Flawed communications

[Niles H.]

“Vehicular”

This word seems to cause a lot of confusion. The whole presentation tends to cause a lot of confusion.

When people read something about faring best if you behave like a vehicle, it is not clear what it means. It is often taken to mean that you should behave as if you were a car.

[A daydream: cyclist has message printed on jersey: “I AM A CAR”. Cyclist gets pulled over by police. After questioning, police determine that this cyclist belongs on a 72-hour hold for evaluation, since cyclist appears to be delusional, and a danger to self and others. Cyclist’s behavior in traffic contributes to overall impression.]

It has been fairly well established on these forums that behaving like a car is not quite the intended message. So (since people so often tend to interpret it that way), why not adapt or amend or intelligently modify the message?

***
Isn’t the basic idea that cyclists are (or can be) road-worthy?, and that bikes can be serious transportational vehicles, rather than toys?

(and not so much that they should necessarily behave as if they were motor vehicles?)

[Actual incident: An associate at a large Wal-Mart answered the question “Where is the bike section?” with “In the toy department,” and then apologized for this, saying that it is an American thing….]

***
So re-classifying bikes as (serious, road-worthy) vehicles makes sense, in a way. It helps to change people’s thinking and perceptions and attitudes; and it can also help when it comes to cyclists’ rights on the roads.

This makes sense.

But the statements about cyclists faring best when behaving as if they are (motor (or understood to mean motor)) vehicles says something else, something that doesn’t make as much sense and is often unclear to people. It seems unnecessary and amendable. It engenders unnecessary confusion, resistance, disbelief, successful counterarguments, many counterexamples and exceptions, etc.

So why not communicate the essential messages in a clearer, more unmixed way?

[Helmet Head]

“Vehicular”

This word seems to cause a lot of confusion. The whole presentation tends to cause a lot of confusion.

When people read something about faring best if you behave like a vehicle, it is not clear what it means. It is often taken to mean that you should behave as if you were a car.

Indeed, "behaving like a vehicle" is not clear. In fact, it makes no sense, since vehicles don't behave. Where have you seen anyone advocate such nonsense?


[A daydream: cyclist has message printed on jersey: “I AM A CAR”. Cyclist gets pulled over by police. After questioning, police determine that this cyclist belongs on a 72-hour hold for evaluation, since cyclist appears to be delusional, and a danger to self and others. Cyclist’s behavior in traffic contributes to overall impression.]

It has been fairly well established on these forums that behaving like a car is not quite the intended message. So (since people so often tend to interpret it that way), why not adapt or amend or intelligently modify the message?
"Behaving like a car" is not quite the message? Behaving like a car is utter nonsense and is not the message at all from anyone, so far as I know. Since cars don't behave, "behaving like a car" has no meaning whatsoever. It's meaningless. It's nonsense.


***
Isn’t the basic idea that cyclists are (or can be) road-worthy?, and that bikes can be serious transportational vehicles, rather than toys?
Yes, that is the basic idea.

(and not so much that they should necessarily behave as if they were motor vehicles?)
Again, utter nonsense. Motor vehicles don't behave.

[Actual incident: An associate at a large Wal-Mart answered the question “Where is the bike section?” with “In the toy department,” and then apologized for this, saying that it is an American thing….]

***
So re-classifying bikes as (serious, road-worthy) vehicles makes sense, in a way. It helps to change people’s thinking and perceptions and attitudes; and it can also help when it comes to cyclists’ rights on the roads.

This makes sense.
Glad you're with us on that much of it.

But the statements about cyclists faring best when behaving as if they are (motor (or understood to mean motor)) vehicles says something else, something that doesn’t make as much sense and is often unclear to people. It seems unnecessary and amendable. It engenders unnecessary confusion, resistance, disbelief, successful counterarguments, many counterexamples and exceptions, etc.
Utter nonsense again.

So why not communicate the essential messages in a clearer, more unmixed way?
You mean like, "Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles"?

[Niles H.]

You mean like, "Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles"?

That too is confusing.

Test it out. A little empiricism here.

Or just observe the multitude of confused responses you have already gotten -- just here on this forum, not to mention in the much wider world outside it.

IT'S CONFUSING!

I can't say it any clearer than that.

***
"Vehicles" means what, in most people's minds?

We could look it up in one or several dictionaries to get an idea of the fuzz factor here, or you can ask people. Or you can observe.

So why not make it clearer?

(Please note that I am not opposing the essential principles, just the awful level of confusing communications.)

***
On a related point: You've mentioned a need for greater clarity in your writing. There is a little book that may be worth a look (or another look if you've already seen it) -- a book that many writers have found to be an extremely valuable touchstone for clarity of style, Strunk and White's The Elements of Style.

Convoluted syntax and over-polysyllabification often turn people off. They often tune out or stop reading.

Clarity would be much more in the interests of getting your good points across well.

[Helmet Head]

I read Strunk and White many years ago. I lost my original copy, but it's on my Amazon wishlist.

[Helmet Head]

So, what conveys the same thing as

"Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles"

but is clearer?

The problem is that you can't convey what this means in one sentence, or even one paragraph. Books like Effective Cycling and Cyclecraft do it. You can find reasonable summaries like John Allen's StreetSmarts (http://www.bikexprt.com/streetsmarts/usa/index.htm), or even the summary in Jeffrey Hiles essay. (http://www.wright.edu/%7Ejeffrey.hiles/essays/listening/ch4.html)

Have you read these?

[Niles H.]

So, what conveys the same thing as

"Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles"

but is clearer?

The problem is that you can't convey what this means in one sentence, or even one paragraph....

Why assume that there is nothing clearer? Why not at least try to come up with something?

Are you certain that you cannot convey the essential meaning(s) more concisely and clearly?

***
-- and without generating the obvious confusions associated with the present words?

[rando]

cyclists fare best whn they follow the rules of the road, unless doing so would put them in danger or not make sense in that particular situation...( ex sitting in a row of cars when you could filter forward)

I don't know. It's got to be simple yet admit the possibility of flexibility when warranted. maybe that forester line is not the best shorthand way to describe it.

[e0richt]

well, lets think about it this way....

lets assume that you have a low powered motorcycle (vespa kind of thing) (30-40 mph).

How would you drive it? would you drive it like you would your car?

some interesting ideas:
does that mean the cycle should be driven in the bike lane?
can that cycle take up a lane?

would you drive that cycle through an intersection to stop at the far right side in order to make a
left turn?

now, I know that as a cyclist I can go about 20 mph but the idea is the same because that cycle is going to be slower than the other traffic and there are going to be spots where the motorist is going to be blocked for a short amount of time before s/he can get around.

bike lanes are nice (wider lanes maybe better) but the long term solution is to have use of the roads like other vehicles...

[noisebeam]

I think part of it is that a lot of folks have a poor understanding of the English language, from lack of study, laziness and most so in this case common usage creating an implied definition or common definition of the word vehicle to mean only 'motor vehicle' or even 'car.'

Another issue that crops up occasionally here on BF is that those that enjoy fighting VC intentionally take advantage of this popular confusion of what a vehicle really is and perpetuate it.

Unfortunately I agree that there is no really better term than 'vehicle' - but I'd be open to suggestion. Until then the only thing that can be done is to use the dictionary meaning of vehicle.

Al

[e0richt]

cyclists fare best whn they follow the rules of the road, unless doing so would put them in danger or not make sense in that particular situation...( ex sitting in a row of cars when you could filter forward)

I don't know. It's got to be simple yet admit the possibility of flexibility when warranted. maybe that forester line is not the best shorthand way to describe it.


well, here in NJ, guess what, if the shoulder is wide enough for a car to fit, it will "filter" to make a right hand turn... its the same if a car is blocking the lane in order to make a left turn.

[zeytoun]

Part of my problem with it is that I think it implies a false dichotomy.

you could add on the end: as opposed to acting and being treated as a pedestrian.

One of the core foundations of VC seems to me that there are only two choices for road using cyclists: to be vehicles, or to be pedestrians.

Now, if you give me the choice of acting and being treated as a vehicle, or acting and being treated as a pedestrian, I will of course choose the former.

Somehow I feel that the choice, though, is forced.

[genec]

Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of low powered, narrow vehicles.

Don't try to emulate a car, embrace the narrow aspect and be aware of the low powered aspect.

[zeytoun]

some interesting ideas:
does that mean the cycle should be driven in the bike lane?
can that cycle take up a lane?

Here in California, mopeds, low powered scooters, and those standing scooters can travel in bike lanes.

[sbhikes]

"Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles"?
Acting like one does not correspond to being treated as one. How often do you have to do something forceful -- give a special hand signal, or a glare or a steely-eyed stare -- in order to get the "treated as" part to work.

The acting as and the treated as do not flow from each other.

[rando]

Acting like one does not correspond to being treated as one. How often do you have to do something forceful -- give a special hand signal, or a glare or a steely-eyed stare -- in order to get the "treated as" part to work.

The acting as and the treated as do not flow from each other.

this is true.

[e0richt]

Here in California, mopeds, low powered scooters, and those standing scooters can travel in bike lanes.

ok, can which means you can take an advantage to allow other traffic to pass (I am making an assumption here so let me know if I go wrong, and actually other slower traffic here in NJ would use the bike lane as well, like farming equipment for example)... but would you have problem with driving it like you would a car?

[sggoodri]

Some vehicles are, by design limitation, significantly slower than average. Some vehicles are, by design, significantly narrower than average, or have less mass. Some vehicles are all three.

They are all still vehicles. The same basic rules of the road apply to drivers of all of them. There are a few special restrictions placed on the larger, heavier vehicles with higher speed capabilities. But the rest of the normal rules of the road apply to all vehicles when driven on public ways. These are the rules of traffic negotiation that allow a diverse set of vehicles to be operated effectively on the same roads by the same reliable principles.

[noisebeam]

How often do you have to do something forceful -- give a special hand signal, or a glare or a steely-eyed stare -- in order to get the "treated as" part to work.

I find that the acting part when I am driving an SUV is just as important to get treated how I want.
Even driving an SUV I find hand signals, looks of a non-nasty nature, communicating intent, assertiveness, positioning, etc. results in far better treatment from other drivers - especially in denser urban areas. Keep in mind this behavior is not just about getting, but giving and sharing as well.

Al

[sggoodri]

Acting like one does not correspond to being treated as one. How often do you have to do something forceful -- give a special hand signal, or a glare or a steely-eyed stare -- in order to get the "treated as" part to work.

The acting as and the treated as do not flow from each other.

If you act like a driver, you have a very good chance of being treated like one. At the very least, you get to use the roadway quite safely and efficiently, with the slight possibility of an occasional horn honk or close pass depending on local ignorance.

But if you don't act like a driver, you'll never be treated like a driver, and you're much more likely to be treated like a pedestrian, or worse, like a mailbox.

[zeytoun]

but would you have problem with driving it like you would a car?
I'm not sure I understand your question.

Do you mean, can a moped, or low power scooter stay travelling in a bike lane for miles?
If so, yes.

Does this mean they have to?
Not necessarily. However, if they are slower then traffic, they would be required to keep to the far right on many roads, or at least pull over if there are more then 5 cars delayed behind them.

Then again, bicyclists are not always required to use bike lanes here in California.

would you drive that cycle through an intersection to stop at the far right side in order to make a
left turn?
In some areas, yes. It's called a hook turn, and in some places is required for all vehicles.

[genec]

Some vehicles are, by design limitation, significantly slower than average. Some vehicles are, by design, significantly narrower than average, or have less mass. Some vehicles are all three.

They are all still vehicles. The same basic rules of the road apply to drivers of all of them. There are a few special restrictions placed on the larger, heavier vehicles with higher speed capabilities. But the rest of the normal rules of the road apply to all vehicles when driven on public ways. These are the rules of traffic negotiation that allow a diverse set of vehicles to be operated effectively on the same roads by the same reliable principles.

Actually it appears that the restrictions are placed on the narrow, slow vehicles... which in the case of CA law do NOT have equality, except through "exceptions."

[zeytoun]

If you act like a driver, you have a very good chance of being treated like one. At the very least, you get to use the roadway quite safely and efficiently, with the slight possibility of an occasional horn honk or close pass depending on local ignorance.

But if you don't act like a driver, you'll never be treated like a driver, and you're much more likely to be treated like a pedestrian, or worse, like a mailbox.
And by "driver" here do you mean riding the ride direction in the road, etc (the VC is anything goes paradigm), or are you including other things like Helmet Heads "advanced VC" ideas?

[Niles H.]

So, what conveys the same thing as

"Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles"

but is clearer?

I'm not splitting hairs in saying this, but "fare best..." is also part of the problem.

The main problem, though, as far as I can tell, is the word "vehicles". It is misleading (for many people) (in actual fact) (test it; or look at it, look at what is happening with it...) (find out what people read when they read it).

When I read that sentence (even now, even after exposure to a lot of clarification), it still doesn't have the right meaning or the right ring, and I've spent far more time than most people ever will -- most people are not willing to dedicate hours to wading through all this. Some of them just reject it or drop it. Others misunderstand it, and go with their misunderstandings (which can itself be dangerous). Some who finally get what is being said (which is basically simple and straightforward) end up resenting all the headaches, the hassle, and the unnecessary obfuscation that goes on around all this; and it does not often help the image of VC in (nor endear it to) their eyes.

You could always try an empirical test -- try out different wordings, different sentences, and see what various people understand when they read them. VC is in need of more scientific approaches, more testing, less reliance on (unseen as such) subtly flawed, flawed or incomplete logic. --less reliance on conjecture (or confabulistic, speculative, or novelistic tendencies and methods), and more reliance on scientific methods and testing.

You could also try two or three clear sentences to convey the essential meaning(s). There is no rule that says it has to be a single sentence; and if you cannot find a better single sentence, then it might make sense to try another approach.

That sentence is clearly confusing to many people.

[Niles H.]

The term roadworthy vehicles may communicate something important -- it may clarify the meaning substantially for some people.

The term "drivers" may also be a bit of a stumbling block for some people. It does not read smoothly, and it is basically unnecessary.

Most people understand speech such as "motor vehicles behave as if..." without getting too pedantic. I'm sure you could find many such phrasings with Google searches; and most people understand them more clearly and more immediately than they understand much of the VC phrasing. They understand that it does not mean (driverless) motor vehicles separate or distinct from (or opposed to) driven motor vehicles. People can read between the lines if you speak clearly in their language.

***
Sometimes efforts at concision can go too far, and result in something that is clear and mathematically precise to insiders, but cryptic and confusing to outsiders.

There are sometimes slightly longer communications that are much clearer (to others, who are new to the ideas), and still quite concise.

It is a challenge to come up with them, but perhaps it can be done?

To me, "Cyclists can be treated as operators of serious, roadworthy vehicles" is much clearer than most of the other sentences that are meant to convey the same meaning(s).

One approach would be to give three or four clear sentences , then expand briefly on each one beneath.

Or have each major (clear) sentence in bold, then a short (clear) paragraph beneath each....

[zeytoun]

I think Niles brings up good points.

I think most people would say "huh?" if you substituted the word "equestrians" for "cyclists". Either it means something so narrow that it can often have points that are inherently counter to how horses or cyclists operate, or it means something so broad it has no meaning at all.

I would say that cyclists fare best when they are treated like traffic, not pedestrians.

[Niles H.]

Part of my problem with it is that I think it implies a false dichotomy.

you could add on the end: as opposed to acting and being treated as a pedestrian.

One of the core foundations of VC seems to me that there are only two choices for road using cyclists: to be vehicles, or to be pedestrians.

Now, if you give me the choice of acting and being treated as a vehicle, or acting and being treated as a pedestrian, I will of course choose the former.

Somehow I feel that the choice, though, is forced.

I agree.

It also seems to force one into a category that does not seem quite right, true, or comfortable.

It would be better, in a way, to use some term like special vehicle. --not a car, not a motocycle, not a moped or scooter, not a motor vehicle (which is the usual reading), but a special and distinct subcategory, which is still a serious vehicle, still roadworthy, and still has full rights.

There might be better terms than 'special vehicle', though -- some qualification or clarification of the word vehicle does seem appropriate and more communicative.

[or perhaps some alternative to the word vehicle... I haven't yet looked at a thesaurus; maybe it would have something]

[noisebeam]

Acting like one does not correspond to being treated as one. How often do you have to do something forceful -- give a special hand signal, or a glare or a steely-eyed stare -- in order to get the "treated as" part to work.

The acting as and the treated as do not flow from each other.
Nowhere does say that if one acts as, one gets treated as by other drivers, although in my experience it does generally follow.

But as a univeral message, one that works as a message to both motorist and cyclists it works.

The message to cyclists is act as as a vehicle driver and set the expectation to be treated as such.
The message to motorist is treat cyclists as drivers of vehicles and expect cyclists to act as drivers.

Also the result is 'fare best,' it is not 'fare perfectly'

Al

[rando]

amazing how people can read the same phrase and get two different impressions.To me, it's rigidity is evident; whereas HH and others see flexibility as implied or somehow accepted. I don't think it works as a universal way to describe VC... but to each his own.

[sggoodri]

And by "driver" here do you mean riding the ride direction in the road, etc (the VC is anything goes paradigm), or are you including other things like Helmet Heads "advanced VC" ideas?

I have paraphrased the basic rules of the road that Forester cleverly identified, from analysis or how vehicular traffic works, at the following page, and enumerated below:

http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/page4.html

1. First come, first served.
2. Drive on the right-hand side of the roadway.
3. Yielding to crossing traffic.
4. Yielding when moving laterally.
5. Destination positioning at intersections.
6. Speed positioning between intersections.

And of course, lights at night...

Defensive driving like taking the lane in narrow lanes goes beyond the above rules, but is fully compatible with them. If you deny yourself the permission to use defensive driving because you don't view yourself as having the same rights as other drivers, i.e. the right to use a travel lane, then you're not acting like a driver.

[zeytoun]

1. First come, first served.
So, no filtering, right?

[sggoodri]

Actually it appears that the restrictions are placed on the narrow, slow vehicles... which in the case of CA law do NOT have equality, except through "exceptions."

If a particular state law restricts cyclists as a particular class of driver from acting like other drivers of vehicles, then always obeying such restrictive laws does not cause cyclists to fare as well as they would if they were constrained only to the normal rules for drivers of vehicles.

Fortunately, where I live, there are very few such special restrictions on cyclists, at least on non-freeway roads.

[sggoodri]

So, no filtering, right?

Not if it means cutting in line. At least, that's my interpretation.

Everybody overtakes somebody else at one point or another. The legal issue is if the overtaking happens safely, and the social issue concerns if it is done courteously.

[zeytoun]

Not if it means cutting in line. At least, that's my interpretation.
Got it. Filtering, done safely, is consistent with the VC you outline. Filtering, and cutting, not VC.

[Niles H.]

So, what conveys the same thing as

"Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles"

but is clearer??

Some other words that might be tested out: "fully legitimate vehicles of transportation, with recognized rights as such."

Finding some clarifying qualifiers for the word vehicles is one way to go.

***
Another problem with the (stand-alone) word vehicles (in addition to suggesting (to many people) motor vehicles), is that it can also be read in the very broad (dictionary) sense, meaning all vehicles. In that case, though -- when you read the sentence with that meaning in mind -- it can also be confusing.

After all, the broad category of all vehicles already includes bikes (among the many others), so what is the sentence saying then? Why even say it? -- it can seem then to be saying that bikes should be ridden (or "driven" (?)) as what? Bikes?....

***
"...operators of legitimate vehicles" may be clearer in getting the idea across -- we already know that bikes are vehicles (if the word is taken in the broader sense).

"Operators of legitimate roadworthy vehicles" is another possibility.

[genec]

If a particular state law restricts cyclists as a particular class of driver from acting like other drivers of vehicles, then always obeying such restrictive laws does not cause cyclists to fare as well as they would if they were constrained only to the normal rules for drivers of vehicles.

Fortunately, where I live, there are very few such special restrictions on cyclists, at least on non-freeway roads.

From what I understand the CA constraints are pretty common in most states as CA was used as a model.

That doesn't mean that all states used those legal constraints, but that indeed they do exist in many states.

So cyclists in those states do not in fact have equality, either in the eyes of the law, or in the eyes of motorists who are generally unaware of any form of cyclist equality laws anyway.

[Helmet Head]

I would say that cyclists fare best when they are treated like traffic, not pedestrians.
Pedestrians are traffic too.


So now we're back to:

Cyclists fare best when they are treated like vehicular traffic, not pedestrian traffic.

But this has style problems since cyclists and traffic are apples and fruit (that is, traffic is a higher level concept than cyclists, which is at the level of a plural form of an individual, like "vehicle drivers").

And this says nothing about how cyclists should behave.

[Helmet Head]

Part of my problem with it is that I think it implies a false dichotomy.

you could add on the end: as opposed to acting and being treated as a pedestrian.

One of the core foundations of VC seems to me that there are only two choices for road using cyclists: to be vehicles, or to be pedestrians.

Now, if you give me the choice of acting and being treated as a vehicle, or acting and being treated as a pedestrian, I will of course choose the former.

Somehow I feel that the choice, though, is forced.
This is a good issue -- whether VC rests on a false dichotomy -- and probably deserves a separate thread. In fact, I'll start one.

[RobertHurst]

So, no filtering, right?

I think some filtering could be consistent with Steve G.'s rules. Of course, so could running reds and stop signs, as long as the cyclist defers to ROW of crossing traffic.

Robert

[sggoodri]

Got it. Filtering, done safely, is consistent with the VC you outline. Filtering, and cutting, not VC.

I should note that the main idea behind the "first come, first served" rule is that one must respect the right of way of those already on the roadway, traveling in their lane, and not expect them to get out of your way (when approaching them from behind) and not move so close in front or beside them as to create a danger. The basic rules of the road are more about safe movements than courtesy, which is a nice-to-have.

If filtering is done too closely to to other traffic, and in a location where overtaking is not expected or in conflict with turning traffic, it violates the rules I described.

[sggoodri]

I think some filtering could be consistent with Steve G.'s rules. Of course, so could running reds and stop signs, as long as the cyclist defers to ROW of crossing traffic.

Robert

Red lights and stop signs are intended primarily to facilitate a more effective yield. Their deployment is consistent with the basic vehicular rules of the road I described. Therefore, obeying them is also consistent, assuming they are operating properly. While it is true that safely yielding is more important than the letter of the law, when the letter of the law doesn't conflict with safe and reasonably efficient cycling, I obey it, and encourage others to do the same.

This is quite different from some other traffic control devices, such as through bike lanes striped on the right side of right-turn-only lanes, which are incompatible with proper destination positioning. Therefore, I obey the former, and not the latter.

[e0richt]

hmmm didn't know that... here in NJ, I have never seen a "vespa" like motorcycle make a left turn like that. however any vehicle that tends to go slow will use the bike lane to allow other cars to pass...
so Im defnitely for either a wide lane or a wide shoulder...

[Six jours]

"VC" is just a bunch of fancy talk. Stripped of all the eye wash, it boils down to a small minority of cyclists who've deluded themselves into thinking that it's okay for a cyclist to take an entire lane of traffic and make motorists go around them.

With rare exceptions, it isn't, and giving fancy names to everything related to being in the way doesn't change that.

The raw reality? You aren't a car, and you aren't a motorcycle, and you aren't a pedestrian. You're a guy on a bicycle, and there's already a name for what you do: riding a bicycle. And the place for riding a bicycle, by both convention and law, is the side of the road. Millions of people have been doing it safely for more than a hundred years, and why the commuters suddenly decided they needed to be in the way of other road users is beyond me.

[rando]

"VC" is just a bunch of fancy talk. Stripped of all the eye wash, it boils down to a small minority of cyclists who've deluded themselves into thinking that it's okay for a cyclist to take an entire lane of traffic and make motorists go around them.

With rare exceptions, it isn't, and giving fancy names to everything related to being in the way doesn't change that.

The raw reality? You aren't a car, and you aren't a motorcycle, and you aren't a pedestrian. You're a guy on a bicycle, and there's already a name for what you do: riding a bicycle. And the place for riding a bicycle, by both convention and law, is the side of the road. Millions of people have been doing it safely for more than a hundred years, and why the commuters suddenly decided they needed to be in the way of other road users is beyond me.

for many, I think it's a statement--political, social, legal-- unfortunately, the only message the motorist gets from such a cyclist is "I'm an azzhole"! (that is assuming the cyclist is holding them up; otherwise they just think the cyclist is nuts.) I understand taking the lane for your own safety, but taking the lane on one of our "urban freeway" arterials when speeds are 40-60 mph is just ... crazy. in my opinion.

[Six jours]

Well said.

[noisebeam]

" And the place for riding a bicycle, by both convention and law, is the side of the road. .
The law says to ride to the side, with important exceptions that vary by state, but often include: narrow lane to narrow to safely share side by side, debris, fixed and moving hazards, overtaking, left turns, thru when right turn possible (in CA).

But six, based on other recent dicussions, you seem disregard these exceptions to the point you believe that a cyclist should not ride on a road with a narrow lane, including roads with multiple lanes.

Al

[noisebeam]

for many, I think it's a statement--political, social, legal-- .
This is BS. For almost all, lane positioning is for ones safety and practicality (such as destiation positioning)

There may be a very small minority of folks for whom positioning goes beyond that, but I have not met any in person or on BF.

Al

[Bekologist]

what about john, steve, and serge, Al? they advocate greater acceptance of riders on the roads by more people vehicular cycling. VCism is a political platform... it's a pretty lame advocacy platform, IMO.

Lame, to forcefeed drivers a small minority of bicyclists to begrudge acceptance of riders on the roads, versus driver education, public service announcements, bike infrastructure...

[noisebeam]

what about john, steve, and serge, Al? they advocate greater acceptance of riders on the roads by more people vehicular cycling.
So do I, but that does not mean using a full lane unless needed for safety or practial reasons.

Al

[noisebeam]

Lame, to forcefeed drivers a small minority of bicyclists to begrudge acceptance of riders on the roads, versus driver education, public service announcements, bike infrastructure...
What better way to gain acceptance of cyclist on the roads than by having cyclist using the roads? Are you suggeting that cyclists should not use the roads to gain acceptance, but instead to wait until all all motorists are educated and all roads have bike infrastructure?

Yes - this can be complimented with education and with facilities, especially wide lanes to make acceptance more pleasant for all.

Al

[skanking biker]

Indeed, "behaving like a vehicle" is not clear. In fact, it makes no sense, since vehicles don't behave. Where have you seen anyone advocate such nonsense?



"Behaving like a car" is not quite the message? Behaving like a car is utter nonsense and is not the message at all from anyone, so far as I know. Since cars don't behave, "behaving like a car" has no meaning whatsoever. It's meaningless. It's nonsense.


Yes, that is the basic idea.


Again, utter nonsense. Motor vehicles don't behave.


Glad you're with us on that much of it.


Utter nonsense again.


You mean like, "Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles"?



This is why I get a kick out of all the newstories that say "SUV hits man" or PICKUPTRUCK HITS CYCLIST

the personification of inanimate objects is an byproduct of refusing to take responsibility for one's actions and refusing to hold other PEOPLE accountable for their behavior