La Jolla Village Drive between Torrey Pines Road and Regents Road at commute times (e/b in the morning, w/b in the evening).

It's really not that bad, but I hardly ever see any other cyclists ride there at those times, and when I tell folks I do it they tell me I'm crazy, even experienced cyclists tell me that.

What do they tell you when you don't tell them where you ride?

Speedo

Closetbiker- Congratulations and good job.

HH- Can you post some photos of your lane positioning in action on some of the toughest streets you ride? While it certainly isn't hard to imagine what it would look like, I think photos would be of great interest to many. (In a new thread of course)

I want to make it clear that I am in no way doubting your claims of how or where you ride, but am genuinely interested in seeing it in action.
I don't know when I'll get around to getting photos much less video taken of myself riding in traffic, but the work done by Dan and Brian is excellent and illustrates exactly what I'm talking about.

Here are a couple of good links:

Lane Position (http://www.cyclistview.com/laneposition.htm)

Lane Control (http://www.cyclistview.com/lanecontrol.htm)

What do they tell you when you don't tell them where you ride?

Speedo
Ha ha.

I don't know when I'll get around to getting photos much less video taken of myself riding in traffic, but the work done by Dan and Brian is excellent and illustrates exactly what I'm talking about.

Here are a couple of good links:

Lane Position (http://www.cyclistview.com/laneposition.htm)

Lane Control (http://www.cyclistview.com/lanecontrol.htm)

I hate that website and the people that make it... although, I guess you WOULD fit right in with their holier than thou attitudes.

I hate that website and the people that make it... although, I guess you WOULD fit right in with their holier than thou attitudes.
Do you know Dan and/or Brian well enough to hate them?
I consider both of them friends of mine. Brian evaluated me at my LCI seminar, and Dan even crashed at my house once. They are both outstanding human beings, so far as I can tell.

Closetbiker, good pic, nice helmet, jersey and alpha dog stare =]
The article wasn't that bad either.
Now you'll get to see yourself in that rag whenever there is a piece on cycling.

how about that jersey! Vintage wool. It's my favorite.

Socks are all bunched up though. I must be a Fred.

Pete,

The percentage of the population that is comfortable with riding a bike in in all kinds of traffic is represented by a fraction of existing cyclists. Some of the most experienced cyclists in San Diego see where I ride and send their condolences. They think I'm crazy. Very few existing cyclists dare to ride where I ride.

What I'm trying to explain are the techniques and practices that I use that make it possible for me to ride where hardly anyone else dares to ride.

But if you're one of the rare cyclists, like myself, who is comfortable riding his bike on any road in any kind of traffic, then none of my advice applies to you. But if that's really you, then that puts you in, sadly, a small minority of cyclists, and a tiny minority of the population at large. As a cycling advocate, that's what I'm trying to address through the techiques and practices that I advocate on this forum.

I don't mean to feed the hijack of this thread, after all I liked the picture and it's so cool when you find yourself "representing" for other cyclists and I feel you did a good job and obviously positively influenced the author of the piece- which was a pretty good little piece but the above post simply cannot go by without comment.

First of all it doesn't really make any sense to me so maybe I'm reading it wrong but if the way and where I was riding was so unappealing to other cyclists that they would send me condolences I would seriously question fighting such an uphill battle- to what purpose?

Secondly it's the use of the word "dare". I also mountain bike and I ride with some pretty intense mountain bikers and they do things I would never "dare" to do. I wish I had the technique and practice that they have to do the things they do but I just don't "dare" to do it. I've often thought of taking two or three months and try to learn it but I don't want to give up my road riding time in order to develop the skills and admit to a little fear factor. I call those guys "crazy" but it's a term of respect and envy.

But if you're riding on high volume, high speed, narrow roads it's not a matter of "dare", I've ridden thousands of miles on those kinds of roads, and at this point it's not that I don't "dare" to ride on them I just don't "want" to- who in their right mind would want to? I hate to be the one to tell you this HH but they think you're crazy not because it's something they'd love to have the skill to do they think you're crazy because they just don't see the point. Throwing down the VC gauntlet as a "dare" is like an adolescent peer pressure.

Take another look at this statement if it reads like this:

"Some of the most experienced cyclists in San Diego see where I ride and send their condolences. They think I'm crazy. Very few existing cyclists [want] to ride where I ride.

What I'm trying to explain are the techniques and practices that I use that make it possible for me to ride where hardly anyone else [wants] to ride."

All I can say is, "Great, good for you... ride where you want to ride. But you're deluding yourself if you're thinking you're a cycling advocate by harranguing cyclists endlessly to do something they don't want to do.

I don't mean to feed the hijack of this thread, after all I liked the picture and it's so cool when you find yourself "representing" for other cyclists and I feel you did a good job and obviously positively influenced the author of the piece- which was a pretty good little piece but the above post simply cannot go by without comment.

First of all it doesn't really make any sense to me so maybe I'm reading it wrong but if the way and where I was riding was so unappealing to other cyclists that they would send me condolences I would seriously question fighting such an uphill battle- to what purpose?

Secondly it's the use of the word "dare". I also mountain bike and I ride with some pretty intense mountain bikers and they do things I would never "dare" to do. I wish I had the technique and practice that they have to do the things they do but I just don't "dare" to do it. I've often thought of taking two or three months and try to learn it but I don't want to give up my road riding time in order to develop the skills and admit to a little fear factor. I call those guys "crazy" but it's a term of respect and envy.

But if you're riding on high volume, high speed, narrow roads it's not a matter of "dare", I've ridden thousands of miles on those kinds of roads, and at this point it's not that I don't "dare" to ride on them I just don't "want" to- who in their right mind would want to? I hate to be the one to tell you this HH but they think you're crazy not because it's something they'd love to have the skill to do they think you're crazy because they just don't see the point. Throwing down the VC gauntlet as a "dare" is like an adolescent peer pressure.

Take another look at this statement if it reads like this:

"Some of the most experienced cyclists in San Diego see where I ride and send their condolences. They think I'm crazy. Very few existing cyclists [want] to ride where I ride.

What I'm trying to explain are the techniques and practices that I use that make it possible for me to ride where hardly anyone else [wants] to ride."

All I can say is, "Great, good for you... ride where you want to ride. But you're deluding yourself if you're thinking you're a cycling advocate by harranguing cyclists endlessly to do something they don't want to do.
First, I don't consider what I do here as a direct part of my advocacy. What I do here is test the waters of how I explain things and present ideas in writing. I'm doing it right now. Do not think that my behavior here matches my behavior in the "real world". I don't harangue cyclists.

When someone tells me, "I can't believe you ride there", I reply that it's really not that bad, and actually fun. Besides, all the alternatives are longer and have more hills and traffic lights. This is my best route. That's about it. No haranguing.

One of the LCIs uses the hardest part of this - the freeway interchange - as part of his route in the Road 1 course, albeit in relatively light traffic on a weekend morning. Relatively inexperienced cyclists can quickly learn how to ride there, with just a few hours of instruction. Do they learn to enjoy it? Probably not that quickly, but I believe we (I've co-taught the course) pave the way for them.

In our culture, there is a fundamental assumption that while bicyclists belong on the road, they belong in space that is, for the most part, out of the way of motorists. The belief seems to be that bicyclists, if at all possible, should ride in a manner that allows motorists to do what they would exactly the same as they would if the cyclist were not there. Any time cyclists have to ride somewhere where this fundamental assumption is violated, that their presence affects the behavior of motorists - especially if they have to slow them down - they naturally feel uncomfortable. This hinders cycling, and is totally unnecessary. It's that paradigm that I seek to replace with a new paradigm, and that's what I teach and advocate.

First, I don't consider what I do here as a direct part of my advocacy. What I do here is test the waters of how I explain things and present ideas in writing.

If you were teaching a group of cyclists VC would you use the word "dare" as you used it in your post?

Would you "dare" them to ride where you ride?

Would you "dare" them to ride the way you ride?

Would bait them by describing other ways of cycling as "childish" or "inferior"?

Because if this is what you think "teaching" and "advocating" is you are way off the mark in my opinion.

Do not think that my behavior here matches my behavior in the "real world". I don't harangue cyclists.

Wow.

If your behavior on line does not match your behavior in the "real world" why should anyone trust the veracity of a single post you have ever made in Bike Forums?

If you need to take the center of a lane to avoid parked cars then do it. I normally ride close to the white line. I don't normally ride in a break down lane, although if there is a lot of traffic at high speeds I certainly would. Riding our bicycles is a transitioning interaction with all kinds of elements so there are not necessarily standard ways of always acting that will make it "safe". I think we need to be deliberate and respectful, just like we would like everyone else to act toward us. We also need to be highly alert, but it still won't make us "safe". The thrill, the enjoyment and the health outweigh the danger.

If you really worry a lot about being seen you could always put a flag on your bike. Then motorists could see you better.

I don't mean to feed the hijack of this thread, after all I liked the picture and it's so cool when you find yourself "representing" for other cyclists and I feel you did a good job and obviously positively influenced the author of the piece- which was a pretty good little piece but the above post simply cannot go by without comment...

I don't mind. Like I said, I almost find it amusing that the pic can elicit such a response, but Serge sees what he sees.

I think I ride properly but what I think speaks most to that thought is the amount of riding I've done, in the conditions I have for decades and had barely any problems at all.

After all, one of the reasons I don't ride on the wrong side of the road is because eventually, I'll have a problem. I read acounts of bicycle accidents and see how they occur to avoid having that happen to me. If I've had almost no problems over the last 25 years or so, I must be doing something right.

Sometimes to some people some things can look so much like splitting hairs. I have my helmet thing, Serge has his lane positioning thing. Bottom line is, coming up on 23 years daily commuting and 40 years of riding, the position I was using in the photo has never put me in harms way. In fact the only time I was T-boned by a car, I was in the exact position that Serges link on lane position shows.

Upon further reflection, 4 out of my 5 "major" collisions happened in this lane position. I still think I'm riding where I should be. I've had thousands upon thousands of (tens, hundreds of ?) interactions with other road users and all of them have been no problem.

Closetbiker, nice advocacy on your part. And to others here who have who have gone WAY OFF topic, that's what this is about. Jeez.

That's what I think the point is too. Serge seems to want this thread to move into the VC forum.

That paper has a circulation of something like a million + readers many of whom are not cyclists but are drivers. When they read a column that says cyclists are irresponsible (and that drivers are not) it's important to speak up and set the record straight so the average person knows that drivers do these things too.

This is one of the reasons helmets stick a bug up my a**. It gives a mistaken impression that things are different than they are. But that's another thread

That's what I think the point is too. Serge seems to want this thread to move into the VC forum.
Doncha think he wants to move all threads to the VC forum; or at least to his agenda, whatever that may be at the moment.

Maybe, and if you want to go there and argue with the 10 or however many want to argue great, but that newspaper will be read by not 10 or 100 but by thousands or hundreds of thousands and if advocates don't speak up, those readers will think we're all a buch of miscreants that don't deserve to be on the streets.

We all know political will is behind many laws, so poor public opinion of cyclists has a potential to adversly affect where we can ride and has the potential to relegate us to sidepaths (and then Serges arguments will be moot - he won't have street access to argue how to use)

Yeah ... pretty balanced. Also - nice pic! :D

... Brad

If you were teaching a group of cyclists VC would you use the word "dare" as you used it in your post?
Perhaps. I said many cyclists do not "dare" ride where I do, and I don't see any problem saying that in a class. It's true. They explain that they believe that it is inherently dangerous to ride there. It's too scary; they do not dare ride there.


Would you "dare" them to ride where you ride?

Would you "dare" them to ride the way you ride?

Would bait them by describing other ways of cycling as "childish" or "inferior"?

No. No. No. Of course not.


Because if this is what you think "teaching" and "advocating" is you are way off the mark in my opinion.

Duh.



If your behavior on line does not match your behavior in the "real world" why should anyone trust the veracity of a single post you have ever made in Bike Forums?
In general, internet behavior - or electronic communication in general - is focused and magnified for everyone as compared to behavior in the real world. There is a reason that many organizations say not to use email, for example, to resolve conflicts. It is in that sense that my behavior here is different from my behavior in the "real world". That's not to say it is inconsistent, or does not match.

Anyway, no one should trust the veracity of any post from anyone anywhere on the internet. I think it's important to objectively evaluate what is written, regardless of where it is written, regardless of who is writing it. And I expect my writing to be so evaluated.

... And I expect my writing to be so evaluated.

Except when it is; then its whaa-whaa time about alleged personal attacks/ insults to deflect the evaluation of your theories.

So the time you spend on this forum advocating your techniques and practices is not a direct part of your advocacy.

Classic Serge.
Right. The time I spend on this forum advocating my techniques and practices is an indirect part of my advocacy. Like I said, the primary purpose is to "test the waters" for how I present various ideas. I want to know what is persuasive, and what is not, and why. To the extent that anyone is actually persuaded here, that's a secondary goal.



By at least one account, your behavior here matches your behavior in the real world. Wall of words translates into talk, talk, talk, talk on rides.
Gene did not know very many people on that ride. I did, and it was not a training ride, but an atypical (for me) slow-paced memorial/social ride. We stopped every few miles to regroup. It was very relaxed, and, so, yeah, I chatted with a few folks. But not about this stuff.

Except when it is; then its whaa-whaa time about alleged personal attacks/ insults to deflect the evaluation of your theories.
Evaluate my theories, not me.

Evaluate my theories, not me.

Your theories are full of "stuff" (to be generous) as has been explained numerous times by numerous posters. Invariably you take detailed criticism as a personal insult to be ignored, or make all kinds of whining noises about how no one understands what you really mean and start the cycle all over.

Many posters know exactly what you mean and have drawn the obvious conclusion about the value of your theories.

And you call folks "pedants"? Such hypocrisy.

You might want to look up the definition of "advocate' and "indirect" before you dig that particular hole any deeper.



You talked, and talked and talked just like you type and type and type so yes, your real life behavior does mirror your online behavior, at least in that respect.

you seem to be very self righteous.

Yeah ... pretty balanced. Also - nice pic! :D

... Brad

Brad...what a great name!

YEEKS!! Look out for the car door!

It is amazing that you survived this close encounter of the door kind! You must need several weeks of closely supervised training before you make any more deadly blunders. Several A&S posters are waiting by their phones waiting for your call.

Seriously, nice picture.

that's a pretty funny comment considering what has been posted since.

I guess it's not too hard to predict some of the comments that'll follow a post.

;)

congrats on the article! I am glad your wife is better. as a cancer survivor, I know how great it is to hear good news.
Serge: please shut up.

I guess it's not too hard to predict some of the comments that'll follow a post.

The loonies are as predictable as the phases of the moon. ;)

In our culture, there is a fundamental assumption that while bicyclists belong on the road, they belong in space that is, for the most part, out of the way of motorists. The belief seems to be that bicyclists, if at all possible, should ride in a manner that allows motorists to do what they would exactly the same as they would if the cyclist were not there.

Funny that I only hear about this assumption from VC zealots. There are other reasons for riding in a sharing position, even if you do find it impossible to grasp.

Funny that I only hear about this assumption from VC zealots. There are other reasons for riding in a sharing position, even if you do find it impossible to grasp.
Such as?

Such as?

It's polite to share.

It's greedy to take more than you need.

Most people learn this stuff in kindergarten.

In our culture, there is a fundamental assumption that while bicyclists belong on the road, they belong in space that is, for the most part, out of the way of motorists

That maybe California culture, I don't know, I'm from the culture in BC.

The article is quite clear when it says cyclists have the same rights and responsibilities as any other road user, and drivers have to yield to cyclists as they would to any other vehicle.

Our Motor Vehicle Act, the drivers guide, as well as the tests all drivers have to pass, say cyclists may ride in the middle of the road for safety and motorists must yeild to cyclists as they would any other vehicle.

Considering the article is from a place where this is the accepted culture, I don't see where the argument lies (unless you're referring to a different area that has nothing to do with this thread

It's nice to know people care...We're happy the worst seems to be over.

http://profile.ak.facebook.com/profile6/1783/29/n787773078_928.jpg

Dang~!

(Waht a foxx....)

Dang~!

(Waht a foxx....)

Yeah. I don't know why shes with a mug like me!

Yeah. I don't know why shes with a mug like me!

Women are strange! ;)

Yeah. I don't know why shes with a mug like me!

Maybe it's your muscular thighs.

It's polite to share.

It's greedy to take more than you need.

Most people learn this stuff in kindergarten.
I wrote:


In our culture, there is a fundamental assumption that while bicyclists belong on the road, they belong in space that is, for the most part, out of the way of motorists. The belief seems to be that bicyclists, if at all possible, should ride in a manner that allows motorists to do what they would exactly the same as they would if the cyclist were not there.
To which you replied:

Funny that I only hear about this assumption from VC zealots. There are other reasons for riding in a sharing position, even if you do find it impossible to grasp.

And now you clarify:

It's polite to share.

It's greedy to take more than you need.

Most people learn this stuff in kindergarten.

What have I ever written, particularly in this thread, that causes you to think I'm not aware of these other obvious reasons for riding in a sharing position?

What have I ever written, particularly in this thread, that causes you to think I don't recognize that it's polite to share?

What have I ever written, particularly in this thread, that causes you to think I advocate taking more than you need?

That maybe California culture, I don't know, I'm from the culture in BC.

The article is quite clear when it says cyclists have the same rights and responsibilities as any other road user, and drivers have to yield to cyclists as they would to any other vehicle.

Our Motor Vehicle Act, the drivers guide, as well as the tests all drivers have to pass, say cyclists may ride in the middle of the road for safety and motorists must yeild to cyclists as they would any other vehicle.

Considering the article is from a place where this is the accepted culture, I don't see where the argument lies (unless you're referring to a different area that has nothing to do with this thread
First, what the articles states doesn't necessarily reflect the actual accepted norms of the culture.

Second, given the way the cyclist appears to be riding in the photo, that's not consistent with a culture where cyclists "ride in the middle of the road for safety and motorists must yield to cyclists as they would any other vehicle". It is consistent with a culture where it is generally accepted that, "while bicyclists belong on the road, they belong in space that is, for the most part, out of the way of motorists".

I wrote:


To which you replied:



And now you clarify:



What have I ever written, particularly in this thread, that causes you to think I'm not aware of these other obvious reasons for riding in a sharing position?

What have I ever written, particularly in this thread, that causes you to think I don't recognize that it's polite to share?

What have I ever written, particularly in this thread, that causes you to think I advocate taking more than you need?

You forgot to ask

"What have I ever written, particularly in this thread, that causes you to think I went to Kindergarten?"

:p;):D Lighten up HH. ;)


EDIT: Pardon me, I'm sure you did not forget to ask. You chose not to do so at this time. Assuming that you forgot would mean I was jumping to a conclusion. I can hear it now..."What makes you think I forgot to ask?"


Just having fun.

first: you're assuming

second: you're assuming again

I think I get your point (I won't speak for others, that would assuming)

What have I ever written, particularly in this thread, that causes you to think I'm not aware of these other obvious reasons for riding in a sharing position?

What have I ever written, particularly in this thread, that causes you to think I don't recognize that it's polite to share?

What have I ever written, particularly in this thread, that causes you to think I advocate taking more than you need?

Every time you recommend riding in a lane claiming position when there is adequate road width to share safely. Are you now saying you don't recommend that?

Every time you recommend riding in a lane claiming position when there is adequate road width to share safely. Are you now saying you don't recommend that?
Almost. I'm claiming I don't ever recommend riding in a lane claiming position when there is adequate road width to share safely AND faster same direction traffic is present.

Almost. I'm claiming I don't ever recommend riding in a lane claiming position when there is adequate road width to share safely AND faster same direction traffic is present.

And recommending such rearward vigilance when it isn't necessary is foolish. If it's safe to share when there are cars passing, it's safe to ride in the same place when there isn't. It is only fear that makes you think otherwise.