Question or two:

IF so called "Vehicular bicyclists" are purportedly comfortable on any road allowed to bicycle travel,

do ALL foresterite vehicular bicyclists choose the most direct route regardless of traffic volumes or road design?

or are vehicular bicyclists free of dogmatism and can choose a comfortable, low traffic route that may meander and take longer to travel, but is more senic, pleasant, or lower travelled?

Why?

Do foresterites HAVE to choose the most direct route, regardless of road pleasantries or traffic speeds/volumes?

is it comfort, enjoyment, or is it inferiority complexes? why would an everyday bicyclist that understands how to ride according to the rules of the road choose a more pleasant route? why would foresterite vehicular bicyclists?

Question or two:

IF so called "Vehicular bicyclists" are purportedly comfortable on any road allowed to bicycle travel,

do ALL foresterite vehicular bicyclists choose the most direct route regardless of traffic volumes or road design?

or are vehicular bicyclists free of dogmatism and can choose a comfortable, low traffic route that may meander and take longer to travel, but is more senic, pleasant, or lower travelled?

Why?

Do foresterites HAVE to choose the most direct route, regardless of road pleasantries or traffic speeds/volumes?

is it comfort, enjoyment, or is it inferiority complexes? why would an everyday bicyclist that understands how to ride according to the rules of the road choose a more pleasant route? why would foresterite vehicular bicyclists?

I had no problem choosing and cycling down the A40 a 6 lane elevated 50mph+ road using VC. That is, until, afetr a month, I found out that what I was doing was illegal as there is bicycle prohibition notice at the on ramp :D.

Basically, I'll choose the direct route for commuting as it's pretty much always the fastest and, because of the wider, faster streets, is easier to navigate. Occasionally, if on a new route or if I'm not paying attention I'll get stuck in the wrong lane but simply indicating and waiting for a suitable gap in the next lane I can get across the traffic without having to resort to cycling on pavements(illegal in the UK) or using pedestrian crossings (sidewalk cyclists take note it's a PEDESTRIAN crossing :mad:).

The scenic and indirect routes are for special occasions or when I'm just cycling for the sake of cycling. Eithger way it's still possible, especially on quieter, rural roads or outside of rush hour in the city, to enjoy the scenery. Yes, it can be frustrating in traffic, and, as with any vehicle, you need to concentrate and be situationally aware but it's much safer than UK bike lanes and MUPs.

Really? I usually choose a more senic route for my commute. it's more enjoyable and more senic.

To work, I take the direct route which puts me "VCing" in the thick of traffic to get the body pumped up for work, but on the homeward commute I take a more scenic, longer route with less traffic volume to unwind and get in some extra miles.

hmm, and a vote for choosing the road less travelled on the way home.....

hmm, and a vote for choosing the road less travelled on the way home.....

Ahh, but in order to get to the roads less traveled, I have to VC some faster traffic roads, and ride some door hugging BLs.

( I understand, ala jihad johhny's VCist notions of how to "ride my bike according to the rules of the road for vehicles", and I'm comfortable riding all types of roads, all the time, including interstates, high speed arterials and narrow highway speed roads.)

I leave the house a little early to get a few extra miles in on the way to work, along a more enjoyable route sometimes. and I'm riding vc the whole way..... but does my choosing a more enjoyable, less travelled way reflect some deep seated inferiority complex?


I'm confident my choosing a more enjoyable route reflects my desire to enjoy my commute...

do vehicular cyclists HAVE to ride the most direct route, regardless of traffic volume or quality of road?

I presume the original question is with respect to commuting or utility cycling with a specific destination, as opposed to a recreational ride that would be a loop.

As to my choice of direct versus more scenic - it depends. For example, my commute is 18 miles via the most direct and quickest route, and my alternate route is 21 miles and hillier and has a 6 mile stretch with no traffic lights. I almost always take the direct route on the way in to work. The choice of route home depends on time constraints and whether or not I feel like riding the few extra hillier miles.

but does my choosing a more enjoyable, less travelled way reflect some deep seated inferiority complex?
It doesn't! :)

( I understand, ala jihad johhny's VCist notions of how to "ride my bike according to the rules of the road for vehicles", and I'm comfortable ride all types of roads, all the time, including interstates and narrow highway speed roads.)

I leave the house a little early to get a few extra miles in on the way to work, along a more enjoyable route sometimes. and I'm riding vc the whole way..... but does my choosing a more enjoyable, less travelled way reflect some deep seated inferiority complex?


I'm confident my choosing a more enjoyable route reflects my desire to enjoy my commute...

do vehicular cyclists HAVE to ride the most direct route, regardless of traffic volume or quality of road?

I do not have to take the most direct route, but the slower routes to work have many more intersections with stoplights/signs, making it harder on the brakes and drivetrain. On the route home, there a several more stops to make than on the route to work, but my route planning keeps them to the minimum as possible, making the commute more enjoyable.

Your question is not exactly clear, but it has nothing to do with VC. You even imply later that you ride VC on all of your potential routes.

A better question might be: What factors enter into your choice of commute routes.
most direct
fastest
most scenic
smoothest pavement
least bus traffic
fewest stop light
smell of ocean spray
most historic route

Many of the choices may be combined, such as the most scenic route might also be the fastest and the route with the smootest pavement.

No, my question has a LOT to do with VC dogmatism.

VC does not dictate what route you should or must ride. It simply provides the means to safely ride a wider selection of routes. You are very confused.

OK, maybe in one case, the choice of route may be less VC. Such as the selection of the route with the smell of ocean spray, may result in some very un-VC distracted riding. Very small swim suits seem to cause such distractions in areas of ocean spray.

But that is hardly the blame of VC methods.

no, not confused.

hypothetical. two routes.

route one , sixty mile per hour, heavy traffic, lots of curves, traffic lights. x number of miles.

route two. twenty five mile per hour, light traffic, few traffic lights, good views and scenery. x miles plus five.

do vehicular cyclists chose the most direct route, or does choosing a more pleasant, lower traffic route reflect the 'cyclist inferiority complex?'

I'm just trying to get a read on this foresterite dogmatism. I'm concerned vehicular cyclists, in choosing a more pleasant route, might be suffering from the 'cyclist inferiority complex' tirelessly bandied about by johnny.

what is the difference between a diehard vcist choosing a more pleasant route, versus an everyday bicyclist that understands the rules of the road?

it's supposedly a personal choice for one, and a reflection of an inferiority complex by the other?

Low-traffic routes may smell better, sound better, and look better than busy roads. Vehicular cyclists like myself often find such routes enjoyable and may choose them if they have the time. I personally have invested scores of hours advocating improved street connectivity in fast-growing suburbs in order to facilitate the existence of pleasant alternate routes.

This is irrelevant to vehicular cycling, however, unless one proposes alternate routes/facilities that require operating contrary to vehicular rules. In such cases, self-described vehicular cycling proponents will generally prefer to use the busy street in the normal vehicular manner.

Bek,
Your trying to create a straw man that does not exist.

Again, VC does not dictate what route you should or must ride. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
Does your hate really blind you to such a degree?

what is the difference between a diehard vcist choosing a more pleasant route, versus an everyday bicyclist that understands the rules of the road?

it's supposedly a personal choice for one, and a reflection of an inferiority complex by the other?

Who is making the claim that choosing a low-traffic route is the result of an inferiority complex? I have not seen that claim made by any vehicular cyclists.

Most cycling miles in the USA are cycled in large part for pleasure. Therefore, many cyclists are interested in finding pleasant routes for both utility and recreational cycling. When I helped develop Cary's bike map and signed bike route system, we determined early on that the main purpose of defining bike routes was to identify routes that most cyclists find to be particularly pleasant for cycling.

However, some people among the planning and engineering staff made the mistake of concluding that roads that were not part of the signed bike route system did not have to be designed to standards that would make them more pleasant, convenient, and/or safe for cycling. We quickly remedied that problem, by ensuring that the city adopted a policy of treating all roads as bicycle facilities and providing wide outside lanes on all collector and thoroughfare projects. Cary is also looking at detecting bicycles at traffic signals. These engineering projects are, not surprisingly, concentrated on roads that are not part of the bike route system, since such extra attention is most needed on the busiest roads, which are not the roads that most cyclists recommend to other pleasure cyclists as the most pleasant places to ride.

So, cyclists should be treated as drivers of vehicles on both busy and low-traffic roads, but cyclists are often interested in scenic routes as much as convenient routes depending on their trip. For this reason, I pestered the planning department developing the bike map to mark street names on all of the useful through streets, not just the scenic signed bike routes and convenient arterials. I have also continuously pestered the Parks and Rec department to provide useful wayfinding signs at all greenway/greenway and greenway/roadway junctions, to make them more effective for travel.

vehicular cyclists CAN choose a more pleasant route, with lower traffic volumes, because of the quality of the riding, but ordinary cyclists suffer from an inferiority complex if they choose it?

Or maybe those cyclist fear riding certain roads because people like you have convinced them that such roads are too dangerous to ride on without bikelanes and other such nonsense.

Some will not ride to work because it takes them too long. Why does it take them too long, because you have convinced them the direct route is too dangerous. If you would stop your scare tactics, then maybe more people would cycle to work, because they would not be afraid to take the most direct route.

'people like me' ? :roflmao: I suspect I talk, face to face, to more people about taking the lane in one month than you have your entire cycling career, CBHI.

I'm still confused about the difference.

vehicular cyclists can choose a more pleasant route, and it's free will, but a more typical, everyday, bulk of the cycling population cyclist that still operates according to the rules of the road - chooses a more pleasant route, and it's a manifestation of the jihad jhonny's vc 'cyclist inferiority' complex?

why do bicyclists have to take the most direct, but unpleasant route to work if a longer route is more enjoyable?

what brand of rabid vcism is that, CBHI?

why do bicyclists have to take the most direct, but unpleasant route to work if a longer route is more enjoyable?
As Steve asked you and you ignored the question, I will ask you the same question.

Who is making such a claim?
Certainly not any VC proponent here.


Some wonder if there is an imaginary forum debate raging within the confines of your mind, that the rest of us are not involved in, from which these false claims evolve.

A cyclist can take any route they want. VC just allows using higher traffic volume routes more safely.

I take the fastest route on my commute which equates to 50 miles a day r/t. It just so happens that 40 of those miles are on segregated cycling facilities. It's like my own uninterrupted freeway where I can go as hard as I want as long as I want. The other 10 miles are very unpleasant and slow by comparison.

The most direct route which avoids the segragated cycleways would add several miles and at least 30% more time to my commute. I tried it once to see what it was like, never again.

I had no problem choosing and cycling down the A40 a 6 lane elevated 50mph+ road using VC. That is, until, afetr a month, I found out that what I was doing was illegal as there is bicycle prohibition notice at the on ramp :D.
It only took you a MONTH to figure that out? :rolleyes: No wonder you have "no problems" with your cycling, you see and hear what you want to see and hear.

Am I the only one that's a little confused on how the most direct route could add several miles to a commute?

It doesn't matter which route you take. You can VC on either route and your choice to VC is not dictated by the route. Bek why do you appear to confuse route choice with the choice to VC? It's not about always being direct, it's not about JF, it's not about bike lanes only on scenic routes - it's about cycling in a safe and responsible manner. That many others and me can VC any route is surely a sign that the whole VC thing works and imho shouldn't be turned into an argument to push cyclist away from the main routes

no, mark, you misunderstand my reason for asking this question. I never said ANYTHING about bike lanes in my questions. they are irrelevant to the question.

there's a lot of dogmatism surrounding vehicular cycling surrounding competant versus incompetancy. jihad jhonny is most verbal about incompetant bicyclists.

my question is:

If a vehicular cyclist chooses a more enjoyable route, it is personal choice, but if the average bicyclist chooses a more enjoyable route, it is incompetancy??

I dispute the notions embodied in the vc dogma.

Question or two:

IF so called "Vehicular bicyclists" are purportedly comfortable on any road allowed to bicycle travel,

do ALL foresterite vehicular bicyclists choose the most direct route regardless of traffic volumes or road design?

or are vehicular bicyclists free of dogmatism and can choose a comfortable, low traffic route that may meander and take longer to travel, but is more senic, pleasant, or lower travelled?

Why?

Do foresterites HAVE to choose the most direct route, regardless of road pleasantries or traffic speeds/volumes?

is it comfort, enjoyment, or is it inferiority complexes? why would an everyday bicyclist that understands how to ride according to the rules of the road choose a more pleasant route? why would foresterite vehicular bicyclists?

taking the way less traveled adds to my enjoyment and safety on my commute. less stress, more happiness. I'm all about the happiness.

if it makes you happy to ride in heavy fast moving traffic, cool. but a lot of these people don't seem to be having fun at all. it's just their vehicle, they're just going from point A to point B. OK, but not for me. I actually think it could be a blast riding in downtown traffic that is going the same speed or slower than me, but those aren't my conditions. it's either crazily fast traffic onthe arterials or nearly deserted back streets (cause everyone's on the arterials.)

I think in some people's minds, taking the crazy route gives you more standing as a "serious" member of the serious VC cyclists club. I'm not a member, obviously. and many are enamored of making a statement about their rights to the road...

no, mark, you misunderstand my reason for asking this question. I never said ANYTHING about bike lanes in my questions. they are irrelevant to the question.

there's a lot of dogmatism surrounding vehicular cycling surrounding competant versus incompetancy. jihad jhonny is most verbal about incompetant bicyclists.

my question is:

If a vehicular cyclist chooses a more enjoyable route, it is personal choice, but if the average bicyclist chooses a more enjoyable route, it is incompetancy??

I dispute the notions embodied in the vc dogma.

Who is Jihad Johnny and could you either quote or link where this was said please? The incompetency bit, that is.

Question or two:

IF so called "Vehicular bicyclists" are purportedly comfortable on any road allowed to bicycle travel,

do ALL foresterite vehicular bicyclists choose the most direct route regardless of traffic volumes or road design?

or are vehicular bicyclists free of dogmatism and can choose a comfortable, low traffic route that may meander and take longer to travel, but is more senic, pleasant, or lower travelled?

Why?

Do foresterites HAVE to choose the most direct route, regardless of road pleasantries or traffic speeds/volumes?

is it comfort, enjoyment, or is it inferiority complexes? why would an everyday bicyclist that understands how to ride according to the rules of the road choose a more pleasant route? why would foresterite vehicular bicyclists?

As is usual with Bekologist, his beliefs prevent him from separating the irrelevant from the relevant. His questions above are completely irrelevant to the vehicular-cycling versus incompetent-cycling-on-bikeways controversy, because that controversy is about government policy implemented by government practices. When a vehicular cyclist wants to reach a particular destination in a short period of time (as is frequently the case when riding to work), he chooses the least-time route, which is frequently a route involving arterial streets because of their directness and fewer delays. Government policy needs to recognize this fact, rather than building bikeways that produce longer trips because of indirectness and more delays, based on the superstition that cyclists don't belong on arterial streets. All streets should be designed to accommodate the volume and mix of traffic to be expected on them, and cyclists, like any other driver of a small vehicle (allowing heavy vehicles to be limited), should be allowed, expected, and accommodated, to choose their routes according to their needs and pleasures. This contrasts with the governmental bicycle planning policy, which produces bikeways according to bicycle transportation plans, a procedure that in both details and in gross is based on superstition and, at its base, on the desire to clear the way for motorists.

As is usual with Bekologist, his beliefs prevent him from separating the irrelevant from the relevant. His questions above are completely irrelevant to the vehicular-cycling versus incompetent-cycling-on-bikeways controversy, because that controversy is about government policy implemented by government practices. When a vehicular cyclist wants to reach a particular destination in a short period of time (as is frequently the case when riding to work), he chooses the least-time route, which is frequently a route involving arterial streets because of their directness and fewer delays. Government policy needs to recognize this fact, rather than building bikeways that produce longer trips because of indirectness and more delays, based on the superstition that cyclists don't belong on arterial streets. All streets should be designed to accommodate the volume and mix of traffic to be expected on them, and cyclists, like any other driver of a small vehicle (allowing heavy vehicles to be limited), should be allowed, expected, and accommodated, to choose their routes according to their needs and pleasures. This contrasts with the governmental bicycle planning policy, which produces bikeways according to bicycle transportation plans, a procedure that in both details and in gross is based on superstition and, at its base, on the desire to clear the way for motorists.

agreed - it comes down to the old "i'm a cyclist and don't belong in traffic, I'm a driver and that cyclist doesn't belong in traffic" issue. Until we can get that out of both cyclists' and drivers' heads we'll be stuck with planning that in a misguided attempt to help cyclists pushes us further and further away from motorists.

Who is Jihad Johnny and could you either quote or link where this was said please? The incompetency bit, that is.

The statements regarding incompetent cycling may be summarized as follows. Most American bicyclists using the roadway rarely obey the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. When measured on the traffic-behavior parts of the Forester Cycling Proficiency Test, the population averages in many places thought good for cycling fall below the passing score of 70%. In short, most American cyclists, when riding on the roadway, behave in an incompetent manner.

One vehicular cycling aim is to improve the traffic behavior of cyclists. Another, of course, is to revitalize the legal standard of vehicular cycling as the social norm. Another, of course, is to have government act as if it expects cyclists to operate in the vehicular manner, and to build accordingly.

However, government insists on the policy that accommodating bicycle traffic requires bikeways, which were initially designed to control incompetent cyclists to keep them out of the way of motorists. Those bicycle advocates who strongly advocate bikeways today care most about the superstitious appeal of these bikeways as making cycling safe without having to learn vehicular cycling. In short, those who advocate bikeways today as benefits to cyclists prefer to have more incompetent cyclists on the road than they do to improve the behavior of existing cyclists.

Of course, the bicycle advocates don't like having typical cyclists described as incompetent, so they denigrate the scoring system (as we have read on these lists) rather than demonstrating the level of competence of the existing population. Facts don't bother these ideologues; that's what makes them ideologues.

agreed - it comes down to the old "i'm a cyclist and don't belong in traffic, I'm a driver and that cyclist doesn't belong in traffic" issue. Until we can get that out of both cyclists' and drivers' heads we'll be stuck with planning that in a misguided attempt to help cyclists pushes us further and further away from motorists.

I beginning to think a lot of it is, as genec often says, the speed issue. if the cars were travelling slower, the comfort level of many cyclists would higher.

I beginning to think a lot of it is, as genec often says, the speed issue. if the cars were travelling slower, the comfort level of many cyclists would higher.

no argument there - even the driving instructors in the UK encourage/insist learner drivers peg the speed limit at every opportunity. So much for the 5kph under suggestion :rolleyes:

The statements regarding incompetent cycling may be summarized as follows. Most American bicyclists using the roadway rarely obey the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. When measured on the traffic-behavior parts of the Forester Cycling Proficiency Test, the population averages in many places thought good for cycling fall below the passing score of 70%. In short, most American cyclists, when riding on the roadway, behave in an incompetent manner.

One vehicular cycling aim is to improve the traffic behavior of cyclists. Another, of course, is to revitalize the legal standard of vehicular cycling as the social norm. Another, of course, is to have government act as if it expects cyclists to operate in the vehicular manner, and to build accordingly.

However, government insists on the policy that accommodating bicycle traffic requires bikeways, which were initially designed to control incompetent cyclists to keep them out of the way of motorists. Those bicycle advocates who strongly advocate bikeways today care most about the superstitious appeal of these bikeways as making cycling safe without having to learn vehicular cycling. In short, those who advocate bikeways today as benefits to cyclists prefer to have more incompetent cyclists on the road than they do to improve the behavior of existing cyclists.

Of course, the bicycle advocates don't like having typical cyclists described as incompetent, so they denigrate the scoring system (as we have read on these lists) rather than demonstrating the level of competence of the existing population. Facts don't bother these ideologues; that's what makes them ideologues.

Thanks for that and agreed - although JF cycling test? Do you mean cyclist's ability/desire/attempt to follow the rules of the road? If so, I'd hazard a guess that it's lower than that if not closer to 50% in London :mad:

Kind of amusing that, if I'm guessing correctly, you're labeled as a religious fantic by people obviously very threatened by your views. If I'm wrong about that assumption someone please explain who Jihad Johnny is.

I cycle as I drive. I choose my routes based upon safety and past experiences (and annoyances). Just as I may avoid certain roads in my car, so too do I avoid certain roads while riding my bicycle. Riding as a VC doesn't mean that I had to learn a secret g_ddamned handshake, or chant as I ride to make myself identifiable to others as if I'd joined some fraternal order of rolling monks.

I ride as a VC because it makes sense to me to ride that way. It's not a religion, but you wouldn't know it from this ongoing vituperative debate. Just ride your damned bike as you see fit and let others make their own choices! :rolleyes:

I think in some people's minds, taking the crazy route gives you more standing as a "serious" member of the serious VC cyclists club. I'm not a member, obviously. and many are enamored of making a statement about their rights to the road...
Completely false, there never has been any such VC status club.
Bek seems to be the one with some self serving mental status requirement for those who post; such as his declaration of consistent 29 mph sprinting. As if that gives him some special right to post with the implication that others are not worthy of posting.

Thanks for that and agreed - although JF cycling test? Do you mean cyclist's ability/desire/attempt to follow the rules of the road? If so, I'd hazard a guess that it's lower than that if not closer to 50% in London :mad:

Kind of amusing that, if I'm guessing correctly, you're labeled as a religious fantic by people obviously very threatened by your views. If I'm wrong about that assumption someone please explain who Jihad Johnny is.

The measurement is of cyclists' actual behavior, whether or not they obey the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. It is not measurement of what they say, or what they attempt, or what they would like to do. It is measurement of what they actually do when operating in traffic in, presumably, their own area [only a small proportion of cyclists at any one time are operating in unfamiliar areas] and when going about their own business or pleasure, whatever it is.

The measurement is of cyclists' actual behavior, whether or not they obey the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. It is not measurement of what they say, or what they attempt, or what they would like to do. It is measurement of what they actually do when operating in traffic in, presumably, their own area [only a small proportion of cyclists at any one time are operating in unfamiliar areas] and when going about their own business or pleasure, whatever it is.

thanks again and from that I'm even more certain London commuters come in at 50% :(

As is usual with Bekologist, his beliefs prevent him from separating the irrelevant from the relevant. His questions above are completely irrelevant to the vehicular-cycling versus incompetent-cycling-on-bikeways controversy, because that controversy is about government policy implemented by government practices. When a vehicular cyclist wants to reach a particular destination in a short period of time (as is frequently the case when riding to work), he chooses the least-time route, which is frequently a route involving arterial streets because of their directness and fewer delays. Government policy needs to recognize this fact, rather than building bikeways that produce longer trips because of indirectness and more delays, based on the superstition that cyclists don't belong on arterial streets. All streets should be designed to accommodate the volume and mix of traffic to be expected on them, and cyclists, like any other driver of a small vehicle (allowing heavy vehicles to be limited), should be allowed, expected, and accommodated, to choose their routes according to their needs and pleasures. This contrasts with the governmental bicycle planning policy, which produces bikeways according to bicycle transportation plans, a procedure that in both details and in gross is based on superstition and, at its base, on the desire to clear the way for motorists.

Odd, nowhere does the concept of bikeways enter the picture in the opening post. (BTW, at some point, CB_HI was wondering why all threads lead to bike lanes; well, it's Mr. Forester to blame here)

The question, and why not answer without reading between the lines, is simple: is route choosing (with the intent of lowering the overall risk of traveling between point A and point B) a technique which fits within the framework of idealogically pure vehicular cycling?

Perhaps the vehicular cycling philosophy does not address this at all?

Am I the only one that's a little confused on how the most direct route could add several miles to a commute?

Let me highlight the important bit in what I said earlier...

The most direct route which avoids the segragated cycleways would add several miles and at least 30% more time to my commute. I tried it once to see what it was like, never again.

Still confused?

Still confused?

Now I think I understand. So you're saying that your most direct route is on segregated cycleways, correct?

Sure you can ride using VC priciples on segregated cycleways. Traffic is traffic, it doesn't have to be motorized.

A quick, hypothetical example: You're on a bike trail. You have cyclists approaching from in front. You have a paceline approaching from your 6. Take your lane. The paceline can slow until it's safe to pass.

Odd, nowhere does the concept of bikeways enter the picture in the opening post. (BTW, at some point, CB_HI was wondering why all threads lead to bike lanes; well, it's Mr. Forester to blame here)
Check out post 25, well before Mr. Forester entered the discussion.

And can you point out the post where I "was wondering why all threads lead to bike lanes". I do not recall asking such a question?

A Bek style straw man, always looking to put some false blame on the VC folks, right Brian.

"false blame on the VC folks" :roflmao: you do realize I ride vehicularily dontchya, CBHI?



According to the "VC" ideology,

if a zealous vehicular cyclist chooses a more pleasant route, its personal choice, but if a more everyday cyclist - that still understands how to bicycle according to the rules of the road- chooses a more pleasant route, it's purportedly a result of some far fetched inferiority complex. I dispute that.

Can a cyclist choose routes based on pleasant cycling conditions?
Can a loud-n-proud vehicular cyclist do the same?
why or why not?

CB: post 25 was a non sequitur as far as the OP is concerned; he is just stating that his route is an exception to the assumptions that Bek implied. Mr. Forester, on the other hand, addressed the OP directly by introducing "bikeways". And I still fail to see any mention of bikeways in the OP.

Did you read my post? What is your thinking on the subject? Should route adjustment to reduce risk be part of vehicular cycling?

if a zealous vehicular cyclist chooses a more pleasant route, its personal choice, but if a more everyday cyclist - that still understands how to bicycle according to the rules of the road- chooses a more pleasant route, it's purportedly a result of some far fetched inferiority complex. I dispute that.

More like, "I made this up because I'm really bored at home and felt like trolling."

Vehicular cycling has nothing to do with route choice. If you think it does, you have no idea what vehicular cycling is. Cyclist inferiority complex (as defined by JF) has nothing to do with cycling pleasant routes and everything to do with staying out of the way of all traffic (making my "pleasant routes" uncyclable by someone affected with such a complex).

The whole discussion surrounding "pleasant routes" has always been that those who generally choose the pleasant routes seem to think that those who choose the more direct routes are doing so only to make a statement or to show off their VC skills (which is far from the truth).

I cycle pleasant routes, and I cycle direct routes. Sometimes the direct route is the most pleasant route. Sometimes the multilaned, higher speed limit, higher traffic route is the most pleasant route (I've experienced some serious road rage on 2 lane 25mph roads with relatively little traffic). Sometimes the pleasant route is unuseable due to lack of traffic (as is the case when it snows around here). Or the pleasant route floods or trees are down due to storms, all things that make the pleasant route unuseable and make understanding vehicular cycling and how to use a multilaned arterial a useful thing to know even if I only rarely need to use it.

Joejack: so you are saying that route adjustment or management is not a technique addressed by vehicular cycling? Is this still true if the only reason for the route adjustment is for risk aversion?

joejack-

I'm riding 100 miles for some pizza today- vehicularily. Me and my buddy will choose a combination of most pleasant as well as direct routes to get there. State highways, Hood Canal Bridge, etc.

Is a vehicular cyclist free of dogma and able to choose a more pleasant route without falling victim to john's mischaracterized 'cyclist inferiority' syndrome?

Why, in my case, is a vehicular cyclist choosing a pleasant route okay, but an everyday bicyclist -that still understands the rules of the road- choosing a more pleasant route a manifestation of some far-fetched psychobabel?

And like Brian mentioned above, bike infrastructure has nothing whatsoever to do with the question. And I think Brian also asks a valid question...

... route adjustment or management is not a technique addressed by vehicular cycling?


Why does the VC dogma introduce false dichotomies into the bicycling population?

I think there's some deliberate clouding of the issues here by the foresterites here. even vehicular cyclists can choose routes to manage risk, despite the insistence there is none of that. some foresterite 'certified' 'vehicular cyclists' may not be comfortable taking the lane of 50 MPH arterials, despite the knowledge they are traffic and understand how to ride according to the rules of the road.