Vehicular Cycling (VC) - WWJR #1? Where would John ride #1?

I take it you don't ride in busy cities with narrow roads on a regular basis, bummer man, it would make you a more diligent and better rider - by the way, you should re-read Roughstuff's post - your response reminds me of my students who don't read the homework assignment fully, even though I make it clear it NEEDS to be read completely before questions are asked..... I can't stand that :(
I just reread it three times. I don't see what I missed. Your turn. Please reread my initial response to it and tell me what you think I missed.

Link (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=4271051&postcount=185)

There is a premise in there that door zones are safe if you're going slow enough.
You could be at a dead stop and still knocked over into traffic if a door you are beside suddenly opens.
If you're riding in a door zone, you could be at that critical point when it suddenly opens.

,....
They are assuming the door will open in front of them with enough time for to react. What if you're within reaction of the door when it suddenly opens? By definition, you will not have enough time to react, much less actually apply the brakes and stop. And that's assuming you're not daydreaming at the moment.

You can be going 5 mph when a suddenly openened door will send you flying under the wheels of a passing 10 mph car. Some of us can learn this lesson by thinking about it, others will have to experience it for themselves, sadly.

So you daydream when cycling near cars, *shakes head* I'm dissapointed in you HH :(
Some of us survive on the road because we ARE diligent and alert and able to adapt to situations

I just reread it three times. I don't see what I missed. Your turn. Please reread my initial response to it and tell me what you think I missed.

Link (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=4271051&postcount=185)

There is a premise in there that door zones are safe if you're going slow enough.
You could be at a dead stop and still knocked over into traffic if a door you are beside suddenly opens.
If you're riding in a door zone, you could be at that critical point when it suddenly opens.


"First of all you are coming up to a stop sign, so there is no way you should be riding fast enough that a carelessly opened door would be a threat"

Man, if you ride in a packed city and are near cars regularly, you should NOT be going fast at an intersection - if you can't react fast enough, then, I don't know what to say... :(

,....
They are assuming the door will open in front of them with enough time for to react. What if you're within reaction of the door when it suddenly opens? By definition, you will not have enough time to react, much less actually apply the brakes and stop. And that's assuming you're not daydreaming at the moment.

You can be going 5 mph when a suddenly openened door will send you flying under the wheels of a passing 10 mph car. Some of us can learn this lesson by thinking about it, others will have to experience it for themselves, sadly.
So you daydream when cycling near cars, *shakes head* I'm dissapointed in you HH :(
Some of us survive on the road because we ARE diligent and alert and able to adapt to situations Huh? I said you're vulnerable due to the nonzero reaction time assuming you're NOT daydreaming.
It is impossible to be diligent and alert and able enough to be able to safely ride in door zones. No human is capable of doing so. Some are lucky to get away with it for thousands of miles and many years, but sooner or later, if they ride in door zones, their number will probably come up.

The fact that you apparently think otherwise is why i'm saying we have a lot of work cut out for us.

Huh? I said you're vulnerable due to the nonzero reaction time assuming you're NOT daydreaming.
It is impossible to be diligent and alert and able enough to be able to safely ride in door zones. No human is capable of doing so. Some are lucky to get away with it for thousands of miles and many years, but sooner or later, if they ride in door zones, their number will probably come up.

The fact that you apparently think otherwise is why i'm saying we have a lot of work cut out for us.

haha, I guess we are getting our channels crossed somewhere :(
I'm really scared for you HH, I'm afraid that one day you are going to get hit by a car that was unsure of the situation when he saw you tooling along in the middle of the lane at 8mph after an all day headwind/fun ride, then tries to pass but after a long, day, well, you know, we have to pedal , they just rotate their ankle, so it all goes to pot, and you (god forbid) get hit as adaptation was out of the question. I’m serious man, I want to take you under my wing and train you, but I think we are on opposite sides of the county…
bummer :(

"First of all you are coming up to a stop sign, so there is no way you should be riding fast enough that a carelessly opened door would be a threat"

Man, if you ride in a packed city and are near cars regularly, you should NOT be going fast at an intersection - if you can't react fast enough, then, I don't know what to say... :(
Again, you seem to believe that if you're going slow enough, it's safe to be in the door zone.

More evidence that we have a lot of work cut out for us.

Say you're riding in the door zone because there is traffic stopped at the intersection, and you want to pass them on the right. The light turns green. The traffic begins to move. You are traveling at 5 mph passing the rear of a Camry, still in the door zone. You're watching the driver who is turned towards the passenger side, leaning towards the inside of the car. No way she could possibly open... BAM! the kid lying on the back seat just opened the back driver-side door of the Camry right as you were passing it, pushing it open quickly with both legs. The edge of the door clips the inside of your right bar, pushing you into a sudden fast left turn and left lean/fall/crash, right as the front right wheel of the bus you just passed rolls over your head.

At least you never knew what hit you.

(yes, I'm being dramatic - I'm trying to make a point that might save someone's life - give me a break)

haha, I guess we are getting our channels crossed somewhere :(
I'm really scared for you HH, I'm afraid that one day you are going to get hit by a car that was unsure of the situation when he saw you tooling along in the middle of the lane at 8mph after an all day headwind/fun ride, then tries to pass but after a long, day, well, you know, we have to pedal , they just rotate their ankle, so it all goes to pot, and you (god forbid) get hit as adaptation was out of the question. I'm sorry, I cannot understand what you think you're saying here.
God only knows what picture you have in mind for how I ride, but I can almost certainly assure you, you've got it wrong.


I’m serious man, I want to take you under my wing and train you, but I think we are on opposite sides of the county…
bummer :( I'm up. Ever get to the coast on weekends?

Al - Besides the signal thing, I would say that the neighborhood street you turned on to probably doesn't have high enough traffic volumes or speeds to justify a bike lane. Care to comment on this?

Who would not ride it like this? (assume that no faster same direction traffic has come within 100' of me)
Who would stay in BL for the entire stretch?
Where would one choose to use BL and choose not to?.

Al

I wouldn't ride it like you. Whether or not there was a bike lane there was 10 or more feet of empty pavement to the right of you on much of the second street, and long gaps with no parked car. Why did you need to stay left of the bike lane for the whole time? I would have ridden farther right, probably in the bike lane except if I needed to veer out around debris or drift a little left to avoid the door zone of the few parked cars.

Who would not ride it like this? (assume that no faster same direction traffic has come within 100' of me)
Who would stay in BL for the entire stretch?
Where would one choose to use BL and choose not to?.

Al
I wouldn't ride it like you. Whether or not there was a bike lane there was 10 or more feet of empty pavement to the right of you on much of the second street, and long gaps with no parked car. Why did you need to stay left of the bike lane for the whole time? I would have ridden farther right, probably in the bike lane except if I needed to veer out around debris or drift a little left to avoid the door zone of the few parked cars. Here's the thing, when taking the lane is the only safe and reasonable thing to do, we experienced traffic cyclists all take the lane.

When riding in the margin is the only safe and reasonable thing to do, we all ride in the margin.

That much we have in common. The difference is in situations like the one Al and cooker are discussing above, when there is no strong obvious reason, at least on the surface, to either take the lane, or ride in the margin.

What determines where you ride in such a situation is your default/primary riding position.

If your default/primary riding position is in the margin, then, like cooker, that's where you would ride in this situation, and would wonder why Al or anyone else would ride further left, for there is no apparent "reason" to NOT ride in the margin (but that's because of your default to the right paradigm).

If your default/primary riding position is centerish in the lane, approximately between the left and right tire track, that's where you would ride in this situation, and would wonder why cooker or anyone else would ride further right, for there is no "reason" to NOT ride in this more conspicuous lane position from which your sight lines and buffers are improved. To that, there is typically no answer, for most cyclists who default to the right, just do so because that's what they always do and always did, for no rational reason that they seem able to explain. Perhaps I'm wrong, and I hope I am, for I would love to hear the reason.

I too once defaulted to the right. Then I read a book (Cyclecraft, by John Franklin) that explained why I should default to the center. Hurst reinforces this, at least for certain types of urban riding. Ultimately it is consistent with the law, and Forester's VC guidelines. And I couldn't think of a reason not to change. So I did. And I, for one, love it.

Surprise surprise, the truck was occupied by a sleeping student who suddenly woke up and realized they were late for class... they throw that door open so fast and wide not even a highly trained "roughstuff" could react in time.

That was the lesson that was taught to me as I rode to work one morning. The road that lead to my workplace was a quiet narrow road that students from the nearby college would park on so they could avoid the parking fee. Yup, a student sleeping in the vehicle suddenly flung the door open in my path.

I no longer ride close to parked cars. Reality sucks. People do sleep in cars, especially in the shade around noon.



OH my goodness! I just knew it! Maybe he was having nightmares about global warming and felt an urgent need to get to his class on environmental science. Does that make you feel better?

And by the way, in between the other parked cars are midgets, oompa loompas, gremlins and hobbits just drooling at the opportunity to jump out into the bike lane. Maybe they are sleeping too, but I am sure they will spring to life when you pass by.

The whining and complaining of the cyclo-zealots knows absolutely no boundaries. Traffic annoys cyclo-zealots. Parked cars annoy cyclo-zealots. What crosses a bike lane, disgorges passengers who cross in front of the vehicle with a sense of entitlement Hillary Clinton would envy, and then resumes its way into traffic while belching enough fumes to make Newark New Jersey proud? Answer: A bus. But busses are kind of on the cyclo-zealot mass transit fantasy ga-ga list...so we won't complain about them.

You are riding along a line of parked cars, your view is restricted, and you are approaching an intersection with a stop sign. All three call for the highest degree of caution and anticipation on your part.

roughstuff

......reading helemt heads' little 'morning report' it's unclear if he was driving a car or riding a bike. were you driving your car, mr. head?

a vehicular cyclist can ride vehicularily in this bike lane. this lane is not a 'margin' as mr head likes to dismiss bike lanes as all being margins, a vehicular cyclist in this bike lane would be taking up a better third of the roadway.

for travelling straight, a vehicular cyclist can ride vehicularly in a bike lane like this. I'd go so far as to say even say 'default' positioning would be inside the stripe, outside the door zone.

.....Despite the internet posturing by the fearmongers, the dogmatically addled VC and the acolytes, believe all the respondents would be able to safely and prudently ride vehicularly in this bike lane.

keepin' it real...

You are riding along a line of parked cars, your view is restricted, and you are approaching an intersection with a stop sign. All three call for the highest degree of caution and anticipation on your part.

Sure, riding in the door zone with a restricted view that such a position yields, does reuiqre the highest degree of caution at all times, and it still will NOT be enough to prevent someone from opening a door into you, or even in front of you at the last second. Even if you did anticipate it somehow, you are still left with either hitting the door or swerving left and hoping you know what's coming up behind you.

On the other hand, riding centered in the lane, not in the door zone, while approaching a stop sign requires an order of magnitude less caution as you are only really concerned with anyone approaching from behind as you are slowing down. Your sightlines to everything important are better and your reaction times to any edge of the road hazards is increased because of the distance you now have from them.

OH my goodness! I just knew it! Maybe he was having nightmares about global warming and felt an urgent need to get to his class on environmental science. Does that make you feel better?

And by the way, in between the other parked cars are midgets, oompa loompas, gremlins and hobbits just drooling at the opportunity to jump out into the bike lane. Maybe they are sleeping too, but I am sure they will spring to life when you pass by.

The whining and complaining of the cyclo-zealots knows absolutely no boundaries. Traffic annoys cyclo-zealots. Parked cars annoy cyclo-zealots. What crosses a bike lane, disgorges passengers who cross in front of the vehicle with a sense of entitlement Hillary Clinton would envy, and then resumes its way into traffic while belching enough fumes to make Newark New Jersey proud? Answer: A bus. But busses are kind of on the cyclo-zealot mass transit fantasy ga-ga list...so we won't complain about them.

You are riding along a line of parked cars, your view is restricted, and you are approaching an intersection with a stop sign. All three call for the highest degree of caution and anticipation on your part.

roughstuff


Time for the meds?

Al - Besides the signal thing, I would say that the neighborhood street you turned on to probably doesn't have high enough traffic volumes or speeds to justify a bike lane. Care to comment on this?

I completly tend to agree. This street needs extra stripes like a like a Yogo needs a racing stripe.

Al, start your own thread if you want to discuss videos of your bike lanes, dude. stop polluting the forum with your incessant videos of you riding 10 feet from the edge of pavement, ignoring bike lanes.

Al, start your own thread if you want to discuss videos of your bike lanes, dude. stop polluting the forum with your incessant videos of you riding 10 feet from the edge of pavement, ignoring bike lanes.

Ya know Bek, not every city is as bike friendly as those in the Pacific Northwest... For an easy quick reminder, just get on 101 and go through Oregon (note the nice wide shoulders and the regular large signs that remind motorists about the adjacent bike lane) and scoot into California. The difference is not even subtle. 101 loses it's nice wide shoulder, loses the bike lane signs, and is quicky very bike unfriendly... and the only difference is a dashed line on a map to separate the states.

In some places, the bike lanes are not wide, clean, friendly, nor well planned. It pays to be able to recognize this if one ever leaves a community where Bike Lanes are nice.

Time for the meds?


YOu betcha! It would have made my post more pleasant reading if I had attached a few smilies. :)

Got to get my caffeine fix. The only TRUE med.....

roughstuff

Al, start your own thread if you want to discuss videos of your bike lanes, dude. stop polluting the forum with your incessant videos of you riding 10 feet from the edge of pavement, ignoring bike lanes.
OK. After a few quick responses

edit: thread about signalling
http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=289535

I completly tend to agree. This street needs extra stripes like a like a Yogo needs a racing stripe.
Also agreed.
And agreed for the street Bek posted, even if it does have a higher volume and faster posted speed.

This thread is all about ninth degree nitpicking regarding when it's appropriate to be in the bike lane and when it's not, and then you show us a video in which you clearly should have been signalling but you didn't and you're just going to blow my comment about it off?

I think its quite rude to suggest am ~'blowing the comment off'. My first couple of responses to you were serious. I even said I can do better. Later I suggested we don't discuss signalling anymore, this was intended as respect for staying on the OPs topic.
Al

gene, what makes you think I DON'T ride in cities that have no bike accomodations whatsover?
I just put down a 35 mile training ride this morning (breaking 45 MPH on a downhill, btw) and rode PLENTY of unfacilitated roads.

I rode TO Portland a couple of weeks ago. You think I rode in a bike lane the whole way? :roflmao:

Trust me, I understand and recognize the differences. and, most crucial,

recognize a vehicular cyclist can ride vehicularily in a bike lane.

gene, what makes you think I DON'T ride in cities that have no bike accomodations whatsover?
I just put down a 35 mile training ride this morning (breaking 45 MPH on a downhill, btw) and rode PLENTY of unfacilitated roads.

I rode TO Portland a couple of weeks ago. You think I rode in a bike lane the whole way? :roflmao:

Trust me, I understand and recognize the differences. and, most crucial,

recognize a vehicular cyclist can ride vehicularily in a bike lane.

Oh I agree that one can ride VC in a bike lane... just as one can ride VC in any marked lane on a road.

I just don't think I liked that particular bike lane next to parked cars... nor do I feel that a street like that even needed a bike lane. But more importanly, I wanted you to notice that not all areas had wonderful bike lanes, and the difference is very pointedly made at the border.

noted. I have LONG been aware of the lack of quality bike infrastructure or consideration for bicyclists in many locales.

Thankfully, more and more municipalities are concerned with bikes as road users and look at improving the transportation grid to benefit bikes in the road mix.

and remember, folks, vehicular cyclists CAN ride vehicularily in a bike lane!

To travel straight anead on this road, WWJR?

Out of the door zone, destination&speed positioned for straight ahead, would put a vehicular cyclist riding vehicularily in the bike lane.

WWJR?

I have LONG been aware of the lack of quality bike infrastructure or consideration for bicyclists in many locales.
:roflmao:

Bekologist saying he's "LONG been aware of the lack of quality bike infrastructure" is like Stevie Wonder saying he's LONG been aware of the difference between purple and magenta.

You consider the door zone bike lane in your photo to be an example of high quality bike infrastructure.
Having that perspective is not consistent with having "LONG been aware of the lack of quality bike infrastructure" anywhere. You are blind to the quality issues.

Al, start your own thread if you want to discuss videos of your bike lanes, dude. stop polluting the forum with your incessant videos of you riding 10 feet from the edge of pavement, ignoring bike lanes.
Bek,
What do you hope to continue with asking the same question over and over again about the specific picture of the specific BL you posted many many times?

Do you think there is any commonality between lane positioning on that street and the one in the video I posted? I do think there are some differences (4' vs. 6' BL, SL and traffic volume likely higher on Portland street) Do these differences affect lane position relative to parked cars?

I did ride that street in the video this morning, trying to stay as close to the right as I felt appropriate. I should be able to post it tomorrow. I am swerving all over the place willy-nilly, instead of a straight and predictable path.

Al

I am swerving all over the place willy-nilly, instead of a straight and predictable path.
That probably has more to do with the poor condition of the bike lane than the fact the there is a bike lane per se. Don't they maintain the bike lanes where you live? Maybe you need a bike with fatter tires.

That probably has more to do with the poor condition of the bike lane than the fact the there is a bike lane per se. Don't they maintain the bike lanes where you live? Maybe you need a bike with fatter tires.
Didn't you see the video? Conditions are fine. Yes this road is swept every 2-3wks. That palm frond has been there 2, so I expect it to be gone soon.
The swerving was due to destination positioning at intersection, riding centerish in BL when there were no parked cars and riding at outer edge of BL adjacent to parked cars. I 'swerved' once to move out of BL where palm frond is - that is maintenance only affected my swerving once of 4-5 times.

Suggesting I need fatter tires to ride in a door zone is strange.

Al

Don't they maintain the bike lanes where you live? Maybe you need a bike with fatter tires.

Along the same line of argument, I've been told by motorists that if the government doesn't pave the shoulders on the road, I should switch to a mountain bike so I can ride on the unpaved shoulder.

Sorry, I ride a road bike for a reason: energy efficiency.

Not that I think you should take their advice and ride on the unpaved shoulder, but road bikes are the bikes of choice for all of John's supporters, aren't they?

This may be part of the reason John's message no longer resonates with a majority of the bike community anymore. John cut his teeth on bike advocacy during the bike boom of the 70s and almost everyone was riding a road bike back then. Today, there are many different styles of bikes and riders, but John is still primarily aiming his message at roadies, at least among cyclists, that is. I'm not sure who his intended audience is when he talks to the ADC, but I think in his mind the only 'serious' bicyclists are still roadies.

Suggesting I need fatter tires to ride in a door zone is strange.

Al

Well heck Al, with fat enough tires, the mass will simply take the door off... Can't you see that man!?!? :eek:

Bek is right... just rip them suckers right out at their roots and they ain't a problem.

Not that I think you should take their advice and ride on the unpaved shoulder, but road bikes are the bikes of choice for all of John's supporters, aren't they?

This may be part of the reason John's message no longer resonates with a majority of the bike community anymore. John cut his teeth on bike advocacy during the bike boom of the 70s and almost everyone was riding a road bike back then. Today, there are many different styles of bikes and riders, but John is still primarily aiming his message at roadies, at least among cyclists, that is. I'm not sure who his intended audience is when he talks to the ADC, but I think in his mind the only 'serious' bicyclists are still roadies.

Actually you are about right. His main intended audiance (from his writings about the condition of cycling today in an urban environment) are high milage experienced mostly professional people who are cyclists, those he calls voluntary cyclists.

The reality in the real world is somewhat different... While John does touch on the reality, he quickly dismisses it as "the others will quickly migrate to motor vehicles when economically possible." (this is paraphrased) But the reality is another "crop" of those utility cyclists comes right along and fills the vacancies. Good examples are college students.

Now if the environment is positive for those "utility cyclists," why won't they chose cycling as regular means of transportation... especially in light of ever increasing political pressure to "be green," not to mention that the economics of motor vehicles are becoming increasingly prohibitive due to the ever increasing price of gas.

John's definition of 'voluntary cyclists' is just way too narrow for the 21st Century. I've been reading about a new wave of Dutch commuter bikes hitting the shores of the US, some of these bikes cost as much or more than many high end road bikes (the bakefits cargo models, for example) and are being ridden by a whole new generation of very dedicated 'voluntary utility cyclists' that want an entirely different set of conditions for riding than the 'traditional' 20th Century roadies.

Not that I think you should take their advice and ride on the unpaved shoulder, but road bikes are the bikes of choice for all of John's supporters, aren't they?

I own two road bikes (and a MTB) but I ride a converted MTB (rigid fork, narrow handle bars, hybrid crank, road cassette) with 37mm slicks to work and for most of my other commuting. Occasionally, if I'll be riding a significant amount that day (usually my breaking point is 25+ miles) I'll take the road bike. I like the wider tires for the uneven pavement and potholes I encounter, the leverage for hill climbing with a heavy load offered by the wider flat bars, and the better braking performance in the wet of the V-brakes.

Hi, I'm Joe, and I agree with a lot of what John Forester writes but I don't regularly commute on a road bike nor do I ride in dirty or door zone bike lanes.

Still, Bek is correct, it's not a door zone bike lane unless you've got a really, really serious phobia.

Still, Bek is correct, it's not a door zone bike lane unless you've got a really, really serious phobia.
It is 1/4 sub-standard width bike lane and 3/4 door zone bike lane, with no stripe between each side to help inform new cyclists which one they should ride on and which choice is the lesser evil.
Al

...bike lane phobias, joe and al. I'd perscribe a little more riding in real door zones for the both of you...

...bike lane phobias, joe and al. I'd perscribe a little more riding in real door zones for the both of you...

Since we're diagnosing each other here...Cyclist inferiority phobia, Bek. I prescribe a little more riding centerish in the traffic lane in the absence of faster same direction traffic for you :)

I don't think you really understand this vehicular cycling thing, joe.

a cyclist CAN ride vehicularily in a bike lane, joejack. I ride centerish plenty of miles, joe. and recognize different road conditions and safe lane positions without your and al's exhibition of such serious phobic fear.


it's not a door zone bike lane unless you've got a really, really serious phobia

+1

Not that I think you should take their advice and ride on the unpaved shoulder, but road bikes are the bikes of choice for all of John's supporters, aren't they?

This may be part of the reason John's message no longer resonates with a majority of the bike community anymore. John cut his teeth on bike advocacy during the bike boom of the 70s and almost everyone was riding a road bike back then. Today, there are many different styles of bikes and riders, but John is still primarily aiming his message at roadies, at least among cyclists, that is. I'm not sure who his intended audience is when he talks to the ADC, but I think in his mind the only 'serious' bicyclists are still roadies.

Please inform us all why the typical mountain bike cannot, or should not, be ridden in the vehicular manner. Please inform us all why the typical track bike, with one brake mounted, cannot, or should not, be ridden in the vehicular manner. Please inform us all why the old standard utility bike (nowadays sold as a Chinese copy of the old Raleigh) cannot, or should not, be ridden in the vehicular manner. Please inform us all why the typical recumbent cannot, or should not, be ridden in the vehicular manner. Please inform us all why the typical American cruiser bike cannot, or should not, be ridden in the vehicular manner. Please inform us why the tricycle (either kind) cannot, or should not, be ridden in the vehicular manner.

We all await with great anticipation your reasoning to support your allegation.

john, start your own thread if you want to explore that.

this thread is about riding vehicularily in the bike lane...

Please inform us all why the typical mountain bike cannot, or should not, be ridden in the vehicular manner. Please inform us all why the typical track bike, with one brake mounted, cannot, or should not, be ridden in the vehicular manner. Please inform us all why the old standard utility bike (nowadays sold as a Chinese copy of the old Raleigh) cannot, or should not, be ridden in the vehicular manner. Please inform us all why the typical recumbent cannot, or should not, be ridden in the vehicular manner. Please inform us all why the typical American cruiser bike cannot, or should not, be ridden in the vehicular manner. Please inform us why the tricycle (either kind) cannot, or should not, be ridden in the vehicular manner.

We all await with great anticipation your reasoning to support your allegation. The gulf between us and Randy is she doesn't appear to think in these terms at all.

What all these cyclists can or should do is not of much interest to her, so your questions are about as relevant to her asking her to explain how general relativity improved on special relativity.

She takes what they want and think as a given, and what they want is to avoid "mingling" with motor traffic as much as possible. They want a place to ride that they can call their own. They believe most roads are designed for bikes and trucks, not bikes. Riding on roads without specific bike facilities makes them feel like strangers in a strange land. For them, the physically separated bike path is the ideal, but the bike lane is much more than an acceptable compromise, and much preferred to the same road without a bike lane.

She wants to advocate for these cyclists, and coincidentally :rolleyes: considers herself one of them: that means supporting bike lanes for no rational reason.

Or so it seems to me.

not very accurate, very misleading, mr. head.

Randy is recognizing the great diversity in the cycling population, versus john foresters' insistence the only cyclist that matters is the 'serious' cyclist. john is far out of touch with the american bicycling constituency if he's convinced there aren't many utilitarian cyclists out there nowadays.

I think the point of the thread is, john forester would be able to ride in this bike lane, vehicularily. for travelling straight ahead on this road, a vehicular cyclist would be positioned out of the door zone, maybe ignoring the stripe, yet still riding vehicularily in the bike lane.


you can say it, john. it's okay. you'd be riding in the bike lane vehicularily.

Bek - you might want to have your reading comprehension evaluated.

hehehe.

Please inform us all why the typical mountain bike cannot, or should not, be ridden in the vehicular manner. Please inform us all why the typical track bike, with one brake mounted, cannot, or should not, be ridden in the vehicular manner. Please inform us all why the old standard utility bike (nowadays sold as a Chinese copy of the old Raleigh) cannot, or should not, be ridden in the vehicular manner. Please inform us all why the typical recumbent cannot, or should not, be ridden in the vehicular manner. Please inform us all why the typical American cruiser bike cannot, or should not, be ridden in the vehicular manner. Please inform us why the tricycle (either kind) cannot, or should not, be ridden in the vehicular manner.

We all await with great anticipation your reasoning to support your allegation.
No one said any of these bikes can't be ridden vehicularly, or, as Bek has stated, ridden vehicularly in the bike lane.

No one said any of these bikes can't be ridden vehicularly, or, as Bek has stated, ridden vehicularly in the bike lane.
You wrote:



This may be part of the reason John's message no longer resonates with a majority of the bike community anymore. John cut his teeth on bike advocacy during the bike boom of the 70s and almost everyone was riding a road bike back then. Today, there are many different styles of bikes and riders, but John is still primarily aiming his message at roadies, at least among cyclists, that is. I'm not sure who his intended audience is when he talks to the ADC, but I think in his mind the only 'serious' bicyclists are still roadies.
Mr. Forester's message is, in short, "Bicycles on roadways should be ridden in the vehicular manner".

You claim this message "no longer resonates", that it's aimed only at roadies, etc.

So Mr. Forester asks, "Please inform us all why the typical mountain bike [etc.] cannot, or should not, be ridden in the vehicular manner. "

To which you bizzarely reply: "No one said any of these bikes can't be ridden vehicularly".

Well then, what are you talking about with respect to Mr. Forester's message not resonating with these bike riders and aimed only at roadies?

How is it aimed only at roadies?

come ON, helmet head, you know very well john considers only 'serious' roadies as cyclists...all the rest of us are sure to give up cycling..... what a wonk.

maybe its time for another thread. as it is apparant a bicyclist can ride vehicularily in a bike lane, even john forester inferred it earlier in this thread.

of course, john could NEVER blatantly admit a vehicular cyclist can ride vehicularliy in a bike lane. its against his politik.


but, some of us VC recognize how to ride bikes on accomodated roads.

maybe there's another thread topic- are john forester's notions about bicycling out of touch with modern roadway design?


...oh, and helemt, if you think a vehicular rider that uses bike lanes would never pull into the left lane to go around traffic, you're flattering yourself with delusions of grandeur. you're NOT that special.......I pull that everyday technique, literally, every day. Betting thousands more of us do the same on a regular basis.

You wrote:

Mr. Forester's message is, in short, "Bicycles on roadways should be ridden in the vehicular manner".

You claim this message "no longer resonates", that it's aimed only at roadies, etc.

So Mr. Forester asks, "Please inform us all why the typical mountain bike [etc.] cannot, or should not, be ridden in the vehicular manner. "

To which you bizzarely reply: "No one said any of these bikes can't be ridden vehicularly".

Well then, what are you talking about with respect to Mr. Forester's message not resonating with these bike riders and aimed only at roadies?

How is it aimed only at roadies?
Just read Gene's last post again (#239).