Vehicular Cycling (VC) - VC acolytes, followers, disciples, etc.

Actually, I try not to rely on quoting from books either, except on issues that pivot on what was said in the book in question or by the writer in question.

This is, actually, why we need some information about your experience. If you are creating your ideas from whole cloth, then the people listening and who haven't heard about these ideas and don't know what to make of them need to know that you have relevent experience to which you are speaking from.

FWIW, if Bek is holding 21 and 1/5 mph, I'd bet he's on a road bike.
He's not holding 21.5, he is averaging. That means (comparing to the more rural club rides I go on, that start on the fringes of the subrurb) that the line is typically in the 24-28mph range. That is certainly a roadbike. The suburban club rides I go on, my average speed is 19-21mph, with the vast portion of the ride done at >25, peaking 31 or so when the line gets working well.

I too am not quite sure of the relevance.

Al

It's a tangent from the thread topic, to be sure.

It just happened to come up here because Bek made a statement about his riding that contradicted my impression of his riding. So, again, my purpose here is to update/correct my impression of his riding so that it's closer to reality.

It seems he's done this.

Now then. You've made statements about your traffic cycling that contradict my impression of your cycling habits. So, my purpose of asking about your experience in traffic cycling is to update/correct my impression of your riding habits so that it's closer to reality.

what's all this about racing with Cats? should I call PETA?

When John Forester writes, "obey the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles", to me that means "adhering to commonly recognized principles of vehicular cycling", which has much in common with, but is not identical to, "obeying traffic law".

Curb hugging (riding in space where pedestrians would walk, with or against traffic), for example, is within the traffic laws, but it is not "obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles", nor is it "adhering to commonly recognized principles of vehicular cycling".

Edit: this is not a distinction I've seen Mr. Forester make, and indeed, he seems to not recognize it.


I recognize the distinction, which is why I worded my earlier reply to state the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles and avoided the phrase traffic laws. Curb hugging, whether being done by a motorist or by a cyclist, depends so much on the particular situation. Sometimes it is appropriate, but more generally it is not.

He's not holding 21.5, he is averaging. That means (comparing to the more rural club rides I go on, that start on the fringes of the subrurb) that the line is typically in the 24-28mph range. That is certainly a roadbike. The suburban club rides I go on, my average speed is 19-21mph, with the vast portion of the ride done at >25, peaking 31 or so when the line gets working well.

I too am not quite sure of the relevance.

Al

Yeppers. He's got quads the size of tanker trucks if he can hold >25mph on a hybrid bike for any length of time.

what's all this about racing with Cats? should I call PETA?

No, you aren't racing with cats. You are racing in cats. :eek:

I hope this clears things up ;).

This is, actually, why we need some information about your experience. If you are creating your ideas from whole cloth, then the people listening and who haven't heard about these ideas and don't know what to make of them need to know that you have relevent experience to which you are speaking from. I'm not creating my ideas from whole cloth.

I'm creating my ideas based on fundamental assumptions that I believe -- from my own experience, reading books and communications with cyclists -- are generally accepted by cyclists.

In order to be persuasive (to someone who is persuaded by reason - which is the only type of person I know how to persuade), all that matters is whether the fundamental assumptions that form the basis of my ideas are actually generally accepted by cyclists, or at least by those I'm trying persuade.

If these fundamental assumptions are consistent with your own experience and knowledge, then it shouldn't matter where they came from. You will, presumably, accept them.

If they're not consistent with your own experience and knowledge, then it shouldn't where they came from. You will, presumably, reject them.

Either way, all that matters with respect to whether you accept or reject the fundamental assumptions is whether they are consistent with your own experience and knowledge, and that assessment should have nothing to do with the experience or knowledge of anyone else, including me.

If the fundamental assumptions are not accepted, then I would like to understand why. But if they are, then we can move on to the ideas that I believe are logically and reasonably based on the fundament assumptions that are consistent with your own experience and knowledge.

But your decision about whether to accept those assumptions should have nothing to do with my experience and knowledge, just as my acceptance of them has nothing to do with your experience and knowledge, or that of anyone else other than me.

It seems he's done this.

Now then. You've made statements about your traffic cycling that contradict my impression of your cycling habits. So, my purpose of asking about your experience in traffic cycling is to update/correct my impression of your riding habits so that it's closer to reality.
Well, that's different.

What was your impression?
What did I say to contradict your impression?
What are your questions?

I recognize the distinction, which is why I worded my earlier reply to state the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles and avoided the phrase traffic laws. Curb hugging, whether being done by a motorist or by a cyclist, depends so much on the particular situation. Sometimes it is appropriate, but more generally it is not. What I meant by you not seeming to recognize the distinction is that N_C originally wrote, "... riding with traffic obeying traffic laws but as far as you can tell they are not riding VC...If you do [stop them & educate them on how to ride VC,] why?" In other words, he was addressing this very distinction.

Your reply, however, seemed to imply that there is no distinction, since you declared, "The question has no meaning. If a person is cycling to obey the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, then he is riding in the vehicular manner."

The declaration that N_C's question had no meaning could only be true if one does not recognize the distinction in question, no?

What was your impression?

That you had a lot of experience cycling in traffic.


What did I say to contradict your impression?

You started making statements which were quite absolute and contradictory to my experience. Your refusal to answer to simple questions about your commuting and traffic cycling experiences has made me suspect that you are absolute in your attitude and ideas because you have very little experience to back them up. You are making like Aristotle in saying that light things fall slower than heavy things and coming up with thought experiments to justify your conclusions. Which is perfectly fine, but like Aristotle, are completely contradictory to my experience and I suspect, like Aristotle, are completely wrong.

Your ongoing absolutist stance on bike lanes is one case in point. Your statements considering "cyclist inferiority" is another.


What are your questions?

1) How much do you ride in a week?

2) How far do you ride? Excluding club rides.

3) What environments do you ride in? Recent history please; like, as in the last year.

Three simple questions. Answer them and I'll be off your back.

This is why I try to avoid saying much....

I got this far before my head exploded.

That you had a lot of experience cycling in traffic.

You started making statements which were quite absolute and contradictory to my experience. Did any of my ideas rely on those statements being true? If so, what was the statement and what was the idea? If not, why did it matter?


Your refusal to answer to simple questions about your commuting and traffic cycling experiences has made me suspect that you are absolute in your attitude and ideas because you have very little experience to back them up. As I recall, the point I was trying to make was that none of the ideas I was trying to convey were based on anything that would depend on you or anyone else having to believe I'm experienced in traffic. It was my intent that they be evaluated by you soley based on your own knowledge and experience.


You are making like Aristotle in saying that light things fall slower than heavy things and coming up with thought experiments to justify your conclusions. Which is perfectly fine, but like Aristotle, are completely contradictory to my experience and I suspect, like Aristotle, are completely wrong. What specific idea of mine are you talking about as being a "thought experiment"?


Your ongoing absolutist stance on bike lanes is one case in point. Your statements considering "cyclist inferiority" is another. I don't have an absolutist stance on bike lanes.
None of my statements about cyclist inferiority are based on anything having to do with my own personal riding experience.




1) How much do you ride in a week?

2) How far do you ride? Excluding club rides.

3) What environments do you ride in? Recent history please; like, as in the last year.

Three simple questions. Answer them and I'll be off your back. 1) 0 to 300/week, depending on the week and the year.
2) My commute is 6 (hilly) miles each way. I commute by bike 0 to 5 times per week, depending on the week. Last week was 4 days. This week I'm 3 for 3, but I'll probably work from home tomorrow. These days I'm not getting many miles in besides my commute and the group rides. In past and future months I extend my commute miles and weekend personal miles. My Saturday group ride is a very challenging (for me) 50 miles. I try to do it every Saturday, but it doesn't always work out. Sometimes I drive the 4 (mostly uphill) miles to the start, because I'm late. When I can leave in time I ride.
3) Most of recent experience is suburban and rural traffic.

See, that wasn't hard.

See, that wasn't hard. And nothing new. I have answered all those and/or similar questions multiple times before. And the answers are just as irrelevant to the ideas I'm trying to convey as they always have been.

since we're answering basic questions:

1. 5 mile per day RT commute, five days a week, 50 weeks a year; plus I usually add a few trips to the store, a Sunday night ride (ZooBomb), the occasional weekday evening ride (like last night's PDOT ride), an occasional short and slow weekend ride in good weather w/ the wife, and also the occassional Pedalpalooza or Shift group ride, for an average of probably 75 mile per week.

2. I generally don't ride much longer than 10 or 15 miles at a time, very occasionally 25 or 30 miles in a single ride.

3. Almost all inner-city urban riding on a mix of neighborhood streets, collectors and arterials, the downtown grid, the Willamette River Bridges, a MUP or two, and a limited access freeway (Hellway 26). Mostly solo except for Zoobomb and the group rides described above.

I think 0 to 4 is the operative number for good ol' helemie.

No offense, helemt, but you don't really ride in traffic much, nor does your experince with the weekend club fred peloton relate much to daily transportational cycling, dude. you don't shop with your bike either, I believe.

Anyway, this thread was supposed to be about


VC harrassing non-vc riders out on the road. and I mentioned HH likes to yell out "5 feet from the parked cars!"

HH also disparages transportational cyclists from his car window. poseur punk, IMO.

VC harrassing non-vc riders out on the road. and I mentioned HH likes to yell out "5 feet from the parked cars!"

HH also disparages transportational cyclists from his car window. poseur punk, IMO.
He also does it on the internet.... :eek: ;)

Ok, now I'm confused. Which is not unusual considering JF & HH change what they say or mean more times then I change underwear.

I take one meaning of riding VC to be always taking the lane. At least according to JF & HH all cyclists should be doing. This means cyclists are in the lane of traffic causing passing motorists to either completely or partially go into the oncoming lane to pass on a roadway or slow down & wait until it is safe to do so.

This is how both JF & HH have described it, but I am waiting for their denial of this fact.

Guess what HH & JF I NEVER ride VC. Here's why:

I ride a recumbent, very slow to ride up hills. In my town, on my commute there are some serious hills I have to climb with fully loaded saddle bags.

One of these hills is on South Saint Aubin. after it crosses Glenn Ave. Between Glenn & Morningside Ave there is parking allowed on the one side, the side I ride on, of South St Aubin. For the 1st 3 blocks past Glenn Ave is a pretty steep but short hill. One that causes me to ride in my lowest gear. At best I can only do 4 mph up this hill.

Because of the wider roadway/parking lane on the side I ride on I am able & have to ride close to the curb in the parking lane to allow traffic to safely pass. South St. Aubin is a failry busy roadway through a residential area of town. For so many feet after Glenn Ave there is no parking allowed but after there is.

When I ride in the parking lane motorists can pass with out going into the oncoming lane.

Usually there are no vehicles parked on the steepest parts of the hill when I ride through & not until further up where the hill flattens out & I can pick up speed or it is easier for motorists to see up the hill to pass me in the oncoming lane if I have to merge to the left to pass a parked vehicle.

In other words for my own safety I have to go against the VC way of riding to keep myself form getting clobbered by a motor vehicle & to keep the peace between cyclists & motorists.

This IS NOT VC, it is how ever AC, or Adaptive Cycling, which is adapting my riding to the conditions I am riding in & not asserting myself to taking the lane because of & based on a principle that someone, (JF), wrote a book about.

I ALWAYS ride in an AC style. NEVER VC.

I know, I know, JF & HH will accuse me of going against the VC way of things & making it hard for motorists to accept cyclists rights to the roadway, etc, etc, yadda, yadda, yadda. I really don't give a ****. Especially because AC is how a majority of us ride.

If I am not mistaken there has been some good discussion about AC. Which, if I remember correctly, a majority of us here do when we ride. Maybe someone, other then JF or HH, should write a book on AC.

What the hell is wrong with being a fred? I'm a total fredette. I wear street clothes most of the time. I ride an average of 12 mph. Often less. On weekends I ride with people who either don't wear lycra or really shouldn't because they are very fat. Some of them are very old, too, and can only go about 6 mph. I wait for them at the rest stops.

I think my experience chugging to work each day counts more than some peloton rider. Peloton riding seems to bear little resemblance to ordinary transportational cycling. How easy it is to puff your chest out about your "skills" when you aren't carrying 40lbs of groceries chugging solo up some huge hill.

Ok, now I'm confused. Which is not unusual considering JF & HH change what they say or mean more times then I change underwear.

I take one meaning of riding VC to be always taking the lane. At least according to JF & HH all cyclists should be doing. This means cyclists are in the lane of traffic causing passing motorists to either completely or partially go into the oncoming lane to pass on a roadway or slow down & wait until it is safe to do so.

This is how both JF & HH have described it, but I am waiting for their denial of this fact. :rolleyes:

The wait is over. Consider this to be a .D E N I A L.

I swear we've been over this before. VC does NOT mean "taking the lane".




...

When I ride in the parking lane motorists can pass with out going into the oncoming lane.

Usually there are no vehicles parked on the steepest parts of the hill when I ride through & not until further up where the hill flattens out & I can pick up speed or it is easier for motorists to see up the hill to pass me in the oncoming lane if I have to merge to the left to pass a parked vehicle.

In other words for my own safety I have to go against the VC way of riding to keep myself form getting clobbered by a motor vehicle & to keep the peace between cyclists & motorists.

This IS NOT VC, it is how ever AC, or Adaptive Cycling, which is adapting my riding to the conditions I am riding in & not asserting myself to taking the lane because of & based on a principle that someone, (JF), wrote a book about.

I ALWAYS ride in an AC style. NEVER VC. On my way home today, I rode in the 2' gutter adjacent to a 12-13 foot lane. It was VC. Know why? Because it was 3 lanes of 60 mph traffic in my direction on a steep uphill where I was going 6 mph. I rode in the same space (only taking less of it) as I would have has I been driving some slow moving construction vehicle.


I know, I know, JF & HH will accuse me of going against the VC way of things & making it hard for motorists to accept cyclists rights to the roadway, etc, etc, yadda, yadda, yadda. I really don't give a ****. Especially because AC is how a majority of us ride.

If I am not mistaken there has been some good discussion about AC. Which, if I remember correctly, a majority of us here do when we ride. Maybe someone, other then JF or HH, should write a book on AC. You need to ask a lot more questions about VC, and make sure you understand the answers, before you start making assertions about it.

That goes for any subject: study it, ask questions, and get to the point where you know it, before you make statements about it.

N_C was waiting for the moment when it was said: VC != Taking the lane

He called it. So predictable.

I read Effective Cycling, have you HH? It indirectly states, among many other facts, one irrefutable one. VC does mean you take the lane, under no circumstances are cyclists to not do this. At least this is how I interprite much of what the book is about.

I read Effective Cycling, have you HH? It indirectly states, among many other facts, one irrefutable one. VC does mean you take the lane, under no circumstances are cyclists to not do this. At least this is how I interprite much of what the book is about.
Yes, I've not only read the book, I studied it.

You're either pulling my leg, or you have very poor reading comprehension.

You claim you have read the book. Please explain the concept of "speed positioning" in your own words as well as you can.

I will be using the book Effective Cycling as a starter fuel for my charcoal grill this year & when I go camping to light the camp fire. That's about all it is good for.

I will be using the book Effective Cycling as a starter fuel for my charcoal grill this year & when I go camping to light the camp fire. That's about all it is good for.
Have you read Bicycling Street Smarts? (http://www.bikexprt.com/streetsmarts/usa/index.htm)

What the hell is wrong with being a fred? I'm a total fredette. I wear street clothes most of the time. I ride an average of 12 mph. Often less. On weekends I ride with people who either don't wear lycra or really shouldn't because they are very fat. Some of them are very old, too, and can only go about 6 mph. I wait for them at the rest stops.

I think my experience chugging to work each day counts more than some peloton rider. Peloton riding seems to bear little resemblance to ordinary transportational cycling. How easy it is to puff your chest out about your "skills" when you aren't carrying 40lbs of groceries chugging solo up some huge hill.
Freds do wear lycra, and the peloton is so out in the 21st century, I think you're safe for now!

;)

I swear we've been over this before. VC does NOT mean "taking the lane".

On my way home today, I rode in the 2' gutter adjacent to a 12-13 foot lane. It was VC. Know why? Because it was 3 lanes of 60 mph traffic in my direction on a steep uphill where I was going 6 mph. I rode in the same space (only taking less of it) as I would have has I been driving some slow moving construction vehicle.


I read Effective Cycling, have you HH? It indirectly states, among many other facts, one irrefutable one. VC does mean you take the lane, under no circumstances are cyclists to not do this. At least this is how I interprite much of what the book is about.
Now I've seen it all!

;) :) :p

Have you read Bicycling Street Smarts? (http://www.bikexprt.com/streetsmarts/usa/index.htm)

No, but if it is anything like Effective Cycling or if it only gives one sided views like EC, & is full of propaganda that you & JF like to spout off about I have no interest in it. So do tell what it is about before I waste my money on it.

On my way home today, I rode in the 2' gutter adjacent to a 12-13 foot lane. It was VC. Know why? Because it was 3 lanes of 60 mph traffic in my direction on a steep uphill where I was going 6 mph. I rode in the same space (only taking less of it) as I would have has I been driving some slow moving construction vehicle.


Sounds like a serious case of cyclist inferiority if you ask me. Call out the white coats! We got a serious one here! But be careful, he thinks he's completly sane and superior to all of us and will say that YOU have a the problem! Be Alert, Be very alert..... (don't worry HH, I don't expect you to admit it, but refute away! ;) )

Let's ask the Doctor to be sure...


Advanced VC (AVC) - Using assertive "centerish" lane positioning to discourage lane sharing/squeezing when the lane is too narrow to be safely shared.



I swear we've been over this before. VC does NOT mean "taking the lane".



To be entirely within a lane, your tire must be one foot to the left or right of the lane stripe. To be vehicular, if you're 2' wide, the only time your wheels should be within one foot of the lane stripe is when you're changing lanes. That's not a difference of a few inches, that's a difference of two feet.



I rode in the 2' gutter adjacent to a 12-13 foot lane.



I think more and more that "cyclist inferiority" is spot on.

Do you ride in pacelines and/or tight/fast pelotons that average 20 mph over hilly terrain much, Bek?

Something tells me you don't, and if you did, most of the yelling would be directed at you.

Can't agree HH. Bek would be OTB on the first climb...

No, but if it is anything like Effective Cycling or if it only gives one sided views like EC, & is full of propaganda that you & JF like to spout off about I have no interest in it. So do tell what it is about before I waste my money on it.
It's free and online, N_C. Judge for yourself.

http://www.bikexprt.com/streetsmarts/usa/index.htm

Can't agree HH. Bek would be OTB on the first climb... Ouch, actually, that applies to me, at least lately. What saves me is being a fast descender (185 lbs), conservation of energy, knowing the route inside and out, efficiency in traffic, and being saved by red traffic lights.

Galen, you've met Bek? I mean, perhaps he's fast, perhaps not, but I cannot tell, having not met him. So, you've met him and riden with him?

I don't know if he's fast, but he's strong. He bike toured from Seattle down to Portland and all around the Portland metro area, from North Portland all the way down to my haunts in Wilsonville.

Just say'n...

Let's ask the Doctor to be sure...
If you think there is a contradiction in there somewhere, you're going to have to point it out to me.

There is nothing nonvehicular in drivers of slow moving vehicles using safe and reasonable space to the right, between intersections, to allow faster traffic to pass. In some cases this can be the gutter.

This should be no surprise to anyone who understands VC.



Curb hugging, whether being done by a motorist or by a cyclist, depends so much on the particular situation. Sometimes it is appropriate, ...

Galen, you've met Bek? I mean, perhaps he's fast, perhaps not, but I cannot tell, having not met him. So, you've met him and riden with him?

I don't know if he's fast, but he's strong. He bike toured from Seattle down to Portland and all around the Portland metro area, from North Portland all the way down to my haunts in Wilsonville.

Just say'n...

Lets not get all politically-correct-undies-in-a-wad-can't-take-a-joke on us there Brian

Galen, you've met Bek? I mean, perhaps he's fast, perhaps not, but I cannot tell, having not met him. So, you've met him and riden with him?

I don't know if he's fast, but he's strong. He bike toured from Seattle down to Portland and all around the Portland metro area, from North Portland all the way down to my haunts in Wilsonville.

Just say'n...

I'm willing to stipulate to Galen's expert credentials concerning being dropped OTB. ;) :p

Lets not get all politically-correct-undies-in-a-wad-can't-take-a-joke on us there Brian

This is an internet forum where sarcasm does not easily get conveyed. If you are going to make a joking/sarcastic post, make it extremely obvious that it is a joke/sarcastic otherwise we'll just end up wasting way more bandwidth than we already do. Please don't make me call you Chipcom 2.0 :)

(yes, I know I am guilty of this too sometimes)

If it was a joke Galen, then I appologize. But it seemed a bit malevolent and backstabby. Just say'n...

(BTW Galen, my post was sarcastic too. Can't take what you dish?)

This is an internet forum where sarcasm does not easily get conveyed. If you are going to make a joking/sarcastic post, make it extremely obvious that it is a joke/sarcastic otherwise we'll just end up wasting way more bandwidth than we already do. Please don't make me call you Chipcom 2.0 :)

(yes, I know I am guilty of this too sometimes)
This is a really good point, and why I try to avoid sarcasm too (though I slip as well).

But, in this case I thought the sarcasm in Galen's comment was pretty obvious, since it was clearly about how Bek rides, and all of us regulars know they live thousands of miles apart, so it couldn't possibly be serious.

I think the sarcasm targetted at other member's positions on issues is much more problematic and subject to confusion.

what's OTB?

what's OTB?
Off Track Betting?

off track biking?

on tap beer?

what's OTB? When you're riding in a tight group, you save a lot of energy from the draft created by the riders in front of you. This allows cyclists with disparate abilities to ride with each other, and everyone goes considerably faster than when riding alone. The strongest riders at the front are using their extra power to push the air. But sometimes the strongest ones are so much stronger that the weaker ones cannot "hang" in the group even with the draft advantages at the back, and they fall off the back. The riders with lower power-to-weight ratios are particularly vulnerable on climbs where the relative advantages of the draft are lessened in proportion to the steepness of the climb, both in terms of gravity become more and more of a factor, and with air resistance becoming less of a factor due to slower speeds.

If you think there is a contradiction in there somewhere, you're going to have to point it out to me.

There is nothing nonvehicular in drivers of slow moving vehicles using safe and reasonable space to the right, between intersections, to allow faster traffic to pass. In some cases this can be the gutter.

This should be no surprise to anyone who understands VC.

:lol: read the threads those came from for the contradictions - but that's not why I posted it, I just always though it would be funny to see you argue with yourself, lol - it's jut too easy:roflmao:

But to see it if you like, go to the "road margins" thread and then this comment - "adjacent to a 12-13 foot lane" inferiority abounds!

:lol: read the threads those came from for the contradictions - but that's not why I posted it, I just always though it would be funny to see you argue with yourself, lol - it's jut too easy:roflmao:

But to see it if you like, go to the "road margins" thread and then this comment - "adjacent to a 12-13 foot lane" inferiority abounds!
What is the "road margins" thread?
What about the comment "adjacent to a 12-13 foot lane" causes you to conclude "inferiority abounds"?

What is the "road margins" thread?
What about the comment "adjacent to a 12-13 foot lane" causes you to conclude "inferiority abounds"?

Look it up yourself man - you started the thread (Use the search function ;) )- I'm not here to argue about a "method" that changes as the wind changes - just here to have fun pointing out your contradictions.