Vehicular Cycling (VC) - The big flaw of VC

However, the substandard width argument only applies on roads without bike lanes.

However, the substandard width argument only applies on roads without bike lanes.

The whole argument only stands if motorists and cyclists are willing to carry tape measures.

The traditional "rules of the road", upon which VC is based, are not necessarly the legal rules of the road (though of course there is a lot of overlap).

In particular, some laws are contrary to the traditional "rules of the road".

In your example, the vehicular cyclist would follow the traditional "rules of the road", as always, and break the legal rules.

However, if it is truly unsafe to be in the bike lane, then no mandatory bike lane law that I know of applies anyway.


And what pray tell is the source of these "traditional rules of the road" if not the law of the jurisdiction in question. How do I know if my state's statutes conform with the "traditional rules of the road"?

I'm sorry, I simply cannot accept the notion that there are some exigenstial "rules" governing vehicular travel that can exist independently of and contrary to the enacted law of a given state.

And what pray tell is the source of these "traditional rules of the road" if not the law of the jurisdiction in question. How do I know if my state's statutes conform with the "traditional rules of the road"?

I'm sorry, I simply cannot accept the notion that there are some exigenstial "rules" governing vehicular travel that can exist independently of and contrary to the enacted law of a given state. You can get on an airplane, fly to Paris, pickup a rent-a-car and drive all around France, Europe and just about anywhere, effectively and legally, without referencing the specific laws there. How is that possible?

Answer: traditional rules of the road that all vehicular laws of the road are based on.

You can get on an airplane, fly to Paris, pickup a rent-a-car and drive all around France, Europe and just about anywhere, effectively and legally, without referencing the specific laws there. How is that possible?

Answer: traditional rules of the road that all vehicular laws of the road are based on.
ukandireland

Ah!! So if I learn french and study the French Driver's manual, basically, I'm covered.

What about the bike lanes in Paris???

ukandireland
So you drive on the left side instead. You still don't have to even glance at their laws, and yet you know how drive there effectively and legally. How can that be? traditional rules of the road.

So you drive on the left side instead. You still don't have to even glance at their laws, and yet you know how drive there effectively and legally. How can that be? traditional rules of the road.
I go there cold, not knowing anything about the place, get into the car and pull into traffic and I'm gonna cause an accident almost immediately. Why's that? the rules of the road are fundamentally different. The automobiles are different. The behaviors required are different. The thinking involved is different. Believe me, BTDT, and is is NOT as simple as just getting into a car and going, even if you're already conversant with the basics, that is, that everything is opposite.

you think you're really clever, don't you?

Randya, JF has me perpetually confused with some lady he spoke to at the meeting in Santa Barbara where he presented his views to support some of our local anti-bike/pro-auto organizations. He just can't believe that wasn't me, but it's stuck in his head so he feels he "knows" me and can speak to all my thoughts, beliefs and motivations.

This is how all his myths get started, it appears to me. He gets it in his head about something and can't quite shake it and before you know it, it has become a full-fledged conspiracy theory.

And people follow this guy as if he were some kind of leader. He reminds me a lot more of the folks I used to teach to clean their toilets and take their medications, and once in a while, take to the hospital for involuntary commitment.

I go there cold, not knowing anything about the place, get into the car and pull into traffic and I'm gonna cause an accident almost immediately. Why's that? the rules of the road are fundamentally different. The automobiles are different. The behaviors required are different. The thinking involved is different. Believe me, BTDT, and is is NOT as simple as just getting into a car and going, even if you're already conversant with the basics, that is, that everything is opposite. Remember the context of all this:



And what pray tell is the source of these "traditional rules of the road" if not the law of the jurisdiction in question. How do I know if my state's statutes conform with the "traditional rules of the road"?

I'm sorry, I simply cannot accept the notion that there are some exigenstial "rules" governing vehicular travel that can exist independently of and contrary to the enacted law of a given state.

My point is that something other than the laws determine how you behave. I've written about this many times before. Yes, you have to know which side of the road to drive on. Some argue you also have to know if right (left) on red is allowed. But actually, it is pretty easy to determine if you assume it is not allowed, and drive accordingly, until proven otherwise.

So even though if you put the laws of France, England and Wyoming on the table side by side and they would look radically different, you can still drive, for the most part, by the same rules in all those places. How can this be? What are those rules? Answer: the traditional rules of the road.

Serge, you are so narrow minded, the rules of the road are not universal. In addition to Laika's example, I suggest you try driving in Cairo, Egypt, any big city in India, Bangkok, Thailand or similar large cities in the second and third world. They have entirely different sets of 'rules of the road' regarding right of way than we do.

Remember the context of all this:


My point is that something other than the laws determine how you behave. I've written about this many times before. Yes, you have to know which side of the road to drive on. Some argue you also have to know if right (left) on red is allowed. But actually, it is pretty easy to determine if you assume it is not allowed, and drive accordingly, until proven otherwise.

So even though if you put the laws of France, England and Wyoming on the table side by side and they would look radically different, you can still drive, for the most part, by the same rules in all those places. How can this be? What are those rules? Answer: the traditional rules of the road.
Except for the whole part about being on the left side of the road, of course. But that's a minor detail that you'd sort out once you had one or two head on collisions. Then you could move on to rotaries...

Serge, you are so narrow minded, the rules of the road are not universal. In addition to Laika's example, I suggest you try driving in Cairo, Egypt, any big city in India, Bangkok, Thailand or similar large cities in the second and third world. They have entirely different sets of 'rules of the road' regarding right of way than we do. Laika's example is nothing new. Cyclecraft is written for bicycling in England. Big deal, you flip all the examples.

I've never been outside of the western world. Please interpret the traditional rules of the road as the traditional rules of the road in the western world, and my point stands.

Even if you can't get your head around that, just ignore all the left-hand-drive countries. The fact that you can operate legally and effectively in any state or country in the western world by obeying the same set of rules that you obey when driving at home illustrates a fundamental common set of principles and rules that forms the basis for the legal rules of the road in all these states and countries, and yet is not written down anywhere. It is that same unwritten fundamental common set of principles and rules that also forms the basis for vehicular cycling.

the fact that you can operate legally and effectively in any state or country in the western world by obeying the same set of rules that you obey when driving at home illustrates a fundamental common set of principles and rules that forms the basis for the legal rules of the road in all these states and countries, and yet is not written down anywhere. It is that same unwritten fundamental common set of principles and rules that also forms the basis for vehicular cycling.
Tell me all about how that common set of principles and rules works on intersections with priority roads in Europe, or proper yielding through intersections with 4 way stop signs or no traffic control devices. Or operating effectively and cooperatively with other motorists on high speed roads, or passing on blind curves for that matter in Germany. Or best of all, tell us all about the common set of principles and rules[/I] that also forms the basis how to operate a motor vehicle in the proximity of bicyclists.

You don't know what you are jabbering about! But that has never stopped you before, so why stop now, eh?:rolleyes:

The opposition to bike lanes...because of the influence they have on...the false views of cycling of which they are the official embodiment. They tell the public two messages. One, that bike lanes make cycling safe for those who do not have or use traffic skills. Two, that cyclists should be cycling in bike lanes. These two messages do harm to vehicular cyclists, and they do more harm to society by enticing people onto the roads without the safety skills that they need.

John, in all respect, do you know for certain that this is so?

Why not put some of your hypotheses or conclusions to empirical tests? You seem to be in favor of scientific approaches. One of them is empirical testing.

There are ways of finding out the actual messages that bike lanes tell the public.

Simple, well-designed, well-conducted surveys (on this and on other topics or conclusions or hypotheses that keep popping up) can help to make things clearer.

They don't have to be huge, formal studies. Just a few, small studies would help to give some intitial indications at least. I think you might find that there are other messages, and that the messages are not that strong or definite.

Someone here could even come up with a short questionaire. A few people on this forum could print some out on computers and see what people's actual (empirically tested or determined or indicated, rather than speculated or untested) messages are.

Hand some of them out to people. College students in a cafeteria with a little time on their hands. People waiting in line somewhere -- maybe in front of a theater... there are many possibilities, and actual messages might emerge more clearly.

John, in all respect, do you know for certain that this is so?

Look no further than the homepage of the *greatest* bicycling city in the country:


Bicycle lanes provide enormous benefits to all users. They define a space in which to ride, eliminating the need to weave in and out of traffic or parked cars; they help novice cyclists feel more confident and willing to ride; they increase the visibility of bicyclists in our transportation system; and they give motorists the security of where to expect cyclists.

http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?c=34826

You can get on an airplane, fly to Paris, pickup a rent-a-car and drive all around France, Europe and just about anywhere, effectively and legally, without referencing the specific laws there. How is that possible?

Answer: traditional rules of the road that all vehicular laws of the road are based on.

You still haven't explained where these "traditional rules of the road" are to be found. Who wrote them? Where can I read them? Your answer would be a prime example of a tautology.


So if I understand you correctly, in order to ride VC, I need to memorize my state's motor vehicle code, the specific provisons that apply to bicycles, and follow those unless the statute contradicts the "traditional rules of the road" in which case I follow those, (even though I don't know where to find them)?

So if officer friendly pulls me over for violating the traffic code, I can just tell him its ok because I was following the "traditional rules of the road."


This is where VC doesn't make sense. Either you follow the motor vehcile code or you don't. I don't particularly care one way or another. But you can't have it both ways. Also, if the actual laws are irrelevant if they contradict the "traditional rules of the road," then why do you careif there are mandatory bike lane laws because according to you, all one needs to do is follow some undefined set of ephermeral "traditional rules of the road."

Laika's example is nothing new. Cyclecraft is written for bicycling in England. Big deal, you flip all the examples.

I've never been outside of the western world. Please interpret the traditional rules of the road as the traditional rules of the road in the western world, and my point stands.

Even if you can't get your head around that, just ignore all the left-hand-drive countries. The fact that you can operate legally and effectively in any state or country in the western world by obeying the same set of rules that you obey when driving at home illustrates a fundamental common set of principles and rules that forms the basis for the legal rules of the road in all these states and countries, and yet is not written down anywhere. It is that same unwritten fundamental common set of principles and rules that also forms the basis for vehicular cycling.
knowing how to pay attention and steer your vehicle safely around any and all obstructions being first and foremost (duh). beyond that, anything is possible - the sky's the limit!!!

:D

You still haven't explained where these "traditional rules of the road" are to be found.
They are implied by every set of rules in the western world.


Who wrote them?
I don't know.


Where can I read them?
You can't.


Your answer would be a prime example of a tautology.
Indeed. In logic, a statement that is true by necessity.



So if I understand you correctly, in order to ride VC, I need to memorize my state's motor vehicle code,
:eek: who said anything about memorizing any rules?


the specific provisons that apply to bicycles, and follow those unless the statute contradicts the "traditional rules of the road" in which case I follow those, (even though I don't know where to find them)?
You don't understand me at all. Use the rules knowledge that you have that allows you to drive a motor vehicle legally and effectively in any right-hand-drive country in the western world, including the rules for drives of slow moving vehicles, and ride your bike accordingly.


So if officer friendly pulls me over for violating the traffic code, I can just tell him its ok because I was following the "traditional rules of the road."
No, ask him which law you were violating. If you were actually following the rules used for driving (including the rules that apply to drivers of slow moving vehicles), I suspect he will not be able to cite a rule that you violated (unless of course bike lanes are involved).



This is where VC doesn't make sense. Either you follow the motor vehcile code or you don't. I don't particularly care one way or another. But you can't have it both ways.
You do, period (including the rules that apply to drivers of slow moving vehicles, and knowing the "special" rules that apply with respect to bike lanes). Actually, know the rules with respect to bike lanes is required when driving a car too, since they make no sense are inconsistent.


Also, if the actual laws are irrelevant if they contradict the "traditional rules of the road," then why do you careif there are mandatory bike lane laws because according to you, all one needs to do is follow some undefined set of ephermeral "traditional rules of the road."
Indeed, bike lanes and mandatory bike lanes laws put a wrench in the works.

Look no further than the homepage of the *greatest* bicycling city in the country:


Bicycle lanes provide enormous benefits to all users. They define a space in which to ride, eliminating the need to weave in and out of traffic or parked cars; they help novice cyclists feel more confident and willing to ride; they increase the visibility of bicyclists in our transportation system; and they give motorists the security of where to expect cyclists.

http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?c=34826
You and several others seem to think that I am some sort of emmissary for PDOT. I can assure you that I am not and that I don't generally agree completely with their position on bike lanes or with their general philosophy of accomodating cyclists. There are some people at PDOT (who shall remain nameless) who I consider to be the dogmatic opposites of HH and the other foresterologists here, who mistakenly assume that they can create an Amsterdam style cycling nirvana in Portland - a nirvana for all the sufferers of CIC :rolleyes: :eek: ;) - I disagree with them as much as I disagree with the foresterologists and wish them all the best of luck. :rolleyes:

In the meantime, if you ride in PDX you're going to have to continue to mix it up with motorists on the arterials at the river crossings, downtown and in many other locations throughout town for the forseeable future. You shouldn't have to be able to ride as fast as you can pedal on a carbon fiber race bike mixed in with the distracted, oblivious motorists to do this. Bike lanes, blue and otherwise, help cyclists negotiate these situations. At the same time, I am completely appalled and embarassed at how long it's taken PDOT to get sharrows approved and in use on other roads. Oh yeah, did I forget to mention that the suburban California VC WOL is entirely impractical in the inner Portland nedighborhoods that support the highest numbers of cyclists?

OTOH, given the political realities, and despite the program's shortcomings, I think Portland's doing a decent job with bike infrastructure, and is certainly better off than most major metropolitan areas in the US who aren't doing likewise; and also better off than if no 'improvements' at all for cyclists had been built in the last 10 years, pursuant to the foresterologist's recommendation.

I see new cyclists everyday. Some are newcomers who left some sh!thole car dominated midwest or northeastern city, some are locals cycling for the first time in many years. I don't understand how anyone can say this isn't a good thing. In my opinion the only thing that's really missing from the Portland formula is an education program for motorists.

Even if you can't get your head around that, just ignore all the left-hand-drive countries.

So just ignore anything that contradicts your statements? Extraordinary!

They are implied by every set of rules in the western world.


I don't know.


You can't.




This has stopped being a system for riding and crossed over into the realm of esoterica now. We're moving rapidly towards the development of a VC priesthood, which is among other things a direct and intolerable challenge to my assumptive papacy. I'll not have it, sir.

So just ignore anything that contradicts your statements? Extraordinary!
why are you surprised? that's been serge's position since day one.

You and several others seem to think that I am some sort of emmissary for PDOT. I can assure you that I am not and that I don't generally agree completely with their position on bike lanes or with their general philosophy of accomodating cyclists. There are some people at PDOT (who shall remain nameless) who I consider to be the dogmatic opposites of HH and the other foresterologists here, who mistakenly assume that they can create an Amsterdam style cycling nirvana in Portland - a nirvana for all the sufferers of CIC :rolleyes: :eek: ;) - I disagree with them as much as I disagree with the foresterologists and wish them all the best of luck. :rolleyes:

I don't think you have any connection with PDOT. Nor do I consider you one of those who believe that cyclists fare best when they are treated like pedestrians which is what the Portland bike advocates seem to want. I don't understand why you defend the system so heavily though, other than some emotional attachment to it because it's the place where you live. I don't think that none of the roads in my area could use some improvement for cyclists. In fact, the opposite is probably true (I'd love some wider pavement on a few roads but it's never going to happen due existing homes mainly).


In the meantime, if you ride in PDX you're going to have to continue to mix it up with motorists on the arterials at the river crossings, downtown and in many other locations throughout town for the forseeable future. You shouldn't have to be able to ride as fast as you can pedal on a carbon fiber race bike mixed in with the distracted, oblivious motorists to do this. Bike lanes, blue and otherwise, help cyclists negotiate these situations. At the same time, I am completely appalled and embarassed at how long it's taken PDOT to get sharrows approved and in use on other roads. Oh yeah, did I forget to mention that the suburban California VC WOL is entirely impractical in the inner Portland nedighborhoods that support the highest numbers of cyclists?

Please don't let your prejudices against road cyclists cloud your argument. I commute every day in baggy shorts and a t-shirt (I do use clipless pedals) on a mountain bike with Freddy fenders and a rack. I don't always pedal as fast as I can either. In fact, I find myself getting slower and slower on the bike because I'm in less of a rush these days.

I do not see how distracted and oblivious motorists are taken out of the mix by a bike lane that gives that motorist even more of a reason to not pay attention. At some point, that motorist will need to cross a bike lane and if a cyclist is there, the cyclist better be paying attention. Extra pavement width will allow most cyclists to be more relaxed in between intersections where they can be less concerned about slowing down traffic, if that's something that bothers them. At intersections, those same cyclists need to know that they need to be paying attention. Bike lanes, and especially Oregon's special "yield to cyclists in bike lanes" law, give a dangerous false sense of security to cyclists at intersections.

[edit]I forgot to ask about why WOL's are impractical in inner Portland neighborhoods. Is it because you just can't fit a wide lane? If so, how can anything help?[edit]


OTOH, given the political realities, and despite the program's shortcomings, I think Portland's doing a decent job with bike infrastructure, and is certainly better off than most major metropolitan areas in the US who aren't doing likewise; and also better off than if no 'improvements' at all for cyclists had been built in the last 10 years, pursuant to the foresterologist's recommendation.

I see new cyclists everyday. Some are newcomers who left some sh!thole car dominated midwest or northeastern city, some are locals cycling for the first time in many years. I don't understand how anyone can say this isn't a good thing. In my opinion the only thing that's really missing from the Portland formula is an education program for motorists.

You are happy that Portland's anti-motoring campaign is working. I'm glad that makes you happy. It would never work in most areas of the US because the US is just too spread out and people have enough money that if they can afford to live nowhere near anything or anybody and have to drive everywhere as a result, they are more than happy to do it. I can't see how you can be so happy while you watch as cyclists are forced more and more to act like pedestrians.

jezus, joe, you really are out of touch. you're shooting blanks, blindfolded, out of a starter pistol when you prattle on so ignorantly about portland bike infrastructure.

a big flaw of foresterism? ignorant prattle about bike-invested municiplities and bike specific infrastructure that actually increases bicyclists' visibility, safety, and numbers on the road.

Santa Barbara does an annual bicycle count. People sit at intersections counting bicycles and whether they are being ridden in the street, on the sidewalk, obeying stop signs etc.

On streets that have high-speed, high-volume traffic and no bike lanes, guess where 38% of the cyclists ride? Yep. The sidewalk.

So tell me, how does opposing bike lanes and preaching that an auto-centric road design is all that is necessary help anything? It creates sidewalk cyclists, not vehicular cyclists. If VC advocates spent more time promoting the principles of VC instead of cranking on their anti-bike lane rantings you might instead have 38% more vehicular cyclists. Instead, you get more sidewalk cyclists.

See how you guys shoot yourselves in the foot?

Santa Barbara does an annual bicycle count. People sit at intersections counting bicycles and whether they are being ridden in the street, on the sidewalk, obeying stop signs etc.

On streets that have high-speed, high-volume traffic and no bike lanes, guess where 38% of the cyclists ride? Yep. The sidewalk.

So tell me, how does opposing bike lanes and preaching that an auto-centric road design is all that is necessary help anything? It creates sidewalk cyclists, not vehicular cyclists. If VC advocates spent more time promoting the principles of VC instead of cranking on their anti-bike lane rantings you might instead have 38% more vehicular cyclists. Instead, you get more sidewalk cyclists.

See how you guys shoot yourselves in the foot?
62% of cyclists using the high speed arterials with no bike lane is not bad.
How many ride on the street/bike lanes on the bike laned ones. I am sure it is not 100%

On the the bike laned streets here, arterial or not, I see about 50% using sidewalk during the weekday. I see far more cyclists on the sidewalk on the bike laned road I ride each AM/PM than in the bike lane.

On the weekends there are more cyclists using the bike laned streets vs. sidewalk on those streets. Recreational, but club, racer and family or solo.

Or go to the ASU area - here you find many streets (and 25mph ones) with bike lanes, yet there are still many cyclist on the sidewalk and those using the bike lane are just as likely to be riding the correct vs. wrong way.

Al

Please interpret the traditional rules of the road as the traditional rules of the road in the western world, and my point stands.

Even if you can't get your head around that, just ignore all the left-hand-drive countries. The fact that you can operate legally and effectively in any state or country in the western world by obeying the same set of rules that you obey when driving at home illustrates a fundamental common set of principles and rules that forms the basis for the legal rules of the road in all these states and countries, and yet is not written down anywhere. It is that same unwritten fundamental common set of principles and rules that also forms the basis for vehicular cycling.
So just ignore anything that contradicts your statements? Extraordinary! :rolleyes:

For your sake, I hope you're just playing dumb.

Ah! the ad hominem attack! well played!


i say again, you are attempting to present esoterica as a logical and obvious system. what you're doing only works if, as I say, one ignores all of the examples of actual, real things in the world that contradict your pie-in-the-sky generalizations and half-baked notions.

And sadly, even the slight solace of hope is denied me as I am confident that you, regrettably, are not playing dumb.

So if you're willing to...


just ignore all the left-hand-drive countries.

then apparently you can believe that....


...you can operate legally and effectively in any state or country in the western world by obeying the same set of rules that you obey when driving at home...

despite the fact that several western countries have a fundamental difference in their rules of the road which affects everything from behavior to lane markings to automobile design and manufacture.


Just wanted to make sure I had that right.

And sadly, even the slight solace of hope is denied me as I am confident that you [HH], regrettably, are not playing dumb.
Not dumb; dense. Incredibly dense and not embarrassed at repeatedly displaying that characteristic.


Denseness/obtuseness is the bottom line Big Flaw of the VC Idealogues.

........aaaaaaannnnd, SCENE.

Santa Barbara does an annual bicycle count. People sit at intersections counting bicycles and whether they are being ridden in the street, on the sidewalk, obeying stop signs etc.

On streets that have high-speed, high-volume traffic and no bike lanes, guess where 38% of the cyclists ride? Yep. The sidewalk.

So tell me, how does opposing bike lanes and preaching that an auto-centric road design is all that is necessary help anything? It creates sidewalk cyclists, not vehicular cyclists. If VC advocates spent more time promoting the principles of VC instead of cranking on their anti-bike lane rantings you might instead have 38% more vehicular cyclists. Instead, you get more sidewalk cyclists.

See how you guys shoot yourselves in the foot?

Diane, you have not yet learned that we vehicular cyclists are not preaching an auto-centric road design, despite all the times that we have denied it. As far as I can understand you, you think that only roads with bike lanes are not auto-centric.

Your argument about the efficacy of bike lanes is specifically that bike lanes persuade ill-informed people that the bike lane makes it safe to cycle without the proper skills, which is false. You apparently don't believe this superstition, in that you approve of vehicular-cycling skills, but you are willing to trade on the superstitious beliefs of other people to suit your ideological position. It would be better to stop advocating superstition and switch over to advocate lawful cycling and good roads.

basically, these debates boil down to the same old same old:

those who look at how people generate rules and behavior (phenomenology)

and those who those who look at how rules organize people (structuralism)

or,

adaptive cycling vs. vehicular cycling.

unfortunately for him, HH has just unwittingly made a case undermining the latter.

In other words, if VC does not work universally, then there must be some other social or cultural mechanism at work that mediates cyclist/vehicular norms in the West as in "the rest," including, but not limited to the law. Perhaps it would be productive to focus on that, given the transportational flexibility afforded by cycling as a vehicle, rather than trying to press square pegs into round holes.

One of the problems that engineers and designers have is failing to recognize the ways that humans can use their products in creative and unanticipated ways, often in opposition to the original intent. (skateboarding and concrete dividers comes to mind).

So if you're willing to...





then apparently you can believe that....



...you can operate legally and effectively in any state or country in the western world by obeying the same set of rules that you obey when driving at home...

despite the fact that several western countries have a fundamental difference in their rules of the road which affects everything from behavior to lane markings to automobile design and manufacture.
.
Ignoring all the left-hand-drive countries, are you seriously suggesting that an American who drives in a manner that is consistent with common sense and the laws of his state cannot drive effectively and legally in any of these "several western countries [that] have a fundamental difference in their rules of the road which affects everything from behavior to lane markings to automobile design and manufacture" without consulting, studying and learning the specific "rules of the road" laws for that country? Please name such a country.

Even if you can name such an exception, or even several, my point stands, because I know such an American certainly can drive legally and effectively in Mexico, Canada, France, Germany, Austria or Italy without consulting, studying and learning the specific "rules of the road" laws for that country, which, on paper, look substantially different than those in any one of the U.S. states.

You know what it takes to get an "international driver's license"? Taking a class? Nope. Reading a book or manual? Nope. Passing a test? Nope. A local driver's license, a few bucks, and your signature. How can this be? Answer: the rules of the road in most if not all countries are based on the same set of traditional common set of principles and rules.

The fact that you can operate legally and effectively in any state or country in the western world by obeying the same set of rules that you obey when driving at home illustrates that there is a fundamental common set of principles and rules that forms the basis for the legal rules of the road in all these states and countries, and yet is not written down anywhere. It is that same unwritten fundamental common set of principles and rules that also forms the basis for vehicular cycling.

I don't understand why there is so much resistance to acknowledging this simple obvious fact every time I point it out. Did you have no experience driving in foreign countries? Have you read noisebeam's post?




I've driven motor vehicle and many cases bicycle in Mexico, USA, Argentina, Malaysia, Germany, France, Italy, England, Denmark, Norway, French Polynesia, Canada, Austria, Thailand, Switzerland, Lichtenstein, Belgium and a few other countries and never had to uniquely study (left side driving was already known) any new rules to do so successfully. Habits and conventions may be different (most notably in Argentina, Thailand and Malyasia) but the principles all remained the same. Those conventions were very quickly absorbed with hands-on experience, not knowing them at first did not prevent successful driving, but instead made me less efficient.
Al

http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=4584718&postcount=47

basically, these debates boil down to the same old same old:

those who look at how people generate rules and behavior (phenomenology)

and those who those who look at how rules organize people (structuralism)
If you don't think I look carefully at both how people generate rules and behavior AND how rules organize people then you've not been paying attention (don't worry, not paying attention is par for the course around here).



or,

adaptive cycling vs. vehicular cycling.

unfortunately for him, HH has just unwittingly made a case undermining the latter. And if you think vehicular cycling is an example of structuralism, you're really not paying attention.



In other words, if VC does not work universally, then there must be some other social or cultural mechanism at work that mediates cyclist/vehicular norms in the West as in "the rest," including, but not limited to the law. Perhaps it would be productive to focus on that, given the transportational flexibility afforded by cycling as a vehicle, rather than trying to press square pegs into round holes.

One of the problems that engineers and designers have is failing to recognize the ways that humans can use their products in creative and unanticipated ways, often in opposition to the original intent. (skateboarding and concrete dividers comes to mind). Yeah, like the law of unintended consequences is some big revelation to a VC advocate :rolleyes:.
The law of unintended consequence is at the heart of our opposition to bike lanes, in case you somehow missed that.

Actually, I do think that VC is an example of typical structuralist thinking. How is it not?

As for the "law of unintended consequences," I'm unaware of any such "law," certainly not in the negative sense in which you seem to view it. My point is that people find ways to make use of all sorts of purpose-built objects in their environment in meaningful and functional ways, quite apart from the original intent of the designers. I know this throws engineers of all stripes into conniptions, but this is a fundamental fact of human existence.

Ignoring all the left-hand-drive countries...

This is why your statement is flawed...because it requires you to ignore a signifigant subset of the countries you claim these esoteric "rules of the road" should cover. And for a more small-scale, right-side-of-the-road example or two...

Rotaries. No American, save those in New England, is prepared to drive on rotaries, and rules of rotary driving in, oh, say, Paris are significantly different from those in New England, to the point where I would say their are fundamental and profound differences. Sure you could figure it out, through trial and error, but far safer to ask someone who knows or to ride as a passenger at first. The first rotary I negotiated in Paris was a near disaster, and it was my host's later easy navigation of the rotaries that taught me how to do so successfully.

Left turns in Turkey. Where else in the world do you pull over to await your turn to make a left? Would you know to do so without at least instruction from a native? I sure didn't, until my passenger, a non-driver who'd been in Turkey before, asked me what I was doing in the middle of the road holding up traffic.


This is an ongoing problem with your rules definitions. You make these insanely broad statements that have significant real-world contradictions, and then ask that those contradictions be ignored or else resort to esoterica to back your position.

as to the other post:

"Habits and conventions may be different (most notably in Argentina, Thailand and Malyasia) but the principles all remained the same."

I argue that if we're talking about the "rules of the road" as you define them and not actual traffic code, the habits and conventions themselves are at the heart of the "rules of the road." That is, you're arguing that there is a set of unwritten rules, and I counter that those unwritten rules are comprised nearly entirely of local habits and customs, since traffic codes generally boil down to "don't hit anything you oughtn't." If your argument is, in fact, that knowing the basic rule of "don't hit anything that you oughtn't" gives one enough knowledge of the "rules of the road" to drive successfully, I'd wholeheartedly agree that that particular piece of exceedingly broad road-using advice is, as you say, universal. But I'd also have to ask why you're wasting time and bandwidth making such a simplistic, broad and useless statement. What are your rules for swimming, then, "float and don't inhale water?" For cuisine, is it, "don't eat poison?" I mean, come on!

precisely.

What we have is a very large square peg (all cyclists) who are being forced in a very small hole (VC). Those who do not fit in the hole are labelled incompetent or given other demeaning labels simply because we don't fit the VC "system", so there must be something wrong with us.


These endless debates between adaptive and vehicular cycling illustrate for me the fundamental difference between authoritarian regimes and democratic regimes. Authoritarian regimes set up an inflexible "system" that a small group of people have decided is "best" for the unwashed masses. These self-proclaimed plutonic guardians then attempt to force that system on the masses and anyone who does not fit (whether by choice or individual circumstances) is labelled as an "enemy of the regime." Democratic regimes develop rules from the ground up based on people's experiences and individual circumstances. When these rules do not fit a particular class or subset of people, exceptions or new rules are developed.

I hate to use the phrase, as it is generally very poor form to do so in a debate, but the VCers to me are like the bike Nazis. Anyone that doesn't conform is not a "true" cyclist.

Actually, I do think that VC is an example of typical structuralist thinking. How is it not?
How is VC an example of typical structuralist thinking?

Well, of course there is a structuralist component to VC, because in the end traffic is about organizing people such that everyone can get to where they're going in a reasonably efficient manner despite the fact that we're all traveling on a 2-d grid with countless points of conflicts in our paths. But to me VC is much more individualistic than about "organizing" and overall structure. It's about focusing on the individual cyclist's behavior and how he interacts with others that are relevant to his goals. So much of it is also about looking (uncritically) at the phenomena of driver behavior, if you will, and understanding why drivers behave the way they behave, and then individually adjusting to it accordingly.

This is why I say VC requires both structuralist thinking and phenomenologistic thinking. Perhaps that's why it's so hard to understand for some, and may even seem contradictory. I'll have to think about it some more, but thanks for bringing this to my attention.


As for the "law of unintended consequences," I'm unaware of any such "law," certainly not in the negative sense in which you seem to view it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_unintended_consequences


My point is that people find ways to make use of all sorts of purpose-built objects in their environment in meaningful and functional ways, quite apart from the original intent of the designers. I know this throws engineers of all stripes into conniptions, but this is a fundamental fact of human existence.
Indeed, in fact, a hallmark of good design is when the item in question is used properly and not misused.
Having said that, there's nothing wrong with using a screwdriver as an icepick.

What we have is a very large square peg (all cyclists) who are being forced in a very small hole (VC). Those who do not fit in the hole are labelled incompetent or given other demeaning labels simply because we don't fit the VC "system", so there must be something wrong with us.


These endless debates between adaptive and vehicular cycling illustrate for me the fundamental difference between authoritarian regimes and democratic regimes. Authoritarian regimes set up an inflexible "system" that a small group of people have decided is "best" for the unwashed masses. These self-proclaimed plutonic guardians then attempt to force that system on the masses and anyone who does not fit (whether by choice or individual circumstances) is labelled as an "enemy of the regime." Democratic regimes develop rules from the ground up based on people's experiences and individual circumstances. When these rules do not fit a particular class or subset of people, exceptions or new rules are developed.

I hate to use the phrase, as it is generally very poor form to do so in a debate, but the VCers to me are like the bike Nazis. Anyone that doesn't conform is not a "true" cyclist.
:eek:

VC is anything goes. (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=306029)

Indeed, in fact, a hallmark of good design is when the item in question is used properly and not misused.
Having said that, there's nothing wrong with using a screwdriver as an icepick.
Are you sure you haven't been using an ice pick instead of a Q-tip?

:eek:

VC is anything goes. (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=306029)
No, Helmet Head, you are clearly referring to a different usage of VC. VC can have many meanings. Skanking Biker is referring to a more narrow definition of VC.

I wonder if any road management system is going to be subject to conflicts between the flexibility the driver must show at the street/micro level, and the need to conform at the macro/habitual level with lights, stop signs, speedlimits, etc?

Imagine for example, a bikers paradise where thousands of bicycles per mile of roadway, riding abreast, were the dominant form of transport and cars/trucks/busses were only a few. Surely in that case it would be the latter who were viewed as 'obstructing the flow of traffic.' MOst of the rules would be designed to accomodate bikes; and cars would be torn between conflicts about whether to ride vehi-cycly! :) or not.

roughstuff

No, Helmet Head, you are clearly referring to a different usage of VC. VC can have many meanings. Skanking Biker is referring to a more narrow definition of VC. True, but choosing to use VC "best practices" is not fascist, nor is trying to persuade others to choose to do something fascist.

Keep on keeping on, HH. As long as keep doing what you're doing we're in no danger of spreading VC to the masses.

On the other hand, regular cyclists who don't have a beef against bike lanes are the only ones I see actually teaching people about destination positioning, taking the lane and behaving as drivers of vehicles.

And to Al, 38% of the riders on the sidewalk was up from previous years on a particular street. The street has been recently optimized for higher speed and volume. I don't know what the percentage is on roads with bike lanes. They have not finished the count or released the results for this year yet. But I'm guessing, because the 38% figure was pulled out for being extraordinary overall, that the percentage of cyclists riding on the sidewalk on streets with bike lanes is much much lower.

True, but choosing to use VC "best practices" is not fascist, nor is trying to persuade others to choose to do something fascist.
I'll wait to see what zealous VC advocates do if they ever have power, before I call them altruists for not wielding power that they currently lack.

I'll wait to see what zealous VC advocates do if they ever have power, before I call them altruists for not wielding power that they currently lack. What the heck does that mean? Last I checked, the U.S. was a constitutional republic/representative democracy where you have the right to do pretty much what you want, as long as you don't violate the rights of others in the process (or do something that is reasonably likely to violate the rights of others, like drive drunk, run a red light, or shoot a gun into the sky in a city). In that context we are allowed, and even encouraged, to persuade each other about matters of one sort or another. Whether it's about abortion, global warming, the war in Iraq, or vehicular cycling, our right to free speech protects us from being able to say anything we want (again, unless doing so is likely to violate the rights of others, like yelling "fire!" in a crowded theatre). To conflate excercise of free speech with fascism is, with all due respect, a display of ignorance regarding the meaning of fascism, understanding the liberal underpinnings of our society and culture, or both.