I rode VC today [Archive]

deputyjones

03-20-07, 07:32 PM

I went out for a ride today and decided (based on the arguments here) to try out VC by staying in my little town with it's 25-35 MPH speed limits, residential streets and small, typical mid-western 2 block downtown area. I wanted to try out strictly vehicular cycling for an hour.

I have to gloat a bit about how nice the people in my town were. No one honked, no one buzzed me, no one yelled out their windows or tried to right hook me and no one tailgated me. I did have one guy speed up ahead of me because he was trying to get around me before he encountered a car parked on the left which put him sort of close to me, but I was never in any danger and could easily have maneuvered out of any if he had been closer.

I took the lane in the left tire track through downtown where cars are parked on both sides at angles and there are mid block stop signs making me actually faster than the average car traffic. The rest of the time I rode the right tire track and 2 or three times moved further right, sharing the lane, to allow FSDT to pass where opposing traffic was present and the lane was wide enough to allow this, but otherwise stood my ground in the right tire track.

The point of all of this?
Well, I have to agree with Robert Hurst that although strict VC is ok in general it tends to strip the bicycle of it's inherent virtues. After about a half hour I was struggling to not do what riding the bike allowed me to do which was hop a curb, ride down the side path and through the parking lot to get to that store I wanted to go to that was around the other side of the block. Maybe it's because I have to drive so much that I like bicycling and the freedom it gives me to cut lose from the road and it's rules.

The analogy I kept coming back to was that electric race car track set you had when you were a kid with the black plastic track, matchbox size cars and the little hand held, wired remote trigger you held to make the cars go. No matter how cool the kit was (some climb walls, etc.) you are stuck on that track, and like just about every kid I got tired of that after about a half hour too. Well, to me VC and driving have me stuck on that track, but my bike lets me leave the track for wherever I want to go ;)

**EDIT - I also forgot my helmet too :D

randya

03-20-07, 07:35 PM

The analogy I kept coming back to was that electric race car track set you had when you were a kid with the black plastic track, matchbox size cars and the little hand held, wired remote trigger you held to make the cars go. No matter how cool the kit was (some climb walls, etc.) you are stuck on that track, and like just about every kid I got tired of that after about a half hour too. Well, to me VC and driving have me stuck on that track, but my bike lets me leave the track for wherever I want to go ;)
Bottom line - riding VC takes all the fun out of biking.

sbhikes

03-20-07, 07:48 PM

I rode my Vespa to work today. I got to sit stuck in traffic, waiting for a pilot car to guide our side through some road construction. Meanwhile, bicyclists riding on the same route I would be taking, (and the same ones that pass me every morning) were passing me by in the bike lane.

Riding strictly VC does ruin the advantages of the bicycle if taken too far.

Bekologist

03-20-07, 08:37 PM

I rode some errands today on the bike for about three hours today, up to the mall to target and a fred meyer, and I was riding VC too.

Oh, I rode one drawbridge right across the grating and in the lanes, but then took another drawbridge's walkway, oh, and I jumped a curb at the mall to reenter the road, and even did an illegal u-turn from a left turn lane.

Plus, riding towards the mall, I rode around a woman stopped at the green, as she read her shopping list instead of driving - I pulled around and took the lane in front of her.

And I used a bike lane for about 300 yards, otherwise there weren't any. Oh, and I rode the waterfront path thru the park for great views of puget sound and the mountains....

shucks, I guess despite riding VC, I was Adaptive Cycling after all!

chipcom

03-20-07, 08:44 PM

I don't think anyone would disagree that most cyclists ride according to the rules of the road, except when they don't. ;)

Brian

03-20-07, 08:46 PM

Whatever you guys do, do not buy a 24" BMX bike. You will never be able to ride VC, as you will seek out obstacles to hop, and you will wheelie through intersections.

Good experiment though. And it illustrates that VC is probably more effective where you live than someplace like my town. The main road is 40MPH, but motorists rarely adhere to that. I do, but I like the stir other motorists up. There are cars parked at the curb, and because we're laid out on a grid, side streets every block or two.

deputyjones

03-20-07, 08:56 PM

And I used a bike lane for about 300 yards, otherwise there weren't any. Oh, and I rode the waterfront path thru the park for great views of puget sound and the mountains....

SO JEALOUS. I intend to bring my family, cycling vacation or not, back to the Pacific northwest soon. The first time I saw the Columbia River gorge it was so beautiful it didn't look real.

pj7

03-20-07, 10:12 PM

I love that post DJ, it points out EXACTLY how I feel about cycling. I'm a strict commuter. I don't go on any club rides or any of that stuff, but I do enjoy some light trail riding now and then. So for me, cycling is transportation. And to be honest, if I could not take all my short cuts thru the grass, across the RR tracks, hop off the bike and lug it across the creek, etc etc, I'd probably not be commuting every day in the horrid Michigan weather.
Z-Land sounds like a nice little Michigan town. One of these days man, one of these days....

deputyjones

03-20-07, 10:18 PM

Paul L.

03-20-07, 10:34 PM

Ok you all are making me jealous. I have nothing but 4-6 lane thoroughfares and 40+ mph speedlimits.

deputyjones

03-20-07, 10:42 PM

Ok you all are making me jealous. I have nothing but 4-6 lane thoroughfares and 40+ mph speedlimits.

That is why I stayed within the city limits of my little town. Outside of town is either 2 lane rural roads with little or no shoulder and 55 MPH unposted speed limit or 5 lane curbed arterials with 45-55 MPH limits. Outside of town I am on the MUP 90% of the time.

CTAC

03-20-07, 10:51 PM

I did it too today. It was raining so heavily that I could barely see anything myself. The lane was very narrow, so I had to ride in the center of it. One decent driver tried to sqeeze anyway, almost hit me. Maybe he just could not see me well.

Helmet Head

03-20-07, 10:51 PM

The point of all of this?
Well, I have to agree with Robert Hurst that although strict VC is ok in general it tends to strip the bicycle of it's inherent virtues. After about a half hour I was struggling to not do what riding the bike allowed me to do which was hop a curb, ride down the side path and through the parking lot to get to that store I wanted to go to that was around the other side of the block. Maybe it's because I have to drive so much that I like bicycling and the freedom it gives me to cut lose from the road and it's rules.

The analogy I kept coming back to was that electric race car track set you had when you were a kid with the black plastic track, matchbox size cars and the little hand held, wired remote trigger you held to make the cars go. No matter how cool the kit was (some climb walls, etc.) you are stuck on that track, and like just about every kid I got tired of that after about a half hour too. Well, to me VC and driving have me stuck on that track, but my bike lets me leave the track for wherever I want to go ;)

**EDIT - I also forgot my helmet too :D That's the point?

Who the heck advocates for riding strictly VC? Even Forester talks about taking short cuts to his house riding on the sidewalk opposing traffic in Effective Cycling!

Vehicular Cycling addresses where to ride and how to behave when you're riding on, and entering, the roadway, period. Taking a shortcut through a parking lot? Who cares? Go for it!

Bottom line - riding VC takes all the fun out of biking. Only to someone who doesn't know what they're talking about when they say "VC", such as:

Meanwhile, bicyclists riding on the same route I would be taking, (and the same ones that pass me every morning) were passing me by in the bike lane.

Riding strictly VC does ruin the advantages of the bicycle if taken too far. Yeah, right, like VC precludes filtering forward in congested traffic? Hardly.

It would be really nice to debate someone who opposed VC, but who understands it. Well, there's JRA. Anyone else?

Actually, JRA does not oppose riding VC, he opposes the politicizing of it, or something like that.

pj7

03-20-07, 10:57 PM

pj7

03-20-07, 11:05 PM

chipcom

03-21-07, 07:10 AM

The more I read about VC, the more I realize that it is nothing more than a buzzword created to sell books.

DING DING DING, we have a winner. Did you ever wonder how people managed to ride bikes on the roads during the 80+ years before the term was coined? It's not only a buzzword, to some it is a religion.

You've been in A&S for a little while know, did you ever imagine that a concept as simple as riding a bicycle according to the rules of the road could be turned into something so complicated, political and divisive? The fact the 'vehicular cyclists' feel the need to label themselves such and think that such a label separates them from, and indeed makes them the guardians of the unwashed cycling masses is really quite hilarious when you think about it.

Imagine me calling myself a Pedestrian Walker, preaching Pedestrian Walking - walking according to the rules of the sidewalks for pedestrians and instructing people to stop, look and listen before crossing the street. Would I be heralded as a pioneer, visionary and leader of a new cult? :lol:

I-Like-To-Bike

03-21-07, 07:24 AM

I don't think anyone would disagree that most cyclists ride according to the rules of the road, except when they don't. ;)
So do all motorists, except when they don't.

That's why every cyclist is a vehicular cyclist, except when they aren't.

deputyjones

03-21-07, 07:58 AM

It would be really nice to debate someone who opposed VC, but who understands it. Well, there's JRA. Anyone else?

Like I said I was riding strict VC, and I know that you are aware that there are some who advocate for this style of riding even if you do not. If you do not support this then why even reply in opposition to this thread?

sggoodri

03-21-07, 09:43 AM

The fact the 'vehicular cyclists' feel the need to label themselves such and think that such a label separates them from, and indeed makes them the guardians of the unwashed cycling masses is really quite hilarious when you think about it.

Imagine me calling myself a Pedestrian Walker, preaching Pedestrian Walking - walking according to the rules of the sidewalks for pedestrians and instructing people to stop, look and listen before crossing the street. Would I be heralded as a pioneer, visionary and leader of a new cult? :lol:

Cycling according to pedestian rules is common, for instance cycling against traffic or using sidewalks, as is teaching children to act as pedestrians when cycling. Many communities have ordinances requiring cyclists to act as pedestrians if a "usable" sidewalk is provided. Many transportation departments develop and designate "usable" sidewalk paths for cyclists designed to group them with pedestrians behind curbs.

Vehicular cycling is a useful label for specifying bicycle operation according to the rules for drivers of vehicles, as differentiated from the rules for pedestrians, or differentiated from following no rules at all.

If operating a bicycle according to pedestrian rules was not so common, and not so strongly encouraged by motorists, transportation departments, police, and parents of young children, then the term "vehicular" would be redundant to "cycling" on public rights of way. But since cycling on roadways according to normal vehicular rules is controversial and so often not done, the term is valuable for describing what we are doing, and what we wish to continue.

-Steve Goodridge

Bekologist

03-21-07, 09:50 AM

and let us not forget you can ride VC in a bike lane.

sggoodri

03-21-07, 09:58 AM

I don't oppose VC;
I oppose the jamming of it down my throat as the only way to ride a bike.
I oppose all the garbage that goes along with having a "label" on the style I ride my bike.
I oppose someone telling me I'm doing something *wrong*, even though it has been keeping me alive.
I oppose the way VC zealots come off on these boards.
And I oppose stupid polls that serve no purpose than to prove a VC point!

Until I came here, I was happy being a "bicycle rider".

Oh, and DJ said "strict VC", which means to me "strict vehicular cycling" which in turns means to me "riding your bike and adhearing to the letter of the law". Where I come from, making shortcuts thru parking lots is an illegal roadway manuver.

I think it is more useful to refer to vehicular cycling as a paradigm, or a model, if you will, than to cast it as the "one true religion."

Similarly, the pedestrian-on-wheels paradigm is a useful model for describing cycling the way a pedestian might negotiate his or her environment.

There is nothing immoral about changing ones' model when it is adventageous for one's personal travel objectives. Many cyclists who promote vehicular cycling happily admit to taking occasional advantage of pedestrian connections and pedestrian rules.

The use of "vehicular cycling" as a term is to help identify which paradigm or model one is applying to a given situation. In general use, it is intended for description, not judgement.

-Steve Goodridge

I-Like-To-Bike

03-21-07, 10:27 AM

Many communities have ordinances requiring cyclists to act as pedestrians if a "usable" sidewalk is provided.
I'd be interested in a cite or two of those ordinances that specifically "require cyclists to act as pedestrians" for any significant distance. Besides the rare example of walking a bike past a specific obstruction, or maybe a bridge sidewalk or two, which is usually ignored by all.

sggoodri

03-21-07, 11:00 AM

I'd be interested in a cite or two of those ordinances that specifically "require cyclists to act as pedestrians" for any significant distance. Besides the rare example of walking a bike past a specific obstruction, or maybe a bridge sidewalk or two, which is usually ignored by all.

Here is the one that Cary had, until we managed to get it repealed in 2001:

Sec. 12-179. Riding on roadways and bicycle paths.
(c) If usable paths for bicycles are provided adjacent to a roadway, bicycle riders shall use such paths and shall not use the roadway.

The intent of the ordinance, which had been on the books for a long time, was to require cyclists to ride on sidewalk-type paths (there were no striped bike lanes in town at the time). There are several sidewalk paths in town designated as bikeways; cyclists riding on the roadway beside these sidewalks were in violation of the law. When Cary repealed an ordinance that prohibited cycling on all sidewalks including those not designed as bikeways, all ADA-compliant sidewalks became "usable" paths.

It took us several rounds with the city staff, police, and city council before we got the mandatory-sidepath-use ordinance repealed. The staff kept proposing changes to the ordinance that allowed cyclists to leave the sidepath only if their destination required them to divert from the route of the sidepath. We were up againsts beliefs that sidewalk cycling was safer than roadway cycling, that roadway cycling delays motorists unreasonably, and that cyclists should be expected to use any facility explicitly planned and built for removing them from the roadway. It was only after sharing with them research and literature that supports vehicular cycling as safer than sidepath use - materials that you have generally derided - that they were willing to consider letting cyclists use the roadway.

The adjacent city of Morrisville had the same ordinance:

Sec. 58-123. Manner of riding bicycle.
(b) If usable paths for bicycles are provided adjacent to a roadway, bicycle
riders shall use such paths and shall not use the roadway.

Morrisville finally repealed it last year, after being presented with the same arguments, and having the precedent already set in Cary. I was involved in both efforts.

Similar struggles are ongoing in towns on the outer banks, where NCDOT is constructing sidepaths along many roads, and where local ordinances mandate their use.

These sidepath ordinances are based on the former UVC 11-1205(c), which was repealed in 1979, thanks in part to... well, you know who. (Not me, I was only 9 years old!)

deputyjones

03-21-07, 11:14 AM

Here is the one that Cary had, until we managed to get it repealed in 2001:

The intent of the ordinance, which had been on the books for a long time, was to require cyclists to ride on sidewalk-type paths (there were no striped bike lanes in town at the time). There are several sidewalk paths in town designated as bikeways; cyclists riding on the roadway beside these sidewalks were in violation of the law. When Cary repealed an ordinance that prohibited cycling on all sidewalks including those not designed as bikeways, all ADA-compliant sidewalks became "usable" paths.

It took us several rounds with the city staff, police, and city council before we got the mandatory-sidepath-use ordinance repealed. The staff kept proposing changes to the ordinance that allowed cyclists to leave the sidepath only if their destination required them to divert from the route of the sidepath. It was only after sharing with them research and literature that supports vehicular cycling as safer than sidepath use - materials that you have generally derided - that they were willing to consider letting cyclists use the roadway.

The adjacent city of Morrisville had the same ordinance:

Morrisville finally repealed it last year, after being presented with the same arguments, and having the precedent already set in Cary. I was involved in both efforts.

Similar struggles are ongoing in towns on the outer banks, where NCDOT is constructing sidepaths along many roads, and where local ordinances mandate their use.

These sidepath ordinances are based on the former UVC 11-1205(c), which was repealed in 1979, thanks in part to... well, you know who. (Not me, I was only 9 years old!)

Great advocacy story! Good for you guys to take the effort to fight city hall.

Helmet Head

03-21-07, 11:19 AM

So how is leaving the roadway and entering a sidewalk a "rule of the road"? I must have missed that part in my drivers manual. :D
The more I read about VC, the more I realize that it is nothing more than a buzzword created to sell books.
Leaving the roadway and entering a sidewalk is not a "rule of the road", nor is it VC.

However, no one (that I know of, including Forester), advocates "strict VC" that would preclude one from leaving the roadway and entering a sidewalk. Another example of a VC advocate endorsing a non-VC technique is Forester's treatment of 2-step left turns.

Helmet Head

03-21-07, 11:40 AM

I don't oppose VC;
I oppose the jamming of it down my throat as the only way to ride a bike. I oppose the mischaracterization of VC as being the only way to ride a bike.

I oppose all the garbage that goes along with having a "label" on the style I ride my bike. I oppose all the garbage that you imagine (yet cannot specify) goes along with having a "label" on the style you ride your bike.

I oppose someone telling me I'm doing something *wrong*, even though it has been keeping me alive. I oppose you misrepresenting what others are telling you.

I oppose the way VC zealots come off on these boards. I oppose your inability to understand written English.

And I oppose stupid polls that serve no purpose than to prove a VC point! Thanks for admitting they accomplish something.

Until I came here, I was happy being a "bicycle rider". Sorry to burst your bubble, but each of the 700-800 cyclists who is killed each year while bike riding was probably also happy just "being a bicycle rider". And trying to reduce those numbers (and the numbers of injuries due to crashes) is, ultimately, what VC is about, particularly with respect to the fact that probably more than half were violating basic VC rules (riding on the wrong side of the road, swerving in front of traffic without yielding, riding at night without lights, entering intersections from sidewalks at relative-to-peds high speeds without yielding, etc.), and most of the other half was not engaged in Advanced VC best practices (riding further left to be visible, predictable and with improved sight lines and safety buffer zones rather than too close to the right, particularly at ALL intersection approaches, going straight at intersections and any place where there is a potential conflict with right turning or right tending traffic without looking back, etc.).

Oh, and DJ said "strict VC", which means to me "strict vehicular cycling" which in turns means to me "riding your bike and adhearing to the letter of the law". Where I come from, making shortcuts thru parking lots is an illegal roadway manuver. Again, who on Earth advocates "strict VC"? The concept of "strict VC" is a red herring, and the argument against it is a strawman.

Edit: I added a section on "strict VC" to the OP of the VC definitions thread.

I-Like-To-Bike

03-21-07, 11:40 AM

Here is the one that Cary had, until we managed to get it repealed in 2001:
Cary:
Sec. 12-179. Riding on roadways and bicycle paths.
(c) If usable paths for bicycles are provided adjacent to a roadway, bicycle riders shall use such paths and shall not use the roadway.

The adjacent city of Morrisville had the same ordinance:
Quote:Sec. 58-123. Manner of riding bicycle b) If usable paths for bicycles are provided adjacent to a roadway, bicycle riders shall use such paths and shall not use the roadway.

Both ordinances referred to paths, neither said a word about cyclists becoming "pedestrian" or "act like pedestrians." That phraseology, with its cycling at a snails pace and walking connotations is a Steve G. and friends construct. Just like extrapolating the "threat" of such ordinances into a doom and gloom threat to kick all cylists off the road if a sidewalk is nearby.

sggoodri

03-21-07, 11:59 AM

Both ordinances referred to paths, neither said a word about cyclists becoming "pedestrian" or "act like pedestrians." That phraseology, with its cycling at a snails pace and walking connotations is a Steve G. and friends construct. Just like extrapolating the "threat" of such ordinances into a doom and gloom threat to kick all cylists off the road if a sidewalk is nearby.

These ordinances clearly group cyclists with pedestrians wherever the powers that be deem the sidewalk to be usable for bicycling. Police have abused such ordinances to require cyclists to use whatever sidewalk the officers deem usable for bicycles,which has become expanded as the result of ADA-compliant ramps at curb cuts. The root of these ordinances is the paradigm that cyclists are just pedestrians on wheels, and should operate on those pedestrian facilities that are designed to accommodate wheels.

As for forcing cyclists to operate as slowly as pedestrians, that is not an explicit requirement, but frequently an implicit safety requirement for dealing with cross traffic at intersections and dealing with dog walkers and children on the sidewalk. Proceeding straight through an intersection without slowing down and preparing to yield to cross traffic is deadly on a sidepath; one must adopt a pedestrian-like approach rather than the vehicular approach to negotiating cross traffic.

The only reasonable recourse for cyclists wishing to use the roadway is to repeal the ordinances. Note that ILTB doesn't applaud the repeal of these ordinances - rather, he belittles efforts to do anything about them.

Here is South Carolina's state-wide mandate that cyclists operate on usable sidepaths and not on the roadway:

SECTION 56-5-3430. Riding on roadways and bicycle paths.
...
Whenever a usable path for bicycles has been provided adjacent to a roadway, bicycle riders shall use such path and shall not use the roadway.

pj7

03-21-07, 04:15 PM

I oppose the mischaracterization of VC as being the only way to ride a bike.

Then why preach about it the way you do?

I oppose all the garbage that you imagine (yet cannot specify) goes along with having a "label" on the style you ride your bike.

I was never asked to specify pal. But with labeling, comes stereotyping. Now can you imagine why someone whould not want to be stereotyped?

I oppose you misrepresenting what others are telling you.

I'm representing nothing. Did you mean misinterpeting? If not, then please tell me what exactly I am representing?

I oppose your inability to understand written English.

Had to resort to a personal attack again eh? I AM one of those <110 IQ people you have talked about you know. Woah! Wait a minute, I'm typing a response to a comment in written English... interesting.

Thanks for admitting they accomplish something.

I NEVER said they accomplish anything. I said they serve a purpose. But what they DO accomplish, is getting people like me (new to your writings) to not like your methods from the start.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but each of the 700-800 cyclists who is killed each year while bike riding was probably also happy just "being a bicycle rider". And trying to reduce those numbers (and the numbers of injuries due to crashes) is, ultimately, what VC is about, particularly with respect to the fact that probably more than half were violating basic VC rules (riding on the wrong side of the road, swerving in front of traffic without yielding, riding at night without lights, entering intersections from sidewalks at relative-to-peds high speeds without yielding, etc.), and most of the other half was not engaged in Advanced VC best practices (riding further left to be visible, predictable and with improved sight lines and safety buffer zones rather than too close to the right, particularly at ALL intersection approaches, going straight at intersections and any place where there is a potential conflict with right turning or right tending traffic without looking back, etc.).

Sorry to burst my bubble? Did you think that I felt that those people were NOT happy to ride their bikes?
This just makes no sense.

Again, who on Earth advocates "strict VC"? The concept of "strict VC" is a red herring, and the argument against it is a strawman.

Who in here said DJ was advocating strict VC? He just said he'd *try* it.

bleh

Brian

03-21-07, 04:21 PM

Ok, who wants ice cream?

Can anyone else share an experience wherein they tried to ride strictly VC, and tell us what was positive about it, and what wasn't?

noisebeam

03-21-07, 05:03 PM

Ok, who wants ice cream?

Can anyone else share an experience wherein they tried to ride strictly VC, and tell us what was positive about it, and what wasn't?
Sure, but not a specific example, more general.

When I ride vehicularly I find right of way (especialy left crosses and right hooks) issue are minimimized, nearly eliminated in the case of right hooks. This comes with an occasional slightly higher increase in driver harrassment (verbal, honking)

When don't ride (advanced) vehiculary my vigilance and need to adapt to potential left crosses and primarily right hook increases to the point of making cycling in suburban environment quite tedious.

Al

CTAC

03-21-07, 05:33 PM

Can anyone else share an experience wherein they tried to ride strictly VC, and tell us what was positive about it, and what wasn't?
I was cycling vehicularly this Sunday and stopped at the stop sign. The guy behind me was driving his car cycliarly and blew that sign. It was very stupid of him. The police officer caught him. I glanced back to make sure that police officer is busy with the driver and blew the next stop sign. It felt so good!

galen_52657

03-21-07, 05:50 PM

I was riding home Tuesday evening at around dusk (7 PM), heading south on York Road (4 lane arterial with heavy commercial usage - think strip mall hell). Being VC and all my bike was equipped with proper illumination. Due to a complete re-build of this section of road, the right lane was like a war zone with trench-repair patches running longitudinally and transversely for blocks. The construction crews were getting set up for night work by blocking off the right lane with barrels. Traffic was late-rush hour and cars were thinking of sneaking up the right lane and merging over at the last second. That is, until they saw me dead center in the middle of the right lane. When I got up close to the just-set barrels, I signaled, looked back, was acknowledged by a motorist and merged left. I had to jam it a little to keep up with the car in front (slight up-hill, helps to be in shape) and then merged back right around the last barrel. Down the other side of the hill, the right lane was the worst - totally trench repairs. Up ahead was a large excavation covered with about 4 steel plates. The edges of the plats were at skewed angles. I probably could have hopped the plate edges but there was a gap in the left lane and I was doing about 30 MPH so I signaled a lane change, looked back, had a good gap, merged left and took off down the hill, around the plates and back to my lane.

Brian

03-21-07, 05:56 PM

I was cycling vehicularly this Sunday and stopped at the stop sign. The guy behind me was driving his car cycliarly and blew that sign. It was very stupid of him. The police officer caught him. I glanced back to make sure that police officer is busy with the driver and blew the next stop sign. It felt so good!

Word!

Galen - what kind of impression do you think your sig makes on a 50 year old woman looking to take up cycling to help ward off osteo? Or is cycling only for people that ride in traffic?

galen_52657

03-21-07, 06:30 PM

Word!

Galen - what kind of impression do you think your sig makes on a 50 year old woman looking to take up cycling to help ward off osteo? Or is cycling only for people that ride in traffic?

I think my sig is self-explanatory. And considering I will be 50 in 2 months, what is your point? Are you sexist???? And your ignorance is showing just a tad seeing how cycling is most definitely not the sport to be taking up late in life to ward of osteo. Or are you simply fishing for a cheap reaction??? BTW when riding home from the grocery store with panniers full of supplies pulling a grade in a 24/28 gear on my ancient mountain bike at about 4 MPH I am still 'riding in traffic'. It's a little easier on a 20 lbs road bike but still plenty doable.

Helmet Head

03-21-07, 06:30 PM

Galen - what kind of impression do you think your sig makes on a 50 year old woman looking to take up cycling to help ward off osteo? Or is cycling only for people that ride in traffic?
Note: Galen's sig is: "You need a stinking bike lane???? HAHAHAHAHAH.... you suck"

Cycling in traffic -- whether in a bike lane or not -- is only for people that ride in traffic.

A bike lane does not get a cyclist out of riding in traffic, and all the requisite skills and knowledge! If anything, riding in traffic on roads with bike lanes safely requires more ability, skills and knowledge than riding in traffic on roads without bike lanes. Think about it.

Hint: it's about the intersections.

Brian

03-21-07, 06:45 PM

I think my sig is self-explanatory. And considering I will be 50 in 2 months, what is your point? Are you sexist???? And your ignorance is showing just a tad seeing how cycling is most definitely not the sport to be taking up late in life to ward of osteo. Or are you simply fishing for a cheap reaction??? BTW when riding home from the grocery store with panniers full of supplies pulling a grade in a 24/28 gear on my ancient mountain bike at about 4 MPH I am still 'riding in traffic'. It's a little easier on a 20 lbs road bike but still plenty doable.

You should be so proud of yourself. I am simply pointing out that your sig isn't really welcoming to non-cyclists or visitors to this site. You suck.

Helmet Head

03-21-07, 06:50 PM

I am simply pointing out that your sig isn't really welcoming ... Well, I do have to agree with Brian on that much of his point.

In general, it's not effective to let your position on an emotional/controversial issue be known to someone, before you figure out what their position is and why and what might be the most effective way to present your side, who you hope to persuade to agree with you, particularly by deriding their position.

Now if only I could live by that!

kalliergo

03-21-07, 06:59 PM

Galen - what kind of impression do you think your sig makes on a 50 year old woman looking to take up cycling to help ward off osteo? Or is cycling only for people that ride in traffic?
I'm a 56-year-old man with a history of heart attacks, a defibrillator implanted in my chest, a pile of daily meds with side-effects that would keep a lot of folks in bed, and two knees that are next to useless. I ride in traffic every day. It's not about athleticism.

Not only does the comment suggest sexism and age discrimination, it reflects an inappropriately condescending view of people with disabilities. Not to mention a serious misunderstanding of vehicular cycling.

EDIT: But the sig isn't likely to win friends and influence people. :)

I-Like-To-Bike

03-21-07, 07:04 PM

The only reasonable recourse for cyclists wishing to use the roadway is to repeal the ordinances. Note that ILTB doesn't applaud the repeal of these ordinances - rather, he belittles efforts to do anything about them.
I don't get worked up over sidepath ordinances, since it appears that Cary, NC is the only place in the US that is building them in urban areas, or at least certain individuals there have a fixation on describing sidewalks as sidepaths.

Your exaggerated claims of police abuse forcing cyclists to use sidewalks because of sidepath laws sounds a lot like good buddy DC's overwrought concern about the terror of Portland's bike facilities because he read about an isolated incident. DC also got wrapped around the axle because of the loss of freedom of Chicago cyclists to ride on the Lake Shore Drive due to a nearby MUP. Anyone familiar with the LBS knows exactly how informed such hysterics are with their over the top rhetoric.

I-Like-To-Bike

03-21-07, 07:11 PM

Hint: it's about the intersections.
Ya mean if bike lane paint is obliterated, the intersections go away? No? Then maybe ya mean if the bike lane paint is obliterated cyclists will be somewhere else in the intersection real estate when they approach and pass through intersections? What makes ya think so? Better get some more hints.

I-Like-To-Bike

03-21-07, 07:14 PM

You should be so proud of yourself. I am simply pointing out that your sig isn't really welcoming to non-cyclists or visitors to this site. You suck.
It isn't welcoming to anybody but similar thinking cycling scholars.

joejack951

03-21-07, 07:17 PM

Ya mean if bike lane paint is obliterated, the intersections go away? No? Then maybe ya mean if the bike lane paint is obliterated cyclists will be somewhere else in the intersection real estate when they approach and pass through intersections? What makes ya think so? Better get some more hints.

You make this claim often and in the short term at least, it's probably true. Bike lanes certainly don't encourage cyclists to not hug the edge of the road through intersections (excluding BL's to the right of RTOL's) nor do they encourage cyclists not to ride in the door zone. Hopefully some day, with possibly through the work of zealous VC advocates, the norm for cyclists can eventually change to something better (if you agree that cyclists not positioning themselves to be right hooked, etc. is better).

galen_52657

03-21-07, 07:20 PM

You should be so proud of yourself. I am simply pointing out that your sig isn't really welcoming to non-cyclists or visitors to this site. You suck.

Just because you want to be all warm and friendly does not make it a prerequisite for BikeForums.

And name calling is not exactly living up to your warm and fuzzy sensibilities nor is it complying with BikeForums posting policy...simply pointing that out.

Brian

03-21-07, 07:22 PM

I'm a 56-year-old man with a history of heart attacks, a defibrillator implanted in my chest, a pile of daily meds with side-effects that would keep a lot of folks in bed, and two knees that are next to useless. I ride in traffic every day. It's not about athleticism.

Not only does the comment suggest sexism and age discrimination, it reflects an inappropriately condescending view of people with disabilities. Not to mention a serious misunderstanding of vehicular cycling.

EDIT: But the sig isn't likely to win friends and influence people. :)

Good on ya! When I made the original post, I was trying to picture the kind of person that might be lurking, just looking for info, but had not registered yet. The kind that would be most easily offended by a sig like that.

Before I finished typing my response, I realized it was time to go pick up my wife from work, so I didn't get to complete my thoughts. And since I've already been quoted, I guess it's too late to go back and edit my post. ;)