Vehicular Cycling (VC) - The big flaw of VC

It seems to me that the big flaw with VC is that the VC-ists who promote it discount the real issue of motorist harassment and how real people feel about it. They offer in response to those who have experienced harassment, or who simply express concerns that they may experience it, at best pooh-poohing and at worst outright ridicule with phony diagnoses of mental illness, phobias, tauntings that they are superstitious, and insults that they have low IQs and reading comprehension problems.

It's a classic case of something actually well-made being sold by the engineers who made it and not the marketers who know how to sell something.

Can you guys not see that placing those with whom you disagree into your "enemies" camp, or discrediting their concerns, or tossing out only "facts" (such as they may be) without understanding the way people are moved emotionally -- and in fact, discrediting all emotion as weakness and stupidity -- is the real reason for your failure to gain market share?

You need to quit the insults, quit believing that "data" and statistics is the only meaningful measurement of value, and start figuring out a way to work vehicular cycling principles into the existing network of on-street cycling facilities. Otherwise you are doomed to failure. It's time for new packaging, new messaging, new ideas.

Given that motorist harassment is a real issue, how is it related to VC?

That is, does VC exacerbate or diminish the problem of motorist harassment, or does it have no effect?

In my experience, VC reduces, but does not eliminate, the incidence of motorist harassment a cyclist encounters. But VC - knowing inwardly that one has the same right to the road as any other driver - also seems to help a great deal in not being as intimidated when the inevitable encounters with harassing motorists occur. It helps you react quickly with a smile and a wave, for example.

I think it's also helpful to understand the likely motivations of the motorists: many are kind and good people who simply and genuinely believe that cyclists do not belong on the road. Many are probably not entirely aware of how much their desire for cyclists to not be in their way is a factor in this, but there it is.

You need to quit the insults, quit believing that "data" and statistics is the only meaningful measurement of value, and start figuring out a way to work vehicular cycling principles into the existing network of on-street cycling facilities. Otherwise you are doomed to failure. It's time for new packaging, new messaging, new ideas.

Real quick, vehicular cycling fits just fine into the already available streets. The attitudes of some motorists are what needs to change (arguably a relatively small amount though). Bike lanes are a step backwards towards the goal of vehicular cycling and don't address the issue of motorist harassment whatsoever. An out of the way cyclist is unlikely to be harassed whether they are in the right hand lane of a multilane road, a bike lane, a shoulder, a wide outside lane, or on the sidewalk. The issue is how to deal with harassment from motorists when the cyclist is required to be in the way and thus slowing the motorist down to some extent (even if it's all just in their head). That requires a cultural change and promoting bike lanes which, whether intended to or not, serve to keep cyclists out of the way of motorists is not going to help one bit.

Why is there an assumed correlation between harrassment and vehicular riding?

The only* way to fully eliminate harassment from other road users is to not have cyclists on or near any roads. But that is not the comprehensive opposite of vehicular cycling.

*yes there is the other option to fully reprogram every other road users brain

Al

Why is there an assumed correlation between harrassment and vehicular riding?

Because it sells bike lanes?

You don't think that if we eliminated harassment by VC advocates themselves toward those who fear motorist harassment that VC wouldn't have more success?

I think you're onto something, Diane.

You don't think that if we eliminated harassment by VC advocates themselves toward those who fear motorist harassment that VC wouldn't have more success? Good question. I wonder if we eliminated harassment of smokers if we'd have more success with getting smokers to quit.

But, then, how do you works towards reducing smoking without harassing, and without appearing to harass, smokers?

How do you work towards eliminating slavery without harassing, and without appearing to harass, slave-owners?

How do you work towards spreading liberalism, without harassing, and without appearing to harass, conservatives?

How do you works towards spreading acceptance of evolution, without harassing, and without appearing to harass, creationists?

I think working towards VC acceptance is just as difficult/impossible to do without appearing to be harassing.

Within the context of U.S. cycling culture, any effort to bring about acceptance of VC is revolutionary and inherently confrontational.

VC challenges fundamental and often deeply held beliefs that must be dislodged before VC can be accepted.

Good question. I wonder if we eliminated harassment of smokers if we'd have more success with getting smokers to quit.

But, then, how do you works towards reducing smoking without harassing, and without appearing to harass, smokers?

How do you work towards eliminating slavery without harassing, and without appearing to harass, slave-owners?

How do you work towards spreading liberalism, without harassing, and without appearing to harass, conservatives?

How do you works towards spreading acceptance of evolution, without harassing, and without appearing to harass, creationists?

I think working towards VC acceptance is just as difficult/impossible to do without appearing to be harassing.

Within the context of U.S. cycling culture, any effort to bring about acceptance of VC is revolutionary and inherently confrontational.

VC challenges fundamental and often deeply held beliefs that must be dislodged before VC can be accepted.
translation - Serge doesn't have a pot to piss in.

Good question. I wonder if we eliminated harassment of smokers if we'd have more success with getting smokers to quit.

But, then, how do you works towards reducing smoking without harassing, and without appearing to harass, smokers?

How do you work towards eliminating slavery without harassing, and without appearing to harass, slave-owners?

How do you work towards spreading liberalism, without harassing, and without appearing to harass, conservatives?

How do you works towards spreading acceptance of evolution, without harassing, and without appearing to harass, creationists?

I think working towards VC acceptance is just as difficult/impossible to do without appearing to be harassing.

Within the context of U.S. cycling culture, any effort to bring about acceptance of VC is revolutionary and inherently confrontational.

VC challenges fundamental and often deeply held beliefs that must be dislodged before VC can be accepted.

Spoken like a true busy-body, elitist, commie.

Answer me this, who died and appointed you as caretaker of the human race, charged with harrassing people into adopting your commie beliefs?

The more you babble, the more you show your stripes.

Spoken like a true busy-body, elitist, commie.

Answer me this, who died and appointed you as caretaker of the human race, charged with harrassing people into adopting your commie beliefs?

The more you babble, the more you show your stripes. Those do not necessarily reflect my beliefs, Chip (some do, some don't).

I could have just as easily written (some of which represent my beliefs, some of which do not) the following:

How do you work towards spreading conservatism, without harassing, and without appearing to harass, liberals?

How do you work towards spreading Christiantiy, without harassing, and without appearing to harass, non-Christians?

How do you work towards spreading the use of designated drivers, without harassing, and without appearing to harass, those who choose to drive drunk?

How do you work towards accepting the war in Iraq, without harassing, and without appearing to harass, those who oppose the war?

How do you work towards eliminating abortion, without harassing, and without appearing to harass, those who choose to have abortions?

How do you mind your own business? That is the difference between you and I, HH, I got over being a busy body, you haven't.

How do you mind your own business? That is the difference between you and I, HH, I got over being a busy body, you haven't.
The personal business of others is none of my business. But behavior that has cultural and social impact can be the business of any citizen who chooses to take it on. That's why we call it a democracy.

The personal business of others is none of my business. But behavior that has cultural and social impact can be the business of any citizen who chooses to take it on. That's why we call it a democracy.

HH, we are a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy, which breeds oppression by the majority. Even if we were a democracy, you are not the majority and thus your attempts at social engineering and behavior modification are just the signs of a busy-body. Take care of your own self, the rest of us unwashed massed can fend for ourselves just fine, thank you.

HH, we are a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy, which breeds oppression by the majority. Even if we were a democracy, you are not the majority and thus your attempts at social engineering and behavior modification are just the signs of a busy-body. Take care of your own self, the rest of us unwashed massed can fend for ourselves just fine, thank you. Dude, I'm a libertarian. I've very aware of majority authoritarianism, which I very much oppose.

You seem to not appreciate the difference between seeking change forcefully and seeking change peacefully through persuasion. There is nothing oppressive about the latter by definition, since free people are free to ignore all such efforts, including you.

P.S., a Constitutional Republic is representative democracy, but it's still a democracy.

I have seen many vehicular cycling proponents constructively help those looking for advice, for teaching and suggesting ideas and skills to those looking for it.

Where I see the nastiness in discourse is only in the debates with those opposing VC and that nastiness goes both ways.

Al

I have seen many vehicular cycling proponents constructively help those looking for advice, for teaching and suggesting ideas and skills to those looking for it.

Where I see the nastiness in discourse is only in the debates with those opposing VC and that nastiness goes both ways.

Al
Many people get nasty when their sacred cows are gored.

Given that motorist harassment is a real issue, how is it related to VC?

That is, does VC exacerbate or diminish the problem of motorist harassment, or does it have no effect?

In my experience, VC reduces, but does not eliminate, the incidence of motorist harassment a cyclist encounters. But VC - knowing inwardly that one has the same right to the road as any other driver - also seems to help a great deal in not being as intimidated when the inevitable encounters with harassing motorists occur. It helps you react quickly with a smile and a wave, for example.

I think it's also helpful to understand the likely motivations of the motorists: many are kind and good people who simply and genuinely believe that cyclists do not belong on the road. Many are probably not entirely aware of how much their desire for cyclists to not be in their way is a factor in this, but there it is.

Some folks just plain don't like slower vehicles of any kind no matter their right to the roadway. Some of these folks are doing double the speed limit or better or otherwise driving aberantly and are angered by anyone who doesn't get out of their way. These people irritate me, and, I get out of their way no matter what vehicle I am driving.

Many people get nasty when their sacred cows are gored.
True that. The best defense is to make sure that you have no sacred cows yourself...

True that. The best defense is to make sure that you have no sacred cows yourself...
:beer:

It's hard, but I try not to hold any ideas above criticism.

But people are often trying to convince me that bike lanes and "concerns of motorist harassment" (see OP) should not be criticized.

I guess holding and defending sacred cows is instinctual.

But people are often trying to convince me that bike lanes and "concerns of motorist harassment" (see OP) should not be criticized.
I don't care what you criticize. However, I think the OPs point is not that a bike lane advocate is exempt from criticism, but rather that VC would do better without resulting to insulting pseudo-psychological diagnoses of "cyclist inferiority complex", especially when you are diagnosing based on a couple internet posts.

I don't care what you criticize.
I know. Others do, however.


However, I think the OPs point is not that a bike lane advocate is exempt from criticism, but rather that VC would do better without resulting to insulting pseudo-psychological diagnoses of "cyclist inferiority complex", especially when you are diagnosing based on a couple internet posts.
Perhaps. But we get flak for much more than just that. That some of flak might happen to have legitimate basis is not surprising, considering we get so much (even a stopped clock is correct twice a day).

But we all have room for improvement, and certainly refraining from insulting others is one of those areas.

But, again, it's very hard to do. It's like an evolutionist trying to criticize creationism without insulting those who believe in it. A tough thing to do..., though refraining from assigning psychological labels to them is probably a good idea.

I think it's more about the size and source of the words you're insulting other people with. AJ and HH use big 'scientific' words to insult people with, and they seem to think that's just fine. But call one of them a freakin' idiot and they object and resent you for doing it, even though it might actually be true.

It seems to me that the big flaw with VC is that the VC-ists who promote it discount the real issue of motorist harassment and how real people feel about it. They offer in response to those who have experienced harassment, or who simply express concerns that they may experience it, at best pooh-poohing and at worst outright ridicule with phony diagnoses of mental illness, phobias, tauntings that they are superstitious, and insults that they have low IQs and reading comprehension problems.

It's a classic case of something actually well-made being sold by the engineers who made it and not the marketers who know how to sell something.

Can you guys not see that placing those with whom you disagree into your "enemies" camp, or discrediting their concerns, or tossing out only "facts" (such as they may be) without understanding the way people are moved emotionally -- and in fact, discrediting all emotion as weakness and stupidity -- is the real reason for your failure to gain market share?

You need to quit the insults, quit believing that "data" and statistics is the only meaningful measurement of value, and start figuring out a way to work vehicular cycling principles into the existing network of on-street cycling facilities. Otherwise you are doomed to failure. It's time for new packaging, new messaging, new ideas.

This is an interesting thought, but I do not know how accurately it describes the situation and the real issue. The issue at stake is the nature of our nation's bicycle transportation system, whether that will be based on incompetent cycling on bikeways or will be based on lawful, competent cycling on good roads. Among the arguments that have been previously advanced for a policy of incompetent cycling on bikeways have been making cycling safe, making cycling safe for beginners, and some version of popularity, and, of course, clearing the way for motorists. I have never heard the argument advanced seriously, that bikeways are intended to cure the harassment of cyclists by motorists problem.

It seems to me as being patently obvious that the great public demand for bikeways is based on only two thoughts. First, bikeways clear the way for motorists. Second, bikeways make cycling much safer. The motoring advocates don't have to loudly advance their agenda, for two reasons. First, every motorist recognizes the benefit to him. Second, loud advocacy of the motoring argument for bikeways would backfire. The loud advocacy for bikeways comes from the anti-motoring groups presenting the safety argument, with which the large majority of the public probably agrees, without thinking about it. The popularity argument is based on this unthinking agreement about safety, and the safety arguments are all based on the greatly exaggerated danger of same-direction motor traffic.

Since the safety argument has no scientific support, its success is an emotional issue, not a factual one.There would be very little public support for the bikeway program if this greatly exaggerated fear of same-direction motor traffic did not exist. That fear is what has made this program possible. The definition of a phobia is a condition in which a greatly exaggerated fear causes a person to take actions that are contrary to that person's best interests.

Therefore, I say that people who advocate bikeways by either the safety or the popularity arguments are either, if honest, suffering from the phobia to some degree, or, if dishonest, are using the prevalence of that phobia in the general population even though the advocate knows the facts. As long as the vehicular-cycling advocate is faced with bikeway advocacy from bicycle advocates, he is going to state the obvious, that the bikeway advocacy from bicycle advocates is based on false fears and phobic response to them.

Now, if, Diane, you have given up on bikeway advocacy and sincerely desire to assist in cycling advocacy that is based on the best interests of cyclists, and can raise a body of people with similar aims, then discussion of the reduction of harassment by motorists would be useful.

You seem to not appreciate the difference between seeking change forcefully and seeking change peacefully through persuasion. There is nothing oppressive about the latter by definition, since free people are free to ignore all such efforts, including you.
So is harassing people into believing you using "force" or is it being "peasceful"?
I see no peace in harassment.

I think it's more about the size and source of the words you're insulting other people with. AJ and HH use big 'scientific' words to insult people with, and they seem to think that's just fine. But call one of them a freakin' idiot and they object and resent you for doing it, even though it might actually be true.
Internet Poster #1: "I can insult you in words that you wouldn't even understand."
Internet Poster #2: "Yeah, but I could insult you and the rest of the forum can laugh along with me."
:D:D:D

I'm saying that vehicular cycling should stand on its own merit outside any other stuff about competency, bike lanes or phobias and all that nonsense. Vehicular cycling is a good method, but it's the social theories and the "you're such an ignorant incompetent cyclist for using the bike lanes" stuff that interferes with you guys gaining significant market share in the ideas of how cycling ought to be done.

The way you get smokers to stop is to offer support for them to stop. Sometimes that support may take the form of banning smoking inside certain establishments, or perhaps taxes on cigarettes (which I oppose by the way), or better access to information on the risks and how to quit. That is not the same as telling a smoker they're an ignorant idiot with phobias and superstitions for smoking, or saying that people who run bars are engaged in a plot to push smokers out into the streets where they'll be safely out of the way of non-smokers so we better fight those bar owners for their unfair segregation.

I'm just trying to offer some advice here. I would advocate for vehicular cycling if you would eliminate the foolish stuff that detracts from and even completely ruins your message.

I have spoken to people who have either expressed fears (my mother would ride her bike around the lake where she lives if it weren't for one bridge) or anger (my boyfriend got mad at some cyclists who were taking the lane) and informed them that under the law, cyclists have all the rights and responsibilities of drivers of cars and they are not doing anything wrong when they take up their rightful space on the roads. They are usually happy to hear that. Even my mother said, no kidding, maybe I should give it a try. And my boyfriend now gets mad at people who don't behave courteously when cyclists are taking the lane.

But if I were to start some stuff about bike lanes and cyclist inferiority disorder they would tune me out. If I were to tell my mother she should ignore all the shoulders and bike lanes and only ride in the lane she'd think I was a freak. But simply telling her how to ride VC when it is needed for her safety and comfort, she's open to it.

Drop the fake psychology, the taunts, the us/them regular bike advocates/vc advocates nonsense and simply focus on the positives of VC and you will get more converts.

Diane, I tried to convey this same message with my thread on the VC Zealots and how their "advocacy" has molded peoples opinions to no avail.

Many people get nasty when their sacred cows are gored.


I believe that statement can apply to both sides of the debate ironically enough.

(there, I said my peace, now I am going to disappear for another couple of months)

without all the socio-political mumbo jumbo, insults and bickering, in my mind the whole concept of VC can be boiled down to two words: 'destination positioning'. All the rest is a combination of window dressing and a rather dreadful marketing campaign devised by an engineer who doesn't know the first thing about the subject of marketing.

So using Diane's smoking analogy, should we stop calling smoking an addiction and just go back to calling it a bad habit? Would that help more people quit smoking?

So using Diane's smoking analogy, should we stop calling smoking an addiction and just go back to calling it a bad habit? Would that help more people quit smoking?
no, we should stop calling driving too much a bad habit and start calling it an addiction.

you VC guys should listen to Diane.

no, we should stop calling driving too much a bad habit and start calling it an addiction.

Can we leave the anti-motoring agenda out of this? It really has nothing to do with the topic at hand, or vehicular cycling in general.

I don't see the point in the OP about motorist to cyclist harassment as being about VC. A few cagers are going to harass cyclists no matter where they are, bike lanes are not going to get JAMs off the road. The only way to not get harassed in this manner is to not ride a bike.

Then, of course, you'll get harassed by the sanctimonious evironmental crowd.

The vast majority of motorists will not harass a cyclist, regardless of the cyclist's road position. Particularly not if the cyclist is highly visible and riding in a predictable manner. In other words: If they see the cyclist and know what the cyclist intends to do, they adjust accordingly.

Normally, any harassment of a cyclist only lasts for a fraction of a second. Then the cager uses the power of their motor vehicle to run away, successfully rendering their opinion insignificant. I italicized this because I think it's the part that cyclists that needlessly worry about this kind of thing miss. They predispose themselves to CIC.

vehicular cyclists can ride in bike lanes. vehicular cyclists can advocate for bike infrastructure including bike lanes.

I'm not Anti-vehicular, I'm for greater accomodation for riders on public rights of way. I know VC-ists like helemie rides in bike lanes. I know John forester can ride in a bike lane, and not experience any inferiority about doing so, when traffic is fast and the lane is accomodating.

Like Randya says 'destination positioning'. VC'ers can ride in bike lanes, dudes. get with the program.

vehicular cyclists can ride in bike lanes. ....

I'm not Anti-vehicular, I'm for greater accomodation for riders on public rights of way.
I know VC-ists like helemie ....

Like Randya says 'destination positioning'. VC'ers can ride in bike lanes, dudes. get with the program.
And non-vehicular cyclists can get harrassed
And non-VC-ist like bekologie can make up childish names to call others, mossy or not, so can noisebeam
and all cyclist can get with the program, dude
love
and peace
and spin (no matter what you cadence)

Destination, positioned, but flexible-
Al

you think I'm not a vehicular cyclist? :roflmao:

I'm an assertive, traffic jammin' vehicular cyclist that advocates for bike infrastructure. how hard is it for the foresterite camp to understand,

Vehicular cyclists can ride in a bike lane. vehicular cyclists can advocate for bike infrastructure on public rights of way, including bike lanes.

why do the foresterites attempt to assert, wrongly, that the concepts 'vehicular cycling' and 'bike lane' are mutually exclusive- they are most emphatically NOT mutually exclusive- vehicular cyclists can ride in a bike lane- vehicularily!

Good question. I wonder if we eliminated harassment of smokers if we'd have more success with getting smokers to quit.

But, then, how do you works towards reducing smoking without harassing, and without appearing to harass, smokers?

How do you work towards eliminating slavery without harassing, and without appearing to harass, slave-owners?

How do you work towards spreading liberalism, without harassing, and without appearing to harass, conservatives?

How do you works towards spreading acceptance of evolution, without harassing, and without appearing to harass, creationists?

I think working towards VC acceptance is just as difficult/impossible to do without appearing to be harassing.

Within the context of U.S. cycling culture, any effort to bring about acceptance of VC is revolutionary and inherently confrontational.

VC challenges fundamental and often deeply held beliefs that must be dislodged before VC can be accepted.

Erm...riding styles have no analogous relationship to any of the analogies you wrote.

In fact, trying to sort this out is giving me a headache. Literally.

The personal business of others is none of my business.

Then have a big ol' slice of humble pie with two scoops of STFU ice cream and stop telling those of us who use bike lanes to stop using them.

HH, we are a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy, which breeds oppression by the majority. Even if we were a democracy, you are not the majority and thus your attempts at social engineering and behavior modification are just the signs of a busy-body. Take care of your own self, the rest of us unwashed massed can fend for ourselves just fine, thank you.

If I did not know that Robert A Heinlein was dead......

Correct me if I am wrong OP, but this thread is about VC advocates harassing other cyclists who don't share their views---it is not about motorist harassment of cylists, which, I think, everyone agrees is a real issue all cyclists face.

In this thread, the OP is criticizing the way VC advocates "sell" or present their views to the rest of the cycling community, not the concept of riding vehicularly.

I have to agree with the OP. In my former life, I was heavily involved in politics and the business of selling "ideas" to the public. Rule No. 1 of public relations is that you cannot persuade people by insulting them. When we are talking about rendering political changes or changes in policy, perception and attitudes are often more important than reality. Your policy may very well be based on sound science or economics, but if you cannot sell it to the average Joe---that, is convince him that your policy is in his best interest---your policy stands a snowball's chance in hell in being enacted as law. Further, Americans, by definition, do not take kindly to insults on their intelligence and mental capacity and generally abhor being told what is "good for them" by people that "know better."

All I am suggesting is that VC advocates would stand a better chance of persuading the public and the rest of the cycling community of their views if they would ratchet down the rhetoric, ad hominen attacks, and pseudo-pyschology. Telling cyclists who don't agree with you that they aren't real "cylists" is not going to advance your agenda; neither is telling people who have fears based on personal experience that they are suffering from a mental condition.

And therein lies the final problem ..... no matter how many statistics, reports, and science that support your theory, and no matter how logical your arguments, you will never be able to persuade people if their personal experience contradicts your data and science.

Thus, in order to persuade people, you need to relate your idea or policy to their personal experience, such that the individual, on his own, realizes that it is good for them. Beating them over the head and callign them ignorant or stupid does nothing to advance your agenda.

From my own personal experience, I finally quit smoking after 13 years and 8 previous failed attempts. I ***** you not, when I previously tried to quit everytime I heard a PSA about not-smoking or some holier than thou politician babbling on about the dangers of smoking, I would instinctively light up....simply because I don't like "my betters" telling me what is good for me. In order to quit I had to want to quit for me--not because some politician with charts, graphs, and studies said I should.

Therefore, VC advocates must accept and learn to deal with the fact that most people experience motorist harassment and genuinely fear riding on busy roads. Are there ways to convince people that their fears are unfounded----yes----but insulting them is not one of them.

If I did not know that Robert A Heinlein was dead......

are you sure you know what you think you know? :eek:

Correct me if I am wrong OP, but this thread is about VC advocates harassing other cyclists who don't share their views---it is not about motorist harassment of cylists, which, I think, everyone agrees is a real issue all cyclists face.

In this thread, the OP is criticizing the way VC advocates "sell" or present their views to the rest of the cycling community, not the concept of riding vehicularly.

I have to agree with the OP. In my former life, I was heavily involved in politics and the business of selling "ideas" to the public. Rule No. 1 of public relations is that you cannot persuade people by insulting them. When we are talking about rendering political changes or changes in policy, perception and attitudes are often more important than reality. Your policy may very well be based on sound science or economics, but if you cannot sell it to the average Joe---that, is convince him that your policy is in his best interest---your policy stands a snowball's chance in hell in being enacted as law. Further, Americans, by definition, do not take kindly to insults on their intelligence and mental capacity and generally abhor being told what is "good for them" by people that "know better."

All I am suggesting is that VC advocates would stand a better chance of persuading the public and the rest of the cycling community of their views if they would ratchet down the rhetoric, ad hominen attacks, and pseudo-pyschology. Telling cyclists who don't agree with you that they aren't real "cylists" is not going to advance your agenda; neither is telling people who have fears based on personal experience that they are suffering from a mental condition.

And therein lies the final problem ..... no matter how many statistics, reports, and science that support your theory, and no matter how logical your arguments, you will never be able to persuade people if their personal experience contradicts your data and science.

Thus, in order to persuade people, you need to relate your idea or policy to their personal experience, such that the individual, on his own, realizes that it is good for them. Beating them over the head and callign them ignorant or stupid does nothing to advance your agenda.

From my own personal experience, I finally quit smoking after 13 years and 8 previous failed attempts. I ***** you not, when I previously tried to quit everytime I heard a PSA about not-smoking or some holier than thou politician babbling on about the dangers of smoking, I would instinctively light up....simply because I don't like "my betters" telling me what is good for me. In order to quit I had to want to quit for me--not because some politician with charts, graphs, and studies said I should.

Therefore, VC advocates must accept and learn to deal with the fact that most people experience motorist harassment and genuinely fear riding on busy roads. Are there ways to convince people that their fears are unfounded----yes----but insulting them is not one of them.


I've tried explaining this before...it's like talking to the wall...the wall of words to be exact. ;)

Therefore, VC advocates must accept and learn to deal with the fact that most people experience motorist harassment and genuinely fear riding on busy roads. Are there ways to convince people that their fears are unfounded----yes----but insulting them is not one of them.

For god's sake people, "VC" is not riding in the middle of the traffic lane on busy roads ignoring any other useable space. VC is a way of being able to cycle on any road in any place. If motorist harassment of cyclists is the big issue being dealt with by bike lanes, then bike lanes are a solution to a problem that does not exist: motorist harassment of cyclists when cyclists are out of the way.

Whether or not the bike lane stripe exists, the pavement width would still be there. If being out of the way of fast traffic on busy roads is your thing (and it is useful on roads with few intersections) then extra pavement is the answer. If motorists are harassing you for being in their way on a high speed road, and you need to be there because the pavement is too narrow, then extra pavement width is your answer. If motorists are harassing you for leaving the edge of the road to make a left turn, then good luck solving that problem with more bike lanes which promote cyclists at the edge of the road all the time.

are you sure you know what you think you know? :eek:

No, but I am sure that I think I know what I know.

:rolleyes:

No, but I am sure that I think I know what I know.

:rolleyes:

That makes one of us. ;)

For god's sake people, "VC" is not riding in the middle of the traffic lane on busy roads ignoring any other useable space. VC is a way of being able to cycle on any road in any place. If motorist harassment of cyclists is the big issue being dealt with by bike lanes, then bike lanes are a solution to a problem that does not exist: motorist harassment of cyclists when cyclists are out of the way.

Whether or not the bike lane stripe exists, the pavement width would still be there. If being out of the way of fast traffic on busy roads is your thing (and it is useful on roads with few intersections) then extra pavement is the answer. If motorists are harassing you for being in their way on a high speed road, and you need to be there because the pavement is too narrow, then extra pavement width is your answer. If motorists are harassing you for leaving the edge of the road to make a left turn, then good luck solving that problem with more bike lanes which promote cyclists at the edge of the road all the time.


Q.E.D.

In response:
1. I never made any suggestion that VC involves riding in the middle of the road. I don't know from whence this comment came.
2. Many cyclists experience motorsit harrassment when riding "as far as practicable" to the right---that is a fact.
3. While adding extra pavement may or may not be a solution to the problem, the existence of a possible solution does not justify denying the problem in the first place. Indeed, by presenting a solution, are are necessarly ackowledging the existence of a problem.
4. I am not advocating for or against bike lanes in this thread or for or against VC principles. You seem to miss the entire point of my post---criticism of the MANNER IN WHICH VC VIEWS ARE PRESENTED.

you think I'm not a vehicular cyclist? :roflmao:

Of course I know you cycle vehicularly, even call yourself a vehicular cyclist. But I didn't think you would call yourself a VC-ist.
Al

This topic isn't about the dog dam bike lanes for crying out loud. It's about how the usefulness of vehicular cycling is lost when it comes packaged in a manner that sounds like cranky conceited engineers delivering the message to the ignorant masses.

And to clarify, I am not trying to single out any individuals in this forum when it comes to this. To me, it seems that the very definition of VC™ comes packaged with cyclist inferiority complex, "I can teach any 8 year old in 10 minutes so why can't you idiots understand it" attitude, and lots of lofty words that sound like data but really aren't. None of that is necessary to teach vehicular cycling and all of it detracts from vehicular cycling catching on. I believe this poor delivery could be the real reason why bike lanes win and vehicular cycling loses over and over again in city council meetings across the nation.

I am just offering this to you so that if you truly wish to reach people with your message, that perhaps you change the delivery of it. Can you persuade my mom to become a vehicular cyclist advocate without resorting to forced-sounding data and statistics, without resorting to walls of lofty words, without insulting intelligence or making her feel superior so she starts insulting others? Can you do this? If not, your side is sunk not because the rest of us are stupid, phobic or superstitious, but because we're smart enough to recognize BS when we hear it.