Buzzman: I need help getting the hornets, worms, evils of the world back in the box! The Admiral and crew are being bored to death by the pompous dialogue. Maybe it's best we get back in the ship and let the planet destroy itself.

I honestly posed the question, not to spark this craziness but because I wrongly thought that this was a silly issue. Evidently this is very serious stuff to some. vehicular cycling, vehicular vehicularing, cycling cycling, riding riding, biking biking, motoring motoring ...see a pattern? Has anyone else found the website with the forum called Bicycular Automobiling?

Buzzman: I need help getting the hornets, worms, evils of the world back in the box! The Admiral and crew are being bored to death by the pompous dialogue. Maybe it's best we get back in the ship and let the planet destroy itself.

There is no escape. Resistance is futile. :p

Buzzman: I need help getting the hornets, worms, evils of the world back in the box! The Admiral and crew are being bored to death by the pompous dialogue. Maybe it's best we get back in the ship and let the planet destroy itself.

May I come with you?

Buzzman:
I honestly posed the question, not to spark this craziness but because I wrongly thought that this was a silly issue.

I know, you're not the first but you won't do it again will you... ;)

Buzzman:
Has anyone else found the website with the forum called Bicycular Automobiling?


No but I did invent the concept of CV, that is, Cyclicular Vehicling. It was a hotly undebated topic in its time.

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



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).

You say that I should not confuse government with society. In many respects, government does what society wants, although in some respects government does what some special interest wants. In the case of American governments and society as they have been involved in bicycling matters, the two have always been in strong agreement. The law required cyclists to ride as close to the right-hand edge of the roadway as practicable, and the American Automobile Association puts out a poster showing the rear view of a child cyclist and child tricyclist, each looking straight ahead and each with his left arm extended in the turn signal. Similarly, the German equivalent of the AAA put out a film arguing that child cyclists are incapable of obeying the rules of the road. In the American case, all of the cyclist instructional material published for decades came from the highway establishment, part of it from the National Safety Council, and all of it insisted on the first priority of staying out of the way of cars and none of it taught how to obey the general rules of the road. Aside from the little bits in the LAW Bulletin written by Fred DeLong, Effective Cycling was the first American instructional material teaching cyclists how to obey the rules of the road.

The Californians who designed the American bikeway system deliberately provided physical implementation of the cycling method by which American society and governments desired cyclists to operate, as described in both the restrictive laws produced by government and the instructional material produced by the highway establishment. Furthermore, those bikeway designers deliberately refused requests to recommend road designs that would reduce known major types of car-bike collisions, such as more protected left turn signal phases and more right-turn-only lanes (to protect against the left cross and right hook car-bike collisions). In short, they were interested only in shoving cyclists to the side of the road, or off it, and were not interested in genuine measures to reduce car-bike collisions.

You claim that the terms childish cycling and cyclist-inferiority cycling are not valid because they do not appear in any governmental document. Your claim is absurd, given the facts. The restrictive laws were argued on the basis that cyclists should not be expected to have to obey the rules of the road, because they were children. All of the cyclist instructional material was directed at children, and all of it failed to teach obeying the rules of the road, just stay to the side of the road, stop at stop signs without teaching when to start, signal your turns and turn without obeying the turning rules. Furthermore, the professional-level instructional material produced by the FHWA also fails to teach professionals of bicycle transportation that cyclists should obey the rules of the road. Naturally, it fails to do this because if it did that instruction would invalidate the governments' entire program.This is childish cycling, and it is justified by the argument that cyclists are inferior to motorists in capability and, of course, in status. The fact that I had to invent the names that properly, appropriately, and accurately label this method of cycling does not invalidate the names.

You claim that there are no cyclist-restricting traffic laws, using the permitted excuses as your reason. There were no permitted excuses in the beginning; you have no knowledge, apparently, of the fights that it has taken to get them inserted. But still, these are restrictive because they place the burden on the cyclist of having to argue that excuse number X applies to his situation. Cyclists should not be placed in that discriminatory position; they comply, even when it would be better not to, simply because of the difficulty of justifying their position, to society or to the police.

You try to catch me out in logical argument, when I state that most traffic laws require cyclists to operate in the vehicular manner but the restrictive laws prohibit such operation. Well, that's clearly the case, isn't it? In the American laws, cyclists either drive vehicles or are drivers of vehicles, and therefore must obey the laws for drivers of vehicles. However, the restrictive laws greatly reduce the right to act as drivers of vehicles, in ways that are entirely unjustified and are no more than discrimination.

You make two rather similar claims, that you no not believe that these actions constitute a Great Government Conspiracy, as you claim that I do, and that these actions "are born from a genuine concern for cyclists safety." First, I have never claimed that these actions stem from any conspiracy. The evidence of the restrictive laws is public. The evidence of the instructional materials, and of their authors, has always been public; in fact, it could not have worked if it had been secret. The evidence of exactly what the bikeway designers did is in the public record. These acts did not, and do not, constitute a conspiracy, which word implies secrecy and plotting.

These acts, however, are the conscious implementations of a view of cyclist behavior that suits motorists but has never had any scientific evidence for it and, once the evidence was discovered thirty years ago, was utterly disproved. Therefore, we have to account for the fact that government and society had created and then continued programs regarding bicycle transportation that contradict the known facts of proper bicycle operation but that suit the desires of motorists while, paradoxically, also suiting the desires of those opposed to motoring. None of the three sets of facts are realistically disputable: cyclists should obey the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles; society supports governmental programs for disobeying the rules of the road; bicycle advocates advocate those same programs. This is not a conspiracy; these are all the expectable results of generating the childish view of cycling as enforced through fear of same-direction motor traffic.

You recommend adopting a reasonable and cooperative approach to correcting this situation. Well, that hasn't worked. Look at this discussion group, as just one example. They consider that obeying the rules of the road is a debatable proposition, because they advocate facilities that contradict the rules of the road, and they do that because they oppose motoring. On the other side, the motoring and highway organizations are not amenable to the facts because the motorists who constitute their members like facilities and laws that discriminate against cyclists, and vehicular cyclists have insufficient political power to force them to act according to the facts.

Your recommendation has been proved false by the facts. It is reasonable to consider how to fix the problem, but only a strategy that is based on understanding the facts has any reasonable chance of success.

You say that I should not confuse government with society. In many respects, government does what society wants, although in some respects government does what some special interest wants. In the case of American governments and society as they have been involved in bicycling matters, the two have always been in strong agreement. The law required cyclists to ride as close to the right-hand edge of the roadway as practicable, and the American Automobile Association puts out a poster showing the rear view of a child cyclist and child tricyclist, each looking straight ahead and each with his left arm extended in the turn signal. Similarly, the German equivalent of the AAA put out a film arguing that child cyclists are incapable of obeying the rules of the road. In the American case, all of the cyclist instructional material published for decades came from the highway establishment, part of it from the National Safety Council, and all of it insisted on the first priority of staying out of the way of cars and none of it taught how to obey the general rules of the road. Aside from the little bits in the LAW Bulletin written by Fred DeLong, Effective Cycling was the first American instructional material teaching cyclists how to obey the rules of the road.

The Californians who designed the American bikeway system deliberately provided physical implementation of the cycling method by which American society and governments desired cyclists to operate, as described in both the restrictive laws produced by government and the instructional material produced by the highway establishment. Furthermore, those bikeway designers deliberately refused requests to recommend road designs that would reduce known major types of car-bike collisions, such as more protected left turn signal phases and more right-turn-only lanes (to protect against the left cross and right hook car-bike collisions). In short, they were interested only in shoving cyclists to the side of the road, or off it, and were not interested in genuine measures to reduce car-bike collisions.

You claim that the terms childish cycling and cyclist-inferiority cycling are not valid because they do not appear in any governmental document. Your claim is absurd, given the facts. The restrictive laws were argued on the basis that cyclists should not be expected to have to obey the rules of the road, because they were children. All of the cyclist instructional material was directed at children, and all of it failed to teach obeying the rules of the road, just stay to the side of the road, stop at stop signs without teaching when to start, signal your turns and turn without obeying the turning rules. Furthermore, the professional-level instructional material produced by the FHWA also fails to teach professionals of bicycle transportation that cyclists should obey the rules of the road. Naturally, it fails to do this because if it did that instruction would invalidate the governments' entire program.This is childish cycling, and it is justified by the argument that cyclists are inferior to motorists in capability and, of course, in status. The fact that I had to invent the names that properly, appropriately, and accurately label this method of cycling does not invalidate the names.

You claim that there are no cyclist-restricting traffic laws, using the permitted excuses as your reason. There were no permitted excuses in the beginning; you have no knowledge, apparently, of the fights that it has taken to get them inserted. But still, these are restrictive because they place the burden on the cyclist of having to argue that excuse number X applies to his situation. Cyclists should not be placed in that discriminatory position; they comply, even when it would be better not to, simply because of the difficulty of justifying their position, to society or to the police.

You try to catch me out in logical argument, when I state that most traffic laws require cyclists to operate in the vehicular manner but the restrictive laws prohibit such operation. Well, that's clearly the case, isn't it? In the American laws, cyclists either drive vehicles or are drivers of vehicles, and therefore must obey the laws for drivers of vehicles. However, the restrictive laws greatly reduce the right to act as drivers of vehicles, in ways that are entirely unjustified and are no more than discrimination.

You make two rather similar claims, that you no not believe that these actions constitute a Great Government Conspiracy, as you claim that I do, and that these actions "are born from a genuine concern for cyclists safety." First, I have never claimed that these actions stem from any conspiracy. The evidence of the restrictive laws is public. The evidence of the instructional materials, and of their authors, has always been public; in fact, it could not have worked if it had been secret. The evidence of exactly what the bikeway designers did is in the public record. These acts did not, and do not, constitute a conspiracy, which word implies secrecy and plotting.

These acts, however, are the conscious implementations of a view of cyclist behavior that suits motorists but has never had any scientific evidence for it and, once the evidence was discovered thirty years ago, was utterly disproved. Therefore, we have to account for the fact that government and society had created and then continued programs regarding bicycle transportation that contradict the known facts of proper bicycle operation but that suit the desires of motorists while, paradoxically, also suiting the desires of those opposed to motoring. None of the three sets of facts are realistically disputable: cyclists should obey the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles; society supports governmental programs for disobeying the rules of the road; bicycle advocates advocate those same programs. This is not a conspiracy; these are all the expectable results of generating the childish view of cycling as enforced through fear of same-direction motor traffic.

You recommend adopting a reasonable and cooperative approach to correcting this situation. Well, that hasn't worked. Look at this discussion group, as just one example. They consider that obeying the rules of the road is a debatable proposition, because they advocate facilities that contradict the rules of the road, and they do that because they oppose motoring. On the other side, the motoring and highway organizations are not amenable to the facts because the motorists who constitute their members like facilities and laws that discriminate against cyclists, and vehicular cyclists have insufficient political power to force them to act according to the facts.

Your recommendation has been proved false by the facts. It is reasonable to consider how to fix the problem, but only a strategy that is based on understanding the facts has any reasonable chance of success.

And many of us sometimes respond to VC diatribes in this way:

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

Buzzman: I need help getting the hornets, worms, evils of the world back in the box! The Admiral and crew are being bored to death by the pompous dialogue. Maybe it's best we get back in the ship and let the planet destroy itself.

let's go...

http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s176/kencheeseman/images-1.jpg

You recommend adopting a reasonable and cooperative approach to correcting this situation. Well, that hasn't worked. Look at this discussion group, as just one example. They consider that obeying the rules of the road is a debatable proposition, because they advocate facilities that contradict the rules of the road, and they do that because they oppose motoring.

Indeed. Just as another example, this is from another currently active thread:


I'll bite. What is the basis for asserting that pro bike messengers are more likely to get injured while riding lawfully than when riding unlawfully?Observation.

Though in this case Hurst is arguing that obeying the rules of the road is a debatable proposition not because he advocates facilities that contradict the rules of the road, but because he advocates riding in a manner that contradicts the rules of the road, at least for those who are "pro messengers".

And the basis for this is "observation" clearly biased by rationalization in favor of justifying the use of scofflaw cycling techniques to make urban deliveries quicker and thus more profitable, at least in the short run.

And many of us sometimes respond to VC diatribes in this way:

Empty baseless derision.

Empty baseless derision.

I think the observation has merit.

We've gone well past the point of sharing views and tactics regarding cycling practice, and thoroughly across the line into hopelessly intractable arguments about bicycle & transport politics. Not exactly 60 Minutes is it?

And the basis for this is "observation" clearly biased by rationalization in favor of justifying the use of scofflaw cycling techniques to make urban deliveries quicker and thus more profitable, at least in the short run.

In order to be the "pro messenger" routinely fracturing the traffic laws has more benefits than profit.
Being in front as opposed to beside yields a safer work day on the bike. I know this flies in the face of VC but, based on 'actual real world experience' it works.

I think the observation has merit.

We've gone well past the point of sharing views and tactics regarding cycling practice, and thoroughly across the line into hopelessly intractable arguments about bicycle & transport politics. Not exactly 60 Minutes is it?
The conversation traveled the direction that it traveled between Allister and John. To dismiss the whole thing, without explanation, as "diatribe", especially when it's not that at all (it's a well-reasoned explanation, not an attack), and to support such a false characterization, as you just did, is disingenuous. It's certainly not productive.

In order to be the "pro messenger" routinely fracturing the traffic laws has more benefits than profit.
Being in front as opposed to beside yields a safer work day on the bike. I know this flies in the face of VC but, based on 'actual real world experience' it works.
What do you mean by, "being in front as opposed to beside"? You must have something in mind, but I don't know what it is. Are you talking about stopping at intersections?

When I worked as a messenger, the safest spot in the world to be was in front of the mass of traffic.
To be beside the mass was to be a victim of door zones, ppl parking, cabs jetting to the curb for fares, jaywalkers, etc. To be in front gives the rider many more option of escape in case of a sticky situation. Yes I would go through a red, IF SAFETY ALLOWED. Messengers generally don't throw themselves carving through cross traffic, it's a pretty quick recipe for not being a messenger anymore. Threading to the light gave one the sprint across the intersection first. When in the mass of same direction of travel the curb lane isn;t the safest spot b/c of cars turning off and cars turning in. To be right in, usually between the same direction lanes was a good sweet spot. To this day, when riding Toronto's main Yogne street, the yellow line seperating the oncoming with my direction is by far the safest place to be with virtually zero cars turning in your direction. This flies in the face of most all riding logic. Spend 8+ hours a day riding shoulder to shoulder with city core traffic and all manner of "rules" go out the window. These also chage as per whatever city you ride. Montreal has wicked thin lanes, Toronto has right turns everywhere, but wider lanes, NYC is special beast all on it's own. Each messenger city has it's own ebb and flow according to the way the whole of the system works .... cars, riders and peds, all create a "system" specific to that city. An example would be how in Montreal, peds jaywalk with wild abandon, but not so much here in Toronto. NYC has it's own challenges, as does London, Boston, SF and Tokyo....

To spend THAT much time trying to ride by someone's rules' would be insane. Aside form getting paid to ride, not getting killed/injured is part of the job too. One does what they must to survive, being adaptable is key.

Keep in mind as well that with that much riding you become well versed in the movement of the shinny boxes, allowing us to do stuff in traffic that most would label insane, was in fact no big deal. Bars cut to shoulder/hip width were the rule of the day back then to give you a natural feel of where you'd fit.

The conversation traveled the direction that it traveled between Allister and John. To dismiss the whole thing, without explanation, as "diatribe", especially when it's not that at all (it's a well-reasoned explanation, not an attack), and to support such a false characterization, as you just did, is disingenuous. It's certainly not productive.

Actually I was referring in general to the sorry state of affairs that I consider has been reached in this subforum. Perhaps I was a little snarky and I apologise if this caused offence. I do like to poke fun every now and again... but also am quite capable of sensible debate, and occasionally manage both.

The arguments are impeccably reasoned in many cases, but centre on ever decreasing minutiae, such that relevance to the everyday cyclist is lost. That a casual reader in this subforum be so utterly lost as to post "What exactly is VC?" and unwittingly spawn this nightmare hellscape of unrelenting horror speaks volumes.

Ed

Actually I was referring in general to the sorry state of affairs that I consider has been reached in this subforum. Perhaps I was a little snarky and I apologise if this caused offence. I do like to poke fun every now and again... but also am quite capable of sensible debate, and occasionally manage both.

The arguments are impeccably reasoned in many cases, but centre on ever decreasing minutiae, such that relevance to the everyday cyclist is lost. That a casual reader in this subforum be so utterly lost as to post "What exactly is VC?" and unwittingly spawn this nightmare hellscape of unrelenting horror speaks volumes.

Ed
Sometimes you have to drill down to the foundation to fix/clarify something before you can start building up again. What we don't want to do is get stuck down there, to be sure. But just because we're there, doesn't mean we have to stay there. Though if you don't take it seriously, then it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, because the work is never exerted to achieve the progress required to climb back out.

OK then, here is the real issue (the way I see it), presented at its entirely deconstructed level:

Is the situation for cyclists wishing to make use of their machines in accordance with the right so to do:

a) Good
b) Acceptable
c) Barely manageable
d) Untenable

And therefore, how is your perception of the situation altered by:

Adopting a particular riding technique?
Provision of facilities?
Changing attitude of, and towards other road users?
Local factors (of course a huge component)?

Ed

Though in this case Hurst is arguing that obeying the rules of the road is a debatable proposition not because he advocates facilities that contradict the rules of the road, but because he advocates riding in a manner that contradicts the rules of the road, at least for those who are "pro messengers".

I have never suggested that anyone should ride like a messenger other than a messenger. 'Advocating' for or against messenger work would be a bit like pissing up a rope, because messengers there are and messengers there will be, no matter what you or I think about it.

And the basis for this is "observation" clearly biased by rationalization in favor of justifying the use of scofflaw cycling techniques to make urban deliveries quicker and thus more profitable, at least in the short run.

That's a common misconception, that messengers break laws to make more money. In fact, messengers ride like that because the job demands it. If they didn't, it would spark a wave of panic in high rise office buildings in big cities around the globe; attorneys would pick up the phone to scream obscenities at messenger company managers and dispatchers; and the messengers would be cussed at and summarily fired, to be replaced by others willing to do the job.

Robert

I have never suggested that anyone should ride like a messenger other than a messenger. 'Advocating' for or against messenger work would be a bit like pissing up a rope, because messengers there are and messengers there will be, no matter what you or I think about it.
While you have not explicitly advocated or suggested "that anyone should ride like a messenger other than a messenger", your writings in your book and here on this forum do so implicitly, whether you realize it or not.

Stating that "People are better off if they're able to have marijuana for medical reasons" is not an explicit statement of advocacy for legalizing medical marijuana, but the implicit suggestion is surely there. Similarly, saying that "pro messengers [are] more likely to get injured while riding lawfully" is not an explicit statement that others should at least consider not riding lawfully in order to reduce likelihood of injury, but the strong implicit suggestion is there.


That's a common misconception, that messengers break laws to make more money. In fact, messengers ride like that because the job demands it. If they didn't, it would spark a wave of panic in high rise office buildings in big cities around the globe; attorneys would pick up the phone to scream obscenities at messenger company managers and dispatchers; and the messengers would be cussed at and summarily fired, to be replaced by others willing to do the job.

Robert
It's hard to make money after you're fired.

Are you suggesting that messengers are not ultimately earning more money if they can deliver more packages in less time?

WAY OFF TOPIC: This, by the way, illustrates the beauty of the free market. It causes you to work hard/efficiently/fast whether it's to make more money, or to avoid being yelled at by someone who wants to make more money.

WAY OFF TOPIC: This, by the way, illustrates the beauty of the free market. It causes you to work hard/efficiently/fast whether it's to make more money, or to avoid being yelled at by someone who wants to make more money.

It also illustrates a minor example of how the free market can lead to unlawful behaviour in pursuit of gains. Not that I mean to say that all messengers are unlawful road users.


Any thoughts on my deconstruction of cyclist road user issues yet?

OK then, here is the real issue (the way I see it), presented at its entirely deconstructed level:

Is the situation for cyclists wishing to make use of their machines in accordance with the right so to do:

a) Good
b) Acceptable
c) Barely manageable
d) Untenable

And therefore, how is your perception of the situation altered by:

Adopting a particular riding technique?
Provision of facilities?
Changing attitude of, and towards other road users?
Local factors (of course a huge component)?

Ed
Pretty good, Ed, pretty good. I think it's missing a feedback loop though. That is, adopting certain riding techniques can alter your answer to the first question.

I know I'm in the minority on this, but I disagree local factors are a huge component.
Most cyclists would be cyclists no matter where they lived.
Most people who don't cycle much would not cycle much no matter where they live.
There are exceptions of course, but that's what they are: exceptions.
And to the extent that local factors matter in terms of what percentage choose to cycle, I'd say climate, terrain and population density are probably the biggest factors, by far.

It also illustrates a minor example of how the free market can lead to unlawful behaviour in pursuit of gains. Not that I mean to say that all messengers are unlawful road users.

Well, yeah, which is why an effective legal/justice system is required alongside any free market to protect people from other people violating their rights, or threatening to do so.

In order to be the "pro messenger" routinely fracturing the traffic laws has more benefits than profit.
Being in front as opposed to beside yields a safer work day on the bike. I know this flies in the face of VC but, based on 'actual real world experience' it works.

It is also the basis for bike boxes the world over and slowly making inroads into the US. But then these are "facilities," and we know "some folks" feel about them.

When I worked as a messenger, the safest spot in the world to be was in front of the mass of traffic.
To be beside the mass was to be a victim of door zones, ppl parking, cabs jetting to the curb for fares, jaywalkers, etc.

So how does this play out then? You split lanes/ride the bike lane to the front, maybe even run the red. The light turns and while you may have a headstart, the 35mph traffic (we're talking intercity traffic here, in suburban areas make that 50-60mph) quickly catches up to you in most cases. In your mind, does the cyclist then immediately move off to the side? Or do they continue to claim the lane? In either case, why does the cyclist do this? Also, what advantage did getting ahead of traffic that will just catch up anyway give to the cyclist?

joejack, you don't understand intersection dynamics very well yet.

i want to know, is vc not taking the lane on narrow high speed roads?

...not getting killed/injured is part of the job too. One does what they must to survive, being adaptable is key.

AMEN! I do whatever it takes to stay out of the obits. I care little for the rules when riding in the grid. The rules do not protect me downtown and they often expose me to unnecessary danger. Call me scofflaw, just don't call me late to supper!

All this hoo-doo over riding my bike as if I belong on the road...

Lately I've been riding more slowly, and taking my place in the lane as if speed wasn't necessary to claim my rightful spot.

Motorists seem very capable of passing me safely. No biggie.

Of course, downtown the traffic gets thick. In that case, I often take an entire lane to myself. :p

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.

That is because, far as I can tell, that those doing the writing do not spend much, if any time at all, riding in city centers during high traffic volume times.

There are countries, many in Europe, where bicycles and often motorcycles of certain engine displacements, are allowed to do pretty much whatever it takes to move through traffic. It looks like mayhem to the persons who have failed to touch the monolith, but the thinking is far advanced and evolved from our "free" country - the USofA. I know that is unthinkable, but we are not always the sharpest knives in the drawer when it comes to transportation in congested areas.

While you have not explicitly advocated or suggested "that anyone should ride like a messenger other than a messenger", your writings in your book and here on this forum do so implicitly, whether you realize it or not.

No, again, the writings in my book _explicitly_ state otherwise, several times.

Stating that "People are better off if they're able to have marijuana for medical reasons" is not an explicit statement of advocacy for legalizing medical marijuana, but the implicit suggestion is surely there. Similarly, saying that "pro messengers [are] more likely to get injured while riding lawfully" is not an explicit statement that others should at least consider not riding lawfully in order to reduce likelihood of injury, but the strong implicit suggestion is there.

What it is is a reality check. Lawful cycling isn't always safe cycling, and unlawful cycling isn't always unsafe cycling. The 'implicit suggestion' is of your own creation. It does not necessarily follow from what I said, but I do understand the likelihood for people to have simpleminded kneejerk reactions to such simple observations -- I can't be responsible for babysitting everybody's fragile sensibilities on these things 24/7. There is always going to be some ninny having a freakout no matter what is said.


It's hard to make money after you're fired.

Are you suggesting that messengers are not ultimately earning more money if they can deliver more packages in less time?

Your statement was that messengers could follow the law if they wanted to, but don't because they are greedy for more 'profits.' A laughable (although common) notion on many levels and I hope I disabused you of it. A bike courier can decide whether or not to break laws like the water department can decide whether or not to break ground to put in a pipe.

Some things people might not know about messenger work: many messengers receive a fixed hourly or daily wage and are trying to get through the day doing as few deliveries as they can, as slowly and conservatively as possible. They will still have to run lights and break laws on a frequent basis to complete their required tasks. And there are several ways that messengers working on strict commission basis can make more money by going deliberately slow. For instance, it is often better to linger in one part of town after picking up a delivery; one or several more deliveries might pop up going that same direction from the same part of town. Patience is a virtue for messengers and dispatchers. Inexperienced crew end up yo-yoing themselves all over town needlessly. Still, breaking laws will be a requirement of the job. That's what bike messenger work is, when it comes down to it. Anyone can linger and sit, but you can't do that forever, eventually you have to get up and do bike messenger stuff.

The reality is that lawless, ugly and horrible messengers have not been the driver of scofflaw behavior as is often alleged but a tempering force on the consisently shrill and unreasonable demands of their customers. Our downtowns are a-boil with a foaming reaction between rocksolid deadlines and habitual procrastination. Somewhere right now there is an office full of shouting, hair-pulling attorneys and paralegals, struggling to print out documents and make copies, literally running back and forth around the office and counting on a bike messenger to pull their nuts out of the fire at the last second. Messengers have been able to smooth this insane demand into a sustainable technique that runs consistently above trouble as well as the traffic code. The clients demand the messengers ride like maniacs, take every chance imaginable, run over babies and old ladies on the way to the drop. But the messenger has to do things in a certain way that allows them to come back and ride that same street in front of many of the same people twenty times that day and the next day and the next on into the future. Veteran messengers are some of the most consistently conservative riders out there.

Some people might not realize as well that if you see someone who looks like they might be a messenger, the chance that they really are is pretty small. In cities with a strong hipster contingent the messenger-look-alike-contest-winner to messenger ratio seems to be at least 10-to-1. Pro messengers are increasingly mis-judged due to the misdeeds of non-messenger look-alikes who might have cultivated a similar look but don't have the same accountability or responsibilties, or insurance. This phenomenon has risen quickly within the past decade and has blindsided a lot of folks. I'd be willing to bet there are people on this forum who would be shocked to learn that all those dudes they see careening around with messenger bags aren't messengers. There was a time when the only people on the street who looked like messengers were messengers, and it made the job easier.

Robert

The Industrialized Cyclist (http://www.industrializedcyclist.com)

The 'implicit suggestion' is of your own creation. It does not necessarily follow from what I said...

Knocking down fabricated "implicit suggestions," "tacit arguments," or "implied meanings" of their skeptics is a favorite debating technique of VC Guru Forester and his acolytes. Also used by a few other self appointed crystal ball readers/psycho babblers on the BF who are unable/unwilling to reply to what is actually written but prefer instead to reply to straw man arguments.

Drive defensively, bike the same way, no matter how much you dislike it, the fact is, many drivers do not wish to see us. Use common sense. Remember you can be right, and also DEAD right!

http://12.152.111.66/joeybike/bike_clinic_001.jpg

Observe the above video capture.

The law in my state calls for the cyclist to ride as far right as SAFETY permits. Safety, is to be judged by the cyclist.

In the photo, the far left lane, if I am doing near the speed limit, is by far the safest place for me to ride because:

1. The right lane is useless. Double parked cars throwing doors open on both sides and clueless peds are taking that lane for their own illegal purposes.

2. The center lane is very dangerous as the double-parked A.H.s will use that lane to proceed from their illegal double parking. The cyclist in the photo is running a 30 Watt headlight at the time of this capture and was totally ignored by the Jeep leaving the right lane.

Also, clueless peds will dart from behind the double parked vehicles into the center lane with drooling, slack-mouthed abandon.

3. Then, running the red lights will allow the cyclist to stay ahead of the traffic flow and prevent cars from making left turns in front of him (ie, left hook) because they are not allowed to turn left on a red. This practice is totally safe in the left lane, even splitting lanes, but NEVER EVER (almost) far right in the right lane.

I am fully aware that this post was a waste of my time, unless it would cause folks who do not work or ride in busy city centers to limit their posts to the Bike Path Forum. It would be nice if at least they would precede their post with the words: "I do not ride in city centers, BUT - I do not agree with how some people ride there."

If you disagree with the above statements, those of us who ride the grid know for certain that you do not.

So how does this play out then? You split lanes/ride the bike lane to the front, maybe even run the red. The light turns and while you may have a headstart, the 35mph traffic (we're talking intercity traffic here, in suburban areas make that 50-60mph) quickly catches up to you in most cases. In your mind, does the cyclist then immediately move off to the side? Or do they continue to claim the lane? In either case, why does the cyclist do this? Also, what advantage did getting ahead of traffic that will just catch up anyway give to the cyclist?

the way this basically plays out in city core traffic is that I'm a half block ahead in no time. I will generally not take the lane in it's entirety unless conditions are horrible (snow storms come to mind). The onus is that overtaking vehicles are the responsible parties. I'm not weaving all over but maintaining a straight line for the most part. To pass me from behind at speed is alot safer than having to share the curb lane from the get go. This way I have a say in the matter, if it's not a good time to pass I can with a slight movement close the door on them if I must. I see further ahead then most drivers, I can see the parked cars, the cab waiting areas, all of which occupy the curb lane. To be in front is to be in a sweet spot. When jamming heavy traffic in the DT core every block is different, think of it more like white water rafting...you may have a general line to like but many factors can change your line at any moment. Give yourself as many escape vectors as possible and try to always leave yourself an out b/c half the time the drivers don;t have a clue where they're going. Left turns from the right side and vice versa are not unusual . It's all good fun once you get used to it. As was stated above , these days many messenger look alikes are giving the "pros" a bad name. Most drivers barely notice the messengers as they are blurs in a mirror or side window. Grouper fish swimming with sharks.

One of my disclaimers when I ride with ppl is don;t follow me as there is barely room for one let alone more. My gaps can close as I'm riding through them. you'll rarely see several messengers riding the same line together.

One of my disclaimers when I ride with ppl is don;t follow me as there is barely room for one let alone more. My gaps can close as I'm riding through them. you'll rarely see several messengers riding the same line together.

Absolutely! The biggest danger would come from another rider cutting off escape routes. Everyone riding "together" would have to pick their own windows and never overlap laterally or follow too closely. Last man in line usually plays catchup unless the front man catches traffic at an intersection.

No reason for a messenger to ride with anyone in the first place except maybe a camera man shooting vid. Everyone better know what they are doing. It's serious business with more than one rider alone.

That a casual reader in this subforum be so utterly lost as to post "What exactly is VC?" and unwittingly spawn this nightmare hellscape of unrelenting horror speaks volumes.

Ed

Lost? Perhaps it is such as you who is lost. I always know where I am. It's no wonder forums like these devolve into a waste of time. The pomposity and egocentric blather certainly does speak volumes!

Lost? Perhaps it is such as you who is lost. I always know where I am. It's no wonder forums like these devolve into a waste of time. The pomposity and egocentric blather certainly does speak volumes!

No offence, I meant lost in the sense that if one read all the posts about VC, one might have a less clear idea about it than before you started - and I include myself on that score.

I wandered into this thread for a laugh, and got sucked right in to the thick of it. Is there any spare room on that space ship of yours, I need an escape plan?

No offence, I meant lost in the sense that if one read all the posts about VC, one might have a less clear idea about it than before you started - and I include myself on that score.

VC = Very Confusing.

I always find any subject is slightly less clear after Serge has had a go at 'explaining' it, he just tries to explain VC more frequently.

I wandered into this thread for a laugh, and got sucked right in to the thick of it. Is there any spare room on that space ship of yours, I need an escape plan?

I think of it as getting sucked right into the thick of things for a laugh.

I'm positive VC means 'hug the edges of narrow lanes and don't get in the way of motorists if at all possible."

I always find any subject is slightly less clear after Serge has had a go at 'explaining' it, he just tries to explain VC more frequently.

How can someone else's explanation make any subject less clear... unless you didn't understand it in the first place?

How can someone else's explanation make any subject less clear... unless you didn't understand it in the first place?

:rolleyes:

are you being deliberately obtuse with that post or are you that seriously out of touch?

now ask yourself- has this post made things clearer for you? or are you even more confused?

How can someone else's explanation make any subject less clear.

If you don't know, you should really give up trying to be this Great Educator that you seem to see yourself as.

unless you didn't understand it in the first place?

Are we supposed to? Why bother to explain it again then?

:rolleyes:

are you being deliberately obtuse with that post or are you that seriously out of touch?



I choose c) all of the above.

You're wrong, Allister, the answer was j) a hallibut.

No offence, I meant lost in the sense that if one read all the posts about VC, one might have a less clear idea about it than before you started - and I include myself on that score.

I wandered into this thread for a laugh, and got sucked right in to the thick of it. Is there any spare room on that space ship of yours, I need an escape plan?

Sure. We'll be picking up volunteers near Hueco Tanks in the near future.

I had good intentions when I first posed the question. Comes from 'trying' to comply with traffic laws while watching a good portion of cyclists appearing to do everything possible to make automobile drivers angry and reinforce the bad attitudes about cyclists harbored by many.
My conclusion, after following this and many other posts, is to continue to be a lone traveler who goes out of the way to avoid making anyone mad.

Greater mass always wins!

Script

I think we share quite similar views all round on this one.

When I saw early mention of the VC phenomenon, it was intriguing and seemed similar in some ways to how I approach riding. This was before the discussion was consigned to a sealed underground bunker, somewhere in the furthest reaches of the internet's equivalent of southern Nevada... They said it was to protect the public.

VC = Very Confusing.
I know what you mean.

In my mind, it's simply riding a bike in a logical pattern on the road that other road users are already familiar with. I'm not sure I'm a pure "VC-ist," but that's kind of what it means to me, with the bark on.

I think the promoters of VC might do well to communicate the simplicity of it rather than complicate it. 'Snot rocket science. ;)

I know what you mean.

In my mind, it's simply riding a bike in a logical pattern on the road that other road users are already familiar with. I'm not sure I'm a pure "VC-ist," but that's kind of what it means to me, with the bark on.

I think the promoters of VC might do well to communicate the simplicity of it rather than complicate it. 'Snot rocket science. ;)
The problem is that the old axiom "easier said than done" applies to VC, and that so much of our behavior in traffic is done thoughtlessly. That's why describing it in words sounds so foreign and complicated. But what we're doing is quite complicated, we're just not thinking about it, so we don't realize how complicated it is.

I've been paying attention to how much I read motorists lately, and it's much more than even I realized, and I'm sure I'm still not catching all of it. Yesterday I was merging left. I was already controlling the rightmost lane, and was signaling left and looking back to negotiate for the ROW in the next lane to the left. The car approaching slowed, I think, but I couldn't tell for sure. I waited until I was sure, and then moved in front of him, then into my left turn pocket. After I turned left and thought about it, I realized that I hesitated because, since it was dark, all I could see was the head lights of the car, it was harder for me to judge, subconsciously, whether he was actually slowing for me or not. The point is I never consciously think "okay, now he has slowed, so I can go". It's all subconscious. I signal, when it's clear, I go. If the situation happens to include a car in the other lane, then the assessment of whether he has slowed down to let me in, which is a prerequisite to moving left, of course, is all subconscious. I do it every day without thinking about it. Yet when I force myself to think about it, look at how many words it takes to describe it, and even then I bet it's still confusing (especially to Allister ;)). Yet, in practice, it's quite simple, though few cyclists know how to do it, or have the confidence to do it.

So I don't know how to communicate it in writing, and the simplicity of it, at the same time.

For another example, consider how "simple" it is to just ride a bike (that is, balancing a two-wheeler). Now, try to explain how to do it in words. We face a similar difficulty with every aspect of VC.

:cry: Waaaaahhaaaahhaaaaaa, noooooooooo not more :cry:

Thankyou, Serge, for so soundly reinforcing my point.

Those that can't/don't .... teach

The law in my state calls for the cyclist to ride as far right as SAFETY permits. Safety, is to be judged by the cyclist.

In the photo, the far left lane, if I am doing near the speed limit, is by far the safest place for me to ride because:

1. The right lane is useless. Double parked cars throwing doors open on both sides and clueless peds are taking that lane for their own illegal purposes.

2. The center lane is very dangerous as the double-parked A.H.s will use that lane to proceed from their illegal double parking. The cyclist in the photo is running a 30 Watt headlight at the time of this capture and was totally ignored by the Jeep leaving the right lane.

Also, clueless peds will dart from behind the double parked vehicles into the center lane with drooling, slack-mouthed abandon.

I'm not sure why you mention the far right law then go on to cite these examples presumably to describe your defiance of vehicular traffic rules. With the right lane blocked and someone pulling into the center lane, passing in the left lane would be exactly what I'd be doing too. It's being "as far right as practicable" since any further right puts you into the rear bumper of a vehicle going slower than you or not moving at all.

3. Then, running the red lights will allow the cyclist to stay ahead of the traffic flow and prevent cars from making left turns in front of him (ie, left hook) because they are not allowed to turn left on a red. This practice is totally safe in the left lane, even splitting lanes, but NEVER EVER (almost) far right in the right lane.

Traffic must be pretty slow where you ride if running red lights keeps you ahead of traffic at all times. It also must be relatively quiet since you can so easily run reds. Given both of those possibe facts, wouldn't it be easier to sit behind the pack of traffic and just keep up with them between lights instead of constantly "running" from the pack as you describe? I can see why you'd prefer to run the light from the left lane as you'll have better sightlines but you wouldn't even need to worry about that if you'd just stop in a lane at the light. Nothing in the "far right law" keeps a cyclist from using a full lane when they need one and in the city centers I've been in, lane sharing isn't an option (and typically cyclists are moving faster than traffic).

To me, it sounds like you are justifying your impatience by trying to turn it into a safety argument.

I am fully aware that this post was a waste of my time, unless it would cause folks who do not work or ride in busy city centers to limit their posts to the Bike Path Forum. It would be nice if at least they would precede their post with the words: "I do not ride in city centers, BUT - I do not agree with how some people ride there."

If you disagree with the above statements, those of us who ride the grid know for certain that you do not.

Ah yes, if you don't ride in a city center, you must stick to bike paths only. That's a new one. Do you ride anywhere else but in a city center? There's a whole big world out there to explore by bike. Maybe you'd gain some new perspectives if you did.