Vehicular Cycling (VC) - What is VC?

fanatics, enthusiasts, true believers and just plain folks: please post your definitions of VC here for those poor souls who might be wondering. please be succinct. if you can't be succinct, just be brief and to the point.:p

good question,you're not alone,I'll wait for an answer.

I don't care about VC. I just want to get from A to B without having to stop-and-go every 30 seconds.

And I want to go to as many destinations as possible.

And I want the same right-of-way as motorists.

And I want to save on gas.

And I want to save on parking.

And I want to stay fit as long as possible.

And I want to keep riding my bike...

VC is a backdrop for selling books and making yourself feel better, smarter, and more important than the other 99.99% of cyclist on the road who follow the rules.

Dang.

be still grasshopper and all will be revealed in time

VC is following the rules of the road as they apply to vehicles.

Which means generally following the laws and customs, when they are consistent to some basic traffic flow principles, like drive on the right (or left in some countries), slower traffic on the right, be destination oriented etc.

If a law contradicts your personal interpretation of those traffic flow principles, vc says feel free break it. (keep in mind this is not Civil Disobedience, which requires drawing law enforcement attention to the infraction, and accepting punishment). For example, you may ride in a bike lane, but only coincidentally because you are ignoring that lane. If the traffic flow principles move you out of the BL, so be it, even if you have a Bike Lane law that does not allow for exceptions.

Of course, you can violate any of those traffic flow principles or laws, provided you know the reasons behind it, accept the risks involved, have a legitimate (to you) reason, and think carefully first.

Vehicular cycling is the operation of a bicycle according to the basic rules that apply to all drivers of vehicles. The specific wording of law varies slightly from state to state, but because the basic principles are the same, people can generally drive their vehicles from state to state without crashing into each other despite not knowing the differences in wording. The basic principles of vehicular traffic law are as follows:

1. First come, first served. Each driver on the road is entitled to a "safety zone", i.e. the space their vehicle occupies, plus reasonable clearance behind and to each side, and reasonable stopping distance in front of them. Other drivers who want to use this space must first yield to the driver already entitled to it. This principle applies both between intersections and at intersections. Yielding to traffic already on the road ahead requires driving slowly enough to stop if traffic just beyond view is slow or stopped, and not following too closely in case traffic ahead stops suddenly.

Cyclists operating on roadways usually travel slower than motorists, but motorists are expected to drive within their sight distance and not collide with slower traffic. Sober, competent motorists have no trouble avoiding such collisions. Cyclists are not expected to get out of the way of motorists; cyclists are only expected to stay visible and behave predictably. Motorists should pass cyclists at safe distance: at least three feet at slow speeds; farther at higher speeds.

2. Drive on the right-hand side of the roadway.

Wrong-way cycling is a leading cause of car-bike crashes.

3. Yielding to crossing traffic. Drivers on less important roads, and that includes driveways and alleys, yield to traffic on more important roads. Yielding means looking and waiting until the movement can be made without violating the right of way of other highway users. Drivers turning left must also yield to thru traffic traveling in the opposite direction on the road. Traffic signals or signs often indicate which road has priority.

Most car-bike collisions occur at intersections, where either cyclists or motorists fail to yield when required to traffic crossing their path.

4. Yielding when moving laterally. Drivers who want to move laterally on the roadway must yield to traffic in their new line of travel. Yielding means looking behind, to the side, and in front and waiting until the movement can be made without violating the right of way of other highway users.

Cyclists should travel reasonably straight in order to allow other road users to pass safely. Yielding prior to lateral movement requires that a cyclist turn her head and look behind without swerving into other traffic.

5. Destination positioning at intersections. Drivers must approach intersections (including driveways) in the proper position based on their destination. Right turning-drivers make their turns from next to the curb, left turning drivers do so from near the center line, straight traffic goes between these positions.

Bicycle drivers communicate their intended destination through appropriate positioning; hand signals are not enough. Turning left without first approaching the center of the road invites conflicts with straight-traveling drivers who may attempt to pass on the left. Straight-traveling cyclists should avoid right-turn lanes and use the thru-lane instead.

6. Speed positioning between intersections. Drivers park on the rightmost edge of the highway. Drivers travel in a portion of the right side of the roadway that is wide enough for them to maneuver safely and is available for thru-traffic. Where safe and practical, slower drivers operate far enough to the right to allow faster drivers to see past them and perhaps pass when it is safe to do so. Drivers should overtake slower traffic on the left, not on the right. (There are exceptions when vehicles are turning left, on multi-lane roads, and on one-way roads).

In narrow lanes, drivers of wide vehicles must move into the adjacent lane to pass cyclists. In wide lanes, a motorist and a cyclist may have enough room to share a lane as the motorist passes. Cyclists should not ride too far right to operate safely for their speed.

Thanks, that's pretty good!

Thanks all , I understand now,makes sense.

VC- riding according to the rules of the road.

VC riding can include riding in bike lanes, on the shoulders of high speed roads, etc.

However, the more I see the LCI "instructors" certified in cities to "teach" "VC" riding, the more I think it's a blatant pyramid scheme. a pathetic pyramid to sell a program.

Vehicular cycling is the operation of a bicycle according to the basic rules that apply to all drivers of vehicles. The specific wording of law varies slightly from state to state, but because the basic principles are the same, people can generally drive their vehicles from state to state without crashing into each other despite not knowing the differences in wording. The basic principles of vehicular traffic law are as follows:

1. First come, first served. Each driver on the road is entitled to a "safety zone", i.e. the space their vehicle occupies, plus reasonable clearance behind and to each side, and reasonable stopping distance in front of them. Other drivers who want to use this space must first yield to the driver already entitled to it. This principle applies both between intersections and at intersections. Yielding to traffic already on the road ahead requires driving slowly enough to stop if traffic just beyond view is slow or stopped, and not following too closely in case traffic ahead stops suddenly.

Cyclists operating on roadways usually travel slower than motorists, but motorists are expected to drive within their sight distance and not collide with slower traffic. Sober, competent motorists have no trouble avoiding such collisions. Cyclists are not expected to get out of the way of motorists; cyclists are only expected to stay visible and behave predictably. Motorists should pass cyclists at safe distance: at least three feet at slow speeds; farther at higher speeds.

2. Drive on the right-hand side of the roadway.

Wrong-way cycling is a leading cause of car-bike crashes.

3. Yielding to crossing traffic. Drivers on less important roads, and that includes driveways and alleys, yield to traffic on more important roads. Yielding means looking and waiting until the movement can be made without violating the right of way of other highway users. Drivers turning left must also yield to thru traffic traveling in the opposite direction on the road. Traffic signals or signs often indicate which road has priority.

Most car-bike collisions occur at intersections, where either cyclists or motorists fail to yield when required to traffic crossing their path.

4. Yielding when moving laterally. Drivers who want to move laterally on the roadway must yield to traffic in their new line of travel. Yielding means looking behind, to the side, and in front and waiting until the movement can be made without violating the right of way of other highway users.

Cyclists should travel reasonably straight in order to allow other road users to pass safely. Yielding prior to lateral movement requires that a cyclist turn her head and look behind without swerving into other traffic.

5. Destination positioning at intersections. Drivers must approach intersections (including driveways) in the proper position based on their destination. Right turning-drivers make their turns from next to the curb, left turning drivers do so from near the center line, straight traffic goes between these positions.

Bicycle drivers communicate their intended destination through appropriate positioning; hand signals are not enough. Turning left without first approaching the center of the road invites conflicts with straight-traveling drivers who may attempt to pass on the left. Straight-traveling cyclists should avoid right-turn lanes and use the thru-lane instead.

6. Speed positioning between intersections. Drivers park on the rightmost edge of the highway. Drivers travel in a portion of the right side of the roadway that is wide enough for them to maneuver safely and is available for thru-traffic. Where safe and practical, slower drivers operate far enough to the right to allow faster drivers to see past them and perhaps pass when it is safe to do so. Drivers should overtake slower traffic on the left, not on the right. (There are exceptions when vehicles are turning left, on multi-lane roads, and on one-way roads).

In narrow lanes, drivers of wide vehicles must move into the adjacent lane to pass cyclists. In wide lanes, a motorist and a cyclist may have enough room to share a lane as the motorist passes. Cyclists should not ride too far right to operate safely for their speed.
Ah, the sacred tablets! :D

Until the motorists are reeducated to clearly understand and observe #1 when it comes to cyclists on the road, offering the rest of this advice is sorta like pissing into the wind.

Until the motorists are reeducated to clearly understand and observe #1 when it comes to cyclists on the road, offering the rest of this advice is sorta like pissing into the wind.

Care to help us with #1?

VC- riding according to the rules of the road.

VC riding can include riding in bike lanes, on the shoulders of high speed roads, etc.

However, the more I see the LCI "instructors" certified in cities to "teach" "VC" riding, the more I think it's a blatant pyramid scheme. a pathetic pyramid to sell a program.
I don't think so at all. I think they do it because they love it, and they want to pass on the love of cycling to others. Certainly, the more people that feel confident riding in traffic, the more potential cyclists there will be.

Pyramid schemes typically make a few people rich at the expense of most participants. Instead, people that learn to master riding in traffic are now potentially richer individuals.

Sort of like an upside-down pyramid...

I don't think so at all. I think they do it because they love it, and they want to pass on the love of cycling to others. Certainly, the more people that feel confident riding in traffic, the more potential cyclists there will be.

Pyramid schemes typically make a few people rich at the expense of most participants. Instead, people that learn to master riding in traffic are now potentially richer individuals.

Sort of like an upside-down pyramid...

I just finished (co-)teaching my first LAB Road 1 class this weekend. I spent nine hours of class time over three days, plus a few hours of preparation, in order to hear five students, all women, tell me how much they enjoyed the class and how much they think it helped them develop the confidence they need to ride more places more often, and the skill to do it more comfortably and conveniently. Two of them want to upgrade their bikes to models that are lighter and easier to pedal, after test-riding other students' bikes. All of them said they will recommend the class to friends.

My monetary earning from the class: $0. The feeling of empowering cyclists: priceless.

-Steve Goodridge, Ph.D. electrical engineer

1. First come, first served. Each driver on the road is entitled to a "safety zone", i.e. the space their vehicle occupies, plus reasonable clearance behind and to each side, and reasonable stopping distance in front of them. Other drivers who want to use this space must first yield to the driver already entitled to it. This principle applies both between intersections and at intersections. Yielding to traffic already on the road ahead requires driving slowly enough to stop if traffic just beyond view is slow or stopped, and not following too closely in case traffic ahead stops suddenly.

Cyclists operating on roadways usually travel slower than motorists, but motorists are expected to drive within their sight distance and not collide with slower traffic. Sober, competent motorists have no trouble avoiding such collisions. Cyclists are not expected to get out of the way of motorists; cyclists are only expected to stay visible and behave predictably. Motorists should pass cyclists at safe distance: at least three feet at slow speeds; farther at higher speeds.


Until the motorists are reeducated to clearly understand and observe #1 when it comes to cyclists on the road, offering the rest of this advice is sorta like pissing into the wind.
To answer the question, What is VC?, in the context of Randya's comment...
VC is understanding that there is no need to reeducate motorists to clearly understand and observe #1 when it comes to cyclists on the road in order to cause drivers to treat a cyclist as if he is entitled to a "safety zone". The reason for this is that simply riding as if you are entitled to a "safety zone" achieves this, at least with the vast majority of drivers out there (for the rare exceptions, it's doubtful "reeducation" would have any effect). Of course, before you can do that, you have to believe, inwardly, that you are entitled. That, in a nutshell, is VC, for everything else follows from that inward belief.

I like Steve's dogma-free definition - HH's just proves that his vc brand is more about dogma than practicality. "Think inward my son" :rolleyes:

VC is understanding that there is no need to reeducate motorists to clearly understand and observe #1 when it comes to cyclists on the road in order to cause drivers to treat a cyclist as if he is entitled to a "safety zone".
This is naive about the knowledge of motorists of the traffic law, imho. A more reasonable approach would be to control as much driver behavior as you can by your own behavior, and supplement with driver education.

Do you really imagine that drivers understand (or even know) the law? Many cars will see you as a bicycle whether or not you act like a vehicle. It activates a binary fight/flight response, and unless they are a rational operator, many will pass you. Some, even when you are taking the lane 25 feet from a stop sign. That doesn't mean I cease to ride vehicularly. It means that a driver is uneducated, and about to get a lecture.

Didn't you recently post about a car getting pulled over and "eductated" by the police officer? Didn't you support and try to improve that education?

I think Randya's point was that, given the lack of airbags and rollbars on bicycles, repeatedly telling cyclists this point is of little value, if you are not also educating drivers.... do you disagree with this idea?

This is naive about the knowledge of motorists of the traffic law, imho. A more reasonable approach would be to control as much driver behavior as you can by your own behavior, and supplement with driver education. I'm fine with supplementing with driver education.

I disagree with what I understood to be Randy's contention: that until driver's are "reeducated", educating cyclists is pointless.



Until the motorists are reeducated to clearly understand and observe #1 when it comes to cyclists on the road, offering the rest of this advice is sorta like pissing into the wind.


Do you really imagine that drivers understand (or even know) the law? To a large extent they do, with respect to cyclist rights I'm sure it's very fuzzy (I know it's fuzzy among cyclists, and even police officers). But I find it to be very easy to let them know what they need to know while I'm "out there" in traffic through my own behavior.


Many cars will see you as a bicycle whether or not you act like a vehicle. It activates a binary fight/flight response, and unless they are a rational operator, many will pass you. Some, even when you are taking the lane 25 feet from a stop sign. That doesn't mean I cease to ride vehicularly. It means that a driver is uneducated, and about to get a lecture. The terms "many" "rational" and "some" are nebulous and subjective. I don't mean that as a criticism. My point is that the cyclist can significantly affect, through his own behavior, how "many" will or will not act in a way that appears to be "rational" with respect to your presence. By adopting VC I have been able to reduce my encounters with "some" to be so rare as to be a nonissue in my cycling.



Didn't you recently post about a car getting pulled over and "eductated" by the police officer? Didn't you support and try to improve that education?
Yes, it happens, like the geezer who honked at me and got pulled over by an officer, but those events are so rare (weeks if not months apart) that they do not affect me in terms of my enjoyment of cycling or choice to engage in it.




I think Randya's point was that, given the lack of airbags and rollbars on bicycles, repeatedly telling cyclists this point is of little value, if you are not also educating drivers.... do you disagree with this idea? Yes, I disagree with this idea, assuming "educating drivers" means "educating them more than they are already being educated today". Of course I believe drivers need education. But, based on how they drive everywhere I go, it seems like they are educated.

Cyclists, on the other hand, ride like they are not educated at all. If you pick car drivers at random, you can follow them for a long time, perhaps hours, maybe days, before they do something blatantly wrong. Most cyclists I observe do something wrong within minutes, if not seconds.

Relatively speaking, I believe there is very little room for improvement with education for car drivers, and huge amount of room for improvement with cyclists. I, for one, don't need the drivers out there to improve at all for me to be safe riding in traffic, even with my daugher on the trailercycle behind me.

VC is understanding that there is no need to reeducate motorists to clearly understand and observe #1 when it comes to cyclists on the road in order to cause drivers to treat a cyclist as if he is entitled to a "safety zone".

I'm fine with supplementing with driver education.
I take it that you are ok with supplementing driver education, not because it's needed, but because you don't see it as a bad thing. Am I correct?

I guess to know more conclusively where to best spend our resources to reduce cyclist death, we would need some statistics to show whether cyclist/auto collisions tend to be primarily caused by the car driver, or the cyclist. And then we would need to know whether the at-fault party's actions were contributed to by insufficient education on the rules. If, for example we found that most accidents were caused by uneducated cyclists, we would want to spend a greater share of our resources educating cyclists on the law. And if we found that it was car drivers, we would want to educate them, right?


Cyclists, on the other hand, ride like they are not educated at all.
Cyclists that read the VC subforum? Or cyclists on the road who don't likely read bicycle-related material online?

I certainly agree, by the way, that many cyclists seriously lack education. Dangerously so.

However, if you contend that it is the cyclists that are in the need of the most education, then you would likely also agree that it would be smart to determine two things: who needs it the most, and how to best reach those cyclists, right?

Now, generally, statistics show that the biggest risk factors are drunk cycling, wrong way cycling, not wearing lights at night. These are subjects on which there is consensus.

What percentage of the VC subforum do you imagine behave this way?

How can you better reach these cyclists with a campaign of education? Will having a VC class that a person seeks out (via internet search, or word of mouth at club rides) be likely to help the guy who rides his bike wrong way without lights because that's what he was told was safest by someone else?

Lane positioning is a much more subtle variable, compared to the above variables. Studies show very limited consensus, and only on a few ideas (like hugging the curb at intersections, adjacent MUPs with intersections). But when it comes to whether a foot or two left or right changes car driver behavior... it's speculative, and if we agree that it's useful, it's still a much smaller variable in the survival rate of a cyclist then the other above-mentioned variables. Do you agree or disagree?


By adopting VC I have been able to reduce my encounters with "some" to be so rare as to be a nonissue in my cycling.
I have been able to reduce mine. However, I have not been able to eliminate my encounters. I have done my share. I ride vc.

Of course, I continue to educate myself, because I hold my life as the most valuable to me. But if I am looking to save other cyclist's lives, I imagine I would get more bang-for-my-buck by finding some way to bring some education to the least educated and most dangerous cyclists.

And if I weren't willing to do this, I wouldn't consider myself an advocate at all. And if I were only willing to advocate things that made improvements to the fastest cyclists, or the ones with the lightest or most expensive bikes, then I would consider myself an elitist advocate. And if I only advocate things that improve my situation directly, I would consider myself a cyclist, not an advocate.

Or do you imagine that Bike Lanes are the primary cause of wrong way, unlit cyclists?

Cyclists, on the other hand, ride like they are not educated at all.......I, for one, don't need the drivers out there to improve at all for me to be safe riding in traffic, even with my daugher on the trailercycle behind me.


Ahhh, it's great to see HH back to his old habit of classifiying cyclists other then him and his cronies as uneducated morons who have no clue what they are doing. Also, do you really consider riding with your daughter in the trailer even close the same as riding solo? You are getting treated like a king out there compared to the rest of us with a kid next to you. If you think that cars treat people on bikes with kids in trailers even remotely the same as people on bikes without kids along for the ride..... then you aren't the right person to be telling me how to ride my bicycle.:rolleyes:

Ahhh, it's great to see HH back to his old habit of classifiying cyclists other then him and his cronies as uneducated morons who have no clue what they are doing. Also, do you really consider riding with your daughter in the trailer even close the same as riding solo? You are getting treated like a king out there compared to the rest of us with a kid next to you. If you think that cars treat people on bikes with kids in trailers even remotely the same as people on bikes without kids along for the ride..... then you aren't the right person to be telling me how to ride my bicycle.:rolleyes:
When I first started riding with a kid trailer, i noticed a marked change in treatment between solo riding and with-kid riding.

But now that I ride VC when solo, the difference is almost imperceptible, but that's because I now get treated so much better when riding solo. In fact, the worst treatment I've gotten in years happened a few weeks ago with daughter in tow. Luckily, a cop witnessed it and pulled over the guy.

I take it that you are ok with supplementing driver education, not because it's needed, but because you don't see it as a bad thing. Am I correct?
I don't know if it's "needed". That would require knowing how much improvement we could reasonably expect for X amount of education. My sense is it would not be significant. But, except for the cost, I don't see how it could hurt.


I guess to know more conclusively where to best spend our resources to reduce cyclist death, we would need some statistics to show whether cyclist/auto collisions tend to be primarily caused by the car driver, or the cyclist. And then we would need to know whether the at-fault party's actions were contributed to by insufficient education on the rules. If, for example we found that most accidents were caused by uneducated cyclists, we would want to spend a greater share of our resources educating cyclists on the law. And if we found that it was car drivers, we would want to educate them, right?
Yes.



Cyclists that read the VC subforum? Or cyclists on the road who don't likely read bicycle-related material online?

I don't know how cyclists on this forum ride. I do know that people who claim to understand and ride VC, often end up merging left much later than I do, etc. I do know people who get doored claim they weren't riding in the door zone. But I'm going by cyclists that I see.


I certainly agree, by the way, that many cyclists seriously lack education. Dangerously so.

However, if you contend that it is the cyclists that are in the need of the most education, then you would likely also agree that it would be smart to determine two things: who needs it the most, and how to best reach those cyclists, right?
I agree it would be smart to determine that, yes. However, it's not required. If all we can do for now is offer it to those who are willing and interested, then that's better than nothing.


Now, generally, statistics show that the biggest risk factors are drunk cycling, wrong way cycling, not wearing lights at night. These are subjects on which there is consensus.

What percentage of the VC subforum do you imagine behave this way?
Hopefully very little. But, again, I don't know.


How can you better reach these cyclists with a campaign of education? Will having a VC class that a person seeks out (via internet search, or word of mouth at club rides) be likely to help the guy who rides his bike wrong way without lights because that's what he was told was safest by someone else?
I believe we need a cultural change - in terms of how cyclists act and treated - before the ones who need it the most can probably be reached. In order to start bring about such a change, I suspect we probably need to convince people like members of this subforum that we need such a change. IThat's why it's frustrating to encounter so much resistance here.


Lane positioning is a much more subtle variable, compared to the above variables. Studies show very limited consensus, and only on a few ideas (like hugging the curb at intersections, adjacent MUPs with intersections). But when it comes to whether a foot or two left or right changes car driver behavior... it's speculative, and if we agree that it's useful, it's still a much smaller variable in the survival rate of a cyclist then the other above-mentioned variables. Do you agree or disagree?
It's probably a smaller variable, but I'm not convinced it's much smaller. It's a difficult issue to study, but, based on my own experience, I have no doubt that it has an enormous effect on how well a cyclist is noticed and treated, which I believe are important factors in determining cyclist safety.



I have been able to reduce mine. However, I have not been able to eliminate my encounters. I have done my share. I ride vc.
I have not had a close call - where I had to hit my brakes hard, yell, and/or swerve in order to avoid a crash with a car - since I adopted "Advanced VC" about 3 years ago (I've ridden per "basic VC" rules all of my adult life). Prior to that it seems to happen a few times a month.


Of course, I continue to educate myself, because I hold my life as the most valuable to me. But if I am looking to save other cyclist's lives, I imagine I would get more bang-for-my-buck by finding some way to bring some education to the least educated and most dangerous cyclists.
That's what I try to do. That's why, for example, I've been pushing real hard to get some door zone bike lanes near the local university (UCSD) widened so that it will be possible to ride within the bike lane and outside of the door zone. It's not for me (because I don't ride within the door zone regardless of where the stripe is pointed)!


And if I weren't willing to do this, I wouldn't consider myself an advocate at all. And if I were only willing to advocate things that made improvements to the fastest cyclists, or the ones with the lightest or most expensive bikes, then I would consider myself an elitist advocate. And if I only advocate things that improve my situation directly, I would consider myself a cyclist, not an advocate.
Agreed.


Or do you imagine that Bike Lanes are the primary cause of wrong way, unlit cyclists?
Nope.

In fact, the worst treatment I've gotten in years happened a few weeks ago with daughter in tow. Luckily, a cop witnessed it and pulled over the guy.

OK, that can happen anytime, but are you sure you get treated better solo or are you just MUCH more perceptive to your surroundings when your child is along for the ride and tend to notice the jerks more? I would wager a lot of money on that being the case.

I don't know
I'm asking you to make an educated guess. I'm asking you to use your head. What sort of relationship do you imagine there is between income, social status, education level attainment and internet access? What about relationships between income levels, social status, education level attainment and some of the more dangerous cycling behaviors, like wrong-way cycling, and unlit riding at night?

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/PED_BIKE/docs/03p00324/01.htm

http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/Latinos_Online_March_14_2007.pdf

For example, the first article points out that a disproportionate number of hispanic cyclists are killed in the US.
I would assume from your assertion that it is generally the cyclists who are at fault, that you would say that it is likely the same for this group of cyclists.

The second article points out how the internet usages of hispanics in the US is significantly lower then that of non-hispanic whites, and even non-hispanic blacks. So these cyclists, who are being killed more often then the likes of you or me, are also much less likely to be reading your articles.

Do you teach or attend classes, Helmet Head?
If so, what percentage would you say are hispanic? San Diego is 46% white, non-hispanic. How does this compare to class attendance? How many non-high school graduates, or people living below the poverty line do you see at class (irrespective of ethnicity)?

If you are interested in teaching a volunteer class that reaches out to the demographics in our shared city of San Diego that are killed the most disproportionately (and provided you would be willing to teach this as a basic safety/skills class that, focuses most on things like following the traffic law, proper lighting, how to ride predictably, and generally vehicularly, while saving the VC ideology for another occasion), I can help you as a translator and interpreter.

OK, that can happen anytime, but are you sure you get treated better solo or are you just MUCH more perceptive to your surroundings when your child is along for the ride and tend to notice the jerks more? I would wager a lot of money on that being the case.
I wish we could go for a ride together. To be more perceptive when my daughter is in tow would mean that I'm less perceptive when she's not in tow. I couldn't ride the way that I ride if I were less perceptive. In fact, since I tow her with my (relatively) heavy mountain bike, I'm significantly faster when solo on my road bike. This means I'm moving the speed of traffic more often and for longer periods, which means I'm transitioning much more often between being integrated and operating as a slow driver. I couldn't afford to be less perceptive to my surroundings.

I'm asking you to make an educated guess. I'm asking you to use your head. What sort of relationship do you imagine there is between income, social status, education level attainment and internet access? What about relationships between income levels, social status, education level attainment and some of the more dangerous cycling behaviors, like wrong-way cycling, and unlit riding at night?

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/PED_BIKE/docs/03p00324/01.htm

http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/Latinos_Online_March_14_2007.pdf

For example, the first article points out that a disproportionate number of hispanic cyclists are killed in the US.
I would assume from your assertion that it is generally the cyclists who are at fault, that you would say that it is likely the same for this group of cyclists.

The second article points out how the internet usages of hispanics in the US is significantly lower then that of non-hispanic whites, and even non-hispanic blacks. So these cyclists, who are being killed more often then the likes of you or me, are also much less likely to be reading your articles.

Do you teach or attend classes, Helmet Head?
If so, what percentage would you say are hispanic? San Diego is 46% white, non-hispanic. How does this compare to class attendance? How many non-high school graduates, or people living below the poverty line do you see at class (irrespective of ethnicity)?

If you are interested in teaching a volunteer class that reaches out to the demographics in our shared city of San Diego that are killed the most disproportionately (and provided you would be willing to teach this as a basic safety/skills class that, focuses most on things like following the traffic law, proper lighting, how to ride predictably, and generally vehicularly, while saving the VC ideology for another occasion), I can help you as a translator and interpreter.
I have not committed the time to teach yet. But there are other instructors going after this demographic in the county. If you're interested in helping, that would be great. PM me.

I'm asking you to make an educated guess. I'm asking you to use your head. What sort of relationship do you imagine there is between income, social status, education level attainment and internet access? What about relationships between income levels, social status, education level attainment and some of the more dangerous cycling behaviors, like wrong-way cycling, and unlit riding at night?

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/PED_BIKE/docs/03p00324/01.htm

http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/Latinos_Online_March_14_2007.pdf

For example, the first article points out that a disproportionate number of hispanic cyclists are killed in the US.
I would assume from your assertion that it is generally the cyclists who are at fault, that you would say that it is likely the same for this group of cyclists.

The second article points out how the internet usages of hispanics in the US is significantly lower then that of non-hispanic whites, and even non-hispanic blacks. So these cyclists, who are being killed more often then the likes of you or me, are also much less likely to be reading your articles.

Do you teach or attend classes, Helmet Head?
If so, what percentage would you say are hispanic? San Diego is 46% white, non-hispanic. How does this compare to class attendance? How many non-high school graduates, or people living below the poverty line do you see at class (irrespective of ethnicity)?

If you are interested in teaching a volunteer class that reaches out to the demographics in our shared city of San Diego that are killed the most disproportionately (and provided you would be willing to teach this as a basic safety/skills class that, focuses most on things like following the traffic law, proper lighting, how to ride predictably, and generally vehicularly, while saving the VC ideology for another occasion), I can help you as a translator and interpreter.

Your offer ought to be appreciated for what it is, helpful. However, I intend to discuss the other parts of your posting.

I think it unquestionable that, in our society, understanding proper cycling behavior is limited to a small group. That's obvious from just plain observation. It does little good to talk about internet access and suchlike means of communication, because the problem is with our society and its governments. Our society and its governments oppose vehicular cycling, so that the only people who discover proper cycling behavior are either some lucky ones whose experience has taught them, or others who have had contact with well-informed cyclists. In the case of immigrants, some from Europe already know and understand proper cycling behavior in a society in which proper driver behavior is expected. Immigrants from some other nations come from areas in which proper driver behavior is not the norm and in which cycling is also of low repute.

It will be impossible to reach the larger part of the American cycling public with the knowledge of proper cycling behavior unless and until our society and its governments support that behavior instead of opposing it. Until then, proper cycling behavior will be largely on the part of the enthusiasts.

I have not committed the time to teach yet.

I believe we need a cultural change - in terms of how cyclists act and treated - before the ones who need it the most can probably be reached. In order to start bring about such a change, I suspect we probably need to convince people like members of this subforum that we need such a change.
Just to make sure I'm clear.

Society needs to change, in the direction of improving how cyclists act and are treated, and educated literate cyclists need to change to agree that this change is needed, before it can happen. And that once that does happen, and only then, will we be able to reach the ones who are killed more often then cyclists like us in this subforum.

So we convice this subforum, and like minded cyclists, to agree that cyclists need to behave better, and be treated better.

Then society changes. This change happens as a product of cyclists behaving better, which leads to them being treated better (as in, not getting buzzed, and every now and then, getting killed).

Then we can reach those who were never educated about safe cycling and help them improve their behavior, which will lead to them being treated better (as in, getting buzzed and killed much more frequently). EDIT: typo correction: as in, not getting buzzed and killed much more frequently

I'm sorry that we've been holding you up, HH.

I agree that cyclists need to act better (when they are not following the law or proper safety), and that they need to be treated better.

Explain to me, please, how the fact that some don't agree with this is preventing us from reaching them?

Our society and its governments oppose vehicular cycling, so that the only people who discover proper cycling behavior are either some lucky ones whose experience has taught them, or others who have had contact with well-informed cyclists.
I believe that in most localities in the United States, it is against the law to ride against traffic, and it is required to have lights at night. These are two huge factors in cyclist mortality, are they not?


Immigrants from some other nations come from areas in which proper driver behavior is not the norm and in which cycling is also of low repute.
Right, for example, Mexico, where wrong-way cycling is often taught.

I would think that this would lead you to an idea that a wrong-way immigrant cyclist might just not be familiar with the local laws and safety, rather then having a death wish. What do you think?

In a hospital, it is typical to treat the patients who have a life threatening urgent problem before you give vitamins to guy that's in for a check up. This is hyperbole, but I'm making a point.

Don't you think that a person should learn to cycle the right way first, and then second, learn to, say, avoid the door zone?

Just to make sure I'm clear.

Society needs to change, in the direction of improving how cyclists act and are treated, and educated literate cyclists need to change to agree that this change is needed, before it can happen. And that once that does happen, and only then, will we be able to reach the ones who are killed more often then cyclists like us in this subforum.

So we convice this subforum, and like minded cyclists, to agree that cyclists need to behave better, and be treated better.

Then society changes. This change happens as a product of cyclists behaving better, which leads to them being treated better (as in, not getting buzzed, and every now and then, getting killed).

Then we can reach those who were never educated about safe cycling and help them improve their behavior, which will lead to them being treated better (as in, getting buzzed and killed much more frequently).

I'm sorry that we've been holding you up, HH.

I agree that cyclists need to act better (when they are not following the law or proper safety), and that they need to be treated better.

Explain to me, please, how the fact that some don't agree with this is preventing us from reaching them?


All good ideas, zeytoun, as are those in your next posting as well. And they would work in what one might call a social vacuum as far as cycling is concerned. However, that is not the case, and that is the reason why previous attempts have failed, and why vehicular cycling advocates have developed such a nasty name among both society at large and a large part of the cycling community. The reason is that our society and its governments actively oppose vehicular cycling and promote its opposite, cyclist-inferiority cycling on bikeways. As long as that activity continues, valuable cycling training will reach only the few. That is why it is supremely important to oppose and to discredit the cyclist-inferiority bikeway cycling program. Since we are dealing with a system that was invented, designed, and is funded by motorists for the convenience of motorists, and which has no scientific support, the appropriate way of attempting to correct it is by discrediting its scientific credibility.

All good ideas, zeytoun, as are those in your next posting as well. And they would work in what one might call a social vacuum as far as cycling is concerned. However, that is not the case, and that is the reason why previous attempts have failed, and why vehicular cycling advocates have developed such a nasty name among both society at large and a large part of the cycling community. The reason is that our society and its governments actively oppose vehicular cycling and promote its opposite, cyclist-inferiority cycling on bikeways. As long as that activity continues, valuable cycling training will reach only the few. That is why it is supremely important to oppose and to discredit the cyclist-inferiority bikeway cycling program. Since we are dealing with a system that was invented, designed, and is funded by motorists for the convenience of motorists, and which has no scientific support, the appropriate way of attempting to correct it is by discrediting its scientific credibility.
I for one don't see why we can't have both. I think on the 'scientific credibility' issue it is pretty much a toss up. Popular support, however, is quite another thing.

And b/t/w no one is more responsible for your nasty reputation than yourselves. Take some personal responsibility for once, for cryin' out loud! If you weren't so damn abrasive and abusive, more of us would be on your side.

Just to make sure I'm clear.

Society needs to change, in the direction of improving how cyclists act and are treated, and educated literate cyclists need to change to agree that this change is needed, before it can happen. And that once that does happen, and only then, will we be able to reach the ones who are killed more often then cyclists like us in this subforum.

So we convice this subforum, and like minded cyclists, to agree that cyclists need to behave better, and be treated better.

Then society changes. This change happens as a product of cyclists behaving better, which leads to them being treated better (as in, not getting buzzed, and every now and then, getting killed).

Then we can reach those who were never educated about safe cycling and help them improve their behavior, which will lead to them being treated better (as in, getting buzzed and killed much more frequently).
:eek: "Getting buzzed and killed much more frequently" is "being treated better"? What are you talking about? If that's supposed to be some kind of joke, I, for one, don't think it's funny.

The part you're missing is how the change in behavior in "educated literate cyclists" (your term) serves as an example to those more difficult to reach.


I'm sorry that we've been holding you up, HH.

I agree that cyclists need to act better (when they are not following the law or proper safety), and that they need to be treated better.

Explain to me, please, how the fact that some don't agree with this is preventing us from reaching them?
Because it hinders making progress on efforts to make advocacy groups be much more about advocating vehicular cycling for all cyclists who ride on roadways rather than being mostly about promoting bike lanes.

Since we are dealing with a system that was invented, designed, and is funded by motorists for the convenience of motorists, and which has no scientific support, the appropriate way of attempting to correct it is by discrediting its scientific credibility.

Boy you need to get together with Helmet Head... he doesn't feel this way at all.

You seem to be stating that the roads, their design, and everything dealing with them are motorist centric, or auto centric...

Helmet Head says just the opposite.

Of course JF also states that the users of the road share responsiblities on that road; Helmet Head again disagrees with you.

I believe that in most localities in the United States, it is against the law to ride against traffic, and it is required to have lights at night. These are two huge factors in cyclist mortality, are they not?


Right, for example, Mexico, where wrong-way cycling is often taught.

I would think that this would lead you to an idea that a wrong-way immigrant cyclist might just not be familiar with the local laws and safety, rather then having a death wish. What do you think?

In a hospital, it is typical to treat the patients who have a life threatening urgent problem before you give vitamins to guy that's in for a check up. This is hyperbole, but I'm making a point.

Don't you think that a person should learn to cycle the right way first, and then second, learn to, say, avoid the door zone?

The real problem with your metaphor is that no one is bringing in the most "critical" cyclist "patients" for treatment, and only those cyclist "patients" that just want some vitamins, are the only ones that are even aware that a "doctor" exists. In fact, those critical cyclist "patients" probably don't even go to the most remote "clinics" (bike shops) where if it were available (it isn't) they could learn about the proper way to ride.

On the other hand, putting arrows on bike lanes and making sure the signs are facing the right way may reach some of those "paitents" that are not even aware that a "hospital" or a "sickness" exists.

That is why it is supremely important to oppose and to discredit the cyclist-inferiority bikeway cycling program. Since we are dealing with a system that was invented, designed, and is funded by motorists for the convenience of motorists, and which has no scientific support, the appropriate way of attempting to correct it is by discrediting its scientific credibility.
Boy you need to get together with Helmet Head... he doesn't feel this way at all.

You seem to be stating that the roads, their design, and everything dealing with them are motorist centric, or auto centric...

Helmet Head says just the opposite.

Of course JF also states that the users of the road share responsiblities on that road; Helmet Head again disagrees with you. Please tell me you're kidding about not realizing that Mr. Forester is referring to the bikeway system (a.k.a. the "cyclist-inferiority bikeway cycling program"), not the roadway system, when he writes of a "system that was invented, designed, and is funded by motorists for the convenience of motorists".

Please tell me you're kidding about not realizing that Mr. Forester is referring to the bikeway system, not the roadway system, when he writes of a "system that was invented, designed, and is funded by motorists for the convenience of motorists".

I think mr Forester is writing about the entire system that motorists use...

I noticed you didn't touch the responsiblity issue...

I think mr Forester is writing about the entire system that motorists use... What makes you think that? Why do you think he's referring with "system" to anything other than the "cyclist-inferiority bikeway cycling program" that he mentions in the previous sentence? Why leap to thinking he is referring to "the entire system that motorists use"? I'm just trying to get some insight in why you interpret words in various contexts the way that you do.


I noticed you didn't touch the responsiblity issue... You mean this:



Of course JF also states that the users of the road share responsiblities on that road; Helmet Head again disagrees with you. I don't disagree with that!!! Of course all drivers share [legal] responsiblities on the road.

I simply agree with Robert Hurst: that we should not hold others practically responsible for our own safety; that we should hoard responsibility for our own safety.

Boy you need to get together with Helmet Head... he doesn't feel this way at all.

You seem to be stating that the roads, their design, and everything dealing with them are motorist centric, or auto centric...

Helmet Head says just the opposite.

Of course JF also states that the users of the road share responsiblities on that road; Helmet Head again disagrees with you.

Don't be silly. I was writing specifically about the bikeway system. I do know how to write.

What makes you think that? Why do you think he's referring with "system" to anything other than the "cyclist-inferiority bikeway cycling program" that he mentions in the previous sentence? Why leap to thinking he is referring to "the entire system that motorists use"? I'm just trying to get some insight in why you interpret words in various contexts the way that you do.

You mean this:

I don't disagree with that!!! Of course all drivers share [legal] responsiblities on the road.

I simply agree with Robert Hurst: that we should not hold others practically responsible for our own safety; that we should hoard responsibility for our own safety.

I mean specifically this:
The rules of the road have been designed for all to use in a way that justifies the distribution of responsibilities in a reasonably fair and safe way.
From http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=4416797&postcount=47

John does not differentiate drivers from other users of the road in his admonition that responsiblities are shared by all.


My other comment is regarding the design of roads being auto centric... you have stated you do not believe they are... and yet here comes JF pointing out the very thing you detest the most (bike lanes) are indeed an auto centric design "feature."

Which begs the issue... if roads were not auto centric, then they would never have bike lanes.

zeytoun wrote: "Then we can reach those who were never educated about safe cycling and help them improve their behavior, which will lead to them being treated better (as in, getting buzzed and killed much more frequently)."

The claim that operating in the vehicular manner will result "in getting buzzed and killed much more frequently" is the typical claim of those who oppose vehicular cycling and are afraid of traffic, as in the cyclist-inferiority fear.

I mean specifically this:
From http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=4416797&postcount=47

John does not differentiate drivers from other users of the road in his admonition that responsiblities are shared by all.
Nor do I. What's your point?

I agree all legal responsibility is shared by all road users.
At the same time, I recommend that no one, no matter whether they are ped, bicyclist, or car driver, make others practically responsible for their safety.


My other comment is regarding the design of roads being auto centric... you have stated you do not believe they are... and yet here comes JF pointing out the very thing you detest the most (bike lanes) are indeed an auto centric design "feature."

Which begs the issue... if roads were not auto centric, then they would never have bike lanes. I have spoken in general about road designs being designed for drivers operating by the vehicular rules of the road (not necessarily for "autos"), and that, because of that, they're great for bicycling.

If have also written countless times about how bike lanes are an abomination to that: that, at intersections, they encourage behavior contrary to the vehicular rules of the road, for auto drivers as well as for bicyclists. Remember?

Nor do I. What's your point?

I agree all legal responsibility is shared by all road users.
At the same time, I recommend that no one, no matter whether they are ped, bicyclist, or car driver, make others practically responsible for their safety.

I have spoken in general about road designs being designed for drivers operating by the vehicular rules of the road (not necessarily for "autos"), and that, because of that, they're great for bicycling.

If have also written countless times about how bike lanes are an abomination to that: that, at intersections, they encourage behavior contrary to the vehicular rules of the road, for auto drivers as well as for bicyclists. Remember?

And yet you deny that road design is auto centric...

Yeah your comment about drivers operating according to the rules of the road... right nice cop out.

No roads are designed for automobiles, and rights make cyclists equal. Written rights, not the design of the road.

I mean specifically this:
From http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=4416797&postcount=47

John does not differentiate drivers from other users of the road in his admonition that responsiblities are shared by all.


My other comment is regarding the design of roads being auto centric... you have stated you do not believe they are... and yet here comes JF pointing out the very thing you detest the most (bike lanes) are indeed an auto centric design "feature."

Which begs the issue... if roads were not auto centric, then they would never have bike lanes.

More damned argumentation about nothing but words in the effort to discredit vehicular cycling. Such argumentation gives me a pain, but I feel that it needs to be discussed. "Auto-centric"? What does that mean? I would say that, at least since 1920, American roads have been built to accommodate motor traffic. Is that auto-centrism? I suppose so. However, that does not mean that American roads were built to accommodate only motor traffic, which is a different statement altogether. And it is a fact that the American road system, built to accommodate motor traffic, existed for fifty years without bike lanes. Does that mean that that road system was not auto-centric? If that has any meaning at all. And then, motorists invented, designed, and paid for bikeways, including bike lanes, to improve the convenience of motoring; in fact, to push bicycle traffic to the side, without regard to the safety or convenience of cyclists. If auto-centric refers to the ability of motorists to have their way, then bike lanes are certainly auto-centric features.

I repeat, the whole line of argument is worthless hot air and buzzing electrons about the meaning of words that have no meaning, all in the effort to discredit vehicular cycling. Since that's all that vehicular cycling's opponents can manage, their efforts ought to be consigned to the trash, but they won't accept that.

The real problem with your metaphor is that no one is bringing in the most "critical" cyclist "patients" for treatment, and only those cyclist "patients" that just want some vitamins, are the only ones that are even aware that a "doctor" exists. In fact, those critical cyclist "patients" probably don't even go to the most remote "clinics" (bike shops) where if it were available (it isn't) they could learn about the proper way to ride.

On the other hand, putting arrows on bike lanes and making sure the signs are facing the right way may reach some of those "paitents" that are not even aware that a "hospital" or a "sickness" exists.
Agreed. There needs to be both physical infrastructure (signs, etc) and educational infrastructure.


The part you're missing is how the change in behavior in "educated literate cyclists" (your term) serves as an example to those more difficult to reach.
The part you're missing is how not everyone you ride by will think of you as an "example". Why should they? You're just some club racer in full kit on a fancy road bike. Why would you think they would just look at you and assume, "I should ride more like him?" Do you see other cyclists riding differently then you and suddenly decide to adopt their styles?

Maybe what your missing is that peer pressure and the power of example has the greatest effect when the parties are similar to each other. A small group of minority transportational cyclists could do much more benefit, then you whizzing by in the lane.


Because it hinders making progress on efforts to make advocacy groups be much more about advocating vehicular cycling for all cyclists who ride on roadways rather than being mostly about promoting bike lanes.
Try finding common goals, and see how much progress you make. It takes two to tango m'bucko.


The claim that operating in the vehicular manner will result "in getting buzzed and killed much more frequently" is the typical claim of those who oppose vehicular cycling and are afraid of traffic, as in the cyclist-inferiority fear.
A typo. My apologies. (should read "not getting buzzed and killed more frequently) I corrected the original post.

My overall point, is that it is much more important to get the highest number of cyclists riding generally vehicularly (right direction, off the sidewalks if faster then walking/jogging, well lit at night), then it is to get the already generally vehicular cyclists to move out a few inches from the door zone.

The part you're missing is how not everyone you ride by will think of you as an "example". Why should they? You're just some club racer in full kit on a fancy road bike. Why would you think they would just look at you and assume, "I should ride more like him?" Do you see other cyclists riding differently then you and suddenly decide to adopt their styles?

Maybe what your missing is that peer pressure and the power of example has the greatest effect when the parties are similar to each other. A small group of minority transportational cyclists could do much more benefit, then you whizzing by in the lane.



If we can get the roadies in kits to provide good examples, they will also provide good examples when riding they're utility bikes in plain clothes.

I ride my mountain bike in plain clothes pulling my daughter.

I ride my mountain bike in plain clothes pulling my daughter.
Cool beans, yo. And do you have any anecdote of someone following your example from seeing the way you ride?

Cool beans, yo. And do you have any anecdote of someone following your example from seeing the way you ride?
Not sure. At this point, if someone sees just one cyclist doing that, he might be seen as an oddball. I do believe we need to get large numbers of cyclists riding vehicularly before we can expect the cascade effect to commence.

Having said that, I have had someone complement me on how I was operating the tandem (pulling the trailercycle) "like a car", with respect to a midblock left turn on a 4-lane road.

do believe we need to get large numbers of cyclists riding vehicularly before we can expect the cascade effect to commence.
Do you mean large as a percentage of total cyclists?

Agreed. There needs to be both physical infrastructure (signs, etc) and educational infrastructure.


The part you're missing is how not everyone you ride by will think of you as an "example". Why should they? You're just some club racer in full kit on a fancy road bike. Why would you think they would just look at you and assume, "I should ride more like him?" Do you see other cyclists riding differently then you and suddenly decide to adopt their styles?

Maybe what your missing is that peer pressure and the power of example has the greatest effect when the parties are similar to each other. A small group of minority transportational cyclists could do much more benefit, then you whizzing by in the lane.

Try finding common goals, and see how much progress you make. It takes two to tango m'bucko.

My overall point, is that it is much more important to get the highest number of cyclists riding generally vehicularly (right direction, off the sidewalks if faster then walking/jogging, well lit at night), then it is to get the already generally vehicular cyclists to move out a few inches from the door zone.


This could be a reasonable discussion. How best to get more people using bicycle transportation properly? I take it that you are advancing the argument that bike lanes persuade people who have been riding on sidewalks to ride on the roadway instead. Short-term benefit but long-term loss.

Any person who is persuaded by a bike-lane stripe to switch from the sidewalk to the bike lane must be motivated by some belief. So far as I have read, only two beliefs have been advanced to explain such a switch. One is that cyclists are not wanted, or even allowed, on roadways, but that the bike-lane stripe grants social or legal permission. The other is that the bike-lane stripe protects the cyclist, especially this beginning cyclist, from the dangers of motor traffic. We know that both of these beliefs are false. But, false or not, we have just raised another cyclist who has had his initial false view confirmed by government action, another person who will be more difficult to persuade to ride properly. That's the long-term loss that makes further improvement more difficult.