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

It never occured to me that he had gone missing from here until tonight. Granted I was away for a while, and now am only really on for a few minutes a few days a week, but he hasn't posted in a couple of months.
What happened to him?

You always make me laugh Pete, :D no matter how bad of a night I am having at work. (and I mean that in a good "thanks" kind of way, not a "how 'bout some prison sex" kind of way)

Seriously, anyone, what the hell happened to him? He just dropped off the face of the BF earth.

I don't know but several people I know from other bicycle-related life business have emailed me to ask that very question. Apparently the VC subforum is a popular spot for bikey lurkers to amuse themselves. I guess I'll tell 'em it was carnies. (The ones who work the Rose Festival are pretty scary-looking.) Thanks, Pete. :beer:

Don't be knocking the carnies folks. I doubt they'd appreciate people lumping them in the same group as the "man that invented VC".

I suspect once John started admitting that vehicular bicyclists actually can ride vehicularily in a bike lane, it was pretty much over.

It never occured to me that he had gone missing from here until tonight. Granted I was away for a while, and now am only really on for a few minutes a few days a week, but he hasn't posted in a couple of months.
What happened to him?

You can always find him on Chainguard.

-G

And as an added bonus you can see Serge getting his pet theories destroyed by the VCers.

Same funny Serge drivel, different setting, different audience. (http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/chainguard/message/23594)
That is just too funny.


3)
> Serge supports his argument [that it's safer to ride in the center of the lane because motorists will notice you]
> by observing that a great proportion of drivers who come up behind
> cyclists express the belief that they, in the person of each
> motorist, is confused as to what to do about each cyclist they see ahead.

This is truly hilarious when supported by this gem just a few lines down the page:


In a wide lane, the cyclist whom [a motorist] would hit with either the center
of his radiator or his right headlamp is significantly more likely to
be noticed than the cyclist off to the side that he would not hit at
all (assuming the motorist continues to track along his intended
path).

"I might add that on a 35-40 mph descent during the LCI Seminar, Dan
Gutierrez (who was assisting) reporting noticing in his mirror that a
motorist was approaching from behind a bit too fast, and he was about
to issue the slow/stop left-arm signal when he noticed that I, who
was right behind him, was already doing so."

Can you imagine riding with these guys? And these are the 'certified instructors.'

R.

"I might add that on a 35-40 mph descent during the LCI Seminar, Dan
Gutierrez (who was assisting) reporting noticing in his mirror that a
motorist was approaching from behind a bit too fast, and he was about
to issue the slow/stop left-arm signal when he noticed that I, who
was right behind him, was already doing so."

Can you imagine riding with these guys? And these are the 'certified instructors.'

R.

I've ridden a bit with Helmet Head... group rides mind you... He fit right in with everyone else... was a bit chatty, but otherwise didn't seem to do anything I might consider unusual.

He gets some rolled eyes at the local advocacy meetings when he starts to express opinions... But it probably comes from folks that have "heard it all." I've only been to a couple meetings with him.

The funny (ironic) thing is we would probably all ride in about the same manner, given the chance to ride with one another. A few may be a bit more bold or daring, but I doubt there would be any huge standouts.

I've ridden a bit with Helmet Head... group rides mind you... He fit right in with everyone else... was a bit chatty, but otherwise didn't seem to do anything I might consider unusual.

He gets some rolled eyes at the local advocacy meetings when he starts to express opinions... But it probably comes from folks that have "heard it all." I've only been to a couple meetings with him.

The funny (ironic) thing is we would probably all ride in about the same manner, given the chance to ride with one another. A few may be a bit more bold or daring, but I doubt there would be any huge standouts.

You are probably right. Still, it impresses me how some people prefer to stage a grand production when getting passed by a car.

R.

You are probably right. Still, it impresses me how some people prefer to stage a grand production when getting passed by a car.

R.

I think in his case he is trying to "systemize" all the subtle nuances that come somewhat naturally to an experienced cyclist.

You've written a book... quite a nice read I may add. Now imagine writing a "how to" manual for cycling at the most basic level... where someone perhaps has actual bicycle experience, but it goes no further than say park riding, and you want them to be able to ride on the street.

It would be far easier to show that person physically how to do it than to write the words to explain all the nuance.

I believe this is the approach that Helmet Head is taking... although for most here on BF, he really is preaching to the choir.

I think the other thing he is doing (and this is the most controversial area), is to try and plant the idea in cyclists' brains that riding along the side is just not right. No doubt this is where much of the debate comes from... roughly the idea that we are fully equal to and allowed all the roadway of a motor car in just about all situations. That's a hard thing to swallow in a an autocentric society... not to mention just the physical differences between cars and bikes that rather makes the argument even more difficult.

Anyway JMHO.

Heck most of the stuff goes way too far here just dancing on the head of the rhetoric pin.

"I might add that on a 35-40 mph descent during the LCI Seminar, Dan
Gutierrez (who was assisting) reporting noticing in his mirror that a
motorist was approaching from behind a bit too fast, and he was about
to issue the slow/stop left-arm signal when he noticed that I, who
was right behind him, was already doing so."

yeah, that bit struck me as pretty dang funny as well. H-I-L-A-R-I-O-U-S!!!

it sounds like there's a group of chestbeatingly proud, fumblefooted VC in san Diego who like to go on group rides (that old bike safety in numbers fallacy! which also doesn't accurately reflect solo riding in traffic) to show off their prowess like a bunch of keystone cyclists.

I think john and his avid acolytes should fight amongst themselves in chainguard....the VC-type A's and the VC type B's. I bet john is furious someone like serge is claiming he's a better vehicular bicyclist than big bad john.

The San Diego Keystone Cyclists.

I disagree.

To me it's more like he's a rabid Scientologist trying to preach to a room full of agnostics/atheists/skeptics.

Oh god I hate Scientologists. I used to work with a guy who "claimed" to be one. all I remember about my years of servitude there was making fun of him for believing (or so I spun it to seem so) that the more you farted the closer you got to becoming a diety... or something like that.

I disagree.

To me it's more like he's a rabid Scientologist trying to preach to a room full of agnostics/atheists/skeptics.

Good one.

The San Diego Keystone Cyclists.

Well I have said it is a "unique" area...

No doubt this is where much of the debate comes from... roughly the idea that we are fully equal to and allowed all the roadway of a motor car in just about all situations. That's a hard thing to swallow in a an autocentric society... not to mention just the physical differences between cars and bikes that rather makes the argument even more difficult.


Riding out of the motor traffic when it's safe and practicable to do so (eg. using a bikelane when an adequate one is provided) is not inherently bowing to the 'autocentric' view.

Riding out of the motor traffic when it's safe and practicable to do so (eg. using a bikelane when an adequate one is provided) is not inherently bowing to the 'autocentric' view.

I have to laugh as bikelanes were created to keep bikes out of the way of cars... that is indeed very autocentric.

I have to laugh as bikelanes were created to keep bikes out of the way of cars... that is indeed very autocentric.

But riding in them isn't.

Personally I like to keep my attention directed forward and both hands on the bars during 35-40 mph descents, but I guess they don't teach that at LCI school.

Robert

Personally I like to keep my attention directed forward and both hands on the bars during 35-40 mph descents, but I guess they don't teach that at LCI school.

Robert
That valuable time must be alloted instead to preaching about the evil origins and intentions of the bike lane conspiracy, as well as its horrific effect on Real Cyclists' ability to practice their craft.

But riding in them isn't.

Not as long as you realize that you can leave them too.

Personally I like to keep my attention directed forward and both hands on the bars during 35-40 mph descents, but I guess they don't teach that at LCI school.

Robert
When riding in an inside lane (because the outermost lane is diverging to become a freeway onramp) on a multilane freeway-like road (onramps/offramps) with 60 mph traffic it can be beneficial to maintain some rearward situational awareness with mirror glances. In this case noticing the approaching driver early allowed me to help her, by issuing a slow/stop arm signal, to realize sooner that she needed to change lanes to pass us. But, no, this is not explicitly taught in LCI school.

Here (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&t=k&om=0&layer=c&cbll=32.773893,-117.097552&cbp=1,355.2397440582781,0.5,0,-0.016955450791210656&ll=32.774432,-117.097513&spn=0.001058,0.002591&z=19) is a view from the road (Fairmont Ave) of the location in question. The red car is in the rightmost lane which eventually becomes a freeway onramp. We had just merged into the adjacent lane to the left of that (the rightmost through lane). If you rotate the image around, you'll see the rearview mirror image, of course, or this (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&t=k&om=0&layer=c&cbll=32.773893,-117.097552&cbp=1,182.92126046120782,0.5,0,-0.016955450791210656&ll=32.774432,-117.097513&spn=0.001058,0.002591&z=19). That car is closer than was the car to which I signaled, but you get the idea. They were further back, and when I issued the slow/stop signal, she immediately changed lanes (to her left).

In situations like this, while most of my attention remains directed forward of course, I find it quite useful to maintain some situational awareness rearward, because traffic is approaching at such a high rate of speed and many drivers don't expect to encounter a 30-35 mph cyclist in the middle of the road here. The sooner they notice me, and realize they need to change lanes and/or slow down, the smoother the overtaking process becomes. They seem to appreciate the acknowledgment and assistance. I prefer friendly waves and smiles to angry honks and extended middle fingers, but maybe that's just me.

It might be interesting to note that the official "bike route" involves keeping to the right of the rightmost lane here, and a few hundred feet down the hill, right before the rightmost traffic lane diverges to the freeway, diverges to the right to a separate bike path. Here (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&t=k&om=0&layer=c&cbll=32.776184,-117.099281&cbp=1,336.13908014472344,0.5,0,-0.016955450791210656&ll=32.776683,-117.098937&spn=0.001058,0.002591&z=19) is the entrance. It's a really crappy bike path, but it does go over the diverged lane/onramp and then reconnects, at a right angle, into Fairmont in a horrible place under the I-8 freeway overpass.

Personally I like to keep my attention directed forward and both hands on the bars during 35-40 mph descents, but I guess they don't teach that at LCI school.

Robert

But if you do that, how on earth can you know if your slow-stop signals are being acknowledged with smiles and waves, sunshine and rainbows?

It might be interesting to note that the official "bike route" involves keeping to the right of the rightmost lane here, and a few hundred feet down the hill, right before the rightmost traffic lane diverges to the freeway, diverges to the right to a separate bike path. Here (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&t=k&om=0&layer=c&cbll=32.776184,-117.099281&cbp=1,336.13908014472344,0.5,0,-0.016955450791210656&ll=32.776683,-117.098937&spn=0.001058,0.002591&z=19) is the entrance. It's a really crappy bike path, but it does go over the diverged lane/onramp and then reconnects, at a right angle, into Fairmont in a horrible place under the I-8 freeway overpass.

It should be noted that both the rightmost two lanes can be used as freeway on ramps, so that any cyclist in the rightmost lane could easily be swept onto the freeway by dense traffic using both the right most lanes to get onto the freeway.

Yeah, the path is somewhat narrow and crappy, but frankly if you are going down Montezuma, it sure is nicer than trying to cross both those right lanes to ensure you are not caught by freeway entering motorists.

What really disappointed me about that whole interchange is that years and years ago when they added the path, the whole area could have been laid out better to serve cyclists and it just wasn't done. Certainly the land exists... the narrow area that is paved on Montezuma for "drainage" could have been laid out better and a retaining berm would have kept the rocks and sand off of the path. But that takes a real commitment to cycling as transportation.

Sidenote... just up the hill there, SDSU restricted bikes to off campus for a few years after 1995. They since have allowed bikes back on campus. But it was just your typical show of shortsightedness towards cycling in the area. The intersections around the campus have for years had the highest bicycle traffic flows in the city**... yet the school determined that bikes were not "important." Meanwhile, the school built yet another parking garage. Go figure.

** from studies done at the time.

As a further sidenote, that particular bike pathed intersection is what that even John Forester agreed was "autocentric" due to the design of the road and the sweeping onramps to hiway 8. This was in a discussion we had some time back here on BF.

It should be noted that both the rightmost two lanes can be used as freeway on ramps, so that any cyclist in the rightmost lane could easily be swept onto the freeway by dense traffic using both the right most lanes to get onto the freeway.
Exactly, which is why we merge left early, as soon as traffic/negotiating allows after the Montezuma/Fairmont merge.



Yeah, the path is somewhat narrow and crappy, but frankly if you are going down Montezuma, it sure is nicer than trying to cross both those right lanes to ensure you are not caught by freeway entering motorists.
If you merge left early you're not really "crossing" both lanes. You can be controlling the Montezuma offramp lane as you merge onto Fairmount, and then just merge one lane over. Of course, you bias left since this lane eventually serves two destination (left to stay on Fairmount, right to go to the freeway), and you're destination is left. It is precisely soon after we merged into this lane that I saw that the car coming down Fairmount under the Fairmount/Montezuma interchange overpass was not slowing or changing lanes - so I helped her.

Not only is the condition of the path bad, but the way it connects at the bottom is really bad. It's okay if you're continuing straight, but if you need to turn left on Camino Del Rio N, they dump you 10-20 feet from the intersection, with 2 or 3 lanes to cross. I much rather just stay on Fairmount.

Not only is the condition of the path bad, but the way it connects at the bottom is really bad. It's okay if you're continuing straight, but if you need to turn left on Camino Del Rio N, they dump you 10-20 feet from the intersection, with 2 or 3 lanes to cross. I much rather just stay on Fairmount.

Yeah the connection at the bottom under the bride is a joke. When I have used it, I make a point of making myself known to the motorists at the light, and then I merge. Otherwise, I wait for traffic to clear the light.

Trying to cross the lanes in rush hour traffic is a bit tough... and for the hassle involved, I preferred the path. But indeed, the path is not always usable. There have been times in the past where rock and sand debris have obscured the path entry altogether.

I used to go further north quite often to turn left onto San Diego Mission Road (I worked off of Aero Drive back in the day... ) so going straight worked for me.

Over the years, Camino Del Rio North has become the new default bike route through the valley, (it used to be Friars road was the default route) and to go from the Fairmount path to CDRNorth is indeed difficult. (down right sucks actually).

I'm watching "Young Frankenstein" right now.

(I miss Peter Boyle. :) )

I see that Bekologist is still making the same irrational, illogical, and absurd statements. Not much difference over the months, has there been? Not much new for me to comment on, either.

:roflmao: got to be hyperfocussed and obsessed with the in-your-face reality that a vehicular bicyclist can ride vehicularly in a bike lane? the 'carny' jibe didn't get to you as much as the reality of vehicular cyclists using bike lanes vehicularily, eh? I KNEW IT.


just admit it, john. as much as you try to deny it. say it's true, without all the ideological baggage, dude.

A VEHICULAR BICYCLIST CAN RIDE VEHICULARILY ON A SHOULDER, A VEHICULAR BICYCLIST CAN RIDE VEHICULARILY IN A BIKE LANE.

all you have to do is admit and accept it, john, (and you previously professed you had) and bicyclists can all come together in a deeper understanding and advancement of bicycling in our already autocentric society.

all you have to do is admit and accept it, john, (and you previously professed you had) and bicyclists can all come together in a deeper understanding and advancement of bicycling in our already autocentric society.

Not necessarily. Instead he can keep himself busy ranting about the ideology of all the evil demon bicycling advocates.

If interested in what is happening on the mountaintop (or is it a dark cave?) with JF, see http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/chainguard/message/23639

Don't forget to read the following message from another VC ideologue taking JF to task over ideological excess baggage.

Not necessarily. Instead he can keep himself busy ranting about the ideology of all the evil demon bicycling advocates.

If interested in what is happening on the mountaintop (or is it a dark cave?) with JF, see http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/chainguard/message/23639

Don't forget to read the following message from another VC ideologue taking JF to task over ideological excess baggage.


TF: Aha, so _here_ you are, ILTB! I'd thought that maybe you'd gotten a life outside the internet; it never occurred to me to look here. I guess I overestimated you. Well, if you were _trying_ to attract _more_ of us Chainguarders over here by doing, apparently, 8,000 or so behind-our-back attacks here over that 3-year period, you've succeeded.

- Tom Frost Jr.

Mod Note: removed personal name used without consent

:roflmao: now its MORE anti-accomodation bliviots rallying to the defense of john's anti-infrastructure rants and raves. oh yippie.

oh, the LAB wheelmen are actually for the development of bicycling-specific infrastructure. are you sure you're a real wheelman, wheelman?

it's just the chain-jerks that are over the top with their jon forestor adulation and their 'look at me i can ride in traffic'. what a bunch of fumblefoots.

I found, and read the key part of, the thread from which you parsed your out-of-context "never been a dedicated transportational cyclist" signature, Bekologist. It appears, therefrom, that VC isn't the only subject on which you need to study more. You also need to study:

1) The word "dedicated".

2) The various accurate and inaccurate ways in which one may quote the usage of it by an opponent.

3) The resulting fact that you, by having reduced your "dedication" to transportational cycling by spending hundreds (no doubt) of hours sitting on your duff doing ad hominem attacks on this forum when you could have been out there doing that many hundreds of hours more transportational cycling than you allegedly do, are not "better" that someone whose methodology of reducing his "dedication" to transportational cycling involves having additional, non-transportational purposes for his transportational cycling miles.

buahahaha. :roflmao: I 've driven to work one day in the last three years, wheelman.

I ride transportationally to work, for fun, to the store. I can't remember the last time i drove to the grocery store, maybe 2005? I ride for vacation, I've even gone on ski trips on my bike. ad hominem indeed :rolleyes: how many days do YOU drive a car a month ,foresterite?

i find john to be a typical southern californian motorist type, that thinks he knows whats best for bicyclists is designing roads for automobiles, the american dream sprawl dystopia and high speed roadways that will keep bicycling from becomming more populist in the USA.

and i say 'bully' to that dishonest 'advocacy' from a motorist lover like jon and his dedicated fumblefooted followers like wheelman. :rolleyes:

buahahaha. :roflmao: I 've driven to work one day in the last three years, wheelman.

I ride transportationally to work, for fun, to the store. I can't remember the last time i drove to the grocery store, maybe 2005? I ride for vacation, I've even gone on ski trips on my bike. ad hominem indeed :rolleyes: how many days do YOU drive a car a month ,foresterite?

i find john to be a typical southern californian motorist type, that thinks he knows whats best for bicyclists is designing roads for automobiles, the american dream sprawl dystopia and high speed roadways that will keep bicycling from becomming more populist in the USA.

and i say 'bully' to that dishonest 'advocacy' from a motorist lover like jon and his dedicated fumblefooted followers like wheelman. :rolleyes:


_What_ ski areas have you cycled to? Have they included Elk Mountain (that's near me - only fair since I've cycled past Puget Sound, near you)? Elk Mountain is the most frequent one of the ski areas that I cycle to, and the latest time that I did so was just the other day. Oh it's way closer to home than any of the other ones that I've ridden to; it's even almost as easy as the grocery store, at only 6 miles away. Part of the reason that I picked that destination the other day was because of the food that would be available at the event there that day, together with the fact that it was a few miles closer to home than the McDonald's that I ride to for breakfast on days when my life is as simple as yours apparently is. Other days (at least 20 per month), yes I motor, including even on many trips that include a stop at the grocery store. The biggest reason that I'm not going to apologize for that (nor for the fact that I haven't yet fulfilled my pipe dream of carrying skis on my bike, although I'd be curious to hear about the methodology by which you allegedly beat me to doing so) is that the Tom Frost Bicyclists' Rights Triad http://www.newmilfordbike.com/Triad.htm allows it. But another reason that I'm not going to apologize for it is that I'm confident (based on my experiences with every one of my opponents of your ilk ever since I made the time-wasting mistake of joining the internet in 2002) that I've cycled _to_ more states and provinces than _you've_ cycled _in_. Granted, the majority of them might have been back when you were piddling in your pampers or whatever (I, being a newbie to this forum, am unable to figure that one out exactly because you're not man enough to identify yourself in your profile), but what are _you_ going to be doing, say, 20 (or even 2! 2005 is pretty recent) years from _now_? Buying a car, like one of the leftists whom I drove off the "carfree" yahoo group a couple of years ago, admitted winding up doing after _her_ brief more-carfree-than-you-or-me heyday?

(based on my experiences with every one of my opponents of your ilk ever since I made the time-wasting mistake of joining the internet in 2002)

Don't let us stop you from moving on.

Wheelman, Bek's comments re Forester don't have to be "holier then thou" for Bek. It really doesn't matter whether you or Bek can "measure yourselves" by the distance you cycle; what really matters is whether Forester is writing from a position of experience or speculation. Since Forester has admitted not being a dedicated transportational cyclist, it is highly likely he has not encountered the day to day situations that a dedicated cyclist may encounter.

Forester is apparently a voluntary cyclist, who perhaps choses the time and place to cycle, thus cycling under optimal conditions; such as a cyclist that chooses to go to the office at say 10:00 instead of at the heart of rush hour, the latter when the roads are choked with frustrated motorists. The conditions are quite different.

A dedicated transportational cyclist on the other hand must meet time and distance deadlines in spite of the conditions, therefore has likely encountered situations that a voluntary cyclist has never endured.

There is a difference.

Imagine for a moment the blind men seeking to describe the elephant... how might one describe traffic if for instance it is always orderly and obedient at one's chosen time to cycle, vice meeting the conditions at the "other end."

20 days a month driving. :rolleyes: ANOTHER non-transportational, recreational bicyclist joins in with his 'look at me i can ride in traffic' chestbeating about bicycling as transportation. nice, wheelman. :rolleyes: and talking about me in diapers (which I haven't been in since the 1960's), who's being infantile with the ad homeniem attacks now???

oh, and yes, I have a car. 10 years old. I used it extensively for mountain rescue response, when bicycling to a field action wouldn't have been timely...I have to remember to drive it every couple of months just to keep the engine circulating. I'm putting less than 1,000 miles a year on it now)

what is it with guys like helemt head, wheelman, jhon forestor, all voluntary recreational bicyclists, spouting off about bicycling transportationally and increasing bicycling safety and accomodation in the USA? what a bunch of hypocritical 'blind men.'



wheelman- :rolleyes: and I use that term loosely for such an avid motorist , check out the pics below, maybe you'll get some ideas to fufill your 'pipe dream' for riding a bicycle with your skis. six miles to your ski hill? Slacker! you should have already done it, poseur!! There's also a picture of me skiing WITH my bike.

Anyway, back to the original question -What happened to Jhon?

Once he began to fess up that, YES, VC bicyclists can ride vehicularliy in a bike lane (but have to be oppossed to them for ideological reasons?) it was pretty much over for old, hypocritical, motorist loving johhny.

...it is highly likely he has not encountered the day to day situations that a dedicated cyclist has encountered.

Forester is apparently a voluntary cyclist, who perhaps choses the time and place to cycle, thus cycling under optimal conditions; such as a cyclist that chooses to go to the office at say 10:00 instead of at the heart of rush hour, the latter when the roads are choked with frustrated motorists. The conditions are quite different.

A dedicated transportational cyclist on the other hand must meet time and distance deadlines in spite of the conditions, therefore has likely encountered situations that a voluntary cyclist has never endured.

There is a difference.

There is, but I find it to be the opposite of what is implied here.

When I transportationally cycle (to work every day, for errands, to friends houses, to events, etc.) I find I need to go anywhere at any time and have limited options for route choice and am most often alone. Traffic may be at is highest density and motorists at their most impatient and more so on auto-pilot at these peak travel times. This means that I must draw on VC to a very high degree, whether the roads I travel on have cyclists intended facilties or not.

When I recreationally/voluntarily cycle a route has been chosen, it is usually early on weekend mornings or out of the core of the city on weekdays. I am with other cyclists often (but not always) and many VC techniques are harder to apply and are less needed - routes have wide shoulders or bike lanes and we generally stick to them, merges we do not negotiate, but instead wait for gaps (after all traffic is lighter and it is harder iuf not inappropriate to negotiate a gap with 5-25 cyclists)

It is this later group of cyclist who most advocate for facilities on prime recreational routes. These routes don't need to go everywhere, but only provide a larger connectivity for long loops, etc.

But I find that as these recreational cyclist routes are developed and are used recreationlly, fewer cyclists are seen riding on the remaining roads and motorists less expect or want cyclist on all the other roads - after all 'if there is no bike lane a cyclist should not be there' - an attitude expressed in anti-cyclist editorials on a regular basis. But it is these very roads that transportational cyclists depend on to get places.

So what I see happening is instead of a relatively even distribution of moderately accomidating roads, (perhaps imagine a bell curve ranging from excellent to poor) there is instead a small cluster of heavily cycling facilitized roads, intended to be highly accomidating (but not always with desired result) and a larger hump moved up the scale which are more hostile to cyclists. This later situation is great for voluntary cyclists, but less desirable for transportational.

Al

There is, but I find it to be the opposite of what is implied here.

When I transportationally cycle (to work every day, for errands, to friends houses, to events, etc.) I find I need to go anywhere at any time and have limited options for route choice and am most often alone. Traffic may be at is highest density and motorists at their most impatient and more so on auto-pilot at these peak travel times. This means that I must draw on VC to a very high degree, whether the roads I travel on have cyclists intended facilties or not.

When I recreationally/voluntarily cycle a route has been chosen, it is usually early on weekend mornings or out of the core of the city on weekdays. I am with other cyclists often (but not always) and many VC techniques are harder to apply and are less needed - routes have wide shoulders or bike lanes and we generally stick to them, merges we do not negotiate, but instead wait for gaps (after all traffic is lighter and it is harder iuf not inappropriate to negotiate a gap with 5-25 cyclists)

It is this later group of cyclist who most advocate for facilities on prime recreational routes. These routes don't need to go everywhere, but only provide a larger connectivity for long loops, etc.

But I find that as these recreational cyclist routes are developed and are used recreationlly, fewer cyclists are seen riding on the remaining roads and motorists less expect or want cyclist on all the other roads - after all 'if there is no bike lane a cyclist should not be there' - an attitude expressed in anti-cyclist editorials on a regular basis. But it is these very roads that transportational cyclists depend on to get places.

So what I see happening is instead of a relatively even distribution of moderately accomidating roads, (perhaps imagine a bell curve ranging from excellent to poor) there is instead a small cluster of heavily cycling facilitized roads, intended to be highly accomidating (but not always with desired result) and a larger hump moved up the scale which are more hostile to cyclists. This later situation is great for voluntary cyclists, but less desirable for transportational.

Al

I tend to somewhat agree with you... the roads I ride for recreation are not the same roads I must commute upon. And in regard to bike lanes, again I fully agree, the roads that "end up" with bike lanes are usually the roads that least need them.

However this is not about bike lanes, this discussion is about the experiences that form the opinion for Forester's writings and what and where he is today and perhaps if his opinions are based on speculation or actually invoking VC, as you do, at peak driving times.

Perhaps a better question is how well his methods continue to work as both road speeds and voluntary motorist distraction increase. ("voluntary distraction" by electronic device vice the normal ramblings of the human mind)

I have no doubt that a highly skilled cyclist can invoke VC and use it well anytime... just as a highly skilled cyclist can invoke very un-VC methods exemplified by the messenger style, and find similar success in dense traffic.

But can a child, or your grandmother also find similar success in such traffic as is often implied by VC advocates?

Wheelman, Bek's comments re Forester don't have to be "holier then thou" for Bek. It really doesn't matter whether you or Bek can "measure yourselves" by the distance you cycle; what really matters is whether Forester is writing from a position of experience or speculation. Since Forester has admitted not being a dedicated transportational cyclist, it is highly likely he has not encountered the day to day situations that a dedicated cyclist has encountered.

Forester is apparently a voluntary cyclist, who perhaps choses the time and place to cycle, thus cycling under optimal conditions; such as a cyclist that chooses to go to the office at say 10:00 instead of at the heart of rush hour, the latter when the roads are choked with frustrated motorists. The conditions are quite different.

A dedicated transportational cyclist on the other hand must meet time and distance deadlines in spite of the conditions, therefore has likely encountered situations that a voluntary cyclist has never endured.

There is a difference.

Imagine for a moment the blind men seeking to describe the elephant... how might one describe traffic if for instance it is always orderly and obedient at one's chosen time to cycle, vice meeting the conditions at the "other end."


You're right, in that the reason that I know that cyclists must be allowed to use every micron of the length of every public vehicular road except railroads and airport runways, is because I've been a dedicated transportational cyclist at _enough_ _times_ during my life to know that bureaucrats can never be trusted to select which freeway segments are "reasonable" for us to choose as a route.

John Forester (contrary to his easy-to-parse-out-of-context-by-Beko-whatever-his-face-is's, choice of terminology) has _also_ been a dedicated (for plenty of periods of, like he said, "months" at a time - about the same as me) transportational cyclist, but I guess he either didn't happen to run across the same situations that I did (such as the time when I was cycling to Florida and had to hitch-hike across the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel, and the car that picked me up broke down in the bottom of the tunnel, or the period when I was an attendant at an interstate-highway rest area the only access to which involved cycling past a "motor vehicles only" sign), or more likely, he _did_ run across such situations (i.e. situations that prove that there's no such thing as a vehicular road that's "never" reasonable to cycle on) but had forgotten about them by about two years ago when he started spelling out - I read it on Chainguard - his Uncle Tomish, untriadal position that the cycling community should surrender certain freeways to official motor-vehicles-only bigotry. In short, I disagree with you on the issue of whether John Forester has been a dedicated transportational cyclist, but the part of your point that I agree with is: The more time one spends being a dedicated transportational cyclist, the less _likely_ one is to think that the cycling community should tolerate official motor-vehicles-only bigotry on _any_ vehicular road except railroads and airport runways.

So, what are you going to do about it? Are you going to come onto Chainguard and confront Forester (as I have) about the unworkability of his position that the cycling community should permanently surrender certain freeways to motor-vehicles-only bigotry (i.e. permanently, as Forester now advocates, rely on bureaucrats' definitions of which freeway segments are "reasonable" to allow cyclists to set tire to)? Or are you one of those cyclist-inferiority cyclists who _likes_ that particular position of his?

:roflmao:

20 days a month driving. :rolleyes: ANOTHER non-transportational, recreational bicyclist joins in with his 'look at me i can ride in traffic' chestbeating about bicycling as transportation. nice, wheelman. :rolleyes: and talking about me in diapers (which I haven't been in since the 1960's), who's being infantile with the ad homeniem attacks now???

oh, and yes, I have a car. 10 years old. I used it extensively for mountain rescue response, when bicycling to a field action wouldn't have been timely...I have to remember to drive it every couple of months just to keep the engine circulating. I'm putting less than 1,000 miles a year on it now)

what is it with guys like helemt head, wheelman, jhon forestor, all voluntary recreational bicyclists, spouting off about bicycling transportationally and increasing bicycling safety and accomodation in the USA? what a bunch of hypocritical 'blind men.'



wheelman- :rolleyes: and I use that term loosely for such an avid motorist , check out the pics below, maybe you'll get some ideas to fufill your 'pipe dream' for riding a bicycle with your skis. six miles to your ski hill? Slacker! you should have already done it, poseur!! There's also a picture of me skiing WITH my bike.

Anyway, back to the original question -What happened to Jhon?

Once he began to fess up that, YES, VC bicyclists can ride vehicularliy in a bike lane (but have to be oppossed to them for ideological reasons?) it was pretty much over for old, hypocritical, motorist loving johhny.

_34_ years is currently the average age of _my_ 5 most significant motor vehicles.

What destinations do you visit when you fire up your car all of those times per year "just to keep the engine circulating" (at times when there isn't any rescue call)? You've already said that you haven't used it to get groceries since 2005. You must certainly, being the car hater that you are, not be taking a _recreational_ drive with it.

But thanks for the ski-carrying-system photos. In the first two of them, it looks almost exactly like the one that I started to build two winters ago - a project that, alas, I temporarily set aside, partly because I can't afford to downhill ski _period_ as often as you apparently do. I only downhill ski once or twice a year, if that, anymore; I do the bulk of my skiing X-C, right here on this farm (the kind of skiing that one would think that an envir-"o"-"mental"ist such as yourself would advocate, since it doesn't involve patronizing ski areas' patronizing of the belching of 2.6-micron soot particles into the air by power plants). Nor (whenever I _do_ get around to finishing building my ski-carrying system) was I thinking of using the 6-mile-away ski area as the destination of the test ride of it! I got _bored_ with skiing at _that_ place 30 years ago and haven't skiied there at _all_ for the _last_ several years! Rather, the distances to most of the places where I've downhill skiied in _recent_ years range from 75 miles (Greek Peak) to a few hundred miles, although the 75-mile-away one is the one that I had/have in mind as the destination of the _test_ ride of my ski-carrying system.

So, what are you going to do about it? Are you going to come onto Chainguard and confront Forester (as I have) about the unworkability of his position that the cycling community should permanently surrender certain freeways to motor-vehicles-only bigotry (i.e. permanently, as Forester now advocates, rely on bureaucrats' definitions of which freeway segments are "reasonable" to allow cyclists to set tire to)? Or are you one of those cyclist-inferiority cyclists who _likes_ that particular position of his?

Hi Tom,

Welcome to Bike Forums.

I thought that Chainguard is moderated for VC-only positions. I poke around there once in a while, but have not seen an in-depth inquisition of the evidence and state of knowledge. Broadly speaking, I see little variation in the opinions posted there and the conversation gets a little stale.

Mind you, the chaos that envelopes A&S is not necessarily better, but I find it more interesting.

-Geof

"I do say Maddy, I'm just going to motor down to the food establishment and procure some victuals for our dinner."

"Victuals?" ... thank god for Google ... it makes up for my finite lexicon.

ad hominem attacks blah blah blah (the kind of skiing that one would think that an envir-"o"-"mental"ist such as yourself would advocate, since it doesn't involve patronizing ski areas' patronizing of the belching of 2.6-micron soot particles into the air by power plants). Nor (whenever I _do_ get around to finishing building my ski-carrying system) .

dude, FOCUS. its about the bicycling.

By the way, I backcountry ski, motorist ( the "wheelman" moniker for a driver such as yourself smacks of delusional, dishonest self-flattery). I EARN my turns.

good luck with your ski carry system!

:roflmao: got to be hyperfocussed and obsessed with the in-your-face reality that a vehicular bicyclist can ride vehicularly in a bike lane? the 'carny' jibe didn't get to you as much as the reality of vehicular cyclists using bike lanes vehicularily, eh? I KNEW IT.


just admit it, john. as much as you try to deny it. say it's true, without all the ideological baggage, dude.

A VEHICULAR BICYCLIST CAN RIDE VEHICULARILY ON A SHOULDER, A VEHICULAR BICYCLIST CAN RIDE VEHICULARILY IN A BIKE LANE.

all you have to do is admit and accept it, john, (and you previously professed you had) and bicyclists can all come together in a deeper understanding and advancement of bicycling in our already autocentric society.

Bekologist, as I have written before this, you are either congenitally illogical or your passionate ideology has made you so. The sentence written above in upper case letters proves nothing at all, as has repeatedly been mentioned. The fact that you keep repeating it as if it did, despite the explanations, simply demonstrates my point about your mind.

Either you are so brilliant that I cannot understand the meaning of your sentence, what you think it proves, or your sentence is as illogical and senseless as it appears. If you have the power to do so, please explain your brilliant thought to all the rest of us.

dude, FOCUS. its about the bicycling.

By the way, I backcountry ski, motorist ( the "wheelman" moniker for a driver such as yourself smacks of delusional, dishonest self-flattery). I EARN my turns.

good luck with your ski carry system!

I've _already_ had good luck with my _snowshoe_ carry system, thank you, that I forgot to tell you about. I built _and_ used _that_ system way earlier, _because_ it focuses more about the bicycling! The extra speed of skis (vs. snowshoes) is not necessary for going the short distances from the road (such as to get non-snowplow-contaminated snow to melt or to flatten an area to sleep) that _normal_ winter transportational cycling requires.

Wheelman, Bek's comments re Forester don't have to be "holier then thou" for Bek. It really doesn't matter whether you or Bek can "measure yourselves" by the distance you cycle; what really matters is whether Forester is writing from a position of experience or speculation. Since Forester has admitted not being a dedicated transportational cyclist, it is highly likely he has not encountered the day to day situations that a dedicated cyclist may encounter.

Forester is apparently a voluntary cyclist, who perhaps choses the time and place to cycle, thus cycling under optimal conditions; such as a cyclist that chooses to go to the office at say 10:00 instead of at the heart of rush hour, the latter when the roads are choked with frustrated motorists. The conditions are quite different.

A dedicated transportational cyclist on the other hand must meet time and distance deadlines in spite of the conditions, therefore has likely encountered situations that a voluntary cyclist has never endured.

There is a difference.

Imagine for a moment the blind men seeking to describe the elephant... how might one describe traffic if for instance it is always orderly and obedient at one's chosen time to cycle, vice meeting the conditions at the "other end."

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.

Hi Tom,

Welcome to Bike Forums.

I thought that Chainguard is moderated for VC-only positions. I poke around there once in a while, but have not seen an in-depth inquisition of the evidence and state of knowledge. Broadly speaking, I see little variation in the opinions posted there and the conversation gets a little stale.

Mind you, the chaos that envelopes A&S is not necessarily better, but I find it more interesting.

-Geof

It all depends on how _many_ posts per day one has time to read, and in that connection, I was happy to see Chainguard become less voluminous when it began to be moderated a couple or three years ago. But as for _content_, I strongly agree with you: the presence of a few disagreeing-with-the-incrowd trolls makes any forum more intelligent. Even when the trolls are wrong, they serve a usefulness as punching bags.