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

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 up. Ever get to the coast on weekends?

Gosh man, I'm really sorry, I've out bicycling safely and adaptively too much to be able to post on a forum all day :(

I have to decline the offer though, I choose not to fly except for urgent reasons - uses too much fuel.
No comment though on the picture i hve in my mind ;)
I'm just gonna sit back and "learn" form the posts here

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.

You're getting all emotional and sloppy on us John. Nobody said that these bikes cannot or should not be ridden in the "vehicular" manner. There's a lot of hysteria from "serious" cyclists about tiny little flaws in the roadway (Oh my god there's a post-it note lying in the street! A leaf! A pine cone!). Many experienced cyclists suggest using sturdier bikes with fatter tires so small roadway flaws are not an issue. Many fun-loving cyclists suggest these same sturdy bikes so you can "play" while you "work".

The belief that there are two kinds of riders and one is more important or better than the other is a fatal flaw in VC advocates messages. Not only does it turn off a lot of people it pretty much sets VC up for failure as a boutique alternative to more populist measures. Because the VCers cannot see this flaw, the anti-cyclists/pro-car people out there can exploit them without their knowledge in their quest to continue to build auto-centric communities.

You're getting all emotional and sloppy on us John. Nobody said that these bikes cannot or should not be ridden in the "vehicular" manner. There's a lot of hysteria from "serious" cyclists about tiny little flaws in the roadway (Oh my god there's a post-it note lying in the street! A leaf! A pine cone!). Many experienced cyclists suggest using sturdier bikes with fatter tires so small roadway flaws are not an issue. Many fun-loving cyclists suggest these same sturdy bikes so you can "play" while you "work".

The belief that there are two kinds of riders and one is more important or better than the other is a fatal flaw in VC advocates messages. Not only does it turn off a lot of people it pretty much sets VC up for failure as a boutique alternative to more populist measures. Because the VCers cannot see this flaw, the anti-cyclists/pro-car people out there can exploit them without their knowledge in their quest to continue to build auto-centric communities.


Nice commentary Diane.

yup.

Hey Bek, take a look at this video. At least the first minute or so of it.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9013788939582257010&hl=en

Personally I would be outside of the bike lane shown in the video, it too is along side the parked cars. Notice that the cyclist is riding at or nearly at the speed of motor traffic.

BTW I don't know what it looks like after the first minute, as it just kept saying "downloading" and never continued. So I don't know what other "examples" the cyclist shows.

gene, really, start your own thread.

gene, you've been trying to cirticize the lane posted that this thread is about as being something you wouldn't be able to ride in, and I really feel for your lack of judgement. I don't care to look at your posting videos about OTHER bike lanes and riders in this thread. start your own thread, dude.

This thread is about THIS bike lane; six feet wide and double striped, placed in the right third of the roadway.

This thread showcases the vehemence of the dogmatic VC, the paranoia of the foresterites, the fearmongering over bike infrastructure,

and the ability of a vehicular cyclist to choose a vehicular lane position in a bike lane.

Some of us VC understand safe and prudent lane positioning in the presence of lane striping.

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


Here are your earlier words, Randya: "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."

You are the one, randya, who introduced styles of bicycles as being relevant to this discussion. You made the statement, therefore you owe us the duty of explaining why it is relevant and what it means.

This thread is about THIS bike lane; six feet wide and double striped, placed in the right third of the roadway.

This thread showcases ... the ability of a vehicular cyclist to choose a vehicular lane position in a bike lane.

Some of us VC understand safe and prudent lane positioning in the presence of lane striping.

I think we are all in agreement that some bike lanes will overlap with the proper positioning of a cyclist operating according to best practices and vehicular rules.

The difference is the degree to which we think this overlap is coincidental, and how often it occurs. Some bike lane proponents believe that "good" bike lanes can define the proper position for cyclists, in order to encourage better cycling, while bike lane skeptics believe that the striping interferes with the learning and execution of proper positioning more than it helps. One's perspective of the latter may be influenced by local conditions and the frequency with which one encounters badly positioned bike lanes. This, in turn, is affected by the motivations and best practices/vehicular-cycling understanding of those marking them.

Therefore, if the people marking the bike lanes are motivated to improve conditions for cyclists, understand vehicular cycling principles and best cycling practices such as staying outside of door zones, then the bike lane position will be more likely to overlap with proper roadway position. If the people marking the bike lanes are motivated primarily to prevent cyclists from causing motorists to slow, and/or they do not understand vehicular cycling practices, then the bike lane position will more frequently conflict with proper cycling position.

The conclusion for many cyclists is that it is more important for road engineers to understand vehicular cycling principles and best cycling practices than it is for them to have an unlimited supply of thermoplastic and an agenda to mark things as "bicycle-specific."

-Steve Goodridge

You're getting all emotional and sloppy on us John. Nobody said that these bikes cannot or should not be ridden in the "vehicular" manner. There's a lot of hysteria from "serious" cyclists about tiny little flaws in the roadway (Oh my god there's a post-it note lying in the street! A leaf! A pine cone!). Many experienced cyclists suggest using sturdier bikes with fatter tires so small roadway flaws are not an issue. Many fun-loving cyclists suggest these same sturdy bikes so you can "play" while you "work".

The belief that there are two kinds of riders and one is more important or better than the other is a fatal flaw in VC advocates messages. Not only does it turn off a lot of people it pretty much sets VC up for failure as a boutique alternative to more populist measures. Because the VCers cannot see this flaw, the anti-cyclists/pro-car people out there can exploit them without their knowledge in their quest to continue to build auto-centric communities.

Emotional? All I was doing was to emphasize the irrelevance of randya's statement that different kinds of bicycles invalidated vehicular cycling technique. That is so silly a statement that now she seems to admit a mistake.

john, what do you think about voluntary slow speed utility riders?

Actually, time for another thread! this horse has been beat to death; even the rabidly anti-facilities VC admit that YES, a vehicular cyclist can ride vehicularily in a bike lane - even big bad john.

John, Did you ever say where you would ride in Bek's Photo?

gene, really, start your own thread.

gene, you've been trying to cirticize the lane posted that this thread is about as being something you wouldn't be able to ride in, and I really feel for your lack of judgement. I don't care to look at your posting videos about OTHER bike lanes and riders in this thread. start your own thread, dude.

This thread is about THIS bike lane; six feet wide and double striped, placed in the right third of the roadway.

This thread showcases the vehemence of the dogmatic VC, the paranoia of the foresterites, the fearmongering over bike infrastructure,

and the ability of a vehicular cyclist to choose a vehicular lane position in a bike lane.

Some of us VC understand safe and prudent lane positioning in the presence of lane striping.

Bek, show me that this is a 6 foot lane and I might admit that would definitly ride in it. I certainly would not ride in the center of it. And that is the problem... unknowing cyclists would ride in the center of it.

Frankly I would prefer that it was only two feet wide... starting from the outside stripe. Seriously my only problem with this lane is that it invites less experienced cyclists to ride too close to doors that can be opened... a situation that less experience cyclists may not be aware of.

I don't care one bit whether one can ride in this lane and declare it VC or not... who gives a flyin' F.

In fact if it were 6+ feet out AND only 2 feet wide, I would think it was a "perfect" bike lane... as then it would guide cyclists away from car doors, which would be a safer location and better than an unlined street, where those same inexperienced cyclists might still ride close to the car doors.

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.

Now that the peak of the MTB craze is past, more of the bicycles being sold to casual and utility cyclists have narrow tires again. I have purchased a couple of flat-bar 700c road bikes for casual and beginner cyclists in my family over the last two years. Their tires are of similar widths to those popular in the 1970s.

I have experimented with 26" fat tire slicks for commuting on a converted rigid fork MTB. My thinking at the time was that it worked better for the hazards on the rightmost edge of my commuting route. After a year or so and a bent rim I gave that up in favor of my using road bikes, riding in the center of the narrow lane instead. My commute is quicker now and I get into fewer situations requiring evasive action.

Nobody said that these bikes cannot or should not be ridden in the "vehicular" manner. There's a lot of hysteria from "serious" cyclists about tiny little flaws in the roadway (Oh my god there's a post-it note lying in the street! A leaf! A pine cone!). Many experienced cyclists suggest using sturdier bikes with fatter tires so small roadway flaws are not an issue. Many fun-loving cyclists suggest these same sturdy bikes so you can "play" while you "work".
I haven't met any of these "serious" cyclists you mention who get hysterical about a leaf, or a pine cone. What have been discussed are the benefits of excellent bicycle facilities, which includes unmodified streets. I don't need to dodge road debris, potholes, drain grates, or uneven pavement in the quest for "fun" or "play." These things can actually be dangerous to one's health under certain conditions.


The belief that there are two kinds of riders and one is more important or better than the other is a fatal flaw in VC advocates messages. Not only does it turn off a lot of people it pretty much sets VC up for failure as a boutique alternative to more populist measures. Because the VCers cannot see this flaw, the anti-cyclists/pro-car people out there can exploit them without their knowledge in their quest to continue to build auto-centric communities.
I recently stumbled upon a couple of websites. One was sort of anti-VC, and though the author admitted he used VC methods effectively, he complained of some other flaws in VC attitudes. Apparently he'd had bad experiences with some cyclists who championed VC.

The other website was a very practical and helpful website which listed some of the problems cyclists can face, and how they might deal with those problems. It used VC as it's basic approach. Nowhere was it preachy or condescending. It was simply a free resource for cyclists to help themselves. I thought the spirit of the website was friendly and thoughtful.

You can't paint "VC advocates" with a broad brush, because the people that group encompasses are diverse. VC is used by many different kinds of people with different personalities.

When I moved overseas, until some people got to know me personally, they assumed I was a "typical American." They realized, in time, that there was no such thing.

steve- I WORK in a bike shop, and a LOT of the flat bar road bikes come outfitted with 700x32 or wider. stop the misinformation, dude. you can roll over a pothole the size of a toilet bowl with a tire that fat.

little big man- there are some "Serious"- purportedly- cyclists that post to A&S that get hysterical about potential debris in bike lanes... not even real debris, just imagined debris.

could a moderator please lock this thread? this nonsense has gone on long enough.

Vehicular cyclists can and do have the ability- its in their riding toolbox- to ride vehicularily in bike lanes.

I have experimented with 26" fat tire slicks for commuting on a converted rigid fork MTB. My thinking at the time was that it worked better for the hazards on the rightmost edge of my commuting route. After a year or so and a bent rim I gave that up in favor of my using road bikes, riding in the center of the narrow lane instead. My commute is quicker now and I get into fewer situations requiring evasive action.
Back when Ken Kifer was still writing, he mentioned how he hurt his hip in a fall. I think he had borrowed someone's mountain bike, and for some reason, maybe inattention, found himself in the gutter pan. When he attempted to ride back over the uneven joint, he lost control and landed in the street. Fortunately, no cars were coming at the time.

I'm not against mountain bikes for commuting, but I tend to think bikes are constructed differently to work best for each application. For example, my first road bike was a mistake, there was no way to mount a rear rack, except by using a seatpost mount, which never held up well for my needs. A touring bike worked much better to carry a load.

But to each, his own. Some prefer fat tired bikes, more power to 'em!

Vehicular cyclists can and do have the ability- its in their riding toolbox- to ride vehicularily in bike lanes.
Absolutely! Agreed.

little big man, the very reason many commuting bikes are coming outfitted with 700x32s (and wider) these days is indeed, practicality. there's a reason 'commuter' and 'utility' bikes DON'T get specced out with 700x20s

of course, Sgoodri doesn't know anything 'bout that :roflmao:

little big man, the very reason many commuting bikes are coming outfitted with 700x32s (and wider) these days is indeed, practicality. there's a reason 'commuter' and 'utility' bikes DON'T get specced out with 700x20s


Yeh, I never went for those, either. I went with 28's myself. My bent's are wider, though, but the pressure on those is about 90 (at least I think taht's right.)

I'm comfortable with 25c. About two years ago went from 28c to 25c. I very rarely flat - and only ever from hard debris, not pinch such as from holes.
Al

I'm 23s, 25/28's, 32's, and 35's. it depends on the bike and the road conditions- wet, icy, gravel.


In another recent 'bike handling skills' thread, I recommend to all riders to practice their bike handling skills on mixed surfaces to better prepare onesself for bike handling scenarios. a 700x23 skinny tire rider should train themselves to be able to ride on grass, on gravel, etc. without loosing control.


more importantly, these tires can all be ridden vehicularily in a bike lane!

I'm 23s, 25/28's, 32's, and 35's. it depends on the bike and the road conditions- wet, icy, gravel.


In another recent 'bike handling skills' thread, I recommend to all riders to practice their bike handling skills on mixed surfaces to better prepare onesself for bike handling scenarios. a 700x23 skinny tire rider should train themselves to be able to ride on grass, on gravel, etc. without loosing control.


more importantly, these tires can all be ridden vehicularily in a bike lane!
Sounds resonable, to me. Although 23's are not made for offroad, might help in an emergency!

:beer:

Sounds resonable, to me. Although 23's are not made for offroad, might help in an emergency!

:beer:

You'd be surprised. I've, several times, taken my road bike on fire roads around Corvallis and Hillsboro. It was funny, riding in some of the National Forest fire roads in Corvallis. Here I am on my road bike with 700x23C tires and Look pedals (not mountain bike pedals or anything) passing mountain bike riders going uphill on a gravel and dirt road.

It's all about bike handling skills and keeping the tires inflated at high pressure to avoid pinch flats. There is little off road which will puncture the tire case outright. Pinch flats are the main concern.

I'm comfortable with 25c. About two years ago went from 28c to 25c. I very rarely flat - and only ever from hard debris, not pinch such as from holes.
Al

Back in '84 I had a custom commuter/touring bike made... it is still my main ride. It is heavy, but so well built that pot holes and road cracks, scratches and day to day crap just don't matter. (it is ugly and well over due for a paint job) That bike has Armadillo 26 x 1.5 on it... and that is what I have been riding as long as I can remember. I toured with that bike with 26 x 2.0 tires in Baja where the roads are long acknowledged to be just slightly better than 'dozered dirt.

I have had 1.25 tires on it and went back to the heavy Amadillos... they are nearly bullet proof.

I have a 700x23c set of wheels on my fast old Italian bike... I ride it on roads that I know are "clean" and OK. I have been known to ride the commuter somewhere first to check the route. Then later ride the "racer." And yeah, I even own and ride sewups on that Italian bike... hey man, under the right conditions, skinny and fast is fun.

BTW the roads around here are notably in poor condition. San Diego has admitted to allowing roads to fall behind in maintenance... and it is a standing joke in the community.

john, what do you think about voluntary slow speed utility riders?

Actually, time for another thread! this horse has been beat to death; even the rabidly anti-facilities VC admit that YES, a vehicular cyclist can ride vehicularily in a bike lane - even big bad john.

My evaluation of a cyclist, in the traffic context, is the extent to which he rides in the vehicular manner. Nothing else.

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
youtube 5bLCTSocF_A (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bLCTSocF_A)

youtube 5bLCTSocF_A (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bLCTSocF_A)

Just about how and where I would have ridden. I was going to give you a hard time for moving to the right in the end, but lo and behold you turned right. Works for me.

I notice you were right on the stripe in the area of the door zone bike lane. Pretty much where I would be... and similar to what I have stated regarding the BL that Bek posted.

Mod note: Closed at the request of OP.