Vehicular Cycling (VC) - VC vs. Hurst's "Urban Cycling"

ah, but Allister is spot on with his assessment, head.

it is realistic. because we understand your lack of bicycling experience, it is telling. if you don't have that much experience, SHUT UP AND RIDE. more saddle, less prattle, head.

so what if it's 'attacking the messenger? your sophmoric, starry eyed 'vehicular' armchair musings merit criticism, head. :rolleyes: and based on your relatively new foray into 'vehicular' bicycling :roflmao: , yes, YOU deserve criticism for your verbose prattle in this forum.
Baseless ad hominem attack.

I think it's pretty clear by now that HH is a bit of a clueless newbie. He's like a recent religious convert that thinks he has all the answers and needs to proselytise to everyone else of the error of their ways, even those that converted many years ago and realised that, in practice, dogma will only get you so far. You'd think he'd have come to the same conclusion by now, but it really only comes with experience, which despite all these years of trolling BF, he still clearly lacks.

Baseless ad hominem attack.


Oh I don't know. The clueless proselytizing message that has been obvious on 11,000 posts, give or take, confirm Allister's observation and make a pretty firm base for his statements IMO. Nothing personal at all, just the plain honest truth.

Against my better judgment, I'm going to jump into A&S again for a moment, because I wanted to respond to an interesting point that Robert brought up:



I can certainly think of some examples where the last sentence is true. But that comparison doesn't address the fact that lawful cycling can encompass a wide variety of behaviors, some of which may be safer than others. For example, in a situation where I'm approaching parked cars, the law allows me to use the full lane to stay out of the door zone. However, the law doesn't require me to use the full lane, so it would be just as legal to ride inches from the car doors at speed. It's not clear to me that you're considering that there is often a choice of multiple lawful behaviors, each with different risks - or do you lump that choice in as part of situational awareness?
Indeed, that was my point in the OP: Robert does not distinguish vehicular cycling from merely lawful cycling. He likes to point out that in about half of all cycling fatalities, the cyclist was doing nothing wrong legally, and leaps to the conclusion that vc can only help with about half of the fatalities, and most of those involve inexperienced cyclist doing blatantly wrong things (riding at night without lights, riding the wrong way, swerving in front of overtaking cars). Therefore, he concludes, vc is not of much if any help to experienced cyclists who tend to avoid those blatant errors anyway.

If Robert's crash with the Mercedes had been fatal, it would have been considered an example of a cyclist riding lawfully (he was in the bike lane, after all) who got killed. But was that an example of vehicular cycling? Was he using destination positioning at the approach to the junction with the blind alley? No. Was he obeying the basic speed law (not going too fast for conditions)? Apparently not. Was he positioning himself per Forester's advice about bike lanes? As if the bike lane stripe was not there? No. His own words in the book strongly imply he felt constrained by the stripe: "he is as far to the left as possible while still remaining in the 4 1/2-foot-wide lane" (p. 65). He probably did not intend to convey he felt constrained by the stripe, and probably did not even realize that he was, but there it is, in black and white.

This is what I mean when I say that the vehicular-cycling that Robert describes and criticizes in his book and on this forum is not the vehicular-cycling that Forester, the LAB, and all the LCIs I know practice, promote and teach.

This is what I mean when I say that the vehicular-cycling that Robert describes and criticizes in his book and on this forum is not the vehicular-cycling that Forester, the LAB, and all the LCIs I know practice, promote and teach.

But is what you personally promote the same as what LCIs "practice, promote and teach?"

But is what you personally promote the same as what LCIs "practice, promote and teach?"
What I promote is not always the same as what all LCIs "practice, promote and teach". If fact, no two LCIs teach exactly the same thing in exactly the same way (just as no two SCUBA instructors teach exactly the same thing in exactly the same way). But if it's not vehicular-cycling, then I don't call it vehicular-cycling. For example, I promote mirror use, but I don't promote it on the grounds of it being a vehicular-cycling best practice. I do argue that mirror-use aids one in being able to use vc practices in many situations. Some VC advocates and LCIs disagree with me on that.

But what Robert understands and describes as vehicular-cycling, and criticizes, is merely cycling lawfully.

Vehicular-cycling, because it is based on following the vehicular principles that forms the basis for traffic law for all drivers, by and large, with a few notable exceptions, is a subset of lawful cycling (LC). Therefore, almost any instance of unlawful cycling is an example of non-VC, again, with a few notable exceptions. But Robert flips this around and sees any example of LC failing to protect a cyclist as a failure in VC. He does not undertand VC to be something different from LC (again, VC is mostly a proper subset of LC, with a few exceptions, so if a given behavior is consistent with LC, is legal, it does not mean it is necessarily consistent with VC). He does not distinguish VC from LC: he equates them.

What are you talking about? This is not a game of duck duck goose and freeze tag. Car Traffic IS HOSTILE. Not only that, but repeated studies show that humans in their cars ***become*** more hostile and aggressive. And their stress levels goes up.

When someone in their car blows past you at 60 miles an hour and accelerating, blaring their horn at you and nearly clips your, coming within inches of your handlebars, all while your passively sitting on the right side of the road cruising at 15 miles an hour, THAT IS HOSTILITY. And your life is in danger. So don't screw up and stay alert and aggressive on those rodes. Everything you do communicates to the drivers around you and everything should be "Hey stupid!!! Be CAREFUL. I'm riding my bike here!"

Ruben
I do not deny that some drivers are antagonistic to others. My point is that they are the exceptions. I go for weeks, sometimes months, without encountering hostility in traffic, whether driving or cycling. Hence, my claim is that the traffic environment is much more accurately described as cooperative than as hostile. Further, I think seeing the traffic environment as being hostile (or cooperative) is a self-fulfilling prophecy, just as one's view of many social situations often proves to be self-fulfilling.

If you walk into a cocktail party imagining that everyone is hostile to you, your behavior and body language is likely to reflect that, and they are likely to react to you accordingly: with hostility. On the other hand, if you walk into the same party imagining that everyone is friendly, your gregarious behavior and body language is likely to reflect that, and they are likely to react to you accordingly: with friendliness and cooperation.

Similarly, in traffic. If you adopt a "hostile environment" view, you're likely to behave in ways that indicate you expect hostility, and, thus, you invite it.

Consider Beck's recent runin (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=357713)with a "ragin' cager". If someone honks at me and yells, "You're giving cyclists a bad name", apparently for riding in the center of a narrow lane, I would respond with understanding. Not with agreement, of course, but with understanding. I would be genuinely thankful for, and respectful of, such a person's obvious good intent, and my body language and facial expressions would convey this. And I would not see his actions as hostile. Beck, apparently, chose to interpret the man's effort as hostile, and probably escalated matters. Perhaps he flipped off this Good Samaritan, so far he won't say. But I think it's pretty clear he did little if anything to defuse the situation, and probably did things that escalated matters. The result? Beck feels like this guy intentionally tried to run him off the road. So of course his view is that this was a hostile incident. And to him it's probably typical. What he does not see in all this is the role of his own behavior in transforming what would probably could have a been a friendly/cooperative interaction into one of hostility.

I go for weeks, sometimes months, without encountering hostility in traffic, whether driving or cycling.

I'll ask for clarification of this statement as it seems a few (maybe just one) here need it but would rather jump to their own conclusions. By "hostility," you are referring to something more than a toot of the horn from someone who was delayed by your presence, correct?

I do not deny that some drivers are antagonistic to others. My point is that they are the exceptions. I go for weeks, sometimes months, without encountering hostility in traffic, whether driving or cycling. Hence, my claim is that the traffic environment is much more accurately described as cooperative than as hostile. Further, I think seeing the traffic environment as being hostile (or cooperative) is a self-fulfilling prophecy, just as one's view of many social situations often proves to be self-fulfilling.

If you walk into a cocktail party imagining that everyone is hostile to you, your behavior and body language is likely to reflect that, and they are likely to react to you accordingly: with hostility. On the other hand, if you walk into the same party imagining that everyone is friendly, your gregarious behavior and body language is likely to reflect that, and they are likely to react to you accordingly: with friendliness and cooperation.

Similarly, in traffic. If you adopt a "hostile environment" view, you're likely to behave in ways that indicate you expect hostility, and, thus, you invite it.

You know thinking more about this (and after a bit of a drive yesterday... ) I think there is something to the cooperative thinking of this issue. We are after all relatively cooperative on the road with one another, however there is something of animosity that exists... not outright hostility, but a certain competitiveness that motorists tend to have to preserve their position, their surrounding space and their forward progress.

This animosity (in an attempt to tone it down from outright hostility) is something that rears up in merging areas in particular... where the proper way to merge is for each motorist to take a turn, yet very often we see "bargers" or motorists that barge in out of their proper queue. Lane changing is another area where "competition" tends to arise... where one sees the need to change lanes to set up destination positioning for an exit ramp and signals, yet other traffic may "cut off" the pending lane changer, for no apparent reason.

Other areas where "competition" shows up on the roadway include excessive lane changing (which the CHP cites as typically causing backups and congestion due to other motorists responses to lane changes) and speeding where the latter disrupts the normal flow in traffic due to the aforementioned lane changes.

Perhaps using the term "hostile," is a bit excessive, and outright cooperation is a bit optimistic... but certainly there is cooperation, as well as something less than cooperation... the latter in the form of issues raging from outright road rage to simple poor merging habits.

I'll ask for clarification of this statement as it seems a few (maybe just one) here need it but would rather jump to their own conclusions. By "hostility," you are referring to something more than a toot of the horn from someone who was delayed by your presence, correct?
Welcome back!

Yes, but not much more. A mere toot of the horn is not necessarily an act of hostility. A few weeks ago Jay Leno described doing this on Mulholland Drive, to let the cyclist in front of him know he is there, and seemed genuinely shocked and dismayed when the cyclist turned around and flipped him off. That reaction made Leno feel anger that he apparently did not feel at the time he tooted his horn.

Now, if there is clear anger expressed during the honking of the horn, I do count that as hostility. And it has been a few months since I've experienced that.

I'll ask for clarification of this statement as it seems a few (maybe just one) here need it but would rather jump to their own conclusions. By "hostility," you are referring to something more than a toot of the horn from someone who was delayed by your presence, correct?

Careful now... HH has admitted in the past that he tends to ignore honks... therefore there is good reason to assume that he may not even remember, much less notice if he is being honked at. :D

You know thinking more about this (and after a bit of a drive yesterday... ) I think there is something to the cooperative thinking of this issue. We are after all relatively cooperative on the road with one another, however there is something of animosity that exists... not outright hostility, but a certain competitiveness that motorists tend to have to preserve their position, their surrounding space and their forward progress.

This animosity (in an attempt to tone it down from outright hostility) is something that rears up in merging areas in particular... where the proper way to merge is for each motorist to take a turn, yet very often we see "bargers" or motorists that barge in out of their proper queue. Lane changing is another area where "competition" tends to arise... where one sees the need to change lanes to set up destination positioning for an exit ramp and signals, yet other traffic may "cut off" the pending lane changer, for no apparent reason.

Other areas where "competition" shows up on the roadway include excessive lane changing (which the CHP cites as typically causing backups and congestion due to other motorists responses to lane changes) and speeding where the latter disrupts the normal flow in traffic due to the aforementioned lane changes.

Perhaps using the term "hostile," is a bit excessive, and outright cooperation is a bit optimistic... but certainly there is cooperation, as well as something less than cooperation... the latter in the form of issues raging from outright road rage to simple poor merging habits.
Good points, Gene. And to put this in context, recall the words on the back cover of Robert's book:

Cyclists today are left to navigate, like rats in a sewer, through a hard and unsympathetic world that was not made for them. Yet, with the proper attitude and a bit of knowledge [nothing about best practices or good habits], urban cyclists can thrive in this hostile environment. (emphasis added)Again, I think that's a very astute framing of the antagonistic approach espoused by Robert in his book, and clearly contrasts with the vehicular-cycling/Forester/LAB/LCI/Franklin/Cyclecraft cooperative approach of developing best practices and good habits in order to ride safely and effectively, integrated with traffic.

Careful now... HH has admitted in the past that he tends to ignore honks... therefore there is good reason to assume that he may not even remember, much less notice if he is being honked at. :D
Fair enough. For further clarification, I'll copy/paste this paragraph from an earlier post which I may have added after you saw it:

Consider Beck's recent runin (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=357713)with a "ragin' cager". If someone honks at me and yells, "You're giving cyclists a bad name", apparently for riding in the center of a narrow lane, I would respond with understanding. Not with agreement, of course, but with understanding. I would be genuinely thankful for, and respectful of, such a person's obvious good intent, and my body language and facial expressions would convey this. And I would not see his actions as hostile. Beck, apparently, chose to interpret the man's effort as hostile, and probably escalated matters. Perhaps he flipped off this Good Samaritan, so far he won't say. But I think it's pretty clear he did little if anything to defuse the situation, and probably did things that escalated matters. The result? Beck feels like this guy intentionally tried to run him off the road. So of course his view is that this was a hostile incident. And to him it's probably typical. What he does not see in all this is the role of his own behavior in transforming what would probably could have a been a friendly/cooperative interaction into one of hostility.

THAT is hilarious!!! What a wonk. " ...thankful of the motorists' obvious good intent!"

Head, you need to get out of the car, dude.

Unnecessary, and selfish. Not smooth. Not good citizenship. This qualifies imo as 'prima donna' cycling.

I'm not sure if these are traffic cycling issues, ultimately, or personality issues. There is that old saying, if you can't share then you don't get to play. I would say for those who haven't learned to share and play nice with others, they should stay out of traffic. It would be better for all of us if the 'prima donnas' stayed home to ride their keyboards.

I realize that I've been gone for a while but I do want to reply to this post still.

I'm not sure why you interpret something as simple as waiting a few extra seconds in the middle of the lane in order to pass by an intersection before pulling over to be unecessary, selfish, not smooth, and not good citizenship. I've heard the same tiresome argument against taking the lane by several non-cyclists and cyclists. In all cases, there's no basis for the argument other than "the notion."

In a city environment (in my experience), we're talking about roads where no matter how fast you drive in between intersections, you'll be lucky to average 20mph between destinations. How can you possibly act like a cyclist, even if they never pulled over, is causing some terrible problem for motorists?

Well, you're going to be there at some point, whether you like it or not. Do you have some strategy to deal with less than ideal situations? 'Don't get in less than ideal situations' is not a good answer to that.

Robert

My strategy on some roads is not to put myself in a less than ideal situation. I started a thread a while back about avoiding right hooks on a high speed, heavily trafficked arterial with constant intersections (70 in 3 miles). My conclusion after listening to many different posters, was that riding off to the side (in a position that motorists don't take offense to) was not worth the increased risk of a high speed right hook. I'd rather put up with a few honks daily rather than risk testing my braking skills. Since making that decision, there have been times when I've gotten "stuck" in a less than ideal position (usually due to pulling over during the few longer gaps then not being able to merge back into traffic before the next intersection). Due to my complete disdain for cycling in such a position on that road, it's been easy to decide to slow way down and keep a very watchful eye as I cross the intersections. Previously, I accepted having to use this position as normal and didn't take quite as many precautions (not to say that I wasn't vigilant while doing it, just not as cautious).

I also do get to practice my bike handling skills with occassional MTB and snow rides should I ever need to use them.

Welcome back!

Yes, but not much more. A mere toot of the horn is not necessarily an act of hostility. A few weeks ago Jay Leno described doing this on Mulholland Drive, to let the cyclist in front of him know he is there, and seemed genuinely shocked and dismayed when the cyclist turned around and flipped him off. That reaction made Leno feel anger that he apparently did not feel at the time he tooted his horn.

Now, if there is clear anger expressed during the honking of the horn, I do count that as hostility. And it has been a few months since I've experienced that.

One thing that drivers fail to understand regarding honks is that cyclists are already keenly attuned to the environment in which they are riding. We smell, hear and see far more than the average motorist. Generally speaking cyclists are aware of approaching cars... so the sudden loud honk of a car, even from a friendly motorist can be somewhat jarring.

Imagine for instance if instead of bells on the MUP to alert pedestrians, we cyclists only used Airzounds... man, imagine the pedestrians jumping... whoo hoo!

Fair enough. For further clarification, I'll copy/paste this paragraph from an earlier post which I may have added after you saw it:

Consider Beck's recent runin (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=357713)with a "ragin' cager". If someone honks at me and yells, "You're giving cyclists a bad name", apparently for riding in the center of a narrow lane, I would respond with understanding. Not with agreement, of course, but with understanding. I would be genuinely thankful for, and respectful of, such a person's obvious good intent, and my body language and facial expressions would convey this. And I would not see his actions as hostile. Beck, apparently, chose to interpret the man's effort as hostile, and probably escalated matters. Perhaps he flipped off this Good Samaritan, so far he won't say. But I think it's pretty clear he did little if anything to defuse the situation, and probably did things that escalated matters. The result? Beck feels like this guy intentionally tried to run him off the road. So of course his view is that this was a hostile incident. And to him it's probably typical. What he does not see in all this is the role of his own behavior in transforming what would probably could have a been a friendly/cooperative interaction into one of hostility.


I can't help but recall the motorist in the Road 2 class that uttered nearly the same words after his honking... I did not take his actions as hostile... but simply as you suggest (a'la Good Samaritan) but poorly informed. However, the huge difference is what happened after the initial confrontation...

Clearly in the Road 2 situation there was no further reaction... The witnesses in Beks case insisted that Bek was being pursued.

Had that motorist that I confronted turned around at the light and come after us cyclists... how then would you interpret it... as a Good Samaritan situation, or one of hostility?

I can't help but recall the motorist in the Road 2 class that uttered nearly the same words after his honking... I did not take his actions as hostile... but simply as you suggest (a'la Good Samaritan) but poorly informed. However, the huge difference is what happened after the initial confrontation...

Clearly in the Road 2 situation there was no further reaction... The witnesses in Beks case insisted that Bek was being pursued.

Had that motorist that I confronted turned around at the light and come after us cyclists... how then would you interpret it... as a Good Samaritan situation, or one of hostility?
Hostility. And I have no quarrel with characterizing the later behavior of the motorist in Beck's situation as hostile. My point is that nothing I've read, or heard from Beck, indicates the initial encounter was hostile. That's why my first post in the thread about this incident was to inquire as to how Beck reacted to the initial honk and yelling, and he won't answer. He also won't deny that he reacted with a middle finger gesture or behavior that is comparably antagonistic. That's why I think the situation escalated to one of hostility, which could have probably been avoided had Beck responded with understanding to the initial efforts of the motorist to let Beck know he thought he was doing something wrong, unsafe, bad for cycling advocacy, or whatever. And how anyone, including Beck, reacts to such a situation is largely determined by his overall view about traffic, in particular whether he views it as generally hostile or generally cooperative.

Hostility. And I have no quarrel with characterizing the later behavior of the motorist in Beck's situation as hostile. My point is that nothing I've read, or heard from Beck, indicates the initial encounter was hostile. That's why my first post in the thread about this incident was to inquire as to how Beck reacted to the initial honk and yelling, and he won't answer. He also won't deny that he reacted with a middle finger gesture or behavior that is comparably antagonistic. That's why I think the situation escalated to one of hostility, which could have probably been avoided had Beck responded with understanding to the initial efforts of the motorist to let Beck know he thought he was doing something wrong, unsafe, bad for cycling advocacy, or whatever. And how anyone, including Beck, reacts to such a situation is largely determined by his overall view about traffic, in particular whether he views it as generally hostile or generally cooperative.

Maybe... the reaction that is... I work to deliver the wave and smile thing... but sometimes at the end of long climb or long ride, I may find I am a bit frazzled... and when someone does a blatantly "stupid" thing such as honk at me on an otherwise empty street... my inner demon may react faster than my conscious self wishes.

Are we cyclists not allowed human responses in reaction to situations? Or must we be forever jolly, while setting the example of the Alpha Dog, and exemplifying the concentration of the Fighter Pilot... if so, holy Toledo... I best start wearing the red cape of Superman.

THAT is hilarious!!! What a wonk. " ...thankful of the motorists' obvious good intent!"

Head, you need to get out of the car, dude.
I think you're confusing initial intent with motivation after the situation escalated to one of antagonism and hostility.

Was there anything antagonistic or hostile about his initial honk and yelling "you're giving a bad name to cyclists" to you?

Good points, Gene. And to put this in context, recall the words on the back cover of Robert's book:

Cyclists today are left to navigate, like rats in a sewer, through a hard and unsympathetic world that was not made for them. Yet, with the proper attitude and a bit of knowledge [nothing about best practices or good habits], urban cyclists can thrive in this hostile environment. (emphasis added)Again, I think that's a very astute framing of the antagonistic approach espoused by Robert in his book, and clearly contrasts with the vehicular-cycling/Forester/LAB/LCI/Franklin/Cyclecraft cooperative approach of developing best practices and good habits in order to ride safely and effectively, integrated with traffic.

'antagonistic approach espoused by Robert in his book'

That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

The type of cycling I espouse in my book is far more cooperative than that theorized upon by fearful, close pass obsessed beginners.

HH, just a word. If there is some sort of civil or criminal action here, the one thing that Bek most certainly will not talk about is the specifics of the interactions between him and the motorist. He has been keeping pretty mum, other than posting an article from the newspaper, and if you look back, you will see that he hasn't said anything about that incident that wasn't already in the public domain. He wanted to let us all know about the incident, but beyond that, he hasn't said anything specific.

And since the emotional state of a speaker is very difficult to ascertain given only the written words with no descriptors, yet a person hearing the words and seeing the person's facial expressions first hand will know with almost absolute certainty the emotional state of the speaker (that's what we humans do, you know, read emotions from facial expressions, vocal tonation, and body language - helps us stay alive), your speculation on this matter is without grounding.

I have had plenty of motorists who were in an angry emotional state from the very first interaction, merely because of my presence out in public on a street on a bicycle. I have had more of those than I have had people who were merely "looking out for my own good" - in fact, I cannot remember any of these off hand. And no, I am not mistaken. I evolved from a lineage of homo sapiens for whom living or dying turned on reading the emotional state of a newcomer. I know when I am being threatened.

HH, just a word. If there is some sort of civil or criminal action here, the one thing that Bek most certainly will not talk about is the specifics of the interactions between him and the motorist. He has been keeping pretty mum, other than posting an article from the newspaper, and if you look back, you will see that he hasn't said anything about that incident that wasn't already in the public domain. He wanted to let us all know about the incident, but beyond that, he hasn't said anything specific.

And since the emotional state of a speaker is very difficult to ascertain given only the written words with no descriptors, yet a person hearing the words and seeing the person's facial expressions first hand will know with almost absolute certainty the emotional state of the speaker (that's what we humans do, you know, read emotions from facial expressions, vocal tonation, and body language - helps us stay alive), your speculation on this matter is without grounding.

I have had plenty of motorists who were in an angry emotional state from the very first interaction, merely because of my presence out in public on a street on a bicycle. I have had more of those than I have had people who were merely "looking out for my own good" - in fact, I cannot remember any of these off hand. And no, I am not mistaken. I evolved from a lineage of homo sapiens for whom living or dying turned on reading the emotional state of a newcomer. I know when I am being threatened.
First, as near as I can tell, Bek did not suffer any damage, not even a scratch. Not sure what the [Edit: civil] case, if any, would be about.

Second, I too have experienced motorists who were in an angry emotional state from the very first interaction, but that doesn't necessarily mean it was hostile. Knowing Beck, he probably flipped the guy off and shrugged it off, but that just escalated matters. He is free to say, no, that is not what happened.

'antagonistic approach espoused by Robert in his book'

That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

The type of cycling I espouse in my book is far more cooperative than that theorized upon by fearful, close pass obsessed beginners.
Fair enough. It was a mistake to refer to your approach as antagonistic. What your approach is about is viewing the environment as hostile or antagonistic to the cyclist (if you don't recognize that, talk to whoever wrote the "hostile environment" words on the back cover of your book), and you encourage the cyclist to accept that, and not act with antagonism or hostility in return. But to the extent that your efforts of encouraging pacifism even in the face of open hostility are unsuccessful, and I believe they largely fail (I've yet to meet anyone who has picked up on that in your bike besides myself, despite how blatant you are about it) you leave the reader convinced that the traffic environment is hostile to him, but unable to deal with it in the way you encourage. So they naturally react to what they see as antagonism and hostility with... antagonism and hostility.

In other words, I think you leave many readers with the impression that the traffic environment is much more hostile to them than it really is ("like rats in sewers"), which leaves them predisposed to misinterpreting various situations as being more antagonistic than they really are. Look no further than Beck's experience for one example of that. To be fair, many cyclists already feel that way, so you can't be held too responsible for this.

To be fair, many cyclists already feel that way, so you can't be held too responsible for this.

So to choose such words as a simple sales technique for the cover of a book' may not indicate the author's true feelings about the contents of the book... any more than calling the day to day job "a rat race" dictates that I am only seeking cheese at days end.

I have had plenty of motorists who were in an angry emotional state from the very first interaction, merely because of my presence out in public on a street on a bicycle. I have had more of those than I have had people who were merely "looking out for my own good" - in fact, I cannot remember any of these off hand. And no, I am not mistaken. I evolved from a lineage of homo sapiens for whom living or dying turned on reading the emotional state of a newcomer. I know when I am being threatened.
Do you remember me writing about this incident (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=280800) with the old geezer who was honking and shaking his fists angrily at me?
There was no way to recognize he was looking out for anyone's good, or that he was doing anything but threatening me. Yet when he was pulled over he calmly explained to the police officer, and I believed he was genuine, that he was truly miffed at my stupidity for riding out in the street with my little girl on the trailercycle behind me. At that point, there was no reason to believe he was not angered by what he believed to be highly irresponsible behavior on my part, and that he truly wanted to convey that to me. But during the incident itself, it appeared to be pure rage.

Unless you have the luck I did, and have a cop pull over the ragin' cager in order to hear his side calmly, I don't see how you could ever know if it was real threat or a genuine, though misguided, attempt to educate.

Not sure what the case, if any, would be about.
RCW 46.61.500 Reckless driving - Penalty.

(1) Any person who drives any vehicle in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property is guilty of reckless driving. Violation of the provisions of this section is a gross misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment of not more than one year and by a fine of not more than five thousand dollars.

(2) The license or permit to drive or any nonresident privilege of any person convicted of reckless driving shall be suspended by the department for not less than thirty days.

As usual, you post without doing research.

So to choose such words as a simple sales technique for the cover of a book' may not indicate the author's true feelings about the contents of the book... any more than calling the day to day job "a rat race" dictates that I am only seeking cheese at days end.
Do you not agree that likening cyclists to rats in sewers is a very astute framing of Robert's approach?

Remember, this is the book that uses language like this:Blame! Who will you blame after that floral delivery van runs a red light and pulverizes your internal organs? As you wheeze your last wheeze, will you find the breath to b*tch at the driver -- "nice driving", ***hole! Will you be planning your suit as you lurch around on the pavement like a trout? --The Art of Urban Cycling, p. 65Can't you picture the Emperor Rat uttering similar crude and dark words of warning to his kingdom?

Do you really think likening cyclists to "rats in a sewer" is off the mark in terms of framing this book?

As usual, you post without doing research.
I meant a civil case, of course.

By the way, Bek is also free to say, the police (or his lawyer) has asked him not to comment on this matter any further. He has not done so. "The absence of evidence is the evidence of absence." -Christopher Hitchens

I meant a civil case, of course.
The post you replied to said civil or criminal. Your mistake.

Do you not agree that likening cyclists to rats in sewers is a very astute framing of Robert's approach?

Remember, this is the book that uses language like this:Blame! Who will you blame after that floral delivery van runs a red light and pulverizes your internal organs? As you wheeze your last wheeze, will you find the breath to b*tch at the driver -- "nice driving", ***hole! Will you be planning your suit as you lurch around on the pavement like a trout? --The Art of Urban Cycling, p. 65Can't you picture the Emperor Rat uttering similar crude and dark words of warning to his kingdom?

Do you really think likening cyclists to "rats in a sewer" is off the mark in terms of framing this book?

What I really think is that he used emotionally laden prose to spice up the writing in an effort to avoid it sounding like the "tech manual" that is "Effective Cycling."

The use of such terminology is known as poetic license.

Why choose the text "floral delivery van" vice "panel truck" in the aforementioned paragraph? It invokes a particular emotion. I doubt very seriously that Robert actually thinks of us as Rats. He also likens cyclists to fish... sounds like he got to you, hook line and sinker.

I think you leave many readers with the impression that the traffic environment is much more hostile to them than it really is ("like rats in sewers"),
Rats like sewers and pigs like mud. Nether image conveys a hostile environment IMHO maybe not that desirable but some how a pothole ridden street filled with pollution spewing auto traffic does not conger up any nice image either.

Unless you have the luck I did, and have a cop pull over the ragin' cager in order to hear his side calmly, I don't see how you could ever know if it was real threat or a genuine, though misguided, attempt to educate.

And yet you have the wisdom to judge just this, while down in San Diego all the way back to Seattle on a situation you did not even personally witness.

Wow!

What I really think is that he used emotionally laden prose to spice up the writing in an effort to avoid it sounding like the "tech manual" that is "Effective Cycling."

The use of such terminology is known as poetic license.

Why choose the text "floral delivery van" vice "panel truck" in the aforementioned paragraph? It invokes a particular emotion. I doubt very seriously that Robert actually thinks of us as Rats. He also likens cyclists to fish... sounds like he got to you, hook line and sinker.
Why do so many people have trouble with analogy?

A likening of cyclists to rats in sewers does not imply a thinking of cyclists as rats!

Do you remember me writing about this incident (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=280800) with the old geezer who was honking and shaking his fists angrily at me?
There was no way to recognize he was looking out for anyone's good, or that he was doing anything but threatening me. Yet when he was pulled over he calmly explained to the police officer, and I believed he was genuine, that he was truly miffed at my stupidity for riding out in the street with my little girl on the trailercycle behind me. At that point, there was no reason to believe he was not angered by what he believed to be highly irresponsible behavior on my part, and that he truly wanted to convey that to me. But during the incidence itself, it appeared to be pure rage.
So the way you ride invites this type of reaction? :rolleyes:

So the way you ride invites this type of reaction? :rolleyes:
No, the way I ride reduces this type of reaction to a few times per year, if that. It has been over 7 months since that happened, and I've not had any other incidents that come close to that.

'antagonistic approach espoused by Robert in his book'

That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

The type of cycling I espouse in my book is far more cooperative than that theorized upon by fearful, close pass obsessed beginners.

My impression of Robert's book was one of joy. The joy of cycling. The joy of being alive, of feeling fully alive while cycling.

My impression of HH's weighty tome, which happens to exist completely as forum posts in cyberspace, is one of wonky pseudo-science and crackpot-psychology grounded in a kind of control-freak desire to come off as some kind of expert. It's a place of fear, but not so much of fear of traffic (although that is there, along with a delusional belief he can actually control it enough to turn it into sunshine, rainbows and smiley faces) but fear that he isn't really as smart as he'd like people to think he is.

Reading each, I get the sense that Robert rides a bike and that HH sits in front of a computer theorizing about riding a bike.

Baseless ad hominem attack.

Poor baby.

Edit: Funny how you think of motorists yelling at cyclists as Offering Friendly Advice, but my assesment of you, which is not baseless, is interpreted as an 'attack'. What a tool.

I made that post for a very valid reason. You present yourself as a 'best practice advocate', and incessantly offer your 'expert opinion' on matters ranging far and wide, but every indication from all the posts I've seen from you is that you don't have sufficient experience to back it up, and as such are at risk of offering advice that is at best faulty, and at worst outright dangerous. I merely posted it as a warning to newcomers that perhaps your 'advice' should be taken with that understanding.

But hey, if you want to assume that BF is a hostile environment, so be it. Go cry to someone that could give a sh!t.

By "hostility," you are referring to something more than a toot of the horn from someone who was delayed by your presence, correct?

When someone interprets "GET OUT OF MY WAY" as friendly advice, anything's possible.

The primary riding position should therefore by your normal riding position when you can keep up with traffic, ,.

It's there in plain language, Head, and yet you still choose to misinterpret it.

But the VC approach doesn't depend on vigilance - it's about ingraining best practices as automatic habits, so that you don't need to be aware of a hazard in order to be optimally positioned for it: it's proactive.

As soon as you fall into habitual practices, you're stuffed, Head. Habit is NO replacement for awareness. Awareness is of primary importance, in everything we do, but especially when your life is at stake. Traffic is simply too random for habit to be effective for very long. And to think you're the one alway claiming that 'most cyclists' ride blindly in the bike lane. I think you're the only one riding along blindly, Head.

Hence, my claim is that the traffic environment is much more accurately described as cooperative than as hostile.

It's a bit of both. I think of it as more like organised chaos. Everyone's out there with their own interests as their primary concern, and grudgingly cooperate with other road users only as a means to that end, but will take any advantage they can. And of course, there are individuals that are actually overtly hostile to cyclists. To deny that is yet another sign of inexperience.

Further, I think seeing the traffic environment as being hostile (or cooperative) is a self-fulfilling prophecy, just as one's view of many social situations often proves to be self-fulfilling.

I for one don't assume the road is a hostile environment. For the most part, traffic works reasonably well, but to deny any hostility, and to not be on the alert for it is foolish.

As soon as you fall into habitual practices, you're stuffed, Head. Habit is NO replacement for awareness. Awareness is of primary importance, in everything we do, but especially when your life is at stake. Traffic is simply too random for habit to be effective for very long. And to think you're the one alway claiming that 'most cyclists' ride blindly in the bike lane. I think you're the only one riding along blindly, Head.

When the "habit" is to pay attention to all traffic that could affect your safety and the road conditions ahead in order to decide on your lateral position in response to any faster traffic, I'd say that the "habit" greatly increases awareness.

You are thinking of habit in terms of doing the same thing every time you ride through a certain area. This is not the kind of habit being discussed.

You are thinking of habit in terms of doing the same thing every time you ride through a certain area. This is not the kind of habit being discussed.


When Head talks about forming habits, as the alternative to proper situational awareness, that is exactly what is being discussed. His belief that awareness is fallible, but habitual lane positioning is not is what's being discussed. Read his post again that I snipped from.

Of course, now he'll come along and deny saying any such thing. It's almost impossible to pin that guy down to any definitive statement. He'll say black is white, and three posts later deny it saying something like 'I said black is almost white' or something. I'm not sure why you feel the need to defend this buffoon.

Of course, now he'll come along and deny saying any such thing. It's almost impossible to pin that guy down to any definitive statement. He'll say black is white, and three posts later deny it saying something like 'I said black is almost white' or something. I'm not sure why you feel the need to defend this buffoon.

:roflmao:

That's what I was thinking when I read this:


So the way you ride invites this type of reaction? :rolleyes:


No, the way I ride reduces this type of reaction to a few times per year, if that. It has been over 7 months since that happened, and I've not had any other incidents that come close to that.

When Head talks about forming habits, as the alternative to proper situational awareness, that is exactly what is being discussed. His belief that awareness is fallible, but habitual lane positioning is not is what's being discussed.
I have never talked about forming habits as an alternative to situational awareness.
I do not believe that habitual lane positioning is infallible, and have never said anything that meant or implied that I did.


Of course, now he'll come along and deny saying any such thing. It's almost impossible to pin that guy down to any definitive statement. He'll say black is white, and three posts later deny it saying something like 'I said black is almost white' or something. I'm not sure why you feel the need to defend this buffoon.
All my words are out there in black and white. Produce those that have the meaning you say they do, or shut up already.

Post #104

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

Post # 234

I think it's pretty clear by now that HH is a bit of a clueless newbie. He's like a recent religious convert that thinks he has all the answers and needs to proselytise to everyone else of the error of their ways, even those that converted many years ago and realised that, in practice, dogma will only get you so far. You'd think he'd have come to the same conclusion by now, but it really only comes with experience, which despite all these years of trolling BF, he still clearly lacks.

Post # 251

Baseless ad hominem attack.



HH, you just could not stand not being able to read Allister's posts, could you?

;)

BTW...it's a light hearted sarcastic joke. Please do not analyze and debate it to death. :D

I have never talked about forming habits as an alternative to situational awareness.
I do not believe that habitual lane positioning is infallible, and have never said anything that meant or implied that I did.

Then why the incessant bickering with Robert over it? Shut up yourself, poopy head.

Why do so many people have trouble with analogy?

A likening of cyclists to rats in sewers does not imply a thinking of cyclists as rats!

Except when you want to drag an analogy out into center lane position and beat it within an inch of its death to "prove" your "point."

Judging from what I know about him, I think that Helmet Head's incident with the "old geezer" in post #282 was escalated by Helmet Head. He probably started a long, wordy, strangely-punctuated diatribe on cycling, and the guy went batty.

No, no, no.

You just don't understand. Just because Serge posted "This message is hidden because Allister is on your ignore list" as a whiny juvenile repsonse, that doesn't mean that he was actually ignoring Allister.

You see, rarely does anyone mean anything they say in conversational English to be taken absolutely literally. Context must be considered to understand intended meaning (for those who are interested in actual meaning).
(http://bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=5522355&postcount=35)

Hence it also logically follows that typing Thursday can actually mean, Friday, Saturday, Sunday or strawberry shortcake.


Ohhh...now I get it. Thanks for the clarification.