Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Has the zealocy of "VC Advocates" shaped your opinion?

Examples of cycling being accepted, or vehicular cycling being accepted?

The 1,500 or so motorists that I pass and share the roads with each and every day that treat me like I am one of them, or at least respect me enough to cede ROW to me when ROW is mine instead of treating me like a child on a toy or a bothersome "thing" that is in their way. If only one person a day were to say something cross to me, and usually it is less, then that is 1 in 1500, which shoes me that my vehicular cycling is being excepted by the public.
The police officer that saw someone almost right hook me and chase them down so that he could give them an earful for not watching what they were doing shows that at least some of the government people accept it.
Add these examples to the fact that we have laws to protect cyclists is enough to show me that it is accepted.



That's a pet theory of mine, and a side issue besides (the much more important reasons to ride further left have to do with potential hazards up ahead, not behind). Please don't confuse it with VC.

It's hard not to confuse it with VC when you are the one talking about it.
It's like this, you start a thread to define VC, you even say you are redefining VC and you say that you have the right to do so. Then you start talking about the riding on the shoulder thing... how can one not be expected to confuse the two? A preacher can not stand at the pulpit and talk bad about having snowball fights and call them evil and not expect his listeners to believe that the he is not talking about the religeon itself.



Confidence and attitude are intrinsically connected. Gaining confidence change's one's attitude.

My attitude has not changed in 20 years. I'm still the same smart ass I have always been. But 20 years ago I'd not have the cycling confidence to ride in traffic. That's more of a joke than a statistical fact so please don't comment on it. But I know that my attitude since I began cycling in traffic has not changed, so from my experiece alone I must disagree with you.



Motorist superiority is the flipside of the cyclist inferiority coin: same thing.

I said motor traffic, not the people in the vehicles themselves. Please don't confuse the two. And the other side of the coin better have some extra room because motorists and cyclists are not the only two groups out there. And every other group treats the motor vehicle traffic as superior as well. Equestrians avoid motor traffic, pedestrians run as they cross the street, most cyclists would rather not be near motor traffic, etc. etc.



I'm unclear on what the real significant differences are.
The real significant differences are that the "others" do not need to argue that they are right. They do not need to belittle everyone else. They do not need recognition as supreme cyclists. They do not need to create psychological diagnosis of people that do not agree with things they say. They do not need to argue every single point until there is nothing left to argue about and everyone has forgotten just what in the hell they were talking about in the first place.
The "others" are out there, day after day, year after year, in all weather in all times of days, riding by themselves or with others, in traffic jams, on open roads, making due with every tool they have in the cycling toolbox. And they do not need to stroke their own egos or have people acknowledge that they are somehow great for doing what they do, they just do it and shut the hell up about it.

In that case, your feeling is irrelevant to the discussion.
I'm not going to further comment on this statement. I've been civil thus far and am not going to change that now.
Just know that the tone of this post, although it can be misinterpeted 100 different ways, is one of the reasons this thread lives in the first place.

The other day I was waiting for the light in the left turn lane. The light turned green, I turned left, then signaled right and turned right into a driveway. Whoever was behind me at the light followed me in to where I was going. When we both arrived inside, she said she wished all the cyclists rode as safely as me.

There is support out there for vehicular cycling. But you anti-facilities people mistake bike lanes for a lack of support, and mistake bike lanes for a lack of vehicular cycling.

If you would just divorce the anti-facilities stuff from your VC stuff your VC stuff would be well-recieved. Unfortunately your fearful and angry emotional responses, based upon past failures and ego stuff, cloud your judgment and ability to see rationally that one can ride safely and vehicularly on a street with bike lanes, and at least some motorists will support you no matter whether you are in the bike lane or not, so long as you are being lawful and safe.

The way you guys liberally and consistently make literal interpretations out of context in order to make irrelevant points is uncanny.

No one says pj7's feelings (plural) are irrelevant.

Mr. Forester said one particular feeling -- that motor "vehicles themselves are inferior and superior respectively just by the shear numbers, mass in size, and damage that they can cause" -- is irrelevant to this discussion about whether cyclists -- the people -- are equal, inferior or superior to motorists.

This, by the way, is one of the problems with anthropomorphizing cars, and talking about "cars and bikes driving on the road" rather than motorists and cyclists on the road.

No one claims that cars are equal to bikes!

But it's important to remember that it's not cars driving down the road, it's motorists.

Do you really think that the person behind the handlebars thinks that he as a person is somehow lesser of a person or inferior to the person behind the wheel? I doubt that, I really do. But I would still like to know for sure how you feel on that.
Just because someone were to stay away from motor traffic does not mean that they think that the person behind the wheel of the car is somehow superior to them. It only means that they acknowledge that the vehicle is a superior one and capable of causing great bodily damage and they would just as soon
avoid being around them than exercising their rights. There is no cyclist inferiority syndrome, diagnosed or undiagnosed. [b]No one out there in the real world on a bicycle feels that they are less of a person and inferior to the people behind the wheels of vehicles.[/i]

Some things are relevant to the discussion of the proper way to cycle in traffic, and some things are irrelevant. The subject should be factual, not emotional. Therefore, feelings are irrelevant.

Why?

It seems, Mr. Forster, that you will only allow some of the relevent facts into the discussion. Perhaps there is a difference of opinion about what is relevent and what is not, but a difference of opinion is not a license to censure.

Well this is the zealotry thread, Brian...one of the cardinal rules of zealotry is to keep the discussion framed within their narrow comfort zone.

It seems, Mr. Forster, that you will only allow some of the relevent facts into the discussion. Perhaps there is a difference of opinion about what is relevent and what is not, but a difference of opinion is not a license to censure.

Then make a reasonable argument why you think that some line of discussion is relevant to discussion of the best method of cycling in traffic.

Then make a reasonable argument why you think that some line of discussion is relevant to discussion of the best method of cycling in traffic.

How can I do this if I am met, repeatably, with brushoff comments and ridicule? And if "reasonable argument" is defined soley by you, then it is impossible to take you seriously. You will only entertain as "reasonable" those arguments which you agree with. Which makes discussions with you (and this applies to HH as well, who adopts your MO) either an exercise in stonewalling, circular quibbling and insults or of meaningless pats on the back.

But, hey, it's no skin off my nose. But you isolate yourself when you do this. It is quite obvious that you don't hold all the answers (what single human can?), and when you pretend you do, it makes you look ridiculous. You've had 30 years to popularize VC. You've done a good job with the techniques, they are almost universal here in Portland, but your politics are almost universially rejected by mainstream bicycling/ist (you need the distinction here, but only you) advocacy.

Then make a reasonable argument why you think that some line of discussion is relevant to discussion of the best method of cycling in traffic.

That's just it......the discussion was in relation to the question {does the antics of the messenger have any adverse effect on the message**, not what is the best method of cycling in traffic.
I guess trying to change the subject or divert it is easier than addressing the question at hand.

In my oppinion this thread could have been used to bring sides closer together......but.......ohh well.
pj7 was telling you how to better reach us as a group of cyclist, but you chose to ignore.

That's just it......the discussion was in relation to the question {does the antics of the messenger have any adverse effect on the message**, not what is the best method of cycling in traffic.
I guess trying to change the subject or divert it is easier than addressing the question at hand.
Welcome to the Wonderful World Of VC Forester Brand Advocacy (AKA Zealocy/Sophistry). If you waiting for a rational discussion from Forester Brand "VC Advocates" you better stock up on provisions, you'll be waiting a looooong time.

How is belittling, ridiculing, diagnosing and otherwise disparaging those with whom you disagree not an expression of emotion?

How is belittling, ridiculing, diagnosing and otherwise disparaging those with whom you disagree not an expression of emotion?
When it is done in the name of VC Advocacy and claimed to be something else.

Obeying all traffic laws, taking the lane when necessary (either due to a narrow lane or a left merge), using hand signals/backward glances/lane position to signal intent -- these are all things that work well for me. Most of this is a generalization from driver training. On the other hand, it's often faster to bypass the road grid (with stoplights every few hundred feet) and take one of the bike trails around here. They are also relaxing and scenic.

The "VC advocates" seem to be interested in using bikes for trips of more than five miles, live in areas where driving is faster and more convenient than cycling, even for short trips, think that the demise of the "normal bike" (the so-called "cruiser") and the English three speed is a good thing, and view cycling as primarily a sport. I can relate to this, because my attitude toward cars and driving pretty much parallels roadies' attitude toward bikes and cycling, and because running culture is reasonably close to cycling culture. I don't share the advocates' situation and many of their perspectives, but this is no reason for me to oppose them or dislike them.

I don't feel any hostility toward either camp. I would enjoy reading the debate more if everyone refrained from ad hominum attacks. Such attacks do not seem to be advocacy, and have no safety value for me.

Paul

How is belittling, ridiculing, diagnosing and otherwise disparaging those with whom you disagree not an expression of emotion?

When it is based on facts and reason.

How is belittling, ridiculing, diagnosing and otherwise disparaging those with whom you disagree not an expression of emotion?


When it is based on facts and reason.
Perfect! Are any more responses really necessary to definitively answer the OP?

The police officer that saw someone almost right hook me and chase them down... Have you written about this? The details? If so, where?

If not, what were the circumstances (# lanes of each type, bike lane?, where you were positioned, where the right hooker was, etc.).





This, by the way, is one of the problems with anthropomorphizing cars, and talking about "cars and bikes driving on the road" rather than motorists and cyclists on the road.
...
But it's important to remember that it's not cars driving down the road, it's motorists?
Do you really think that the person behind the handlebars thinks that he as a person is somehow lesser of a person or inferior to the person behind the wheel?
No, and that's my point: He's anthropomorphizing the cars, and naturally feeling inferior to them.

That's why part of VC is learning to avoid thinking that way. I might slip once in a while (and use the anthropomorphizing language of someone I'm talking to), but I'll bet you won't find Mr. Forester ever slipping. Yesterday up in the A&S forum (link (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=4436985&postcount=8)) someone asked for comments on something they were writing, and my revision included de-anthropomorphizing the language). To ride vehicularly consistently and instinctively, your paradigm really has to be "it's me and drivers just like me" out there, as opposed to "it's me vs. the cars".

Obeying all traffic laws, taking the lane when necessary (either due to a narrow lane or a left merge), using hand signals/backward glances/lane position to signal intent -- these are all things that work well for me. Most of this is a generalization from driver training. On the other hand, it's often faster to bypass the road grid (with stoplights every few hundred feet) and take one of the bike trails around here. They are also relaxing and scenic.

The "VC advocates" seem to be interested in using bikes for trips of more than five miles, live in areas where driving is faster and more convenient than cycling, even for short trips, think that the demise of the "normal bike" (the so-called "cruiser") and the English three speed is a good thing, and view cycling as primarily a sport. I can relate to this, because my attitude toward cars and driving pretty much parallels roadies' attitude toward bikes and cycling, and because running culture is reasonably close to cycling culture. I don't share the advocates' situation and many of their perspectives, but this is no reason for me to oppose them or dislike them.

I don't feel any hostility toward either camp. I would enjoy reading the debate more if everyone refrained from ad hominum attacks. Such attacks do not seem to be advocacy, and have no safety value for me.

Paul
VC does not require following all traffic laws. In particular, it calls for violating laws when following the laws themselves causes behavior inconsistent with normal vehicular behavior. The most obvious example is when the law requires bike lane use, but the bike lane is to the right of a right-only or straight-or-right lane.

VC does not call for avoiding bike paths, it simply does not apply there, since the vehicular rules of the road do not apply on bike paths (though of course it's still probably best to "drive on the right" and "do not go too fast for conditions", etc.). VC is about how to behave when riding on roads (including transitioning from paths to roads and vice versa).

When it is based on facts and reason.
Look kids, the serpent is holding his tail and forming a circle!!!

:lol:

No, and that's my point: He's anthropomorphizing the cars, and naturally feeling inferior to them.

That's why part of VC is learning to avoid thinking that way. I might slip once in a while (and use the anthropomorphizing language of someone I'm talking to), but I'll bet you won't find Mr. Forester ever slipping. Yesterday up in the A&S forum (link (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=4436985&postcount=8)) someone asked for comments on something they were writing, and my revision included de-anthropomorphizing the language). To ride vehicularly consistently and instinctively, your paradigm really has to be "it's me and drivers just like me" out there, as opposed to "it's me vs. the cars".

:roflmao:

it keeps getting better and better!
you don't deny the inferiority of bikes to motor vehicles in size, weight and speed do you?

you don't deny the inferiority of bikes to motor vehicles in size, weight and speed do you? I do deny the inferiority of bikes to motor vehicles in size, weight and speed. Depending on the context, the smaller size, and lower weight and speed often makes bikes superior to motor vehicles.

It's a difference, of course, but I honestly don't see it as a difference that is inherently inferior.

"Inferior" is a value judgment and requires context to evaluate.

The obvious differences between cars and bikes can be advantages or disadvantages, going either way, depending on the context.

Even in the context of "crash", the valuation is not clear, since cyclists are usually traveling significantly slower than cars, so their likelihood of being involved in a crash is lower than it would be if they were going faster, and the impact of the crash is lower than it would be if they were going faster. On the other hand, cars, of course, have a lot of mass, as well as seatbelts, airbags, etc., protecting the occupants that bicyclists and motorcyclists don't have.

In the end, though, it's still a difference, and not of one being inferior or superior to the other.

In the end, though, it's still a difference, and not of one being inferior or superior to the other.
But you do believe in the 'cyclist inferiority syndrome', yes?

:rolleyes:


:lol:

But you do believe in the 'cyclist inferiority syndrome', yes?

:rolleyes:


:lol: syndrome (http://m-w.com/dictionary/syndrome) - a group of signs and symptoms that occur together and characterize a particular abnormality or condition.

I do believe a group of signs and symptoms that occur together and characterize the particular condition of an irrational fear about riding bikes in traffic can be found in many people, if that's what you mean. Why is that funny?

Off the top of my head, some of the signs and symptoms that probably characterize the "cyclist inferiority syndrome", so defined, include:
the use of anthropomorphizing language with respect to automobiles in the context of thinking, talking and writing about bicycling on roads.
expressing the notion, one way or another, that bicyclists have an obligation to not delay motorists.
expressing the idea that bicyclists need or require "their own space" on the road - implying a separate space that is generally not used by motorists.
riding in a manner, or writing about bicycle riding in a manner, that puts inordinate emphasis on staying out of the way of same direction motor traffic and not nearly enough attention to potential crossing conflicts up ahead.
expressing the idea/belief/notion that it is simply too dangerous to ride a bike in modern traffic conditions on roads designed for car and truck drivers, not for bicyclists.

If you still don't know why it's funny, you're not paying attention.

Are you suggesting there is humorous irony or hypocrisy in denying that bikes are not inferior to cars, but believing that the cyclist inferiority syndrome exists?

:roflmao:

it keeps getting better and better!
you don't deny the inferiority of bikes to motor vehicles in size, weight and speed do you?

So what? That has nothing to do with our discussion, which concerns the relationship between cyclists and motorists.

However, the size, weight, and speed of motor vehicles has always been advanced by the "bike safety" people and others like them as dictating that cyclists must not operate in the vehicular manner. That's a fact of history. The answer to that argument is that the rules of the road are set up to avoid, among other things, collisions between these potentially deadly vehicles. Therefore, the rules of the road protect cyclists just as well.

Rando writes as if he has heard of the size, weight, and speed argument but has never understood its lack of relevance to vehicular cycling and the motives of those who have made it.

I think it is relevant to get your reactions to this concept because it gives an idea of how delusional you two really are.

I think it is relevant to get your reactions to this concept because it gives an idea of how delusional you two really are.

You have had my reaction. Now please inform us of yours. Precisely, in what way do you violate the rules of the road because motor vehicles are heavier, larger, and faster than you on your bike?

How is belittling, ridiculing, diagnosing and otherwise disparaging those with whom you disagree not an expression of emotion?



When it is based on facts and reason.


Look kids, the serpent is holding his tail and forming a circle!!!

:lol:


BELITTLE to express a low opinion of. BELITTLE usually suggests a contemptuous or envious attitude

ridicule to make an object of laughter of. RIDICULE implies a deliberate often malicious belittling

malice desire to cause pain, injury, or distress to another

disparagement, dispraise
the act of speaking contemptuously of

contempt, disdain, scorn, despite
lack of respect accompanied by a feeling of intense dislike; "he was held in contempt";

The man's "facts" carry quite a strong taint of emotion. Not too objective. I suppose if one repressed one's emotions with liberal applications of latinate words and the passive voice, some people won't notice said "facts" for the angry feelings they truly represent.

angry feelings they truly represent.
It is difficult to get an accurate appraisal of someone in a forum like this. if you met Mr. Forester in person you'd see immediately that his driving emotion is not anger. If you can imagine Santa Claus dressed in lycra, that would be pretty close.

if you met Mr. Forester in person you'd see immediately that his driving emotion is not anger. If you can imagine Santa Claus dressed in lycra, that would be pretty close.
Can't imagine it, but I can imagine him petting you on the head for your servile devotion.

if you met Mr. Forester in person you'd see immediately that his driving emotion is not anger. If you can imagine Santa Claus dressed in lycra, that would be pretty close.
If he's wearing lycra, I ain't sitting on his lap. I need something at least as thick as velvet.

BELITTLE to express a low opinion of. BELITTLE usually suggests a contemptuous or envious attitude

ridicule to make an object of laughter of. RIDICULE implies a deliberate often malicious belittling

malice desire to cause pain, injury, or distress to another

disparagement, dispraise
the act of speaking contemptuously of

contempt, disdain, scorn, despite
lack of respect accompanied by a feeling of intense dislike; "he was held in contempt";

The man's "facts" carry quite a strong taint of emotion. Not too objective. I suppose if one repressed one's emotions with liberal applications of latinate words and the passive voice, some people won't notice said "facts" for the angry feelings they truly represent.

Me, angry at your foolish comments? Don't be so silly. In plain fact. so many of the views that you have expressed regarding bicycle transportation are foolish. It is necessary to identify them as such, less others be mislead. And do not think that I am selecting you for particularly biting treatment; a great many others have been making as foolish claims for decades. I am quite used to reading such.

And do not think that I am selecting you for particularly biting treatment; a great many others have been making as foolish claims for decades. I am quite used to reading such.
He isn't prejudiced.............he hates everyone! Well.............except for HH of coarse.

Writing of me:


He isn't prejudiced.............he hates everyone! Well.............except for HH of coarse.

Again, don't be so silly. Or is this the demonstration that you can't be serious? It has been my point all along that there is good evidence for vehicular cycling, and no significant evidence for bikeways, or for any other method of operation on the roadway. If people like you were not in political power with respect to bicycle transportation, you would be laughingstock, but as it is, we vehicular cyclists have to deal with you. Exasperated we might be at your intransigence against facts and reason, but hate? Not quite, although you seem to be trying hard to get us to develop it.

How is belittling, ridiculing, diagnosing and otherwise disparaging those with whom you disagree not an expression of emotion?

True, he does seem a bit emotional and irrational at times, doesn't he? Maybe he just needs a hug. :D

He isn't prejudiced.............he hates everyone! Well.............except for HH of coarse.
Just wait til HH says anything that casts doubt on anything from JF. Granted you might have to wait for snow balls in Hades, but if it happens, JF will turn on him like a snake.

Just wait til HH says anything that casts doubt on anything from JF. Granted you might have to wait for snow balls in Hades, but if it happens, JF will turn on him like a snake.
I've been on your biting end a few times, ILTB.

I've been on your biting end a few times, ILTB.

Yeah, but ILTB is an equal opportunity biter ;D

Yeah, but ILTB is an equal opportunity biter ;D
Sure. Everybody here is.

Sure. Everybody here is.
But some of us here are more equal than others. If I bite at you, you can bet you deserved it.:)

:)

The police officer that saw someone almost right hook me and chase them down...

Have you written about this? The details? If so, where?

No, I have never mentioned it on here before. I don't bring up everything that happens to me on my commute... unless it's funny or overly interesting.



If not, what were the circumstances (# lanes of each type, bike lane?, where you were positioned, where the right hooker was, etc.).

There was no bike lane, as I've said before we have no bike lanes here and I have actually never been in a bike lane.
I was riding north bound on a residential street. This would have been in either late November or Early December as it was during the time of "no on-street parking parking" and was before the new year. (No parking is allowed on-street due to snow removal)
I was about 10 feet from the curb placing me just left of the right tire track. I was aproaching a yield sign and was slowing down. Mr. I-Have-A-Hummer-To-Make-Up-For-My-Small-Manhood aparantly felt unobliged to wait behind me so he crossed the center line to my left about 15 feet before the sign. Since there was no oposing traffic he proceded to turn right in front of me. He did not use a turn signal so I assumed he was going straight and just wanted to share the lane with me. I actually had to put my arm out in front of me (and sort of to the left) to brace myself against his SUV so as to not hit it with my bike.
A police officer was coming up right behind us, I saw him in my mirror but Mr. 'Small-Manhood seemed not to have. As soon as this happened he lit up and pulled up beside me. I had stopped right at the sign because I was about to fall down and yelled out his window "follow me" and proceded to turn right in front of me and go after the guy.
By the time I caught up to them the officer was already at the guys window and I heard him saying "yielding applies to all vehicles who have the right of way before you, not just coming from other directions". I had a **** eating grin on my face at hearing this and stopped behind the Hummer nad next to the police car.
The cop walked back to me, asked if me and my bike were alright and proceded to write a ticket for "failure to yield" to the motorist. After all was said and done the officer and I had a small chit chat talk. He sees my riding every day and just wanted to commend me on doing something that he thought he never could. He also said he might take up riding in the summer. I told him I commuted all winter long and his eyes got as big as saucers! Phrases such as "iron man" and "will power" were used to refer to me by him. Anyhow, we talked about other problems I have on my daily route and he asured me that the drivers here are overly agressive to everyone on the road and not just me. We exchanged pleasantries and went on our way.



No, and that's my point: He's anthropomorphizing the cars, and naturally feeling inferior to them.

That's why part of VC is learning to avoid thinking that way. I might slip once in a while (and use the anthropomorphizing language of someone I'm talking to), but I'll bet you won't find Mr. Forester ever slipping. Yesterday up in the A&S forum (link (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=4436985&postcount=8)) someone asked for comments on something they were writing, and my revision included de-anthropomorphizing the language). To ride vehicularly consistently and instinctively, your paradigm really has to be "it's me and drivers just like me" out there, as opposed to "it's me vs. the cars".
Well, technically it is "me vs the cars" because in any sort of confrontation the two bodies involved are the human body of the cyclist and the steel body of the car. :D
But I see what you mean, and have never confused the issue.
Still, using my technical meaning it still holds true that one body is inferior to the other when it comes to an incident involving the two. But when referring to the person in control of the two bodies neither is superior nor inferior to one another... unless of course it's my mother in the car. ;)

Awesome story, Iron Man PJ.

My riding is fully about the practical and safe. I find vehicular best describes what I find most practical and safe.
Al

Have you written about this? The details? If so, where?
If not, what were the circumstances (# lanes of each type, bike lane?, where you were positioned, where the right hooker was, etc.).



I have already answered this question, just a few posts ago. But I revisit it here for another reason.
This post of yours is a perfect example of what I feel is condecending and talking down upon someone.
This question of yours looks an aweful lot like a fishing expedition of yours to dig something out of me to where you will be able to blame me for something. There is really no reason for you to know any further information about the incident when it pertains to the discussion we were having. You specifically are asking me about my placement, bike lanes, and the position of the motorist. Why? I said I was almost right hooked and that should have been enough to illustrate the point that was being made.
There really was no reason for you to have further information on this issue and it seems you only asked so that you could try and prove some point of yours. You never asked about the police officer, about any violations the motorist may have made, or anything else other than for information that would supply you with ammunition to fire off one of the theories you bring up on here quite frequently.
And now I feel as though I have been belittled by you for it.
If I am wrong, then please tell me why you requested this information and how it would have pertained to the discussion we were having at the time, and that discussion being how the public and government are accepting of vehicular cycling.

I have already answered this question, just a few posts ago. But I revisit it here for another reason.
This post of yours is a perfect example of what I feel is condecending and talking down upon someone.
This question of yours looks an aweful lot like a fishing expedition of yours to dig something out of me to where you will be able to blame me for something. There is really no reason for you to know any further information about the incident when it pertains to the discussion we were having. You specifically are asking me about my placement, bike lanes, and the position of the motorist. Why? I said I was almost right hooked and that should have been enough to illustrate the point that was being made.
There really was no reason for you to have further information on this issue and it seems you only asked so that you could try and prove some point of yours. You never asked about the police officer, about any violations the motorist may have made, or anything else other than for information that would supply you with ammunition to fire off one of the theories you bring up on here quite frequently.
And now I feel as though I have been belittled by you for it.
If I am wrong, then please tell me why you requested this information and how it would have pertained to the discussion we were having at the time, and that discussion being how the public and government are accepting of vehicular cycling.
You're not wrong. My question was a complete tangent from our discussion. Whenever I hear about any right hook, or dooring, or any kind of bike-car collision or near-miss, whether it's in person, email or on a forum, I ask for details. Nothing personal. In right hooks I'm particularly interested in learning about how the cyclist was positioned and whether he was aware and paying attention to the car and driver, whether the cyclist slowed as the car was slowing or whether he started to pass on the right, etc.

No, I have never mentioned it on here before. I don't bring up everything that happens to me on my commute... unless it's funny or overly interesting.


There was no bike lane, as I've said before we have no bike lanes here and I have actually never been in a bike lane.
I was riding north bound on a residential street. This would have been in either late November or Early December as it was during the time of "no on-street parking parking" and was before the new year. (No parking is allowed on-street due to snow removal)
I was about 10 feet from the curb placing me just left of the right tire track. I was aproaching a yield sign and was slowing down. Mr. I-Have-A-Hummer-To-Make-Up-For-My-Small-Manhood aparantly felt unobliged to wait behind me so he crossed the center line to my left about 15 feet before the sign. Since there was no oposing traffic he proceded to turn right in front of me. He did not use a turn signal so I assumed he was going straight and just wanted to share the lane with me. I actually had to put my arm out in front of me (and sort of to the left) to brace myself against his SUV so as to not hit it with my bike.
A police officer was coming up right behind us, I saw him in my mirror but Mr. 'Small-Manhood seemed not to have. As soon as this happened he lit up and pulled up beside me. I had stopped right at the sign because I was about to fall down and yelled out his window "follow me" and proceded to turn right in front of me and go after the guy.
By the time I caught up to them the officer was already at the guys window and I heard him saying "yielding applies to all vehicles who have the right of way before you, not just coming from other directions". I had a **** eating grin on my face at hearing this and stopped behind the Hummer nad next to the police car.
The cop walked back to me, asked if me and my bike were alright and proceded to write a ticket for "failure to yield" to the motorist. After all was said and done the officer and I had a small chit chat talk. He sees my riding every day and just wanted to commend me on doing something that he thought he never could. He also said he might take up riding in the summer. I told him I commuted all winter long and his eyes got as big as saucers! Phrases such as "iron man" and "will power" were used to refer to me by him. Anyhow, we talked about other problems I have on my daily route and he asured me that the drivers here are overly agressive to everyone on the road and not just me. We exchanged pleasantries and went on our way.

Great story, pj. I love it when a cop happens to be there.

This sounds like the type of right hook that cannot be prevented, though it never hurts to be a little extra cautious any time someone starts passing you on the left right before a place where they can turn right, whether or not their signal is on.

You're not wrong. My question was a complete tangent from our discussion. Whenever I hear about any right hook, or dooring, or any kind of bike-car collision or near-miss, whether it's in person, email or on a forum, I ask for details. Nothing personal. In right hooks I'm particularly interested in learning about how the cyclist was positioned and whether he was aware and paying attention to the car and driver, whether the cyclist slowed as the car was slowing or whether he started to pass on the right, etc.

And it is obvious when you are trying to do that. And that obviousness leads to animosity, the feeling of being belittled, and the outright accusation of you having a condecending "blame the cyclist" attitude.



In my oppinion this thread could have been used to bring sides closer together......but.......ohh well.
pj7 was telling you how to better reach us as a group of cyclist, but you chose to ignore.

BLIZZ was spot on in this statement and the discussions that followed show that it has not been taken to heart. That is why I have been avoiding my own thread for the last bit. And from reading through other posts by the VC zealot community (as small as it may be) no one has used the information that could be gathered from reading this thread. Some people just can't get over their own personal agenda (or themselves for that matter) and see the big picture.

though it never hurts to be a little extra cautious any time someone starts passing you on the left right before a place where they can turn right, whether or not their signal is on.
And to avoid being obtuse or a little underhanded I'll make this statement.
I saw the officer before any of this happened. And I was fully aware that it *might* happen. I can not honestly say that I did not embellish the situation some. Now I'm not saying I purposely tried to run into the SUV, but knowing that the cop was behind me I may have subconciously tried to "teach this guy a lesson if he tries something stupid". Of course I never actually thought of doing it. I'm just saying that sometimes our emotions (and this thread is about emotions) cause us to do things that we would not knowingly do if we are in full thought about the situation.