Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Cyclists fare best?

What's the alternative, Gene?

You are confusing the general decline in interest in transportational cycling with a decline in vehicular cycling.

No, I am simply asking for an example of any city that has increased ridershare by using vehicular cycling successfully.

The alternative has been presented... It exists in Portland, where there is NO difference in social and urban conditions compared to similar sized US cities.

And where vehicular cycling was the primary method, ridershare has decreased, as in the example of John's beloved England... where similar social and urban conditions exist as in other places in Europe, where greater ridershare DOES exist.

Because riding "further left" is not acceptable in a society where motorists feel they own the road.

How are we going to get the powers that be to accept that it's valuable to teach that riding "further left" is acceptable even in a society where motorists feel they own the road when an experienced rider like you still doesn't get it?

Naah... all wrong... I do ride that way and I am one of the few...

Well, then, what is unacceptable about it?


and I get harassed for it...

So you get harassed once in a while. Big deal. That's what makes it "unacceptable"? Why do you choose to give them so much power?

Anyway, if an experienced cyclist like you chooses to give them so much power, there is little chance that a less experienced cyclist won't do it too. So, we need to convince cyclists like you to not give harassing motorists so much power, and then we can worry about those who need training the most.

:roflmao: Helmie, you take the cake!!!!

Now, Gene, Who's taken TWO 'vc' (LAB1 and LAB2, right, Gene?) cycling courses still needs 'more training' about vehicular cyclists faring best? and then you can move on to the bicyclists that really need it???

:roflmao:

What a joke. the VC platform is ideologically bankrupt.

Drink the koolaid, gene. You'll 'fare best'. except when you don't.

you could also start hugging the edge like 'curbhugger john' forester.

I don't know what Gene needs, but apparently it was not addressed in at least the LCI courses that he took. Frankly, the choice of empowering motorists like he does is not a standard topic in those courses. Maybe it should be.

yeah. the motorists also didn't take the course, apparantly.

yeah. the motorists also didn't take the course, apparantly.
The motorists don't empower the motorists; cyclists who choose to empower the motorists empower the motorists.

that is effin' ludicrous, head, and you know it.

I don't know what Gene needs, but apparently it was not addressed in at least the LCI courses that he took. Frankly, the choice of empowering motorists like he does is not a standard topic in those courses. Maybe it should be.



What Gene "needs" is to stop getting worked up over your sophistry and semantic nit picking and consider more worthy issues to ponder.

I don't know what Gene needs, but apparently it was not addressed in at least the LCI courses that he took. Frankly, the choice of empowering motorists like he does is not a standard topic in those courses. Maybe it should be.



Uh, consider that if I didn't get what I need out of two LAB courses, reading and owning "Effective Cycling" and well over 30+ years of cycling... then perhaps I recognize some problem that evidently goes well over your head.

If I don't get it how do you expect to "sell it" to the "unenlightened" masses?

Consider that I am a dedicated cyclist, and have lived car free, and toured long distances... how do you expect the "next newbie cyclist" fresh from LAB 1, to react to the reality out there?

If you cannot convince me, how are you going to change the sidewalk cyclists out there???

"Empowering motorists," indeed! The horsepower under the hood needs no assistance for that. Psychologists have long noted personality changes when a driver climbs behind the wheel. I don't have to contribute a thing. :rolleyes:

How are we going to get the powers that be to accept that it's valuable to teach riding "further left" when an experienced rider like you, Bek, Allister, ILTB, IH, etc., still can't accept it, ...

I think that the strategy is worthwhile for many riders ... and I suspect that a lot of the referenced riders feel similarly.

... or at least can't stop chiding me for pointing it out when it applies?

However, there is an appropriate time, place, and method to express an opinion.

That written, I do think that you are in a situation where people react negatively to you regardless of what you write.

I think some of the disagreement comes from wanting to not be treated like a driver of any other vehicle, but instead wanting to be treated better.

For better or worse motorists communicate with each other not just with visual and audible signals, but also using 'vehicle body language.' Probably to a degree higher than one realizes unless ones studies it. This driver to driver communication effectively penetrates two 'cages'

Now remove the 'cage' and those signals appear to be stronger and can be more forceful, add to this the less physically protected a cyclist is and it perhaps creates the sense that other drivers are treating them differently, more violently, louder, more in you face, when actually the treatment is no different.

For me the most important treatment is that I am responded to and yielded to when required while cycling. That I never have issue with.

Al

"Empowering motorists," indeed! The horsepower under the hood needs no assistance for that. Psychologists have long noted personality changes when a driver climbs behind the wheel. I don't have to contribute a thing. :rolleyes:
You are confusing the feeling that motorists have of being empowered because of the horsepower under the hood, with the power you actually give them, and choose to do so.

You are confusing the feeling that motorists have of being empowered because of the horsepower under the hood, with the power you actually give them, and choose to do so.

I don't give anything away... and often fight to retain what I do have.... hence the strong "communication" I often receive from motorists.

And as I mentioned... (which you chose to ignore) psychologists have long noted personality changes when a driver climbs behind the wheel. I don't have to contribute a thing.

But bear in mind that if I have a problem with "giving it away" as you seem to imply... what about the shy demure college co-ed... what magic is she going to use to de-empower motorists?

But bear in mind that if I have a problem with "giving it away" as you seem to imply... what about the shy demure college co-ed... what magic is she going to use to de-empower motorists?

I agree, there was a time when getting shy demure college co-eds to give it away was quite a challenge.

I agree, there was a time when getting shy demure college co-eds to give it away was quite a challenge.

:D

I don't give anything away... and often fight to retain what I do have.... hence the strong "communication" I often receive from motorists.

And as I mentioned... (which you chose to ignore) psychologists have long noted personality changes when a driver climbs behind the wheel. I don't have to contribute a thing.

But bear in mind that if I have a problem with "giving it away" as you seem to imply... what about the shy demure college co-ed... what magic is she going to use to de-empower motorists?
Before we can help the shy demure college co-ed, we need to account for the fact that she probably does not realize she needs help. She probably has no idea that it's quite possible to learn to ride safely and effectively in traffic, as you, I and so many others on this list and beyond do every day. She is likely to believe that it is simply not possible. That is the first, perhaps biggest, challenge we have in reaching her.

But before we can figure out how to do that, I think we need to figure out how to help a cyclist like you first. The situation is similar in kind, just different in degree. But before we get to that, let's take another step back, way back.

Can we agree that there is a reality, and that each of us has a different perception of reality? Surely you recognize that what you see when you step into a bike shop is markedly different from what your spouse probably sees when she steps into the exact same bike shop, standing right next to you. This is because what we "see" is not what is actually out there, but a facsimile of that - a picture in our minds, that is formed physically by the light that enters through our eyes, and then filtered by a complex real time process in each of our minds, that is very different in one individual than it is in the next. This processing takes input not only from our eyes, but from what we hear and sense, and of course incorporating and integrating all this raw information with what we have learned in the past and stored in our brains. Thus, you are likely to not even notice the pink and yellow women's jersey on the wall that has gotten your wife's attention, because your mind's filtering brought your attention to that gray and black carbon bike, or whatever. She is likely to have no idea that that bike is even in the shop, and you are probably even more likely to not have noticed that jersey, yet they were both right there, just as physically noticeable to each of you.

The situation is no different when we're riding in traffic. What you experience is not the reality directly, but the reality filtered by the real time processes of your minds. So while you and Al might be riding down the exact same street just a minute apart in a virtually identical traffic situation and behaving in a manner that is virtually indistinguishable in any significant way, you take away very different internal experiences. Al is happy and satisfied, because for him:

... the most important treatment is that I am responded to and yielded to when required while cycling. That I never have issue with.

But for you, and correct me if I'm wrong, the experience in virtually the same reality is likely to be fairly characterized as "tolerable at best".

Why is Al basically fine with it, and you see a real problem that is fundamentally flawed and needs to be changed?

That's what I'm talking about. It has nothing to do with motorist behavior and attitude, and everything to do with cyclist attitude -- in particular with respect to how cyclists respond to motorists. I'm talking about what's going on in your head that causes you to have, apparently, so much less enjoyment when riding in traffic, than others do, like Al, myself, JoeJack, John Forester, Dan G, and probably even Allister and Bek.

You, like the co-ed, don't see this as an issue where you need help. You believe the problem is outside of you. Yet, the real issue is how you process the same reality the rest of us process, and yet you end up with, at best, a barely tolerable experience, while so many others actually enjoy it. Why? What's the difference? What's the difference in how you are perceiving the same reality we are?

Why, when I hear a motorist gun his engine am I likely to assume "that guy is in a hurry, perhaps a bit frustrated by a slight delay, and accelerating", and think nothing of it, while you are likely to think something like "angry ahole - doesn't he understand I have the same right to the road that he does? that guy needs more motorist education - oh he's getting stopped by a red light - an education opportunity!"

Why is the fact that "psychologists have long noted personality changes when a driver climbs behind the wheel" (which I did not ignore - I wrote, "You are confusing the feeling that motorists have of being empowered because of the horsepower under the hood, with the power you actually give them"), which I don't dispute, significant enough to you in relevance to feel the need to post it? Why do you choose to make it important to you, while I find it almost totally insignificant?

We're going to have to crack this one wide open before we can even begin to think about how to help the co-ed.

so this vc isn't even about how to ride in traffic (as 'vc' can hug curbs in unsafely narrow lanes, etc...) it's a psychological indroctrination technique on how to cope.

ideologically bankrupt.

John Forester has long argued that much of resistance to the "cyclists fare best" principle can be attributed to anti-motoring sentiments. I've always thought of anti-motoring in the extreme - those that are opposed to the use of personal motorized transport.

But I now think there may be other forms of the anti-motoring sentiment out there in the cycling community that can account for some of the resistance to vehicular cycling as well.

To be fair, it should be noted that personal motorized transport is ultimately responsible for about 40,000 deaths per year, countless injuries, and a huge economic burden. Consider the economic costs of car crashes alone, and the numbers are boggling. And there is the whole air pollution/climate change contribution that is produced too. There are plenty of reasons to choose to dislike motoring.

Now, all that surely feeds into what cyclists like Gene like to whine about, but it's not the whole explanation. These guys are not out there advocating against cars altogether. They own and use cars themselves. They are not anti-motoring extremists. What seems to bother them them most is other people enjoying motoring, or other people feeling good about motoring. It's almost like they would be fine if everyone got into their plain vanilla cars grudgingly every morning, and used them solely for important transportation purposes, obeying all the rules, including, above all, never exceeding the speed limit, and going out of their way to yield to other road users, particularly pedestrians and bicyclists. But they shouldn't dare get behind the wheel and feel good about it. And what really seems to irk these guys is not someone using a car to get to work, but that someone getting irritated, and expressing his irritation, by a minor delay on the way to work. And stuff like this seems to bother them to the extent that they can't really enjoy riding in traffic, and, given their skills and experience, can't imagine getting someone with fewer skills or less experience to do it at all, unless something changes.

Call it anti-motoring-lite.

so this vc isn't even about how to ride in traffic (as 'vc' can hug curbs in unsafely narrow lanes, etc...) it's a psychological indroctrination technique on how to cope.

ideologically bankrupt.
It's about both. Nothing new here. I've been saying it's about attitude as well as skills and experience for years.

With young reckless guys who have an attitude that's too daring if anything, but not the traffic skills and safe habits, it's mostly about the skills and experience.
With guys like Gene, who have the traffic skills and experience, but a huge anti-motoring-lite chip on their shoulders, it's mostly about attitude.

Attitude Smattitude...

show me anywhere where ride share has increased where the users use Vehicular Cycling alone as their guiding principal.

Even in John Forester's beloved England, that he has declared, "used to be fully vehicular" has failed...
It is certainly possible to have a society in which cyclists are expected to obey the rules of the road, and actually do so. The England in which I was raised was such. And, so far as I know, at that time there was no specific instruction of cyclists. Not only the cycling community believed in vehicular cycling; the rest of society also did. Cyclists were told to act like everybody else, and, largely, they learned by doing. Unfortunately, such has not been the case for quite a long time, and it will never be the case in America.


Show me one success story of Vehicular Cycling.

Show me one success story of Vehicular Cycling.Been there, done that, the day we met in person.

Several different shapes of pegs being jammed into one shape of hole. Can't be done. Stop trying to package alert adaptive cycling into an impossible to deliver package. How many years must VC try before admitting failure, EPIC failure?

solitary coping does not constitute a vc success story, helmie.
you know that, don't you?
or are you just being an obtuse braggart about YOUR 'skills' :roflmao: AGAIN?

your analysis about gene not wanting people to 'enjoy driving' is very suspect. what pedantry.

Stop trying to package alert adaptive cycling into an impossible to deliver package. How many years must VC try before admitting failure, EPIC failure?
Assuming by "an impossible to deliver package" you mean VC - why do you say it's impossible to deliver? What do you think makes it impossible to deliver? Hundreds if not thousands of cyclists, to whom it has been delivered, use it every day all over the U.S.

wow. hundreds of cyclists out of 10s of millions of americans that own bicycles. impressive, hemlie. :rolleyes:

Attitude Smattitude...

show me anywhere where ride share has increased where the users use Vehicular Cycling alone as their guiding principal.

Even in John Forester's beloved England, that he has declared, "used to be fully vehicular" has failed...

Show me one success story of Vehicular Cycling.
I can't show you a success story of vehicular cycling increasing ride share somewhere. So what? How does that refute anything I've been saying? How is this point even relevant to our discussion?

Why are you disappointed with your experience in traffic situations in which other cyclists thrive, safely, calmly and enjoyably? Why are you so obsessed with what motorists don't do perfectly?
Why does that bother you so much, to the extent that you choose to allow it to negatively impact your experience?
Why do you choose to give the motorists so much power over your internal experiences?
Why do you hold them responsible for your internal experiences at all?

Edit:
One more question...
Attitude Smattitude... ? Why are you so dismissive about the importance of attitude in life, and in traffic cycling in particular?

wow. hundreds of cyclists out of 10s of millions of americans that own bicycles. impressive, hemlie. :rolleyes:
The number to whom it has been delivered doesn't matter as long as it's one, or more - that's more than enough to refute the contention that VC cannot be delivered. It can be, and has been.

No, I am simply asking for an example of any city that has increased ridershare by using vehicular cycling successfully.

The alternative has been presented... It exists in Portland, where there is NO difference in social and urban conditions compared to similar sized US cities.

And where vehicular cycling was the primary method, ridershare has decreased, as in the example of John's beloved England... where similar social and urban conditions exist as in other places in Europe, where greater ridershare DOES exist.

As usual, genec, you are ignorant of what you write. Portland OR has the strongest, and very complex, set of anti-motoring regulations of any significant city in the USA. (The exceptions are summer resort communities such as Martha's Vineyard). Portland's cyclists do so because motoring has become difficult.

Furthermore, you are a tunnel-visioned ideologue unable to see more than your fixation. You keep claiming that vehicular cycling has failed because it has failed to significantly increase bicycle transportation. Yet you, yourself, admit to riding in the vehicular manner because you have found it best. Obviously, it hasn't failed for you; yet you, like so many others on this list, claim that it has failed. Vehicular cycling has never been advocated as reducing motoring; rather, it has always been advocated as the best way to get around town by bicycle, the way that cyclists should ride and that government should design for.

Your ideology claims that bikeways make cycling safe and therefore reduce motoring by increasing bicycling. Well, your ideology is just as much a failure as is vehicular cycling, because bikeways have not increased bicycle transportation to a greater level than has naturally existed to suit the social and urban conditions of the place. Your fixation on bikeways blinds you to the social and urban conditions, because your ideology says that since bikeways are the determining factor the social and urban conditions cannot be relevant.

I understand the many sides of this issue; you see only one.

what a load of bull, john. Portland does NOT have a 'complex set' of 'anti-motoring' regulations.

Portland has more bicyclists because of their planning and accomodations for bicyclists.

You lose, curbhugger.

The number to whom it has been delivered doesn't matter as long as it's one, or more - that's more than enough to refute the contention that VC cannot be delivered. It can be, and has been.

Heck, the Reverends Jim Jones and Sun Myung Moon were far more successful in "delivering" their message. Though it does seem that those few who have had a Forester "Kool Aid" epiphany do carry on like Moonies!

:lol: This whole section is great for giggles. I swear the idea that one could train cyclists to interact in prefect harmony with motorists with no adjustments to motorists is completely silly. Give your heads a good shake, have a WTF moment and go ride in traffic.

One more question...
Attitude Smattitude... ? Why are you so dismissive about the importance of attitude in life, and in traffic cycling in particular?

You can't quantify it, you can't measure it, and every instance you have mentioned regarding it is based on some belief system... that makes "attitude" equivalent to "religion."

It has no place in your logic system of rules and regulations.

:lol: This whole section is great for giggles. I swear the idea that one could train cyclists to interact in perfect harmony with motorists with no adjustments to motorists is completely silly. Give your heads a good shake, have a WTF moment and go ride in traffic.
It would be interesting to see you post a refutation of what someone actually said, TJ, rather than a refutation of some bizarre exaggerated version of it.

No one has ever claimed that VC achieves "perfect harmony with motorists".

Seriously, I think most of the low hanging fruit was gotten with stricter enforcement and harsher penalties for drunk driving, as well as seat belts and air bags.

I can't even imagine the cost and effort that would be required to reduce that 40,000 to 35,000; it's probably practically impossible.

I'm well aware of your lack of imagination.

The simplest way to improve motorist education is to make the driving test much harder to pass. People will pay whatever and attend whatever class they need to pass it.

But even if it could happen, it wouldn't alter how I ride by one iota. I honestly don't think it would make cycling any safer for cyclists by any significant degree, since so few car-bike crashes are caused by motorist behavior that could and would be eliminated by such a program.


So better driver education isn't worth doing because so few car-bike crashes will be prevented? Awesome logic there.

The more I read of your posts, the gladder I am that you don't have any actual influence over cycling policy.

You can't quantify it, you can't measure it, and every instance you have mentioned regarding it is based on some belief system... that makes "attitude" equivalent to "religion."

It has no place in your logic system of rules and regulations.
The fact that you can't quantify or measure "attitude" does not mean it's insignificant in importance, nor does it justify dismissing the importance of its role. Even in medicine it has been proven how important attitude is in determining how well someone will recover from injury or illness. There is no doubt how important the role of attitude and perception in the area of human behavior. Why would you dismiss it's relevance in the area of traffic cycling?

In fact, you seem very concerned about the attitudes and perceptions of motorists - presumably that's because you recognize that the attitudes and perceptions of motorists play a key role in how they behave (otherwise, why would you care?).

If you acknowledge the importance of attitudes and perceptions in determining motorist behavior, why are you so unwilling to examine your own attitudes and perceptions with respect to your own behavior?

You didn't answer my other questions:

Why are you disappointed with your experience in traffic situations in which other cyclists thrive, safely, calmly and enjoyably? Why are you so obsessed with what motorists don't do perfectly?

Why does that bother you so much, to the extent that you choose to allow it to negatively impact your experience?

Why do you choose to give the motorists so much power over your internal experiences?

Why do you hold them responsible for your internal experiences at all?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not opposed to improved driver education for motorists.

What I'm opposed to is having the bulk of the limited education-related focus, attention and resources that the cycling community has going towards whining about the need for more motorist education rather than towards promoting and providing cyclist education. The former (whining about drivers and their need for education) accomplishes nothing in terms of improving cyclist safety; the latter, promoting and providing cyclist education (classes, books, articles, forums, clubs, conversations) has almost infinite promise in terms of improving cyclist safety.

No-one but you thinks the choice is between those two.

If you want to compare achievements, then compare the former above with 'whining about anti-motorist bike advocay', or compare the latter above with 'advocating and providing better motorist education'.

I don't know what goes on in that little brain of your's, Serge, but if you want to appear to be a logical and reasonable fellow, go and learn what logic actually is first, because you clearly have no idea at the moment.

The simplest way to improve motorist education is to make the driving test much harder to pass. People will pay whatever and attend whatever class they need to pass it.

Agreed. I'm all for it.


So better driver education isn't worth doing because so few car-bike crashes will be prevented? Awesome logic there.
.
No, focusing the bulk of cycling advocacy's limited resources, focus and attention in the area of education on advocating for better motorist education, in lieu of advocating and providing cyclist education, isn't worth doing because so relatively few car-bike crashes will be prevented because of the former, and so many could be prevented by the latter.

Note I'm not even saying this is because so few car-bike crashes will be prevented by the better motorist education (which I do believe will be relatively few). I'm saying this because so few (if any) car-bike crashes will be prevented by the advocacy for better motorist education by cycling advocates. In order for the advocacy for better motorist education by cycling advocates to prevent even one car-bike crash, all of the following would have to happen:
Someone would have to pay attention to what the cycling advocates advocating for better motorist education are saying.
That someone, or those someones, would have to be able to do something about it.
It would have to be true that that something would not be done by those someones, nor anyone else, if it were not for the the advocacy for better motorist education by cycling advocates (if it were to happen anyway, then the prevention is hardly caused by this particular advocacy).
That something would have to be effective in actually preventing at least car-bike crash.I just don't see that anyone is paying any attention to cycling advocates in this area, and, like so many of you are so fond of pointing out, so many others would benefit from improved motorist education, any additional motivation to do it provided by cyclists is practically negligible.

On the other hand, if cycling advocates don't advocate for cyclist education, nobody is going to do that, and that's where the real promise in preventing car-bike crashes is, and where cycling advocacy could potentially make a HUGE difference.

It's like having a chance to save 400 hundred cyclist lives by emptying a bucket, or 400 cyclist lives and thousands of others, by emptying a lake, and the only container at your disposal is a thimble. I'm saying: let's focus on emptying the bucket, and you guys are saying no, let's work on emptying the lake with the thimble, and every now and then we will take a thimble-full out of the bucket, maybe. Meanwhile, it's raining and at that rate, unless you focus all or at least most of your attention and energy on emptying the bucket with the thimble, it will always stay full, and you'll never make any progress on either goal, and no lives will be saved. But if you focus all or most of your thimble-bailing attention on the bucket, at least you can save the 400 cyclists.

The fact that you can't quantify or measure "attitude" does not mean it's insignificant in importance, nor does it justify dismissing the importance of its role. Even in medicine it has been proven how important attitude is in determining how well someone will recover from injury or illness. There is no doubt how important the role of attitude and perception in the area of human behavior. Why would you dismiss it's relevance in the area of traffic cycling?

In fact, you seem very concerned about the attitudes and perceptions of motorists - presumably that's because you recognize that the attitudes and perceptions of motorists play a key role in how they behave (otherwise, why would you care?).

If you acknowledge the importance of attitudes and perceptions in determining motorist behavior, why are you so unwilling to examine your own attitudes and perceptions with respect to your own behavior?

You didn't answer my other questions:

Why are you disappointed with your experience in traffic situations in which other cyclists thrive, safely, calmly and enjoyably?

What other cyclists... the majority of cyclists I see in my neighborhood ride on the sidewalk... so they do not fit your descriptions at all.


Why are you so obsessed with what motorists don't do perfectly?

because their imperfection can readily harm me.


Why does that bother you so much, to the extent that you choose to allow it to negatively impact your experience?
because the mere impact of a motor vehicle is a negative experience... ever had it happen?


Why do you choose to give the motorists so much power over your internal experiences?


I give them no power, they take what is not rightfully theirs' by their unsafe and aggressive actions... such as violent passes and near misses.


Why do you hold them responsible for your internal experiences at all?
why do you insist that these are internal experiences... I have clearly visible external scars from motorists' poor actions. I don't want any more.

Why is it you believe unpredictable actions by motorists are acceptable? Why do you believe the deaths of 45,000 people annually is not a crisis, especially in light of the fact that we went to war over the deaths of only 3000, twice. Why is it that you fail to open your eyes?

Why is it that there are not more cyclists riding the streets daily, in light of the millions of bikes owned by Americans? Why is it that our nation and our landscape are so formed by an addiction to oil and the motor car? Why is it that bicycles are viewed as toys by so many adults out there? Why is it that so few schoolchildren ride bikes to school in San Diego? Why is it that vehicular cycling does nothing to increase the popularity of cycling?

How do you plan on teaching attitude?

No-one but you thinks the choice is between those two.

If you want to compare achievements, then compare the former above with 'whining about anti-motorist bike advocay', or compare the latter above with 'advocating and providing better motorist education'.

Sure. No problem.

The former above is "whining about drivers and their need for education", and is widespread in the cycling community, eating up tons of time, energy and resources, achieving little if anything, with very little chance of ever achieving anything (see below). The "whining about anti-motorist bike advocacy" that Forester and I do in response is pretty much limited to us and a few other VC advocates, has also achieved little if anything, but at least has the hope of achieving the following: changing focus within cycling advocacy from an area where we have little to no control (advocating for better motorist education) to an area where we virtually have unlimited control: advocating for and providing cyclist education.

The latter above, "promoting and providing cyclist education", is almost entirely within the scope and control of the cycling community, even the cycling advocacy community, while "advocating for better motorist education" might arguably be in scope for cycling advocacy, but it's hardly in our control, at least in terms of something we can achieve, and that's because "providing motorist education" is almost totally out of scope and control for us.

what a load of bull, john. Portland does NOT have a 'complex set' of 'anti-motoring' regulations.

Portland has more bicyclists because of their planning and accomodations for bicyclists.

You lose, curbhugger.

Start out with cancellation of the Mt. Hood Freeway and the other one to the west.

The urban growth boundary.

Enormous sums of government money spent on the light rail system.

Lots more government money and forgone government income spent on "transit-oriented development" projects that wouldn't exist except for the governmental subsidies, and which have had a dubious economic history, to say the least.

The pronouncements by the transit agency that it has to have congestion in order to attract riders.

Reduction in capacity of downtown streets.

Then there are the intended side effect of these policies: higher housing costs, greater densification, and greater congestion.

All of these items are not only anti-motoring but have been publicly announced as having that purpose. And, being such, they make bicycle transportation more competitive with motoring. And, notice, I have made no mention, so far, of bikeways, which are not a necessary part of the anti-motoring forces.

you think urban growth control is a 'complex' of 'anti-motoring' regulations????

What a joke. your paranoia is extreme and debilitating, john. not to mention your concept of vehicularity is bankrupt, curbhugger. you ride like a child on high speed roads, john. 'vc' fails even you.

Start out with cancellation of the Mt. Hood Freeway and the other one to the west.

The urban growth boundary.

Enormous sums of government money spent on the light rail system.

Lots more government money and forgone government income spent on "transit-oriented development" projects that wouldn't exist except for the governmental subsidies, and which have had a dubious economic history, to say the least.

The pronouncements by the transit agency that it has to have congestion in order to attract riders.

Reduction in capacity of downtown streets.

Then there are the intended side effect of these policies: higher housing costs, greater densification, and greater congestion.

All of these items are not only anti-motoring but have been publicly announced as having that purpose. And, being such, they make bicycle transportation more competitive with motoring. And, notice, I have made no mention, so far, of bikeways, which are not a necessary part of the anti-motoring forces.

One has to wonder why you are so pro-motoring, everywhere? Do cars have to have access to every square inch of a city, or country? Would you prefer driving roads vice hiking trails in our natural parks?

I fully understand the economics and prosperity that the auto, and more important the truck have brought us, but why do single individuals need to move about some 300 cubic feet of metal and air just to get from point A to point B... especially in light of the energy inefficiency involved?

Would our present roadway system not be far more useful if the vehicles involved where smaller to better utilize the limited road space available? Is there really a reason to drive a 300 HP vehicle when a 30 HP vehicle can do the same thing?

What other cyclists... the majority of cyclists I see in my neighborhood ride on the sidewalk... so they do not fit your descriptions at all.
I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about cyclists like noisebeam, Allister, JoeJack and Bek.


because their imperfection can readily harm me.

Only if you are not prepared for their imperfection.


because the mere impact of a motor vehicle is a negative experience... ever had it happen?

No, I've taken responsibility to avoid it. I understand, and believe deep down, that if I'm ever hit, it will be my fault and nobody elses, and I ride accordingly. If you choose to do otherwise, that's your choice, but I'm still curious as to why you would choose that.


I give them no power, they take what is not rightfully theirs' by their unsafe and aggressive actions... such as violent passes and near misses.

You give them far more power than I do, you just have not realized it yet.


why do you insist that these are internal experiences... I have clearly visible external scars from motorists' poor actions. I don't want any more.

The scars are not what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about is your reaction to a harmless honk, a harmless gunning of an engine or acceleration, or a harmless close-pass.


Why is it you believe unpredictable actions by motorists are acceptable?

Because I realize the alternative to accepting it is pointless. Motorists are humans, and so their actions are inherently unpredictable. However, when in vehicles, what they can do is quite limited with their unpredictable actions. Predicting where a vehicle is going to be the next moment is very predictable based on what it is doing this moment. If it's moving in a given direction with it's wheels pointed straight ahead, then you know where it's going to be the next moment, and the moment after that. Of course, as you try to predict this further into the future, there is more variability in outcome that becomes possible, but you also have to time adjust in the mean time. You can estimate where it will be in 10 seconds, and check in at 2, 4, 6 etc. seconds to verify if that estimate still is on target, or if it needs revising.


Why do you believe the deaths of 45,000 people annually is not a crisis, especially in light of the fact that we went to war over the deaths of only 3000, twice. Why is it that you fail to open your eyes?

Again (see my last two posts to Allister), I'm not opposed to doing more about improving motorist driving. I'm opposed to wasting 90+% of cycling advocacy energy and resources on promoting the improvement of motorists driving, rather than spending that energy/resources on promoting and providing cyclist education.


Why is it that there are not more cyclists riding the streets daily, in light of the millions of bikes owned by Americans?

Because people like you buy into and spread the myth that bicycling in traffic is inherently dangerous.


Why is it that our nation and our landscape are so formed by an addiction to oil and the motor car?
Stupid zoning laws that encourage low density urban sprawl ideal for personalized motor transport (how many time do I have to answer the same questions).


Why is it that bicycles are viewed as toys by so many adults out there?

See last 2 answers.


Why is it that so few schoolchildren ride bikes to school in San Diego?

See last two answers. Plus hysteria fueled by the news hyping crimes against children.


Why is it that vehicular cycling does nothing to increase the popularity of cycling?

Many reasons. One is that for many of the reasons above, and others, vehicular cycling is not even accepted within the core cycling community yet. That has to happen before it can spread out and increase the popularity of cycling. But other factors that have nothing to do with vehicular cycling have to be in play before cycling can become more popular for any reason.


How do you plan on teaching attitude?
My first approach was to read aloud a few key passages from Hurst's book, actually. Have you reviewed the chapters on Responsibility and Vigilance lately? That reminds me, I need to check with the students who were subjected to that to see how they're doing.

you think urban growth control is a 'complex' of 'anti-motoring' regulations????

What a joke. your paranoia is extreme and debilitating, john. not to mention your concept of vehicularity is bankrupt, curbhugger. you ride like a child on high speed roads, john. 'vc' fails even you.
Surely you recognize that urban sprawl makes a car more useful/practical, and a bike less useful/practical. And, so, limiting urban sprawl (urban growth controls) makes a car less useful/practical, and a bike more useful/practical, particularly if the growth control allows for higher population densities within the urban area.

Perhaps the intent in this case is not anti-motoring, but the effect is, for better or worse.

No, focusing the bulk of cycling advocacy's limited resources, focus and attention in the area of education on advocating for better motorist education, in lieu of advocating and providing cyclist education, isn't worth doing because so relatively few car-bike crashes will be prevented because of the former, and so many could be prevented by the latter.

But no-one is arguing for doing that, Serge.

No, focusing the bulk of cycling advocacy's limited resources, focus and attention in the area of education on advocating for better motorist education, in lieu of advocating and providing cyclist education, isn't worth doing because so relatively few car-bike crashes will be prevented because of the former, and so many could be prevented by the latter.

But no-one is arguing for doing that, Serge.
And I'm not arguing that anyone is arguing for doing that, Allister.

I'm arguing that that is what is happening, whether it's intentional or not.
I certainly see a heck of a lot more emphasis and posts (myself excluded of course) on this forum from people complaining about motorist behavior than cyclist behavior, and advocating the need for better motorist education than more cyclist education. I see the same kind of thing on my local advocacy email list, on the Portland bicycling forums, etc. In fact, even suggesting that cyclists might be responsible for, and can largely (but not totally) control, what happens to them is widely frowned upon in the cycling community culture. What's almost universally acceptable is blaming the motorist, no matter what.

The emphasis in the cycling community/culture, by far, is on how bad and dangerous motorists are, and how that has to change, and very little on the need to improve cyclist knowledge, skills and behavior, and how much that could do for improving cyclist safety.

Edit:
To be clear, I'm not saying there is not a need for both. Yes, there is a need for both improved motorist education and cyclist education. What I'm saying is that within the cycling community there is a much greater need for emphasis on advocating for and providing cyclist education, and very little if any need for advocating for improved motorist education.

Gene, I'm wondering how you are voting in this poll (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=385819).

The former above is "whining about drivers and their need for education", and is widespread in the cycling community, eating up tons of time, energy and resources, achieving little if anything, with very little chance of ever achieving anything (see below). The "whining about anti-motorist bike advocacy" that Forester and I do in response is pretty much limited to us and a few other VC advocates, has also achieved little if anything, but at least has the hope of achieving the following: changing focus within cycling advocacy from an area where we have little to no control (advocating for better motorist education) to an area where we virtually have unlimited control: advocating for and providing cyclist education.

I admire your optimism, but whining is just whining, and achieves nothing, no matter what you 'hope' for.

The latter above, "promoting and providing cyclist education", is almost entirely within the scope and control of the cycling community, even the cycling advocacy community, while "advocating for better motorist education" might arguably be in scope for cycling advocacy, but it's hardly in our control, at least in terms of something we can achieve, and that's because "providing motorist education" is almost totally out of scope and control for us.

You don't have to be a provider in order to be an advocate.

I admire your optimism, but whining is just whining, and achieves nothing, no matter what you 'hope' for.
Let's not play semantics with what "whining" means. In both cases someone is trying to persuade someone else of something, and certainly those efforts do sometimes succeed.

I have little reason to believe that the efforts of VC advocates to persuade the cycling community to place much more focus on advocating for and providing cycling community are likely to be negligible. For one thing, we VC advocates have reason and logic on our side.

I have many reasons to believe that the efforts of cycling advocates to persuade the community at large to place much more focus on providing more motorist education are likely to be negligible (see below).


You don't have to be a provider in order to be an advocate.
Of course. Nothing I said assumed one has to be a provider in order to be an advocate, so I don't understand why you felt compelled to point this out.

My point is that we are but a tiny voice among many other loud ones (MADD, walking advocates, AAA, CHP, etc.) in the area of advocating for improved motorist education, and so the potential effectiveness of our efforts in this area are practically negligible. That is, if anything changes in this area, it almost certainly would have changed, and just as soon, without the contributions of the cycling community. Now, if we were in Denmark where cycling interests represent a majority of the population, that would be different.

So, we can't provide motorist education and our work to advocate for it is negligible. What's the point? Again, I'm not asking what the point of improved motorist education is. I'm asking what the point of spending the bulk of our time and resources and energy on advocating for improved motorist education by the cycling community is.