "the majority of people on bicycles think riding in the lane with traffic is dangerous and made their preference for paths, bike lanes, etc. known long ago to the folks that hold the purse strings." But I haven't given up on trying to change that. I think believing that riding in the lane with traffic is dangerous makes cycling much less pleasant more troublesome than it can be, and, so, that thinking works against making cycling more popular.


Yes, I am trying to increase the size of the political base of those who prioritize the rights of cyclists to act as vehicle drivers on surface roads above all other cycling advocacy initiatives. That is, nothing should be seen so important to cycling advocacy that it justifies compromising our rights to act as vehicle drivers on surface roads.

Dude, I know I've said this before, but you ain't gonna build a political base by alienating the very people you need. Change comes in small steps - you'd go much farther towards your goal by coming off more as a helpful advocate for ALL cyclists, rather than as a zealot with an axe to grind - that keeps going and going and going until everyone tunes you out.

Dude, I know I've said this before, but you ain't gonna build a political base by alienating the very people you need. Change comes in small steps - you'd go much farther towards your goal by coming off more as a helpful advocate for ALL cyclists, rather than as a zealot with an axe to grind - that keeps going and going and going until everyone tunes you out.

Whacko zealots with strong wrong-headed convictions have made it very difficult for those of us with strong convictions based on logic and reason.

Very few people have the critical analysis capabilities and skills required to be able to discern and appreciate the difference. That means I can only reach those that do have those capabilities and skills. Folks like noisebeam, galen, joejack, derath, chephy, and most of those responding favorably to my latest poll. Even you if I catch you in a rare moment of seriousness.

Anyway, I will leave the task of reaching the rest to those who "get it" through logic and reason, but can also convey it through means that are pursuasive to those for whom logic and reason does not work. I can't reach those people directly myself, for I have no idea how. At least not in a forum where all the communication is done through writing English.

Whacko zealots with strong wrong-headed convictions have made it very difficult for those of us with strong convictions based on logic and reason.

Very few people have the critical analysis capabilities and skills required to be able to discern and appreciate the difference.

In two sentences, you have clearly demonstrated why so many people consider you an insufferable, arrogant *sshole. Thanks for being succinct. :rolleyes:

Last time I rode my bike it took very little logic, reason and critical analysis to do so. That kind of thinking is pompous ass thinking. Stinkin thinkin in other words.

The trouble with claiming logic, reason and critical analysis in one's thinking is that one believes that the more convoluted one's arguments are the more logical, reasonable and critically-thought-out they are. When in fact, it's just BS.

yeah, i'd say. wacko zealots with strong headed convictions that fly in the face of how to ride a bike on a well accomodated road. I'm assuming they have bike training classes in San diego, to teach riders how to recognize safe lane positions, and helping these arrogant, cluless zealot types understand roadway rules and regs, signs and striping.

a vehicular bicyclist will follow roadway rules and regs, signs and striping, riding a well accomodated road in the manner in which it is designed for vehicles, including bicycles.

this vehicular bicycling style will predicate following road signs and stripes;

a vehicular bicyclist will default to a clean and safe bike lane on a well accomodated roadway and "DLLP" FROM the default position in the accomodation.

...and same direction traffic cannot be relied on to 'block' opposing traffic- that's a VERY dangerous assumption.