Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Some VC definitions

Not sure where your link was supposed to point to but I learned a new word looking at the Wikipedia article. I'd say I'm about as good at grokking Unix man pages as you are at 3D modelling (unless you have another mechanical engineering job).
So much for that theory!

(I linked to the meaning of grok in case you or someone did not know what it means).

I just added this section to the OP:

Zealous VC advocate is someone who advocates Vehicular Cycling with eagerness and ardent interest. Given the absence of actual advocates of Strict VC, the term zealous VC advocate rarely if ever is used to refer to an actual advocate of Strict VC, though certain VC contrarians have been known to try to use this term to imply that certain VC advocates are advocates of Strict VC.

So much for that theory!

(I linked to the meaning of grok in case you or someone did not know what it means).

Try your link. It's just: http://grokking

I think I do some form of grokking in my job whether it's weeding through the history of someone else's part file or trying to trick I-deas (our CAD program) into completing a fillet/draft/surface that it refuses to create using normal methods or deciphering emails from our Chinese manufacturing facility. Or am I (ironically) misinterpretting the meaning of that word?

Try your link. It's just: http://grokking
Strange! Fixed now. http://m-w.com/dictionary/grokking


I think I do some form of grokking in my job whether it's weeding through the history of someone else's part file or trying to trick I-deas (our CAD program) into completing a fillet/draft/surface that it refuses to create using normal methods or deciphering emails from our Chinese manufacturing facility. Or am I (ironically) misinterpretting the meaning of that word?
Ask Heinlein.

Another definition added to the OP:



VC Advocacy is the advocacy of the right of cyclists to use surface street roadways (where drivers of slow moving vehicles are not prohibited) in accordance with the vehicular rules of the road, and advocacy for the general acceptance of this right within society. This can include opposing the creation of facilities that are based on the notion that cyclists do not have this right. Sometimes the term VC is used to mean VC Advocacy.

Yet another one!



fsdt stands for "faster same direction traffic", a term used in traffic laws that define rules specific to drivers of slow moving vehicles, including some that are specific to cyclists. For example, laws restricting drivers of slow moving vehicles to keep right often only apply in the presence of fsdt.

Ask Heinlein.

Sadly, Bob hasn't been with us for some time, now.

We could ask Lazarus, though. I'm sure he's around somewhere and somewhen.

fsdt stands for "faster same direction traffic"

Better to capitalize abbreviations. "FSDT."

The Brits often don't do it, especially with acronyms ("Nasa") and it always confuses me.

Better to capitalize abbreviations. "FSDT."

The Brits often don't do it, especially with acronyms ("Nasa") and it always confuses me.
But if the "unacronymed" phrase is not normally capitalized, why capitalize the acronym?

Another definition added to the OP:



VC Advocacy is the advocacy of the right of cyclists to use surface street roadways (where drivers of slow moving vehicles are not prohibited) in accordance with the vehicular rules of the road, and advocacy for the general acceptance of this right within society. This can include opposing the creation of facilities that are based on the notion that cyclists do not have this right. Sometimes the term VC is used to mean VC Advocacy.

Are you a barber? You certainly do like to split hairs.

BTW, how does your superfluous definition above differ from "Bike Advocacy", or "Cycling Advocacy"?

Your definition might be clearer if it included, "Self-identified VC Advocates are ardently and inflexibly opposed to bike lanes, or any other cyclist-specific roadway accommodations, and think that those who support such accommodations are: a) unskilled as cyclists, and/or b) simple-minded, and/or c) spawned from Satan".

What if the cycling facilities are created based on the notion that cyclists deserve decent access to the road? Are they ok then?

(Hint: Of course not.)

But if the "unacronymed" phrase is not normally capitalized, why capitalize the acronym?

To avoid confusion with typos, similar words with other meanings, etc. "ROW," "AIDS," etc. And just because it makes abbreviations and acronyms easier to recognize. My style guides are in the other room, but I'm pretty sure that most of them would consider it an English convention.

Your definition might be clearer if it included, "Self-identified VC Advocates are ardently and inflexibly opposed to bike lanes, or any other cyclist-specific roadway accommodations

No, it wouldn't, because that statement is not at all accurate.


and think that those who support such accommodations are: a) unskilled as cyclists, and/or b) simple-minded, and/or c) spawned from Satan".

Again, no. Some of us just think that those who support certain "accommodations" are misinformed, or in error.

Another update (refined FSDT, added Road Margin):



The Road Margin is roadway space near the edge of the roadway, often demarcated by a shoulder, bike lane, or fog line stripe, normally not used by through vehicular traffic. Road Margin space is often used by cyclists to allow faster traffic to pass.

FSDT stands for "Faster Same Direction Traffic", a term used in traffic laws that define rules specific to drivers of slow moving vehicles, including some that are specific to cyclists. For example, laws restricting drivers of slow moving vehicles to keep right often only apply in the presence of FSDT. The presence or absence of FSDT (or approaching FSDT) is an important lane positioning factor for many vehicular cyclists. In particular, in the absence of FSDT there is no reason to ride in the road margin.

mr. head, this is ever more apparant these are "helmet head's definintions of his cycling technique, and not representative of vehicular cycling.

vehicular cyclists can choose to ride in bike lanes, dude.

This whole thread is hilarious..

"strict" VC, but no one rides like this, :roflmao:

Do you mean ADAPTIVE CYCLING? :roflmao: if you don't have to ride VC all the time?

vehicular cyclists can choose to ride in bike lanes, dude.

Do you think anything in the definitions says or implies that vehicular cyclists cannot choose to ride in bike lanes?

well, better add that to the definitions then:

"Vehicular cyclists can ride in bike lanes."


your slant is rick diculous.

FSDT stands for "Faster Same Direction Traffic", a term used in traffic laws ...I did find that phrase in the JOHNSON COUNTY CODE OF REGULATIONS FOR THE PARK AND RECREATION ... (http://www.jcprd.com/park_admin/pdf/jcprd_park_police_code-regulations.pdf) but no were else. Which Rules of the Road use that term?

well, better add that to the definitions then:

"Vehicular cyclists can ride in bike lanes."


your slant is rick diculous.

Under BVC it said:
* Use speed positioning between intersections, including riding in the margins.

Under AVC it said:

* Recognizing when and where bike lanes are okay to use, and when they should be avoided.

If just updated them to say:

Under BVC
* Use speed positioning between intersections, including riding in the road margins, especially when FSDT is present or approaching and it is safe and reasonable to do so (yes, this means vehicular cyclists do sometimes ride in bike lanes).

Under AVC:
* Recognizing when and where bike lanes are okay to use, and when they should be avoided (learning to ignore the bike lane stripe when deciding where to ride).


Better?

who cares? this is all

"HELMET HEAD DEFINES HELMET HEAD'S ADAPTIVE CYCLING TECHNIQUES"

I did find that phrase in the JOHNSON COUNTY CODE OF REGULATIONS FOR THE PARK AND RECREATION ... (http://www.jcprd.com/park_admin/pdf/jcprd_park_police_code-regulations.pdf) but no were else. Which Rules of the Road use that term?
Good catch! (leave it to a vehicular cyclist to actually be paying attention)

I'm so used to writing that that I thought that's the wording used in the law. In CA statutes, it says:
"at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time".

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21654.htm
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21202.htm

So "FSDT is present" is shorthand for operating "at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time"

I'll fix the OP. Thanks!

who cares? this is all

"HELMET HEAD DEFINES HELMET HEAD'S ADAPTIVE CYCLING TECHNIQUES"
Well, that's certainly what it's starting as.

But I'm hoping to get consensus from the vc members of this subforum that it defines their techniques as well.

it doesn't define my vehicular cycling technique, dude.

Good catch! (leave it to a vehicular cyclist to actually be paying attention)

I'm so used to writing that that I thought that's the wording used in the law. In CA statutes, it says:
"at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time".

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21654.htm
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21202.htm

So "FSDT is present" is shorthand for operating "at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time"

I'll fix the OP. Thanks! Bruce, how's this:

FSDT stands for "Faster Same Direction Traffic". The concept is used in traffic laws that define rules specific to drivers of slow moving vehicles, including some that are specific to cyclists. For example, laws restricting drivers of slow moving vehicles to keep right often only apply in the presence of FSDT[1] (http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21654.htm). The presence or absence of FSDT (or approaching-from-behind FSDT) is an important lane positioning factor for many vehicular cyclists. In particular, in the absence of FSDT there is no reason to ride in the road margin.

it doesn't define my vehicular cycling technique, dude. Well, I think I've incorporated all the suggestions you made earlier in this thread.

Did I miss something? Anything else (I can't read your mind)?

... rules specific to drivers of slow moving vehicles, including some that are specific to cyclists. BTW, while there are some states (such as CA) which have a discriminatory (cyclist specific) version of the rule, some other states do not.


... laws restricting drivers of slow moving vehicles to keep right often only apply in the presence of FSDT[1] (http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21654.htm). ... FSDT ... is an important lane positioning factor for many vehicular cyclists. In particular, in the absence of FSDT there is no reason to ride in the road margin. Note that in states without the discriminatory version of this rule, speed (either relative to a limit or other traffic) isn't important as long as the driver is in the right-hand lane for traffic. An example: the driver of a vehicle (pedal or motor) in that situation within N.C. is free to ignore FSDT (which I do if I don't feel comfortable about sharing the lane).

Brian's "working definition" thread has helped me come up with a slightly different presentation of what vehicular cycling means to me. I'm open to comments, questions and suggestions...

The vehicular rules of the road, or the vrotr, are the rules of the road according to which drivers operate their vehicles on roadways, as opposed to the pedestrian rules of the road, which pedestrians follow. These rules encompass the rules of the road that govern drivers of slow moving vehicles as well, when applicable. They also include the lane positioning rules that apply to motorcyclists, which are typically taught in motorcycle safety courses, as well as the rules of defensive driving.

Vehicular Cycling (VC) is primarily a set of practices, techniques and skills used to ride a bicycle on roadways in accordance to the vehicular rules of the road. VC is distinguished from traffic cycling practices that are blatantly in conflict with the vrotr.

VC and Vehicular Cycling in some contexts refer to VC advocacy or the VC philosophy (see below).

The Road Margin is roadway space near the edge of the roadway, often demarcated by a shoulder, bike lane, or fog line stripe, normally not used by through vehicular traffic. Road Margin space is often used by cyclists to allow faster traffic to pass. Many VC advocates believe that, in general, cyclists riding in the road margin are less likely to be noticed than are cyclists riding in space normally used by traffic, because drivers generally pay more attention to space normally used by traffic.

FSDT stands for "Faster Same Direction Traffic". The concept is used in traffic laws that define rules specific to drivers of slow moving vehicles, including some that are specific to cyclists. For example, laws restricting drivers of slow moving vehicles to keep right often only apply in the presence of FSDT[1] (http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21654.htm). The presence or absence of FSDT (or approaching-from-behind FSDT) is an important lane positioning factor for many vehicular cyclists. In particular, in the absence of FSDT there is no reason for a vehicular cyclist to ride in the road margin.


Basic VC (BVC) is the collection of VC techniques, skills and practices most experienced cyclists already use, but most novices need to learn, such as:
Ride on the right half of the road, with vehicular traffic.
Obey traffic control.
Use hand signals before turning.
Use lights/reflectors at night.
Use speed positioning between intersections, including riding in the road margins, especially when FSDT is present or approaching and it is safe and reasonable to do so (yes, this means vehicular cyclists do sometimes ride in bike lanes).
Use destination positioning at intersections and their approaches.
Turn left by waiting for a gap before merging left.
Recognize that door zones should be avoided.
Etc.Advanced VC (AVC) is the collection of VC techniques, skills and practices few experienced cyclists already utilize, at least not consistently, and almost all novices have not learned, such as:
Using negotiation to create gaps.
Merging left one lane at a time.
Signaling using look backs.
Being able to look back for more than a fraction of a second without riding off course.
Using assertive "centerish" lane positioning to discourage lane sharing/squeezing when the lane is too narrow to be safely shared.
Using assertive "centerish" lane positioning to improve sight lines and conspicuity when safe and reasonable to do so.
Recognizing when traffic behind needs a hint about what to do, and providing it appropriately and effectively.
Recognizing when and where bike lanes are okay to use, and when they should be avoided (learning to ignore the bike lane stripe when deciding where to ride).
Avoiding door zones by habitually riding at least five feet from the edge of parked vehicles.
Etc.Strict VC is strict adherence to VC while riding a bicycle. It means never riding on sidewalks, never doing a 2-step left turn, always taking the lane, never taking a short cut through a parking lot, never mountain biking, never rolling a stop (a.k.a California Stop), never riding on bike paths, etc. There are no known adherents or proponents of Strict VC, though some VC contrarians have been known to mischaracterize VC advocates as such.

Sometimes VC refers to the VC philosophy which is based on the vehicular-cycling principle coined by John Forester: Cyclists fare best when they act and treated as drivers of vehicles. A central tenet of the philosophy is that about half of bike-car crashes are caused by blatant cyclist error (not adhering to even Basic VC rules), and that most others could have been avoided had the cyclist also been utilizing the more advanced skills. In other words, it's basically defensive driving for cyclists. (to be continued)

VC may also refer to the Art of VC, which, like any art, requires knowing the rules, what the purpose of each rule is, when to apply each one, when not to, and understanding why. (to be continued)

VC advocacy is the advocacy of VC philosophy: the right of cyclists to use surface street roadways (where drivers of slow moving vehicles are not prohibited) in accordance with the vehicular rules of the road, and advocacy for the general acceptance of this right within society. This can include opposing the creation of facilities that are based on the notion that cyclists do not have this right. Sometimes the term VC is used to mean VC Advocacy.

A Zealous VC advocate is someone who advocates Vehicular Cycling with eagerness and ardent interest. Given the absence of actual advocates of Strict VC, the term zealous VC advocate rarely if ever is used to refer to an actual advocate of Strict VC, though certain VC contrarians have been known to try to use this term to imply that certain VC advocates are advocates of Strict VC.

A VC contrarian is one who opposes VC for no apparent rational reason. Tactics typically used by VC contrarians to oppose the advocacy, philosophy and sometimes even the practices of VC include:
Portraying a practioner or advocate of VC as a practioner or advocate of Strict VC.
Misrepresenting the smooth and orderly lateral movements of VC as swerving.

Mischaracterizing VC as relying entirely on obeying the rules and ignoring the importance of paying attention and being vigilant.
(to be continued)Is this useful or helpful? Confusing?

Comments? Questions? Suggestions? Well, this is my latest version. I believe all comments up to this point have been incorporated.

Let me know.

Long-winded, hair-splitting, and ultimately pointless.

Adds very little useful to real-world advocacy or cycling safety, and perpetuates the stereotype of VC advocates as zealots who live only to argue about arcane minutiae.

Thanks for sharing.

Does road margin mean the gutter? If not, you should clarify that gutter riding is VC when the traffic is too fast. Or am I not getting something?

Does road margin mean the gutter? If not, you should clarify that gutter riding is VC when the traffic is too fast. Or am I not getting something? Certainly the gutter pan is in the margin if that's what you're asking. Edit: so riding in the gutter may be appropriate (and VC) in some conditions (e.g., uphill, lanes is marginally wide, cyclist is going near ped speeds, motor traffic is 45+ mph).

It's not illegal to drive a car in the gutter, though it's rarely done (for parking, or passing on the right to turn right in lanes just wide enough for two cars).

My only problem is that it seems to me that you are a fanatic VCer, as opposed to a reasonable VCer like me. I'm also not a big fan of the way VCers all do that silly power swerve to announce their presence to the cars. It seems like there is too much import placed on looking silly to get attention, and the idea of being vigilant is entirely ignored in the VC paradigm.

Also, you don't define "Strict VC"
I don't want to be called Strict VC, because it sounds a little... you know.. but I definitely consider myself a zealous VC advocate, because I have an ardent fire burning within me to preach the word.

Hee hee

Certainly the gutter pan is in the margin if that's what you're asking. Edit: so riding in the gutter may be appropriate (and VC) in some conditions (e.g., uphill, lanes is marginally wide, cyclist is going near ped speeds, motor traffic is 45+ mph).

It's not illegal to drive a car in the gutter, though it's rarely done (for parking, or passing on the right to turn right in lanes just wide enough for two cars).

hmmm, I guess I can't agree on that (assuming the point of VC is to be safe) - gutter riding is WAY more dangerous then in the road - no escape room at all!

It's not illegal to drive a car in the gutter
True, but can't you get ticketed for driving a car on the shoulder of a road?

hmmm, I guess I can't agree on that (assuming the point of VC is to be safe) - gutter riding is WAY more dangerous then in the road - no escape room at all!
First, I'm talking near ped speeds (i.e., 6 mph). Second, you're just a curb hop away from escape, though I can't imagine when you would need that. Also, the gutters are 2' wide, so you're tire is almost 2' feet from the curb...

I rarely do it, but sometimes it is useful. VC is very adaptive.


True, but can't you get ticketed for driving a car on the shoulder of a road?
Yes, drivers of motor vehicles are generally restricted from driving in marked shoulders.

First, I'm talking near ped speeds (i.e., 6 mph). Second, you're just a curb hop away from escape, though I can't imagine when you would need that. Also, the gutters are 2' wide, so you're tire is almost 2' feet from the curb...

I rarely do it, but sometimes it is useful. VC is very adaptive.


Yes, drivers of motor vehicles are generally restricted from driving in marked shoulders.


nope, I guess I'll never get VC - I do love how one day you guys will have included every single method of bicycling into your ubmrella definition. That way you can gloat that VC is the number one method of bicycling. Sooner or later, the wrong way down a one way street will be VC - of course only in specific situations, mind you.
I would never tell someone "you're a curb hop away" unless you expect people to learn all kinds of crazy bike tricks before they can become VC qualified - the amount of people who will ever be able to bunny hop over a curb sideways is pretty small man - not to mention those that can bunny hop in a straight line. Stop trying to get people seriously injured man!!

Also, to say you can't imagine when something would need to be done makes it sound like you aren't to experienced in traffic, anything can and does happen out there! To not give yourself escape room is just asking for injury.

nope, I guess I'll never get VC - I do love how one day you guys will have included every single method of bicycling into your ubmrella definition. That way you can gloat that VC is the number one method of bicycling. Sooner or later, the wrong way down a one way street will be VC - of course only in specific situations, mind you.
You are confusing your changing perception of VC with changes in VC.



I would never tell someone "you're a curb hop away" unless you expect people to learn all kinds of crazy bike tricks before they can become VC qualified - the amount of people who will ever be able to bunny hop over a curb sideways is pretty small man - not to mention those that can bunny hop in a straight line. Stop trying to get people seriously injured man!!

Also, to say you can't imagine when something would need to be done makes it sound like you aren't to experienced in traffic, anything can and does happen out there! To not give yourself escape room is just asking for injury.
OK, the curb hop mention was silly. But can you truly not picture a rare situation in which curb riding is a safe and reasonable thing to do? How much escape room do you need when you're riding 5-6 mph up a steep hill and can stop almost instantly (not only are you going slow, but gravity is way against you moving forward) within 12 inches at any time? The curb pans around here are two feet wide.

OK, the curb hop mention was silly. But can you truly not picture a rare situation in which curb riding is a safe and reasonable thing to do? How much escape room do you need when you're riding 5-6 mph up a steep hill and can stop almost instantly (not only are you going slow, but gravity is way against you moving forward) within 12 inches at any time? The curb pans around here are two feet wide.


You must really never ride in traffic huh? The threats that require evasive action in traffic and escape room do not include things in front that you must stop for - they include non-attentive drivers swerving or coming from behind and not paying attention - that's why you need escape room. If you've never needed it, then lucky you, but I am doubting more and more that you are in situations often enough that warrent any real attention to your surroundings for saftey. Good job applying your experience to other peoples situations and locations - I thought you didn't do that in your VC evangelism?

You are confusing your changing perception of VC with changes in VC.

:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:

I'm not the one editing the definition of VC.... you're a piece of work man, just not one I'd pay for.


Well, this is my latest version

You must really never ride in traffic huh? The threats that require evasive action in traffic and escape room do not include things in front that you must stop for - they include non-attentive drivers swerving or coming from behind and not paying attention - that's why you need escape room. If you've never needed it, then lucky you, but I am doubting more and more that you are in situations often enough that warrent any real attention to your surroundings for saftey.
The vast majority of cyclists are curb huggers who leave practically no escape room to their right. Last I checked, being hit from behind by "non-attentive drivers swerving or coming from behind and not paying attention" is not what's killing them.

A standard width bike lane is 4 feet. If you're riding in the middle of it, your tire is only 2 feet from the edge. Any closer to the right, and you have that much less "escape room", but that's what exactly most cyclists do riding not at 5-6 mph, but at 15-20 mph. Last I checked, being hit from behind by "non-attentive drivers swerving or coming from behind and not paying attention" is not what's killing these folks.

Finally, I only do this in a very rare situation that includes a stream of 50-60 mph traffic going by me on a steep uphill incline. These are drivers following one after the other, and looking ahead because in a few hundred feet there is an onramp that merges in from the right and a few hundred feet after that is a traffic signal. This is a road with left and right curves, not straight. This is not a quiet straight rural road where some guy in a pickup drifts into the shoulder or bike lane. This is busy/fast congested traffic where constant attention is required, or you crash.


Good job applying your experience to other peoples situations and locations - I thought you didn't do that in your VC evangelism?
How is describing what I do in some rare very particular situations "applying [my] experience to other peoples situations and locations"?

:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:

I'm not the one editing the definition of VC.... you're a piece of work man, just not one I'd pay for.
No one is editing the definition of VC. I hope you pay better attention when riding in traffic than you do when reading this forum.

How is describing what I do in some rare very particular situations "applying [my] experience to other peoples situations and locations"?

Um... when you make up rules about how to ride based upon them?

For the rest of that, haha looks like you got a bit flustered there. SCORE!
No way anyone can win an argument when the discussion leads you to change the definition of what is being argued, and then you come back and say nothing changed - haha - I hope you pay better attention to your riding then to what you've posted in the past :)

How is describing what I do in some rare very particular situations "applying [my] experience to other peoples situations and locations"?
Um... when you make up rules about how to ride based upon them? I have not made up any rules.
I have not advocated any rules that are based on describing what I do in some rare very particular situations "applying [my] experience to other peoples situations and locations".



For the rest of that, haha looks like you got a bit flustered there. SCORE! When you make nonsensical and irrational assertions with someone who is trying to have a rational discussion based on reason, of course he is going to get a bit flustered.

If your goal is to fluster me by making absurd statements so you can claim, "SCORE!", that's pretty pathetic. I mean this in the most sincere way possible: if that is the purpose you're giving to the time you choose to spend here, you need to get a life.



No way anyone can win an argument when the discussion leads you to change the definition of what is being argued, and then you come back and say nothing changed - haha - I hope you pay better attention to your riding then to what you've posted in the past :) Now you are confusing the definition of a concept with the words used to try to convey that definition.
In particular, you are confusing refinements to the words used to try to convey that definition more accurately, with changes to the definition of the concept itself.

Do you know the definition of a tree? Of course you do. In your mind you have a concept associated with that term. Yet if you look in 5 different dictionaries you'll find 5 different wordings of the definition. You might consider some better than others. Does that mean the definition of a tree is somehow different? And as well as you and I understand the concept, if you were to write your definition of a tree and I were to write mine, I bet they would be pretty different.

In this forum we discuss vehicular cycling and related concepts and issues. These types of discussion are challenging because of the difficulties in conveying these concepts in words. Although we all know that concepts that are referred to by commonly used terms such as tree, bike, car, lane, road, drive, walk, porn, etc., etc., it's something else again to express the definitions of these concepts in written words. As hard as it is express definitions of concepts in words with commonly understood concepts and terms, it's at least as hard with less commonly understood concepts and terms, especially when you're dealing with people who think they already understand the meanings, but do not.

All I'm trying to do here is it make it as clear as I can what I mean and understand by certain concepts as identified by particular terms. The purpose of this thread is to develop those meanings as clearly as possible. It's odd that you see such an earnest effort to clarify meaning as a muddling process, when the alternative is to continue using and interpreting terms without being clear with each other on what we mean by them, or how we interpret them.

If your goal is to fluster me by making absurd statements so you can claim, "SCORE!", that's pretty pathetic. I mean this in the most sincere way possible: if that is the purpose you're giving to the time you choose to spend here, you need to get a life.

Well, it did take me a lot less time to write what I did then what you did..... I'm just having fun pointing out your inconsitencies (sp?) - it makes me smile - so yeah, it's worth the time time sink. If you had your way in this forum, it would be all HH definitions and rules on how to ride which change based on how you chose to ride to the store that day. I find it my divine calling to call out the silliness of your posts and hopefully, but I know it's not happening, to cause you to think about it. Oh well, I am waiting for the day that you admit to riding the wrong way on a one way street with no traffic and change the rules. :)

what is the true definition of porn, anyway?

what is the true definition of porn, anyway?

If it makes me excited down there?

Well, it did take me a lot less time to write what I did then what you did..... I'm just having fun pointing out your inconsitencies (sp?) - it makes me smile - so yeah, it's worth the time time sink. If you had your way in this forum, it would be all HH definitions and rules on how to ride which change based on how you chose to ride to the store that day. I find it my divine calling to call out the silliness of your posts and hopefully, but I know it's not happening, to cause you to think about it. Oh well, I am waiting for the day that you admit to riding the wrong way on a one way street with no traffic and change the rules. :)
You know, I would really be happy if you or anyone else could point out some true inconsistencies or true silliness in what I'm saying, so I could fix it, or adjust my thinking if necessary.

But to just claim an inconsistency exists, or say something is silly, without showing how or why, is, again, pathetic. But, whatever, if that amuses you, I suppose it's a worthy pursuit.

You know, I would really be happy if you or anyone else could point out some true inconsistencies or true silliness in what I'm saying, so I could fix it, or adjust my thinking if necessary.

It's happened MANY times but come on, you will never change your thinking - you are always right! It's just not worth my time to dedicate every waking hour posting everything I come across and doing a spread sheet/cross referencing to show you where you contradicted yourself - when people are so confident in their ideas as you are, and so unconfident in everyone else's ideas, again as you have shown time after time, what is the point of discussing? I find it much more worthwhile to laugh and point it out... by all means though, ignore me, I don't mind at all. ;)

Yawn...yet another pointless Thread That Won't Die. :rolleyes:


Imagine if you were a cycling novice, who was thinking about dusting off your old bike to start commuting to work in order to save some money and help reduce your carbon footprint.

Now imagine that you stumble into this forum hoping to find advice on recommended "best practices" for riding on the streets...and immediately find yourself buried in threads that go on for page after page with increasingly meaningless arguments about arcane minutiae that has nothing to do with practical cycling safety.

You quickly become lost in the terminology ("Advanced VC" vs. "Obsessive-Compulsive VC" vs. "Asperger's VC" vs. "Sado-Masochistic VC").

And you leave wondering what in the hell all those people are arguing about...and questioning whether they really ride their bikes at all (given the amount of time and bandwidth they expend in, well, nothing).


What a waste of bandwidth.

You quickly become lost in the terminology ("Advanced VC" vs. "Obsessive-Compulsive VC" vs. "Asperger's VC" vs. "Sado-Masochistic VC").
. Of course, to make your point, you had to make up ridiculous terms like "Obsessive-Compulsive VC" vs. "Asperger's VC" vs. "Sado-Masochistic VC", because if you referenced only the terms actually defined in the OP, the absurdity of your whole point would be too obvious for even you to be able to deny it.

Of course, to make your point, you had to make up ridiculous terms like "Obsessive-Compulsive VC" vs. "Asperger's VC" vs. "Sado-Masochistic VC", because if you referenced only the terms actually defined in the OP, the absurdity of your whole point would be too obvious for even you to be able to deny it.

That's called "satire", HH (or, "ridicule" if you prefer). And there's nothing absurd about pointing out how these never-ending threads contribute next to nothing in terms of real "Advocacy and Safety".