What 'Exactly" is VC?

[Bekologist]

Do me a favor, Gene. Ride your bike on some route and keep track of how fast you ride. After you get home, get in your car, and retrace the route, at the same speed. Now compare how you are treated while operating a motor vehicle vs. how you are treated riding a bike, holding the speed factor constant. I would expect that you would find you're treated significantly worse going that speed in a car. Oh, brother. what is that going to prove?

I suspect you are treating normal treatment of a slow driver as "not being treated like a driver". I can conceive of no other explanation for how you could actually come to the conclusion that 1 out of 10 drivers mistreats you. And even then, that's a 100 instances of mistreatment out of every 1,000 drivers who pass you - pardon me for being highly skeptical of this, considering I live less than 10 miles from you and I can count on my two hands how many times per year I get mistreated (on good years I can probably do it on one hand), including being harassed for being in the road while going too slowly.

harassed less than 10 times a year?

proving to the forum you don't ride much, serge. unless you're always riding in a bike lane!

[Bekologist]

VC is a coping mechanism for riding autocentric roads.

It should not be an advocacy platform.

Some vehicular cyclists are uncomfortable riding all roads. this shows the inadequacy of vehicular cycling.

[joejack951]

But if you weren't cycling like pillocks in the first place then no-one would have reason to honk at you.

The road this happened on has ~9 ft. [2.8 m] lanes with crumbling edges. Pardon me for being 3 feet from the edge of the road. If I had been anywhere else (aside from off the road completely), this driver would not have been able to pass me anyway due to the long line of oncoming traffic which happened to include a police officer (lucky day for me I guess).

[Ed Holland]

I love VC
It's really, really me
As I type on my PC
About taking lanes one two or three
I can change the rules, you see
To what I think they should be.

:)

[genec]

Do me a favor, Gene. Ride your bike on some route and keep track of how fast you ride. After you get home, get in your car, and retrace the route, at the same speed. Now compare how you are treated while operating a motor vehicle vs. how you are treated riding a bike, holding the speed factor constant. I would expect that you would find you're treated significantly worse going that speed in a car.



Interesting... so essentially you agree that the speed difference is the biggest issue. This is what I have long said about vehicular cycling... it "fails" as the speed differential becomes greater. Folks in http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=379847 tend to agree too... citing that traffic speeds above 40MPH make things for cyclists, difficult.

And as far as doing in my car... Hey no problem... I really doubt that anyone is going to pull the stunt to me that one motorist did... swooping around me across the double yellow just a couple car lengths from the red light.

In fact, I bet if I put on the emergency flashers, I wouldn't experience one bit of harassment, no tailgating, and not one single horn honk. Yet my bright hi-vis clothing doesn't prevent those actions when I am on a bike. The attitude of motorists toward cyclists is nothing like it is toward other drivers.


I suspect you are treating normal treatment of a slow driver as "not being treated like a driver".

Not hardly.

I can conceive of no other explanation for how you could actually come to the conclusion that 1 out of 10 drivers mistreats you. And even then, that's a 100 instances of mistreatment out of every 1,000 drivers who pass you - pardon me for being highly skeptical of this, considering I live less than 10 miles from you and I can count on my two hands how many times per year I get mistreated (on good years I can probably do it on one hand), including being harassed for being in the road while going too slowly.

Actually, you probably live less than 5 miles from me... but in an area that is night and day different. For instance you have traffic circles in your area; the major streets are often cleared of parked cars... Single family homes dominate the major arteries. Along the route that is near my home, apartments dominate, single car garages mean that everyone parks on the street... and there is nothing to slow the traffic down, so often it moves at well over the speed limit.

You probably come up into this area maybe twice a year... I get down to your area once a month or more, especially in the summer. My point here being that perhaps you just don't spend enough time in this area (in spite of how close you are) to really experience all the "joys" that local cyclists experience.

Oh and your numbers are way off... I don't deal with anywhere near 1000 cars in the 2-3 miles that these local roads provide the only thru connecting passage... 50-60 is more like it... and yes, in that small group of motorists, more likely than not, someone will act like a jerk. Now I know you have a hard time buying this... but consider that I was honked at in both Road l and Road ll... what are the odds of someone being honked at in both those classes? Maybe I'm just "lucky," eh?

[Script]

First let me thank all of you for your input. I'll pass it on to the Admiral. Hopefully he will recognize what I've been trying to tell him for years....the best way to invade this planet is by disguising oneself as a bicycle person.

Since most of you already look and talk like aliens, we'll blend right in.

I must confess that after reading the 50+ replies, my vote goes to buzzman for his definition.

IITYWYBMAB

[genec]

First let me thank all of you for your input. I'll pass it on to the Admiral. Hopefully he will recognize what I've been trying to tell him for years....the best way to invade this planet is by disguising oneself as a bicycle person.

Since most of you already look and talk like aliens, we'll blend right in.

I must confess that after reading the 50+ replies, my vote goes to buzzman for his definition.

IITYWYBMAB

Congratulations on your assessment. Sorry things turned out as they did.

buzzman did have a pretty good definition. ;)

[Helmet Head]

Interesting... so essentially you agree that the speed difference is the biggest issue. This is what I have long said about vehicular cycling... it "fails" as the speed differential becomes greater. Folks in http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=379847 tend to agree too... citing that traffic speeds above 40MPH make things for cyclists, difficult.

And as far as doing in my car... Hey no problem... I really doubt that anyone is going to pull the stunt to me that one motorist did... swooping around me across the double yellow just a couple car lengths from the red light.

In fact, I bet if I put on the emergency flashers, I wouldn't experience one bit of harassment, no tailgating, and not one single horn honk. Yet my bright hi-vis clothing doesn't prevent those actions when I am on a bike. The attitude of motorists toward cyclists is nothing like it is toward other drivers.


Not hardly.


Actually, you probably live less than 5 miles from me... but in an area that is night and day different. For instance you have traffic circles in your area; the major streets are often cleared of parked cars... Single family homes dominate the major arteries. Along the route that is near my home, apartments dominate, single car garages mean that everyone parks on the street... and there is nothing to slow the traffic down, so often it moves at well over the speed limit.

You probably come up into this area maybe twice a year... I get down to your area once a month or more, especially in the summer. My point here being that perhaps you just don't spend enough time in this area (in spite of how close you are) to really experience all the "joys" that local cyclists experience.

Oh and your numbers are way off... I don't deal with anywhere near 1000 cars in the 2-3 miles that these local roads provide the only thru connecting passage... 50-60 is more like it... and yes, in that small group of motorists, more likely than not, someone will act like a jerk. Now I know you have a hard time buying this... but consider that I was honked at in both Road l and Road ll... what are the odds of someone being honked at in both those classes? Maybe I'm just "lucky," eh?
My point is that being harassed for going slowly is being harassed for going slowly, and not being harassed for being on a bicycle. And, if you obey the vehicular rules of the road, including moving aside to allow faster traffic to pass when it's safe and reasonable to do so, then you minimize how often that happens.

As far as the honking incident that I witnessed in the Road 2 class, if that's typical of your riding style, it explains much. As you know, we were on a 6 lane high speed (45 mph?) arterial and had to merge into the left lane in order to get to a left turn pocket in order to make a left turn. You merged over to the leftmost lane without incident, but then proceeded, in the middle of the fast lane, at a relaxed pace and body position, even chatting with the other cyclist. You appeared oblivious about where you were riding, or the effect you were having on others. Frankly, it was surprising that only one motorist honked at you. I remember thinking and saying at the time that for every motorist that honks at you, there are probably several others who would like to, but are too polite.

Not that you did anything in particular that wasn't "vehicular". But you can drive any vehicle in a way that is vehicular but still conveys an obliviousness about your effect on others, which understandably elicits frustration, and honking, in other road users. I suspect it's quite a bit more of that, than you being "lucky", or riding where you ride, that explains why you apparently get harassed so much more than I do.

[Helmet Head]

Oh, brother. what is that going to prove?



harassed less than 10 times a year?

proving to the forum you don't ride much, serge. unless you're always riding in a bike lane!
We're comparing my experience to Gene's. We've ridden together, and I think my stronger condition, given our relatively similar age and body types, indicates that we're in the same ballpark regarding how much we ride, and yet he encounters much more harassment than I do.

[sbhikes]

VC is whatever Helmet Head and John Forester say it is at any particular moment in time. (And what they say changes moment-to-moment and they don't even agree with each other.)

But six-jours has it about right: "riding around in the middle of the road and blocking traffic". Or at least bragging to all of us here how well that method works to smooth over difficult traffic situations. Never mind that many of the staunchest proponents of this don't actually ride their bicycles very much.

[Ed Holland]

Hehe, now here's a thing. I got honked at today whilst inadvertantly riding VC, taking the lane instead of the "bike shoulder". This "road stance" was adopted purely to avoid the splatter from grime and decaying leaves. I'd intended to move over but misunderestimated the time that car would take to reach me. Honk? well fair enough really, as I could not maintain an adequate speed with traffic...

[genec]

My point is that being harassed for going slowly is being harassed for going slowly, and not being harassed for being on a bicycle. And, if you obey the vehicular rules of the road, including moving aside to allow faster traffic to pass when it's safe and reasonable to do so, then you minimize how often that happens.

As far as the honking incident that I witnessed in the Road 2 class, if that's typical of your riding style, it explains much. As you know, we were on a 6 lane high speed (45 mph?) arterial and had to merge into the left lane in order to get to a left turn pocket in order to make a left turn. You merged over to the leftmost lane without incident, but then proceeded, in the middle of the fast lane, at a relaxed pace and body position, even chatting with the other cyclist. You appeared oblivious about where you were riding, or the effect you were having on others. Frankly, it was surprising that only one motorist honked at you. I remember thinking and saying at the time that for every motorist that honks at you, there are probably several others who would like to, but are too polite.

Not that you did anything in particular that wasn't "vehicular". But you can drive any vehicle in a way that is vehicular but still conveys an obliviousness about your effect on others, which understandably elicits frustration, and honking, in other road users. I suspect it's quite a bit more of that, than you being "lucky", or riding where you ride, that explains why you apparently get harassed so much more than I do.


I bolded your statement above as I wasn't chatting with the cyclist, but encouraging her... and her pace was quite a bit slower than mine... so I chose to stay with her. Further, and this is my biggest complaint... SPEED DOESN'T MATTER... according to John Forester... so therefore it should not matter whether I was sweating my brains out to hit 24MPH, or riding at the pace most people ride, 12MPH.

The fact that you continue to mention speed "as an issue" only emphasizes my argument that speed differential IS a problem for vehicular cycling.

[Ed Holland]

First let me thank all of you for your input. I'll pass it on to the Admiral. Hopefully he will recognize what I've been trying to tell him for years....the best way to invade this planet is by disguising oneself as a bicycle person.

Since most of you already look and talk like aliens, we'll blend right in.

I must confess that after reading the 50+ replies, my vote goes to buzzman for his definition.

IITYWYBMAB

All your lane are belong to us

[Helmet Head]

I wasn't chatting with the cyclist, but encouraging her... and her pace was quite a bit slower than mine... so I chose to stay with her.

I'm not saying your behavior was not justified. I'm saying you were oblivious as to how your behavior was affecting others, and they wanted to make you aware that you were oblivious.

I bolded your statement above as I wasn't chatting with the cyclist, but encouraging her... and her pace was quite a bit slower than mine... so I chose to stay with her. Further, and this is my biggest complaint... SPEED DOESN'T MATTER... according to John Forester... so therefore it should not matter whether I was sweating my brains out to hit 24MPH, or riding at the pace most people ride, 12MPH.

The fact that you continue to mention speed "as an issue" only emphasizes my argument that speed differential IS a problem for vehicular cycling.
Speed does matter, in terms of how it affects others. That's why we have speed positioning rules. Where have you been?

Read this again:You appeared oblivious about where you were riding, or the effect you were having on others.That's why the guy honked at you, and probably why they harass you as often as they do.

I wasn't going much faster than you (relatively to normal motor speeds anyway), but I was aware of where I was, who was around me, and how I was affecting them, and my behavior conveyed all that. So no one had a reason to honk at me, as usual. That's why it's so unusual for me to get honked at or harassed.

[Bekologist]

now its a pissing match! :rolleyes: yeah, head, you're such a good bicyclist.

the reason its so unusual for you to get honked at is you are rarely riding a bicycle, head.

no one can ride like you claim you do and not get harassment from motorists. you are shining this forum on.

[buzzman]

First let me thank all of you for your input. I'll pass it on to the Admiral. Hopefully he will recognize what I've been trying to tell him for years....the best way to invade this planet is by disguising oneself as a bicycle person.

Since most of you already look and talk like aliens, we'll blend right in.

I must confess that after reading the 50+ replies, my vote goes to buzzman for his definition.

IITYWYBMAB

thank you for your kind endorsement of my post. though to be fair there are other definitions that might be apropos. some describe it more like this:

http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s176/kencheeseman/DSC_0008.jpg

they don't call me buzzman for nothing :rolleyes:

[genec]

I wasn't going much faster than you (relatively to normal motor speeds anyway), but I was aware of where I was, who was around me, and how I was affecting them, and my behavior conveyed all that. So no one had a reason to honk at me, as usual. That's why it's so unusual for me to get honked at or harassed.

So now we have to attend acting classes to "convey the right behavior..." :rolleyes:

What you are saying is that I must act like an alpha dog and growl all the time, eh? How does this jive with anybodies' grandma out there practicing the vehicular way?

How about those 6 year olds that Forester can supposedly "train." They out puttin' out "the look."

This junk is where VC falls flat on it's face.

[genec]

now its a pissing match! :rolleyes: yeah, head, you're such a good bicyclist.

the reason its so unusual for you to get honked at is you are rarely riding a bicycle, head.

no one can ride like you claim you do and not get harassment from motorists. you are shining this forum on.

Obviously we are not wearing the right attire... best get outfitted with something like this:

http://sparklingearth.com/products/209-SJ-t.jpg

They are also available in this form: http://www.sparklingearth.com/products/209-7000b-t.jpg

Buy them here: http://www.sparklingearth.com/products.asp?category=100010

[Helmet Head]

So now we have to attend acting classes to "convey the right behavior..." :rolleyes:

What you are saying is that I must act like an alpha dog and growl all the time, eh? How does this jive with anybodies' grandma out there practicing the vehicular way?

How about those 6 year olds that Forester can supposedly "train." They out puttin' out "the look."

This junk is where VC falls flat on it's face.
Vehicular cycling on Clairemont Mesa Blvd, especially making vehicular left turns, is not appropriate for most anybodies grandma, particularly without proper training, and certainly not for a 6 year old. This is why this is taught in Road 2.

You don't have to go to acting classes, Gene. You just need to be aware of your surroundings, and your effect on others, and act accordingly, if you want to reduce the level of harassment you're understandably getting.

[Bekologist]

or just not ride much. to experience less harrassment, like helmet head, just ride less.

[Bekologist]

OH, OH, MAYBE curbhugging narrow lanes is the way to experience less harassment and still be vehicular!

curbhugging is vehicular, or so says helmet head.

don't take the lane, just hug the curb.

[Ed Holland]

Yay! another VC pagga. I'm off to get some chips and beer, then settle in to watch this one :D

[genec]

Vehicular cycling on Clairemont Mesa Blvd, especially making vehicular left turns, is not appropriate for most anybodies grandma, particularly without proper training, and certainly not for a 6 year old. This is why this is taught in Road 2.

You don't have to go to acting classes, Gene. You just need to be aware of your surroundings, and your effect on others, and act accordingly, if you want to reduce the level of harassment you're understandably getting.

BTW it was Balboa, the speed limits on that street are 45 and 50MPH depending on where you are. On Clairemont Mesa Blvd, (which is generally lined with parked cars) the speed limit is only 35MPH for the entire length. But not a single bike lane appears anywhere on Clairemont Mesa Blvd, unlike Balboa. It is Clairemont Mesa Blvd (with no BL) where I usually am hassled by motorists.

And as far as acting accordingly... my vast experience on bikes allows me to make it look very easy... which apparently, according to you, irritates motorists... :rolleyes:

However, in this particular case, the driver was honking because we cyclists, practicing in the "vehicular style," were "doing it all wrong" according to the driver, who perhaps you will recall, I spoke to. His assertions were we should be hugging the curb... "like the other cyclists..." When I addressed the fact that hugging the curb would not allow us to make a left turn; his reply... "that's your problem."

Clearly the driver had a problem with cyclists... and not my style in particular.

[Helmet Head]

BTW it was Balboa, the speed limits on that street are 45 and 50MPH depending on where you are. On Clairemont Mesa Blvd, (which is generally lined with parked cars) the speed limit is only 35MPH for the entire length. But not a single bike lane appears anywhere on Clairemont Mesa Blvd, unlike Balboa. It is Clairemont Mesa Blvd (with no BL) where I usually am hassled by motorists.

And as far as acting accordingly... my vast experience on bikes allows me to make it look very easy... which apparently, according to you, irritates motorists... :rolleyes:

However, in this particular case, the driver was honking because we cyclists, practicing in the "vehicular style," were "doing it all wrong" according to the driver, who perhaps you will recall, I spoke to. His assertions were we should be hugging the curb... "like the other cyclists..." When I addressed the fact that hugging the curb would not allow us to make a left turn; his reply... "that's your problem."

Clearly the driver had a problem with cyclists... and not my style in particular.
Believe what you want, Gene, but these are the the facts as nearly as I can tell:
Your rate of incidence with harassment per/mile or per/hour is apparently much higher than mine, perhaps by as much as one or even two orders of magnitude.
The differences between the areas where we ride can't account for much. After all, neither one of us only rides within our own neighborhoods, and I don't hear either one of us arguing that the rate of incidence is significantly different when we ride elsewhere.
You have a chip on your shoulder when it comes to motorists and how they treat you. It is only natural that this chip on your shoulder is conveyed to them in your behavior and body language.
You show little if any sensitivity to the social aspects of traffic.
Much of behavior in traffic comes from the gut. It happens pretty fast, and people don't think about what they're doing much of the time. Therefore, when you talk to them in the street, you're unlikely to get a well reasoned explanation for why they just did what they did, but whatever rationalization for their behavior that happens to pop into their head at the time of the conversation. Yet you seem to put a lot of credence into what they say. See above.One of my favorite Einstein sayings is this: "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”.

The only way things are going to change for you in terms of how often you are harassed is if you stop doing the same thing over and and over again and expecting different results.

I suggest that you start doing something different, and, in particular, start doing this: Whenever you have what you consider to be an unpleasant interaction with a motorist, STOP thinking about what THEY did wrong, and START thinking about what you could have done differently to have avoided that. That, and only that, will be the first but very necessary step to bring about change in this area, if that's what you really want.

[TRaffic Jammer]

Jesus , a year later and I'm looking at the same old tired crap arguments. That in itself invalidates ANY possible advocacy position the pundits of VC think they are gaining here. Madness. The Einstein quote applies very well all over this thread.

[Ed Holland]

Jesus , a year later and I'm looking at the same old tired crap arguments. That in itself invalidates ANY possible advocacy position the pundits of VC think they are gaining here. Madness. The Einstein quote applies very well all over this thread.

That's how VC came to get it's own subforum.... ;)

[TRaffic Jammer]

:lol: ^^

[Helmet Head]

Jesus , a year later and I'm looking at the same old tired crap arguments. That in itself invalidates ANY possible advocacy position the pundits of VC think they are gaining here. Madness. The Einstein quote applies very well all over this thread.
If think the nature of the disagreement has substantially changed. It is the first time I applied the Einstein quote, much less the implications, to what Gene is doing. That in itself is doing something new and different, and not doing the same thing over and over.

[TRaffic Jammer]

Ah... no HH, thanks for playing. I will give you a persistence award though, the same one I want to give to the homeless street preachers. Abandon all hope ye who enter here if you wish to read debate. Scan one thread and you've read 'em all!!!!

[Helmet Head]

Ah... no HH, thanks for playing. I will give you a persistence award though, the same one I want to give to the homeless street preachers. Abandon all hope ye who enter here if you wish to read debate. Scan one thread and you've read 'em all!!!!
Sure, if you "scan" a thread that might be the impression you'll get. But if you actually read and think about this stuff, I think you'll see substantial change.

In fact, the most recent topic - that curbhugging is not contrary to vehicular cycling - has never been discussed here before this week, if I'm not mistaken.

[Ed Holland]

Yes, but why call it vehicular cycling and adopt the silly label? I've been following this for a good while now, sometimes even posting serious comments :). Yet observation of this debate has done little to influence my riding style, which involves using the roadway according to applicable laws. There is nothing unusual or special about this, my father taught me how use a bicycle in such a manner when I was 11 (approximately 26 years ago) and he didn't give it a name.

We can pick at poor cycling habits - sidewalk use, wrong way riders, night time visibility, for example - and argue about those for good effect regarding advocacy. However, semantic based arguments regarding methods for legal use of the roadway and their perceived safety have only served to divide our numbers and bring isolation and incredulity from others visiting the A&S forum. This thread is a very good example of that.

Ed

[Ed Holland]

Oh and I forgot to mention ridicule

[Allister]

In fact, the most recent topic - that curbhugging is not contrary to vehicular cycling - has never been discussed here before this week, if I'm not mistaken.

That's because you only just made it up. I recall several threads where you claimed the exact opposite.

Or is it only vehicular when you do it, but 'most cyclists' aren't equipped to make the decision when it is or isn't 'vehicular' to hug the kerb? Aren't you Special.

[Allister]

I suggest that you start doing something different, and, in particular, start doing this: Whenever you have what you consider to be an unpleasant interaction with a motorist, STOP thinking about what THEY did wrong, and START thinking about what you could have done differently to have avoided that. That, and only that, will be the first but very necessary step to bring about change in this area, if that's what you really want.

Maybe he could do what you do and drive his car instead. Then he could shout and honk at cyclists comfortable in the knowledge that it's for their benefit.

[Helmet Head]

That's because you only just made it up. I recall several threads where you claimed the exact opposite.

Or is it only vehicular when you do it, but 'most cyclists' aren't equipped to make the decision when it is or isn't 'vehicular' to hug the kerb? Aren't you Special.
My understanding and explanation of vehicular cycling has certainly evolved since I've been here. If I had nothing to learn, then I wouldn't be here.

In particular, I used to wrongly include specific lateral lane positions -- that I still advocate -- as being part of vehicular cycling. But I now realize that, at least between junctions and intersections, the whole range of lateral positions within a lane are perfectly consistent with the vehicular rules of the road, especially when the lane is narrow and faster traffic is not present. If the lane is wide enough to be shared, and faster traffic is present or approaching, then the range of valid vehicular cycling positions narrows, but in all cases the position that is referred to as "curb hugging" is not excluded.

[Ed Holland]

So let's just call it cycling then? Why the need to fulfill and justify some idealistic notion and label?

[Helmet Head]

So let's just call it cycling then? Why the need to fulfill and justify some idealistic notion and label?
Idealistic? What's idealistic about cycling on roads in accordance with rules of the road that govern how drivers behave?

A concept/label is needed to discern cycling that is done in accordance with the vehicular rules of the road, which is clearly advantageous in terms of safety and effectiveness, from cycling on roadways that is not, because so few cyclists cycle this way consistently on roadways. You can't suggest or teach that one should be doing this rather than that without specifying at least what this is. Typically, it's easier to talk about something when you have a name for it. That's why we have a concept and label for it.

[Allister]

You can't suggest or teach that one should be doing this rather than that without specifying at least what this is. Typically, it's easier to talk about something when you have a name for it. That's why we have a concept and label for it.

Utter bollocks. I can explain to you that your posts are long-winded and confusing, and try to instruct you in ways to communicate more clearly, but I don't have to call it Effective Communication, or whatever, to do so.

Maybe I shoud. It might start to sink in to your little brain a bit easier if it requires labels to function.

[Ed Holland]

Idealistic? What's idealistic about cycling on roads in accordance with rules of the road that govern how drivers behave?

Nothing, it is also not out of the ordinary as far as I have seen.


A concept/label is needed to discern cycling that is done in accordance with the vehicular rules of the road, which is clearly advantageous in terms of safety and effectiveness, from cycling on roadways that is not, because so few cyclists cycle this way consistently on roadways. You can't suggest or teach that one should be doing this rather than that without specifying at least what this is. Typically, it's easier to talk about something when you have a name for it. That's why we have a concept and label for it.

I simply argure that a label is not needed. It becomes a dividing line for argments. There is nothing challenging about riding in accordance with the rules of the road. It has no magic formula and requires little more than common sense, experience and confidence to ride in a safe and legal manner.

Ed

[buzzman]

discussions of VC are sometimes described in this way:

http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s176/kencheeseman/images.jpg

[Six jours]

I think the nature of the disagreement has substantially changed.I agree. When first confronted, I sought to understand what it was about, and then to verify that, yes, you guys really were saying that.

Then I sought to persuade you that you were, *ahem*, nuts.

Then I sought to have some fun at your expense.

So the nature of the debate has, for me at least, evolved and matured. :D

[LittleBigMan]

The only problem I have with "VC" is the lack of tolerance for those who sincerely prefer to be separated from motor traffic, or to be afforded bike lanes that make cycling more convenient for them.

But the problem I have with those who attack "VC" is that they ignore the fact that many cyclists have already benefited from vehicular cycling principles in the face of an unfair system that favors motorists over cyclists, one that offers substandard roads and facilities as a substitute for equal treatment. I am one.

There's blindness on both sides, and that's why they won't come together. I think it's possible to give cyclists the freedom to choose where they want to ride and to support each other when those freedoms are in danger.

[buzzman]

The only problem I have with "VC" is the lack of tolerance for those who sincerely prefer to be separated from motor traffic, or to be afforded bike lanes that make cycling more convenient for them.

But the problem I have with those who attack "VC" is that they ignore the fact that many cyclists have already benefited from vehicular cycling principles in the face of an unfair system that favors motorists over cyclists, one that offers substandard roads and facilities as a substitute for equal treatment. I am one.

There's blindness on both sides, and that's why they won't come together. I think it's possible to give cyclists the freedom to choose where they want to ride and to support each other when those freedoms are in danger.

I fall under the category of those who occasionally prefer routes that are separated from motor traffic and will take advantage of a bike lane when it's there. But I put the larger percentage of my miles on the road every year and when I do I ride by what might be called a basic form of VC. I advocate for well designed facilities and retaining and improving cyclist's rights to the road.

BUT to be honest I really don't see that many times in this forum that people "ignore the fact that many cyclist have already benefited from vehicular cycling principals". It seems to me that most of the usual advocates for an occasional bike path or bike lane ride on the road in a vehicular fashion as well but resent the strict codification of what VC is- it's branding in a sense. And what I often refer to as the VC panacea or the one size fits all mentality of a VC solution to every cycling situation. And the hardcore VC paranoia that bike lanes, bikeways, bike paths and other facilities will result in a loss of our right to ride on the road as a vehicle and must therefore be dogmatically opposed.* I think the hardcore VC advocates need to own up to the lion's share of the inflexibility.

*added as edit

[LittleBigMan]

I think the hardcore VC advocates need to own up to the lion's share of the inflexibility.
If you're flexible, that's good.

[knatchwa]

And the cycle continues. It does hold true that really there is no need for a label just an awareness that your considered a vehicle and being that the case act like one. So I ride (http://biking.hok-international.net/) on as a vehicle will for my safety and for the example.

[genec]

Believe what you want, Gene, but these are the the facts as nearly as I can tell:
Your rate of incidence with harassment per/mile or per/hour is apparently much higher than mine, perhaps by as much as one or even two orders of magnitude.
The differences between the areas where we ride can't account for much. After all, neither one of us only rides within our own neighborhoods, and I don't hear either one of us arguing that the rate of incidence is significantly different when we ride elsewhere.
You have a chip on your shoulder when it comes to motorists and how they treat you. It is only natural that this chip on your shoulder is conveyed to them in your behavior and body language.
You show little if any sensitivity to the social aspects of traffic.
Much of behavior in traffic comes from the gut. It happens pretty fast, and people don't think about what they're doing much of the time. Therefore, when you talk to them in the street, you're unlikely to get a well reasoned explanation for why they just did what they did, but whatever rationalization for their behavior that happens to pop into their head at the time of the conversation. Yet you seem to put a lot of credence into what they say. See above.One of my favorite Einstein sayings is this: "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”.

The only way things are going to change for you in terms of how often you are harassed is if you stop doing the same thing over and and over again and expecting different results.

I suggest that you start doing something different, and, in particular, start doing this: Whenever you have what you consider to be an unpleasant interaction with a motorist, STOP thinking about what THEY did wrong, and START thinking about what you could have done differently to have avoided that. That, and only that, will be the first but very necessary step to bring about change in this area, if that's what you really want.


LOL... a long time ago I argued that I do get different treatment depending on where I am and how I dressed... You denied all of that long long ago. I still contend it is true.

On my long tours I was never harassed, when I ride as a fast cyclist in full kit, I am rarely harassed. But you have chosen to deny these observations. I ride as different types of cyclists at different times, from the fast cyclist in full kit, to the fred, on my commuter, to a sidewalk bum on a beach cruiser. I experience different responses based on how and where I ride. I see what happens when I ride very vehicularly, and when I do not. I observe the differences. I observe the situation.

You on the other hand tout the same methods for nearly the same situations... your mantra is move left, in spite of the lack of knowledge of the particular situation.

If anyone fulfills the Einstein quote it is you... in particular with your hate of bike lanes of all kinds.

You have stated that motorists are doing all they can to drive as well as they can... I have observed that this is hardly the case.

[genec]

I fall under the category of those who occasionally prefer routes that are separated from motor traffic and will take advantage of a bike lane when it's there. But I put the larger percentage of my miles on the road every year and when I do I ride by what might be called a basic form of VC. I advocate for well designed facilities and retaining and improving cyclist's rights to the road.

BUT to be honest I really don't see that many times in this forum that people "ignore the fact that many cyclist have already benefited from vehicular cycling principals". It seems to me that most of the usual advocates for an occasional bike path or bike lane ride on the road in a vehicular fashion as well but resent the strict codification of what VC is- it's branding in a sense. And what I often refer to as the VC panacea or the one size fits all mentality of a VC solution to every cycling situation. And the hardcore VC paranoia that bike lanes, bikeways, bike paths and other facilities will result in a loss of our right to ride on the road as a vehicle and must therefore be dogmatically opposed.* I think the hardcore VC advocates need to own up to the lion's share of the inflexibility.

*added as edit


Well put... or in the case of HH... perhaps the application of the Einstein quote to himself. :D

My I offer this one instead: "We have met the enemy, and he is us." ;)

[patc]

VC panacea or the one size fits all mentality of a VC solution to every cycling situation. And the hardcore VC paranoia that bike lanes, bikeways, bike paths and other facilities will result in a loss of our right to ride on the road as a vehicle and must therefore be dogmatically opposed.* I think the hardcore VC advocates need to own up to the lion's share of the inflexibility.

*added as edit

It would be easy to say, "just agree to disagree." However I have observed, time and time again, the VCers actively fight against bike lanes etc., yet I have never seen a facilities proponent fight against the right to use the entire road.

Unfortunately the VC camp has set up a false dichotomy which makes it impossible to peacefully co-exist.

[TRaffic Jammer]

Maybe when drivers obey the rules they are "supposed" to be governed by I MIGHT start riding according to them as well. If every driver drove defensively and according to the traffic laws, this whole thread by a massive overdose of logic would cease to exist. Until then I will ride as I see fit, because I am not cocooned and isolated from the other road users in a candy coloured hard shell with an 8 speaker stereo.

[John Forester]

Yes, but why call it vehicular cycling and adopt the silly label? I've been following this for a good while now, sometimes even posting serious comments :). Yet observation of this debate has done little to influence my riding style, which involves using the roadway according to applicable laws. There is nothing unusual or special about this, my father taught me how use a bicycle in such a manner when I was 11 (approximately 26 years ago) and he didn't give it a name.

We can pick at poor cycling habits - sidewalk use, wrong way riders, night time visibility, for example - and argue about those for good effect regarding advocacy. However, semantic based arguments regarding methods for legal use of the roadway and their perceived safety have only served to divide our numbers and bring isolation and incredulity from others visiting the A&S forum. This thread is a very good example of that.

Ed

There were, and still are, excellent reasons for naming vehicular cycling as a specific method of cycling. It is very necessary to distinguish vehicular cycling from the various types of semi-official and now official methods of cycling that have been prevalent for the last six decades. The first restrictions imposed by motorists on cyclists were the prohibition of using the full width of the roadway and the prohibition of using any roadway where there was a nearby path. These were the official version of the social attitude that cyclists would be crushed if they failed to stay out of the way of same-direction motor traffic. The official instructions to cyclists have been named curb hugging. I think that we all know how dangerous is that method of cycling.

The next step in discrimination against vehicular cycling was the creation of bike lanes and bike paths. These are the physical embodiment of the previous laws and social attitudes. Fortunately, in a way, the traffic dangers with bike paths, particularly with side paths, started the move for the repeal of the mandatory side path laws. And the traffic dangers with bike lanes started the move for the modification of both the side-path and the side-of-the-road laws to try to reduce their dangers. But the fact remains that the legal restrictions and the existence of bike lanes and of side paths are the embodiments of society's view that cyclists should operate in some childish manner, being particularly careful to never get in a position in which they might delay motorists.

It seems that most of the discussants in these groups have lost their way by developing almost a controversy about small variations within vehicular cycling. Some conclude that these discussions remove the point of having any use for the term vehicular cycling. It is obvious that those in these groups are sufficiently well informed that none, or almost none, ride in the official childish manner. You all know that's wrong. What you fail to recognize is that the official manner is childish cycling and that is the style in which most young cyclists are raised. And that childish manner, with its curb hugging restrictions, bike lanes and their restrictions (legal and social, or just social), and mandatory side-path laws, is what vehicular cycling opposes.

One major reason why you have got confused is that you confuse bike lanes with cycling encouragement. Well, there is some point in this. If, as I have just written above, Americans are raised to believe that childish cycling is the only safe way, then, to put it cynically, to attract them to bicycle transportation requires that we employ the discriminatory means that makes them feel safe. I don't accept that reasoning. I object to advocating discrimination against cyclists as an anti-motoring measure. I would rather change that part of American opinion that has significant effect to accept that vehicular cycling is the proper way to cycle, and that roads should be constructed according to that principle.