Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Why does VC exist anyhow?

This is a serious question. I already have my suspicions that the whole buzz term was created just to sell books. But from what I am gather, VC is nothing more than a *suggested* way to ride a bike while on the streets that will *likely* be safer for the cyclist. Okay, fine, I get it.
But why have a whole new culture about it? Mr. Forester himself admits to riding on the sidewalks. VC zealots will and do use seperated/segregated facilities. I've read here from the VC folks (at least one) that they have no problem with cutting thru a parking lot as a shortcut, which is illegal in alot of areas. So what is the point of the whole label and culture? Couldn't it just be rolled up into one big panphlet about riding a bike in general without having to have it's own buzz label?
This is just silly, and it why I am being outspoken in the VC threads. Not because I oppose riding a bicycle in the streets safely and legally, but because I oppose the fact that people have to label it. It's no different than kids in highschool who feel they need to belong to some sort of social cliche with a title in order to fit in (preppy, grunge, jock, etc etc). Are we not adults here (most of us anyways)? Do we really NEED someone to put a label on something like this?

silly, just silly

[EDIT]
Why can't VC zealots face the facts that sometimes it is safer, funner, etc to ride on the shoulder, or to use the shoulder to thwart a possible incident with a motorist instead of standing on the pedals and swerving and dancing like a monkey with an organ griner? Why is it so hard for some of them to accept that no matter what, your safety out there depends just as much on the other person as it does you? Why can't we just ride a damned bike instead of having to go thru all of this garbage?

I think it was Steve Goodridge who said it best [paraphrased, probably terribly, Steve feel free to post your real response here], the term vehicular cycling was created to seperate the style of cycling in traffic as a vehicle driver from cycling in all the other ways one might cycle in traffic. Keep in mind, plenty people still believe that cyclists should act like pedestrians and ride against traffic on the roads. That could be labeled "riding a bicycle in traffic" but it's not vehicular cycling.

Starting to make more sense now?

This is a serious question. I already have my suspicions that the whole buzz term was created just to sell books. But from what I am gather, VC is nothing more than a *suggested* way to ride a bike while on the streets that will *likely* be safer for the cyclist. Okay, fine, I get it.
But why have a whole new culture about it? Mr. Forester himself admits to riding on the sidewalks. VC zealots will and do use seperated/segregated facilities. I've read here from the VC folks (at least one) that they have no problem with cutting thru a parking lot as a shortcut, which is illegal in alot of areas. So what is the point of the whole label and culture? Couldn't it just be rolled up into one big panphlet about riding a bike in general without having to have it's own buzz label?
This is just silly, and it why I am being outspoken in the VC threads. Not because I oppose riding a bicycle in the streets safely and legally, but because I oppose the fact that people have to label it. It's no different than kids in highschool who feel they need to belong to some sort of social cliche with a title in order to fit in (preppy, grunge, jock, etc etc). Are we not adults here (most of us anyways)? Do we really NEED someone to put a label on something like this?

silly, just silly
700-800 cyclists are killed each year in the U.S. while bike riding. Countless others are seriously injured while bike riding. Trying to reduce those numbers is, ultimately, what the concept know as 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.).

With respect to why the concept needs a label, it's not much different from why Prince's attempt to shed his label (name) was not very effective.

If a concept has value, and I believe this one does, then it's very helpful to be able to refer to it by name. That's all.


[EDIT]
Why can't VC zealots face the facts that sometimes it is safer, funner, etc to ride on the shoulder, or to use the shoulder to thwart a possible incident with a motorist instead of standing on the pedals and swerving and dancing like a monkey with an organ griner? Why is it so hard for some of them to accept that no matter what, your safety out there depends just as much on the other person as it does you? Why can't we just ride a damned bike instead of having to go thru all of this garbage? What you refer to above as "VC zealots" sounds like "Strict VC zealots". I don't know of any of those. Do you?

EDIT: For definitions for what I mean by "Advanced VC", "Basic VC" and "Strict VC", please see the OP (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=3990425&postcount=1) of the Some VC definitions thread (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=275653).

I think it was Steve Goodridge who said it best [paraphrased, probably terribly, Steve feel free to post your real response here], the term vehicular cycling was created to seperate the style of cycling in traffic as a vehicle driver from cycling in all the other ways one might cycle in traffic. Keep in mind, plenty people still believe that cyclists should act like pedestrians and ride against traffic on the roads. That could be labeled "riding a bicycle in traffic" but it's not vehicular cycling.

Starting to make more sense now?

And in every place I know of, riding a bike on the road, against traffic, is illegal. So that would be cycling illegaly. Do those people have UC (Unvehicular Cycling) zealots? Doubt it. Maybe I should start it, write a book, and make some bank.

+1.

I'm a cyclist. I ride with mannerisms which help keep me alive and, at the very least, able to ride more.

Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it any different, to quote my favorite author.

700-800 cyclists are killed each year in the U.S. while bike riding. Countless others are seriously injured while bike riding. Trying to reduce those numbers is, ultimately, what the concept know as 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.).

With respect to why the concept needs a label, it's not much different from why Prince's attempt to shed his label (name) was not very effective.

If a concept has value, and I believe this one does, then it's very helpful to be able to refer to it by name. That's all.

What you refer to above as "VC zealots" sounds like "Strict VC zealots". I don't know of any of those. Do you?

EDIT: For definitions for what I mean by "Advanced VC", "Basic VC" and "Strict VC", please see the OP (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=3990425&postcount=1) of the Some VC definitions thread (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=275653).

wait.. what? I didn't say anything about strict anything.

And in every place I know of, riding a bike on the road, against traffic, is illegal. So that would be cycling illegaly. Do those people have UC (Unvehicular Cycling) zealots? Doubt it. Maybe I should start it, write a book, and make some bank. And in every place I know of, very many illegal cycling practices are accepted. A couple of weeks ago I saw a cyclist riding on the wrong side of the road (which had angled curb parking, by the way) against traffic, in front of a police station, with a police car driving by. No one even blinked.

wait.. what? I didn't say anything about strict anything.
Yes, you didn't use the term "strict". but the implied meaning of "VC zealots" in the context of what you wrote is "strict VC".

Look at it again (my emphasis):


Why can't VC zealots face the facts that sometimes it is safer, funner, etc to ride on the shoulder, or to use the shoulder to thwart a possible incident with a motorist instead of standing on the pedals and swerving and dancing like a monkey with an organ griner? Why is it so hard for some of them to accept that no matter what, your safety out there depends just as much on the other person as it does you? Why can't we just ride a damned bike instead of having to go thru all of this garbage?
The highlighted portions would only apply to a zealot of Strict VC (one who believes that non-VC cycling is never acceptable).

And in every place I know of, riding a bike on the road, against traffic, is illegal. So that would be cycling illegaly. Do those people have UC (Unvehicular Cycling) zealots? Doubt it. Maybe I should start it, write a book, and make some bank.

So it sounds like you believe that it's universally known that it's illegal to cycle against traffic. Let's assume that's true. Do you think it's universally known that a cyclist can legally use a left turn lane to make a left turn?

Do you think it's universally known that a cyclist can legally use a left turn lane to make a left turn?
Should we assume that motorists ever bother opening the driver handbook?
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/images/dlhdbk/59bhop.gif

Yes, you didn't use the term "strict". but the implied meaning of "VC zealots" in the context of what you wrote is "strict VC".

Look at it again (my emphasis):


The highlighted portions would only apply to a zealot of Strict VC (one who believes that non-VC cycling is never acceptable).

didn't you have the tag "Avid VC Zealot" attached to your name at one time? Did that mean that YOU were advocating STRICT VC? If so then you had better ammend your definitions thread because you said you don't know of any of them. If not, then what is your point here?

And in every place I know of, very many illegal cycling practices are accepted. A couple of weeks ago I saw a cyclist riding on the wrong side of the road (which had angled curb parking, by the way) against traffic, in front of a police station, with a police car driving by. No one even blinked.
So what are you getting at here exactly with pertaining to the topic of this discussion?

So it sounds like you believe that it's universally known that it's illegal to cycle against traffic. Let's assume that's true. Do you think it's universally known that a cyclist can legally use a left turn lane to make a left turn?
No, I don't believe that at all.
Just like I don't believe everyone knows that in Winchester Kentucky it is illegal to walk down main Street with an ice cream cone in your pocket.

Should we assume that motorists ever bother opening the driver handbook?

I would assume that the vast majority either never have or did so long ago that they've forgotten most of what's in there that they don't experience on a regular basis.

Do you think it's universally known that a cyclist can legally use a left turn lane to make a left turn?


No, I don't believe that at all.

Ok, so like CTAC has shown, while it's in that nifty little pamphlet, most people don't know it's true. Most people do know it's true that vehicle drivers (which most people assume to be motorists exclusively) can and should make left turns from the left turn lane. Doesn't the term "vehicular cycling" then make it a lot easier to imply doing all of those things that you would do as a vehicle driver in traffic even though you are on a bike? How does the phrase "cycling in traffic" convey any of the same message without the pamphlet to go along with it?

I would assume that the vast majority either never have or did so long ago that they've forgotten most of what's in there that they don't experience on a regular basis.
True, they had to open it in order to get their license in the first place. But after years and years of driving, common sense law and rules lay way to bad habbits. I would make the guess that NO ONE, including myself, drives 100% correctly, as stated by law.

didn't you have the tag "Avid VC Zealot" attached to your name at one time? Did that mean that YOU were advocating STRICT VC? No, I have never been an advocate of STRICT VC, and never will be.


If so then you had better ammend your definitions thread because you said you don't know of any of them. If not, then what is your point here? (taking the if not option, which is the one that applies here) My point here is you're writing about a perspective (which I happen to call strict VC) which no one actually holds, yet you seem to think someone does.

silly, just silly

What is silly is morons riding against traffic, wearing earbuds, not having lighting or reflectors and all the other stupid stuff that people do on bikes.

And in every place I know of, riding a bike on the road, against traffic, is illegal. So that would be cycling illegaly. Do those people have UC (Unvehicular Cycling) zealots? Doubt it. Maybe I should start it, write a book, and make some bank.
And in every place I know of, very many illegal cycling practices are accepted. A couple of weeks ago I saw a cyclist riding on the wrong side of the road (which had angled curb parking, by the way) against traffic, in front of a police station, with a police car driving by. No one even blinked.
So what are you getting at here exactly with pertaining to the topic of this discussion? I thought your pointing out that riding a bike against traffic is illegal is somehow evidence that the concept/term of vehicular cycling is not needed.

So I was pointing out why the concept/term is needed even though these behaviors are illegal: because illegal cycling is accepted as normal in our culture, it is not understood to be as unsafe and ineffective as it is. Having a concept/term like vehicular cycling helps convey this. At least with some people...

No, I have never been an advocate of STRICT VC, and never will be.


My point here is you're writing about a perspective (which I happen to call strict VC) which no one actually holds, yet you seem to think someone does.

What are you trying to morph here? Where di I use "persepctive" of strict VC here, you did that my friend. You also made reference to people calling themselves "VC Zealots" as those who advocate "strict VC", but you yourself used to refer to yourself as a "VC Zealot", I only pointed that out to you, and here you go, trying to morph my post about why we need the label of VC into some sort of thread about "Strict VC" and how your are "precieving" that I have a "perspective". My questions are straight forward here with no hidden "persepctives".
silly, just silly

So I was pointing out why the concept/term is needed even though these behaviors are illegal: because illegal cycling is accepted as normal in our culture, it is not understood to be as unsafe and ineffective as it is. Having a concept/term like vehicular cycling helps convey this. At least with some people...

It's not needed though in my poinion, and aparently in the opinion of others who chose to ride legally on the road as well.
Wouldn't it be easier to say to someone "hey, it's illegal to do that" than to say "you should be riding VC"? The former made the point clear, where as the latter would require an explaination that would end in a comment like "go buy this and that book to see".
Tell me HH, have you ever made money of promoting VC in ANY way? Do you plan on making money off it in ANY way? <-- serious question

What are you trying to morph here? Where di I use "persepctive" of strict VC here, you did that my friend. You also made reference to people calling themselves "VC Zealots" as those who advocate "strict VC", but you yourself used to refer to yourself as a "VC Zealot", I only pointed that out to you, and here you go, trying to morph my post about why we need the label of VC into some sort of thread about "Strict VC" and how your are "precieving" that I have a "perspective". My questions are straight forward here with no hidden "persepctives".
silly, just silly

If you are going to make accusations, get your facts straight. It's sad that I've paid enough attention on these forums to remember people's signature lines :o , but HH's previous line was "zealous VC advocate."

It's not needed though in my poinion, and aparently in the opinion of others who chose to ride legally on the road as well.
Wouldn't it be easier to say to someone "hey, it's illegal to do that" than to say "you should be riding VC"? The former made the point clear, where as the latter would require an explaination that would end in a comment like "go buy this and that book to see".
Tell me HH, have you ever made money of promoting VC in ANY way? Do you plan on making money off it in ANY way? <-- serious question

And who is advocating going around telling strangers that they are not "riding VC?" I'll argue that it easier to tell someone to ride their bike like they are the driver of a vehicle which means operating according to the vehicular rules of the road than it is to tell them to obey the law as it pertains to cyclists (which we've all agreed most people don't know).

If you are going to make accusations, get your facts straight. It's sad that I've paid enough attention on these forums to remember people's signature lines :o , but HH's previous line was "zealous VC advocate."
hehehe, it's sad that the both of us remember it indeed, thanks for the clarification.
but don't both terms mean the same thing? ;)

And who is advocating going around telling strangers that they are not "riding VC?" I'll argue that it easier to tell someone to ride their bike like they are the driver of a vehicle which means operating according to the vehicular rules of the road than it is to tell them to obey the law as it pertains to cyclists (which we've all agreed most people don't know).

no one is advocating going around telling stragners anything... unless she's a hot chick and you're trying to pick her up! :D
My comment was to make a point about not needing to have this *label* that causes so much flame-throwing and useless threads, such as this one.

pj7, I don't doubt your sincerity, but either one of us, or both of us, seems to be in a frame of mind such that we're talking past each other. I'll try one more time.


Where did I use "persepctive" of strict VC here, you did that my friend. I already answered this in in #8.


You also made reference to people calling themselves "VC Zealots" as those who advocate "strict VC", ... No, I did not (which makes moot your point about the equivalency in meaning between "VC Zealot" and "Zealous VC advocate", which I don't deny).

I've only been using the term "strict VC" for a day or two, and I have not used the term "zealot" during that period. At no time did I equate those meanings in any way shape or form.

But I will add what I mean by "VC zealot" to the VC definitions OP to clarify this further. (hint: it does not mean support/advocate of "strict VC").



It's not needed though in my poinion, and aparently in the opinion of others who chose to ride legally on the road as well. I have said "hey, it's illegal to ride on the wrong side of the road" to wrong-side riding cyclists in the past.

VC is not the same as obeying the letter of the law. It's both less, and more. See the VC definitions thread.
For example, it's legal for a cyclist to go straight from the right side of a straight-or-right lane. But it's contrary to destination positioning as specified for motorcyclists in their special training, and for students of VC in their special training.

Referring to what is meant by VC as "legal cycling" just doesn't cut it.



Tell me HH, have you ever made money of promoting VC in ANY way? No.


Do you plan on making money off it in ANY way? <-- serious question Probably a piddly amount for teaching courses which will not even come close to paying for my time in terms of minimum wage. Probably won't even cover my expenses. Sometimes I fantasize about writing a book, but judging from Robert Hurst and John Forester, I don't think that would make me any significant money either. Trust me, it's not about the money, if that's what you think!

hehehe, it's sad that the both of us remember it indeed, thanks for the clarification.
but don't both terms mean the same thing? ;)

In my opinion, they do not. There are negative connotations to the word "zealot" (especially on these forums where the term is often bandied about) whereas the word "zealous" has more positive connotations.

no one is advocating going around telling stragners anything... unless she's a hot chick and you're trying to pick her up! :D
My comment was to make a point about not needing to have this *label* that causes so much flame-throwing and useless threads, such as this one.

The label causes so much flame throwing because so many people use it without a reasonable understanding of what it means. They just ASSume a meaning and convince themselves that they know exactly what everyone else means when they use the term (or try to redefine it in a way that doesn't agree with anything previously written about the term). Most of these people have never even read the books that go into detail about what it means to be a vehicular cyclist.

[edit] I don't mean to imply that one must read a book to know what vehicular cycling means. The confusion arises from people creating their own meaning of the term that is not consistent with it's true definition and convincing others to accept their meaning. This makes it very difficult if not impossible for someone originally exposed to a bad definition of vehicular cycling to understand the true definition, as has been proved by these forums. [edit]

The label, as used by those who understand the term, is just a convenient way of referring to something without having to spell it all out every time. The label, as used by those who don't understand the term, is used to refer to any cycling practice that they disagree with (that's a generalization but pretty accurate IMO).

What are you trying to morph here? Where di I use "persepctive" of strict VC here, you did that my friend. You also made reference to people calling themselves "VC Zealots" as those who advocate "strict VC", but you yourself used to refer to yourself as a "VC Zealot", I only pointed that out to you, and here you go, trying to morph my post about why we need the label of VC into some sort of thread about "Strict VC" and how your are "precieving" that I have a "perspective". My questions are straight forward here with no hidden "persepctives".
silly, just silly
In the hopes that we can all come to terms in the VC subforum, these are from the OP of the "some VC definitions" thread:


Strict VC is strict adherence to VC while riding a bicycle. It means never riding on sidewalks, never doing a 2-step left turn, 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.

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.

Are you making these definitions up yourself?
Isn't a zealot someone who is zealous? If it is, then how can a zealous VC advocate not be a VC zealot? Unless of course the term "zealous vc advocate" just means "zealous advocate" and VC is just thrown in there for the hell of it.

Boy, I wish I could make my own definitions up for things and then use those definitions to prove my point of view on things, holding those definitions to be self evident.
nice, thanks

Are you making these definitions up yourself?
Isn't a zealot someone who is zealous? If it is, then how can a zealous VC advocate not be a VC zealot? Unless of course the term "zealous vc advocate" just means "zealous advocate" and VC is just thrown in there for the hell of it.

Boy, I wish I could make my own definitions up for things and then use those definitions to prove my point of view on things, holding those definitions to be self evident.
nice, thanks

Which post are you responding to?

Which post are you responding to?
Post #29 from HH, nothing you said. Most everything you have written I have been able to understand and it mostly pertains to my thread here. And likewise, I can see myself in agreeance to a point with your posts.
I'm sitting here and watching my thread of why we need this VC title turn into a definition thread of "VC Zealot" and the like. I'm still waiting for the bike lane debate to take it over.

Are you making these definitions up yourself?
Isn't a zealot someone who is zealous? If it is, then how can a zealous VC advocate not be a VC zealot? Unless of course the term "zealous vc advocate" just means "zealous advocate" and VC is just thrown in there for the hell of it.

Boy, I wish I could make my own definitions up for things and then use those definitions to prove my point of view on things, holding those definitions to be self evident.
nice, thanks What part of "which makes moot your point about the equivalency in meaning between "VC Zealot" and "Zealous VC advocate", which I don't deny" (from #26) did you not understand?

"I don't deny" means I basiucally agree. I agree that "VC Zealot" and "Zealous VC advocate" essentially mean the same thing. So what?

Please reread #26.

By the way, yes, I'm making up the definitions by myself. But I'm trying to make them as reasonable as possible, and I'm asking for input/comments if anyone thinks there is a problem with how I'm defining these terms. As I said in #29, I'm doing all this in the hopes that we can all come to terms in the VC subforum.

All I can do is be clear about what I mean when I use these terms. As to why they are necessary, look at the definitions themselves. As with any term, we'd rather write the term then have to spell out the whole meaning every time.

There is always a tradeoff when using specific "odd" terms between using terms that no one understands and being specific in meaning. So I'm trying to improve the situation by making the meaning of these terms clear.

What part of "which makes moot your point about the equivalency in meaning between "VC Zealot" and "Zealous VC advocate", which I don't deny" (from #26) did you not understand?

"I don't deny" means I basiucally agree. I agree that "VC Zealot" and "Zealous VC advocate" essentially mean the same thing. So what?

Please reread #26.

So what?

1.) You called yourself a Zealous VC Advocate in your name tag for the longest of time, which has only recently been changed.
2.) You agree that a "Zealous VC Advocate" and a "VC Zealot" are the same thing.
3.) You stated that VC Zealots advocate for "Strict VC"
4.) You said that "there are no known adherents or proponents of Strict VC" and that you "don't know of any of those"

I asked if you "Did that mean that YOU were advocating STRICT VC?"
You said "No, I have never been an advocate of STRICT VC, and never will be."

(gee, I seem to be nit picking parts of posts, wonder who else does that to prove their point)

Then you continue to post various definitions of terms, definitions that you seem to be pulling out of your butt.
You try to tell me what I am meaning when I make a statement (as if I don't know and you can read my inner thoughts or something)
Then this thread gets derailed to some sort of "Strict VC" crap.

Then I give up on my seriousness of it because you seem to be performing the text book example of "controlling the conversaion".

I was just pointing out the fact.

So what?

1.) You called yourself a Zealous VC Advocate in your name tag for the longest of time, which has only recently been changed.
2.) You agree that a "Zealous VC Advocate" and a "VC Zealot" are the same thing.
3.) You stated that VC Zealots advocate for "Strict VC"
4.) You said that "there are no known adherents or proponents of Strict VC" and that you "don't know of any of those"

I asked if you "Did that mean that YOU were advocating STRICT VC?"
You said "No, I have never been an advocate of STRICT VC, and never will be."

(gee, I seem to be nit picking parts of posts, wonder who else does that to prove their point)

Then you continue to post various definitions of terms, definitions that you seem to be pulling out of your butt.
You try to tell me what I am meaning when I make a statement (as if I don't know and you can read my inner thoughts or something)
Then this thread gets derailed to some sort of "Strict VC" crap.

Then I give up on my seriousness of it because you seem to be performing the text book example of "controlling the conversaion".

I was just pointing out the fact. Sigh. #3 above in your list as false, as I noted in #26. Please read #26.

Here's the relevant piece to this:


No, I did not [make a reference to people calling themselves "VC Zealots" as those who advocate "strict VC"]

I've only been using the term "strict VC" for a day or two, and I have not used the term "zealot" during that period. At no time did I equate those meanings in any way shape or form.

#3 being false makes your point baseless, since your whole point rests on the assumption that #3 is true. I have no idea where you got that, by the way. Do you?

pj7, it's best not to ask HH for the answer. He won't be able to tell you.

Why does this VC label exist? For the self-promotion of its adherents and nothing more. It's an identity politics thing, a label you can apply to yourself to feel better and more important that everyone else. You can use the label to judge others as being worthy. You can brag about your VC prowess. You can blame accidents on those who aren't VC enough. That sort of thing.

The rest of the world goes about their lives using vehicular cycling principles where they make sense, like pulling the right tool for the job out of a big toolbox of cycling skills. We who do this are the lesser beings, the Adaptive Cyclists.

Should we assume that motorists ever bother opening the driver handbook?
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/images/dlhdbk/59bhop.gif

I assume that motorists don't bother looking with any intent at the 1 and a 1/2 pages regarding cyclists as those motorists have about 78 pages that they feel are more important to them.

The fact is that more emphasis should be placed, in driving classes, on shareing the road with all other users of the road.

The rest of the world goes about their lives using vehicular cycling principles where they make sense, like pulling the right tool for the job out of a big toolbox of cycling skills. We who do this are the lesser beings, the Adaptive Cyclists.

+1 to SB and PJ here. IMHO, The way that cycling is done by most of us is in the form of a craft. For one to be a skilled, experienced craftsman he might need to read the books, listen to the lectures, study from others and practice, but eventually he must begin his craft on his own. If he is a really good craftsman he can eventually take the knowledge he has gleaned in his studies and experience and set apart from the teachers and their "paradigms". He has in essence filled his toolbox and has enough experience to know how to use those tools to most effectively till his trade in his environment. He no longer needs to follow someone elses "paradigm".

Those that choose to continue exclusively following someone elses ideas either don't have the experience or courage needed to begin their craft on their own. To those that would: this is not intended as an insult, and please don't anyone take it as such.

well said, deputy jones.

I would like to be more blunt:

Since there are NO "strict VC" and everyone rides adaptively, the term VC is a snappy, loaded catchphrase.

VC are for autocentric road design that hinder the popularization of the bicycle as transportation in this country. VC only ride VC when it is conveinent to them; they use bike facilities and bike lanes, and all the same chestbeat their opposition to bike specific infrastructure.

VC only ride VC when it conveinences them, there are NO strict VC, as a VC definer has been defining. All cyclists are adaptive cyclists.

+1 to SB and PJ here. IMHO, The way that cycling is done by most of us is in the form of a craft. For one to be a skilled, experienced craftsman he might need to read the books, listen to the lectures, study from others and practice, but eventually he must begin his craft on his own. If he is a really good craftsman he can eventually take the knowledge he has gleaned in his studies and experience and set apart from the teachers and their "paradigms". He has in essence filled his toolbox and has enough experience to know how to use those tools to most effectively till his trade in his environment. He no longer needs to follow someone elses "paradigm".

Those that choose to continue exclusively following someone elses ideas either don't have the experience or courage needed to begin their craft on their own. To those that would: this is not intended as an insult, and please don't anyone take it as such. Brian just asked in another thread if any regulars don't understand the positions of others. Do you, DJ, qualify as a regular? I think so. Yet somehow you seem to have the impression that, apparently, VC is about "following someone else's 'paradigm'". Is driving a car according to the vrotr "following someone else's 'paradigm'"? Just whose is it, then? Forester's? Hardly. All Forester did was put a concept in writing and give it a name, a concept that was already utilized by many cyclists (but much moreso in Europe, particularly Britain, than in the States - which is why he felt the need to put it in writing). The same practices based on the same vehicular paradigm are captured by John Franklin in his book, Cyclecraft. You can also find it in John Allen's StreetSmarts (which is free online), and even in the critical-of-Forester summary by Jeffrey Hiles in his online paper, Listening to Bikelanes. Heck, the Wikipedia definition of vehicular cycling is yet another example, and so is the (in progress) op of the definitions thread in this forum. All present practices based on the same vehicular paradigm in unique/personal styles.

Every vehicular cyclist I know, whether in person (at least half a dozen) or on the internet (dozens) has obviously crafted his or her own personal style (just like everyone I know has his own driving style). Not one of them follows anyone else's style. The ones I know in person, and have ridden with, also all comprise the most confident, skilled and experienced traffic cyclists that I have ever met.

As far as "paradigms" used to ride on the roads, the only well-defined ones I know of are "vehicular" and "pedestrian". Do you know of any others? Where are they defined?

Brian just asked in another thread if any regulars don't understand the positions of others. Do you, DJ, qualify as a regular? I think so. Yet somehow you seem to have the impression that, apparently, VC is about "following someone else's 'paradigm'".

I really don't understand your positions HH, but I also don't believe that that is a result my lack of trying or intellect. Ever since I have been on this board you have attempted to espouse your views in these strange quasi-cloak and dagger methods using rigged polls and questions that are related generally to VC without providing what your views are or the reason behind the question to begin with. These always break down into meaningless arguments about you and your methods because people see through them. Not once can I remember you actually attemping to make a valid case for VC without these methods, or even, horror of all horrors, actually presenting what your views are and then asking people honestly, sincerely, from a standpoint of understanding and betterment of cycling advocacy what their opinion is. Heck, I even gots the mods to sticky a post where everyone could explain how they ride so that newcomers could see different examples of how people tackle different environments, but I see no post from you there explaining your position.

If I do not understand your position you have only yourself to blame as I would actually like to hear what it is without being treated like a child or having them presented to me in some dishonest fashion. Of the people on this board I honestly believe that I am one of the ones that would love to hear what you have to say the most because I believe that you believe that what you are doing is helping to save people lives and cycling. That goes a long way in my book, but dishonesty and a lack of respect for others goes a long way the other way.

I also believe strongly that the constant VC arguments and the creation of this sub-forum are not due to VC itself, but almost entirely (at least indirectly) to you and the methods you have used advocate it here. It is, IMHO, actually quite sad that you have done exactly the opposite of what you set out to do.

I challenge you HH. I challenge you to respectfully, sincerely present your views without pretension, dishonesty or pedantic lecturing so that others might understand them. Not because I don't think you can or because I think the AC crowd will win the argument, but because I would honestly like to hear what they are.


Is driving a car according to the vrotr "following someone else's 'paradigm'"? Just whose is it, then? Forester's? Hardly. All Forester did was put a concept in writing and give it a name, a concept that was already utilized by many cyclists (but much moreso in Europe, particularly Britain, than in the States - which is why he felt the need to put it in writing). The same practices based on the same vehicular paradigm are captured by John Franklin in his book, Cyclecraft. You can also find it in John Allen's StreetSmarts (which is free online), and even in the critical-of-Forester summary by Jeffrey Hiles in his online paper, Listening to Bikelanes. Heck, the Wikipedia definition of vehicular cycling is yet another example, and so is the (in progress) op of the definitions thread in this forum. All present practices based on the same vehicular paradigm in unique/personal styles.


If VC = VROTR, nothing more or less then why is the wikipedia entry 9 pages long?

**EDIT: And, if this is the case what are we even arguing about and what are you advocating for here? Everyone here is admittedly VC already.



As far as "paradigms" used to ride on the roads, the only well-defined ones I know of are "vehicular" and "pedestrian". Do you know of any others? Where are they defined?






I was using the word paradigm based on this general definition:
A set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality for the community that shares them, especially in an intellectual discipline.

Vehicular cycling came from someone's need to name, categorize and brand the techniques and principles that people had been already using for years when riding a bicycle on the street...and to make some scratch. It's just plain that simple, no matter how hard its apostles try to argue otherwise.

Use it where it works for you, don't worry about it where it doesn't and leave this place, fast, never looking back, if you want to retain your sanity. :eek:

Well then. I guess we've solved this little riddle. Sounds like we all know what VC is.

I really don't understand your positions HH, but I also don't believe that that is a result my lack of trying or intellect. Ever since I have been on this board you have attempted to espouse your views in these strange quasi-cloak and dagger methods using rigged polls and questions that are related generally to VC without providing what your views are or the reason behind the question to begin with. These always break down into meaningless arguments about you and your methods because people see through them. Not once can I remember you actually attemping to make a valid case for VC without these methods, or even, horror of all horrors, actually presenting what your views are and then asking people honestly, sincerely, from a standpoint of understanding and betterment of cycling advocacy what their opinion is. Heck, I even gots the mods to sticky a post where everyone could explain how they ride so that newcomers could see different examples of how people tackle different environments, but I see no post from you there explaining your position.

If I do not understand your position you have only yourself to blame as I would actually like to hear what it is without being treated like a child or having them presented to me in some dishonest fashion. Of the people on this board I honestly believe that I am one of the ones that would love to hear what you have to say the most because I believe that you believe that what you are doing is helping to save people lives and cycling. That goes a long way in my book, but dishonesty and a lack of respect for others goes a long way the other way.

I also believe strongly that the constant VC arguments and the creation of this sub-forum are not due to VC itself, but almost entirely (at least indirectly) to you and the methods you have used advocate it here. It is, IMHO, actually quite sad that you have done exactly the opposite of what you set out to do.

I challenge you HH. I challenge you to respectfully, sincerely present your views without pretension, dishonesty or pedantic lecturing so that others might understand them. Not because I don't think you can or because I think the AC crowd will win the argument, but because I would honestly like to hear what they are.



If VC = VROTR, nothing more or less then why is the wikipedia entry 9 pages long?

**EDIT: And, if this is the case what are we even arguing about and what are you advocating for here? Everyone here is admittedly VC already.








I was using the word paradigm based on this general definition:
A set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality for the community that shares them, especially in an intellectual discipline.

Hmmm, no response. Too bad. Maybe he is not interested in true advocacy?

This is a serious question. I already have my suspicions that the whole buzz term was created just to sell books. But from what I am gather, VC is nothing more than a *suggested* way to ride a bike while on the streets that will *likely* be safer for the cyclist. Okay, fine, I get it.
But why have a whole new culture about it? Mr. Forester himself admits to riding on the sidewalks. VC zealots will and do use seperated/segregated facilities. I've read here from the VC folks (at least one) that they have no problem with cutting thru a parking lot as a shortcut, which is illegal in alot of areas. So what is the point of the whole label and culture? Couldn't it just be rolled up into one big panphlet about riding a bike in general without having to have it's own buzz label?
This is just silly, and it why I am being outspoken in the VC threads. Not because I oppose riding a bicycle in the streets safely and legally, but because I oppose the fact that people have to label it. It's no different than kids in highschool who feel they need to belong to some sort of social cliche with a title in order to fit in (preppy, grunge, jock, etc etc). Are we not adults here (most of us anyways)? Do we really NEED someone to put a label on something like this?

silly, just silly

[EDIT]
Why can't VC zealots face the facts that sometimes it is safer, funner, etc to ride on the shoulder, or to use the shoulder to thwart a possible incident with a motorist instead of standing on the pedals and swerving and dancing like a monkey with an organ griner? Why is it so hard for some of them to accept that no matter what, your safety out there depends just as much on the other person as it does you? Why can't we just ride a damned bike instead of having to go thru all of this garbage?

You rock!!! :beer:

I challenge you HH. I challenge you to respectfully, sincerely present your views without pretension, dishonesty or pedantic lecturing so that others might understand them. Not because I don't think you can or because I think the AC crowd will win the argument, but because I would honestly like to hear what they are.

I've done this many times, many different ways. My latest effort is the OP of the "Some VC definitions" thread, which is in progress. I hope you provide some comments there, if you haven't already (I can't remember if you have). You don't need to read the whole thread, just the OP, and the last few posts. The rest is just input provided, most of which I believe I have incorporated.

No time for the rest. Just saw this post for the first time. Gotta go!

I already have my suspicions that the whole buzz term was created just to sell books.
I wonder if anyone has asked the question, "Why is there so much outdated stuff those books? Why do people still read them?"

Well it certainly isn't about getting new people into cycling :D Lucky I started commuting in traffic before I ever came to A&S otherwise I might of been scared off.

I was tentative enough about trying it for the first time without the reading some of the scare mongering that goes on here. Strangely enough I ended up cycling using quite a few of the VC techniques anyway but I am very much an AC.

I fully agree with what deputyjones said above. I would like to be able see discussion on techniques for handling traffic and genuine exchange of ideas, without the VC/non-VC dogma.