Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Act as drivers of vehicles? -- which vehicles?

a runner is NOT a pedestrian?

a runner is now a vehicle? hmm, interesting spin on things.....

`No, I am afraid the differences between a ped and cyclist are far fewer than the differences between a bike and a car. Talking about the number of differences without context is meaningless. There are differences that matter and differences that are irrelevant, depending on what the underlying question is. For example, it is true that one difference between a bike and car is that you can take the bike into a grocery store and the car not. Whether that difference matters or is irrelevant depends on the context. So, what is the context? Please be as specific as you can.

What do you suggest doing on a narrow road with fast traffic while moving slowly if not act like a vehicle driver? Walk? Not use the road?

If I was asked, I would indeed advice against riding at a walking speed on a narrow lane curbed road with traffic around 90kph. I would have to advice them to take a different road. Similarly, I adjust my routes seasonally when weather and equipment changes drop my speed by a large amount relative to overtaking traffic.

IMO, if posters on BF could somehow be held legally accountable for the advice they give, we might not see such blanket one-size-fits all recommendations here.

Talking about the number of differences without context is meaningless. There are differences that matter and differences that are irrelevant, depending on what the underlying question is. For example, it is true that one difference between a bike and car is that you can take the bike into a grocery store and the car not. Whether that difference matters or is irrelevant depends on the context. So, what is the context? Please be as specific as you can.

The context is "creating rules" based on speed. If it is the case that I can treat the exact same pedestrian differently based on whether they are running or walking, then why can't motorists treat cyclists differently based on whether the cyclist is moving at the posted speed limit or not?

Further (just to throw this into the mix) cyclists often complain that MUPs are unsuitable, as the cyclists must slow down to ped speed to negotiate the peds. Yet those same cyclists do not feel that doing the same thing for motorists is unsuitable... where the motorists must slow down to cycling speeds.

Sure seems like a bit of hypocrisy to me.

Motorist: "I don't want to wait behind slow cyclists..."
Cyclist: "You must, it is of the ROTR."

Cyclist: "I don't want to wait for peds on the path."
Motorist, now walking path: "you must, is is of the ROTP."
Cyclist: "No no no... I refuse... I will protest, I demand to use the street."
Motorist, still walking path: "But wait, you will slow me... "
Cyclist: "So what."
Motorist, now back to car: "We'll see." (seeks to teach cyclist another "lesson") :rolleyes:
Cyclist: "Some motorist just buzzed me... "

The context is "creating rules" based on speed. If it is the case that I can treat the exact same pedestrian differently based on whether they are running or walking, then why can't motorists treat cyclists differently based on whether the cyclist is moving at the posted speed limit or not?

Further (just to throw this into the mix) cyclists often complain that MUPs are unsuitable, as the cyclists must slow down to ped speed to negotiate the peds. Yet those same cyclists do not feel that doing the same thing for motorists is unsuitable... where the motorists must slow down to cycling speeds.

Sure seems like a bit of hypocrisy to me.

Motorist: "I don't want to wait behind slow cyclists..."
Cyclist: "You must, it is of the ROTR."

Cyclist: "I don't want to wait for peds on the path."
Motorist, now walking path: "you must, is is of the ROTP."
Cyclist: "No no no... I refuse... I will protest, I demand to use the street."
Motorist, still walking path: "But wait, you will slow me... "
Cyclist: "So what."
Motorist, now back to car: "We'll see." (seeks to teach cyclist another "lesson") :rolleyes:
Cyclist: "Some motorist just buzzed me... "

Somewhat irrelevant. There are no rules of the road on MUPs.

There are no rules of the road on MUPs.Who told you that?

Somewhat irrelevant. There are no rules of the road on MUPs.
ORLY?

Somewhat irrelevant. There are no rules of the road on MUPs.

Oh, so we just plow down the peds, and that is OK?

Sir may I recommend that you look at the signs posted along the path at the local MUPs... there are indeed rules.

And even if not posted, there are generally accepted rules... which involve NOT running over the peds.

But in the meantime, you apparently are not willing deal with the hypocrisy of the situation... and brush it off with "there are no rules... "

Nice try.

Who told you that?
I know of no rules of the MUP that are adhered to with anywhere near the consistency that drivers adhere to the rules of the road.

The only rules I remember every seen posted are both contrary to the interest of the cyclist wishing to use the MUP for effective transportation: 8 mph speed limit and cyclists must yield to peds, period, who are not restricted from doing anything they want on the path.

The point is if there were real rules of the MUP comparable to those of the road that made the inconvenience peds cause to cyclist on MUPs comparable to the inconvenience cyclists cause to motorists on roads, then maybe cyclists complaining about peds but insisting on their roadway rights might be fairly seen as hypocritical, but that's a big if.

HUH? what kind of wacky reasoning is that? almost impenetrable in its worthlessness masquerading as valuable.


Regradless, I'm going to act like a gorilla on the basketball court. always assuming I'll be overlooked, regardless of my methodology OR my attempts to emulate a slow moving tractor or H. Head's RV.

I know of no rules of the MUP that are adhered to with anywhere near the consistency that drivers adhere to the rules of the road.



Yeah... especially that rule on speeding, eh? I see so many drivers "adhering" to that rule... :rolleyes:

Com'on, you're just trying to get off the hook of this hypocrisy... not willing to accept what you dish out.

If it is OK to slow motorists on the streets, it is OK to slow cyclists on the MUP.

Oh, so we just plow down the peds, and that is OK?

Sir may I recommend that you look at the signs posted along the path at the local MUPs... there are indeed rules.

And even if not posted, there are generally accepted rules... which involve NOT running over the peds.

But in the meantime, you apparently are not willing deal with the hypocrisy of the situation... and brush it off with "there are no rules... "

Nice try. Come on, Gene, don't be silly. "No rules of the road" does not mean "absolutely no rules, period, so bicyclists are allowed to plow down peds". Can't you simply disagree with what he's actually saying rather than twisting it into something absurd and then stating your disagreement with that as if it's relevant to the conversation?

The point is that the rules of the road accomodate users of disparate speeds (stay on the right half of the road, slower traffic keeps right, pass on the left, faster traffic yields to slower traffic ahead, yield to traffic on your right, etc), thus allowing the relatively smooth and orderly simultaneous use of the road by all drivers, independent of speed.

Whatever the "generally accepted" rules on the MUP are, they are not designed to do that. That's what JF means by there being no rules of the road on the MUP.

Yeah... especially that rule on speeding, eh? I see so many drivers "adhering" to that rule... :rolleyes:

Com'on, you're just trying to get off the hook of this hypocrisy... not willing to accept what you dish out.

If it is OK to slow motorists on the streets, it is OK to slow cyclists on the MUP. Sigh.

I'm assuming that by "OK" in this context you mean: "reasonable to expect the relevant party to accept without complaint". If not, please correct me, but that's the meaning I'm assuming here.

It is OK for vehicular cyclists to slow motorists on the streets per the ROTR when there is no safe and reasonable alternative because of the rules of the road that generally accomodate for all types of vehicular traffic at disparate speeds, and the resultant delay is rarely of any actual significant duration.

It is not OK for peds to slow cyclists on MUPs per the MUP rules because the MUP rules, such as they are, are pretty useless for efficient transportational use of the MUP by cyclists when there is any significant ped usage.

Again, if we built the MUPs with center dividing stripes, sufficient width, applied, enforced and achieved general acceptance of the ROTR on the MUP, then maybe there would be a fair comparison. But since that is not the case, simply saying, "If it is OK to slow motorists on the streets, it is OK to slow cyclists on the MUP" is an oversimplification that makes no sense.

And besides, no one is really complaining about the peds on the MUPs the way motorists often complain about cyclists on roads. I don't hear anyone calling for the banning of peds from MUPs, for example. We're simply saying that because of the peds on the MUPs, and their haphazard use of them, it is unreasonable to expect cyclists to accept MUPs as a reasonable alternative to riding on the roadways, justifying banning our use of the roadway.

Come on, Gene, don't be silly. "No rules of the road" does not mean "absolutely no rules, period, so bicyclists are allowed to plow down peds". Can't you simply disagree with what he's actually saying rather than twisting it into something absurd and then stating your disagreement with that as if it's relevant to the conversation?

The point is that the rules of the road accomodate users of disparate speeds (stay on the right half of the road, slower traffic keeps right, pass on the left, faster traffic yields to slower traffic ahead, yield to traffic on your right, etc), thus allowing the relatively smooth and orderly simultaneous use of the road by all drivers, independent of speed.

Whatever the "generally accepted" rules on the MUP are, they are not designed to do that. That's what JF means by there being no rules of the road on the MUP.

The "generally accepted rules" are very much like your "general Rules of the Road." People know the basics... That John Forester choses to brush them away with a wave of his hand just shows the level of hyprocrisy that some vehicular cyclists will maintain to endorse their system.

I suppose you have never seen signs posted along any local MUPs?

Anything that looks like this: http://www.epgsoft.com/MBYork/yield.gif

John is quite quick to tell us that "paths don't work" because cyclists cannot go full speed upon them, but he is just as quick to dismiss the desire of motorists to go "full speed" on city streets.

Motorists don't want to be slowed down any more than cyclists... yet it is somehow OK for slow cyclists to delay a motorist, but a cyclist cannot be delayed by a pedestrian.

I just cannot wrap my head around that hypocrisy.

And besides, no one is really complaining about the peds on the MUPs the way motorists often complain about cyclists on roads. I don't hear anyone calling for the banning of peds from MUPs, for example. We're simply saying that because of the peds on the MUPs, and their haphazard use of them, it is unreasonable to expect cyclists to accept MUPs as a reasonable alternative to riding on the roadways, justifying banning our use of the roadway.

John doesn't consider paths an acceptable transportion component as they may not allow cyclists to operate at full speed, they may not have been built using "transportation dollars," and they are not under the same jurisdiction as the streets. (may be policed by rangers, vice city police.)

The "generally accepted rules" are very much like your "general Rules of the Road." People know the basics... That John Forester choses to brush them away with a wave of his hand just shows the level of hyprocrisy that some vehicular cyclists will maintain to endorse their system.

I suppose you have never seen signs posted along any local MUPs?

Anything that looks like this: http://www.epgsoft.com/MBYork/yield.gif

John is quite quick to tell us that "paths don't work" because cyclists cannot go full speed upon them, but he is just as quick to dismiss the desire of motorists to go "full speed" on city streets.

Motorists don't want to be slowed down any more than cyclists... yet it is somehow OK for slow cyclists to delay a motorist, but a cyclist cannot be delayed by a pedestrian.

I just cannot wrap my head around that hypocrisy. Gene, did you skip breakfast today or something? Mountain bikes, horses and hikers? Those are the user-type yielding rules for off-road trails - like the one going through Penasquitos preserve!

In any case, those rules, such as they are, and the similar ones for MUPs (bikes yield to peds, period) are a far cry from the rules of the road and all that they enable in terms of safe and efficient shared usage.

"There are no rules of the road on MUPs." -John Forester

John doesn't consider paths an acceptable transportion component as they may not allow cyclists to operate at full speed, they may not have been built using "transportation dollars," and they are not under the same jurisdiction as the streets. (may be policed by rangers, vice city police.)
Right, not to mention that they are indistinguishable from dirt trails in terms of maintenance legal liability.

The point of all that is the existance of an MUP is not a valid reason to ban cyclists from the roadway alternative. Do you agree?

The "generally accepted rules" are very much like your "general Rules of the Road." People know the basics... That John Forester choses to brush them away with a wave of his hand just shows the level of hyprocrisy that some vehicular cyclists will maintain to endorse their system.

I suppose you have never seen signs posted along any local MUPs?

Anything that looks like this: http://www.epgsoft.com/MBYork/yield.gif

John is quite quick to tell us that "paths don't work" because cyclists cannot go full speed upon them, but he is just as quick to dismiss the desire of motorists to go "full speed" on city streets.

Motorists don't want to be slowed down any more than cyclists... yet it is somehow OK for slow cyclists to delay a motorist, but a cyclist cannot be delayed by a pedestrian.

I just cannot wrap my head around that hypocrisy.


Hypocrisy? No driver should unnecessarily delay any other driver, and the rules of the road are set up to adjudicate between the two parties in a reasonably fair way. On many normal streets the cyclist can safely travel as fast as his legs will propel him. However, on most MUPs that attract as much traffic as would justify their cost, that traffic operating in a chaotic manner prevents the cyclist from traveling at much more than walking pace. Whatever is the right or wrong of the matter, those are the facts. It is therefore quite reasonable for a cyclist to decide to ride on a road instead of on a path on the basis of attainable safe speed.

"There are no rules of the road on MUPs." -John Forester
Helmet Head quoting John Forester nonsense. Classic! You guys crack me up. You should be on the stage.

You've outdone yourself, Helmet Head. You're the guy who fantazies that there are some universal rules of the road that you claim justify certain exceptions to the actual rules of the road. You believe in the mythical universal rules of the road but you don't believe there are rules of the road for MUPs.

What a joke!

Helmet Head quoting John Forester nonsense. Classic! You guys crack me up. You should be on the stage.

You've outdone yourself, Helmet Head. You're the guy who fantazies that there are some universal rules of the road that you claim justify certain exceptions to the actual rules of the road. You believe in the mythical universal rules of the road but you don't believe there are rules of the road for MUPs.

What a joke!

Absolute idiocy instead of thinking that this is a joke. When, in vehicular cycling, we refer to the rules of the road we mean the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. Anybody who has not understood that is probably missing more than one shingle. The rules of the road for drivers of vehicles apply only to operation on roadways and associated areas, such as some parking lots. While there are rather primitive rules regarding operation on MUPs, these are not the rules of the road. Besides, how often have you seen the traffic on a well-occupied MUP operating according to the rules of the road?

Hypocrisy? No driver should unnecessarily delay any other driver, and the rules of the road are set up to adjudicate between the two parties in a reasonably fair way...Ajudicate? Hopefully, it won't come to that but incidents that occur on MUPs can be adjudicated, too.

That was a nice misuse of a two-bit word, though. You get credit for that.

Absolute idiocyI agree. Your claim that there are no rules of the road for MUPs is pure idiocy. But let's see how you can try to spin it:


When, in vehicular cycling, we refer to the rules of the road we mean the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. Anybody who has not understood that is probably missing more than one shingle. The rules of the road for drivers of vehicles apply only to operation on roadways and associated areas, such as some parking lots. While there are rather primitive rules regarding operation on MUPs, these are not the rules of the road. Besides, how often have you seen the traffic on a well-occupied MUP operating according to the rules of the road?Good one! You are the spin-meister, no doubt about it.

Besides, how often have you seen the traffic on a well-occupied MUP operating according to the rules of the road?

Daily.

The slower traffic keeps to the right. Cyclists split the path and maintain directional flow in either direction. Cyclists tend to ride quite fast. (I know I have done 16.2 MPH average for a 20 mile ride on this MUP... verified by GPS and bike computer.)

As far as well occupied... I am not sure what qualifies as "well occupied..."

Occasionally a dog doesn't follow the rules... but then they do that in streets too.

Horse pucky.

Example:
More horse pucky.


Safe multiple use of this and other multiple use trails requires everyone's cooperation. Each trail user is asked to exercise common courtesy. BICYCLES YIELD to horses and hikers. HIKERS YIELD to horses. Stay to the right of the trail except when passing. NO MOTORIZED VEHICLES are permitted on the trail, wheelchairs excepted.

RESPONSIBLE TRAIL-USE RULES

Violations of any of the following may result in citation:

ALL TRAIL USERS:
* Be safe, considerate and aware of your impact on the trail and other trail users.
* For everyone's safety, keep to the right. Proceed single file around blind curves.
* For your safety, headphones are not advised.
* Safety helmets are required by law for bicyclists under age 18, and are strongly recommended for all bicyclists and equestrians.
* Dogs must be on leash where posted, and under full verbal control elsewhere. Please clean up after your dog.

BICYCLES:
* Bicycles are not permitted, either walked, ridden or carried, on trails marked "No Bicycles."
* Bicycles shall not be ridden at an unsafe speed, or greater than the posted speed limit. Be aware of how you are perceived by other trail users.
* Bicycles always yield to pedestrians. Before passing, SLOW DOWN, ring bell and/or establish verbal contact.
* When approaching equestrians, call out and/or ring bell and STOP, whether you are seen or not. Ask for instructions on how to pass safely.
* On blind turns, SLOW DOWN, call out and/or ring bell and ride single file.

PEDESTRIANS:
* Keep to the right when approached by others.
* Always yield to equestrians.
* Look behind and to both sides before changing course.

EQUESTRIANS:
* Keep your horse to the right or where safe when encountering other trail users.
* Communicate. Let other trail users know how to pass your horse safely.
* Please clean up after your horse on paved trails.

p.s. The speed limit is 15mph.

Pete's description applies even more strongly to his own contribution.

The whole argument is just plain silly. Certainly there are laws regarding operation on MUPs, just as there are laws that apply when in a park, but these are not the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, nothing like them. However, these rules do illustrate the problems with MUP traffic that we have been discussing. Note that dogs are expected, some running free and some on leashes. A dog under one's front wheel, whether free-running or on a leash, is a nasty mess for a cyclist. Note that cyclists passing (we do not know whether this means overtaking only, or both overtaking or meeting) pedestrians have to negotiate their passing movement according to the command: "SLOW DOWN, ring bell and/or establish verbal contact". Why so? Because it is only to be expected that pedestrians will move about largely at random, regardless of the posted rules.

The whole argument is just plain silly.Finally we agree. Your claim that there are no rules of the road on a MUP is just plain silly.


Certainly there are laws regarding operation on MUPs...No foolin'? You've changed your tune a little bit. Still trying to spin it, are we?

You crack me up, Forester.

Finally we agree. Your claim that there are no rules of the road on a MUP is just plain silly.

No foolin'? You've changed your tune a little bit. Still trying to spin it, are we?

You crack me up, Forester.

What miniature minds you all have! And how pleased you are about that fact! How many of you have cycled along an MUP at a time and place where there was significant traffic in the same manner as you would ride on a normal arterial street? I've done it, and it was dangerous, as I was told by a whole committee of experts who accompanied me. It is a plain fact that traffic on MUPs does not operate according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. Is there anyone here who can offer significant evidence of the converse?

What miniature minds you all have!We bow to the infinite wisdom of The Great One and his merry band of followers.

You crack me up.

When they have no argument, they resort to insults and ad hominem attacks.

When they have no argument, they resort to insults and ad hominem attacks.
!

JF and (to a lesser extent) HH probably resort to this sort of thing more often, certainly quite often, and usually first.

Why criticize others for the same offenses you are committing?, especially when yours are worse, more frequent, and often on a rather low level? It's just name-calling.

And who came up with "miniature minded" and "miniature minds"? Come on. We can do better than this. And words like "idiocy" and the rest?

Not very rational. Not very logical. Not very mature.

They reflect less well on their original perpetrators than anyone else.

The context is "creating rules" based on speed. If it is the case that I can treat the exact same pedestrian differently based on whether they are running or walking, then why can't motorists treat cyclists differently based on whether the cyclist is moving at the posted speed limit or not?

Let's get back on topic here about what I actually said. My point was that a runner could successfully act like a vehicle driver (just like a slowly moving cyclist would). I also stated that it's easier for a runner who decides to move slower to change into pedestrian mode than it is for a cyclist. Nowhere did I say anything about motorists treating the runner any differently if the runner decide to stay in vehicle mode while going slower. You created that part of your argument. You also have now thrown in this "moving at the posted speed limit" which is an entirely different subject.

a runner can sucessfully act like a vehicle driver?

:roflmao: the VCist spin knows noooo bounds.....

a runner can sucessfully act like a vehicle driver?

:roflmao: the VCist spin knows noooo bounds.....
Of course. It would look a bit silly, perhaps, but in theory could surely be done.

yes, you're big on theoretical.

A guy in an armchair that rides mostly with the peloton on the weekends could pretend he's quite the transportational bicyclist too.

Originally Posted by John Forester
What miniature minds you all have! And how pleased you are about that fact! How many of you have cycled along an MUP at a time and place where there was significant traffic in the same manner as you would ride on a normal arterial street? I've done it, and it was dangerous, as I was told by a whole committee of experts who accompanied me.




Then they, like you, are exhibiting MUP phobia insecurity syndrome.

In other words, you're a bunch of *******.

Yes, I've been on MUPs with lots of different classes of users and I've never been terrified as you describe yourself being.

Your awkward use of "rules of the road" is very Headesque™, which is not surprising in the least.



We agree! Forester's "miniature minds" attack (weak as it was) is just the latest ina long list of ad hominem attacks against the rational folks that don't buy into his Motorcar Phobia.

That answer is just one more example of miniature minds who fail to understand the point. I asked a specific question, and if a positive answer had been offered I would have been surprised. Instead, all you can think of is to feel insulted because you think I was calling you frightened. The point that I was making is that riding on the typical MUP with significant traffic in the same way that one would ride on the roadway, at equivalent speed and with the expectation that the other traffic would obey the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, is very dangerous. How many of you understand that? I thought that almost all would, but I was evidently mistaken.

When they have no argument, they resort to insults and ad hominem attacks.

I believe it was JF that threw out the first
What miniature minds you all have!, while the others simply resorted to using the same "silly" that was posted earlier by Mr Forester.

Actually I think Mr. Forester threw out the first
Absolute idiocy

I think your "they resort to insults" is just a bit off. :rolleyes:

Let's get back on topic here about what I actually said. My point was that a runner could successfully act like a vehicle driver (just like a slowly moving cyclist would). I also stated that it's easier for a runner who decides to move slower to change into pedestrian mode than it is for a cyclist. Nowhere did I say anything about motorists treating the runner any differently if the runner decide to stay in vehicle mode while going slower. You created that part of your argument. You also have now thrown in this "moving at the posted speed limit" which is an entirely different subject.

Your bottom line point is you chose to treat the pedestrian differently due only to speed...

And yet you don't want the same treatment from motorists.

Your bottom line point is you chose to treat the pedestrian differently due only to speed...

And yet you don't want the same treatment from motorists.

Pedestrians and drivers of vehicles have far more differences than speed.

Pedestrians can pivot in place, translate laterally without moving foward, and overcome significant surface discontinuities. Drivers of vehicles (including my road bike hauling my son in a trailer) cannot do these things.

A runner could, in theory, intentionally limit his use of these capabilities in order to emulate a slow moving driver, and could theoretically travel just as safely and predictably as a slow moving bicycle driver on any given facility (assuming good lighting).

However, most pedestrians, including some runners, do not limit their use of these superior maneuvering capabilities, especially when on pedestrian facilities such as sidewalks and MUPs, where they are less aware of the importance of acting predictably. In particular, they tend to move laterally in a sudden, unpredictable manner without looking and yielding. Their maneuverability predisposes them to operate in a manner that conflicts with vehicular rules. This can result in less safe interactions between drivers and most pedestrians on multi-use facilities than between drivers and other drivers, all acting as drivers, on vehicular facilities.

Your bottom line point is you chose to treat the pedestrian differently due only to speed...

And yet you don't want the same treatment from motorists.

Work with me here, Gene. Just as a cyclist can choose to treat himself like a pedestrian or a vehicle, I'm saying that a runner could choose to treat himself in the same manner, like a pedestrian or a vehicle (in this case, a slow moving cyclist). The difference that I have cited between the runner and the cyclist, is that as the runner approaches pedestrian speed, it is easer for him to act like a pedestrian than it is for the cyclist to do the same.

Is that clearer?

I guess I should add, so that I don't confuse you any further, if I saw a runner treating himself as a vehicle, I would treat him as a vehicle and if I a saw a runner treating himself like a pedestrian, I'd treat him as such. The same would apply for cyclists.

Work with me here, Gene. Just as a cyclist can choose to treat himself like a pedestrian or a vehicle, I'm saying that a runner could choose to treat himself in the same manner, like a pedestrian or a vehicle (in this case, a slow moving cyclist). The difference that I have cited between the runner and the cyclist, is that as the runner approaches pedestrian speed, it is easer for him to act like a pedestrian than it is for the cyclist to do the same.

Is that clearer?

I guess I should add, so that I don't confuse you any further, if I saw a runner treating himself as a vehicle, I would treat him as a vehicle and if I a saw a runner treating himself like a pedestrian, I'd treat him as such. The same would apply for cyclists. I use a Xootr (http://www.xootr.com) push scooter to get around at lunch. The deli is less than a mile away, and the shopping center is maybe a bit over a mile, so a bike is overkill, but walking takes considerably longer. The scooter is perfect. That thing makes me something in between a ped and a cyclist. On downhill I'm faster than runners, but I can hold my own on the uphills too. I switch between ped and vehicular mode quite a bit, and am treated accordingly. I've never had anyone honk at me while riding my Xootr.


http://xootr.com/xootr/images/scooters/street-composite-150.jpg (http://xootr.com/xootr/images/scooters/street-composite-1200.jpg)

Note that while push scooters riders are legally pedestrians, and, technically, have no rights as drivers as vehicles whatsoever, I am able to operate in accordance with the vehicular rules of the road using the push scooter. There is a big difference between following the law, and following the vehicular rules of the road. In fact, on the scooter, following the VROTR is quite probably illegal.

why are trips of a mile or so "overkill" by bike? that's laughable, and pathetic.

you are DEFINETLY NOT a transportational bicyclist, mr. head.


where do you put all the groceries on the scooter? :roflmao: and how do you get them home from your office?

Haven't you seen, bikes that have racks can have bags attached to the back. these are callied panniers, and they make shopping errands a breeze.

you really are funny, H. Head. but you are NOT a transportational bicyclist.

I use cycling clothes, including shoes, when I ride my bike. I don't like to bother with a lock, rack or panniers on my lightweight commuter. Remember, hills. I shower after I get to work.

I use the scooter in my street clothes, and all I purchase is lunch, which I can easily carry in a bag hanging off the bars, if I don't eat it there and take it back to the office.

If I need to carry stuff on my bike, I use jersey pockets. If that's not enough space, a backpack.

like I said, Helemt Head, you're definetly NOT a transportational bicyclist. a mile bike ride is :roflmao: - "overkill"?? you'd need bike clothes for a two mile (round trip) ride?


do you own panniers? have you hauled stuff to work and home with them?

you'll get with the bicycling lifestyle someday. maybe.

like I said, Helemt Head, you're definetly NOT a transportational bicyclist. a mile bike ride is :roflmao: - "overkill"?? you'd need bike clothes for a two mile (round trip) ride?


do you own panniers? have you hauled stuff to work and home with them?

you'll get with the bicycling lifestyle someday. maybe.

If I was wearing nice dress pants to work (or even decent jeans), I certainly would want to avoid going anywhere near my bike because who knows where the chain grease or other dirt (who actually washes their bike?) lurks. There's a reason why I ride to work in black shorts every day. It's also an annoyance to change shoes for a 5 minute ride when there's another method to get to the same place that may only take a minute or two longer, and even less time when you consider time saved by not having to lock up the bike. For both of these reasons, there are times I'd rather just walk to the grocery store that's about 0.75 miles away from home rather than ride, especially if I'm only picking up a few small things. The bike is overkill. It's a different story when I'm going 3 miles to Trader Joe's and picking up $100 worth of food though.

If I was wearing nice dress pants to work (or even decent jeans), I certainly would want to avoid going anywhere near my bike because who knows where the chain grease or other dirt (who actually washes their bike?) lurks. There's a reason why I ride to work in black shorts every day. It's also an annoyance to change shoes for a 5 minute ride when there's another method to get to the same place that may only take a minute or two longer, and even less time when you consider time saved by not having to lock up the bike. For both of these reasons, there are times I'd rather just walk to the grocery store that's about 0.75 miles away from home rather than ride, especially if I'm only picking up a few small things. The bike is overkill. It's a different story when I'm going 3 miles to Trader Joe's and picking up $100 worth of food though. Exactly... not to mention avoiding the helmet hassle (no, i don't wear a helmet when riding my scooter, and I suppose I could leave it in the office if using a bike just as well).

I've thought about getting a beach cruiser with chain guards and fenders to keep at work for noontime short trip errands (i.e., getting lunch), but the scooter works exceptionally well for me.