Bike Maps and VC

[buzzman]

First: a couple of hard-core VC mantras that I find, at the very least, confusing-

a) Every lane is a bike lane.

b) We have all the bike paths we need- they're called roads.

IF the above are true then all cyclists would have no need for special bike maps in order to plan their routes be it recreational, transportational, commuting or otherwise because ANY up to date road map would have the route information they needed and VC techniques like steely eyed glances and lane positioning would ensure a cyclist's safety on ANY road.


But many of us have preferred routes and avoid certain roads. So, for us, not every lane is a bike lane. And there are bike trails (here in MA it's the Ashuwillticook, Minute Man, and Cape Cod Rail Trails that come to my mind) that are often a preferable alternative to roads.


Despite 4 decades of riding on Massachusetts and New England roads I still grab the Rubel Bike Maps (http://www.bikemaps.com/) to plan out some of my rides and find it enormously useful. n.b.- John Allen, no stranger to VC, is a contributor to Rubel Bike Maps.

How do you hard-core VC'ers plan your routes? And if you do have preferred routes- why? If every lane is a bike lane is every road equally desirable for you to ride on?

I'm really asking this in all seriousness. I've followed these endless debates for a couple of years now but have yet to see how blanket statements like the two I've cited above leave any room for dialogue.

[noisebeam]

I don't find the local city bike route map very useful. Often the bike routes suggested end up having disconnects/jogs around direct routes, stretches of problematic MUPs, crossing of arterial roads with no traffic signal, etc.
This is that map: http://www.tempe.gov/tim/Bike/pdfs/BikeMap2007.pdf

A great map would be one that shows all city streets, how many lanes, what the vpd volume is, the width of the outside lane, the width of shoulder or bike lane. There would be no special markings for 'bike route'

Here is a map (Full state map of AZ) I find does that to a degree and it better. Thru color coding and symbols it indicates traffic volume, shoulder width, grade (missing and useful would be number of lanes):
http://www.azbikeped.org/images/map%20side%201%20(3-03-06).pdf
To appreciate it you need to zoom in 200% or better.

Al

[derath]

I don't think I am a hard cor VC'r, but I just plan my routes via Google. For me I find pretty much all roads rideable. There are exceptions, such as Interstates that are not legal to bike on.


But many of us have preferred routes and avoid certain roads. So, for us, not every lane is a bike lane.


A bit of a stretch. Sure even I have preferred roads. But that is the difference between a rideable road, and a nicely rideable road. There are roads I prefer to others even when driving my car. It certainly doesn't mean there are roads that are unfit for my car. Just that some roads are more enjoyable than others.

-D

[buzzman]

A bit of a stretch. Sure even I have preferred roads. But that is the difference between a rideable road, and a nicely rideable road. There are roads I prefer to others even when driving my car. It certainly doesn't mean there are roads that are unfit for my car. Just that some roads are more enjoyable than others.-D

I would venture to say that the expression, "every lane is a bike lane" is "a bit of a stretch" but I'm not sure that's what you're saying. :)

Although most roads in and around Boston are "fit for a car" they are not fit for all vehicles. Several roads do not allow trucks over a certain size for example. So if logic dictates that a road is "fit for a car" but not "fit for a truck" are all roads fit for all vehicles? You seem to be implying that if a road is "fit for a car" then you should be able to drive any vehicle on any road. My implication is that most existing roads are designed for passenger automobiles but NOT for all vehicles. Thus creating issues far more practical than "nice" when choosing a route.

And what exactly makes one road "a ridable road" and another a "nicely rideable road"? My understanding from many of these threads is that being educated in VC techniques and appropriate practice of them makes all roads equally rideable. Am I misunderstanding VC?:(

[derath]

I would venture to say that the expression, "every lane is a bike lane" is "a bit of a stretch" but I'm not sure that's what you're saying. :)

Correct, that isn't what I am saying. But my point is that simply because you choose to avoid a certain road doesn't make that road un-rideable by bicycle. It may not be as enjoyable due to varying circumstances, but not unrideable. Also other people have different tolerances that they can handle. This isn't just in cycling however.

Although most roads in and around Boston are "fit for a car" they are not fit for all vehicles. Several roads do not allow trucks over a certain size for example. So if logic dictates that a road is "fit for a car" but not "fit for a truck" are all roads fit for all vehicles? You seem to be implying that if a road is "fit for a car" then you should be able to drive any vehicle on any road. My implication is that most existing roads are designed for passenger automobiles but NOT for all vehicles. Thus creating issues far more practical than "nice" when choosing a route.

Not at all. Just as I said in my post there are some roads (interstate) in my area which are restricted from bicycle riding. I think it would be safe to say the same for roads with other restrictions. Obviously those are special cases.

And what exactly makes one road "a ridable road" and another a "nicely rideable road"? My understanding from many of these threads is that being educated in VC techniques and appropriate practice of them makes all roads equally rideable. Am I misunderstanding VC?:(

Again, I am not a "VC" rider per se, in that I have never read any of the books that talk about it etc.

As many around here however, you seem to be reading what you want into the arguments. I would be willing to bet even the hardcore VC advocates would agree that all roads are not created equal. And not all roads are equally enjoyable to ride on. The point is that even the roads that are not as enjoyable are still rideable. I guess you could read that as even the roads that aren't as much "fun" to ride can still be safely traversed.

Let me take my commute for example. My commute is quite long, so it has varying degrees of road types.

Actually I will use my commute home (http://www.bikely.com/maps/bike-path/Commute-Home73991), since it is the only one I can find mapped out online. If you follow with the hybrid mode on you can see the road details via the satellite images.

So in the beginning the commute is quite nice. I work my way through some neighborhoods. Low traffic. No shoulder.

From mile 3.7-4.6 i would classify the ride as not being as enjoyable. But it is still rideable in that I can ride it safely. I have to deal with taking the lane in a 3 lane situation where 2 eventually turn left at RT 103 and the right lane is Rt turn only. You have cars moving around in the lanes to be in the right place at the light. I have to be more attentive and assertive in taking the lane. Once I turn left on Rt 103 I am dealing with heavier commuting traffic on a 2 lane road with no shoulder. Again it is not as "fun" but I still feel safe. And I don't get nasty honks. But I do have to control the lane to not get buzzed.

Much of the rest of the ride varies from roads with wide shoulders to roads with no shoulder. And speeds from slow to over 60mph. Different sections require more vigilance and some are more enjoyable to be on than others. But all are rideable.

I guess a different analogy is when I drive to work. I have several route choices in my car. one involves the beltway and mostly large interstate type roads. Other routes are more rural. While all are equally rideable, I enjoy the rural drive much more than the parking lot known as the beltway. I don't see how that is a hard thing to understand...

[Bekologist]

see the chestbeating and hoop-jumping about route choice in this thread

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=326572

I know some roads are more enjoyable and pleasant to ride on and so does everyone else that rides a bike.

the 'every lane is a bike lane' argument is a fallacy regarding 'traffic parity' in dubious counterpoint to the reality of hostile, bicyclist unfriendly road and traffic conditions.

[ken cummings]

consider an old thread of mine: bike route map links . I was trying to create a source for all state bike route maps. Did get a lot of state maps and a number of local maps. Doing a "Compare and Contrast" on all the different standards for routes might get me a MS in something. My own local city map has a couple of sections of recommended routes that I, an adrenaline junkie with 50 years of cycling experience, do not like.

To the OP, even the "optimum" computer created routes of routines like TomTom and GoogleMaps are usually altered by local motorists with local knowledge. Feel free to grant yourself permission to avoid any road that bothers you.

[buzzman]

... While all are equally rideable, I enjoy the rural drive much more than the parking lot known as the beltway. I don't see how that is a hard thing to understand...

Thank you for your extensive post and please pardon my thick head but I find the following things hard to understand:

Again, expressions like "Every lane is a bike lane.". It seems to me that statements like that are used not because they are true in any logical sense but because they stop the dialogue. What's hard for me to understand is how reluctant some people are to abandon those fallacious arguments and adhere to a kind of wishful thinking that they are, indeed, true. I'm not saying that is what you are doing but my general impressions when I read posts in the VC thread is that kind of thinking abounds and it makes progressive discourse virtually impossible. And I am not referring solely to roads like interstates where the law dictates that it is unridable but roads that are legally ridable but not necessarily a recommended route for any cyclist no matter their "skill level" or chutzpah.

What's also hard for me to understand is how quickly the analogy is made to "when I drive in my car". Please note your use of the word "rideable" in your automobile analogy- perhaps a simple error but reflective of a lot of thinking in these threads. When I can get my bike to go 60 mph from a dead stop in less than 12 second on level ground I'll better understand the analogy but while I agree that both are "vehicles" analogies between the automobile and the bicycle also lead to a kind of fallacious thinking when selecting routes, designing roadways and techniques applied when riding a bike on a roadway, bike lane, bike path or MUP. My bicycle is no more like my car than my car is like a semi-trailer truck.

I also find it difficult to understand the reluctance to refer to certain roads as "safer" or "less safe" for riding and instead euphemistic expressions like "more vigilance is needed" or "more enjoyable". These expressions are most often used with a qualifier like "it's equally rideable" as if to say, "if I wanted to I could ride on that road" perhaps out of a justifiable paranoia that to admit otherwise might mean risking the right to ride on certain roads. Some of us, like me, consider that roads needing "more vigilance" are actually, dare I say it- less safe and therefore not "equally rideable" as much as I might wish it to be. Often these suspicions are supported by accident statistics on these same roads. And while we support the right of cyclists to ride on every possible road we are pragmatic realists who recognize that some roads, due to design, traffic volume, condition of pavement etc, are just not worth it. And that despite all the experience, bicycle "education", vigilance and skill some cyclists may have nothing beats a well designed roadway conceived and built with bicyclists in mind.

[buzzman]

see the chestbeating and hoop-jumping about route choice in this thread

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=326572

I know some roads are more enjoyable and pleasant to ride on and so does everyone else that rides a bike.

the 'every lane is a bike lane' argument is a fallacy regarding 'traffic parity' in dubious counterpoint to the reality of hostile, bicyclist unfriendly road and traffic conditions.

ahh, I see from your link that this road is a bit more well-travelled than I thought.

Perhaps every avenue of discussion has already been explored and they all come out in the same place- nowhere.

oh, well, it's a torrential Nor'easter and not such a great day for a bike ride- no matter what road I'm on- so I thought I'd run down a few dead ends on the internet superhighway. :rolleyes:

[derath]

Again, expressions like "Every lane is a bike lane.". It seems to me that statements like that are used not because they are true in any logical sense but because they stop the dialogue. What's hard for me to understand is how reluctant some people are to abandon those fallacious arguments and adhere to a kind of wishful thinking that they are, indeed, true. I'm not saying that is what you are doing but my general impressions when I read posts in the VC thread is that kind of thinking abounds and it makes progressive discourse virtually impossible. And I am not referring solely to roads like interstates where the law dictates that it is unridable but roads that are legally ridable but not necessarily a recommended route for any cyclist no matter their "skill level" or chutzpah.

First off, these forums are a bad place to gain any knowledge at all. The level of discourse has dropped down so far that nothing useful is really discussed.

I have also stayed away from the specific VC issues in your post on purpose. As I have stated I am not a "VC'r" in that I haven't read any of the books etc which strictly talk about it. So I don't want to put words into their mouth when I may not be correct.

The "every lane is a BL" to me means that I don't require a bike lane to feel safe riding in traffic. So far I haven't encountered a road which I have felt unsafe riding. Keep in mind however, as is evident in my commute link, that I live in a more suburban/rural area. I don't bike downtown very often (no need) so my experience is distinctly different than city dwellers. I am also lucky to see a shoulder on most of the roads I ride. And none have bike lanes.

What's also hard for me to understand is how quickly the analogy is made to "when I drive in my car". Please note your use of the word "rideable" in your automobile analogy- perhaps a simple error but reflective of a lot of thinking in these threads. When I can get my bike to go 60 mph from a dead stop in less than 12 second on level ground I'll better understand the analogy but while I agree that both are "vehicles" analogies between the automobile and the bicycle also lead to a kind of fallacious thinking when selecting routes, designing roadways and techniques applied when riding a bike on a roadway, bike lane, bike path or MUP. My bicycle is no more like my car than my car is like a semi-trailer truck.

Then you need to look up analogy. Analogies are not direct comparisons. Sure my bike and car are not even close in acceleration etc. But the analogy works partly because many people drive cars and many times have more experience in their car than on a bike.

My analogy is to illustrate the following point. I feel safe wherever I have ridden. I also feel safe in my car. I can choose 2 paths to drive my car in the morning. One is the major highways/beltway. It offers the possibility of getting to work slightly faster, but I find it more frustrating, due to the nature of large multilane highways during rush hour. The other is a more rural route (actually the identical path I bike). I find it more enjoyable as I don't have to keep track of 6 lanes of traffic around me.


I also find it difficult to understand the reluctance to refer to certain roads as "safer" or "less safe" for riding and instead euphemistic expressions like "more vigilance is needed" or "more enjoyable". These expressions are most often used with a qualifier like "it's equally rideable" as if to say, "if I wanted to I could ride on that road" perhaps out of a justifiable paranoia that to admit otherwise might mean risking the right to ride on certain roads. Some of us, like me, consider that roads needing "more vigilance" are actually, dare I say it- less safe and therefore not "equally rideable" as much as I might wish it to be. Often these suspicions are supported by accident statistics on these same roads. And while we support the right of cyclists to ride on every possible road we are pragmatic realists who recognize that some roads, due to design, traffic volume, condition of pavement etc, are just not worth it. And that despite all the experience, bicycle "education", vigilance and skill some cyclists may have nothing beats a well designed roadway conceived and built with bicyclists in mind.

That is because I don't find the differing roads "safer" or "less safe". The smaller neighborhood roads have less traffic. So I don't have to necessarily be as "vigilant" with my lane handling etc. But I still could get T-boned by the soccer mom backing out of her driveway. But these quiet roads tend to be more enjoyable.

The sections of road that I find less enjoyable are not "less safe" But I do have to be more alert as there is more going on. I have to pay more attention to the traffic around me, the same way I would if I were in my car etc. But I still don't feel "less safe".


The key is, by using VC type techniques I can ride safely everywhere that I have tried so far. I don't disagree that a roadway designed with cyclists in mind may be more enjoyable, most haven't been designed this way. I would hate to feel i was constrained to only using those roads designed for cyclists as I would have very few option in my area at all.

Now, one problem I do have with the general VC debate is the converse. There are many who seem to feel that by simply training cyclists they will instantly be comfortable riding safely anywhere. This of course is not true. We all have different temperments and limits on what we can deal with. Some people will simply not feel comfortable in some situations regardless of their training.

-D

[Allister]

I more or less agree that 'every lane is a bike lane', which is not to say that there aren't some that you'd choose to avoid.

AS for maps - I've only ever glanced at the one for Brisbane. It's interesting look at as it highlights just how disconnected the 'bike routes' are, but as a rout planner, it's no better than a regular map, and considering it's small scale, worse than some.

I just use a regular street map (i like Bikely now, as it gives an elevation diagram too), and plan my route for highest efficiency, and it's usually the same route I'd choose if I drove the car. Recreational rides, I plan my route for most fun, but still with the regular map.

edit: I ride my bike vehicularly, but don't follow the VC religion.

[buzzman]

Derath

once again, thanks for your thoughtful and honest posts.

You've clarified some of what I was not understanding in your previous post.

Regarding analogies I could argue that while a bike and a car are have similarities drawing on them for accurate analogies in these threads has been counterproductive.

I understand that you are not a "hard-core VC'er" and appreciate your answering in their stead. I would venture that they might take issue with something I want to ask about- you use the expression "feel safe". When others have used that term often the argument in response is that it is subjective ie. "I feel safe when I wear a helmet." "I feel safer in a bike lane." "I feel safer on a bike path." all of which is subject to criticism when weighed against facts, statistics and their interpretation- and, again, the dialogue stops there. "Feeling safe", it has been argued, is a state of mind and not a statement of fact.

You say, "I feel safe wherever I have ridden."

Tonight I could choose to ride my bike 40 miles but it's dark, the winds are gusting to 60 mph, there is a steady and, at times, torrential downpour. I would not feel "safe" riding on most roads on my bike.(not that it isn't doable- I've done it on many an occasion in even worse conditions) I would feel "safer" driving that 40 miles in my car but I would not feel as "safe" as I would during a bright dry day.

Do you only ride when weather conditions and light are so favorable? Sometimes I ride in to work and it's gorgeous only to have to ride home in quite the opposite conditions- I choose a different route because it feels "safer" to me- am I being unreasonable?

Do you ever feel "unsafe"? And why? And if automobiles and bicycles are so analogous why do weather conditions alter when someone might choose to use one or what route they take- as evidenced by so many in "How was your commute today?". I don't think it's just a matter of "comfort" or "enjoyable" but "safety". For example a nicely plowed bike path beats sharing a road with sliding automobiles on a snowy evening for "feeling safe"- but, again, it's subjective though my guess is that statistics might support that feeling.

I really am perplexed by the "I feel safe wherever I ride"- *it's yet another blanket statement that feels patently untrue and closes the dialogue. I use my sense of "safe" versus "not safe" as a barometer of where and when to ride.

*edited for clarity

[buzzman]

I more or less agree that 'every lane is a bike lane', which is not to say that there aren't some that you'd choose to avoid.

a statement that people "more or less agree" with or that requires caveats like "not...that there aren't some you'd choose to avoid" hardly builds my confidence in the statement as the kind of truism I see it used as in these forums.

I also could claim to riding vehicularly but not an adherent to it as a religion but as I read these threads I resist admitting that because I have no desire to be associated with the faithful.:o

[Allister]

a statement that people "more or less agree" with or that requires caveats like "not...that there aren't some you'd choose to avoid" hardly builds my confidence in the statement as the kind of truism I see it used as in these forums.

The point is that not everyone will want to jump right into merging across busy multi-lane roads (for example) on their first day out. But as experience grows, it becomes less daunting. No lane is out of bounds to bikes, but it may take a while to get there.

Whether it's a 'truism' or not is something I care not to debate, as I don't care either way.

[buzzman]

The point is that not everyone will want to jump right into merging across busy multi-lane roads (for example) on their first day out. But as experience grows, it becomes less daunting. No lane is out of bounds to bikes, but it may take a while to get there.

Whether it's a 'truism' or not is something I care not to debate, as I don't care either way.

My guess is that many cyclists may never want to have to develop the skills, speed and tactics necessary to cross multiple lanes and would choose to not cycle rather than face that reality.

When faulty "truisms" like "every lane is a bike lane" are used to argue against options like bike lanes and bike paths that might provide alternatives for those cyclists I do care.

And I am a cyclist that merges across multi-lane roads pretty much daily. My wife, who also commutes by bike, avoids those circumstances like the plague despite having commuted (primarily on a bike path) for several years.

[derath]

Wow, this thread has had the best dialog for an A&S thread I have seen in a long time.

Hmm, "feeling safe" Maybe it isn't the best way to describe it. Feeling safe is largely an illusion, since something can come by and smack you down in a heartbeat. But let me see if I can clarify.

I ride in varying conditions. Usually nice, but I have ridden in less than stellar weather. I take the same route regardless (due to distance I have little choice).

I will also go back to driving. I am an IT consultant so when I am not in the office (or working from home) I am gong to client sites, 99% are too far to bike to. So I put a larger than average amount of miles in my car as well. And that is driving done in fair to horrible traffic conditions (the Baltimore Washington DC corridor can have some nasty traffic). I keep a high level of situational awareness when I both drive and cycle. If asked I can usually at any moment describe exactly what is around me and my likely "escape route" should I need to quickly get out of the way. This isn't done out of fear, in fact I don't even think about it. It is just a habit born from techniques I learned from my dad when first learning to drive.

In addition to this situational awareness, I also position myself to maximize my "options" One of the problems of sometimes cycling way to the right is you cut off your manovering options. Similarily in my car I pick a lane usually for it's safety, not it's speed.

Similarily, I will pick routes (again both in the car and on the bike) depending on time of day, weather conditions etc to maximize my safety I would think that is just common sense.

I think part of the problem especially in a forum such as this, is that examples can be given and taken as blanket statements even when they aren't. The difficulty lies in the fact that in order to explain things fully often you end up with posts so long nobody would read them.

Hope this clarifies.

-D

[Bekologist]

"every lane is a bike lane" fallacious VC 'talking point' that undermines planning for bicycling as transportation in the USA. A forestorite fallacy.

"If it's not safe for an 8 year old, IT'S NOT A BIKE LANE" the former Mayor of Bogota in reference to his city's accomodation plans for bicycling that have increased bicycling as transportation in one of the largest cities in the americas.

[buzzman]

I think part of the problem especially in a forum such as this, is that examples can be given and taken as blanket statements even when they aren't. The difficulty lies in the fact that in order to explain things fully often you end up with posts so long nobody would read them.

Hope this clarifies.

-D

thanks it does. Yeah, though your posts have been far more interesting to me than the short "sound bite" types that lead nowhere- worth reading. Perhaps because they seem relatively open minded.

I'm seeing a slight difference in perspective- I didn't learn to drive a car until I was over 18 (I started being pretty fanatical about riding a bike everywhere at age 15 and refused to get a license). I'd already ridden across the country a few times before I owned my first automobile. So my reference point for driving is in comparison to how I ride a bike and seldom the reverse.

I notice you tend to draw comparisons with how you drive- and here I am not making a judgement as to it's value- it seems to be working for you- but that's often a leap for me. I'm wondering if that could be one of the reasons I can't grasp some of what the VC zealots propose. It seems to be modeling cycling behavior more from an automobile paradigm than from a cycling one.

One last thought- I don't shy away from using the word "fear" to describe why I might not ride a certain road under certain conditions. "Fear" in more biological terms is simply adrenal cortical activity that through a chemical wash produces feelings of fear and anxiety. While experience reduces the feeling of "fear" the fear response is necessary to learn how to do certain complicated tasks. "Fear" can also be tied into our sense of responsibility. I tend to feel more "fearful" when I'm taking other less experienced riders out for a ride than when I solo. I think "fear" can be useful and instructive when properly managed. And I'm not afraid to admit it! :eek:

[Bekologist]

shoehorning bikes into the dystopian autocentric road model IS what VC is all about, buzzman.

planning for bicycles in the transportation mix is something altogther different.

[Allister]

When faulty "truisms" like "every lane is a bike lane" are used to argue against options like bike lanes and bike paths that might provide alternatives for those cyclists I do care.

Well I would certainly never argue that. Bike lanes and bike paths serve a valid function as much as any lane. It still doesn't reduce the validity of riding in any other lane.

[noisebeam]

The point is that not everyone will want to jump right into merging across busy multi-lane roads (for example) on their first day out. But as experience grows, it becomes less daunting. No lane is out of bounds to bikes, but it may take a while to get there.
When I started cycling again after many years off the bike, it was for commuting. I picked a route to/from work that minimized left turns from busy arterials. This route happened to have fewer bike lanes than an alternate route, but for me my biggest discomfort was merging across several lanes of fast busy traffic and once there trying to pick the gap to turn left on, which most often was a balance between the light turning yellow and opposing traffic stopping.

Al

[Helmet Head]

The simple point of saying or writing "every lane is a bike lane" is to counter contrary notions to that, such as:


Lanes that are not bike lanes are car lanes.
Cyclists needs their own space.
Roads without space for bikes are not appropriate for bicycling.


The statement obviously has some hyperbole in it - it's clearly not a truism. With respect to freeways, for example, there is no truth to it at all. Isn't this obvious? Does every invocation have to come with a clarifying footnote spelling all this out?

All it means is that regular traffic lanes on surface streets are just as appropriate for bicyclists to use as they are drivers of motor vehicles, subject to the same vehicular rules of road (including following speed positioning rules between intersections).

As far as the biking maps go - what they are most useful for to me is identifying where the bike paths are. But as far as identifying the most appropriate street routes - not so much. But, then, because of all of our mesas and canyons, routes in San Diego are probably determined much more by geography than in most other municipalities. There just aren't that many different ways to reasonably get from A to B.

[sbhikes]

There are many roads that even drivers of cars would like to avoid, and even fearless drivers of cars will avoid certain roads under certain circumstances. For example, yesterday laden with lumber I opted not to take the freeway and instead to take the quieter surface streets. I don't need a bunch of jackasses tailgaiting and getting all upset expecting a 4-cylinder POS truck burdened with lumber to act like race cars.

Is this fear? Is this anti-VC? Why is it any different if I select similar routes when I'm riding a similarly under-powered, more vulnerable bicycle? More vulnerable due to load. More vulnerable due to lack of mass. The only real difference is political.

[Helmet Head]

There are many roads that even drivers of cars would like to avoid, and even fearless drivers of cars will avoid certain roads under certain circumstances. For example, yesterday laden with lumber I opted not to take the freeway and instead to take the quieter surface streets. I don't need a bunch of jackasses tailgaiting and getting all upset expecting a 4-cylinder POS truck burdened with lumber to act like race cars.

Is this fear? Is this anti-VC? Why is it any different if I select similar routes when I'm riding a similarly under-powered, more vulnerable bicycle? More vulnerable due to load. More vulnerable due to lack of mass. The only real difference is political.
No, this is not anti-VC. There is nothing contrary to VC in the act of choosing a route based on all types of criteria that are appropriate to cycling.
You may start with the idea that you want to avoid traffic, but it won't work that way. More than motorists, you need a route with minimum stops and slow-downs, because these tire you as well as delay you. So you will ride the main streets because these are protected by Stop signs, have signals set in your favor , and have better sight distances at hazardous places, which are also the reasons that motorists choose these routes. You will separate from the main motor traffic if the route takes a short-cut over a hill where you would rather go a bit further around on the level, or if it goes over a section of road or bridge prohibited to you. --John Forester, Selecting a Route, Commuting and Utility Cycling, Effective Cycling, pp 390-391

[ghettocruiser]

Motorists choose main streets primarily based on reducing travel time.

Stop lights on arterials are timed based on cars and trucks traveling at or above speed limits that are generally 60-70kmh. On a bike this timing is unfeasible except during strong tailwinds, and I rarely realize any time savings on major arterials. In fact I often just end up rolling from red light to red light.

And this is not factoring in traffic back-ups, which tend to be the worst on major roads. The litmus test for this is that side streets in my area are overflowing with through-traffic taking short cuts to reduce travel time, despite the turn restrictions, traffic calming, and stop signs attempting to minimize this.

Another factor that puts most motorists on main roads that these streets most often offer freeway access, another useless attribute for non-motorized road users.

[buzzman]

...Bike lanes and bike paths serve a valid function as much as any lane. It still doesn't reduce the validity of riding in any other lane.

right on!- well put. You have altered my understanding of the expression- "every lane is a bike lane"- thanks. Used in that context it has a ring of truth for me. :)

[buzzman]

The simple point of saying or writing "every lane is a bike lane" is to counter contrary notions to that, such as:


Lanes that are not bike lanes are car lanes.
Cyclists needs their own space.
Roads without space for bikes are not appropriate for bicycling.



*Unlike Allister, who used the phrase to illuminate a perspective, you've helped make my original point- if you are using "every lane is a bike lane"- as an "invocation":rolleyes: it is being used to stop the dialogue or as you put it "to counter contrary notions". The phrase, as you state in your post, is not entirely "true", it's inaccurate (and not just about freeways) and when used in the context of an argument it's function is to basically shut down discussion not to provide any logical discourse.

I do not spend nearly as much time in A & S as you do but I can't say I've seen the argument made that "lanes that are not bike lanes are car lanes". I have yet to see any of the posters who challenge your "invocations" to make such a blanket statement. I can imagine some drivers having that kind of mistaken notion but most bicyclists interested in cycling advocacy and safety are not quite so limited in their thinking. If that statement were true then all of those who counter your notions would ride only in bike lanes and nowhere else. I see no evidence of that in these threads.

Please pardon my thick skull but as to your other points:

"Cyclists need their own space"? Since you seem to be providing this statement as an example of a "contrary notion". What is it contrary to?- cyclists should have no space? Space should be provided for cars, trucks and other motor vehicles but not for cyclists? There should be no bike racks? No bike rooms? Or is it just on the road they shouldn't have their own space? Cyclists shouldn't fight for any consideration of space? And when you occupy a travel lane is that not a cyclist needing (and taking) their own space? Or do you believe those are "car lanes" that cyclists get to share if there are no cars in them?

And finally- "Roads without space for bikes are not appropriate for bicycling". Again, forgive me my dense dull brain but you've got to be much clearer about exactly what you mean when applying this "contrary notion" to those who challenge your thinking- 'cause I don't get it. "Roads without space for bikes...?" I could take this to mean that a road with high speed, high volume, traffic with narrow lanes, no outside lanes and no shoulder with frequent merges and exits might not be the best of routes for a cyclist. Hmmm, I guess if I were designing a bike map or suggesting a route to a fellow cyclist I might take those things into consideration and yes, I might say that particular road is "not appropriate for bicycling".

Of that I am guilty as charged!:eek: I'm feeling really badly that I haven't sent my fellow cyclists off to ride such roads and have instead suggested routes with more accomodating infrastructure- WOL, bike lanes, less traffic volume or even, god forbid, bike paths and MUP's.

Be forewarned!- Any cyclist in BF who asks for route advice from me will be subject to my "fear based notions" should I suggest a route from point A to B. I am one of those irresponsible cyclists who actually believes that some routes are indeed "safer" for cycling than others.:)

and I appreciate those who take the time to produce maps with suggested routes- it often saves me a lot of time and trouble.

*edited to, hopefully, provide some clarity

[Allister]

Be forewarned!- Any cyclist in BF who asks for route advice from me will be subject to my "fear based notions" should I suggest a route from point A to B. I am one of those irresponsible cyclists who actually believes that some routes are indeed "safer" for cycling than others.:)


The thing is, in their crusade to allay any fears about riding in traffic, the VC cultists, like our friend Serge here, have gone the other way and now perpetuate fears about riding in bike lanes instead. Neither view is particularly useful.

There's nothing wrong with choosing a safer route. To be honest though, I don't think that VC really has anything to do with preferring one route over another. It's merely a method of riding on whichever route you do choose. Frankly, Serge isn't the best person to ask about VC techniques.

[buzzman]

The thing is, in their crusade to allay any fears about riding in traffic, the VC cultists, like our friend Serge here, have gone the other way and now perpetuate fears about riding in bike lanes instead. Neither view is particularly useful.

Agreed. It's the crusade-like mentality that boggles my mind and puts them in a position of making what Serge refers to as "invocations" many of which are based on false premises and wishful thinking not on reality.

There's nothing wrong with choosing a safer route. To be honest though, I don't think that VC really has anything to do with preferring one route over another. It's merely a method of riding on whichever route you do choose. Frankly, Serge isn't the best person to ask about VC techniques.

But so often in these threads the argument comes down to not only how we ride but where we ride. And much of contemporary Advocacy, particularly in the States and in our urban areas road design and transportation infrastructure are being re-thought. In that case route selection becomes a primary issue and understanding what makes a better route for a cyclist provides models for redesign of the system. I often see the "VC" argument made as a resistance to new infrastructure with arguments like "we have all the bike paths we need they're called roads." Like the bike lane phrase somewhere beneath the hyperbole is a small grain of truth but it's buried under a castle of sand that won't stand up to logic.

My limited understanding of "VC" is that it is merely one of several means of integrating a bicyclist into the existing traffic paradigm, which tends to be autocentric, and has limited application on bike paths, and needs redefining with regards bike paths and transportation infrastructures that focus more on alternative means of transportation or, better yet, should not be applied in those cirumstances at all.

[rando]

By Jove, Buzzman, I think you've got it! nice thread.

[Allister]

My limited understanding of "VC" is that it is merely one of several means of integrating a bicyclist into the existing traffic paradigm, which tends to be autocentric, and has limited application on bike paths, and needs redefining with regards bike paths and transportation infrastructures that focus more on alternative means of transportation or, better yet, should not be applied in those cirumstances at all.

The VC that is preached here, particularly by our favourite preacher, says that not only should bikes integrate into the existing traffic system, but that any facitilities specific for bikes are too contrary to the existing traffic system to be safe, and actively discourage them.

What they should be doing is encouraging integration, but also encouraging better designed bike facilities that are not contrary to the existing traffic system. Whether they like it or not, people like bike specific facilities. If we must have them, let's do them well.

[buzzman]

... people like bike specific facilities. If we must have them, let's do them well.

absolutely. I don't understand why it's so hard for some to grasp that very simple and effective concept.

[TheWheelman]

First: a couple of hard-core VC mantras that I find, at the very least, confusing-

a) Every lane is a bike lane.

b) We have all the bike paths we need- they're called roads.

IF the above are true then all cyclists would have no need for special bike maps in order to plan their routes be it recreational, transportational, commuting or otherwise because ANY up to date road map would have the route information they needed and VC techniques like steely eyed glances and lane positioning would ensure a cyclist's safety on ANY road.


But many of us have preferred routes and avoid certain roads. So, for us, not every lane is a bike lane. And there are bike trails (here in MA it's the Ashuwillticook, Minute Man, and Cape Cod Rail Trails that come to my mind) that are often a preferable alternative to roads.


Despite 4 decades of riding on Massachusetts and New England roads I still grab the Rubel Bike Maps (http://www.bikemaps.com/) to plan out some of my rides and find it enormously useful. n.b.- John Allen, no stranger to VC, is a contributor to Rubel Bike Maps.

How do you hard-core VC'ers plan your routes? And if you do have preferred routes- why? If every lane is a bike lane is every road equally desirable for you to ride on?

I'm really asking this in all seriousness. I've followed these endless debates for a couple of years now but have yet to see how blanket statements like the two I've cited above leave any room for dialogue.

The Tom Frost Bicyclists' Rights Triad www.newmilfordbikie.com/Triad.htm (under which a bicycle is a vehicle and therefore a bicyclist has the same rights and duties as any other vehicle operator and there are no exceptions) does not require a cyclist to obtain any route-planning info other than ordinary convenience-store highway maps. On about two-thirds of my long tours, these have served me amply well: They serve real cyclists amply well by 1) accurately showing all of the bigoted roads as "limited access", and 2) generally showing alternative routes where the bigoted roads do occur. That's the only "special" route-planning info that a cyclist needs (and the only reason that a cyclist even needs that much is because of official discrimination, and a lack of available hacksawmen, such as the PennDOT-authorized one - and I stress, we must _only_ use _authorized_ hacksawmen - that recently got a new one of these bigoted signs removed from a certain rt. 11 on-ramp in Scranton for me).

The _other_ third of the time - namely, when a bike trip includes a place where the map _doesn't_ show a bigoted road segment as limited access, but rather, deceives the cyclist into going right to it _and_ doesn't show an alternative route - that's the fault of the mapmaker (in addition to, of the highway department that put up the bigoted sign) and not of the cyclist, and therefore, the cyclist (having already done all of the route-planning work that the Triad requires) has a Triadal right to ignore bigoted signs to the extent necessary for fulfilling his Common-Law Right to Travel.

In short, although it would probably be fun to get specialized cyclist-inferiority-cycling maps and use them for finding the various hotspots at which to make anatomical observations of rollerbladers of the opposite sex, that wouldn't serve too useful of a function for transportational cycling. And therefore, ordinary convenience-store highway maps are all that I've ever bothered with.

Well, except: I did rip out a Delorme's Atlas page one time to take along, on a trip that would include, for the third time, one particular hard-to-find-the-alternative-route-to bigoted stretch - namely, of N.Y. 17 between Hancock and rt. 30 - after I'd failed on the first two trips to find the alternative route and therefore ignored the bigoted sign on the rt. 17 on-ramp those two times, and gotten pulled over by a pair of cops the second time.

And what makes the Delorme's Atlas acceptable is that, like the other common-man's maps (recommended above for the other 99% of situations), it's non-bicycle-specific. A textbook example of this is that I _knew_ - correctly as it turned out - while cycling past the above-mentioned hard-to-find-the-alternative-route-to bigoted stretch of N.Y. 17, _not_ to follow the road with the "Bike Route 17" sign. Sure enough, I confirmed later that the implication of the name "Bike Route 17" (the implication being: it's for cyclists wishing to follow the rt. 17 corridor) is a lie. "Bike Route 17" takes you _way_ _away_ from the rt. 17 corridor! Such is the incompetence (caught by my mere intuition, saving me a lot of miles) of the faction of the cycling community that squeezes in at the public trough for treat-cyclists-special route-planning pork.

[Bekologist]

it's not a conflict for vehicular cyclists to choose a pleasant route based on facilities or traffic volume.

insistence a road with 2,000 vehicles a day and a road with 120,000 vehicles a day are equal in terms of riding is nothing short of folly.

insistence roads are all the same for bicycling is worthless political rights posturing of the 'vc' and their 'vehicular parity' platform.

vehicular bicyclists can choose pleasant roads to ride on; many of us do. a bicycling specific map makes the process easier.

[Helmet Head]

The VC that is preached here, particularly by our favourite preacher, says that not only should bikes integrate into the existing traffic system, but that any facitilities specific for bikes are too contrary to the existing traffic system to be safe, and actively discourage them.

In case you're talking about me, I have never said that "any facilities specific for bikes are too contrary to the existing traffic system to be safe". However, I do discourage the implementation of those bike specific facilities that are contrary to the existing traffic system. If they exist, I do not discourage their proper use, when appropriate, despite their drawbacks. I teach their proper use. A big part of the on-road training is teaching proper use of bike lanes as they approach and intersect junctions and intersections with streets, driveways and alleys.


What they should be doing is encouraging integration, but also encouraging better designed bike facilities that are not contrary to the existing traffic system.

That's exactly what I do.

[Helmet Head]

*Unlike Allister, who used the phrase to illuminate a perspective, you've helped make my original point- if you are using "every lane is a bike lane"- as an "invocation":rolleyes: it is being used to stop the dialogue or as you put it "to counter contrary notions". The phrase, as you state in your post, is not entirely "true", it's inaccurate (and not just about freeways) and when used in the context of an argument it's function is to basically shut down discussion not to provide any logical discourse.
Do you have any examples of any actual discussions where this phrase was used to shut them down?
I've always thought of the phrase as providing "food for thought", quite contrary to being a discussion ender.


I do not spend nearly as much time in A & S as you do but I can't say I've seen the argument made that "lanes that are not bike lanes are car lanes".

I think there was one recently, but that's beside the point. It's not the argument that "lanes that are not bike lanes are car lanes" that is being addressed with "every lane is a bike lane" (what a lame counter-argument that would be!), it is the unstated implicit premise that is being addressed. Here is a post from '01 that illustrates the point:

Two of my many close calls were with other cyclists. The first, which occurred soon after I started cycling at the age of 67, was with a cyclist coming toward me on the wrong side (his left) of the street. I didn't know what to do, but I thought that he would move to his right to pass me, as we customarily do in this country. I never dreamed that he might be playing chicken with me, but he was. I was barely able to miss him. He rode on by, laughing maniacally. Since then I move out into the car lane when I meet a wrong way cyclist. It's safer out there.
Here the term "car lane" is used to refer to the part of the roadway that this cyclist normally avoids, except now when he moves "out into" it when he meets a wrong way cyclist.

Here is another much more recent usage, from last month:

Someone locally brought up that the way one particular bike lane starts is not in standard design books. Well the problem is this bike lane is starting when a car lane ends so there is a diagonal line indicating the car lane merge and the bike lane on the other side of this diagonal.
Here, the term "car lane" is used to refer to the regular traffic lane, to differentiate from the "bike lane". There is no argument presented here that "lanes that are not bike lanes are 'car lanes'" - but that's what is clearly implied by such usage.


I have yet to see any of the posters who challenge your "invocations" to make such a blanket statement. I can imagine some drivers having that kind of mistaken notion but most bicyclists interested in cycling advocacy and safety are not quite so limited in their thinking. If that statement were true then all of those who counter your notions would ride only in bike lanes and nowhere else. I see no evidence of that in these threads.
Oh, I don't think anyone here does that, of course. I just think it's important to remember that all lanes are for the use of bicyclists as appropriate, same as for any driver of any vehicle, including any ramifications stemming from being relatively narrow and slow moving, if and when they apply.


Please pardon my thick skull but as to your other points:

"Cyclists need their own space"? Since you seem to be providing this statement as an example of a "contrary notion". What is it contrary to?- cyclists should have no space? Space should be provided for cars, trucks and other motor vehicles but not for cyclists? There should be no bike racks? No bike rooms? Or is it just on the road they shouldn't have their own space? Cyclists shouldn't fight for any consideration of space? And when you occupy a travel lane is that not a cyclist needing (and taking) their own space? Or do you believe those are "car lanes" that cyclists get to share if there are no cars in them?
I've heard this phrase, "cyclists need their own space", used by local bike advocates, and it's contrary to the notion that every lane is a bike lane.

Space should be provided for drivers of vehicles, which includes bicyclists. Bicyclists don't require any additional space that is specific to them. If anything, we require only a small percentage of the roadway space that is out there already.

As far as I know, the phrase has nothing to do with non-travel bike-specific facilities like bike racks. It's all about bicyclists having their own dedicated space for use while traveling (be it WOLs or, preferably, bike lanes or bike paths).


And finally- "Roads without space for bikes are not appropriate for bicycling". Again, forgive me my dense dull brain but you've got to be much clearer about exactly what you mean when applying this "contrary notion" to those who challenge your thinking- 'cause I don't get it. "Roads without space for bikes...?" I could take this to mean that a road with high speed, high volume, traffic with narrow lanes, no outside lanes and no shoulder with frequent merges and exits might not be the best of routes for a cyclist. Hmmm, I guess if I were designing a bike map or suggesting a route to a fellow cyclist I might take those things into consideration and yes, I might say that particular road is "not appropriate for bicycling".

Of that I am guilty as charged!:eek: I'm feeling really badly that I haven't sent my fellow cyclists off to ride such roads and have instead suggested routes with more accomodating infrastructure- WOL, bike lanes, less traffic volume or even, god forbid, bike paths and MUP's.
"Roads without space for bikes" means any road without space that bicyclists could use without interfering with other traffic. While such a road is not ideal for the cyclist who chooses not to ride where riding requires him to interfere with other traffic flow, I believe cyclists should not be required to make such choices. I think it's important in bicycling advocacy to encourage cyclists to ride on all kinds of roads, including "roads without space for bikes". The idea that such roads "are not appropriate for bicycling" is contrary to the interests of cycling advocacy, it seems to me. And that's what saying "every lane is a bike lane" is supposed to emphasize.

[sbhikes]

Motorists choose main streets primarily based on reducing travel time.

And secondarily because they are sheep.

I hate congestion. I've got all kinds of secret alternative routes worked out where I can escape congestion and get around all these plodders in their over-sized farm equipment and military vehicles.

Have I fallen into some kind of anti-VC trap because I use alternative routes with my motorized transport?

So why is my choice of route valued any different when on a bicycle? Is it because my choice is based on a self-righteous need to dominate the sheep with my superior route choosing abilities?

What if I told you I just prefer to drive a quieter street with less chance of an accident? Then would I be scoffed at like I am for choosing bicycle routes for the same reason?

[buzzman]

Helmet Head thank you for your very specific response to my post. Rather than get into a back and forth with you over the details of your post- something I have found to be a dead end in the past. I'll try to briefly respond by pointing out two phrases that make it difficult for me, and I believe others are challenged by this, to have any progressive dialogue with you on certain issues:

... it is the unstated implicit premise that is being addressed...but that's what is clearly implied by such usage.

The phrases of yours quoted above are your way of reshaping what someone said to suit your argument. Your point that:

the term "car lane" is used to refer to the regular traffic lane, to differentiate from the "bike lane"- that seems like an accurate interpretation of what the poster meant but you stretch it into what you take as an implied meaning because it better suits your argument. I agree with you that the term "traffic lane" would be a more appropriate description but would not assume that the posters use of the expression "car lane" meant anything more than that.

Do you have any examples of any actual discussions where this phrase was used to shut them down?
I've always thought of the phrase as providing "food for thought", quite contrary to being a discussion ender.

Uh, yeah, actually I do. You gave me a perfect one.

"Roads without space for bikes" means any road without space that bicyclists could use without interfering with other traffic. While such a road is not ideal for the cyclist who chooses not to ride where riding requires him to interfere with other traffic flow, I believe cyclists should not be required to make such choices. I think it's important in bicycling advocacy to encourage cyclists to ride on all kinds of roads, including "roads without space for bikes". The idea that such roads "are not appropriate for bicycling" is contrary to the interests of cycling advocacy, it seems to me. And that's what saying "every lane is a bike lane" is supposed to emphasize.

You've just told me that my opinion that certain roads may not always be appropriate for bicycling is contrary to the interests of cycling advocacy. And used that phrase for emphasis- pretty much "end of discussion" so far as I can tell.

Thanks for supplying me with such a stellar example.:)

[buzzman]

The Tom Frost Bicyclists' Rights Triad www.newmilfordbikie.com/Triad.htm (under which a bicycle is a vehicle and therefore a bicyclist has the same rights and duties as any other vehicle operator and there are no exceptions) does not require a cyclist to obtain any route-planning info other than ordinary convenience-store highway maps. On about two-thirds of my long tours, these have served me amply well: They serve real cyclists amply well by 1) accurately showing all of the bigoted roads as "limited access", and 2) generally showing alternative routes where the bigoted roads do occur. That's the only "special" route-planning info that a cyclist needs (and the only reason that a cyclist even needs that much is because of official discrimination, and a lack of available hacksawmen, such as the PennDOT-authorized one - and I stress, we must _only_ use _authorized_ hacksawmen - that recently got a new one of these bigoted signs removed from a certain rt. 11 on-ramp in Scranton for me).

The _other_ third of the time - namely, when a bike trip includes a place where the map _doesn't_ show a bigoted road segment as limited access, but rather, deceives the cyclist into going right to it _and_ doesn't show an alternative route - that's the fault of the mapmaker (in addition to, of the highway department that put up the bigoted sign) and not of the cyclist, and therefore, the cyclist (having already done all of the route-planning work that the Triad requires) has a Triadal right to ignore bigoted signs to the extent necessary for fulfilling his Common-Law Right to Travel.

In short, although it would probably be fun to get specialized cyclist-inferiority-cycling maps and use them for finding the various hotspots at which to make anatomical observations of rollerbladers of the opposite sex, that wouldn't serve too useful of a function for transportational cycling. And therefore, ordinary convenience-store highway maps are all that I've ever bothered with.

Well, except: I did rip out a Delorme's Atlas page one time to take along, on a trip that would include, for the third time, one particular hard-to-find-the-alternative-route-to bigoted stretch - namely, of N.Y. 17 between Hancock and rt. 30 - after I'd failed on the first two trips to find the alternative route and therefore ignored the bigoted sign on the rt. 17 on-ramp those two times, and gotten pulled over by a pair of cops the second time.

And what makes the Delorme's Atlas acceptable is that, like the other common-man's maps (recommended above for the other 99% of situations), it's non-bicycle-specific. A textbook example of this is that I _knew_ - correctly as it turned out - while cycling past the above-mentioned hard-to-find-the-alternative-route-to bigoted stretch of N.Y. 17, _not_ to follow the road with the "Bike Route 17" sign. Sure enough, I confirmed later that the implication of the name "Bike Route 17" (the implication being: it's for cyclists wishing to follow the rt. 17 corridor) is a lie. "Bike Route 17" takes you _way_ _away_ from the rt. 17 corridor! Such is the incompetence (caught by my mere intuition, saving me a lot of miles) of the faction of the cycling community that squeezes in at the public trough for treat-cyclists-special route-planning pork.

WHAM! POW! WOW! HOLY CRAP WHEELMAN! What a post! complete not just with invocations ("does not require"-what a relief!) but with a Triad!

You have such an interesting amalgam of VC Foresterlite and yet am I detecting a distinct "anti-motorist" tone to your message? You bad boy, you.

In any case, I've highlighted some stuff I found of interest. While you seem to saying that there is "cyclist inferiority" somehow, dare I say, implied in using a bike specific map you grant bicyclists a kind of victim-like status with your use of words like "bigoted", "discrimination".

Well, speak for yourself. This cyclist ain't no victim being discriminated against and suffering from bigotry. I save those words for the real thing, which unfortunately this world offers in abundance in a much harsher form than any cyclist has ever experienced for being on a bicycle.

With regards "convenience store maps" on my first cross US cycling trip I used such maps and while the ride was spectacular I was so disappointed with my route choices I vowed to do it again using better maps and, wherever possible, cycling specific maps. The next two times I rode across I did so and had a much better experience with regards my route choice. But for those of you who enjoy convenience stores, strip malls, shopping centers, motor inns and America's autocentric "scenic highways"- graciously paid for with millions of Congressional pork-like dollars over America's forests, small villages, youth hostels, campgrounds and backroads then I highly recommend the convenience store map that points out all the conveniences an American automobilist would enjoy.:)

[TheWheelman]

I understand that The Triad has been absorbed by the Pentaverate (http://www.moviequotes.com/fullquote.cgi?qnum=63119).

Not for those of us who aren't sellouts like you.

[TheWheelman]

You have such an interesting amalgam of VC Foresterlite and yet am I detecting a distinct "anti-motorist" tone to your message? You bad boy, you.

I've got teflon against Forester's Anti-Anti-Car-Advocate McCarthyism Committee, despite my having been questioning it on Chainguard for several years. The polarizers here on BikeForums, which I've just detected evidence you might be one of, wouldn't know how.

[buzzman]

I've got teflon against Forester's Anti-Anti-Car-Advocate McCarthyism Committee, despite my having been questioning it on Chainguard for several years. The polarizers here on BikeForums, which I've just detected evidence you might be one of, wouldn't know how.


yes, I am obviously a part of the vast conspiracy against you.:rolleyes:

[Bekologist]

the anti-ANTI-car-advocate McCarthy commitee?

:roflmao:

a SMART vehicular cyclist will take heed of the data on a bike-specific map if one is available.

[TheWheelman]

I'm feeling kind towards crazy people tonight so I'll ask you a question, ok?

Why exactly am I a sellout? What exactly did I do to "sellout"? What do you have against the Pentaverate?

Bonus points if you can answer in 50 words or less. Extra, extra bonus points if you can answer without using any underscores.

Good luck!

1. _I_ _don't_ _want_ _points_ _from_ _you_. _You're_ _not_ _my_ _teacher_.

2. In part of the mission statement of the Effective Cycling League in the late 1980s, John Forester wrote that cyclists have "sold their birthright for a mess of pottage". He was referring to the faction of the cycling community that grovels for treat-cyclists-special facilities. That's an accurate enough description of a Foresterian-hater such as I've observed you to be, and "sellout" is more succinct than "sold their birthright for a mess of pottage".

3. Please list, for those of us who haven't seen the movie, what if anything the Pentaverate has done for cyclists.

[TheWheelman]

So, according to some crazy guy I grovel for "treat-cyclists-special facilities"?

Where do you come up with this craziness?

p.s. I don't hate John Forester. I pity him. Big difference!



I could tell you, but then I would have to kill you. This Pentaverate stuff is very serious business after all.

I probably could apply to the Pentaverate for dispensation to send you a summary in the form of a .pdf.

If they grant me approval (I have some connections with senior advisers to the Pentaverate) would you like me to send you the .pdf?

p.s NO BONUS POINTS FOR YOU! You'll just have to pay full price for your next Happy Meal.

I've got a better idea: Obtain the pdf and then _don't_ send it to me. That way I can just buy a popcorn and continue to sit here pitying _you_ for killing _yourself_. Killing yourself not by your association with the Pentaverate, but rather by your pdf-opening, and associated lack of any real-world, skills.

[rando]

WTF?
it gets crazier (and funnier) in here every day.

I sold my pottage for a stem extender and and some tire levers the other day.

[Helmet Head]

I've got a better idea: Obtain the pdf and then _don't_ send it to me. That way I can just buy a popcorn and continue to sit here pitying _you_ for killing _yourself_. Killing yourself not by your association with the Pentaverate, but rather by your pdf-opening, and associated lack of any real-world, skills.
I'm sorry, but is there something potentially undesirable that might happen as a result of opening a PDF file that I'm not aware of? I know WORD (.doc) and other Microsoft brain dead formats have idiotic features, like the ability to embed instructions inside a document that is intended for viewing, that can be easily exploited by the nefarious, but I'm unaware of Adobe's PDF format being so afflicted.

Why would anyone not just download a free Adobe Acrobat viewer? They have them for just about any platform.

[TheWheelman]

Thank you for the important information about how I am killing myself by opening .pdfs. How many .pdfs does one have to open before they become fatal?

Tens of thousands fewer than the number of BK Bacon Double Cheeseburgers that a real cyclist can eat per decade without fear of fatal effects. But thanks for reminding me to renew my support for KFC too. The catering-to-the-granola/pdf faction tendency of specialized bike maps, to fail to show where the various common-man's joints are, is just one more example of why I rely almost exclusively on ordinary, catering-to-the-common-man, convenience-store maps.

[noisebeam]

If you desire to nearly kill your system with a pdf, try opening one of the two maps I provided links to in Post#2 of this thread: http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=5569755&postcount=2

Mr. TheWheelman, you are not going to find a map like the 2nd one in any convenience store. A map useful to even the most VC of folks. A map published by the Arizona Department of Transportation that says:
"The main idea of positioning yourself to be seen is to ride in the portion of the
lane where it is most likely that you will be seen. Although the laws require a
bicyclist to ride as far to the right as practicable, there will be cases where it is
both legal and safer to move towards the center of the lane."
and
"When cyclists remember to follow the same "rules of the road" as
motorists, both know what to expect of each other and can
cooperate in sharing of the road"

Al

[I-Like-To-Bike]

I'm sorry, but is there something potentially undesirable that might happen as a result of opening a PDF file that I'm not aware of?
You take the Wheelman seriously? Good Lord; he is nuttier than a fruit cake!