different levels of ability amongst "vehicular cyclists"

[Bekologist]

... I'm beginning to decipher there are different levels of traffic comfortability and riding ability among bicyclists that understand how to ride on the roads like vehicles.

this lack of total traffic comfort is a big, glaring discrepancy not given a lot of emphasis by the dogmatic vc, becuase, in this forum, anyway, supossedly all it takes to ride any road is the knowledge of how to ride like a vehicle.

I see some big, gaping holes in the vc point of view. I see glaring fallacies inherent that all it takes to ride a road, any road, is the knowedge of how to operate like a vehicle, and everything else magically falls into place, the cyclist is immune from bad traffic conditions or dangerous roadways, drivers become obsequious, well mannered, and drive according to the rules of the road, politely and legally.

I also suspect incompetancy among some of the EC chip holders.

I doubt all-road traffic competancy is automatically assured just because someone understands how to ride like a vehicle- I suspect there are many levels of ability among the so called 'vehicular cyclists.'

[larryfeltonj]

... I'm beginning to decipher there are different levels of traffic comfortability and riding ability among bicyclists that understand how to ride on the roads like vehicles.

this lack of total traffic comfort is a big, glaring discrepancy not given a lot of emphasis by the dogmatic vc, becuase, in this forum, anyway, supossedly all it takes to ride any road is the knowledge of how to ride like a vehicle.

I see some big, gaping holes in the vc point of view. I see glaring fallacies inherent that all it takes to ride a road, any road, is the knowedge of how to operate like a vehicle, and everything else magically falls into place, the cyclist is immune from bad traffic conditions or dangerous roadways, drivers become obsequious, well mannered, and drive according to the rules of the road, politely and legally.

I also suspect incompetancy among some of the EC chip holders.

I doubt all-road traffic competancy is automatically assured just because someone understands how to ride like a vehicle- I suspect there are many levels of ability among the so called 'vehicular cyclists.'

You really seem to be on a roll with the straw man arguments. Of course there are many levels of ability among vehicular cyclists, just like any occupation has people of a variety of levels of ability. Practice, experience, physical condition, and aptitude all play a role in cycling skill, and there are a lot of nuances within those variables. What are you trying to get us to say? That vehicular cyclists are some sort of superhuman species apart?

[Bekologist]

there's no 'straw man' argument, larry.

what? the concept of 'vc' as bandied about here in this forum by the ardent, rabid, vc, is that there's only two types of bicyclists.

and I totally dispute that.

[sggoodri]

there's no 'straw man' argument, larry.

what? the concept of 'vc' as bandied about here in this forum by the ardent, rabid, vc, is that there's only two types of bicyclists.

and I totally dispute that.

Again, you are disputing a straw man argument that vehicular cycling advocates haven't made. Either you don't understand the actual arguments made, or you deliberately distort them.

The degree to which a cyclist is comfortable operating on a particular roadway in the vehicular manner will be proportionate to his skill and understanding of the operational principles of vehicular cycling. It will also be affected by the nature of the roadway, other road users, and possibly weather and related visibility conditions. I for instance am not fond of cycling on a narrow-lane road with 55 mph speeds in the dark in the rain in January rush hour.

The fact that some roads are unpleasant for some cyclists at some times does not discount the value of the vehicular cycling principle. That is, they still fare worse if they violate vehicular rules than if they operate in accordance with the vehicular rules. It is better for them to choose a different route where they are comfortable operating according to vehicular rules than to operate contrary to vehicular rules, and it is better for the government to improve the roadway to make it safer and more pleasant for cyclists operating according to vehicular rules than it is for the government to modify the corridor to entice cyclists into operating contrary to vehicular rules.

I believe a valid conclusion from the vehicular cycling principle applied to a diversity of trip types and trip purposes is that the government should accommodate vehicular cycling on all normal roadways (in addition to designing off-road paths with consideration to vehicle dynamics and vehicular traffic negotiation) and provide a diversity of routes of varying traffic volume and speed to accommodate the diversity of trip types, purposes, and preferences. The contrary approach would be to design roads and paths in ways that conflict with the vehicular rules that support cyclists' safety and convenience.

[Bekologist]

vc advocates haven't argued that there's the vehicular way to ride and then there's everybody else? :roflmao:

so, steve you agree with me as well. there are different levels of ability and traffic comfortabilty among 'vehicular cyclists' and some roads will be uncomfortable or unpleasant for vehicular cyclists.

uncomfortable enough so that they may choose alternate routes as oppossed to the most direct route, despite their knowledge of 'vehicular' cycling.

[sggoodri]

vc advocates haven't argued that there's the vehicular way to ride and then there's everybody else? :roflmao:

so, steve you agree with me as well. there are different levels of ability and traffic comfortabilty among 'vehicular cyclists' and some roads will be uncomfortable or unpleasant for vehicular cyclists.

uncomfortable enough so that they may choose alternate routes as oppossed to the most direct route, despite their knowledge of 'vehicular' cycling.

You fail to understand the consistency of the vehicular cycling advocates' position:

Operate in the vehicular manner, or don't ride your bike on that corridor and/or at that time.

The position that is opposite of that of vehicular cycling proponents is this:

If you don't feel comfortable following the vehicular rules, then operate contrary to them.

[Bekologist]

so, steve, you agree with me. there are different levels of ability and comfortability among 'vehicular cyclists' and that some roads will be uncomfortable or unpleasant for vehicular cyclists. Enough that they may choose not to ride there.

[joejack951]

so, steve, you agree with me. there are different levels of ability and comfortability among 'vehicular cyclists' and that some roads will be uncomfortable or unpleasant for vehicular cyclists. Enough that they may choose not to ride there.

At first glance, I think I can agree with that statement as long as you added one more section that read: "More experience with that type of road/condition usually increases comfortability. Initally being uncomfortable is NO reason to exclude a roadway from being able to be used in the vehicular manner by a cyclist." This would be consistent with my experience at least.

[rando]

At first glance, I think I can agree with that statement as long as you added one more section that read: "More experience with that type of road/condition usually increases comfortability. Initally being uncomfortable is NO reason to exclude a roadway from being able to be used in the vehicular manner by a cyclist." This would be consistent with my experience at least.

hmmm, I don't know, if a rider is initially uncomfortable with a road and chooses another,and is happy with that one, what's the problem? I think that's a great reason. not every road has to be ridden by every vehicular cyclist. sure the road is useable, but not chosen.

[sggoodri]

so, steve, you agree with me. there are different levels of ability and comfortability among 'vehicular cyclists' and that some roads will be uncomfortable or unpleasant for vehicular cyclists. Enough that they may choose not to ride there.

I agree well enough - the important question is, what should be done about this?

The vehicular cycling advocates' position is threefold: (1) improve the skills and knowledge of the cyclists; (2) modify the roads to make them more pleasant when operating in the vehicular manner - if this is practical to do; (3) preserve and promote alternate usable routes that can be chosen for operation in the vehicular manner.

The detractors of the vehicular cycling principle have a very different response: Modify the unpleasant corridor to make cyclists operating contrary to the rules of the road and contrary to recommended defensive driving more comfortable. For example, here in NC, the most common problematic proposals are to design/designate a sidewalk as a two-way bike path, or to stripe a bike lane in the door zone, or in the gutter area to the right of right-turning traffic.

[Bekologist]

you agree that there are different levels of ability among people that know how to ride according to the rules of the road.

Thank you for your agreement. I personally think your efforts in NC have been limiting the numbers of everyday bicyclists by your anti-accomodationalist spiel, but that's the subject of another thread..... I do read you have increasing numbers of weekend bicyclists though..... interesting..... but again, the subject of another thread.

there are different levels of traffic comfortability and riding ability among bicyclists that understand how to ride on the roads like vehicles.

this lack of total traffic comfort is a big, glaring discrepancy not given a lot of emphasis by the dogmatic vc.

I see a flaw in the vc point of view. I see a fallacy in the argument that all it takes to ride a road, any road, is the knowedge of how to operate like a vehicle.

all-road traffic competancy is NOT automatically assured just because someone understands how to ride like a vehicle- there are different levels of ability among the so called 'vehicular cyclists.'

[Bekologist]

and steve, I'm not a 'detractor' of the vehicular cycling principle. why do you INSIST in bringing up bad roadway design seen in your community -that are largely infrastructure problems- in a thread about bicycling competency?

you don't have to anwser that. the writing is on the shanty wall.

[joejack951]

hmmm, I don't know, if a rider is initially uncomfortable with a road and chooses another,and is happy with that one, what's the problem? I think that's a great reason. not every road has to be ridden by every vehicular cyclist. sure the road is useable, but not chosen.

No, not every road has to be chosen but there are times when using those roads could come in handy (a nice-to-have if you will). For example, there are two routes I can take to my parents' house. The route I started off taking avoided all but 3 miles of major arterial roadway and consisted mostly of 2 lane country road. I was more comfortable on these roads because I had more experience on those roads (which says nothing about how well they suited my needs by the way). The country road route is 14 miles and has almost 900 feet of climbing up and down steep grades. My fastest trip ever on this route was 50 minutes because I got lucky with a tailwind the entire way. Usually, it was more like an hour if not more.

The other route is 12 miles and much flatter but consists entirely of 4 lane arterial roads with and without shoulders with speed limits from 35-50mph. I initially shyed away from this route because I was not comfortable using it (I lacked experience on 4 lane roads on a bike). A few times when leaving my parents it was quite late at night and I just wanted to get home so I decided to try the shorter route counting on the lack of traffic increasing my comfortability. Well, it was fine and a few more trips at higher traffic times proved that it was fine then too. This route is significantly faster with my fastest ride time being less than 40 minutes and a max of around 50 but with much less exertion. After significant experience on 4 lane NOL roads, I've actually come to prefer them over 2 lane roads because passing is so much easier and destination positioning is as easy as it gets.

[invisiblehand]

I see a fallacy in the argument that all it takes to ride a road, any road, is the knowedge of how to operate like a vehicle.

I don't believe this is a VC argument/position.

all-road traffic competancy is NOT automatically assured just because someone understands how to ride like a vehicle- there are different levels of ability among the so called 'vehicular cyclists.'

Of course not.

[Bushman]

there are those of us that like riding in traffic, and there are those of us that dont. Neither way is "bad" or "wrong". Some cyclists are just better skilled and adapted to riding in traffic, and are perfectly comfortable in doing so. The rest can ride the bike lanes (bike segregation) or take side streets.

nuff said.

Thread closed.

[genec]

You really seem to be on a roll with the straw man arguments. Of course there are many levels of ability among vehicular cyclists, just like any occupation has people of a variety of levels of ability. Practice, experience, physical condition, and aptitude all play a role in cycling skill, and there are a lot of nuances within those variables. What are you trying to get us to say? That vehicular cyclists are some sort of superhuman species apart?

No, I think he is trying to say that it may take a long learning curve to "join the club." And with that I really agree.

I have taken the Road I and Road II classes, and I have seen how the classes can move timid cyclists from the sidewalk to the road... but I really doubt that same timid cyclist is going to turn around and jump right on a 50MPH multilaned road with narrow lanes and play the alpha dog. It just ain't gonna happen.

The bottom line is, that sort of riding and technique does take time and experience... in spite of the classes. (bear in mind I took the classes out of curiosity, after some 30+ years of cycling).

I feel that vehicular cycling does work, but at the same time it is not exactly everyone's cup of tea, and it takes experience and a certain attitude to make it work effectively. (JF's claims not withstanding... he is not going to put a 10 year old out on these mean streets with the attitudes of motorists today... I don't care what he "claims.")

Now on the flip side... bike lanes (at least how they are implimented around here (and in many places) have their own set of issues... which have been widely discussed (and perhaps exaggerated).

The reality (the 5000 pound gorilla that everyone keeps stepping around) is that the physical differences of cycling verses the motor car places some, uh, interesting issues on the table... and if there were a serious adoption of the laws and enforcement thereof regarding cyclists and ANYONE's rights to the road, road design and speeds would be dramatically different.

But the fact remains that the world's general public like to be lazy and sit in powered vehicles and push a control and go. So the politics of the road are such that publically we all have the same rights, but in reality, bigger, faster "rules the road."

There really is no getting around that... as soon as you put power in folks' hands... there are going to be those that abuse it... so that legal equality goes right out the window... (heck even some that enforce the laws don't "buy" into them.)

With that in mind... some provision for sharing access to the places we all want to go (and a real admissison of the physical issues involved) is going to require some sort of compromise. What that compromise is... is yet to be perfected.

[sggoodri]

this lack of total traffic comfort is a big, glaring discrepancy not given a lot of emphasis by the dogmatic vc.

I see a flaw in the vc point of view. I see a fallacy in the argument that all it takes to ride a road, any road, is the knowedge of how to operate like a vehicle.

all-road traffic competancy is NOT automatically assured just because someone understands how to ride like a vehicle- there are different levels of ability among the so called 'vehicular cyclists.'[/b]

Without providing a viable alternate solution, your point is of no practical value.

Vehicular cycling skill development maximizes the available existing routes on which one can cycle safely, and also increases comfort. Engineering policies that respect vehicular cycling practices maximize the safety, convenience, and comfort of cycling on new and improved roadways.

What alternate solutions exist to increase cyclists' safety, comfort, access, and convenience? I have heard of two proposed. The first, proposed by the detractors of vehicular cycling, is that on unpleasant roads, cycling contrary to vehicular rules should be facilitated and consequently encouraged. This has the problem of increased collision risks and lower convenience compared to vehicular cycling. The second, proposed by many of the anti-motorists, is that roads should be made much less convenient for motoring in order to reduce traffic speeds and volumes, making them easier to negotiate by bicycle. This approach has practical problems, first because the overwhelming political majority of motoring voters oppose its implementation on important roads, and second because many of the methods proposed to reduce the convenience of motoring reduce the safety and convenience of cycling. The devil is in the details - the number of locations where motoring can be made less attractive without adversely affecting cyclists is small, and in many cases, increasing the convenience of motoring on some long-distance arterial roads siphons motor traffic off of local roads that are of greater interest to casual cyclists. So aside from a few modest limitations in road width and speed, including a well-designed road diet here or there, not much is likely to be gained here.

So, we return to the conclusion that, as John Forester tirelessly repeats, cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles. Often slower, more vulnerable, more exposed to the elements, more affected by noise and pollution than other drivers - yes. But still drivers of vehicles, not pedestrians on wheels, not incompetent children or purely recreational participants to be restricted from travel to their destination of choice. Designing the road system to work well for cyclists to operate according to the rules for drivers, and teaching cyclists how to use those rules effectively, is the best approach to support people who enjoy cycling for transportation and pleasure.

[CB HI]

+1 vote that this is just another Bek straw man argument thread

[genec]

Without providing a viable alternate solution, your point is of no practical value.

Vehicular cycling skill development maximizes the available existing routes on which one can cycle safely, and also increases comfort. Engineering policies that respect vehicular cycling practices maximize the safety, convenience, and comfort of cycling on new and improved roadways.

What alternate solutions exist to increase cyclists' safety, comfort, access, and convenience? I have heard of two proposed. The first, proposed by the detractors of vehicular cycling, is that on unpleasant roads, cycling contrary to vehicular rules should be facilitated and consequently encouraged. This has the problem of increased collision risks and lower convenience compared to vehicular cycling. The second, proposed by many of the anti-motorists, is that roads should be made much less convenient for motoring in order to reduce traffic speeds and volumes, making them easier to negotiate by bicycle. This approach has practical problems, first because the overwhelming political majority of motoring voters oppose its implementation on important roads, and second because many of the methods proposed to reduce the convenience of motoring reduce the safety and convenience of cycling. The devil is in the details - the number of locations where motoring can be made less attractive without adversely affecting cyclists is small, and in many cases, increasing the convenience of motoring on some long-distance arterial roads siphons motor traffic off of local roads that are of greater interest to casual cyclists. So aside from a few modest limitations in road width and speed, including a well-designed road diet here or there, not much is likely to be gained here.

So, we return to the conclusion that, as John Forester tirelessly repeats, cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles. Often slower, more vulnerable, more exposed to the elements, more affected by noise and pollution than other drivers - yes. But still drivers of vehicles, not pedestrians on wheels, not incompetent children or purely recreational participants to be restricted from travel to their destination of choice. Designing the road system to work well for cyclists to operate according to the rules for drivers, and teaching cyclists how to use those rules effectively, is the best approach to support people who enjoy cycling for transportation and pleasure.


Again the oft repeated issue is actually being "treated like drivers of vehicles..." that takes co-operation from the other users of the road... who themselves often feel that cyclists do not belong... hence those "other users" may work to create a very negative environment that forces those with less skills back to rolling pedestrian mode.

It's rather a circular argument... those that treat us poorly would also fare best by simply treating us a peers... which would make traffic in general work better for all. But how to do that? No one has yet been able to figure out how to make "bullies" stop being bullies.

Yeah Bek may be throwing out a strawman... but there really is something behind it... that 5000 pound gorilla that I mentioned in my post above that we keep stepping around...

[larryfeltonj]

No, I think he is trying to say that it may take a long learning curve to "join the club." And with that I really agree.



Actually he seems to have a fixation on one small epiphany. That vehicular cyclists have a range of skill levels, and that not all vehicular cyclists are at exactly the same development point. When I acknowledged that yes, there are indeed variations of cycling skills among vehicular cyclists his reaction is a histrionic gotcha.

I've developed a number of skills in my life, and in every related skillset there are baseline things that one needs to know in order to be considered competent, and then there are refinements to the basic techniques and advanced techniques. It's the way the world works.

As for learning curve, yes there is one. How long it is depends on a number of factors, but the main controlable one is how much time one spends cycling, and how much one applies themselves to study and learning from other cyclists.

[genec]

Actually he seems to have a fixation on one small epiphany. That vehicular cyclists have a range of skill levels, and that not all vehicular cyclists are at exactly the same development point. When I acknowledged that yes, there are indeed variations of cycling skills among vehicular cyclists his reaction is a histrionic gotcha.

I've developed a number of skills in my life, and in every related skillset there are baseline things that one needs to know in order to be considered competent, and then there are refinements to the basic techniques and advanced techniques. It's the way the world works.

As for learning curve, yes there is one. How long it is depends on a number of factors, but the main controlable one is how much time one spends cycling, and how much one applies themselves to study and learning from other cyclists.

I hear ya in that Bek does tend to parrot the same message...

But beyond that... things can be done to make the transition into effective road cycling and sharing of the roads easier... and often those middle approaches are thown out like the babie's bath water.

A long learning curve can be quite discouraging... as can the reaction to the general motoring public's general attitude toward cycling... some middle ground should be fostered to encourage cycling (and help the general health of the nation and reduce our dependence on oil). This really is not a black and white problem... there is lots of room for gray.

[rando]

Vehicular cycling skill development maximizes the available existing routes on which one can cycle safely, and also increases comfort. Engineering policies that respect vehicular cycling practices maximize the safety, convenience, and comfort of cycling on new and improved roadways.

What alternate solutions exist to increase cyclists' safety, comfort, access, and convenience? I have heard of two proposed. The first, proposed by the detractors of vehicular cycling, is that on unpleasant roads, cycling contrary to vehicular rules should be facilitated and consequently encouraged. .

you're talking about facilities, aren't you? like bike lanes? how is using a designated lane not VC?

This has the problem of increased collision risks and lower convenience compared to vehicular cycling. .

Baloney. stop the scare tactics.

The second, proposed by many of the anti-motorists, is that roads should be made much less convenient for motoring in order to reduce traffic speeds and volumes, making them easier to negotiate by bicycle. This approach has practical problems, first because the overwhelming political majority of motoring voters oppose its implementation on important roads, and second because many of the methods proposed to reduce the convenience of motoring reduce the safety and convenience of cycling. The devil is in the details - the number of locations where motoring can be made less attractive without adversely affecting cyclists is small, and in many cases, increasing the convenience of motoring on some long-distance arterial roads siphons motor traffic off of local roads that are of greater interest to casual cyclists. So aside from a few modest limitations in road width and speed, including a well-designed road diet here or there, not much is likely to be gained here. .

well, yeah, with a defeatist attitude and the notion that the best way is the way benefitting only those high mileage cyclists like yourself and apparently every other cyclist in Cary, nothing WILL be gained. traffic calming is not the devil, and it doesn't have to reduce the safety and convenience of cycling. it may, however, reduce the effectiveness and speed of a certain type of high mileage cyclist. I suspect this is what really bothers you...


So, we return to the conclusion that, as John Forester tirelessly repeats, cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles. Often slower, more vulnerable, more exposed to the elements, more affected by noise and pollution than other drivers - yes. But still drivers of vehicles, not pedestrians on wheels, not incompetent children or purely recreational participants to be restricted from travel to their destination of choice. Designing the road system to work well for cyclists to operate according to the rules for drivers, and teaching cyclists how to use those rules effectively, is the best approach to support people who enjoy cycling for transportation and pleasure.

Whoa there, nope, not all of "us" return to that conclusion at all, Clarence Darrow. the best approach may be a combo of education, facilities and traffic calming.

[invisiblehand]

I'm astonished that the diehard hardcore VC dogmatists can't admit that.

Hah! No intent on pushing buttons here, but if you call someone "diehard" "hardcore" and "dogmatist" why would you expect him/her to change their mind? :D

-G

[rando]

Hah! No intent on pushing buttons here, but if you call someone "diehard" "hardcore" and "dogmatist" why would you expect him/her to change their mind? :D

-G


Fixed it.

[sggoodri]

you're talking about facilities, aren't you? like bike lanes? how is using a designated lane not VC?


If the proposed facility for an "unpleasant" corridor is a sidewalk designated as a two-way bike path, as is commonly the problem here in NC, the conflict with VC is clear. If the proposed facility is a bike lane squeezed into a door zone, or into a curbside location where right turns are common, then this is in conflict with proper defensive bicycling. These are common "cheap" retrofits proposed by those seeking to encourage novice bicyclists to feel more comfortable on existing "unpleasant" roads.

If the facility change is instead consistent with proper vehicular cycling, then it matches the type of engineering improvement I previously advocated. As I've said before, I don't have a real problem with wide non-door-zone bike lanes or wide paved shoulders between intersections if they are swept clean of debris, but as an artifact of the way roads are maintained where I live, there are no "unpleasant" corridors where regular street sweeping is a viable option.


well, yeah, with a defeatist attitude and the notion that the best way is the way benefitting only those high mileage cyclists like yourself and apparently every other cyclist in Cary, nothing WILL be gained. traffic calming is not the devil, and it doesn't have to reduce the safety and convenience of cycling. it may, however, reduce the effectiveness and speed of a certain type of high mileage cyclist. I suspect this is what really bothers you...

Whoa there, nope, not all of "us" return to that conclusion at all, Clarence Darrow. the best approach may be a combo of education, facilities and traffic calming.

I don't have a problem with some types of traffic calming that don't hurt cyclists. I have 25mph speed humps on my street in front of my house. I supported them. They have reduced speeds and cut-through volumes.

But there is very active discussion among cyclists on a Durham, NC bike/ped advocacy list complaining about a recent traffic calming project there that added bulbouts on a wide-laned road, forcing cyclists to frequently merge with motorists into the newly narrowed lane or crash into the numerous bulbouts. The anti-motoring effort behind the bulbouts project has already resulted in one crash by a bicyclist, only a short time after its installation.

Traffic calming efforts must respect implications for cyclists' operation as drivers of vehicles on roadways.

[joejack951]

Again the oft repeated issue is actually being "treated like drivers of vehicles..." that takes co-operation from the other users of the road... who themselves often feel that cyclists do not belong... hence those "other users" may work to create a very negative environment that forces those with less skills back to rolling pedestrian mode.

It's rather a circular argument... those that treat us poorly would also fare best by simply treating us a peers... which would make traffic in general work better for all. But how to do that? No one has yet been able to figure out how to make "bullies" stop being bullies.

Yeah Bek may be throwing out a strawman... but there really is something behind it... that 5000 pound gorilla that I mentioned in my post above that we keep stepping around...

A lot of harm has been done in the US (and apparently other countries as well) to cyclists being treated as drivers of vehicles by facilities and laws that encourage cyclists to act (or even just appear) as though they are not allowed to use the roadways. Anyone who rides the roads has experienced some backlash as a result of this. The cure, however, is not further regressing by trying to take back one small piece of the road that motorists don't really care if we use anyway.

I have yet to hear of a cyclist in this forum who has said that when he acts vehicularly, the majority of drivers still choose to treat him as though he does not belong. In fact, most agree that the vast majority of motorists will treat you as a vehicle driver if you just act like one. I find it hard to symptathize with those who feel that a few angry comments or horn honks is a reason to completely change how cycling should be presented on the roadways.

[genec]

A lot of harm has been done in the US (and apparently other countries as well) to cyclists being treated as drivers of vehicles by facilities and laws that encourage cyclists to act (or even just appear) as though they are not allowed to use the roadways. Anyone who rides the roads has experienced some backlash as a result of this. The cure, however, is not further regressing by trying to take back one small piece of the road that motorists don't really care if we use anyway.

I have yet to hear of a cyclist in this forum who has said that when he acts vehicularly, the majority of drivers still choose to treat him as though he does not belong. In fact, most agree that the vast majority of motorists will treat you as a vehicle driver if you just act like one. I find it hard to symptathize with those who feel that a few angry comments or horn honks is a reason to completely change how cycling should be presented on the roadways.

So you consider those angry comments and horn honks just part of being treated as the driver of a vehicle? Nice environment... so very encouraging to those that have yet to "graduate" to the level of skilled "alpha dog" vehicular cyclists.

I have no problem riding vehicularly... but in return, I expect to be treated just as the driver of a vehicle, not as some secondary road trash to be avoided at all costs which may even include putting others in danger at the pursuit of some notion that cyclists "should get out of the way."

Now perhaps you are misunderstanding my comments... being treated like the driver of a vehicle is the responsibility of the other users of the road... and until those other users understand this, and come to grips with it, we cyclists have a problem... especially when some motorists chose to act like the 5000 pound gorilla and enforce their view of the way things are supposed to be.

The Mantra "cyclists fare best... " works best when it is understood by all users of the road, not just those on the smallest vehicles hoping for fair treatment.

[larryfeltonj]

I have yet to hear of a cyclist in this forum who has said that when he acts vehicularly, the majority of drivers still choose to treat him as though he does not belong. In fact, most agree that the vast majority of motorists will treat you as a vehicle driver if you just act like one. I find it hard to symptathize with those who feel that a few angry comments or horn honks is a reason to completely change how cycling should be presented on the roadways.

Exactly.

I cycle considerable distances in Atlanta. Atlanta is by many people's accounts a horrendously bicycle-unfriendly city. In my experience it's a great place to cycle. Motorists interact with me well, and there are enough cyclists on the roads that drivers don't seem to view cyclists as an exotic intrusion. So why is Atlanta a "cycling unfriendly city"? Who knows. I do know that cycling vehicularly here is the best way to avoid conflicts with motorists. And if I had a penny for everyone who's told me "I'd cycle if there were only more bike lanes ..."

[joejack951]

So you consider those angry comments and horn honks just part of being treated as the driver of a vehicle? Nice environment... so very encouraging to those that have yet to "graduate" to the level of skilled "alpha dog" vehicular cyclists.

To some extent, I do consider honks a part of being treated as a driver of a vehicle. I hear plenty of horn honks during my commute that are not directed at me. The comments are unnecessary and are part of the backlash that I described. There's not much one can do other than ignore the ignorant in that case. Eventually, they'll get tired of it, especially if more and more cyclists choose to ride vehicularly.

I have no problem riding vehicularly... but in return, I expect to be treated just as the driver of a vehicle, not as some secondary road trash to be avoided at all costs which may even include putting others in danger at the pursuit of some notion that cyclists "should get out of the way."

Now perhaps you are misunderstanding my comments... being treated like the driver of a vehicle is the responsibility of the other users of the road... and until those other users understand this, and come to grips with it, we cyclists have a problem... especially when some motorists chose to act like the 5000 pound gorilla and enforce their view of the way things are supposed to be.

I did not misunderstand you. I know that the acting part is the responsibility of the cyclist and the treating part is the responsibility of everyone else. For the most part, doing the former encourages the latter. I think that you exaggerate "the problem" just like most people will exaggerate the risks of riding a bike in traffic. Neither helps cyclists to get any better treatment. I'm not saying that it should be ignored completely but take it for what it is: room for improvement.

The Mantra "cyclists fare best... " works best when it is understood by all users of the road, not just those on the smallest vehicles hoping for fair treatment.

Of course. And until more cyclists decide to start acting like a vehicle driver and not a pedestrian on wheels or someone who's borrowing a few feet of roadway from the owners of the roads, you can expect a few motorists to not understand cyclists' rights.

[genec]

To some extent, I do consider honks a part of being treated as a driver of a vehicle. I hear plenty of horn honks during my commute that are not directed at me. The comments are unnecessary and are part of the backlash that I described. There's not much one can do other than ignore the ignorant in that case. Eventually, they'll get tired of it, especially if more and more cyclists choose to ride vehicularly.

Rather wishful thinking when such behaviour does nothing to encourage "more and more cyclists to ride vehicularly."


I did not misunderstand you. I know that the acting part is the responsibility of the cyclist and the treating part is the responsibility of everyone else. For the most part, doing the former encourages the latter. I think that you exaggerate "the problem" just like most people will exaggerate the risks of riding a bike in traffic. Neither helps cyclists to get any better treatment. I'm not saying that it should be ignored completely but take it for what it is: room for improvement.

I wish I was exaggerating the problem... I am only reporting what I see and what has actually happened to me in my long quest to be treated like the driver of a vehicle. I don't see things getting any better.


Of course. And until more cyclists decide to start acting like a vehicle driver and not a pedestrian on wheels or someone who's borrowing a few feet of roadway from the owners of the roads, you can expect a few motorists to not understand cyclists' rights.

Therein is part of the problem... as long as the motoring public is not told, nor held to the standard that all users on the road are equal... then they will continue to assume that we are "borrowing" without asking, that which is "theirs."

[Bekologist]

some vehicular bicyclists are not comfortable on all roads all the time; the knowledge of how to ride 'according to the rules of the road for vehicles' is not a panacea.

there is no straw man here, there is no debate over facilites on my part; the ability for a vehicular cyclist to use bike facilities in a vehicular manner is not a point of contention......

this thread is to simply state that there are differerent levels of ability and riding skill among 'vc' and some roads are too uncomfortable to be ridden on by people that understand how to ride 'according to the rules of the road'...

i find all the defensiveness and the calling out of "sidewalk bike facilties" particularily odious in a simple thread about bicyclist abilities and uncomfortable traffic conditions.

[larryfeltonj]

some vehicular bicyclists are not comfortable on all roads all the time; the knowledge of how to ride 'according to the rules of the road for vehicles' is not a panacea.

there is no straw man here, there is no debate over facilites on my part; the ability for a vehicular cyclist to use bike facilities in a vehicular manner is not a point of contention......

this thread is to simply state that there are differerent levels of ability and riding skill among 'vc' and some roads are too uncomfortable to be ridden on by people that understand how to ride 'according to the rules of the road'...

i find all the defensiveness and the calling out of "sidewalk bike facilties" particularily odious in a simple thread about bicyclist abilities and uncomfortable traffic conditions.

If the thread hadn't meandered a bit it would have fallen with a thud after you posted this nonsensical statement in the introduction to the thread:

this lack of total traffic comfort is a big, glaring discrepancy not given a lot of emphasis by the dogmatic vc, becuase, in this forum, anyway, supossedly all it takes to ride any road is the knowledge of how to ride like a vehicle.

If you're going to attempt to hone your polemical skills you should at least insert supporting quotes from your opponents when you assert something questionable. It's quite possible to construct straw man arguments convincingly enough that they don't generate widespread headshaking, as this bizarre quote no doubt did.

[larryfeltonj]

So you consider those angry comments and horn honks just part of being treated as the driver of a vehicle? Nice environment... so very encouraging to those that have yet to "graduate" to the level of skilled "alpha dog" vehicular cyclists.

I have no problem riding vehicularly... but in return, I expect to be treated just as the driver of a vehicle, not as some secondary road trash to be avoided at all costs which may even include putting others in danger at the pursuit of some notion that cyclists "should get out of the way."


The occasional horn honk is something over which I have no control. At the risk of being declared an "alpha dog" the horn honks also have no effect on my cycling behavior, or my choice of routes.

I do think that education of the motoring population on the rights of cyclists is a good thing. But even if the right of cyclists to the road were known by all motorists there would still be horn honks, as evidenced by the fact that motorists honk their horns at each other.

[Bekologist]

you should at least insert supporting quotes from your opponents when you assert something questionable.

Why, larry? why should I search other threads to come up with pull quotes for evidence of the chestbeating phenomenon that blatantly plagues this forum?

the loud and proud vehicular cyclists in this forum boast their skills unceasingly.

I point out there are different levels of ability in the vehicular cyclists, and that some roads are uncomfortable for some vehicular cyclists. Unpleasant enough that a cyclist that understands how to ride according to the rules of the road may choose not to ride certain roads.

this is a fundamental flaw in the vc'ist logic, that all that is necessary to ride any road is the knowledge of how to ride like a vehicle.

I'm sorry, but i see a huge gaping hole in the vc point of view, if some roads are effectively "off limits" to some vehicular bicyclists due traffic volumes and speed.

[larryfeltonj]

Why, larry? why should I search other threads to come up with pull quotes for evidence of the chestbeating phenomenon that blatantly plagues this forum?

the loud and proud vehicular cyclists in this forum boast their skills unceasingly.

I point out there are different levels of ability in the vehicular cyclists, and that some roads are uncomfortable for some vehicular cyclists. Unpleasant enough that a cyclist that understands how to ride according to the rules of the road may choose not to ride certain roads.

this is a fundamental flaw in the vc'ist logic, that all that is necessary to ride any road is the knowledge of how to ride like a vehicle.

I'm sorry, but i see a huge gaping hole in the vc point of view, if some roads are effectively "off limits" to some vehicular bicyclists due traffic volumes and speed.


I was just trying to be helpful in helping you hone your polemical skills. If you're going to build Potemkin villages you might
at least build them convincingly.

[Bekologist]

"trying to be helpful"? :rolleyes:

you've already admitted you agree with the point of view of the original post, that not all vehicular cyclists have the same abilities,

that knowledge of vc does not automatically make a competant, all-roads, all conditions bicyclist,

and that some riders that understand how to ride according to the rules of the road may choose alternate routes because they are uncomfortable on some roads due traffic volumes or conditions.

[sggoodri]

this is a fundamental flaw in the vc'ist logic, that all that is necessary to ride any road is the knowledge of how to ride like a vehicle.

What is necessary to operate an automobile on any road?

First there is the knowledge of the rules of the road for vehicles, then there are manuevering skills, an understanding of defensive driving, and judgement of traffic gaps, speeds, and likely trajectories. Success also increases with experience at these.

Somewhat outside the direct control of the driver is the actions of other drivers, although defensive driving and communication can help here.

Completely outside the driver's control are the design and condition of the road (a bridge could collapse under you) and the weather.

Nobody can claim accurately that all that is required to operate any vehicle is one's own knowledge of the rules of the road. However, when one compares bicycling to motoring, one sees strong similarities in the skills and conditions required. There are indeed some subtle differences in the desired conditions for motoring and for cycling, i.e. as a cyclist I care more about having wide pavement for drivers to pass me than when I am a motorist, and I care less about being able to exceed 30 mph, but the operational skills are very similar.

Some motorists are less skilled and less able to travel on certain roads at certain times, due to vision or other issues. This is unfortunate, but has not warranted the complete reconstruction of our traffic laws or road system. It is worthwhile to organize land uses to allow daily trips to occur over shorter distances on less heavily traveled roads in order to reduce the barriers that skill limitation can present. But, most drivers recognize that they benefit from having as much skill as possible in order to negotiate the roads they have.

[Bekologist]

if that's not a smokescreen, steve, call me the scarecrow.

[genec]

The occasional horn honk is something over which I have no control. At the risk of being declared an "alpha dog" the horn honks also have no effect on my cycling behavior, or my choice of routes.

I do think that education of the motoring population on the rights of cyclists is a good thing. But even if the right of cyclists to the road were known by all motorists there would still be horn honks, as evidenced by the fact that motorists honk their horns at each other.

Indeed motorists honk their horns at each other... but I think since I got a driver's license I have been honked at while driving a motor vehicle something less than 5 times in 35 years. (was just honked at last week in fact... when I slowed for a cyclist... go figure) While cycling, I can practically guarantee a horn honk/yelling comment a week, depending on where I ride.... and since as a cyclist, I represent about 2% of the traffic on the road... I'd have to say there is something radically disproportionate about that.

EDIT: Uh, to be fair, I must disclose that I have not been an active auto driver for 35 years... for 7 years I was car free, and for many years after that, I commuted primarily by bike... so perhaps I am due a few more motorist-motorist honks... but certainly I get nothing like the frequency of honks I receive while cycling.

[sbhikes]

I'm sorry but any road where a significant quantity of motorists risk my life to "teach me a lesson" whether by honking their horns, or buzzing me, or shouting or throwing things at me, or veering into my path on purpose (or on accident if it happens enough) qualifies in my book as a road to avoid. I don't care about my vehicular skills. I don't want to ride where the vehicular skills of the motorists is so bad.

[John Forester]

... I'm beginning to decipher there are different levels of traffic comfortability and riding ability among bicyclists that understand how to ride on the roads like vehicles.

this lack of total traffic comfort is a big, glaring discrepancy not given a lot of emphasis by the dogmatic vc, becuase, in this forum, anyway, supossedly all it takes to ride any road is the knowledge of how to ride like a vehicle.

I see some big, gaping holes in the vc point of view. I see glaring fallacies inherent that all it takes to ride a road, any road, is the knowedge of how to operate like a vehicle, and everything else magically falls into place, the cyclist is immune from bad traffic conditions or dangerous roadways, drivers become obsequious, well mannered, and drive according to the rules of the road, politely and legally.

I also suspect incompetancy among some of the EC chip holders.

I doubt all-road traffic competancy is automatically assured just because someone understands how to ride like a vehicle- I suspect there are many levels of ability among the so called 'vehicular cyclists.'

Bekologist's mishmash of unrelated ideas shows that he knows little about either bicycle transportation or logic. Bekologist confuses skill with comfort, and these are different. He confuses things that the cyclist can do and can affect with things that are independent of the cyclist. He confuses the skill of operating according to the rules of the road (vehicular cycling) with the kinds of knowledge that have to do with how that skill is applied, which, naturally, differ from road to road. For example, it is quite handy to learn at which intersections on your commuting route there is much right-turning traffic.

And, most glaringly erroneous, to the mind of one who does understand bicycle transportation, is that Bekologist has not, because he cannot, describe a better way of operating than vehicular cycling. In that, Bekologist's thought is a hoax.

[larryfeltonj]

I'm sorry but any road where a significant quantity of motorists risk my life to "teach me a lesson" whether by honking their horns, or buzzing me, or shouting or throwing things at me, or veering into my path on purpose (or on accident if it happens enough) qualifies in my book as a road to avoid. I don't care about my vehicular skills. I don't want to ride where the vehicular skills of the motorists is so bad.

Why does this stuff not happen to me when I'm cycling? I live in Atlanta. By many people's account it's the epitome of everything anti-cycling, and I'm on both urban and suburban roads here daily. I have the occasional horn honk, a bit less frequently someone passes me too closely, and even less frequently someone shouts out a window. But the sort of sustained harassment described above just doesn't happen to me.

[rando]

Why does this stuff not happen to me when I'm cycling? I live in Atlanta. By many people's account it's the epitome of everything anti-cycling, and I'm on both urban and suburban roads here daily. I have the occasional horn honk, a bit less frequently someone passes me too closely, and even less frequently someone shouts out a window. But the sort of sustained harassment described above just doesn't happen to me.

because you're one of the chosen ones, the elite. the rest of us can only hope to reach the level of serious vehicular cyclist that you have achieved.

[larryfeltonj]

because you're one of the chosen ones, the elite. the rest of us can only hope to reach the level of serious vehicular cyclist that you have achieved.

Is that really it? Is my elite status which keeps the hordes of vicious motorists you folks describe from attacking me on the road? Does the post I'm responding to accurately describe your experiences while you're road cycling? If it does by all means urge people not to take up this insanely dangerous activity. It's your civic duty.

[rando]

no, Larry, it's your advanced skill, speed, efficiency and status as serious cyclist that sets you apart from the rest. Not just anybody can be a serious cyclist. I don't take a serious, speedy and efficient route, so my experience is not that relevant, not really.
However, I DO think you're in denial about the level of hostility and the level of discomfort some cyclists feel on some roads. that's part and parcel of the uber-VC dogma point of view.

[Bekologist]

does john imply that there is only one type of vehicular cyclist, and that they can handle all roads regardless?

What a crock.

there are different levels of ability among vehicular riders.

[The Human Car]

Rather wishful thinking when such behaviour does nothing to encourage "more and more cyclists to ride vehicularly."

I wish I was exaggerating the problem... I am only reporting what I see and what has actually happened to me in my long quest to be treated like the driver of a vehicle. I don't see things getting any better.



Therein is part of the problem... as long as the motoring public is not told, nor held to the standard that all users on the road are equal... then they will continue to assume that we are "borrowing" without asking, that which is "theirs."
+1 :beer:

I had one driver almost go postal on me, numerous drivers trying to teach me a lesson and so on but with that being said there are still plenty of places I can ride in Baltimore and in this state where I will not receive this kind of treatment but unfortunately just not everywhere I want to go.

[The Human Car]

Why does this stuff not happen to me when I'm cycling? I live in Atlanta. By many people's account it's the epitome of everything anti-cycling, and I'm on both urban and suburban roads here daily. I have the occasional horn honk, a bit less frequently someone passes me too closely, and even less frequently someone shouts out a window. But the sort of sustained harassment described above just doesn't happen to me.
Could you post your route(s) I am curious.

[Bekologist]

please post your routes in another thread. maybe in Barry's "mellow routes" thread in the A&S main forum.

[Bekologist]

Bekologist confuses skill with comfort, and these are different. He confuses things that the cyclist can do and can affect with things that are independent of the cyclist. He confuses the skill of operating according to the rules of the road (vehicular cycling) with the kinds of knowledge that have to do with how that skill is applied, which, naturally, differ from road to road. For example, it is quite handy to learn at which intersections on your commuting route there is much right-turning traffic.

wow, john, what good and honest advice. you mean skill is different from comfort? I allude to as much in the opening post. just because one understands the rules of the road doesn't make every vehicular cyclist equal in comfort on all roads.....and some vc may avoid some roads altogther.

it sounds like you agree with me.


and the following quote from the above is just nonsense...." He confuses the skill of operating according to the rules of the road (vehicular cycling) with the kinds of knowledge that have to do with how that skill is applied, which, naturally, differ from road to road." how worthless. you mean different roads are different? and cyclists can learn about different road conditons? WOW.


And, most glaringly erroneous, to the mind of one who does understand bicycle transportation, is that Bekologist has not, because he cannot, describe a better way of operating than vehicular cycling. In that, Bekologist's thought is a hoax.

what a load. stop with the insults.....I'm not attempting to describe a 'better way of operating" dude, i'm pointing out there are different levels of skill among people that understand how to ride a bike according to the rules of the road.

john. face the music, bub-

There are different levels of ability among vehicular bicyclists.