Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Motorists: friends or foes?

In general, when you're cycling in traffic, do you view and treat motorists like they're friends with whom you are in a cooperative situation, or like foes with whom you're at battle or in war?

NOTE: there is no right answer, obviously, this is a matter of opinion.

Full disclosure: In the poll, I'm also asking if you see yourself as a vehicular cyclist to see if there appears to be any correlation in how folks view/treat motorists in this respect and being or not being a Vehicular Cyclist.

Friends until they start a 'fight'

i think its more accurate to differentiate between drivers as ' attentives', 'distracteds' and 'aggressives'

some are friends, some are foes. all drivers are not the same, all cars are not driven by the same types of people.

I've been yelled at by people with bikes on the roof of their automobile.

i think its more accurate to differentiate between drivers as ' attentives', 'distracteds' and 'aggressives'

some are friends, some are foes. all drivers are not the same, all cars are not driven by the same types of people.

I've been yelled at by people with bikes on the roof of their automobile. See, every now and then I'm really glad I don't put you on ignore, Bek. This is a really good point.

But, to be fair to me, I did say "in general" in the OP.

What is your default assumption about a given motorist before you have evidence indicating what he is: that he is a cooperative friend (including possibly an inattentive friend), or an uncooperative foe (including possibly an inattentive foe)?

What about obstacles to be avoided? Not freind or foe... just like walking through a field of cows - they don't hate you, they just have no use for you - it is my responsibility to work around them and guide them to where they need to be for me to get around safely.

And no, I am not a VC rider - I consider my self more of analagous to a cowboy, but with cars instead of cows. Sure they can kill or maim you, but typically they are pretty stupid and just need a firm hand to tell them what to.

What about obstacles to be avoided? Not freind or foe... just like walking through a field of cows - they don't hate you, they just have no use for you - it is my responsibility to work around them and guide them to where they need to be for me to get around safely.

And no, I am not a VC rider - I consider my self more of analagous to a cowboy, but with cars instead of cows. Sure they can kill or maim you, but typically they are pretty stupid and just need a firm hand to tell them what to.
Motorists are like cows... just be clear on what they're supposed to do and they do it.

I like it!

You go, cowboy!

Motorists are like cows... just be clear on what they're supposed to do and they do it.

I like it!

You go, cowboy!

haha, we agree on something :eek:

Motorists are both friends and foes, and I ride vehicularly when it suits and non-vehicularly likewise. But since this is a "with us or against us" style poll I chose not to vote... there's just no room in your poll for it.
My neighbor is a motorist and so is his wife, thus motorists are my friends.
A few people that hold grudges against me are motorists, thus motorists are my foes.
I sometimes ride vehicularly.
I sometimes don't.
...decisions decisions!

Even those who yell or honk at me are generally looking to cooperate with me, which to them would be getting out of their way. I had a woman this morning point out to me that I was definitely only going 15 in a 25mph zone and that she was just trying to get to work. Her idea of cooperation was not slowing her down which apparently blinded her to the fact that I destination positioned myself at the intersection so that she could turn right on red from the wide lane, and thus not slow her down any more than I had to. I'll give her the benefit of the doubt that one day she'll realize just how cooperative I was being :)

Most understand that I'm just a guy riding a bike and doing the same thing they are, using a public facility to move from place to place. If they want to go faster, they realize that they either have to reposition themselves so that I'm not in their way or I have to move out of their way. Cooperation goes a long way towards making that happen sooner.

I am neither a VC or a non VC rider.

I have never met a motorist that was actively a foe (ie deliberatly tried and hurt me), but I don't consider them to be particularly friendly either as they can put me in danger.

So, no voting for me in this poll.

An odd question. It tells me something about your personality.

Motorists are just people. No more, no less.

Missing answer: Neither friend nor foe

distracted friends who could inadvertently kill me.

An odd question. It tells me something about your personality.

Motorists are just people. No more, no less.
Sorry to stretch your brain. "Friend or foe" is not meant literally as in "friend you would have over for dinner" or "foe you would shoot if you had a chance". It's a figure of speech.

The question is obviously getting at whether you view cycling in traffic to be more of a cooperative or a competitive environment. Clearly it has elements of both, but, in general, which better describes your attitude? That motorists are mostly "friends" in a cooperative environment, or mostly "foes" in a competitive environment (like the guys on the other team in a sport)?

is that really an odd question?

Sorry to stretch your brain. "Friend or foe" is not meant literally as in "friend you would have over for dinner" or "foe you would shoot if you had a chance". It's a figure of speech.

The question is obviously getting at whether you view cycling in traffic to be more of a cooperative or a competitive environment. Clearly it has elements of both, but, in general, which better describes your attitude? That motorists are mostly "friends" in a cooperative environment, or mostly "foes" in a competitive environment (like the guys on the other team in a sport)?

is that really an odd question?

:rolleyes:

I think you answered your own question. My outlook is that motorists are people. No more, no less.

:rolleyes:

I think you answered your own question. My outlook is that motorists are people. No more, no less.
What a punter.

Do you deny that there are substantial numbers of cyclists who view motorists as the "enemy"?

If not, do you share their perspective or not?

I think some motorists think traffic is a competitive sport. And some don't. Either kind could potentially kill me OR have me over for dinner.

What a punter.

Do you deny that there are substantial numbers of cyclists who view motorists as the "enemy"?

If not, do you share their perspective or not?

Evidently not.

If you walk down a street with a bunch of other people on it, are they friends of foes? Someone turns a shoulder to let you through... friendly, I guess. A gaggle of teenage girls, walking slowly and taking up the entire sidewalk... foes perhaps. How do you categorize a group of people with exactly one thing all in common? You can do that only if you subscribe to the view that the one commonality changes and unifies people's behaviors. Do you subscribe to this view?

I don't. People are people. People are self absorbed until it is absolutely necessary to behave differently. Cooperative or not; friendly or not; depends on an individual's mood and the situation. What a cyclist views as a motorist being uncooperative, the motorist also views as a cyclist being uncooperative. What does it even mean to be "cooperative" or "uncooperative" in the traffic environment? If a motorist yells and honks and threatens, but still passes safely, is that being cooperative? If the motorist is friendly and waves, but passes unsafely, or does the wrong thing, is that being uncooperative? What about the motorist who doesn't do anything; doesn't deviate his path to either make way or intimidate; doesn't even give a second glance, but who doesn't also do anything dangerous. Is this cooperative? Uncooperative?

People are people. A person on a bike or a person in a car still has the same personality they had before they got on the bike or entered the car. The self absorbness of people has a chilling effect on cyclists, which is a completely natural response to the cyclist's vunerabilities, but is, at the same time, completely without merit. It is not the self absorbness that cyclists should fear. After all, the road system that the US sports is a triumph of self absorbness over environmental awareness. Look at all the rules we have so that people don't have to do much thinking out on the road. As long as everyone respects the rules, this system works.

But now throw in a wrinkle. 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.

Why are y'all making such a deal about this? I view other drivers as potential 'friends' who will cooperate, until they demonstrate otherwise. Same with other strangers in different settings, for example forming a line.

Al

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.
Huh? Uh, no.
Lane position is all about communication. Communication is needed for cooperation.

There is no competetion, no winning, no forcing.

Al

^^^
Then why all the honks?

i think its more accurate to differentiate between drivers as ' attentives', 'distracteds' and 'aggressives'

some are friends, some are foes. all drivers are not the same, all cars are not driven by the same types of people.

I've been yelled at by people with bikes on the roof of their automobile.

Gotta agree with Bek on this one. All motorists are different... until I find something to distinguish a particular motorist, I am neutral about them. This is especially true about tinted windows or indifferent motorists I cannot even see... then they are not even motorists, just "cars;" The "anoniminity" of the vehicle wins out.

A nod or a smile can make a friend, an aggressive movement or lingering horn can make a foe.

Huh? Uh, no.
Lane position is all about communication. Communication is needed for cooperation.

There is no competetion, no winning, no forcing.

Al

LOL come drive in southern California if you really feel there is no competetion, no winning, and especially no forcing... :rolleyes:

Guns have been drawn to determine "winners... " You figure it out.

distracted friends who could inadvertently kill me.

:lol:

How true bud.

-G

^^^
Then why all the honks?
You mean the 2-3 videos I've posted? Those were motorists who chose to be uncooperative.

I've gotten unfriendly honks with yells from drivers traveling the opposite direction (although 99% of opposite direction honks are of the friendly type)

Al

LOL come drive in southern California if you really feel there is no competetion, no winning, and especially no forcing... :rolleyes:

Guns have been drawn to determine "winners... " You figure it out.
I meant that riding in a centerish position is not about competetion.

Sure driving has become competetive for many, speeding to see who can gain a few spaces closer to the front at the next red light. That I don't disagree. I do disagree that a driver (of any vehicle) must take part in this competetion or needs to take on a competetive stance to travel effectively and safely.

Al

I meant that riding in a centerish position is not about competetion.

Sure driving has become competetive for many, speeding to see who can gain a few spaces closer to the front at the next red light. That I don't disagree. I do disagree that a driver (of any vehicle) must take part in this competetion or needs to take on a competetive stance to travel effectively and safely.

Al

I agree with you regarding the competitive stance... however, the majority of motorists are not in agreement with us.

Evidently not.




Brian, very nicely said... I borrowed a bit of it. Thanks

I agree with you regarding the competitive stance... however, the majority of motorists are not in agreement with us.
Some of us have learned how to drop out of the race and find it easier, safer and more enjoyable with no measureable time loss.

Al

I don't see motorist so much as foes, but I don't give them the benefit of the doubt like I used too.
I have been proven wrong to many times, and the risks seem to be getting higher.

But now throw in a wrinkle. Cyclists are, in general, small and without a defined outline, making them hard to see, and slow.
:eek:

This is funny coming from someone who has also said, "And enough of this 'cyclist inferiority syndrome' or any such nonsense." [1 (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=4218378&postcount=9)]. After you, my friend, after you.


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.
What are you talking about? Do you know of any roads "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"? I don't. Not even freeways fit all of that bill.


This situation puts cyclists and motorists in conflict and competition.
Perhaps on a hypothetical road that doesn't exist... so what?


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.
To reduce vehicular cycling to "merely a technique of using lane positioning", in any context, is absurd.
Vehicular cycling is as much about attitude as anything else, an attitude that you clearly have not adopted.

"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.

Do you feels like just another driver with a slightly different vehicle? Your words indicate otherwise. I couldn't have come up with a better counter-example to what Forester is writing here than your words, no matter how hard I tried.

Anyone can utilize some vc techniques here and there, and I'm sure you do. But to truly practice vehicular cycling, consistently, one has to be a vehicular cyclist inside, which you clearly are not.


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.
Cyclist inferiority syndrome, in spades.

Yawn...

Whatever you say, man. I kind of thought that you'd use this to attack me. Whatever.

Look't me everyone!!! I've got Cyclist Inferiority Syndrome! Do I get worker's comp for this?

Hey look, HH! You're winning, 9 to 4!

This is all evidently in bad faith. I cannot even post an honest response without it being pointed out that 1) I'm full of *****, and 2) I have some sort of undiagnosed disease that obviously puts me in a lower category than these hot ***** VC'ists.

Okay. I'll just ride my bike. I've got a 50 mile round trip commute through all sorts of roads to concentrate on. All this political posturing is just wasting my time.

Hey, HH, did you get all the data you need? Over 69% of polling respondents choose friendly. This proves that the other four respondents are marginallized. I love these polls.

Oh, I forgot. There must be a correlation between seeing motorists as friendly and vehicular cyclists. It's 69% approval of this view!!! A bit of a split between non-VC'ers, 50-50, it appears.

Hey look, everyone. Look at post 31. There is a right answer, after all.

Or, at least, in HH's eyes, there is.

See, I just found a nice new commute route yesterday which avoided most of this traffic stuff. HH, would you choose the nicer route with shoulders on all the roads and less traffic if it meant adding a mile on to your dinky little 5 mile route?

It is simply amazing how much calmer things are when there is a bike lane on the road so that motorists and cyclists can cooperate without pissing each other off. I know, noisebeam likes his 20 second honks and is deluded enough to think that this motorist is in the minority. Naw, he's not in the minority. Another generalization about people is that for every one person who takes action against an annoyance, there's 100 others that are rooting him on.

If thinking that motorists are friendly until proven otherwise gets you through your day, good for you. But realize that this is a delusion. That's why you get honks and screaching tires and yelling. But, whatever works. I'm not going to step on your religion if you need it to steel yourself to ride. It's better that you ride than not.

Yawn...

Whatever you say, man. I kind of thought that you'd use this to attack me. Whatever.

Look't me everyone!!! I've got Cyclist Inferiority Syndrome! Do I get worker's comp for this? I'm sorry you feel attacked. That was not my intent.

I'm just pointing out the irony of you denying the existence of a syndrome that your own words exemplify.


This is all evidently in bad faith. I cannot even post an honest response without it being pointed out that 1) I'm full of *****, and 2) I have some sort of undiagnosed disease that obviously puts me in a lower category than these hot ***** VC'ists.

Okay. I'll just ride my bike. I've got a 50 mile round trip commute through all sorts of roads to concentrate on. All this political posturing is just wasting my time.
Bad faith? What did I say that was in bad faith? You think I was dishonest? About what?

No one said you were full of ***** or have any kind of disease. I simply pointed out that your words indicate an attitude contrary to that of a vehicular cyclist and consistent with one who sees bicyclists as inferior to motorists on the roadway.
Can you honestly deny that your words demonstrate this?

I don't get why you're offended. If I believed that cyclists were inferior to motorists in the ways you've written about, then I would not be ashamed to admit this, or be offended when someone pointed it out.

I don't get why cyclists who believe that cyclists are inferior are so reluctant to admit they believe this.


See, I just found a nice new commute route yesterday which avoided most of this traffic stuff. HH, would you choose the nicer route with shoulders on all the roads and less traffic if it meant adding a mile on to your dinky little 5 mile route? Probably not. When my purpose is utility-transportational (get to work, get home), I tend to take what I believe to be the faster route, period. Plus, I genuinely like the "traffic stuff" (except for waiting at red lights, but even that doesn't bug me as much as it used to).

When riding for recreational/health purposes, yeah, i'm likely to take the alternate routes.

Note that recreational rides can become utilitarian, like when I'm late getting home. Then "faster route" takes precedence.
Similarly, utilitarian rides can become recreational, if I have extra time.


It is simply amazing how much calmer things are when there is a bike lane on the road so that motorists and cyclists can cooperate without pissing each other off. It's the space, not the stripe, that allows for that.


I know, noisebeam likes his 20 second honks and is deluded enough to think that this motorist is in the minority. Naw, he's not in the minority. Another generalization about people is that for every one person who takes action against an annoyance, there's 100 others that are rooting him on. Who cares what they think? The more cyclists out there, the more they'll get used to it. The more cyclists out there in bike lanes, the more they'll get used to cyclists being out of the way, "like they should be."


If thinking that motorists are friendly until proven otherwise gets you through your day, good for you. But realize that this is a delusion. That's why you get honks and screaching tires and yelling. But, whatever works. I'm not going to step on your religion if you need it to steel yourself to ride. It's better that you ride than not. You are confusing positive attitude, which is a requirement for vehicular-cycling, with religion. One can have a positive attitude without being religious. The vehicular cyclist must have a positive attitude about his place on the roadway relative to motorists. I don't mean it as an attack when I say you clearly do not have the requisite attitude. FYI.

I just stated it like I see it. Perhaps I have this syndrome people keep talking about. Except, what does it mean, HH? I mean, you call everyone who disagrees with you an inferior person... uh, I mean, that you claim that everyone who disagrees has cyclist inferiority syndrome. Everything from fearing traffic to the rear to not having the "VC attitude". If you have to have an Attitude to bicycle, isn't this just the same as needing your magic feather to fly? If you need an Attitude to bicycle, then you are bicycling with the aid of a delusion.

I'm sorry you feel attacked. That was not my intent.

I'm just pointing out the irony of you denying the existence of a syndrome that your own words exemplify.

Right. You created the label from whole cloth, stuck it on me, then claimed the irony.

I don't recognize the syndrome. It doesn't exist. Your words are, quite literally, worthless. They literally don't mean anything to me.

I am pissed that you used my words as a club for hitting me with instead of opening a line of discussion.

By the by.

If you need an Attitude to bicycle on a road, then you are in competition, whether you know it or not.

This VC Attitude thing:

It's just a passive agressive way of dealing with insults. I used to have it. Thank God I don't anymore.

The honks don't mean anything. Ignore the yells. They don't mean anything. They don't mean anything. They DON'T mean anything. THEY DON'T MEAN ANYTHING!!!

Congratulations Helmet Head, you did it again.

This VC Attitude thing:

It's just a passive agressive way of dealing with insults. I used to have it. Thank God I don't anymore.

The honks don't mean anything. Ignore the yells. They don't mean anything. They don't mean anything. They DON'T mean anything. THEY DON'T MEAN ANYTHING!!!

Exactly... how does that attitude adjustment take place in an LAB Road class? I don't recall anything special being passed out to the timid cyclist that just wanted to go to work some 3 miles from her home. (Road I class)

I don't recall the LAB instructor setting up any attitude or infering that an attitude of any sort was required.

I do recall the high speed turns... perhaps it was in mastering those... maybe it was the day that I was seconds late... yeah that's it.

Anyway HH, why do cyclists need an attitude... I don't recall needing one to drive a motor vehicle.

HH: I don't accept your inferiority syndrome. I you say I have it, and of course, it is a bad thing, it is a personal insult.

Who said cyclists were inferior?

I just said they were out of place on a road designed with only cars in mind. Inferiority is a personal thing.

It is simply amazing how much calmer things are when there is a bike lane on the road so that motorists and cyclists can cooperate without pissing each other off.


It's the space, not the stripe, that allows for that.

I disagree. My experience tells me otherwise. Perhaps I am not God like enough.