Advocacy & Safety - What am I?

Ok--silly question, but an honest one.

[I usually don't hang out here so I'm pretty much a newb in this forum. I have become more interested in cycling safety and advocacy over the last year as last Sept. I began commuting to work on my bike when practical. I've been trying to convince more people in the ofice to take their steeds in once it gets nicer out.]

I really don't understand this whole vehicular cycling/adaptive cycling debate. I am certainly not a "pedestrian cyclist," that is, I don't ride the wrong way down the street, don't ride on sidewalks, etc. All the definitions I've seen for VC/AC seem to be self contradictory. I will describe the way I ride and would like to know how others "classify" it.

1. I believe bicycles have the same right to use the roads as any other vehicle and should follow the rules of the road when practical. What I mean by that last caveat is that if I am riding in city traffic I will occassionally "break" the "rules of the road" in order not to be killed or hurt. For instance, if a car suddenly stops, I will take evasive action, even if that means hopping on the sidewalk for a bit or passing on the left (in a car you simply hit your brakes and enjoy the ride until the collision)

2. I do not beleive cyclists should be "restricted" to bike lanes and MUPS but do find these facilities useful. While I believe I have every right to be on the road, there are some roads that I find impractical to ride on and will use a MUP or alternative, less-congested back streets---Times when I find street riding impractical include a suburban/urban 2 lane thouroughfare at 45 mph during rush hour where both lanes start and stop so there is no realistic chance to "take the lane" and there is not a sufficient shoulder to ride on. I know I have every "right" to be on this road, but I chose not to due to: 1) the danger, 2) the inefficiency, and 3) the annoyance and hastle of being honked at by every single car that passes me.

3. I certainly do not "bob and weave" during traffic or blow red lights (unless a JAM behind me is physically pushing my bike). However, I rarely come to a complete stop at suburban stop signs unless there is a vehicle approaching. I certainly slow down and look, but I am not gonna come to a complete stop, unclip, dismount, and then go when there is no traffic around. On the other hand, when I come to a 4 way stop w/ motor vehicles, I insist they proceed following the appropriate rules of right of way---i.e. I won't go in front of the guy to my left even though he is waving me on through.


So I really don't know the above attitudes and behaviors make me. In sum, I beleive and try to follow the rules of the road when practical because I beleive that the more motorists see a cyclist as a vehicle on the road that is predictable, the safer the roads will be for us and the more respect they will have for us. On the other hand, I am not going to blindly follow the "rules of the road" if doing so is dangerous in any given circumstance. Also, as a realist, I choose sometimes not to ride on the road where there is an available MUP nearby (or alternate less congested road) and the road/driving conditions aren't conducive to riding in traffic because, quite frankly, I don't like getting run off the road, honked at, sweared at, etc. etc., and one of the main reasons I decided to start commuting was to avoid the hastle of rush hour traffic and be able to enjoy a quiet ride into the city.

I am just curious as to how some here would label that type of cycling/attitude because I genuinely don't understand some of the terms being thrown around here. [I really don't care one way or another---I just want to know into which group people here think I fall so i know how terms are being used]

Ok--silly question, but an honest one.

[I usually don't hang out here so I'm pretty much a newb in this forum. I have become more interested in cycling safety and advocacy over the last year as last Sept. I began commuting to work on my bike when practical. I've been trying to convince more people in the ofice to take their steeds in once it gets nicer out.]

I really don't understand this whole vehicular cycling/adaptive cycling debate. I am certainly not a "pedestrian cyclist," that is, I don't ride the wrong way down the street, don't ride on sidewalks, etc. All the definitions I've seen for VC/AC seem to be self contradictory. I will describe the way I ride and would like to know how others "classify" it.

1. I believe bicycles have the same right to use the roads as any other vehicle and should follow the rules of the road when practical. What I mean by that last caveat is that if I am riding in city traffic I will occassionally "break" the "rules of the road" in order not to be killed or hurt. For instance, if a car suddenly stops, I will take evasive action, even if that means hopping on the sidewalk for a bit or passing on the left (in a car you simply hit your brakes and enjoy the ride until the collision)

2. I do not beleive cyclists should be "restricted" to bike lanes and MUPS but do find these facilities useful. While I believe I have every right to be on the road, there are some roads that I find impractical to ride on and will use a MUP or alternative, less-congested back streets---Times when I find street riding impractical include a suburban/urban 2 lane thouroughfare at 45 mph during rush hour where both lanes start and stop so there is no realistic chance to "take the lane" and there is not a sufficient shoulder to ride on. I know I have every "right" to be on this road, but I chose not to due to: 1) the danger, 2) the inefficiency, and 3) the annoyance and hastle of being honked at by every single car that passes me.

3. I certainly do not "bob and weave" during traffic or blow red lights (unless a JAM behind me is physically pushing my bike). However, I rarely come to a complete stop at suburban stop signs unless there is a vehicle approaching. I certainly slow down and look, but I am not gonna come to a complete stop, unclip, dismount, and then go when there is no traffic around. On the other hand, when I come to a 4 way stop w/ motor vehicles, I insist they proceed following the appropriate rules of right of way---i.e. I won't go in front of the guy to my left even though he is waving me on through.


So I really don't know the above attitudes and behaviors make me. In sum, I beleive and try to follow the rules of the road when practical because I beleive that the more motorists see a cyclist as a vehicle on the road that is predictable, the safer the roads will be for us and the more respect they will have for us. On the other hand, I am not going to blindly follow the "rules of the road" if doing so is dangerous in any given circumstance. Also, as a realist, I choose sometimes not to ride on the road where there is an available MUP nearby (or alternate less congested road) and the road/driving conditions aren't conducive to riding in traffic because, quite frankly, I don't like getting run off the road, honked at, sweared at, etc. etc., and one of the main reasons I decided to start commuting was to avoid the hastle of rush hour traffic and be able to enjoy a quiet ride into the city.

I am just curious as to how some here would label that type of cycling/attitude because I genuinely don't understand some of the terms being thrown around here. [I really don't care one way or another---I just want to know into which group people here think I fall so i know how terms are being used]

Definitely AC, IMHO. Using your experience, training and education to find the best possible solution for YOU at any given time under any given circumstances. I think most people here would fall under that definition.

I just don't see things as black and white as some people here suggest. It would be great if there were a long list of rules we could all memorize that would make every cyclist predicable.---But that's impossible because motor vehicles are not predictable. I am genuinely interested in learning about how to be safer when cycling in urban traffic and agree with many of the principles I see VC people here express. But I also have read some posts by VCers expouse "rules" that are so inflexible that are not practical in my view. Maybe I just don't have enough experience or maybe these views aren't indicative of what VC is, I truly can't tell. On the other hand, I don't beleive in complete anarachy on the roads and abhore people who just do whatever they want (like riding the wrong way, riding on sidewalks when there is no need to, bobbing and weaving between lanes of traffic like they are playing Frogger, etc.)--I don't know if that is what "adaptive cycling" means either.

I just don't see things as black and white as some people here suggest. It would be great if there were a long list of rules we could all memorize that would make every cyclist predicable.---But that's impossible because motor vehicles are not predictable. I am genuinely interested in learning about how to be safer when cycling in urban traffic and agree with many of the principles I see VC people here express. But I also have read some posts by VCers expouse "rules" that are so inflexible that are not practical in my view. Maybe I just don't have enough experience or maybe these views aren't indicative of what VC is, I truly can't tell. On the other hand, I don't beleive in complete anarachy on the roads and abhore people who just do whatever they want (like riding the wrong way, riding on sidewalks when there is no need to, bobbing and weaving between lanes of traffic like they are playing Frogger, etc.)--I don't know if that is what "adaptive cycling" means either.

You touch on the crux of most of the arguments in here. There are lots of experienced riders here who use their experience, their education from kindergarten to college to books they've read on the subject, and training (in driving, cycling, etc.) to come up with the best solution for them. Others espouse ideas from one or two books they have read and say that they are the alter to which we should all bow and pay homage.

I know it seems ridiculous, as it did to me when I started reading in here, but that is the truth. There really are those in here that truly believe that they should follow John Forrester if he choose to drive off a cliff, and ride within his tight guidelines all the time. Not to say that won't keep you safe, but common sense should tell the rest of us to supplement those types of theories with our own experience and knowledge of our particular cycling environment. It is kind of sad really.

Ok--silly question, but an honest one.



I really don't understand this whole vehicular cycling/adaptive cycling debate. I am certainly not a "pedestrian cyclist," that is, I don't ride the wrong way down the street, don't ride on sidewalks, etc. All the definitions I've seen for VC/AC seem to be self contradictory. I will describe the way I ride and would like to know how others "classify" it.

1. I believe bicycles have the same right to use the roads as any other vehicle and should follow the rules of the road when practical. What I mean by that last caveat is that if I am riding in city traffic I will occassionally "break" the "rules of the road" in order not to be killed or hurt. For instance, if a car suddenly stops, I will take evasive action, even if that means hopping on the sidewalk for a bit or passing on the left (in a car you simply hit your brakes and enjoy the ride until the collision)

2. I do not beleive cyclists should be "restricted" to bike lanes and MUPS but do find these facilities useful. While I believe I have every right to be on the road, there are some roads that I find impractical to ride on and will use a MUP or alternative, less-congested back streets---Times when I find street riding impractical include a suburban/urban 2 lane thouroughfare at 45 mph during rush hour where both lanes start and stop so there is no realistic chance to "take the lane" and there is not a sufficient shoulder to ride on. I know I have every "right" to be on this road, but I chose not to due to: 1) the danger, 2) the inefficiency, and 3) the annoyance and hastle of being honked at by every single car that passes me.

3. I certainly do not "bob and weave" during traffic or blow red lights (unless a JAM behind me is physically pushing my bike). However, I rarely come to a complete stop at suburban stop signs unless there is a vehicle approaching. I certainly slow down and look, but I am not gonna come to a complete stop, unclip, dismount, and then go when there is no traffic around. On the other hand, when I come to a 4 way stop w/ motor vehicles, I insist they proceed following the appropriate rules of right of way---i.e. I won't go in front of the guy to my left even though he is waving me on through.


So I really don't know the above attitudes and behaviors make me. In sum, I beleive and try to follow the rules of the road when practical because I beleive that the more motorists see a cyclist as a vehicle on the road that is predictable, the safer the roads will be for us and the more respect they will have for us. On the other hand, I am not going to blindly follow the "rules of the road" if doing so is dangerous in any given circumstance. Also, as a realist, I choose sometimes not to ride on the road where there is an available MUP nearby (or alternate less congested road) and the road/driving conditions aren't conducive to riding in traffic because, quite frankly, I don't like getting run off the road, honked at, sweared at, etc. etc., and one of the main reasons I decided to start commuting was to avoid the hastle of rush hour traffic and be able to enjoy a quiet ride into the city.

I am just curious as to how some here would label that type of cycling/attitude because I genuinely don't understand some of the terms being thrown around here. [I really don't care one way or another---I just want to know into which group people here think I fall so i know how terms are being used]
Given that a vehicular cyclist is someone who practices vehicular cycling when riding on the road -- you're a vehicular cyclist.

The fact that you sometimes get off the road or even if sometimes you don't follow the rules of the road does not mean you are not a vehicular cyclist (just like a skier who also snowboards is still a skier).

Why some people recoil from the term I don't know. Regardless of what you call it, the concept of [I]bicycling on roads in accordance to the rules of the road exists, and if we want to maintain our right to continue doing so, it's essential to have a term to refer to the concept we seek to protect our right to engage in. That term is vehicular cycling. Those of us who engage in vehicular cycling are vehicular cyclists.

As to whether you're an adaptive cyclist or not is impossible to tell, because there is no definition to go by.

Basically, I think everyone strikes a balance between:

Adapting & learning to ride in a particular environment - such that one feels safe and in control

AND

Choosing a particular riding environment that feels safe

Now of course the importance of these criteria are different for everyone, so we have some who will only ride quiet roads or cycling facilites, trails and the like. On the other hand there are those determined to ride a given route (and assert the rights of the cyclist, as seen in the A&S forum).

As a commuter and road cyclist, out of necessity I must ride through town and mix with traffic to complete the journey. However, there are route choices I can make to avoid certain intersections - left turns on 6 lane roads for example. I ride on the road, but use on-road "striped" bike lanes where provided. I stop at stop signs and lights. I choose not to use trails, bike paths (with one exception in the UK), multi-user paths etc. At the weekend I can choose to avoid all of this, relax a little and ride on the roads out of town.

Good thread, the world is certainly not black and white :)

Cheers,

Ed

There is no AC vs vc debate. AC is all inclusive, you ride in the manner that best fits your environment and situation. Vehicular cycling is just one tool in the toolbox and if it fits your needs, by all means use it.

The only debate comes because some vehicular cycling zealots cringe at the concept that there can be any way but their way - that they are just one tool in the box rather than the whole toobox, despite the fact that they admit to not being advocates for ALL cyclists and indeed have a narrow definition of what a cyclist is.

So in a nutshell, adaptive cycling is just a term for the way most of us already ride. It's riding a bike, no dogma required. ;)

I just don't see things as black and white as some people here suggest.........I don't know if that is what "adaptive cycling" means either.

I apologize for getting off on a tangent there, but to answer your question look at this thread:
http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=272105&highlight=adaptive+cycling

It defines AC. Which is again using your own judgment based on your experience, education and training to find the best possible solution for you at any given time. Whether that solution be riding in the road, on the sidewalk, MUP, bike lane, drainage ditch, etc.

You touch on the crux of most of the arguments in here. There are lots of experienced riders here who use their experience, their education from kindergarten to college to books they've read on the subject, and training (in driving, cycling, etc.) to come up with the best solution for them. Others espouse ideas from one or two books they have read and say that they are the alter to which we should all bow and pay homage.
What???

There is no one here that I know of who even comes close to fitting the category of "espouse ideas from one or two books they have read and say that they are the alter to which we should all bow and pay homage".

The two groups here are:

1) those who go by what they've learned from direct personal experience only
2) those who go by personal experience including personal experience gained by applying in practice what they've learned indirectly elsewhere, including from studying books like Effective Cycling (John Forester), Urban Cycling (Robert Hurst, who posts here), Cyclecraft (John Franklin), Tips and Tricks (Dave Glowacz), Streetsmarts (John S. Allen) etc.


I know it seems ridiculous, as it did to me when I started reading in here, but that is the truth. There really are those in here that truly believe that they should follow John Forrester if he choose to drive off a cliff, and ride within his tight guidelines all the time. Not to say that won't keep you safe, but common sense should tell the rest of us to supplement those types of theories with our own experience and knowledge of our particular cycling environment. It is kind of sad really. DJ, I'm really surprised by this. Overall, very little of we talk about here has anything to do with Forester. Judging by how you (mis)spelled his name, I'm guessing you've never read any of his books either. But don't let that stop you from forming your opinion about his "tight guidelines". :rolleyes:

There is no AC vs vc debate. AC is all inclusive, you ride in the manner that best fits your environment and situation. Vehicular cycling is just one tool in the toolbox and if it fits your needs, by all means use it.

Yup, the toolbox. I think of that analogy every time I read in this forum.

I apologize for getting off on a tangent there, but to answer your question look at this thread:
http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=272105&highlight=adaptive+cycling

It defines AC. Which is again using your own judgment based on your experience, education and training to find the best possible solution for you at any given time. Whether that solution be riding in the road, on the sidewalk, MUP, bike lane, drainage ditch, etc.
All that means is that AC is a superset of VC, as VC only applies when riding on roads (where the rules of the road for vehicle drivers apply), unless AC calls for not riding in accordance to the rules of the road when riding on roads, which I haven't heard anyone claim.

^^ You should start a poll!

:rolleyes:

:roflmao:

All that means is that AC is a superset of VC, as VC only applies when riding on roads (where the rules of the road for vehicle drivers apply), unless AC calls for not riding in accordance to the rules of the road when riding on roads, which I haven't heard anyone claim.

AC doesn't require one to use vc when riding on the roads if it does not fit the situation. Jumping a curb is hardly following the rules of the road for vehicles, yet sometimes we gotta jump a curb. Riding for a stretch in the opposite traffic lane is not following the rules of the road for vehicles, but sometimes we gotta do it. Not stopping for a stop sign or signal is not riding according the rules of the road for vehicles, yet sometimes we do it. I'm sure Mr. Caveman Biker Bek can cite tons of situations where a cyclist doesn't follow the rules of the road for vehicles while on the road. The only 'rule' for adaptive cycling is to do what works best for you in the situation and environment you are in.

You admitted yourself in another thread that you often break the rules of vc, so yes HH, even you are an adaptive cyclist.

The two groups here are:

1) those who go by what they've learned from direct personal experience only
2) those who go by personal experience including personal experience gained by applying in practice what they've learned indirectly elsewhere, including from studying books like Effective Cycling (John Forester), Urban Cycling (Robert Hurst, who posts here), Cyclecraft (John Franklin), Tips and Tricks (Dave Glowacz), Streetsmarts (John S. Allen) etc.

I don't agree and it appears the OP noticed that this is not the case either, but no big deal.


DJ, I'm really surprised by this. Overall, very little of we talk about here has anything to do with Forester. Judging by how you (mis)spelled his name, I'm guessing you've never read any of his books either. But don't let that stop you from forming your opinion about his "tight guidelines". :rolleyes:

I didn't name any names, but you have to be feeling a bit guilty if you responded to this.

O BTW, My apologies to Mr. Forester on the misspelling. FWIW, I don't discount his theories. I just don't think they are the only way.

To the OP: I wouldn't worry about definitions. The whole AC/VC thing may seem really important on this forum, and it can be hugely amusing at times, but when I'm on my bike I don't really think about the issue at all. Just ride your bike safely, and have a nice time doing it. (Though personally, I think all of us ride AC whether we admit it or not...)

To the OP: I would say you're just an ordinary, experienced, level-headed cyclist, and if you really need to know where you fit on the AC or VC spectrum, I'd say you fit on the AC end.

Unless you have a strong political position that bike lanes are the devil's spawn and must be eliminated and John Forester channels the Word of God, you aren't VC.

VC is all about identity politics. It's all about who you are, not what you do. Even people who rarely ride their bikes claim to be world-class VC-ers. And many VC cyclists, including John Forester himself, are really pro-car/pro-suburban-sprawl advocates who are paid to speak against bicycle advocacy. I know this because John Forester spoke in my town, and was paid for by a pro-car organization.

Adaptive cyclists are just cyclists. There is no such thing as being an Adaptive Cyclist as an identity. We only invented the term about a week ago here on Bike Forums.

VC-ers will want to put people like you (and me) in a box, call you paint-n-path, or unskilled, or inexperienced, or low IQ or whatever. Don't believe them. They are angry people.

VC-ers will want to put people like you (and me) in a box, call you paint-n-path, or unskilled, or inexperienced, or low IQ or whatever. Don't believe them. They are angry people.

This is pretty funny. It's hard to imagine that reading a few weeks of posts here in A&S would lead any rational person to conclude that it is the vehicular cycling advocates who are "angry people."

Is it the vehicular cyclists, for instance, who tend to lace their posts with slurs and insults, or is that sort of behavior more likely to be observed in the writings of certain others -- others who are vehement in their rejection of VC as a model?

I think the evidence is pretty clear. One might review posts by sbhikes, for example.

VC is like evangelical cycling and AC is like a unitarian congregation.

I usually don't hang out here so I'm pretty much a newb in this forum...

I really don't understand this whole vehicular cycling/adaptive cycling debate.

Oh boy, here we go again... See what you started now? :lol:

Really, all any newbie to A&S needs to do is read any of the multi page threads (like this one in a couple days) and everything will be clear as mud! (slinging :p) Once you get through all the mud, (you have fenders on your bike I hope) there is often some good information to help you keep youself safe. Use the ideas and advice that works for you and don't worry about the stuff that might work great for someone else. There's little need to worry about placing a label on how you like to ride. :)

You are a meat pop sickle.

VC? AC? DC? AC/DC?

You're really just an Advanced Intelligent Evolutionarily Gifted Good Decision Making Living Breathing Cyclist

Yes, AIEGGDMLBC is what you are.

:rolleyes:

You cycle well, man. Welcome to the forum!

thanks for the responses. IHMO it seems from the reponses that most people pretty much ride the same way--they just put a diffrenent label on it and are arguing over semantics. ---But I am drunk right now--so what do i know????

Wow, a fellow realist!:D Adaptive is your technique, so adaptive yr be, Laddie Buck! AC ye is!;)

Ok--silly question, but an honest one.

[I usually don't hang out here so I'm pretty much a newb in this forum. I have become more interested in cycling safety and advocacy over the last year as last Sept. I began commuting to work on my bike when practical. I've been trying to convince more people in the ofice to take their steeds in once it gets nicer out.]

I really don't understand this whole vehicular cycling/adaptive cycling debate. I am certainly not a "pedestrian cyclist," that is, I don't ride the wrong way down the street, don't ride on sidewalks, etc. All the definitions I've seen for VC/AC seem to be self contradictory. I will describe the way I ride and would like to know how others "classify" it.

1. I believe bicycles have the same right to use the roads as any other vehicle and should follow the rules of the road when practical. What I mean by that last caveat is that if I am riding in city traffic I will occassionally "break" the "rules of the road" in order not to be killed or hurt. For instance, if a car suddenly stops, I will take evasive action, even if that means hopping on the sidewalk for a bit or passing on the left (in a car you simply hit your brakes and enjoy the ride until the collision)

2. I do not beleive cyclists should be "restricted" to bike lanes and MUPS but do find these facilities useful. While I believe I have every right to be on the road, there are some roads that I find impractical to ride on and will use a MUP or alternative, less-congested back streets---Times when I find street riding impractical include a suburban/urban 2 lane thouroughfare at 45 mph during rush hour where both lanes start and stop so there is no realistic chance to "take the lane" and there is not a sufficient shoulder to ride on. I know I have every "right" to be on this road, but I chose not to due to: 1) the danger, 2) the inefficiency, and 3) the annoyance and hastle of being honked at by every single car that passes me.

3. I certainly do not "bob and weave" during traffic or blow red lights (unless a JAM behind me is physically pushing my bike). However, I rarely come to a complete stop at suburban stop signs unless there is a vehicle approaching. I certainly slow down and look, but I am not gonna come to a complete stop, unclip, dismount, and then go when there is no traffic around. On the other hand, when I come to a 4 way stop w/ motor vehicles, I insist they proceed following the appropriate rules of right of way---i.e. I won't go in front of the guy to my left even though he is waving me on through.


So I really don't know the above attitudes and behaviors make me. In sum, I beleive and try to follow the rules of the road when practical because I beleive that the more motorists see a cyclist as a vehicle on the road that is predictable, the safer the roads will be for us and the more respect they will have for us. On the other hand, I am not going to blindly follow the "rules of the road" if doing so is dangerous in any given circumstance. Also, as a realist, I choose sometimes not to ride on the road where there is an available MUP nearby (or alternate less congested road) and the road/driving conditions aren't conducive to riding in traffic because, quite frankly, I don't like getting run off the road, honked at, sweared at, etc. etc., and one of the main reasons I decided to start commuting was to avoid the hastle of rush hour traffic and be able to enjoy a quiet ride into the city.

I am just curious as to how some here would label that type of cycling/attitude because I genuinely don't understand some of the terms being thrown around here. [I really don't care one way or another---I just want to know into which group people here think I fall so i know how terms are being used]

Hi there. I'm new here. The name's Kansas. I was just wonderin'...am I a slave state or a free state?

Hi there. I'm new here. The name's Kansas. I was just wonderin'...am I a slave state or a free state?
What's the definition of "slave"? What's the definition of "state"? What's the definition of "free"? That's for me to know and for you to find out.:rolleyes:

The problem is the vehicular cycling is a riding technique that some people have turned into a poltical ideology.

Ok--silly question, but an honest one. ...

I really don't understand this whole vehicular cycling/adaptive cycling debate.

Don't worry about it. At all. In fact, for your own sanity, ignore it.

Take a mix of politics, a dab of religion, and a heavy dose of obsession, and you have the pointless and endless debates in this forum. Just ignore it all and go ride your bike.

If you have cycling related questions, I advise posting to any forum but A&S. Some very knowledgeable people in Mechanics. Some very practical answers in Living Car Free (with some politics there too). Lots of people actively posting about their actual daily cycling in Commuting.

Ok--silly question, but an honest one.

[I usually don't hang out here so I'm pretty much a newb in this forum. I have become more interested in cycling safety and advocacy over the last year as last Sept. I began commuting to work on my bike when practical. I've been trying to convince more people in the ofice to take their steeds in once it gets nicer out.]

I really don't understand this whole vehicular cycling/adaptive cycling debate. I am certainly not a "pedestrian cyclist," that is, I don't ride the wrong way down the street, don't ride on sidewalks, etc. All the definitions I've seen for VC/AC seem to be self contradictory. I will describe the way I ride and would like to know how others "classify" it.

Vehicular cycling, riding a bicycle, as if it were any other road based vehicle. The bible of the movement is a book written by former cyclist John Forester, nearly 30 years ago, followers assume that they must not use any form of bike lane or pathway.

Adaptive cycling, riding a bicycle, as if it were any other road based vehicle making use of bicycle specific facilities where available, and where it makes sense to do so.

Often you get VCs and ACs on either side of the facility issue.... I could say more, but the sun just came out, the temp is +5C for the first time in about 2 months, and it rained all morning to wash the salt off the roads, my bike is calling......

The problem is the vehicular cycling is a riding technique that some people have turned into a poltical ideology.

Vehicular cycling is not a riding technique (examples of "riding techniques" are "high cadence", or "use destination positioning at intersection approaches").

Vehicular cycling is an exercise of a political right.
Vehicular cycling is an ideology that holds the right of cyclists to ride in accordance to the vehicular rules of the road as its highest value.
Vehicular cycling is a traffic cycling paradigm based on the premise that cyclists (on roads) fare best when they act and are treated as vehicle drivers.

yep, ideology. Mjclosen had it pegged pretty dang good.

Vehicular cycling is not a riding technique (examples of "riding techniques" are "high cadence", or "use destination positioning at intersection approaches").

Vehicular cycling is an excercise of a political right.
Vehicular cycling is an ideology that holds the right of cyclists to ride in accordance to the vehicular rules of the road as its highest value.
Vehicular cycling is a traffic cycling paradigm based on the premise that cyclists (on roads) fare best when they act and are treated as vehicle drivers.
You omitted the supreme cycling priority from the Leader of Vehicular Cycling as an Ideology:
Speed und Efficiency Über Alles!

Frame that. Political. Ideology. Paradigm. It ain't about riding your bike. It's about talk radio.

So if you ride your bike like talk radio, you're a vehicular cyclist. Otherwise, you're just a cyclist.

Frame that. Political. Ideology. Paradigm. It ain't about riding your bike. It's about talk radio.

So if you ride your bike like talk radio, you're a vehicular cyclist. Otherwise, you're just a cyclist.

So this could be HH giving a vc lecture?

http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/ann-coulter.jpg

Vehicular cycling is not a riding technique (examples of "riding techniques" are "high cadence", or "use destination positioning at intersection approaches").

Vehicular cycling is an excercise of a political right.
Vehicular cycling is an ideology that holds the right of cyclists to ride in accordance to the vehicular rules of the road as its highest value.
Vehicular cycling is a traffic cycling paradigm based on the premise that cyclists (on roads) fare best when they act and are treated as vehicle drivers.
I'm glad to see you finally admit that vehicular cycling has become a political cause. But that seems to conflict with what you said in the "Working definition of 'Vehicular Cycling'" thread (post #104 (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?p=3984143#post3984143)) where you imply that vehicular cycling is simply "riding a bicycle on roads in accordance to the vehicular rules of the road".

It's only confusing for someone who tries to pigeon hole "vehicular cycling" into being something other than "riding a bicycle on roads in accordance to the vehicular rules of the road".

Vehicular cycling zealot speak with forked tongue.

I rode according to the rules of the road long before I ever heard of John Forester or vehicular cycling. I was proud and happy to assert my right to the road. If I thought that vehicular cycling were just a set of principles for riding in traffic, I would support it wholeheartedly.

Unfortunately, vehicular cycling is not just a set of riding principles.

Vehicular cycling has become a semi-religious cult. VC is closely associated with one political view, with the fallacies (masquerading as science) of John Forester, the social and psychological theroies of JF (some of which are patently absurd). VC has rightfully become a laughingstock.

It's unfortunate because the vehicular cycling riding techiniques are basically sound. John Forester, and his oh so uncritical followers have, unfortunately, made VC a subject of ridicule. The strange and wacky cult spawned by the publication of Effective Cycling is one of the worst things that has happened to cycling in my lifetime. The association of vehicular cycling riding techniques with the cult of the Followers of The Great One has become an obstacle to even wider acceptance of vehicular cycling techniques.

I'm glad to see you finally admit that vehicular cycling has become a political cause. But that seems to conflict with what you said in the "Working definition of 'Vehicular Cycling'" thread (post #104 (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?p=3984143#post3984143)) where you imply that vehicular cycling is simply "riding a bicycle on roads in accordance to the vehicular rules of the road".


Vehicular cycling zealot speak with forked tongue.

I rode according to the rules of the road long before I ever heard of John Forester or vehicular cycling. I was proud and happy to assert my right to the road. If I thought that vehicular cycling were just a set of principles for riding in traffic, I would support it wholeheartedly.

Unfortunately, vehicular cycling is not just a set of riding principles.

Vehicular cycling has become a semi-religious cult. VC is closely associated with one political view, with the fallacies (masquerading as science) of John Forester, the social and psychological theroies of JF (some of which are patently absurd). VC has rightfully become a laughingstock.

It's unfortunate because the vehicular cycling riding techiniques are basically sound. John Forester, and his oh so uncritical followers have, unfortunately, made VC a subject of ridicule. The strange and wacky cult spawned by the publication of Effective Cycling is one of the worst things that has happened to cycling in my lifetime. The association of vehicular cycling riding techniques with the cult of the Followers of The Great One has become an obstacle to even wider acceptance of vehicular cycling techniques.

Vehicular cycling is an exercise of a political right just like sharing a critical opinion about our government is an exercise of a political right.

Just because it doesn't feel like an exercise of a political right while you're doing it, or just because the purpose of doing it is not political, does not mean it's not an exercise of a political right when you do it.

It's easy to take rights for granted.

... the fallacies (masquerading as science) of John Forester...

Would you list some, please?


...the social and psychological theroies of JF (some of which are patently absurd).

Again, examples please. Blanket, non-specific assertions are meaningless.


VC has rightfully become a laughingstock.

As one who has been a cyclist and cycling advocate for a very long time, I must say that I have seen VC treated as a laughingstock only by a small group of noisy naysayers here, in the A&S forum. It is quite stunning to find people (albeit not many) who often seem to be defiantly proud of their ignorance of (or disdain for) traffic safety and the best practices for road cycling, not to mention violently contemptuous of the single best-informed and most-thoughtful contributor to the discussion. (On the other hand, the dynamic here is interesting from a sociological viewpoint; it appears to be a virtual example of the behaviors that lead to such mob action as lynching.)

John Forester is a grumpy and intolerant old guy (he was a grumpy and intolerant younger guy, too). He certainly doesn't get everything right. On the other hand, Effective Cycling is an absolutely seminal work in its field, and no serious and well-informed student of the subject would argue otherwise. Taken together with the writings of Allen, Hurst, etc., it is the foundation of a body of knowledge that supports safe and lawful cycling on North American streets and highways.

On the other hand, Effective Cycling is an absolutely seminal work in its field, and no serious and well-informed student of the subject would argue otherwise.
Of course not. Seriousness is defined by an absolute belief in this seminal piece of "work." At least by the bug-eyed acolytes, that is. Proven 80% risk reduction is it, eh? Best available evidence, eh? Serious, eh?

Baloney!

What are YOU? Don't ask.

Vehicular cycling is an exercise of a political right.


Specifically?



Vehicular cycling is an ideology that holds the right of cyclists to ride in accordance to the vehicular rules of the road as its highest value.


Above even the law, it seems. :rolleyes:

Well at least HH is on record that vc is political - so perhaps we can get all political-based vc discussions moved to P&R and keep only the technical discussions here.

So this could be HH giving a vc lecture?

http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/ann-coulter.jpg

It could be. Or it could be Ann giving one of HH's lectures. Or it could just be her insulting HH on the radio. I don't know and I don't really care, either.

Since VC is a political thing and not a set of tools, I can't see what difference it makes in my life as a cyclist.

Since VC is a political thing and not a set of tools, I can't see what difference it makes in my life as a cyclist.

Really? You don't understand how politics affects -- indeed substantially controls -- your life as a cyclist?

Can this possibly be a serious statement?

Yes. It is a serious statement. Whatever politics anybody tries to make cycling into, I will exercise my politics by voting as a citizen, not as a cyclist. And I will cycle as a cyclist, not as a person with a political agenda.

For those of you who are opposed to the political defense of the rights of cyclists to act and be treated as drivers of vehicles on roads, why? Why are you so opposed to those of us who take political interest in clearly defining this right so we can effectively defend it?

Yes. It is a serious statement. Whatever politics anybody tries to make cycling into, I will exercise my politics by voting as a citizen, not as a cyclist. And I will cycle as a cyclist, not as a person with a political agenda.

This has no effective meaning.

What we may and may not do, how we do it, when and where we do it -- all these things are determined, in a (more or less) self-governed society, by the outcome of a political process. Cycling is, quite obviously, utterly subject to that process.

Politics, in a system like ours, is how we express ourselves concerning the rules we live by. You may rest assured that, if cyclists ever abandon politics, those rules will become decidely unfriendly to cyclists and cycling.

That's just how it works.

Really? You don't understand how politics affects -- indeed substantially controls -- your life as a cyclist?


Politics doesn't affect my life as a cyclist any more or less than it controls the rest of my life. :rolleyes:

Politics is the process and method of making decisions for groups, advocacy is an umbrella term for organized activism related to a particular set of issues (both definitions from wiki). Here we advocate for cycling issues in general, while vc zealots make no bones about the fact that they do NOT represent all cyclists, just a particular group of cyclists subject to their own definition. So again, if one wishes to discuss vc in the political sense, perhaps it should be done in the P&R forums while the rest of us continue to attempt to discuss advocacy for ALL cyclists and cycling in general, which of course can include technical, rather than political aspects of vehicluar cycling.

For those of you who are opposed to the political defense of the rights of cyclists to act and be treated as drivers of vehicles on roads, why? Why are you so opposed to those of us who take political interest in clearly defining this right so we can effectively defend it?

But you, by your own admission, do not represent cyclists as a whole, you only represent a subset that conforms to your own definition. You want to talk politics for one specific group, take it to P&R, A&S is for ALL cyclists and cycling in general, IMO.

But you, by your own admission, do not represent cyclists as a whole, you only represent a subset that conforms to your own definition. You want to talk politics for one specific group, take it to P&R, A&S is for ALL cyclists and cycling in general, IMO.
Exactly. The "political" Vehicular Cyclists (AKA Forester mantra spouting acolytes) represent only the self proclaimed 5%'ers (tops) whom they consider worthy (AKA "competent".) Competence/worthiness for this gang is evidenced by being a club cyclist or being certified by other "competent" cyclists. The VC politicians should take their advocacy of misrepresentation of cyclists to P & R, or more appropriately to Foo.

Vehicular cycling is not a riding technique (examples of "riding techniques" are "high cadence", or "use destination positioning at intersection approaches").

Vehicular cycling is an exercise of a political right.
Vehicular cycling is an ideology that holds the right of cyclists to ride in accordance to the vehicular rules of the road as its highest value.
Vehicular cycling is a traffic cycling paradigm based on the premise that cyclists (on roads) fare best when they act and are treated as vehicle drivers.

Political exercise of ideology based on a paradigm premise based on being trated as a vehicle driver. lameo

But you, by your own admission, do not represent cyclists as a whole, you only represent a subset that conforms to your own definition. You want to talk politics for one specific group, take it to P&R, A&S is for ALL cyclists and cycling in general, IMO.

This seems like a fairly transparent attempt to twist reality in order to banish the very mention of ideas you don't agree with. In other words, bullying behavior, again.

Why not, instead, actually discuss matters of cycling safety and advocacy. You say that's what you want to see here, but you appear to be engaged in something else entirely.

Political exercise of ideology based on a paradigm premise based on being trated as a vehicle driver. lameoFYI from my state's Rules of the Road (http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_20/GS_20-4.01.html):

§ 20-4.01(49)
... bicycles shall be deemed vehicles and every rider of a bicycle upon a highway shall be subject to the provisions of this Chapter applicable to the driver of a vehicle ...

that quote, bruce, still doesn't intend for the politically motivated VC to ignore safe & clear on-road facilities like classed lanes soley to make a political statement.

VC are evangelical; AC is Unitarian.