http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/bicycle
Main Entry: bi·cy·cle
Pronunciation: 'bI-si-k&l, -"si- also -"sI-
Function: noun
Etymology: French, from bi- + -cycle (as in tricycle)
: a vehicle with two wheels tandem, handlebars for steering, a saddle seat, and pedals by which it is propelled; also : a stationary exercise machine that resembles such a vehicle

Really, motorists know this?

Not the many motorists I talk to. Tell you what... the next time you have a chance, have a candid conversation with a group of folks that does not know you as a cyclist. Bring up the price of gas and then suggest that you plan on cycling to work and that you heard that people on bikes can use the road just like people in cars.

Then sit back and listen. Really listen. Don't defend bikes, just listen to motorists talk about the rights of cyclists. At best they tolerate us. At worse we are targets. For the most part cyclists are something to be avoided in any manner... motorists are quite afraid of hitting us and would just as soon we disappeared from the road. Some motorists will do anything to avoid us, even dangerous stupid things that put themselves into danger.

"Tolerate" is not exactly the word I would use for how motorists feel about cyclists.

Don't believe me... ask... candidly.

Heck we even have postings here on BF of cops not knowing the laws and rights... and you think motorists are aware... :rolleyes:

If one in ten motorists saw me as a target (assuming your small group at a party is representative of motorists in general) we'd all be dead by now. If someone makes a statement like that, they're obviously exagerrating, and if not, I wouldn't want to be holding a conversation with that person and neither would anyone else.

I would agree that motorists don't know the ins and outs of what rights cyclists have but why would you expect them to? Most don't even know all of their own rights/restrictions. I'd say that very, very few people think cyclists are entirely prohibited from using any part of the paved road. I've talked to a bunch of people who think we're actually allowed to bike on the interstates out here, even though there's a sign at every entrance saying that you cannot.

If John Forester's work has been such a boon to cycling, why is the state of cycling in the US so dismal?

Cycling in the USA so dismal? I don't think so. We have what is reputed to be the world's best road system, the traffic laws are reasonable (with a few exceptions), most of our motorists operate reasonably (particularly when compared to much of the rest of the world, except those in the old cycling nations), we are free to associate with like-minded cyclists, a considerable portion of the recent advances in bicycle engineering have originated in the USA, we have cycling competitors able to match the best elsewhere. I fail to see that cycling in the USA is dismal. The climate is difficult in much of the nation for parts of the year, I admit.

Of course there is a down side. The major problem with American cycling is the social attitude that has existed for more than sixty years, and has been officially implemented for the last thirty years in the form of the government's bikeway program. That attitude is that cyclists should not operate as drivers of vehicles, but as persons who are unable to so operate, that this problem could be ameliorated by restricting cyclists to the side of the road, as the discriminatory part of traffic law does, and can be implemented even more effectively by the use of bike lanes and bike paths.

And you, Diane, of all people, have convinced yourself that you and your party are not those who have been in the forefront of opposition to my efforts toward rectifying the situation and restoring the proper legal status of cyclists as drivers of vehicles!

maybe I should have said "read a certain book by a certain author". safe riding can be learned any number of places other than EC. Following the rules of the road is not that complicated. Inferring that it is is doing a disservice to those not in the Cult.

I'm probably one of the people least adapted for cultdom imaginable. I'm cranky, individualistic, and raise questions which rattle the leadership of whatever cult is attempting to recruit me. On the other hand I really haven't found a manual comparable to Effective Cycling on cycling in traffic. Despite the claims of one of the folks on this thread I haven't written an ode to Forester or the book (I could do that, but I'm more of a sonnet sort of guy, and I reserve sonnets for my fiancée). It's just an excellent book. John Allen's online book is good. When I'm muddling through repairs I look at the Zinn book (the graphics can be very helpful). And Sheldon Brown's website has a lot of good stuff.

Following the rules of the road may not be complicated, but I see so many people who regularly cycle on the road hugging the curb (and I've read a justification of that practice on one of these threads), or making left turns from the righthand side of the road (where there's a bikelane), or generally riding so timidly that the motorists have no idea what the cyclist is going to do (that's where that assertiveness thing comes in), that I'm going to continue in my misguided assumption that training in onroad cycling technique is a good thing.

LBM,
Perhaps you should read what Larry posted on this thread. it wasn't anything about cycling in Atlanta but was an ode to John Forester and his alleged good deeds for Serious Cyclists. How Larry feels about John Forester is exactly what he gratuitously wrote about on this thread.
And anyone so doing should be corrected immediately. We can't allow such incorrect ideas to spread.

I find Larry's tone refreshingly unconfrontational.

And anyone so doing should be corrected immediately. We can't allow such incorrect ideas to spread.

I find Larry's tone refreshingly unconfrontational.
Doncha you really mean you agree with him? And don't want to read anything that doesn't meet your approval?

Doncha you really mean you agree with him? And don't want to read anything that doesn't meet your approval?
You know better, and so does everyone else who has read my posts.

I'm a little suprised.

You know better, and so does everyone else who has read my posts.

I'm a little suprised.
Surprised? Perhaps that's the problem.

I've read your posts and, sorry, LBM, but I tend to agree with ILTB on this one.

In your defense, you do seem to at least try to see both sides of an argument. Unfortunately, despite your best intentions, at times you fail miserably. No offense, but you aren't very good a being impartial.

[ I've edited out a request to take part of this discussion offlist, which I made in a burst of cranky irritation]Wow. So I can't even read what you said, much less respond to it.

LOL. That kind of puts your criticism of this forum in perspective, does it not? You can't even stand by your original post.

Quite honestly, I find your fawning praise of John Forester offensive, ignoring, as it does, the destructive effects that John Forester's absurd psychological and social theories have had on cycling advocacy, lo these many years.

Carry on! I find your denials of the cult-like nature of your praise of JF rather amusing.

Main Entry: bi·cy·cle
a vehicle with two wheels tandem, handlebars for steering, a saddle seat, and pedals by which it is propelled; also : a stationary exercise machine that resembles such a vehicleYes. According to the common English language definition, a bicycle is a vehicle. It could be argued, based on common English language definitions, that all cycling, even riding on a sidewalk, is vehicular.

But the term "vehicular cycling" is not based on the common English language definition; it is based on a special legal definition which, to a certain extent, varies from state to state.

The term "vehicular cycling" has always been confusing and, I would argue, has always been something of a misnomer. VC-ists have traditionally used the confusion to their advantage in promoting the brand known as 'VC'.

Don't be confused. It's all propaganda.

Yes. According to the common English language definition, a bicycle is a vehicle. It could be argued, based on common English language definitions, that all cycling, even riding on a sidewalk, is vehicular.

But the term "vehicular cycling" is not based on the common English language definition; it is based on a special legal definition which, to a certain extent, varies from state to state.

The term "vehicular cycling" has always been confusing and, I would argue, has always been something of a misnomer. VC-ists have traditionally used the confusion to their advantage in promoting the brand known as 'VC'.

Don't be confused. It's all propaganda.
Sorry, I don't believe this is accurate, JRA, and will interrupt my break to make this correction.

To my understanding, the term "vehicular" in "vehicular cycling" has nothing to do with whether a bicycle is a vehicle. It has everything to do with a bicyclist riding on roads operating in accordance with the vehicular rules of the road as opposed to the pedestrian rules of the road, or being a scofflaw.

And what is meant by the "vehicular rules of the road" are the underlying common sense principles and rules that all the legal rules of the road for drivers of vehicles from state to state (and country to country) are based on; the same basis which makes it possible for a driver who has learned these principles and rules to operate a vehicle effectively and legally in a state or country without ever reviewing the particular traffic laws of that state or country.

VC contrarians like to pretend this is some big ambiguity problem, but the fact is that the vast majority of drivers are unfamiliar with the vehicle codes of their own state, much less those of any other state or country in which they drive successfully, and, so, they must be driving according to something else. That something else is "the underlying common sense principles and rules that all the legal rules of the road for drivers of vehicles from state to state (and country to country) are based on", and that's what is meant by "vehicular rules of the road".

Back to lurking.

In your defense, you do seem to at least try to see both sides of an argument.To be clear, just in case I wasn't in a previous post, I respect LittleBigMan's opinion.

I don't entirely agree with him but I respect his opinion.

By the same token, I don't entirely agree with ILTB, but I respect his opinion.

I was raised to believe that, if you can't say anything nice, you shouldn't say anything at all, so I won't comment on how I feel about Helmet Head's opinion. :D

Serge, you have no self-control.

The Headspeak™ definition for "*** TAKING A BREAK FROM BIKE FORUMS AT LEAST THROUGH JULY *** is:

I'll still feverishly read the forums and then stew and stew until I can't help myself and then I'll post.

That hardly equals "taking a break" to normal people.Zealots have never been normal.

Welcome to the world of VC fanaticism.

Be afraid. Be very afraid. :D

I'm probably one of the people least adapted for cultdom imaginable. I'm cranky, individualistic, and raise questions which rattle the leadership of whatever cult is attempting to recruit me. On the other hand I really haven't found a manual comparable to Effective Cycling on cycling in traffic. Despite the claims of one of the folks on this thread I haven't written an ode to Forester or the book (I could do that, but I'm more of a sonnet sort of guy, and I reserve sonnets for my fiancée). It's just an excellent book.

Well, you aren't completely immune to cultdom. Somebody found the right recipe to hook you in. While you're composing your poem you may as well set it to gospel music.

I am a member of the A&S forum cult!

Wow. So I can't even read what you said, much less respond to it.

LOL. That kind of puts your criticism of this forum in perspective, does it not? You can't even stand by your original post.

Quite honestly, I find your fawning praise of John Forester offensive, ignoring, as it does, the destructive effects that John Forester's absurd psychological and social theories have had on cycling advocacy, lo these many years.

Carry on! I find your denials of the cult-like nature of your praise of JF rather amusing.

All I had in the deleted line of any substance was an invitation to take the discussion offlist. I'll respond to the whole "cult" nonsense when I figure out a manner to say it without the discussion devolving into idiocy.

Well, you aren't completely immune to cultdom. Somebody found the right recipe to hook you in. While you're composing your poem you may as well set it to gospel music.
Ridicule can be a very effective form of intimidation. But it doesn't open anyone's imagination.

Well, you aren't completely immune to cultdom. Somebody found the right recipe to hook you in. While you're composing your poem you may as well set it to gospel music.

Given that I'm a southerner with literary proclivities and a long history in Baptist and Methodist churches, I could handle a gospel song quite easily. But in the interests of time let me start with a prayer instead:

"Lord,

Deliver me from the temptation to respond to meaningless posts, no matter how wide open the poster leaves him or herself
to really, really, funny comebacks. I thank you for helping me to realize that they know not what they say, even though they feel compelled to say it with prodigious frequency.

Amen"

If that's not sufficient I'll write a gospel song over the next day or two. The first thing that comes to mind is a song about the divine protective powers which lane paint bestows upon the righteous.

Wow. So I can't even read what you said, much less respond to it.

LOL. That kind of puts your criticism of this forum in perspective, does it not? You can't even stand by your original post.



I didn't catch this part of your post on first reading ... What criticism are you talking about? My criticism was of a specific post. The forum in general is what it is. It's another venue in which to debate cycling policies, and it behaves exactly as I expect it to. In my own opinion I'm being treated pretty well considering the subject matter. My reason for removing the line was that I had second thoughts about taking the discussion offlist, and it contained information about myself which was unneccessarily personal.

Ridicule can be a very effective form of intimidation. But it doesn't open anyone's imagination.

Thanks, LBM, but I don't feel very intimidated. In fact I welcome them taking their best shot. It's sort of like sparring. It's not a real match but it keeps me limber and improves my stamina. :)

I'd love to hear a good gospel song to John Forester. Please do write one.

I'd love to hear a good gospel song to John Forester. Please do write one.

I think I'll pass on this request, but I will write you a gospel song about bike lanes.