Vehicular Cycling (VC) - VC vs. Hurst's "Art of urban cycling"

you're not competant enough to ride a path safely, john? wow. a stunning admission.

...whew! I don't know how everyone else's afternoons' been, but I just got back from a 45 mile ride with a buddy, big metro loop, topping out at 47 MPH on one of our bigger hills, thru the industrial district, mixing it up with freeway traffic, a lot of lane grabbing,

and we also rode a path and a bike lane or two. :eek: Safely. competantly. we even rode a gravel path next to puget sound for about a half mile. competantly. safely.


its not that tough, john. you're blocking, dude.

Where did you get that silly idea? I never wrote it.

can you ride a bike path competantly and safely, john?

I meant a class 1 Bike PATH. Not "bikeway," a term that is interchanged to mean all classes of path or lane. There is no such thing as a "Class 1 bike PATH".

Perhaps you meant a "Class 1 bikeway" which is a bike path?


While Paths are a subset of bikeways, interchanging the terms is not equal. Please understand the hierarchy of the terminology. It is helpful and less confusing if you use them consistently with the way they are defined in the state.

There are different classes of bikeways.

One of those classes is "Class 1 Bikeway", commonly referred to as a bike path.
Another class is "Class 2 Bikeway", commmonly referred to as a bike lane.

Yes, bikeway and bike path are not interchangeable, but "class 1 bikeway" and "bike path" are interchangeable.

How dead is your head? The issue concerns bikeway programs as producers of bicycle transportation. Both China and Holland had enormous amounts of bicycle transportation for decades before bikeways were invented.

How dead is your head... is the "issue" about bikeways, or about the promotion of cycling as a regular mode of transportation and humanizing cities, vice paving the way for the auto to exist in every square corner of a city, including such trivia as "drive through churches and funeral homes?

Why is it you believe a weighty tome of a book written some 30+ years ago and poorly promoted to the point that is not found in any internet bicycle shop would effect the American cycling psyche enough to pave the way for the average utility cyclist to ride a few miles "competently and safely?"

How dead is your head... is the "issue" about bikeways, or about the promotion of cycling as a regular mode of transportation and humanizing cities, vice paving the way for the auto to exist in every square corner of a city, including such trivia as "drive through churches and funeral homes?

Why is it you believe a weighty tome of a book written some 30+ years ago and poorly promoted to the point that is not found in any internet bicycle shop would effect the American cycling psyche enough to pave the way for the average utility cyclist to ride a few miles "competently and safely?"
You've completely lost me.

What problem are you trying to solve, and what is your suggested solution?

Why is it you believe a weighty tome of a book written some 30+ years ago and poorly promoted to the point that is not found in any internet bicycle shop would effect the American cycling psyche enough to pave the way for the average utility cyclist to ride a few miles "competently and safely?"

EXCELLENT POINT, Gene.

Originally Posted by John Forester
However, we have been discussing bicycle transportation, a subject about which you seem to be typically uninformed. Bicycle paths are largely irrelevant to bicycle transportation, because there are very few locations where bicycle paths can meet a significant transportational need better than a roadway. The major reason for this situation is topographical, including the presence of frequent crossing motor traffic. However, the minor reason is that the chaotic behavior of much of the traffic on such paths prohibits one from cycling with the speed and safety that one has on the road.


I have to chuckle first as my "uninformed opinion" comes from not only 30+ years of cycling, using a bike as daily transportation, but also from reading both your book and Hurst's book and several others along the way.

BTW those frequent crossings you describe occur just as frequently if not more often on surface streets and are frequently the site of such choatic behaviour as right turns on red without a stop as often displayed by the average motorist. Not to mention that required stops by traffic lights are just as detrimental to one's speed.

Now perhaps my commentary is not as lofty as your's nor my thoughts as deep due to the tiny moments I snatch in which to write.

excellent followup points, gene.

I have to chuckle first as my "uninformed opinion" comes from not only 30+ years of cycling, using a bike as daily transportation, but also from reading both your book and Hurst's book and several others along the way.

BTW those frequent crossings you describe occur just as frequently if not more often on surface streets and are frequently the site of such choatic behaviour as right turns on red without a stop as often displayed by the average motorist. Not to mention that required stops by traffic lights are just as detrimental to one's speed.

Now perhaps my commentary is not as lofty as your's nor my thoughts as deep due to the tiny moments I snatch in which to write.

There is a great difference between cycling knowledge and knowledge of bicycle transportation. Knowledge of bicycle transportation is not earned easily through the experience of cycling. I know of no analysis that even suggests that the motor traffic at the typical intersection is anywhere near as chaotic as that same traffic when traffic from a bike path is injected.

[QUOTE=genec]How dead is your head... is the "issue" about bikeways, or about the promotion of cycling as a regular mode of transportation and humanizing cities, vice paving the way for the auto to exist in every square corner of a city, including such trivia as "drive through churches and funeral homes? /QUOTE]

Go right ahead with a program to humanize cities. Just don't promote bike lanes and bike paths as the way to do it, because they don't. That is the controversy, nothing else, so far as bicycle transportation is concerned.

can you ride a bike path competantly and safely, john?

What, all this foolishness again? Of course I can ride a bike path competently and safely. Why should you expect that a person with my expert knowledge would not be able to do so? After all, since you assume that the veriest beginner can, it would be entirely illogical for you to expect any less from me. Not that illogicality appears to deter your arguments.

John, so you CAN ride a bike path safely and competantly. a telling admission.

by the way, john, an awful lot of us disagree with your flawed assesment of bike infrastructure. your opinion on 'bike lanes and paths' is NOT the holy grail of transportational cycling.

No, I am not going to get into the details of city planning as practiced in Portland. Takes far too much time and effort. I suggest that you read Randal O'Toole's accounts; try "The Vanishing Automobile".
I can assure you that automobiles are not vanishing from Portland, there are more cars on the road than ever before and people drive them more frequently and further than ever before. New parking capacity continues to be added in the downtown core. Increasing motor traffic congestion has nothing to do with anyone's anti-motoring campaign. In fact, the city plans for good alternatives to motoring simply to keep the motor traffic congestion from being that much worse. There is not much new space to dedicate to motor vehicle operations and storage in the central city, without tearing something else down and paving it over - the inner city is fully developed.

http://www.americandreamcoalition.org/otoole.html
http://ti.org/va.html
Published by the Thoreau Institute. Now that's a sweet little bit of irony.

I have to laugh at how John originally denied (3 times!) knowing or having anything to do with the American Dream Coalition and now he's suggesting we all read the works of fellow ADC member Randal O'Toole.

Funny, but the Bank of America supports Smart Growth alternatives to growth as usual in order to promote economic growth, contrary to what O'Toole's out-of-touch works would suggest. I think I'll put my money on a real financial instution to know what's "Harm[ing] America's Cities" and what's not.



If you read the Bank of America's landmark 1995 report "Beyond Sprawl:
New Patterns of Growth to Fit the New California," you know the current
harmful effects of sprawling growth. For decades after World War II,
sprawling development has been the economic engine of California, but has
recently turned against us & become a force that inhibits growth &
threatens our quality of life. You can read it at:

www.landwatch.org/pages/perspectives/sprawlreport.htm

It seems that O'Toole, Forester & perhaps local workshop sponsors are
living in the past, unaware of our rapidly-changing world.

john forester seems to be unaware and in denial of the rapidly changing world and cycling conditions that Robert Hurst eludicates in considerable detail in his book.

But what I mean by "reactive" is that the primary factor that determines what you do, per Hurst, is that which you've noticed.

Totally false, as I explained at least once before. I believe the last time we went through this, you apologized for mischaracterizing my advice to cyclists as 'primarily reactive.' But here you are again, eh?

What part of 'default position' do you not understand.

Experienced urban riders use a style that is both more proactive and more reactive than Forester's VC.

Robert

John, so you CAN ride a bike path safely and competantly. a telling admission.

by the way, john, an awful lot of us disagree with your flawed assesment of bike infrastructure. your opinion on 'bike lanes and paths' is NOT the holy grail of transportational cycling.

You are crazy. You consider it a telling admission that I can ride a bike path safely and competently? That's completely illogical. Why do you consider this to be a telling admission? Let's face it, I am at least as competent as any of you, maybe more competent than some. You all consider bike paths to be so easy to ride that beginners and children can ride them safely. Why do you then think that I could not? And why do you think that that fact is an admission against interest?

john, the only one that is appearing 'crazy' is you, sir.

in your works you damnify bike paths from your one-time experiment riding a bike path once over thirty years ago,- the Palo Alto sidepath experiment- and now you claim you CAN ride a bike path safely and competantly. which is it?

possible for vehicular cyclists to ride paths safely? Of course it is.

But what I mean by "reactive" is that the primary factor that determines what you do, per Hurst, is that which you've noticed.

Totally false, as I explained at least once before. I believe the last time we went through this, you apologized for mischaracterizing my advice to cyclists as 'primarily reactive.' But here you are again, eh?

What part of 'default position' do you not understand.

Experienced urban riders use a style that is both more proactive and more reactive than Forester's VC.

Robert
Totally false? The fact that you pay some lip service the concept of a "default position" hardly addresses much less refutes my contention that is that the PRIMARY factor that determines what a cyclist should do in traffic is to react to what he is noticing by being vigilant.

In the first edition, this is what you write with respect to "default position", on p. 75: "Whatever your preference, consider a centralish positoin to be default position of urban cycling". Consider. Hmm. Put this language in context to the much stronger language you use when you write about the importance of vigilance and responsibility, and you might begin to see how I have reached the conclusion that the primary factor for determining where one should ride, per your advice, is determined by what the cyclist notices. Whether you recognize it or not, that is where you put most of the emphasis.

john, the only one that is appearing 'crazy' is you, sir.

in your works you damnify bike paths from your one-time experiment riding a bike path once over thirty years ago,- the Palo Alto sidepath experiment- and now you claim you CAN ride a bike path safely and competantly. which is it?

possible for vehicular cyclists to ride paths safely? Of course it is.
Let me get this straight. Are you under the impression that Mr. Forester basically never used another bike path again in his life after the Palo Alto experiment?

What on Earth would cause you to think such nonsense?

his website damnifies bike paths with the flawed 'evidence' from his 'palo alto experiment.' what gave me the impression? john foresters' wildly derisive internet site where he goes on and on about the dangers of bike paths, his 'one time' experiment, "never repeated".....


john should read some dale carnegie....


have you read your leaders' website blather? :roflmao: he's a piece of work. mad, twisted, angry rants, sophistry as science. I can see why the LAB voted him out.....

again , mr. head, in comparing john foresters wildly dishonest, out of touch rants about bicycling versus Robert Hurst's well regarded treament of modern cycling, Robert wins for current relativity. Mr Hurst wrote an excellent and telling overview of contemporary cycling conditions. forester is caught in some static 70's time warp that hardly reflects the current cycling environment in america.

if i were to suggest an author to beginning cyclists,- and I do, I work in a bike shop- it's DEFINETLY Robert Hurst. john's book- which is hardly in circulation- should be relegated to the furthest reaches of a dark, moldy bookstore. his work is widely unread, his internet rantings the musings of a Quixotic, acerbic dinosaur wildly out of touch with the 21st century cycling environment.

his website damnifies bike paths with the flawed 'evidence' from his 'palo alto experiment.' what gave me the impression? john foresters' wildly derisive internet site where he goes on and on about the dangers of bike paths, his 'one time' experiment, "never repeated".....


john should read some dale carnegie....


have you read your leaders' website blather? :roflmao: he's a piece of work. mad, twisted, angry rants, sophistry as science. I can see why the LAB voted him out..... You are confusing Mr. Forester's conclusions about the dangers of riding on sidepaths at road cycling speeds with a nonexistent damnification of bike paths. The dearth of quotes to support your fantastic accusations speaks volumes.

huh? :roflmao: you're now trying to tell me john forester is for bike paths? hardly.

john, are you in support of networks of off-road bike paths for cyclists like those seen in minneapolis, santa barbara, denver, and seattle?

i'm beginning to suspect this is all a ploy to increase the 'jon forest' 'FC' google hit rate to repopularize his Quixotic POV. I'll be coming up with a nickname for mossy john to help keep the google crawler tags down....

Totally false? The fact that you pay some lip service the concept of a "default position" hardly addresses much less refutes my contention that is that the PRIMARY factor that determines what a cyclist should do in traffic is to react to what he is noticing by being vigilant.

In the first edition, this is what you write with respect to "default position", on p. 75: "Whatever your preference, consider a centralish positoin to be default position of urban cycling". ...

I wrote several PAGES about the 'default position' and the reasons behind it.

What you seem to be up to is deliberately mischaracterizing my work, and that's not appreciated.

I wrote several PAGES about the 'default position' and the reasons behind it.

What you seem to be up to is deliberately mischaracterizing my work, and that's not appreciated. I am telling you my honest impressions from reading your book. These impressions are also consistent with what e0richt wrote in post #371 (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=4297785&postcount=371): "Hurst has a few techniques for some situations but mostly seems to point out what to watch for... and some of his solutions seem to be old approaches." If that's not what you intended to convey, you might consider why it is what you conveyed. You might note, for example, that Forester, Franklin, Allen and even Glowacz don't have chapters in their books entitled, Running Red Lights. Yes, yes, if read carefully it's clear you mostly discourage it - but do you think that's the effect it has on a guy like Bekologist? Are you really not aware that it's in there to justify the practice, at least on occasion?

I know you wrote a few pages on default positioning, and that section is yet another reason why I recommend your book. Never-the-less, the idea of "following rules" for proactive reasons does not come across as a very high priority.

By the way, Dan Gutierrez is an LCI and about as strong a VC advocate and practitioner as you'll ever encounter. Here's a long video clip of him demonstrating lane-splitting (the guy behind doing the filming, whom you can't seeis forum member LCI_Brian). This is considered an advanced technique by most if not all LCIs.

Two things to keep in mind, 1) the use of a wide angle lens (fish eye?) means his speed relative to the stopped cars appears higher than it actually is, 2) you can't see it, but he has a mirror, and because he also has a camera attached to his helmet, he avoids ever turning his head, which I think ends up in demonstrating poor behavior with respect to never turning his head when he adjusts laterally. Other than that, it demonstrates how I ride in these types of situations: http://www.cyclistview.com/lanesplitting.htm

If anyone thinks this video is not demonstrating vehicular cycling, i suggest you understand vehicular cycling differently from what Forester, Dan, LCI_Brian, I and most of its proponents mean by the term.

How dead is your head... is the "issue" about bikeways, or about the promotion of cycling as a regular mode of transportation and humanizing cities, vice paving the way for the auto to exist in every square corner of a city, including such trivia as "drive through churches and funeral homes?

Go right ahead with a program to humanize cities. Just don't promote bike lanes and bike paths as the way to do it, because they don't. That is the controversy, nothing else, so far as bicycle transportation is concerned.

While bike lanes and paths are far from perfect, neither is a network of nearly freeway like high speed roads "ideal" for cyclists.

Frankly, I would like to see something in between, something less suiting the "American Dream Coalition" vision of the "all motoring world;" while some form of personal transit "box vehicle" will no doubt be available in the future, even with the dwindling supplies of hydrocarbons, there really is no reason that city surface streets should be geared for other than human scale walking, cycling and moderate speed transit. Freeways and other high speed mass transit should serve fine for all high speed transportation requirements, there is no reason to turn local boulevards into freeway like structures with sweeping on and off ramps which encourage high speed driving, in spite of posted speed limits.

What I believe is that the "paint and path folks" are trying to do their best, but are in most cases far from enlightened, while on the other hand the strict "no facilities folks" are just as unrealistic in their vision of all forms of cyclist mixing it up on the roads with all forms of all speeds of motor traffic.

There is a middle ground that finds some bike lanes suitable for certain environments, while eliminating bike lanes from low speed streets where the extra stripes serve no purpose.

Municipalities are realizing that traffic calming and human scale are key factors in preserving the desirable nature of a community, and to that goal, cycling advocates can offer suggestions, such as street speeds and scales that maintain that human scale.

But at the same time, cycling advocacy should focus should not be on one particular group, such as voluntary high mileage cyclists; while this group may complete more miles per day per cyclist, they do not encompass the majority of trips by cyclists in a particular area. Designing an area primarily for voluntary high mileage cyclists would be akin to designing all roads to suit long haul truckers... residential streets in that case would look nothing like they do today.

Several cities have done traffic surveys and discovered that utility cyclists make up the largest number of cyclists in their regular cycling population. Designs to suit utility cyclists and voluntary cyclists should be the focus of advocates when working with traffic engineers. The results may include special lanes and routes to address the needs of the cycling community.

Further, teaching proper cycling methods at early school ages, along with cycling in traffic situations at later school ages, and finally instruction on the rights of all road users should be taught and emphasized at the driver's ed level. I find it quite baffling that skills of vehicular driving and dealing with traffic, something that affects so many of us for so long in our lives, is given so little instruction here in America.

nice post, Gene.

Gene, I've read this three times. What is your point.



While bike lanes and paths are far from perfect, neither is a network of nearly freeway like high speed roads "ideal" for cyclists.

Duh. Do you think Forester or anyone disagree with this? Why say it?


Frankly, I would like to see something in between,
Who wouldn't? Why say this?


something less suiting the "American Dream Coalition" vision of the "all motoring world;"
Why would the ADC have a cycling advocate like Mr. Forester at their conventions if their vision is "all motoring". This makes no sense.



while some form of personal transit "box vehicle" will no doubt be available in the future, even with the dwindling supplies of hydrocarbons, there really is no reason that city surface streets should be geared for other than human scale walking, cycling and moderate speed transit. Freeways and other high speed mass transit should serve fine for all high speed transportation requirements, there is no reason to turn local boulevards into freeway like structures with sweeping on and off ramps which encourage high speed driving, in spite of posted speed limits.
Here you seem to be arguing something like we should have only 25 mph streets, and no 45 mph streets. Maybe so, maybe not. I can see pros and cons. But what does that have to do with paths and bike lanes? And what does it have to do with anything Mr. Forester is talking about?



What I believe is that the "paint and path folks" are trying to do their best, but are in most cases far from enlightened, while on the other hand the strict "no facilities folks" are just as unrealistic in their vision of all forms of cyclist mixing it up on the roads with all forms of all speeds of motor traffic.

Can you elaborate on this, please? Where, for example, do you get this idea of a "vision of all forms of cyclist mixing it up on the roads with all forms of all speeds of motor traffic."


There is a middle ground that finds some bike lanes suitable for certain environments, while eliminating bike lanes from low speed streets where the extra stripes serve no purpose.
Please expland on this. Specifically, what makes bike lanes "suitable for certain environments", and what percentage of current bike lanes in San Diego would you estimate to be in such certain environments where they are suitable?

What purpose do bike lanes serve on stretches of high speed roads that have intersections? Please be specific.


Municipalities are realizing that traffic calming and human scale are key factors in preserving the desirable nature of a community, and to that goal, cycling advocates can offer suggestions, such as street speeds and scales that maintain that human scale.

Duh.


But at the same time, cycling advocacy should focus should not be on one particular group, such as voluntary high mileage cyclists; while this group may complete more miles per day per cyclist, they do not encompass the majority of trips by cyclists in a particular area. Designing an area primarily for voluntary high mileage cyclists would be akin to designing all roads to suit long haul truckers... residential streets in that case would look nothing like they do today.
You seem to be confusing cycling advocacy in general with the aspect of cycling advocacy that focuses on roadway design and usage. What do you recommend for that latter?


Several cities have done traffic surveys and discovered that utility cyclists make up the largest number of cyclists in their regular cycling population. Designs to suit utility cyclists and voluntary cyclists should be the focus of advocates when working with traffic engineers. The results may include special lanes and routes to address the needs of the cycling community.
How do "special lanes and routes" address the needs of the cycling community? What are these needs, and how are they addressed by "special lanes and routes"?


Further, teaching proper cycling methods at early school ages, along with cycling in traffic situations at later school ages, and finally instruction on the rights of all road users should be taught and emphasized at the driver's ed level. I find it quite baffling that skills of vehicular driving and dealing with traffic, something that affects so many of us for so long in our lives, is given so little instruction here in America.
Talk about preaching to the choir.

john, the only one that is appearing 'crazy' is you, sir.

in your works you damnify bike paths from your one-time experiment riding a bike path once over thirty years ago,- the Palo Alto sidepath experiment- and now you claim you CAN ride a bike path safely and competantly. which is it?

possible for vehicular cyclists to ride paths safely? Of course it is.

I don't know whether you are trying to provoke me with deliberate craziness, or whether what you write is what you actually think. Whichever way it is, it does only harm to this discussion.

Gene, I've read this three times. What is your point.

Talk about preaching to the choir.

Yes, but apparently you were not paying attention... hence your requested: "what is your point... "

BTW Mr Forester seems to believe that this discussion is all about paths and lanes... I feel it is far beyond that.

[QUOTE=genec]

Several cities have done traffic surveys and discovered that utility cyclists make up the largest number of cyclists in their regular cycling population. Designs to suit utility cyclists and voluntary cyclists should be the focus of advocates when working with traffic engineers. The results may include special lanes and routes to address the needs of the cycling community.

/QUOTE]

What was the definition of utility cyclists in these surveys?

BTW Mr Forester seems to believe that this discussion is all about paths and lanes... I feel it is far beyond that.
Can you specify an issue outside of paths and lanes on which you believe your position differs from Mr. Forester, that is also relevant to bicycling transportation, safety and/or advocacy? What is your position on this issue, and what do you believe Mr. Forester's to be?

If there is no such issue, then, again, what is your point?

huh? :roflmao: you're now trying to tell me john forester is for bike paths? hardly.

john, are you in support of networks of off-road bike paths for cyclists like those seen in minneapolis, santa barbara, denver, and seattle?

I think that networks is probably not an accurate description. Most of the paths that I know of are rather separate, because there are so few locations suitable for bicycle transportation. I know where the main Santa Barbara path is, but I have not ridden it. It runs from alongside the freeway toward the university through an area that the map designates as a kind of marshy wilderness. At one point, maybe more, it runs along the edge of a residential area, using streets for a block or so. I know the Burke-Gilman Trail in Seattle, have ridden it several times. It is not part of a network, although it changes name as it progresses around Lake Washington. The paths in Minneapolis with which I am familiar are around the two main lakes; don't seem to go anywhere else, and are therefore more for recreation than transportation. I have always said that paths that are located to serve transportational uses, and are in locations where there is very little crossing motor traffic, are reasonable transportational facilities. However, I have also stated that when such paths attract much traffic, much of that traffic is chaotic, thus reducing safe cycling speed to little more than walking speed. Under those circumstances, the transportational function is not met. Quite a few paths have acceptable traffic in the early morning hours, but have unacceptable traffic the rest of the day, at least in good weather.

Can you specify an issue outside of paths and lanes on which you believe your position differs from Mr. Forester, that is also relevant to bicycling transportation, safety and/or advocacy? What is your position on this issue, and what do you believe Mr. Forester's to be?

If there is no such issue, then, again, what is your point?

Yes, and I have already stated it... that being that I feel Mr Forester's vision is biased toward his view of "effective cyclists" as exemplified by his writings available and clearly stated at the ADC website; in his view he virtually dismisses all others who do not fit his standard of "voluntary cyclists."

To further fit the "VC vrs Art of cycling" title of this thread, I feel that Mr Forester has presented in his writings an idealized vision of what cycling could be, while Mr Hurst presents the reality of what urban cycling really is.

Mr Forester further believes it "silly" that a city should promote cycling for whatever reason, be it to reduce motoring or reduce infrastructure costs; thus he clearly is not an advocate for cycling.

My final point is that with the above in mind, perhaps cyclists fully immersed in the teachings of Mr. Forester might consider that his views may not be with their best real interests in mind.

Of course you and Mr Forester will dismiss this entirely with a well worn quote and a wave of the hand.

I, no doubt, will be just another "utility cyclist" in your minds...

Several cities have done traffic surveys and discovered that utility cyclists make up the largest number of cyclists in their regular cycling population. Designs to suit utility cyclists and voluntary cyclists should be the focus of advocates when working with traffic engineers. The results may include special lanes and routes to address the needs of the cycling community.



What was the definition of utility cyclists in these surveys?

Cyclists who cycled to achieve a specific destination goal and were not primarily motivated by the excercise component.

There are several different city studies that show that this group is greater in number than those motivated by exercise. I do not have these studies at my finger tips and would have to do the research again. It has been discussed at length here on BF message board in the past.

Cyclists motivated by exercise did indeed cover more total mileage than utility cyclists.

The typical utility cyclist was a student or day worker.

Another poster stated this so beautifully... regarding the situation involving cyclists and motorists on the road and how human scale can make a difference:


Cyclists are, in general, small and without a defined outline, making them hard to see, and slow. On a road designed for one type of vehicle of a certain size with a defined outline, and traveling at basically a single speed which is much faster than most bicyclists can travel, a bicyclist is out of place. This situation puts cyclists and motorists in conflict and competition. In this situation, vehicular cycling is merely a technique of using lane positioning as a weapon to win this competition, to make a motorist respond to the nimble and bold cyclist, to give the cyclist confidence that the competition can be won, to normalize the roadway relations so that the motorists, again, can behave in a way which doesn't involve thinking. But it is a forceful and competitive position, and the cyclist is out of place, so emotions flair.

If you want an answer to the above question with some political overtones, motorists are mostly cooperative when the road is designed for both bicyclists and cars, and motorists are mostly uncooperative when the road is designed soley for cars. I think motorists feel the same way about cyclists too. Designing a road system for both motorists and cyclists is difficult, and there will always be some points of conflict, but rulemaking, education, and good roadway design can make up for the shortcomings of such a duel useage system. But the alternative, designing the road system for only automobiles and neglecting space for cyclists will always put motorists and cyclists in competition and conflict.

This somewhat defines when and where pure VC works and when it somewhat fails and other means must be employed...

Cyclists who cycled to achieve a specific destination goal and were not primarily motivated by the excercise component.

There are several different city studies that show that this group is greater in number than those motivated by exercise. I do not have these studies at my finger tips and would have to do the research again. It has been discussed at length here on BF message board in the past.

Cyclists motivated by exercise did indeed cover more total mileage than utility cyclists.

The typical utility cyclist was a student or day worker.

Exactly how he or she should be defined. I maintain, and I have always maintained, that such cyclists have as much need of vehicular cycling skills, and as much duty to obey the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, as any other cyclist.

Originally Posted by Brian
Cyclists are, in general, small and without a defined outline, making them hard to see, and slow. On a road designed for one type of vehicle of a certain size with a defined outline, and traveling at basically a single speed which is much faster than most bicyclists can travel, a bicyclist is out of place. This situation puts cyclists and motorists in conflict and competition. In this situation, vehicular cycling is merely a technique of using lane positioning as a weapon to win this competition, to make a motorist respond to the nimble and bold cyclist, to give the cyclist confidence that the competition can be won, to normalize the roadway relations so that the motorists, again, can behave in a way which doesn't involve thinking. But it is a forceful and competitive position, and the cyclist is out of place, so emotions flair.

If you want an answer to the above question with some political overtones, motorists are mostly cooperative when the road is designed for both bicyclists and cars, and motorists are mostly uncooperative when the road is designed soley for cars. I think motorists feel the same way about cyclists too. Designing a road system for both motorists and cyclists is difficult, and there will always be some points of conflict, but rulemaking, education, and good roadway design can make up for the shortcomings of such a duel useage system. But the alternative, designing the road system for only automobiles and neglecting space for cyclists will always put motorists and cyclists in competition and conflict.
==================

I utterly disagree. Cycling in traffic is no more competitive than is motoring in traffic.

Another poster stated this so beautifully... regarding the situation involving cyclists and motorists on the road and how human scale can make a difference:



Cyclists are, in general, small and without a defined outline, making them hard to see, and slow. On a road designed for one type of vehicle of a certain size with a defined outline, and traveling at basically a single speed which is much faster than most bicyclists can travel, a bicyclist is out of place. This situation puts cyclists and motorists in conflict and competition. In this situation, vehicular cycling is merely a technique of using lane positioning as a weapon to win this competition, to make a motorist respond to the nimble and bold cyclist, to give the cyclist confidence that the competition can be won, to normalize the roadway relations so that the motorists, again, can behave in a way which doesn't involve thinking. But it is a forceful and competitive position, and the cyclist is out of place, so emotions flair.

If you want an answer to the above question with some political overtones, motorists are mostly cooperative when the road is designed for both bicyclists and cars, and motorists are mostly uncooperative when the road is designed soley for cars. I think motorists feel the same way about cyclists too. Designing a road system for both motorists and cyclists is difficult, and there will always be some points of conflict, but rulemaking, education, and good roadway design can make up for the shortcomings of such a duel useage system. But the alternative, designing the road system for only automobiles and neglecting space for cyclists will always put motorists and cyclists in competition and conflict.

This somewhat defines when and where pure VC works and when it somewhat fails and other means must be employed... :eek:

It is not possible for the writer of the above (Brian), or anyone who considers it to beautifully describe the motorist/cyclist situation, to understand what "pure VC" means.

"There is much more to the vehicular-cycling principle than only obeying the traffic laws for drivers. The vehicular-style cyclist not only acts outwardly like a driver, he knows inwardly that he is one. Instead of feeling like a tresspasser on roads owned by the cars he feels like just another driver with a slightly different vehicle, one who is participating and cooperating in the organized mutual effort to get to desired destinations with the least trouble." John Forester, Bicycle Transportation, 1994, p. 3.

Brian's words are antithetical to what "pure VC" means and requires of the cyclist to practice vehicular cycling in a consistent fashion.

It's very telling that you didn't recognize this.

Again. Whatever, man. You're the king of your little hill.

Yes, and I have already stated it... that being that I feel Mr Forester's vision is biased toward his view of "effective cyclists" as exemplified by his writings available and clearly stated at the ADC website; in his view he virtually dismisses all others who do not fit his standard of "voluntary cyclists."

To further fit the "VC vrs Art of cycling" title of this thread, I feel that Mr Forester has presented in his writings an idealized vision of what cycling could be, while Mr Hurst presents the reality of what urban cycling really is.

Mr Forester further believes it "silly" that a city should promote cycling for whatever reason, be it to reduce motoring or reduce infrastructure costs; thus he clearly is not an advocate for cycling.

My final point is that with the above in mind, perhaps cyclists fully immersed in the teachings of Mr. Forester might consider that his views may not be with their best real interests in mind.

Of course you and Mr Forester will dismiss this entirely with a well worn quote and a wave of the hand.

I, no doubt, will be just another "utility cyclist" in your minds...

The discussion about Mr. Hurst's work is something that I stay out of; I haven't read sufficiently in his work to be expert about it.

Your discussion of my mental processes and classification of cyclists is just plain inaccurate. Yes, I do say that it is unlikely that, without some change in our society that would be described as catastrophic, bicycle transportation will be so significant a part of the transportation mix that it reduces motoring to a significant extent. In other words, if governments are going to count on bicycle transportation as a means of reducing the need for motoring and for motoring infrastructure, they are most likely to be misguided and produce unsuccessful results. I understand that many on this list hope otherwise; however, this effect has not actually occurred.

This does not mean that governments should not encourage bicycle transportation. This mode is beneficial for a considerable portion of the population, and the benefits stretch beyond those who actually do it. However, that encouragement should be directed at making cycling safer and more convenient for transportation trips (recreational cycling should be the province of Parks and Rec), and the volume of effort should be commensurate with the expected benefits.

The interests that I have in mind are always those of the cyclist and how best for the cyclist to get about town by bicycle. Nothing more, nothing less.

It's very telling that you didn't recognize this.

No it's very telling that motorists constantly remind me of it... in spite of my efforts to exactly the right thing.

Remember Mr Head, I very often feel as if I am having to teach the rules to every motorist I meet.

Recall Road II and who discussed with the motorist the very rights of cyclists and how we were indeed demonstrating the proper way to make a left turn... much to that motorist's dismay... his view was that "curb huggers" were doing it right.

No it's very telling that motorists constantly remind me of it... in spite of my efforts to exactly the right thing.

Remember Mr Head, I very often feel as if I am having to teach the rules to every motorist I meet.

Recall Road II and who discussed with the motorist the very rights of cyclists and how we were indeed demonstrating the proper way to make a left turn... much to that motorist's dismay... his view was that "curb huggers" were doing it right.
Yes, I remember. Not so much the driver as much as you and your reaction.

Imagine walking down a sidewalk in sandals and some joker yelling at you that you don't have the right to be there because you're wearing sandals. Would you feel the need to give him the time of day, much less take the time to "teach the rules" to him?

The fact that you are so obsessed with a need to prove you have a right to be there to every occasional joker who challenges your right in one way or another is also very telling about your underlying attitudes and beliefs. It reveals a lack of confidence in that right, a sense of inferiority, if you don't mind.

Cycling in traffic is no more competitive than is motoring in traffic.
And in my experience, the majority of motorists are quite competitive, most of the time.

The discussion about Mr. Hurst's work is something that I stay out of; I haven't read sufficiently in his work to be expert about it.
Robert, I believe you can find Mr. Forester's mailing address at the top of his homepage.

Maybe we should start lobbying Larry King to have you guys on at the same time! :D

Yes, I remember. Not so much the driver as much as you and your reaction.

Imagine walking down a sidewalk in sandals and some joker yelling at you that you don't have the right to be there because you're wearing sandals. Would you feel the need to give him the time of day, much less take the time to "teach the rules" to him?

The fact that you are so obsessed with a need to prove you have a right to be there to every occasional joker who challenges your right in one way or another is also very telling about your underlying attitudes and beliefs. It reveals a lack of confidence in that right, a sense of inferiority, if you don't mind.

Or a need to preach it to the ill informed. Consider me another evangelist brother... my means are just a bit different from yours. (perhaps borne out of the pain of a few altercations... )

Regarding some joker telling me that I can't wear sandals... I might very well read him the riot act... Especially if he were the second or third idiot that week.