Vehicular Cycling (VC) - What happened to John Forester?

You people object to my statement that I cycle because I enjoy it? What on earth is wrong with you? With all your talk about the necessity of being dedicated to it, you turn bicycle transportation into an unpleasant duty, rather than an enjoyable way of traveling. It is no wonder that you obsess about the difficulty of attracting people into bicycle transportation; after your description that partaking of bicycle transportation requires dedication because it cannot be enjoyable.

No sir, I don't object you enjoying cycling.

I object to you portraying yourself as an cycling expert and representing the rest of us, when in fact you may not have the actual experience to do so.

I object to your vision of cycling as you perceive it as being "right" for all of us.

I object to your support of any group that envisions individual automotive transport as superior above all human powered and other forms of transport.

But object to you enjoying cycling, not hardly. Frankly, I hope you can do that forever... provided of course there are still roads left on which you may comfortably cycle.

Even when the trolls are wrong, they serve a usefulness as punching bags.
Well, I for one am glad that you and John post here :)

[QUOTE=genec;5465939]No sir, I don't object you enjoying cycling.

I object to you portraying yourself as an cycling expert and representing the rest of us, when in fact you may not have the actual experience to do so.

And what experience do you assert that I have not had?

No sir, I don't object you enjoying cycling.

I object to you portraying yourself as an cycling expert and representing the rest of us, when in fact you may not have the actual experience to do so.

I object to your vision of cycling as you perceive it as being "right" for all of us.


As a practical matter of getting around town, what cycling style do you recommend instead of vehicular cycling? For what reasons do you recommend it?

No sir, I don't object you enjoying cycling.

I object to you portraying yourself as an cycling expert and representing the rest of us, when in fact you may not have the actual experience to do so.

And what experience do you assert that I have not had?
I suspect you've probably never experienced Gene's internalized terror when riding a bicycle in traffic. ;)

No sir, I don't object you enjoying cycling.


I object to your support of any group that envisions individual automotive transport as superior above all human powered and other forms of transport.



Don't be such an ignorant ideologist. I have been criticizing the motorists for decades for their unjustified and unjustifiable policy that automobiling is superior to cycling.

[QUOTE=genec;5465939]No sir, I don't object you enjoying cycling.

I object to you portraying yourself as an cycling expert and representing the rest of us, when in fact you may not have the actual experience to do so.

And what experience do you assert that I have not had?

How about that of a dedicated transportational cyclist... As I mentioned earlier in this thread. A cyclist who does not chose the time and place to ride, but must ride to meet obligations at whatever time and place one may have to go.

There is a difference between being a voluntary cyclist and being dedicated cyclist.

Don't be such an ignorant ideologist. I have been criticizing the motorists for decades for their unjustified and unjustifiable policy that automobiling is superior to cycling.

And yet you hold hands with them too?

http://www.americandreamcoalition.org/greatestmed.jpg

http://www.americandreamcoalition.org/speakers.html

Pete Fagerlin (http://www.bikeforums.net/member.php?u=81115)

This message is hidden because Pete Fagerlin is on your ignore list (http://www.bikeforums.net/profile.php?do=editlist).

FYI, pedantic troll.

As a practical matter of getting around town, what cycling style do you recommend instead of vehicular cycling? For what reasons do you recommend it?

I donno John... vehicular cycling works well up to certain speeds... then things start to get a bit flaky... Finland had a great system of paths that really worked well... enough that some 30+% of all trips were by bike.

Here in the US we sure seem to spend a lot of money on pavement for cars.

Yet, something is missing.

Paths similar to what I show in the attached picture exist all over town... humans are making their own way in spite of the well paved roads that exist parallel to these paths.

This should be telling us something.

john, your admittance that vehicular cyclists CAN ride vehicularily in preferred class lanes is not insignificant at all. rather telling in my opinion.

if jhon forestor and the rest of us vehikular bikyclists can ride along a high speed road, vehicularily, in a bike lane, that is NOT insignificant.

maybe your blinders make you unable to see this. I also see you are interested in banning bicycles on certain high speed roads altogther. not very bicycling friendly of you, gashuffer.

john f, one of, if not THE biggest hypocrite in the bicycling advocacy community.

[QUOTE=John Forester;5466185]

How about that of a dedicated transportational cyclist... As I mentioned earlier in this thread. A cyclist who does not chose the time and place to ride, but must ride to meet obligations at whatever time and place one may have to go.

There is a difference between being a voluntary cyclist and being dedicated cyclist.

Oh, genec, how much you must dislike cycling, to think that one has to force oneself to ride for the normal transportational needs. That's the difference between you and me; I always enjoyed cycling so much that I never failed to use bicycle transportation whenever it was a practical way to travel, day or night, shine or rain or snow (why do you think I developed a generator drive wheel that did not slip under sleety conditions?), cold or heat, traffic or none. I'm sorry for you that you dislike cycling so much; you would be much happier if you enjoyed it as much as I have all of my life.

I donno John... vehicular cycling works well up to certain speeds... then things start to get a bit flaky... Finland had a great system of paths that really worked well... enough that some 30+% of all trips were by bike.

Here in the US we sure seem to spend a lot of money on pavement for cars.

Yet, something is missing.

Paths similar to what I show in the attached picture exist all over town... humans are making their own way in spite of the well paved roads that exist parallel to these paths.

This should be telling us something.

Doesn't look very urban to me. Only one image, though, comes through. The problems in urban areas are frequent intersections, which you have not offered any method of solving. Again, I ask you what method of cycling do you recommend in typical urban areas in the belief that it is better than vehicular cycling?

john, your admittance that vehicular cyclists CAN ride vehicularily in preferred class lanes is not insignificant at all. rather telling in my opinion.

if jhon forestor and the rest of us vehikular bikyclists can ride along a high speed road, vehicularily, in a bike lane, that is NOT insignificant.

maybe your blinders make you unable to see this. I also see you are interested in banning bicycles on certain high speed roads altogther. not very bicycling friendly of you, gashuffer.

john f, one of, if not THE biggest hypocrite in the bicycling advocacy community.

Why is what you call an admission by me so significant? I have never held that vehicular cyclists can never ride in a bike lane. Since I have never held that, what you call an admission is none at all. This has been explained time after time, but you obviously cannot understand the obvious.

With respect to freeways, I have held that it is not unreasonable to limit freeways to high-speed traffic as long as there is an equal route for slow-speed traffic. There is nothing wrong in letting motorists take advantage of the high speed of their vehicles provided that slow speed traffic has equivalent service on slow-speed roads. Furthermore, getting the long-distance, high-speed motorists off onto freeways unloads much traffic, and impatient traffic at that, from the normal roads. Advantages to both motorists and to cyclists.

Furthermore, getting the long-distance, high-speed motorists off onto freeways unloads much traffic, and impatient traffic at that, from the normal roads.

fallacy. roads become congested to the extent roads are built, there is no practical way to alleviate regional traffic congestion by banning bicyclists from high speed roads or building more freeways. your auto-loving ways are starting to betray you, jhon.

and no, it IS significant that bicyclists can ride vehicularliy in preffered class lanes in a vehicular manner. your attempted dismissal of this flaw in your platform's tired manifesto is very, very telling. sorry, jhonno.

Oh, genec, how much you must dislike cycling, to think that one has to force oneself to ride for the normal transportational needs.Funny, I don't get that feeling from genec's posts at all. Quite the contrary, actually.

I rely on my bike(s) as my primary means of transportation. Yet somehow I manage to enjoy cycling. The two are not mutually exclusive.

(why do you think I developed a generator drive wheel that did not slip under sleety conditions?)Thank you for that, I did not realise it's your design I'm using on my winter bike. Maybe the guys at the B&M dynamo factory don't know it either, as they don't mention it anywhere in the documentation. Did you invent the Internet too? :D

--J

I rely on my bike(s) as my primary means of transportation. Yet somehow I manage to enjoy cycling. The two are not mutually exclusive.
How about that - my thoughts exactly.

[QUOTE=John Forester;5466185]

How about that of a dedicated transportational cyclist... As I mentioned earlier in this thread. A cyclist who does not chose the time and place to ride, but must ride to meet obligations at whatever time and place one may have to go.

There is a difference between being a voluntary cyclist and being dedicated cyclist.

"Dedicated" does not require a transportational purpose. On the several percent of my rides that might not have a transportational purpose, such as to show up at yuppie-club rides that the organizers of often cancel due to weather, I _don't_ cancel.

TF: "yes I motor,"

Fagerlin: "It's even got the same wacky way of talking (typing in this case) that Forester has."

TF anew: You remind me of people that I meet at events, sometimes when I've cycled hundreds of miles to get there, who ask me, "Did you ride or drive"? The answer that they get every time is, "I drove". When I'm not using my canoe or riding a bus or a train or walking, I _always_ drive!

And yet you hold hands with them too?

http://www.americandreamcoalition.org/greatestmed.jpg

http://www.americandreamcoalition.org/speakers.html

If you don't appreciate the beauty of _those_ kinds of cars, you're worse off than I thought.

If you don't appreciate the beauty of _those_ kinds of cars, you're worse off than I thought.

Too bad they don't make them like that any more...

The reality is if you read the ADC "goals," you will see that their idea of the world as they want it, is to have autos running at the autos' "highest efficiency" which they have determined is 50-60MPH.

So the world according to ADC would consist primarily of 50-60MPH roads.

Ideal roads for cyclists eh? And Forester would have us sharing these roads in a strictly vehicular manner.

Now I don't know about you, but <35MPH roads seem to work best when I cycle.

Speeds of 50MPH and higher work fine on limited access roads... known as freeways, but put in the mix of pedestrians crossing, running, and cyclists sharing and merging and taking lanes, etc, then "issues" arise.

Doesn't look very urban to me. Only one image, though, comes through. The problems in urban areas are frequent intersections, which you have not offered any method of solving. Again, I ask you what method of cycling do you recommend in typical urban areas in the belief that it is better than vehicular cycling?

In strictly urban areas such as the gridded corridors of a downtown area, reasonable speed limits of 25MH make vehicular cycling very suitable.

But your friends at ADC what autos running at 50-60MPH.

Arterial roads in San Diego and other places have been pushed to 50+MPH. The picture I provided is from Miramar road at Nobel near the heart of UTC. This is an intersection of a 45MPH road and 50MPH road, where people have tried to find "some other way" other than the smoothly paved roads filled with fast moving autos.

This same sort of picture exists all throughout the county, where off road paths have been created by those seeking alternatives to the existing infrastructure. Now in the case of the picture I posted, there are also trails that are enjoyed by off road enthusiasts. In other areas, the routes are beeline straight from one neighborhood to another.

[QUOTE=TheWheelman;5468301][QUOTE=genec;5466298]




[quote=genec;5466298]
Originally Posted by John Forester View Post

How about that of a dedicated transportational cyclist... As I mentioned earlier in this thread. A cyclist who does not chose the time and place to ride, but must ride to meet obligations at whatever time and place one may have to go.

There is a difference between being a voluntary cyclist and being dedicated cyclist./[quote]


Please, Tom, the words that you quoted are by genec. I would never make such a statement. John Forester

ah, the sold out, hypocritical jhon forestor, interested in banning bicycles from high speed roads and marginalizing bicycling as transportation, never really left.

welcome back, sellout. hypocrite. anti-bicycling jhon. you should be ashamed of your allegiances and your 'advocacy' platform.

Arterial roads in San Diego and other places have been pushed to 50+MPH. The picture I provided is from Miramar road at Nobel near the heart of UTC. This is an intersection of a 45MPH road and 50MPH road, where people have tried to find "some other way" other than the smoothly paved roads filled with fast moving autos.



The latest edition of the DeLorme mapping system does not show an intersection betweem Miramar Road and Nobel Road.

jhon, you have lost it, bub.

you think gene took a picture of a nonexistant intersection? :roflmao:

The latest edition of the DeLorme mapping system does not show an intersection betweem Miramar Road and Nobel Road.

Try Google (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&time=&date=&ttype=&q=Miramar+road+at+Nobel,+San+Diego,+CA&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=45.957536,95.800781&ie=UTF8&ll=32.874866,-117.191978&spn=0.011966,0.023389&t=h&z=16&om=1)

I rely on my bike(s) as my primary means of transportation. Yet somehow I manage to enjoy cycling. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Have you not realized that this is exactly the point Forester has been making the entire time? By saying that's he's never been "dedicated" he's making the point that he's always cycled, even when it's been his only means of transportation, because he wanted to and not because he had to. To say that one is "dedicated" to cycling implies that there is some kind of hardship being endured. Forester is saying that regardless of weather or traffic, he's never seen cycling as a burden, rather it's something fun, and that is why he dislikes the term "dedicated." Of course, when you see Bek take the statement out of context every time he posts, I could see why you might get confused.

The latest edition of the DeLorme mapping system does not show an intersection betweem Miramar Road and Nobel Road.

Try this tool John... it's called google maps.

http://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&ll=32.872054,-117.186356&spn=0.019175,0.038624&t=h&z=15&om=1

Perhaps the problem is that the road is "Nobel Drive" not "Road."

If you do bring up the link, try zooming in and looking around at all the paths that have been made off road throughout San Diego... it is rather interesting.

The thing that comes to my mind is that in this great country of ours we have focused heavily on the auto as not just a primary means of transit, but as the ONLY means of transit... We are now facing the results of that concentration...

It sure seems to me that if alternatives means (bicycle) were somewhat supported by more then mere lines on fast busy roads, there might be a segment of the population that wouldn't seek to use the auto for the typical 2 mile errand trips that the NHTSA says make up most daily trips. Commuting over the 12 mile typical distances would probably still be by auto. But certainly some trips, if the public felt that bikes were more than just toys, might be done quite easily by bike. Imagine the reduction in local traffic if just 10% of all trips were made by bike. Now that is a vision. Too bad the ADC sees just the opposite as their goal.

TF anew: You remind me of people that I meet at events, sometimes when I've cycled hundreds of miles to get there, who ask me, "Did you ride or drive"? The answer that they get every time is, "I drove". When I'm not using my canoe or riding a bus or a train or walking, I _always_ drive!

You've got to love the semantics. Do you also drive a canoe or drive a horse? Why the hangup on the word "drive" verses the word "ride" if you understand the jist of the question that "people you meet at events" ask. Is it merely a misunderstanding, thinking that "drive" relates to a road while "ride" does not? Or is there something more political about it?

"Drive" and "ride" describe the act of interacting with something, specifically, of piloting a vehicle. "Ride" indicates the the vehicle (or prime mover) is controlled through the whole of your body. It is the correct word to use with a bicycle because the act of "riding" a bicycle involves the use of your whole body. The bicycle becomes an extension of your body. "Drive" implies that you pilot a vehicle through a couple of very specific, isolated control inputs. There are only two points of contact when driving a modern car: the steering wheel and the right foot. The steering wheel solely controls the heading of the car, while the foot solely controls the speed. The correct word to use with a car is "drive".

These words do not have a relationship with where you choose to pilot your machine, or in what manner they are maneuvered while in a certain location. By modifying their meanings to make a political point, you reinforce the very notion that you are trying to fight: that bicycles have all the rights to the road of a car. All you've done is create a split in the cycling population, between people who "drive" their bicycles, and people who "ride" their bicycles. You've done nothing with respect to the relationship between motorized transport and bicycles. You've merely created your own special class of bicyclist.

To me, your use of "drive" with respect to piloting a bicycle tells me a lot about how you view cycling. To me, the bicycle is an extension of my body. Changing the heading of my bicycle involves the use of every single skeletal muscle in my body, just as it does when I am walking or running. By "riding" my bicycle, I can make it do amazing things that drivers of motorized vehicles can only dream about. I can hop potholes without causing stress on my equipment and without specialized suspension. I can turn inside a 7 foot radius, enabling me to make near right angle turns and take advantage of gaps in stopped traffic or avoid obstacles. I can use very, very light, narrow, high pressure tires because I can move my bicycle frame and change the path my wheels take without changing the heading of my center of gravity, allowing me to avoid rocks and allowing me the use of those fragile, but high performance tires.

For the people who say they "drive" their bicycle, I immediately imagine that their bicycling is very boring; always the same, day in and day out, just like it is for driving. And taking into account their political views which promote the use of "drive" to refer to the act of piloting a bicycle, I immediately think that they are embarrassed to be on a bicycle; embarrassed to be moving around the world in a way that most people don't, and wishing that more people were like them. They seem to be looking for acceptance, instead of demonstrating equality.

I say, if you want equality, ride like you are an equal to those who drive, their acceptance be damned!

Have you not realized that this is exactly the point Forester has been making the entire time? By saying that's he's never been "dedicated" he's making the point that he's always cycled, even when it's been his only means of transportation, because he wanted to and not because he had to. To say that one is "dedicated" to cycling implies that there is some kind of hardship being endured. Forester is saying that regardless of weather or traffic, he's never seen cycling as a burden, rather it's something fun, and that is why he dislikes the term "dedicated." Of course, when you see Bek take the statement out of context every time he posts, I could see why you might get confused.

OK lets get over the term "dedicated."

The idea here is if one has no other choice (does not own any other means of transit) then the times and places one rides are not always by choice, but to fulfill one's lifestyle and obligations. You ride a bike to work, to run errands, and to do whatever you do. There is nothing in that statement that says you don't enjoy cycling. But the cycling you do is not strictly for enjoyment.

On the other hand, Forester focuses on voluntary cyclists as the primary group of cyclists that use the road and for which VC works well, focusing also on speed as a primary goal. The issue with voluntary cyclists is that they are just that, voluntary... they chose the time, route and destination that suits them... those routes, times and destinations that don't suit, well, they are driven to, just as Forester drove to his place of work as it was too tedious to carry all the trappings to support commuting. Thus the voluntary cyclists rides under somewhat ideal conditions. Now some voluntary cyclists will chant that they are "totally dedicated" to their cycling and that their routes are less than "ideal."

Now the reality is that voluntary cyclists actually make up a tiny portion of all cyclists. The vast majority are involuntary or dedicated cyclists. And indeed those cyclists will probably chose to move to a motor vehicle as soon as the opportunity presents itself... primarily because our US society does NOT support cycling as a form of transportation, but as a toy or as a temporary means for the underclass and even as a rite of passage. (this may also be one of the reasons cyclists tend to be treated as a "second class" by some members of the driving public.) But for everyone moving up the economic ladder to a motor vehicle, there is some one else moving into place as an involuntary cyclist. This is a very dynamic situation, which makes the task of "educating all cyclists" into a particular "style" even more vexing. This group tends to be so dynamic that any means of education would tend to always leave behind a large group of new emerging cyclists. Teaching cycling at the elementary school level might be the only way to reach a vast majority of these new cycling entrants.

Of course the other means might be to dedicate some of our national funding toward cycling vice the mere less than 1% of transit funding that goes to cycling now.

Imagine what might happen if instead of building 2 more 12 foot wide lanes on the local freeway (one lane either direction) the funds are dedicated to building a cycling byway instead. Instead of 24 feet of earth choking pavement, only 10 feet of pavement is laid down to support a two way path and a connected infrastructure similar to that of Finland (I might also say Amsterdam... but I've never been there... so I don't really know how things work there). Imagine if this great country chose to focus on bicycles as real means of transit... vice simply nodding to the existing pavement and saying: "use this," while inside knowing that most people will go no where near high speed roads filled with motorists. (I can't help but wonder if some of that is due to people knowing how "well" they actually drive.)

I could go on... but just keep this concept in mind... if we were to get a reduction of say 10% of the current traffic on the roads... wouldn't that be just as effective (if not much more) than adding another lane to the "soon to be congested again" highway?

Maybe it's time to think outside of the box (or "cage" if you will).


**********************************************************

BTW for Forester... I am not an "Envir-o-mentalist" or anything of the kind. I chose the words I used for impact for the audience that might chose to read this, not because I have a particular bent.

I do feel, like the president et. al., that we have become "addicted to oil" and the results thus far are obvious.

I've had folks who have never cycled except as kids and co-workers who only drive motor vehicles as far as I know call it 'driving' in casual conversation.
Al

Funny, I don't get that feeling from genec's posts at all. Quite the contrary, actually.

I rely on my bike(s) as my primary means of transportation. Yet somehow I manage to enjoy cycling. The two are not mutually exclusive.

--J

Here are genec's own words: "How about that of a dedicated transportational cyclist... As I mentioned earlier in this thread. A cyclist who does not chose the time and place to ride, but must ride to meet obligations at whatever time and place one may have to go.

There is a difference between being a voluntary cyclist and being dedicated cyclist."

Genec is clearly saying that a voluntary cyclist chooses not to ride under conditions in which the dedicated transportational cyclist feels he must ride. That is a clear statement of his belief that much of transportational cycling is done under unpleasant conditions. That is, that he dislikes much of cycling and does it only because he is dedicated. On the other hand, I was never dissuaded by such conditions because I enjoyed it all.That's the difference.

Here are genec's own words: "How about that of a dedicated transportational cyclist... As I mentioned earlier in this thread. A cyclist who does not chose the time and place to ride, but must ride to meet obligations at whatever time and place one may have to go.

There is a difference between being a voluntary cyclist and being dedicated cyclist."

Genec is clearly saying that a voluntary cyclist chooses not to ride under conditions in which the dedicated transportational cyclist feels he must ride. That is a clear statement of his belief that much of transportational cycling is done under unpleasant conditions. That is, that he dislikes much of cycling and does it only because he is dedicated. On the other hand, I was never dissuaded by such conditions because I enjoyed it all.That's the difference.

Nice twist John. Try again.

When you drive to run an errand, do you exact pleasure from each and every driving instance? Have you ever taken a drive just for fun. Do you understand that there are different motivations for each?

Do you not understand that choosing when and where to cycle is different from cycling for every transit requirement? Transportational cycling may indeed be done under unpleasant conditions. That doesn't mean that the cyclist "dislikes" cycling, but may not enjoy the particular conditions of the moment.

Ever gone to work on a day you just did not want to, yet you were dedicated enough to the job to still perform the tasks?

Too bad they don't make them like that any more...

The reality is if you read the ADC "goals," you will see that their idea of the world as they want it, is to have autos running at the autos' "highest efficiency" which they have determined is 50-60MPH.

So the world according to ADC would consist primarily of 50-60MPH roads.

Ideal roads for cyclists eh? And Forester would have us sharing these roads in a strictly vehicular manner.

Now I don't know about you, but <35MPH roads seem to work best when I cycle.

Speeds of 50MPH and higher work fine on limited access roads... known as freeways, but put in the mix of pedestrians crossing, running, and cyclists sharing and merging and taking lanes, etc, then "issues" arise.


Genec, you are another of those whose ideology blinds them to obvious truths. ADC does point out that when freeway traffic is congested to low speed levels the fuel consumption per vehicle-mile increases. That's an obvious truth, but it is limited to its own context. ADC does not, has never, suggested that people should live, or industries should operate, alongside freeways. ADC recognizes, far more than you do, that people want to live on typical suburban streets with only the traffic generated by that street. Furthermore, ADC has never particularly concerned itself with your obsession of fuel efficiency; for them, efficiency consists in a far more detailed evaluation of inputs and outputs than just fuel.

Nice twist John. Try again.

When you drive to run an errand, do you exact pleasure from each and every driving instance? Have you ever taken a drive just for fun. Do you understand that there are different motivations for each?

Do you not understand that choosing when and where to cycle is different from cycling for every transit requirement? Transportational cycling may indeed be done under unpleasant conditions. That doesn't mean that the cyclist "dislikes" cycling, but may not enjoy the particular conditions of the moment.

Ever gone to work on a day you just did not want to, yet you were dedicated enough to the job to still perform the tasks?

Genec, this discussion concerns me, specifically mentioned by name. You are saying that I have chosen to travel by other means than bicycling because of conditions that you consider to be "unpleasant conditions". Prove your statement, you ideological guesser.

Genec wrote:
"How about that of a dedicated transportational cyclist... As I mentioned earlier in this thread. A cyclist who does not chose the time and place to ride, but must ride to meet obligations at whatever time and place one may have to go. There is a difference between being a voluntary cyclist and being dedicated cyclist."

I replied to the above, the computer did something weird, and then John Forester wrote:
"Please, Tom, the words that you quoted are by genec. I would never make such a statement."

Sorry; I don't know how that happened. I _meant_ to show that the quote was of genec and not you, but the antics of this website and/or my unfamiliararity therewith apparently bungled it somehow (see the "quote=genec;" gobbledegook at the top).

jhon, you have lost it, bub.

you think gene took a picture of a nonexistant intersection? :roflmao:

Bekologist, there is no need to be egregiously nasty in these discussions. The fact is that the latest edition of the DeLorme Street Atlas does not show Nobel Drive (the road running SW to NE in the picture) extending even as far east as the 805 freeway (running NW to SE). There is a stub shown from Miramar Road that is unlabelled. My obvious suggestion was that the picture was of some other intersection than that of Nobel and Miramar; might be an easy mistake to make, but not suggestive of either anger or stupidity.

Genec, this discussion concerns me, specifically mentioned by name. You are saying that I have chosen to travel by other means than bicycling because of conditions that you consider to be "unpleasant conditions". Prove your statement, you ideological guesser.

I'll have to go back and find the specific quote, but to paraphrase, you have stated that you chose not to commute as it was "unpleasant" to have to carry all the goods required for you to change into proper attire for work.

Someone that only cycles, will do this "unpleasant" task with no problem.

OK lets get over the term "dedicated."

much snipped

The idea here is if one has no other choice (does not own any other means of transit) then the times and places one rides are not always by choice, but to fulfill one's lifestyle and obligations. You ride a bike to work, to run errands, and to do whatever you do. There is nothing in that statement that says you don't enjoy cycling. But the cycling you do is not strictly for enjoyment.

.

So what if one's transportational cycling is enjoyable? You, genec, are asserting that voluntary cyclists cycle strictly for enjoyment, and therefore not for transportational benefits. You are asserting that I, by name, failed to cycle for some transportational need because of conditions that you consider to be unpleasant. That's the meaning of all your puffery. Prove it.

OK lets get over the term "dedicated."

much snipped

The issue with voluntary cyclists is that they are just that, voluntary... they chose the time, route and destination that suits them... those routes, times and destinations that don't suit, well, they are driven to, just as Forester drove to his place of work as it was too tedious to carry all the trappings to support commuting.

I never wrote such nonsense, and I never acted as you state. Your ideology both blinds you to obvious facts and leads you to invent falsehoods.

John,

Do you bicycle in rush hour traffic on a regular basis? I think this is what Gene is trying to assertain.

If you do not, then I'd agree with Gene that your experiences with bicycling in traffic might be too limited to broaden them out to generalizations. It is relevent because there are many assumptions which your version of vehicular cycling and vehicular cycling advocacy rest upon which are challenged by other authors and commentators here on the forums. If you are to reach a wide audience, then you must justify these assumptions, not just on the back of logic, but on the back of your personal experience, and you must connect the dots and show how your personal experience is indicative to the general condition.

OK lets get over the term "dedicated."

Ok, let's move on to "voluntary."

How would describe the following three cyclists, voluntary or forced?

1. has the means to own a motor vehicle but does not and cycles everywhere
2. owns a motor vehicle but cycles everywhere except when going somewhere with an unwilling/able-to-cycle partner or when there is too much to carry/too little time for cycling when factoring in the length of the trip
3. can't afford a motor vehicle and cycles everywhere and wouldn't own a motor vehicle if they could

This thread does explain why John rarely visits.

Ok, let's move on to "voluntary."

How would describe the following three cyclists, voluntary or forced?

1. has the means to own a motor vehicle but does not and cycles everywhere
2. owns a motor vehicle but cycles everywhere except when going somewhere with an unwilling/able-to-cycle partner or when there is too much to carry/too little time for cycling when factoring in the length of the trip
3. can't afford a motor vehicle and cycles everywhere and wouldn't own a motor vehicle if they could

I would put 1 and 3 in the same place... however only 3 is actually "forced."

1 and 3 are dedicated. 2 is voluntary.

Too bad they don't make them like that any more...

The reality is if you read the ADC "goals," you will see that their idea of the world as they want it, is to have autos running at the autos' "highest efficiency" which they have determined is 50-60MPH.

So the world according to ADC would consist primarily of 50-60MPH roads.

Ideal roads for cyclists eh? And Forester would have us sharing these roads in a strictly vehicular manner.

Now I don't know about you, but <35MPH roads seem to work best when I cycle.

Speeds of 50MPH and higher work fine on limited access roads... known as freeways, but put in the mix of pedestrians crossing, running, and cyclists sharing and merging and taking lanes, etc, then "issues" arise.

Based on your description of ADC, it sounds like an excellent organization; I should check it out. 50-60 mph is a _perfect_ speed range, because the lessons learned in the early 1970s - when first I found 60 mph to be the top non-rod-throwing speed of my '58 VW, then Nixon announced that the speed limit would be reduced to 50 mph for efficiency reasons, and then the compromise of 55 mph was reached after some further discussion about efficiency - still apply.

So does the documented fact that even rural (rural being where one must use 50+ mph roads to get anywhere) cyclists are amply safe as long as they use proper conspicuity equipment at night.

I never wrote such nonsense, and I never acted as you state. Your ideology both blinds you to obvious facts and leads you to invent falsehoods.

John here are your very words for all to see:


Voluntary transportational cyclists choose which trips to make by bicycle according to their needs and desires. Their prime motivation is the enjoyment of cycling. This enjoyment in cycling causes them to want to travel by bicycle when that is possible and does not have undesirable characteristics.



From http://www.americandreamcoalition.org/forester.pdf

Give me more time and I'll find the quote where you stated that commuting was a problem due to all the things you had to carry.

So does the documented fact that even rural (rural being where one must use 50+ mph roads to get anywhere) cyclists are amply safe as long as they use proper conspicuity equipment at night.

Documented where?

I am curious with a personal interest because, if I start from my door, 2/3 of my 23 mile (one way) commute is on rural roads (no shoulder, 55 mph unsigned speed limit). I've ridden them in commuting capacity many dozens of times, but I have reached exactly the opposite conclusion of your "documented fact". Marginally safe, perhaps, is a better term. There is definitely an added danger when compared to your average city street with more road space and slower traffic.

John here are your very words for all to see:


Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
I never wrote such nonsense, and I never acted as you state. Your ideology both blinds you to obvious facts and leads you to invent falsehoods.
John here are your very words for all to see:

Originally Posted by John Forester

Voluntary transportational cyclists choose which trips to make by bicycle according to their needs and desires. Their prime motivation is the enjoyment of cycling. This enjoyment in cycling causes them to want to travel by bicycle when that is possible and does not have undesirable characteristics.

From http://www.americandreamcoalition.org/forester.pdf

Give me more time and I'll find the quote where you stated that commuting was a problem due to all the things you had to carry.



This discussion concerns the claim that I, who state that I am a voluntary cyclist, cannot have developed the cycling skills that are developed by a dedicated transportational cyclist, because such skills are developed only by cycling under what you people consider to be undesirable conditions, by which you have stated means, first, heavy motor traffic, and, secondarily, darkness and rain and such. The point that I repeatedly make to you who don't understand is that I don't consider such matters to create undesirable cycling; the enjoyment of cycling more than makes up for those conditions. The statement about undesirable characteristics in the quotation from my presentation to ADC refers to other conditions altogether, not your superstitions. Such as, for example, being fired from one's job.

John here are your very words for all to see:


From http://www.americandreamcoalition.org/forester.pdf

Give me more time and I'll find the quote where you stated that commuting was a problem due to all the things you had to carry.

Since I never made such a statement about myself, and never acted as you claim, you are inventing lies.