Can vehicular bicyclists choose a more mellow route?

[Bekologist]

If I choose a road, I'm comfortable with it. Neither you nor I know what routes "EVERY so-called" vehicular cyclist is comfortable with.......

As for passing the EC course, I'm sure there are people who have passed it who are terrible cyclists...

so, you agree with me? that the group of so called 'vehicular cyclists' are not all going to be comfortable or capable riding all road conditions?

[tallard]

wtf? tallard doesn't make that distinction. that it's her opinion, stated it as fact. stop trying to be friggin mahatmaa Ghandi, LBM.

?????????????
read first word of post: IMHO = In my honest opinion....

[tallard]

...so you're saying VC can only be practiced on busy streets with heavy fast moving traffic? I guess your answer to the OP is "no."

No word twisting please. I stated that on the return trip I MAY CHOOSE mellowER if it's in a reasonable time difference but WILL choose speed if the mellower route is 2-3 fold longer...

[tallard]

I'd say tallard's answer is:
Speed and "Efficiency" Über Alles!

Well even though I know no German, the dictionary says you mean "above all else". I'm really PERPLEXED as when I reread my post I never stated that at all... Simply that when faced with less efficient/speedy routes I MAY choose a mellower route if it's not a 2-3 fold difference in time. In GENERAL speed is a consideration for me, but certainly not ALWAYS.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Well even though I know no German, the dictionary says you mean "above all else". I'm really PERPLEXED as when I reread my post I never stated that at all... Simply that when faced with less efficient/speedy routes I MAY choose a mellower route if it's not a 2-3 fold difference in time. In GENERAL speed is a consideration for me, but certainly not ALWAYS.

I've read your posts and am not perplexed. Your posts make it clear to me that you share the guru's opinion. Speed und "Efficiency" Über Alles! and those cyclists who that don't share that priority (or the guru's opinions) are incompetent cyclists.

[larryfeltonj]

so, you agree with me? that the group of so called 'vehicular cyclists' are not all going to be comfortable or capable riding all road conditions?

There isn't anything to agree or disagree with in your assertion, because it's a straw man. I can concoct some extreme hypotheticals which make it obvious that no one can be comfortable with all road conditions. There's a liquor store on the corner of Moreland Avenue and Memorial Drive. On Friday and Saturday nights the traffic patterns in and out of the store are chaotic, and I suspect fueled by alcohol. I generally avoid that stretch of Memorial Drive at those times. As for "capable" I'm not sure what you mean, but I don't cycle on flooded roads, and deep fissures or tanker fires on any road would challenge my abilities.

To bring it into a more normal range of road conditions, I'm not particularly fond of narrow two lane roads with high traffic speeds and steady traffic volume. I decide whether to take those routes based on the efficiency of the alternatives. I'm capable of riding on them, and often do, but it's not usually pleasant. I will reroute to make the experience better if I have the time.

Often non-cyclists or inexperienced cyclists will declare roads dangerous simply because they are uncomfortable interacting with cars.

[larryfeltonj]

I've read your posts and am not perplexed. Your posts make it clear to me that you share the guru's opinion. Speed und "Efficiency" Über Alles! and those cyclists who that don't share that priority (or the guru's opinions) are incompetent cyclists.

Speed and efficiency are certainly high on my list when I'm commuting or utility cycling, because I usually have time constraints. Adding two or three miles to my morning commute to take a more "mellow" route
would require me to make tradeoffs I'd rather not make.

This brings up something which puzzles me a bit.

One of the criticisms of Forester has been that he's unconcerned with increasing the numbers of bicycles on the road. Yet Forester's critics (when they aren't incoherently sputtering with hurt feelings at his harsh style) adopt a sneering attitude towards speed and efficiency. Do you think there's going to be widespread adoption of cycle commuting and utility cycling with a policy of slow speeds and inefficiency? Somehow I just don't see it being a very effective strategy.

[Bekologist]

To bring it into a more normal range of road conditions, I'm not particularly fond of narrow two lane roads with high traffic speeds and steady traffic volume. I decide whether to take those routes based on the efficiency of the alternatives. I'm capable of riding on them, and often do, but it's not usually pleasant. I will reroute to make the experience better if I have the time.




INTERESTING. I think you DO agree with me, larry.

[rando]

No word twisting please. I stated that on the return trip I MAY CHOOSE mellowER if it's in a reasonable time difference but WILL choose speed if the mellower route is 2-3 fold longer...

sorry, scar lady, your words reveal YOU. what about this:

"Mellow routes are for people with extra time on their hands. VC is most always faster and I dare to say most people don't have very much spare time on work days..."

this implies you think a mellow route is a significantly slower route, which is not always the case. (it's not true in my case-- think of a route parallel to the arterial but very quiet because everyone uses the arterial.... a cyclist can only go so fast) it also shows you somehow think VC is acheived only on routes with heavier traffic. again, what do you think vehicular cycling is? and why are those who choose a back route NOT VCers? Vehicular cyclists can use a mellower route, can ride in a bike lane or a parking lot.

[rando]

Speed and efficiency are certainly high on my list when I'm commuting or utility cycling, because I usually have time constraints. Adding two or three miles to my morning commute to take a more "mellow" route
would require me to make tradeoffs I'd rather not make.

you complain about straw man arguments, but I'm seeing a nice big juicy one right here, Larry. mellow(er) in terms of traffic and noise does not have to mean adding 2-3 miles to your route. it might mean that in your city... doesn't in mine.

[rando]

Bekologist said, "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."

Nobody is making the claim you so proudly dispute.

au contraire, mon friere, several VC dogmatists here (see above) seem to suggest that VC can only be practiced on high traffic routes... and that high traffic routes are more VC worthy than other routes. Even the Guru himself has proclaimed that false.

[sggoodri]

au contraire, mon friere, several VC dogmatists here (see above) seem to suggest that VC can only be practiced on high traffic routes... and that high traffic routes are more VC worthy than other routes. Even the Guru himself has proclaimed that false.

I think you misinterpret what he means to say, which has been made more likely by some unfortunate shortcuts he has taken in his writing.

[rando]

could be. maybe you or he can 'splain it to me.

[Bekologist]

please, no, john's dogmatic stance on bicycling is tedious, derisive and flawed.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Yet Forester's critics (when they aren't incoherently sputtering with hurt feelings at his harsh style) adopt a sneering attitude towards speed and efficiency. Do you think there's going to be widespread adoption of cycle commuting and utility cycling with a policy of slow speeds and inefficiency? Somehow I just don't see it being a very effective strategy.

Wrong; again. Same old inflammatory harsh rhetoric ("incoherently sputtering with hurt feelings") modeled on the Master's methods. Same old straw man arguments modeled on the Master's methods.

Nobody is promoting or even suggesting a "policy of slow speeds and inefficiency". Only point that has been made (that is apparently incomprehensible to the Foresterites) is that different cyclists may have different and varying needs, desires, and priorities and those may not be in alignment with those of Forester and his ilk. That, and the Foresterites contention that the alleged failure of having the same goals/needs/desires as the competent clique should be corrected with either "proper training" or exclusion from consideration when advocating for the "Real Cyclists" (AKA High Mileage Road Cyclists).

BTW, Why don't you define "efficiency" in cycling and how does a cyclist become more or less efficient if "efficiency" is a top priority.

[genec]

Wrong; again. Same old inflammatory harsh rhetoric ("incoherently sputtering with hurt feelings") modeled on the Master's methods. Same old straw man arguments modeled on the Master's methods.

Nobody is promoting or even suggesting a "policy of slow speeds and inefficiency". Only point that has been made (that is apparently incomprehensible to the Foresterites) is that different cyclists may have different and varying needs, desires, and priorities and those may not be in alignment with those of Forester and his ilk. That an the Foresterites contention that the alleged failure of having the same goals/needs/desires as the competent clique should be corrected with either "proper training" or exclusion from consideration when advocating for the "Real Cyclists" (AKA High Mileage Road Cyclists).

+100.

Heck I don't ride the same all the time... I doubt we all work to achieve "speed and efficiency" on each and every ride. I certainly throw efficiency out the window when I ride my comfortable fat tire cruiser.

[larryfeltonj]

BTW, Why don't you define "efficiency" in cycling and how does a cyclist become more or less efficient if "efficiency" is a top priority.

Maximum gain for the least effort. So a direct route along smooth arterials is likely to be efficient, It's related to speed, but not the same thing. I can sometimes make better time on an inefficient route than an efficient one by cycling harder, but it requires more effort, so it's still an inefficient route.

Here are two bikely.com routes I devised to get to a nearby train station. The first route is inefficient but has some advantages, including a nice scenic ride past Glenwood Park. The second route is efficient, and is the one I actually take in most cases.

http://www.bikely.com/maps/bike-path/East-Atlanta-to-Inman-Park-Reynoldstown-MARTA-station

http://www.bikely.com/maps/bike-path/Efficient-Route-to-Inman-Park-Reynoldstown-MARTA-station-from-Ea

[tallard]

sorry, scar lady, your words reveal YOU. what about this:

"Mellow routes are for people with extra time on their hands.
Of which I'm occasionally...

VC is MOST always faster and I dare to say most people don't have very much spare time on work days..." note MOST

I'll grant you my use of VC in that second sentence may be less than encyclopedia worthy:(. But I think my overall point was pretty clear, VCers MAY choose a mellower way but mellowness is not a deciding factor, as heavy traffic is NOT a deterrent to me. Once I'm on the pavement I expect cars, simple as that, numbers and speed don't change my plans. Although I'm not completely insensitive to those as I've stated before about cycling in Fort Lauderdale being the most challenging I've ever encountered due to their usually being no shoulders and because the 15" of pavement outside the lane line is often 45 degree gutter, so no escapism possible.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Maximum gain for the least effort. So a direct route along smooth arterials is likely to be efficient, It's related to speed, but not the same thing.

I find it hard to see where you and the other Speed and Efficiency buffs make any distinction between "efficiency", and maximizing speed (or conversely, minimizing elapsed time pedaling to and from a destination.)

Me? I prefer to maximize my pleasure and satisfaction with each ride, and reading computer or time piece results doesn't provide any "gain" for me.

[larryfeltonj]

I find it hard to see where you and the other Speed and Efficiency buffs make any distinction between "efficiency", and maximizing speed (or conversely, minimizing elapsed time pedaling to and from a destination.)

Me? I prefer to maximize my pleasure and satisfaction with each ride, and reading computer or time piece results doesn't provide any "gain" for me.

First of all, the notion that speed and efficiency at the expense of all other factors is an axiom of vehicular cycling is propagated by you guys, not by vehicular cyclists. The need for speed and efficiency is dependent on what one is trying to do. If we're talking about cycling for serious transportation rather than the bicycle as a toy you'd better damned well believe that speed and efficiency are important considerations.

If I'm commuting speed and efficiency are the top priorities. If I'm picking up groceries the ability to safely haul stuff trumps speed, but not necessarily efficiency, and speed doesn't thoroughly disappear as a factor. If I'm on a recreational ride the importance of speed and efficiency varies depending on the sort of recreation.

For instance for quite some time I kept an old cheap steel framed Raleigh road bike which was dedicated to my photography of nearby neighborhoods. It was neither speedy nor efficient, was really too small for me, and had platform pedals. I used it because it didn't require a lot of maintenance and since I'd paid 5 dollars for it didn't care if it got stolen.

If I'm on a training ride speed and efficiency (along with the reliability of the bike) move back to the top.
If I'm on a group ride it depends on the nature of the ride. Sightseeing group rides don't require a lot of speed, but on the other hand I don't want to be huffing and puffing up hills.

[larryfeltonj]

you complain about straw man arguments, but I'm seeing a nice big juicy one right here, Larry. mellow(er) in terms of traffic and noise does not have to mean adding 2-3 miles to your route. it might mean that in your city... doesn't in mine.

This is nonsensical. If a route is the most efficient route, it's the most efficient route, no matter what the relative "mellowness", and if I'm mapping out a commute I'm likely to take it. Around my part of the country the arterials tend to be the most efficient routes a cyclist can take for the obvious reason. They were designed as efficient routes. Arterials also tend to be sparse in the traits I associate with the term "mellow". They usually have high traffic volume and are noisy.

Do I always take the arterials? No. Am I critical of non-vehicular cyclists because they choose non-arterial routes. No. This whole thread is based on a very clearly straw man argument.

[LittleBigMan]

When time is important over my 14 mile inbound route, I take the shortest route. It so happens that traffic is so light that early in the morning that it's also quite pleasant.

When time is not important, as on my way home, I have been known to go many miles out of my way just to explore. Also, the arterials have certain places that are bottlenecks, so I sometimes slip around them on side streets.

Hm, I wonder what's so strange about that?

[sggoodri]

I find it hard to see where you and the other Speed and Efficiency buffs make any distinction between "efficiency", and maximizing speed (or conversely, minimizing elapsed time pedaling to and from a destination.)

Me? I prefer to maximize my pleasure and satisfaction with each ride, and reading computer or time piece results doesn't provide any "gain" for me.

When pulling a heavy load in the trailer (like my son or groceries) and traveling with my wife, or when cycling in my street clothes, I desire a route that is efficient in terms of not having too many hills to climb and many starts and stops. It is not the speed, but the power output required to cover the distance that I care about. However, with my family I also want the ride to be enjoyable, so I must make tradeoffs.

When poor planning has made me late for work after dropping my son off at preschool with the Burley trailer, but I still want to ride the distance rather than change and use the car, I care about minimizing bicycling trip time. Both average travel speed and route length are important. I really don't care about traffic volume at that point.

[Bekologist]

Arterials also tend to be sparse in the traits I associate with the term "mellow". They usually have high traffic volume and are noisy.

Do I always take the arterials? No. Am I critical of non-vehicular cyclists because they choose non-arterial routes. No. This whole thread is based on a very clearly straw man argument.

:roflmao:

sorry larry, it's NOT a 'straw man' argument, and you ARE agreeing with my point of view!

[rando]

This is nonsensical. If a route is the most efficient route, it's the most efficient route, no matter what the relative "mellowness", and if I'm mapping out a commute I'm likely to take it. Around my part of the country the arterials tend to be the most efficient routes a cyclist can take for the obvious reason. They were designed as efficient routes. Arterials also tend to be sparse in the traits I associate with the term "mellow". They usually have high traffic volume and are noisy.

Do I always take the arterials? No. Am I critical of non-vehicular cyclists because they choose non-arterial routes. No. This whole thread is based on a very clearly straw man argument.

no, larry, it's not non-sensical. you said,

"Speed and efficiency are certainly high on my list when I'm commuting or utility cycling, because I usually have time constraints. Adding two or three miles to my morning commute to take a more "mellow" route would require me to make tradeoffs I'd rather not make."

and I'm saying a more mellow route does not have to take you 2-3 miles out of your way. Mine doesn't. you're acting as if any route in any location in the country other than an arterial is soooo long and twisty and "inefficient" that it just doesn't make sense. that's nonsensical, Larry. you're extrapolating from your own situation and making a generalization about every situation.

the other wierdness in your post is this:

Am I critical of non-vehicular cyclists because they choose non-arterial routes. No.

so you're saying only non vehicular cyclists take non-arterial routes?
a vehicular cyclist can choose any route, Larry.

[rando]

Of which I'm occasionally...

I'll grant you my use of VC in that second sentence may be less than encyclopedia worthy:(. But I think my overall point was pretty clear, VCers MAY choose a mellower way but mellowness is not a deciding factor, as heavy traffic is NOT a deterrent to me. Once I'm on the pavement I expect cars, simple as that, numbers and speed don't change my plans.

yes, but among some cyclists it IS a deciding factor. and that's OK.

[Bekologist]

a vehicular cyclist can take any route, Larry.

actually, rando, they all can't. some "vehicular bicyclists", despite 'understanding the rules of the road', cannot cycle all roads, all the time. there is comfortability and abilty to be considered.

larry admits as much in the thread "different levels of ability amongst vehicular cyclists"

[rando]

OK, I changed it to "a vehicular cyclist can choose any route." I don't understand why some people can't just admit that some cyclists are not going to be comfortable on some roads.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

First of all, the notion that speed and efficiency at the expense of all other factors is an axiom of vehicular cycling is propagated by you guys, not by vehicular cyclists. The need for speed and efficiency is dependent on what one is trying to do. If we're talking about cycling for serious transportation rather than the bicycle as a toy you'd better damned well believe that speed and efficiency are important considerations.
Well that explains it; the Serious Cyclist Superiority Complex manifests itself once again. The Serious Cyclist with the need for speed ; all other transportational and commuter cyclists are just toodling about on their toys, eh?

Get a clue, many cyclists damned well don't believe speed or its twin brother efficiency is their chief priority when cycling to a destination. Nor do they need to believe in the importance of your priorities, despite what you and your speed obsessed club mates believe is gospel.

[rando]

I had fun on my commute today. I wasn't fast or efficient. I meandered a bit. and I never went over 19 mph. took me about a half hour.

[larryfeltonj]

no, larry, it's not non-sensical. you said,

"Speed and efficiency are certainly high on my list when I'm commuting or utility cycling, because I usually have time constraints. Adding two or three miles to my morning commute to take a more "mellow" route would require me to make tradeoffs I'd rather not make."

and I'm saying a more mellow route does not have to take you 2-3 miles out of your way. Mine doesn't. you're acting as if any route in any location in the country other than an arterial is soooo long and twisty and "inefficient" that it just doesn't make sense. that's nonsensical, Larry. you're extrapolating from your own situation and making a generalization about every situation.

the other wierdness in your post is this:

Am I critical of non-vehicular cyclists because they choose non-arterial routes. No.

so you're saying only non vehicular cyclists take non-arterial routes?
a vehicular cyclist can choose any route, Larry.

I'll answer in a more serious vein later, but this thread is reading so much like a Monty Python sketch at this point that I have to ask you: Do you guys dress in those Spanish Inquistion Sketch robes when you compose these didactic posts?

Is your parrot fully nailed to the perch?

[Bekologist]

now it's degenerated into larry trying to sideline the consensus that vehicular cyclists CAN choose more mellow routes......

I'm not particularly fond of narrow two lane roads with high traffic speeds and steady traffic volume. I decide whether to take those routes based on the efficiency of the alternatives. I'm capable of riding on them, and often do, but it's not usually pleasant. I will reroute to make the experience better if I have the time. italics added

[larryfeltonj]

Well that explains it; the Serious Cyclist Superiority Complex manifests itself once again. The Serious Cyclist with the need for speed ; all other transportational and commuter cyclists are just toodling about on their toys, eh?

Get a clue, many cyclists damned well don't believe speed or its twin brother efficiency is their chief priority when cycling to a destination. Nor do they need to believe in the importance of your priorities, despite what you and your speed obsessed club mates believe is gospel.

Actually I agree with you in part (other than the repeat of the attention-span challenged implication that all I think about is speed). No one needs to believe in the importance of efficiency or speed. I do, partly because fast cycling is more enjoyable to me than toodling along at walking pace, and partly because I'm not going to use a mode of commuting which adds significant time to my commute. In fact I don't really care how fast any given cyclist is, or what route they take. I do
care that they learn the rules of the road, and I'd prefer that they assert their rights to the road. So be my guest ... ride whatever route you wish at whatever speed you wish. And me and my "speed obsessed club mates" will do the same.

[rando]

I'll answer in a more serious vein later, but this thread is reading so much like a Monty Python sketch at this point that I have to ask you: Do you guys dress in those Spanish Inquistion Sketch robes when you compose these didactic posts?

Is your parrot fully nailed to the perch?

not really.

but so what?

honestly, Larry, if you're going to start talking smack about what's serious cycling and what's not, and how speed and efficiency should be considerations for serious cycling, you should expect some well-deserved flack.

and NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! amongst our weaponry are...

[larryfeltonj]

now it's degenerated into larry trying to sideline the consensus that vehicular cyclists CAN choose more mellow routes......

Oh, I'm beginning to understand more fully now. In order to make my answer to the original question clearer I need to pare away the excess verbiage, and present it in a format you'll be able to process better. Here's another shot at it:

YES. VEHICULAR CYCLISTS CAN CHOOSE ANY ROUTE THEY WANT.

Better?

[rando]

cute, Larry. we couldn't possibly understand because were not really serious cyclists and thus have smaller, less serious brains.

yay! we win the internet!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v248/mozartman/serious.jpg

now take back the part about serious cycling.

or face the comfy chair.

[sbhikes]

When I choose a mellower route, I'm being sensible.

When JF sees me choose a mellower route, I'm being supersticious.

Do you get it now, Bek?

[The Human Car]

Do you guys dress in those Spanish Inquistion Sketch robes when you compose these didactic posts?
We are nothing like the Spanish Inquisition, ether convert or get burned at the stake… trials are a waste of time. :D

[The Human Car]

When I choose a mellower route, I'm being sensible.

When JF sees me choose a mellower route, I'm being supersticious.

+1 :beer: Seriously you need to write a book, this is good stuff.

[tallard]

I had fun on my commute today. I wasn't fast or efficient. I meandered a bit. and I never went over 19 mph. took me about a half hour.

;)
No one has any doubts that you are a fantastic cyclist, and your talent may be typical of this forum , but do admit that outside this forum, and non racers, most cyclists aren't exactly keeping pace witcha! Most cyclists I know wouldn't even dream of 19mph LOL

[rando]

yeah, of course.
well....
I only did 19 for like 2 seconds. the rest of the time I was going about 10-14 mph. :o
19 is pretty much as fast as I can go, ever , under ideal conditions.. :lol:

[LittleBigMan]

Get a clue, many cyclists damned well don't believe speed or its twin brother efficiency is their chief priority when cycling to a destination. Nor do they need to believe in the importance of your priorities, despite what you and your speed obsessed club mates believe is gospel.
I agree that speed and efficiency is not the epitome of fun cycling for everyone. In fact, fun cycling has as many faces as the people that ride bikes.

But not every "vehicular cyclist" uses an expensive road bike/clothing/gear/arterial route made for the primary purpose of making the fastest time. I've always been a "nerd on a bike," wearing the cheapest possible clothing/bikes/gear that got me happily from A to B, and it's not always been on a major artery.

Nope. It's all about fun, not efficiency (unless you're late to work :D Hey, then you can cheat and hop a bus or train with your bike!)

But to hear the antagonists of vehicular cycling speak, my comrades in VC would demonize me for not towing the VC line. Yet, strangely enough, this has never occurred.

Could it be the stereotype of "VC ubercyclists" that always feel the need for speed is overused, somewhat?

I've never ridden with a club. But I have been invited by other bike commuters at my workplace to some interesting rides. Might be fun!

:)

[larryfeltonj]

When I choose a mellower route, I'm being sensible.

When JF sees me choose a mellower route, I'm being supersticious.

Do you get it now, Bek?

How often does Forester see you choosing any route?

[LittleBigMan]

I had fun on my commute today. I wasn't fast or efficient. I meandered a bit. and I never went over 19 mph. took me about a half hour.
Time flies when you're having fun!

:D

[larryfeltonj]

We are nothing like the Spanish Inquisition, ether convert or get burned at the stake… trials are a waste of time. :D

Granted this thread has not resembled the actual Spanish Inquisition. But it bears an uncanny resemblance to a number of Monty Python sketches, and I'm of the opinion that the most appropriate garb
for Bekologist, rando, and I-Like-to-Bike would be the robes and headgear from the Spanish Inquisition sketch.

As for the train of logic in the Beko posts (any of them) I think they draw inspiration from Professor Irwin Corey.

[larryfeltonj]

honestly, Larry, if you're going to start talking smack about what's serious cycling and what's not, and how speed and efficiency should be considerations for serious cycling, you should expect some well-deserved flack.


Fair enough. When is the flack going to start?

[LittleBigMan]

stop trying to be friggin mahatmaa Ghandi, LBM.
http://us.rediff.com/news/2005/sep/06mkg.htm

[Bekologist]

blech. larry agrees with the point of view of the thread, even mentions he sometimes chooses alternate routes because some roads are unpleasant, ....(by a liquor store) On Friday and Saturday nights the traffic patterns in and out of the store are chaotic, and I suspect fueled by alcohol. I generally avoid that stretch of Memorial Drive at those times.....
I'm not particularly fond of narrow two lane roads with high traffic speeds and steady traffic volume. I decide whether to take those routes based on the efficiency of the alternatives. I'm capable of riding on them, and often do, but it's not usually pleasant. I will reroute to make the experience better if I have the time.


and then he has to denigrate the tread with lame references to monty python sketches. stop with the insults, larry.

bicyclists that understand how to ride 'according to the rules of the road' do not have to choose the most direct route, and some may be distinctly uncomfortable on some routes, to the point of avoidance.

knowledge of vehicular cycling is not a panacea.

[larryfeltonj]

blech. larry agrees with the point of view of the thread, even mentions he sometimes chooses alternate routes because some roads are unpleasant,

Often non-cyclists or inexperienced cyclists will declare roads dangerous simply because they are uncomfortable interacting with cars. and then he has to denigrate the tread with lame references to monty python sketches. stop with the insults, larry.

bicyclists that understand how to ride 'according to the rules of the road' do not have to choose the most direct route, and some may be distinctly uncomfortable on some routes, to the point of avoidance.

knowledge of vehicular cycling is not a panacea.

I don't know about lame (and in fact I wouldn't have written it if I didn't think it was damn funny :D), but the Monty Python stuff was a bit over the top. It was in response to what I view as a chain of assertions which didn't flow from one another, sitting atop another series of assertions (some direct, some implied) about what vehicular cyclists believe, none of which were accurate.

I took stage in the Catskills when the discussion had already gone through several figure 8s (rimshot)

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Could it be the stereotype of "VC ubercyclists" that always feel the need for speed is overused, somewhat?

IMO, BF A&S postings are overrepresented (as compared to their actual number in the real world) by afew stereotyped "VC ubercyclists" who endlessly post the VC™ party line, and apologists for those self styled experts.

Trademark of VC übercyclists is boasting about their comrades' "skill" as "competent cyclists" or "experienced High Mileage Road Cyclists," their alleged superior safety record, and the importance of encouraging all others to be trained to emulate them in cycling thought and behavior.