What 'Exactly" is VC?

[TRaffic Jammer]

How about the insane idea of teaching motorists (even if this education needs to start in grade school) to share the road with other users? As they are the harbingers of death on our roadways, shouldn't their actions/attitudes be the ones adjusted? How many farmers with slow loads of hay, or Amish horse/buggy combos get wiped off the road b/c they were "in the way", compared to riders occupying a few feet of the same types of roads. I contend most drivers will give a little for the former, and not so much for the latter, simply b/c they fear being killed themselves. That is an attitude, not a design flaw.

I get this idea from the fact that when the weather is REALLY gross out and I'm riding into work claiming the lane as I will when it's full on dangerous riding. (think evil snow storms and only tracks of road being visible) I will not be hassled by motorists generally. Fast forward to a couple days later when plowing has occurred and the roadway is generally clear. The motorists attitudes change to 'get out of my way punk' despite the fact the curb lane is still full of ice and crap that I need to negotiate around lest I go down in front of a car. This tells me that motorists are willing to share when and ONLY when they perceive a real potential danger to themselves and/or their vehicles. Once the danger is past they see themselves as Kings of The Road once more.

[John Forester]

How about the insane idea of teaching motorists (even if this education needs to start in grade school) to share the road with other users? As they are the harbingers of death on our roadways, shouldn't their actions/attitudes be the ones adjusted? How many farmers with slow loads of hay, or Amish horse/buggy combos get wiped off the road b/c they were "in the way", compared to riders occupying a few feet of the same types of roads. I contend most drivers will give a little for the former, and not so much for the latter, simply b/c they fear being killed themselves. That is an attitude, not a design flaw.

I get this idea from the fact that when the weather is REALLY gross out and I'm riding into work claiming the lane as I will when it's full on dangerous riding. (think evil snow storms and only tracks of road being visible) I will not be hassled by motorists generally. Fast forward to a couple days later when plowing has occurred and the roadway is generally clear. The motorists attitudes change to 'get out of my way punk' despite the fact the curb lane is still full of ice and crap that I need to negotiate around lest I go down in front of a car. This tells me that motorists are willing to share when and ONLY when they perceive a real potential danger to themselves and/or their vehicles. Once the danger is past they see themselves as Kings of The Road once more.

Well, of course. The point that I keep making is that as long as the official method of cycling is childish "Stay out of my way" cycling, any effort to make motorists understand differently is a task for Sysiphus. We have to work to get official acceptance of vehicular cycling before we can expect to change the general public opinion that cyclists are a childish nuisance to be brushed aside.

[TRaffic Jammer]

I think you have it backwards or YET AGAIN we go circular. As the motorcar is the killer, it's their responsibility to not kill. It's called defensive driving, where one looks out ahead of them for moose, cougars, cyclists, jaywalkers, drunks, people on assisted mobility scooters in the lane etc. VC'rs seem to put the onus in the wrong place. Yes, cyclists can do some things to improve their chances but at the end of the day most cyclists killed by cars are not throwing themselves under the wheels of approaching vehicles.

[Ed Holland]

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.

I'm unaware of any "offocial methods of cycling" beyond laws outlined for the operation of vehicles in the Vehicle Code (here in California) or the Highway Code (my native Great Britain). No restriction has been placed on my cycling by motorists. We are not an oppressed minority.


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.

Bike lanes occasionally give motorists the impression that cycles should be within their bounds. I have witnessed this. However, in using bike as transport to work each day, I am happy to use bike lanes (designated to the right of the roadway) for the majority of the journey, until I am able to ride at 45 or 50MPH for sustained periods. The facility provided promotes untroubled and free pasage of all vehicles. In no way do I feel that it limits me as a cyclist. When I must leave the lane - to negotiate a left turn for example - there is rarely trouble from motorists, excepting the ignorant.


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.

Yes, but labeling and then arguing over the label's definition seems to be human nature - take a look at religion as a worst case scenario. I say abandon the label.



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.

I am not confused. I regard myself, as a competant, experienced, safe and efficient cyclist. I can adapt to most roadway environments and traffic situations, but will choose to use a bike lane if it is expedient. Many other riders seem to reflect these qualities.

Yes there are people with bikes who do not use the roadway, because they are intimidated by traffic. Gentle encouragement is what they need, nurture. Their perception of danger is a natural concern that is only overcome by the experience garnered through gradual immersion into the road system. We teach drivers the basic traffic skills on a quiet road with simple intersections, just as my father helped me to learn to ride a bicycle.

Ed

[Helmet Head]

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.

Our ability to delude ourselves knows no bounds. Believe what you want, Gene. But I ride on different types of bikes and different kinds of clothing too, and the one single factor that dominates how I'm treated is my behavior. Of course, I might be the one who is deluding myself, but of course I doubt that.


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

I don't know where to begin with how much misunderstanding is expressed in this one sentence, and since it's way off topic, I won't.


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.
I have stated that motorists pretty much do all they are likely to do. And even if you can get to one driver here or there, it's hardly going to come close to making the kinds of widespread enormous changes in driver behavior before they even began to significantly affect cyclist safety, assuming it's possible to do that at all, which I doubt.

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.

[Helmet Head]

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.

I would say that cyclists riding on roads NOT in accordance with rules of the road that govern how drivers behave is the norm, and here is what I mean by that. It is true that it is inevitable that cyclists on the road will often happen to be riding in accordance with these rules. But to do so is not the purpose of the vast majority of these cyclists. So if you follow any such cyclist for more than a few seconds, you will almost certainly find him violating the rules within a few minutes. That's what I mean by cycling on roads in accordance with the vehicular rules of the road not being the norm.

And, to be clear, I'm not talking about a rolling a stop after making sure it's clear or doing something practically inconsequential like that. I'm talking about...
turning left from the right side of the road,
merging by signaling and moving without looking back and making sure they have the right of way,
riding at night without proper lights/reflectors,
riding on the wrong side of the road,
blowing through a red light,
blowing through a 4-way stop even when others got their first,
passing on the right where drivers could and might turn right,
going straight across an intersection from the right side of the road (even when there is no other same direction traffic and oncoming traffic that can and might turn left across their path),
riding at 30+ mph downhill a few feet from the curb, perhaps in a bike lane
riding in door zones (*),
curb hugging (*),
etc., etc.Yes, you can talk about these individual behaviors, but in the end to get consistent compliance I really think it requires a paradigm shift within the mind of the cyclist, to get them thinking about themselves, their rights, the rules, the traffic around them, and their rights, altogether differently. In think there is a big difference between how most cyclists think and behave and the kind of thinking and behavior that is required to be consistently cycling on roads in accordance with rules of the road that govern how drivers behave. It is a true dichotomy, and it's helpful to have labels to distinguish the sides.

(*) curb hugging and riding in door zones is not technically in violation of the vehicular rules of the road, since there is no rule that I know of that prohibits these behavior, but they are arguably "not practicable" practices, and so are normally consider contrary to vehicular cycling.

[Helmet Head]

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

Cyclaholic wrote: "Those laws simply reflect the reality that roads belong primarily to cars and truck, not bicycles." and later clarified, "just stating what I beleive to be true."

Roads belong primarily to cars and trucks, not bicycles. There you have it folks. This is coming from someone who is not only a cyclist, but supposedly a cycling advocate. If this does not convince you of how prevalent the notion that cyclists have an obligation to not impede faster traffic is, I don't know what will.

It is an all too common human experience... We have met the enemy and they is us.

[catherine96821]

STOP thinking about what THEY did wrong, and START thinking about what you could have done differently to have avoided that.

Golden

I aspire to that in all areas.

I have conquered my road rage using that principle.

On that note, when I ride these days, I try and win over motorists by friendly nodding and mouthing "thank-you" when they pay attention or do something "right".

[Helmet Head]

STOP thinking about what THEY did wrong, and START thinking about what you could have done differently to have avoided that.
Golden

I aspire to that in all areas.

I have conquered my road rage using that principle.

On that note, when I ride these days, I try and win over motorists by friendly nodding and mouthing "thank-you" when they pay attention or do something "right".
Indeed the principle does apply in all areas, Catherine. I think I've just about mastered applying it in traffic (whether motoring or cycling - though I still slip from time to time, particularly when motoring), including using the techniques you mention above, but I still struggle to apply it in other relationships, including those I have on this forum, and in my family.

[TRaffic Jammer]

Absolutely nothing that gets written here even remotely begins to convince me that riding your bike as if you were a car will result in better treatment/more respect from motorists. On a nice day taking the lane or even the right tire line, you are asking for trouble. You're best bet in the city streets is to give yourself a couple ways of escape and be aware of everything around you. This shift you speak of must come from driver education. To help facilitate the continual ignorance of the rules of the road as they apply to all users borders on zealotry. Once drivers (en mass, as there are alot of good ones out there already) are more willing to be as alert as the cyclists generally are out there, I'd wager we'd see a huge drop in incidence numbers. The potential for death and destruction from cars seems to be ignored by the VC camp. I made sure to tell my eldest to be careful when rough-housing with the yougner one b/c of greater strength and size, now they play well together and noone gets hurt.

[Ed Holland]

I'm talking about...
turning left from the right side of the road,
merging by signaling and moving without looking back and making sure they have the right of way,
riding at night without proper lights/reflectors,
riding on the wrong side of the road,
blowing through a red light,
blowing through a 4-way stop even when others got their first,
passing on the right where drivers could and might turn right,
going straight across an intersection from the right side of the road (even when there is no other same direction traffic and oncoming traffic that can and might turn left across their path),
riding at 30+ mph downhill a few feet from the curb, perhaps in a bike lane
riding in door zones (*),
curb hugging (*),
etc., etc.Yes, you can talk about these individual behaviors, but in the end to get consistent compliance I really think it requires a paradigm shift within the mind of the cyclist, to get them thinking about themselves, their rights, the rules, the traffic around them, and their rights, altogether differently. In think there is a big difference between how most cyclists think and behave and the kind of thinking and behavior that is required to be consistently cycling on roads in accordance with rules of the road that govern how drivers behave. It is a true dichotomy, and it's helpful to have labels to distinguish the sides.

(*) curb hugging and riding in door zones is not technically in violation of the vehicular rules of the road, since there is no rule that I know of that prohibits these behavior, but they are arguably "not practicable" practices, and so are normally consider contrary to vehicular cycling.


Well, the first 8 of your examples are all practices that contravene specific road traffic laws. Ignorance of the law is no defence, and there are penalties that can be awarded to anyone using the road without attention to the law. These examples also represent behaviour which might increase the risk of incurring an accident.

We are expected to ride in accordance to the law, just as this behaviour is expected of other road users and pedestrians. We are not going to prevent jaywalking by People advocating "Vehicular Pedestrianism" who propose only crossing the road at a legal crossing point at the correct moment. There is nothing special or gifted about riding according to the law. Most cyclists who break rules do so because they have justified that behaviour to themselves. We can expect no paradigm shift - Just examine the varied attitudes expressed in "stop sign" threads for a prime example of this. Some cyclists break rules because they don't see it as a big deal and I'm sure some get a kick out of sneaky behaviour. Arguing in here that we should apply a fancy label to adherence of the Vehicle Code in order to promote changed behaviour is absurd.

Ed

[noisebeam]

Well, the first 8 of your examples are all practices that contravene specific road traffic laws.

There is nothing special or gifted about riding according to the law. Most cyclists who break rules do so because they have justified that behavior to themselves. We can expect no paradigm shift - Just examine the varied attitudes expressed in "stop sign" threads for a prime example of this. Some cyclists break rules because they don't see it as a big deal and I'm sure some get a kick out of sneaky behaviour. Arguing in here that we should apply a fancy label to adherence of the Vehicle Code in order to promote changed behavior is absurd.


The reason for the first point you make is that there is a very large, but not total, overlap of the rules of the road and the laws of the road. It is adherence to the rules of the road that strongly guide VC, not strict adherence to the laws.

It is true many cyclists don't follow the rules and/or break the law and there are many reasons/justifications/excuses for doing so. Convenience or 'finger to the man' may be some, but one excuse I hear very often is 'safety.' I believe learning and practicing vc can teach one that the safer alternative is often not breaking the law/ rules and instead following the rules.

Al

[Ed Holland]

The reason for the first point you make is that there is a very large, but not total, overlap of the rules of the road and the laws of the road. It is adherence to the rules of the road that strongly guide VC, not strict adherence to the laws.



That is an interesting distinction, Thank you Al.

The problem arises, though, that interpretation of the rules of the roads has many masters. This is even true amongst motorists. As an example (sorry, a bit off topic) it is recommended that one only passes on the left on the freeway* Regardless, vehicles passing to the right are as common as those passing to the left. However, this practice is permitted within the law. Should I advocate "Vehicular Motoring" over on the carforums because I choose only to pass on the left? Would I be taken seriously by other motorists ( possibly by some, not by others)

We cyclists are a diverse bunch. Add to this we have no requirement to reach any common or minimum level of training to operate our vehicles. We are expected to operate by the rules of the road by convention, and by the laws, for obvious reasons. Those that deviate from either expectation do so by choice or through lack of knowledge.

I practice adherance to both the law and the rules of the road, but I choose not to adopt a label for this stance.


Ed


*slow moving lanes of traffic excepted

[genec]

Golden

I aspire to that in all areas.

I have conquered my road rage using that principle.

On that note, when I ride these days, I try and win over motorists by friendly nodding and mouthing "thank-you" when they pay attention or do something "right".

Hey I've done that for a long time... even saluting motorists that operate well.

Had a great encounter with a guy in a Rolls Royce about 6 months ago. I was at a light and properly positioned, (as usual) this guy wanted to make a right onto the freeway on ramp and was able to pull up to the light, right into place. (it was not a right on red location) He had rolled up seconds after I had, so had seen my signal and move left out of the BL. He rolled down the window and told me I was doing a great job... and we both "tipped hat" at each other. Light turned green, we both rolled on.

This happens so infrequently, in spite of my very proper behavior. (three times last year... compared to dozens of honks and otherwise negative behavior from motorists) However, especially near my home... some JAM has to tell me what they think is wrong with my cycling. (whether they know or not).

[Helmet Head]

The reason for the first point you make is that there is a very large, but not total, overlap of the rules of the road and the laws of the road. It is adherence to the rules of the road that strongly guide VC, not strict adherence to the laws.

It is true many cyclists don't follow the rules and/or break the law and there are many reasons/justifications/excuses for doing so. Convenience or 'finger to the man' may be some, but one excuse I hear very often is 'safety.' I believe learning and practicing vc can teach one that the safer alternative is often not breaking the law/ rules and instead following the rules.

Al
Yes, I think vc training (whether in a class or self-taught) is about learning not only to follow the rules, but the reason to follow the rules. The reason to follow the rules isn't to avoid tickets, it's to be safer and more effective. It's true that breaking the rules can be effective from time to time, but habitual breaking of the rules results in a significant decrease in safety. This is all implicit in vehicular cycling.

A fact that I think no one here will dispute is that we're all human and thus have the capacity to be inattentive from time to time, for various reasons (distraction can come from internal thought stimuli at least as much as it can come from external stimuli). In other words, you may have influence on when your turn to be inattentive happens, but you don't have total control. You can count on not being attentive at practically random times. That's one of the main reasons to adhere to vehicular cycling habitually. If you are habitually following the rules, then you are likely to follow the rules even when you're not paying attention, and you're more likely to be following the rules when a moment of inattention comes. If you also accept that, all other factors held equal, following the rules is effective at reducing conflicts (including crashes) in traffic (as opposed to not following the rules), then the following conclusion is inescapable: A cyclist who habitually rides vehicularly is significantly less likely to encounter conflicts (including crashes) than is a cyclist with different habits. This conclusion is verified empirically, every day on every ride, by every vehicular cyclist I know.

That is the main reason to follow the rules, not because it is the law. That is the primary lesson of vehicular cycling, in my view.

[noisebeam]

The problem arises, though, that interpretation of the rules of the roads has many masters. This is even true amongst motorists. As an example (sorry, a bit off topic) it is recommended that one only passes on the left on the freeway* Regardless, vehicles passing to the right are as common as those passing to the left. However, this practice is permitted within the law. Should I advocate "Vehicular Motoring" over on the carforums because I choose only to pass on the left? Would I be taken seriously by other motorists ( possibly by some, not by others)
Off topic, but I support such and I'd bet if you got a group of 'serious minded' motorists together they would agree that passing on the left is the 'rule' (that depends on the rule to stay as far right as safe and practicable on multi lane roads.)

Al

[Helmet Head]

Hey I've done that for a long time... even saluting motorists that operate well.

Had a great encounter with a guy in a Rolls Royce about 6 months ago. I was at a light and properly positioned, (as usual) this guy wanted to make a right onto the freeway on ramp and was able to pull up to the light, right into place. (it was not a right on red location) He had rolled up seconds after I had, so had seen my signal and move left out of the BL. He rolled down the window and told me I was doing a great job... and we both "tipped hat" at each other. Light turned green, we both rolled on.

This happens so infrequently, in spite of my very proper behavior. (three times last year... compared to dozens of honks and otherwise negative behavior from motorists) However, especially near my home... some JAM has to tell me what they think is wrong with my cycling. (whether they know or not).
Well, saluting motorists who are operating well is all well and good, but it's not even beginning to "STOP thinking about what THEY did wrong, and START thinking about what YOU could have done differently to have avoided that. This is about how you react to unpleasant and even unsafe situations, not positive encounters.

[Ed Holland]

To HH.

Agreed, but this, in my view, just amounts to following the conventions of road use (so that one's own behaviour is predictable to others), along with the human capacity for awareness of one's surroundings, anticipation and learning through experience.

These last 3 points, especially the ability to anticipate difficult situations are what I consider to be the most important factors in safe riding.

Ed

[noisebeam]

Far more strangers you are sharing the road with will go out of their way to express a perceived wrongdoing than a great right doing. 4:1 ratio is pretty good Gene.

Al

[genec]

Well, saluting motorists who are operating well is all well and good, but it's not even beginning to "STOP thinking about what THEY did wrong, and START thinking about what YOU could have done differently to have avoided that. This is about how you react to unpleasant and even unsafe situations, not positive encounters.

If I am doing the right thing, and a motorist goes so far as to violate the law to "get around me." Then I hardly need to change my ways to get an errant motorist to change theirs.

Oh I suppose I could hug the curb... :eek:

[genec]

Far more strangers you are sharing the road with will go out of their way to express a perceived wrongdoing than a great right doing. 4:1 ratio is pretty good Gene.

Al

Thanks Al.

[Helmet Head]

Off topic, but I support such and I'd bet if you got a group of 'serious minded' motorists together they would agree that passing on the left is the 'rule' (that depends on the rule to stay as far right as safe and practicable on multi lane roads.)

Al
Yes. The underlying principle is speed positioning. The key is to know the principle and understand its purpose. Only then can you safely know when it might be safe to carefully operate contrary to it. This applies to freeway driving just as much as to vehicular cycling.

I think Gene has said that he can see the I-5 freeway from his office. Anyway, if he can, or if you observe a freeway for very much time, you will see drivers passing on the right. What you can't see is which ones realize they are compromising a safety principle when they do this, and are applying the due extra precaution because of that.

Similarly, all cyclists pass on the right from to time, and we've all seen it and done it. What you can't see is which ones realize they are compromising the speed positioning principle when they do this, and are applying the due extra precaution because of that. Though, I might add, there may be some clues. The one who has noticeably slowed and is showing signs of being hyper alert, especially as he approaches a place where motorists can and might turn right, is more likely to be a vehicular cyclist than is the one obliviously bombing his way down the door zone bike lane sandwiched between the parked cars and those stopped in congestion.

It's as important to know and understand the rules and principles to know when it's safe and reasonable to bend them as it is to follow them. This too is what VC is about. From my first post to this thread:

Vehicular cycling is riding a bicycle on roadways in accordance with the vehicular rules of the road (as opposed to in accordance with the pedestrian rules of the road, or not in accordance to any rules).

It means thinking like an equal driver (of an unequal vehicle) in traffic, and riding accordingly, as opposed to thinking like someone who doesn't belong on the road (except out of the way), and trying to stay out of the way of those who do belong (motorists). This doesn't preclude moving out of the way to allow faster traffic to pass when it is safe and reasonable to do so, but that's normal vehicular behavior for any driver of any relatively slow moving vehicle, so it's still acting like an equal driver (of an unequal vehicle) in traffic.

Beyond that, there are many different practices, styles and techniques that fall within the umbrella concept of "vehicular cycling". But as long as the behavior is consistent with the rules of the road that drivers of vehicles follow, then it is vehicular cycling.

One of the questions that sometimes arises here is how strictly the rules of the road have to be followed for it to be vehicular cycling. I think the best answer to that is that in order to practice vehicular cycling you don't have to follow the vehicular rules of the road any more strictly than does a typical motorist. Just as when you're driving, the important thing is to know the rules, and why they exist, so you understand when it's okay to bend them a little (like rolling a stop when there is no other traffic around, but certainly not when others are present who got there first).

[noisebeam]

If I am doing the right thing, and a motorist goes so far as to violate the law to "get around me." Then I hardly need to change my ways to get an errant motorist to change theirs.

Oh I suppose I could hug the curb... :eek:

One first needs to consider if it really matters to you if the motorist broke a law and if it really matters if they get around you. Probably not. All that really matters is they saw you early and passed you safely - that is all that would really matter no matter what vehicle you were driving.

But as to what you could have done? A slow stop signal before they broke the law? A look back? Moving left biased in lane as motorist approached? (I know you have probably been asked already)

Al

[Helmet Head]

To HH.

Agreed, but this, in my view, just amounts to following the conventions of road use (so that one's own behaviour is predictable to others), along with the human capacity for awareness of one's surroundings, anticipation and learning through experience.

These last 3 points, especially the ability to anticipate difficult situations are what I consider to be the most important factors in safe riding.

Ed
And what percentage of cyclists do you estimate understand the reason to follow the rules and the principles, much less know what they are and understand some of the unique ways they apply to bicycling in traffic?

[Helmet Head]

"STOP thinking about what THEY did wrong, and START thinking about what YOU could have done differently to have avoided that.
If I am doing the right thing, and a motorist goes so far as to violate the law to "get around me." Then I hardly need to change my ways to get an errant motorist to change theirs.

It still can't hurt, and will almost certainly help, for you to think about how your behavior contributed. If you are to bring about change in this area, you need to lose that chip on your shoulder.


Oh I suppose I could hug the curb... :eek:
That is not the only choice you have, Gene. What the choices are vary considerably from situation to situation, but until you start thinking in terms of how your behavior contributed, and what you could have done to avoid it, you won't even begin to realize what those possibilities are. But I assure you, reasonable alternatives exist in almost every unpleasant encounter. You have to accept that to find them, however, because it's very difficult to see that which you don't believe exists.

But at least considering hugging the curb is a step in the right direction (a step in the right direction in the same sense that there are no bad ideas in brainstorming). Anything else you could have done?

[genec]

It still can't hurt, and will almost certainly help, for you to think about how your behavior contributed. If you are to bring about change in this area, you need to lose that chip on your shoulder.


That is not the only choice you have, Gene. What the choices are vary considerably from situation to situation, but until you start thinking in terms of how your behavior contributed, and what you could have done to avoid it, you won't even begin to realize what those possibilities are. But I assure you, reasonable alternatives exist in almost every unpleasant encounter.

May I suggest that most of those alternatives involve motorists understanding that cyclists do in fact have rights to the road... Something that often they flat out do not realize... (as in the case of the honking man in the Road 2 class that suggested we should be "hugging the curb.") :rolleyes:

[Ed Holland]

And what percentage of cyclists do you estimate understand the reason to follow the rules and the principles, much less know what they are and understand some of the unique ways they apply to bicycling in traffic?

Honestly I have no idea. What percentage of those cyclists are prepared to change their approach to road use in order to obey the law? The rules?


Does it make a difference if we label it Vehicular Cycling, Legal Cycling, Safe Cycling, The Cycling Code of Conduct, Cycling Proficiency*. Should the government mandate that each new bicycle is supplied with a copy of the Vehicle Code (or the parts relevant to cycle use)? Would it help if a copy of "Effective Cycling" were included with every new bicycle.

The sporadic nature of the way most of us began to ride means that the rules and laws, and safe riding within (or indeed without) them are learnt by experience. Few riders seek practical or theoretical guidance through training courses or literature.


Ed


*A scheme to teach road sense, skills to children (aged about 9-11) in the UK during the late 70s & early 80s.

[genec]

Would it help if a copy of "Effective Cycling" were included with every new bicycle.


Only if you want to bore kids to death reading "ancient" writings about how to take care of bikes in the old days... and cover the ego ridden trials and tribulations of the author.

Only a small "center section" of the book has any real validity for actually riding a bike.

We would probably be better off including Street Smarts (http://www.bikexprt.com/streetsmarts/usa/index.htm).


It might actually be read.

[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.


Get off your high-horse, Serge. I'm fairly confident that Gene is an experienced competent cyclist, I daresay even moreso than you. The point that you're unable to register in your feeble little mind is that EVEN AFTER DOING EVERYTHING YOU CAN to be visible and safe, even doing it exactly as you prescribe, there are still drivers that will harrass abuse and otherwise be a dick to cyclists, and that your limited experience is not necessarily indicative of what other experience, even in areas as close to your's as Gene's. Sometimes, it's not the cyclist's fault.

[Helmet Head]

It still can't hurt, and will almost certainly help, for you to think about how your behavior contributed. If you are to bring about change in this area, you need to lose that chip on your shoulder.


That is not the only choice you have, Gene. What the choices are vary considerably from situation to situation, but until you start thinking in terms of how your behavior contributed, and what you could have done to avoid it, you won't even begin to realize what those possibilities are. But I assure you, reasonable alternatives exist in almost every unpleasant encounter.

May I suggest that most of those alternatives involve motorists understanding that cyclists do in fact have rights to the road... Something that often they flat out do not realize... (as in the case of the honking man in the Road 2 class that suggested we should be "hugging the curb.") :rolleyes:
May I suggest that your belief that "most of those alternatives involve motorists understanding that cyclists do in fact have rights to the road", coupled with your belief that most motorists don't have this understanding (a notion I won't dispute but personally find insignificant in my riding), blocks your mind from considering them, and, so, from experiencing their effectivity?

In the case of the Road 2 incident, you had many alternatives to what you did that do not involve curb hugging or that man "understanding that cyclists do in fact have rights to the road". Can you think of any?

[Helmet Head]

Get off your high-horse, Serge. I'm fairly confident that Gene is an experienced competent cyclist, I daresay even moreso than you. The point that you're unable to register in your feeble little mind is that EVEN AFTER DOING EVERYTHING YOU CAN to be visible and safe, even doing it exactly as you prescribe, there are still drivers that will harrass abuse and otherwise be a dick to cyclists, and that your limited experience is not necessarily indicative of what other experience, even in areas as close to your's as Gene's. Sometimes, it's not the cyclist's fault.
I don't dispute the part in bold at all, Allister, and contend that nothing I've written contradicts it (if it does, then I've expressed myself poorly).

As to the other stuff - I believe that I ride more than Gene, certainly in the same ball bark, based on our relative physical conditions (and other factors... age, body style, not being significantly different) - and yet encounter unpleasant situations much less often than he does. Not NEVER... but much less often.

And on the rare times that I do have an unpleasant encounter, every time, without exception, the first thing that I do is not focus on what the motorist did wrong (because usually he did do something - but that's inevitable and out of my control), but on what I could have done to have avoided the unpleasant encounter or close call or whatever. I don't think Gene does that at all, and that alone is probably the best explanation for why his incidence of these unpleasant encounters is not reduced.

[Ed Holland]

Only if you want to bore kids to death reading "ancient" writings about how to take care of bikes in the old days... and cover the ego ridden trials and tribulations of the author.

Only a small "center section" of the book has any real validity for actually riding a bike.

We would probably be better off including Street Smarts (http://www.bikexprt.com/streetsmarts/usa/index.htm).


It might actually be read.

My question was rhetorical, of course, but you make a fair point nonetheless. The point is most adults buy a bike, then work the rest out later, hopefully with the application of some common sense. Common sense is not always reliable. Children might have a fighting chance if their parents take the time to teach them riding skills. That is a big if.

I don't really have any more to contribute, so will take a back seat again, unless I can think of something really silly to add.

Cheers,
Ed

[genec]

May I suggest that your belief that "most of those alternatives involve motorists understanding that cyclists do in fact have rights to the road", coupled with your belief that most motorists don't have this understanding (a notion I won't dispute but personally find insignificant in my riding), blocks your mind from considering them, and, so, from experiencing their effectivity?

In the case of the Road 2 incident, you had many alternatives to what you did that do not involve curb hugging or that man "understanding that cyclists do in fact have rights to the road". Can you think of any?

Sure, I could have upped my speed a bit. I certainly was already signaling. And no doubt I could have shot the "Alpha glare." :rolleyes:

But none of that would likely have mattered... as in his mind "we were doing it all wrong."

You want me to change my mind, but my observations and conversations with motorists that I have conversed with, tell me that the problem is generally not mine, but their's.

[John Forester]

Honestly I have no idea. What percentage of those cyclists are prepared to change their approach to road use in order to obey the law? The rules?


Does it make a difference if we label it Vehicular Cycling, Legal Cycling, Safe Cycling, The Cycling Code of Conduct, Cycling Proficiency*. Should the government mandate that each new bicycle is supplied with a copy of the Vehicle Code (or the parts relevant to cycle use)? Would it help if a copy of "Effective Cycling" were included with every new bicycle.

The sporadic nature of the way most of us began to ride means that the rules and laws, and safe riding within (or indeed without) them are learnt by experience. Few riders seek practical or theoretical guidance through training courses or literature.


Ed


*A scheme to teach road sense, skills to children (aged about 9-11) in the UK during the late 70s & early 80s.

This discussion of possibly getting government, or society, call it what you will, to teach proper cycling skills and behavior is, to my mind, not far removed from discussing whether an invisible pink unicorn was seen in the garden yesterday. Our society wants cyclists to behave in the childish manner. Considering the effort and money that our society has spent on achieving this goal, society's aim should have become apparent to you all. We, as better informed cyclists, should be opposing the degree to which society and government try to impose such behavior on us.

I repeat the description of the days before bikeways. We well-informed cyclists were largely free to operate in the vehicular manner. We recognized the official instructions for childish cycling, but we were politically incapable of correcting that situation. So, we let the parents train their children to cycle childishly and dangerously. Two different cycling societies, that was, separate and apart. It was only when the public, being motorists, got worried that the resurgence of young adult cycling in the 1960s would plug up "their" roads, that the public, being motorists, created bikeways to provide the physical embodiment of the childish cycling that they wanted enforced. That is plain discrimination, nothing more, and the idiotic argumentation of those responsible, such as Geller in Portland, simply provides conclusive demonstration of that fact.

Is it possible to get back to the situation of two different cycling societies, the majority cycling in the childish manner, the minority cycling in the vehicular manner, separate and apart? I see that one of the great obstacles to a return to that situation is the advocacy by the bicycle advocates for more of the discriminatory facilities. The bicycle advocates believe that applying more discrimination will, somehow, persuade large sections of the motoring public to take up bicycle transportation. Well, it hasn't done so in thirty years, and there are good reasons for believing that such a change will not occur as long as motoring is available. In short, the hopes of the bicycle advocates are doubly evanescent; discrimination does not generate love for itself, and motoring is too useful and available.

[Allister]

It still can't hurt, and will almost certainly help, for you to think about how your behavior contributed.

Maybe he could buy them flowers.

If you are to bring about change in this area, you need to lose that chip on your shoulder.


Such arrogance.

My theory as to why you suffer so little harassment (other than because you rarely ride) is that with all the smiling and waving and weaving about, drivers probably think you're a bit spastic and give you special consideration that they wouldn't give to someone with all their faculties intact.

[Allister]

Our society wants cyclists to behave in the childish manner.

You're sounding like a stuck record now, and a paranoid one at that.

My observation is that 'society' couldn't give a stuff how cyclists behave.

[Helmet Head]

Sure, I could have upped my speed a bit. I certainly was already signaling. And no doubt I could have shot the "Alpha glare." :rolleyes:
Anything else?

Did you see him coming long before he reached you? You didn't just cut out in front of him, after all. You moved over into an empty lane. At his relatively high speed he closed that gap fairly quickly. Were you even aware he was there before he honked? Did you do anything to let him know that you knew he was there, and to appear like you were in control and knew what you were doing? Do you even think this way? These are the unwritten social rules of riding in traffic that you can only learn by observing and experimenting.


But none of that would likely have mattered... as in his mind "we were doing it all wrong."

It is your conviction of the part in bold, even though there is no way that you could know that to be true, that blocks your mind. As to what was in his mind the first time he noticed you, you don't know what that was. All that you know was what he said about it some 30 seconds later. These words are likely to reflect rationalizations for his reaction as much as anything else. He was frustrated by your presence for reasons that even he probably could not identify, and reacted by honking, yelling, shaking his fist, or whatever he did. It was a natural human reaction to frustration, and you were the perceived cause of his frustration, so he directed his reaction at you. Then you asked him what that was about, and he blurted out "you were doing it all wrong".


You want me to change my mind, but my observations and conversations with motorists that I have conversed with, tell me that the problem is generally not mine, but their's.
STOP thinking about what THEY did wrong, and START thinking about what YOU could have done differently to have avoided that.

You can do it!

[John Forester]

You're sounding like a stuck record now, and a paranoid one at that.

My observation is that 'society' couldn't give a stuff how cyclists behave.

Your own observation? I take it that your observation is of Australian society, and I don't have experience of that aspect of Australian society. However, my observations, if you read, always apply to American society, and generally say so specifically, unless they apply to another society, in which case I am careful to specify which society.

I suppose that you are ignorant of American society and its views about cycling. Then, just don't inject your parochial views into the discussion in which they do not belong and have no relevance.

[Allister]

I don't dispute the part in bold at all, Allister, and contend that nothing I've written contradicts it

And yet you persist in claiming that there was something Gene could've done to defuse the driver. Time to let it go, Serge.

(if it does, then I've expressed myself poorly).

Nothing new there.

As to the other stuff - I believe that I ride more than Gene, certainly in the same ball bark, based on our relative physical conditions (and other factors... age, body style, not being significantly different) - and yet encounter unpleasant situations much less often than he does. Not NEVER... but much less often.


And he's covered his theories as to why that is that case. It's certainly been my experience that different locations (even as close as 5 miles apart) and different times of day are worlds apart with respect to the level of sh*t I get from motorists, even though I ride the same way. Pull your head out of your parochial mindset, and you might be able to discuss things sensibly.

And on the rare times that I do have an unpleasant encounter, every time, without exception, the first thing that I do is not focus on what the motorist did wrong (because usually he did do something - but that's inevitable and out of my control), but on what I could have done to have avoided the unpleasant encounter or close call or whatever. I don't think Gene does that at all, and that alone is probably the best explanation for why his incidence of these unpleasant encounters is not reduced.

Well aren't you special.:rolleyes:

[Allister]

Your own observation? I take it that your observation is of Australian society, and I don't have experience of that aspect of Australian society. However, my observations, if you read, always apply to American society, and generally say so specifically, unless they apply to another society, in which case I am careful to specify which society.

You make a faulty assumption, and then argue against it? Nice work. Isn't that what you were whining about Bek doing recently?

Take Note: Unless noted otherwise, all my comments are in context with the post they are replying to. You said 'society' on an international forum, and I responded in kind, about the international society.

I suppose that you are ignorant of American society and its views about cycling. Then, just don't inject your parochial views into the discussion in which they do not belong and have no relevance.

Don't try and bully me out of the thread, John. The similarities between Aus and the US are closer than you obviously think. I was talking (or at least I though I was) about the same society you are. If you want to make more parochial statements then preface them as such, or STFU.

[Allister]

STOP thinking about what THEY did wrong, and START thinking about what YOU could have done differently to have avoided that.

You can do it!

Good God In Heaven! You really can't let it go, can you?

[Helmet Head]

Such arrogance.

My theory as to why you suffer so little harassment (other than because you rarely ride) is that with all the smiling and waving and weaving about, drivers probably think you're a bit spastic and give you special consideration that they wouldn't give to someone with all their faculties intact.
You have some gall telling me I'm being arrogant.
At least I know Gene and have ridden with him - I know what I'm talking about. When I contend that he rides around looking like he's oblivious and could care less about how he's affecting others, I'm going by what I've actually witnessed, coupled with what I've learned about how Gene thinks on this forum.

You have no clue as to how I ride or how drivers react to me and why, but don't let that stop you from speculating... :rolleyes:

By the way, does pelting others with immature insults bring you enjoyment?

[Helmet Head]

Good God In Heaven! You really can't let it go, can you?
I don't know what you're trying to accomplish here, but I'm trying to give Gene some ideas that I sincerely believe will help him significantly reduce the incidence of unpleasant encounters he has while riding in traffic. I may turn out to be wrong, but that's honesty what I hope to accomplish.

All you seem to be interesting in doing is biting ankles.

[Allister]

You have some gall telling me I'm being arrogant.
At least I know Gene and have ridden with him - I know what I'm talking about. When I contend that he rides around looking like he's oblivious and could care less about how he's affecting others, I'm going by what I've actually witnessed, coupled with what I've learned about how Gene thinks on this forum.

Yeah, well I'm not all that confident in your observational abilities, to be honest. I prefer to go by what he says himself, rather than rely on your oft-noted tunnel vision.

You have no clue as to how I ride or how drivers react to me and why, but don't let that stop you from speculating... :rolleyes:

You mean apart from the ten gagillion posts you've made here?

By the way, does pelting others with immature insults bring you enjoyment?

You think 'a bit spastic' is an insult? How insensitive to those that are actually so afflicted.

[Allister]

I don't know what you're trying to accomplish here, but I'm trying to give Gene some ideas that I sincerely believe will help him significantly reduce the incidence of unpleasant encounters he has while riding in traffic. I may turn out to be wrong, but that's honesty what I hope to accomplish.

I'm here for the charming company and scintillating conversation. This isn't bike school.

All you seem to be interesting in doing is biting ankles.

Because I'm not so arrogant to think that someone that hasn't asked for instruction needs it anyway.

[iltb-2]

Your own observation? I take it that your observation is of Australian society, and I don't have experience of that aspect of Australian society. However, my observations, if you read, always apply to American society, and generally say so specifically, unless they apply to another society, in which case I am careful to specify which society.

I suppose that you are ignorant of American society and its views about cycling. Then, just don't inject your parochial views into the discussion in which they do not belong and have no relevance.
Forester's "observations" have been clouded by parochial/dogmatic myopia for over 30 years and represent conditions found on Planet Forester more than anyone else's real world on any side of the big ponds. Yet Forester has the "nerve" to call out a poster for "parochial views" who makes a spot-on-almost-universal-truth observation, because it doesn't agree with the approved Dogmatic view from Planet Forester. What an ignorant parochial chump.

[LittleBigMan]

I repeat the description of the days before bikeways...We recognized the official instructions for childish cycling.
I had a discussion with my closest friend at work yesterday, someone I respect very much and am close to, a non-cyclist. He said when he grew up in South Georgia, there was one basic rule he and every other child was taught about bicycle riding--stay out of the street, away from traffic.

That made me think about my own childhood in Rockville, Maryland, a suburb of Washington, D.C. I was thrilled to ride my bike to school for the first time in the first grade (1965.) Suddenly, everyone was yelling at me, including crossing guards. "Get off the sidewalk!" I was embarrassed and confused. Nobody had taught me that, and I had thought sidewalk riding was best.

As I reflect upon my upbringing, contrasting it to my South Georgia friend's, I realize that (at least at that time in the past) the teaching of child cyclists varied from place to place. I'm not sure how prevalent sidewalk cycling was, nor street cycling. But my friend's comments made me think.

Today in Atlanta, Georgia, USA, I see a varied response among motorists to cycling on the road in traffic. Most seem to treat me as a responsible road user. A minority (including a few pedestrians) have told me to "get on the sidewalk/path." But it's hard to know what motorists are actually thinking.

At work, over the last decade of bicycle commuting, I have learned more precisely what my coworker's attitudes are. It boils down to ignorance of cycling in general, along with admonishments to "be safe," while at the same time there is a willingness to accept and encourage my cycling. At times, when people ask me, "You didn't ride today, did you?" referring to inclement weather, I sense they are hoping I will say, "No way!" But they still tell me they respect what I do.

I would say that the overall feeling is that commuting by bicycle is too dangerous, hard, or impractical to do in traffic. But most of these people have at least as far to drive as I have to ride my bike (15 miles one-way,) and some have two or three times the distance to travel.

Yet on my commute, I see a few transportational cyclists, like me. On certain days of the week, I see many recreational road cyclists.

All in all, I have to agree that most people where I now live in Atlanta, to which most residents have moved from some other location, seem to disregard cycling as a viable transportation mode for themselves, although they may respect my practice of it. This could be born of an upbringing similar to my South Georgia friend's ("stay out of the street,") or it could be the influence of many years of practical experience driving in American culture. They might both be true.

What we have to do now is to influence people to accept what we do, and to make sure they understand our rightful place in the road, even if they think we shouldn't be there.

[John Forester]

You make a faulty assumption, and then argue against it? Nice work. Isn't that what you were whining about Bek doing recently?

Take Note: Unless noted otherwise, all my comments are in context with the post they are replying to. You said 'society' on an international forum, and I responded in kind, about the international society.



Don't try and bully me out of the thread, John. The similarities between Aus and the US are closer than you obviously think. I was talking (or at least I though I was) about the same society you are. If you want to make more parochial statements then preface them as such, or STFU.

Allister, you wrote: "My observation is that 'society' couldn't give a stuff how cyclists behave." And now you maintain that this observation, of Australian society, applies equally well to that of the USA.

I maintain that the cyclist restrictive traffic laws, the bike-safety instruction, and the program of building bikeways are all designed to require that cyclists act in the manner of childish cycling, otherwise known as cyclist-inferiority cycling. And I maintain that there is no governmental activity persuading cyclists to ride in the vehicular manner, although the major part of the traffic laws require that. These are clear evidence of how American government and society want cyclists to behave.

[Ed Holland]

This discussion of possibly getting government, or society, call it what you will, to teach proper cycling skills and behavior is, to my mind, not far removed from discussing whether an invisible pink unicorn was seen in the garden yesterday. Our society wants cyclists to behave in the childish manner. Considering the effort and money that our society has spent on achieving this goal, society's aim should have become apparent to you all. We, as better informed cyclists, should be opposing the degree to which society and government try to impose such behavior on us.

I repeat the description of the days before bikeways. We well-informed cyclists were largely free to operate in the vehicular manner. We recognized the official instructions for childish cycling, but we were politically incapable of correcting that situation. So, we let the parents train their children to cycle childishly and dangerously. Two different cycling societies, that was, separate and apart. It was only when the public, being motorists, got worried that the resurgence of young adult cycling in the 1960s would plug up "their" roads, that the public, being motorists, created bikeways to provide the physical embodiment of the childish cycling that they wanted enforced. That is plain discrimination, nothing more, and the idiotic argumentation of those responsible, such as Geller in Portland, simply provides conclusive demonstration of that fact.

Is it possible to get back to the situation of two different cycling societies, the majority cycling in the childish manner, the minority cycling in the vehicular manner, separate and apart? I see that one of the great obstacles to a return to that situation is the advocacy by the bicycle advocates for more of the discriminatory facilities. The bicycle advocates believe that applying more discrimination will, somehow, persuade large sections of the motoring public to take up bicycle transportation. Well, it hasn't done so in thirty years, and there are good reasons for believing that such a change will not occur as long as motoring is available. In short, the hopes of the bicycle advocates are doubly evanescent; discrimination does not generate love for itself, and motoring is too useful and available.

I'm sure you recognise that I was not serious about mandating education or training, just highlighting that there is no regular way in which riders learn to operate their vehicles. I do not think for a minute that it is a viable approach :) - but then what is?

Indeed you are right, large sections of the motoring public are not suddenly about to adopt pedal cycles, despite the fact that they are readily available, efficient and easy to use. It would have already happened by now, but people like cars.

I can't comment on the attitude changes of the 1960's as I was not there, but surely the roads were plugging themselves as urban growth spiralled up and up. The cyclists might have been caught in the crossfire, so to speak, but should we condemn in whole a desire to accommodate them on our roadways? I maintain this should not be the case.

Surely those of us who take more than a casual uptake of cycling become rule following road riders by experience.

Ed

(I promised to return only if I had something silly to say, but perhaps this was it ;))

[Allister]

Allister, you wrote: "My observation is that 'society' couldn't give a stuff how cyclists behave." And now you maintain that this observation, of Australian society, applies equally well to that of the USA.

It was never specifically of Australian society John, unless that's what you were referring to.

I maintain that the cyclist restrictive traffic laws, the bike-safety instruction, and the program of building bikeways are all designed to require that cyclists act in the manner of childish cycling, otherwise known as cyclist-inferiority cycling. And I maintain that there is no governmental activity persuading cyclists to ride in the vehicular manner, although the major part of the traffic laws require that. These are clear evidence of how American government and society want cyclists to behave.

Firstly, 'childish cycling' and 'cyclist-inferiority cycling' are terms entirely of your own invention, John. Show me any government document that mentions them, or that they are systematically as a matter of policy trying to get cyclists to act in such a way.

Secondly, don't confuse 'government' with 'society'. If you want to discuss government programs, fine, but don't assume that that's what I was talking about. Government is merely one aspect of society.

Thirdly, rodd rules, bike education programs, and bikeway building are all happening here in pretty much the same way that they're happening there, from my observations. I just don't interpret it as a Great Government Conspiracy like you do.

Like I said, 'society' (being the entirety of the people and organisasions we share the country with) rarely if ever give a thought to how or why a few people ride their bikes. It's simply so far down on the list of priorities that it barely rates a mention. In other words, they couldn't give a stuff.

One exception is when people see cyclists flouting the road rules, and they go off on one of their tired little rants about it. If anything that seems to indicate societal pressure to ride legally,or Vehicularly(tm), if that's what you want to call it.

Another is when a cyclist claiming the lane gets told to 'get on the footpath', but any cyclist with half a brain, even you, soon learns to ignore it. Constructing paranoid delusions of government persecution from that just makes you look like a nutjob.

As for the government cycling programs you mention - I think they are born from a genuine concern for cyclists safety. True they may be a bit misguided in their application at times, but that's where people like you should be guiding them towards more appropriate solutions, if any are needed at all, in a reasonable and co-operative way, not taking your more usual combatative approach, which has clearly been an utter failure to date.

As for the road rules, I see no 'cyclist restrictive laws' in our rules, nor have I seen any in the rules for the various US states I've glanced over (including the 'use the bikelane unless impracticable to do so' one). Again, they have perhaps been poorly enforced or interpreted at times, but that's not a flaw with the rules, nor does it indicate a conspiracy to get cyclists to ride in a 'childish' way.

You say "I maintain that there is no governmental activity persuading cyclists to ride in the vehicular manner, although the major part of the traffic laws require that.". What, you don't think the drafting of those laws is a governmental activity? You're really stretching the limits of logic there, John.

All that said, there is clearly a societal prejudice against cyclists and cycling wrt law enforcement and prosecuting cases where cyclists get killed or injured, but that has nothing to do with systematic attempts to get cyclists riding 'childishly'. It's not because society doesn't want us riding on the road, it's just that they don't give a sh*t about us when we do (there's that point again).