VC is just natural

[Bekologist]

head- riding a bike a foot into a lane of travel is not in violation of rules of vehicular operation for thru travel approaching intersections. it might not be prudent, but as long as the cyclist is not overtaking potential right turning traffic, their lane position, regardless of how far right or left, IS VEHICULAR.

why do you misinterpret Hiles and forestor admonishments 'between far right and left' to NOT include a foot into the travel lane? what, are you now riding under the rules of quantum physics? Perhaps, in heads mind, a bicyclist encroaching on a third of a narrow lane actually is not inhabiting that physical space at the time??

[Bekologist]

regardless, off topic.

riding vehicularily is not natural nor is in ingrained. it is a learned behavior even the OP thinks so- he describes 90 percent of the riders he see that are, purportedly, not naturally picking up this 'vc' stuff.

so, OP, if 90 percent of the bicyclists you see DO NOT ride 'vc', WHY IN THE WORLD would you start a thread contrary to your observations?????

[Bekologist]

is this thread just another VC strokefest?

[bmike]

are you now riding under the rules of quantum physics? [/i]


he follows the uncertainty principle - he can be both a wave and a particle - but sadly we cannot know his speed nor location at the same time - so if he is caught in the bikelane he can say he was stopped, as we knew his position... and we cannot prove that he was 'riding'.

[Helmet Head]

head- riding a bike a foot into a lane of travel is not in violation of rules of vehicular operation for thru travel approaching intersections. it might not be prudent, but as long as the cyclist is not overtaking potential right turning traffic, their lane position, regardless of how far right or left, IS VEHICULAR.

why do you misinterpret Hiles and forestor admonishments 'between far right and left' to NOT include a foot into the travel lane? what, are you now riding under the rules of quantum physics? Perhaps, in heads mind, a bicyclist encroaching on a third of a narrow lane actually is not inhabiting that physical space at the time??
Whether riding a foot into a lane of travel is in violation of rules of vehicular operation for thru travel approaching intersections is a semantic question depending on how one defines rules of vehicular operation for thru travel approaching intersections, and is pointless to argue about without clearly defining what that means. But you go right ahead. I'm not playing.

In contrast, that destination positioning is a fundamental aspect of vehicular cycling is not even questioned by the critics of the guy who coined the phrase.

Now, if you want to pit nicks about whether being one foot to the left of the fog line constitutes being between "on the right near the curb" and "on the left near the center line", that's pointless too. The obvious intent is that, in general, the right third of the lane is for turning right, the left third is for turning left, and the middle third is for going straight. This is not just vehicular cycling, by the way, but is also part of what is taught in motorcycle safety courses. At any rate, one foot to the left of the fog line is clearly in the right third, clearly not in the middle third, and so, as a through position, is clearly in violation of the VC destination positioning principle. Whether concepts like this are natural for most cyclists, including you, to understand and abide by is the question of this thread. This is not off topic; this goes to the heart of the question raised by the OP.

Finally these are general principles. It is assumed that reasonable judgment will be applied as well, including taking into account the particulars of a given situation. In this case a driver pulling out of the driveway coming from the right at the junction is clearly an indication that if there is a bias to the left or right, it should be to the left. This too is part of vehicular cycling and clearly does not come naturally to many.

Shouldn't you be out whale watching or something?

[John Forester]

regardless, off topic.

riding vehicularily is not natural nor is in ingrained. it is a learned behavior even the OP thinks so- he describes 90 percent of the riders he see that are, purportedly, not naturally picking up this 'vc' stuff.

so, OP, if 90 percent of the bicyclists you see DO NOT ride 'vc', WHY IN THE WORLD would you start a thread contrary to your observations?????

Never question a researcher's search for knowledge. Forscher didn't quite say that in Rules for Referees, but his words implied as much.

However, your comment has two equal sides; while vehicular cycling is a learned behavior, so is the cyclist-inferiority curb-hugging unobservant cycling that so many do. If either set of behavior is acquired when young, it is most likely acquired in the same way that young people acquire most of what they learn in youth, rather by osmosis from the society in which they are raised.

[wsexson]

Maybe somebody else can explain it to you in a way that you'll understand.
I am pretty sure that he understands just fine, but he disagrees that what you have claimed is, in fact, the case.

[bmike]

cyclist-inferiority curb-hugging unobservant cycling


statistics bending car hugging unobservant engineering

[bmike]

it is most likely acquired in the same way that young people acquire most of what they learn in youth, rather by osmosis from the society in which they are raised.

and to wonder why there are so many cars on the roads, and so many people thinking that cars are the only way to get about, and even the very design of our towns and cities affected and altered to make way for the car...

JF would argue that this is the force of the market... of the masses deciding what is the best way to get around, of the simplest, smartest design winning out in the survival of the fittest... pushing all else to the side of the road...

or could it be that this is what is learned in youth, osmosis-imprinting upon young people from the consumptive society in which they were raised and a cycle of self reinforcement and selection then begins to take place...

cyclists and pedestrians are inferior - we don't have multi million dollar ad budgets, exciting wrecks on tv everynight, product placements in movies, and the very fabric of the places we live built at odds with moving about under our own power!

[Helmet Head]

I am pretty sure that he understands just fine, but he disagrees that what you have claimed is, in fact, the case.
He disagrees based on his insistence of defining "vehicular" in some ambiguous manner and refusing to acknowledge the definition provided by the coiner of the phrase "vehicular cycling", which is even acknowledged by many of his critics.

[Helmet Head]

and to wonder why there are so many cars on the roads, and so many people thinking that cars are the only way to get about, and even the very design of our towns and cities affected and altered to make way for the car...

JF would argue that this is the force of the market... of the masses deciding what is the best way to get around, of the simplest, smartest design winning out in the survival of the fittest... pushing all else to the side of the road...

or could it be that this is what is learned in youth, osmosis-imprinting upon young people from the consumptive society in which they were raised and a cycle of self reinforcement and selection then begins to take place...

cyclists and pedestrians are inferior - we don't have multi million dollar ad budgets, exciting wrecks on tv everynight, product placements in movies, and the very fabric of the places we live built at odds with moving about under our own power!
Thank you for admitting what so many facilities advocates refuse to acknowledge, and ridicule Forester for pointing out that they believe that cyclists are inferior.

[Ed Holland]

I was taught, by my father, to ride a bicycle on the road according to the rules. He also taught me to ride in a curb biased position that would allow cars to pass safely, but also leave room to manouvere further to the edge of the road as necessary. This early learning was at age 11.

I'm now 37 and still ride using roughly the same methods. I will, on occasion assert my position amongst the flow of cars where required to use the road system e.g. making left (US) or right (UK) turns. Bike lanes are also my friend in many cases, but do not provide a means of travel 100% of the time.

What I have said many times before about riding is that it takes knowledge, the ability to anticipate and experience* Only with experience can one gain the confidence to ride amongst motor traffic that we would otherwise perceive as a certain deadly threat. Only by anticipation can we minimise the risks of erratic behaviour by other road users. Both these assets can be trained, but it requires committment to do so.

When riding, one benefits from previous experience, to gain experience one must ride. It is certainly not simply down to whether one rides "VC".


Ed

I have a lot of experience, this is not intended as a boast because even after several tens of thousands of miles I still make mistakes/get spooked occasionally in some situations.






(I also wanted to take cycling proficiency at school, but alas, did not have a bike at the time...)

[wsexson]

defining "vehicular" is [sic] some ambiguous manner
I think that I am going go ride a bike on the railroad tracks after I get home from work this evening.

[Script]

I was taught, by my father, to ride a bicycle on the road according to the rules. He also taught me to ride in a curb biased position that would allow cars to pass safely, but also leave room to manouvere further to the edge of the road as necessary. This early learning was at age 11.

I'm now 37 and still ride using roughly the same methods. I will, on occasion assert my position amongst the flow of cars where required to use the road system e.g. making left (US) or right (UK) turns. Bike lanes are also my friend in many cases, but do not provide a means of travel 100% of the time.

What I have said many times before about riding is that it takes knowledge, the ability to anticipate and experience* Only with experience can one gain the confidence to ride amongst motor traffic that we would otherwise perceive as a certain deadly threat. Only by anticipation can we minimise the risks of erratic behaviour by other road users. Both these assets can be trained, but it requires committment to do so.

When riding, one benefits from previous experience, to gain experience one must ride. It is certainly not simply down to whether one rides "VC".




You describe in pretty accurate terms my own experience. Perhaps you are my brother! Since I was kidnapped by aliens who tried to VC me, my memory is not as good as it used to be.
I'm beginning to understand who is on what team here....

:D

[JRA]

What is natural is what a person has learned (I sincerely doubt that there is a VC cycling gene).

Riding according to the rules of the road is natural to me but I'm sure that's more due to nearly half a century of cycling experience than to any inborn proclivity.

My older brother taught me to ride-- first on the sidewalk and, later, when he got tired of riding on the sidewalk with his ratty little brother-- in the roadway according to the rules of the road (yes, I was taught how to ride safely on the sidewalk, something that I have seen some otherwise seemingly reasonable VC proponents claim is impossible to teach).

It was quite natural to ride according to the rules of the road long before anyone I knew had ever heard of John Forester. None of us were club cyclists, either (although I'm not surprised that The Great One seems reluctant to recognize the existance of rules of the road bicyclists who aren't club cyclist-- not that any of us gives a rat's behind).

I doubt that all that much has changed since I learned to ride. Fear comes mostly from a lack of any relevant experience (even though John Forester might like to attribute it to some nearly universal phobia that he invented himself (with no training in psychology, mind you) because he couldn't understand how any reasonable person could possibly disagree with his nutty ideas).

There is nothing natural about VC-ism. It is an abomination, a freaky semi-cult defined by an arrogant, charismatic leader. The main goal seems to be to belittle all who have the audacity to be reluctant to accept the wacky to patently absurd social, political and psychological theories of the know-it-all leader.

[derath]

regardless, off topic.

LOL

That is a great one Bek. Considering the entire first page of your posts were off topic. You started off posting in this thread off topic. Yet you will call foul when it works to your advantage.


Classic

[bmike]

Thank you for admitting what so many facilities advocates refuse to acknowledge, and ridicule Forester for pointing out that they believe that cyclists are inferior.

perfect. how 'bout printing the rest of my quote. :D
jf doesn't point out that cyclists are inferior - he makes up some sort of psycho analyst bs and then brashly pushes it on people, using his hacked and imagined 'studies' to prove his point.

[Helmet Head]

jf doesn't point out that cyclists are inferior
Right. JF doesn't point out that cyclists are inferior. He believes we are not inferior.
He says facilities advocates like you believe that cyclists are inferior, and you confirmed this today. Thanks again.


- he makes up some sort of psycho analyst bs and then brashly pushes it on people, using his hacked and imagined 'studies' to prove his point.
He points out that the facilities advocates believe cyclists are inferior, and they deny it. So then it gets into a p-ing match, including JF trying his best to explain why these facilities advocates believe cyclists are inferior, and why they deny it.

Frankly, all that really doesn't matter to me. If someone wants to believe that cyclists are inferior because they compare cyclists to cars instead cyclists to drivers, fine. I just don't understand why they deny it. "Cyclist inferiority phobia" is just a term Forester coined to identify the condition that you admit you have - the belief that cyclists are inferior. So what?

[bmike]

Right. JF doesn't point out that cyclists are inferior. He believes we are not inferior.
He says facilities advocates like you believe that cyclists are inferior, and you confirmed this today. Thanks again.


He points out that the facilities advocates believe cyclists are inferior, and they deny it. So then it gets into a p-ing match, including JF trying his best to explain why these facilities advocates believe cyclists are inferior, and why they deny it.

Frankly, all that really doesn't matter to me. If someone wants to believe that cyclists are inferior because they compare cyclists to cars instead cyclists to drivers, fine. I just don't understand why they deny it. "Cyclist inferiority phobia" is just a term Forester coined to identify the condition that you admit you have - the belief that cyclists are inferior. So what?


put words in my mouth head. brilliant. ;)
want to re-read my post?

[Allister]

So then it gets into a p-ing match, including JF trying his best to explain why these facilities advocates believe cyclists are inferior, and why they deny it.


Why not just take them at their word? Of course, Forester, and you as his eager lap-dog, being such great students of human psychology, know what people believe better than they do themselves. :rolleyes:

[Helmet Head]

All I did was quote your words. I didn't say much about what your words meant.
Do you think I misunderstood something? What?

[Helmet Head]

Why not just take them at their word? Of course, Forester, and you as his eager lap-dog, being such great students of human psychology, know what people believe better than they do themselves. :rolleyes:
Because it's obvious they feel cyclists are inferior.
Bmike admitted it a few posts ago.
Gene is on the verge all the time.

[gcottay]

Yes, except when the sum of negative factors such as narrow roadway, bad visibility and high speed differences make it flat stupid.

[genec]

Because it's obvious they feel cyclists are inferior.
Bmike admitted it a few posts ago.
Gene is on the verge all the time.

Hey, it is exactly what motorists feel... Deal with them.

[Allister]

Because it's obvious they feel cyclists are inferior.
Bmike admitted it a few posts ago.

As misinterpreted by you.

Gene is on the verge all the time.

LOL. And that counts as 'obvious' to you, does it?

It doesn't matter about specific people. It's the attitude that anyone that doesn't agree with the VC dogma that bikelanes are 'anti-vehicular' are branded as feeling 'inferior', or as 'childish cyclists', despite repeated protestations to the contrary. It stifles any useful discussion, and frankly gets more boring and doesn't become any more true with repetition.

[Helmet Head]

As misinterpreted by you.



LOL. And that counts as 'obvious' to you, does it?

It doesn't matter about specific people. It's the attitude that anyone that doesn't agree with the VC dogma that bikelanes are 'anti-vehicular' are branded as feeling 'inferior', or as 'childish cyclists', despite repeated protestations to the contrary. It stifles any useful discussion, and frankly gets more boring and doesn't become any more true with repetition.
If people who believed cyclists were inferior would stop denying that they believed cyclists were inferior we'd have a lot more useful discussion.

You, by the way, do not strike me as someone who believes cyclists are inferior.

[Allister]

If people who believed cyclists were inferior would stop denying that they believed cyclists were inferior we'd have a lot more useful discussion.

:rolleyes:

You really are a piece of work. Such utter, utter arrogance.

You, by the way, do not strike me as someone who believes cyclists are inferior.

Yeah, well done there, champ, considering I have explicitly stated that I don't on several occasions. Your powers of observation continue to impress me.

[buzzman]

90% of cars drive in a predictable and safe manner, 90% of cyclist don't ride predictably.


If 90% of car drivers drive predictably and 90% of cyclists don't ride predictably and cyclists represent 2% of vehicular traffic then out of every 100 vehicles you encounter on your bike rides you would encounter 1.8 unpredictable cyclists and 9.8 unpredictable drivers of cars.

[bmike]

so long a&s... to the rubbish pile with you.


bye bye head. have fun out there.
gene,bek,human car,allister - all - its been fun.

JF - you are a cranky SOB who appears to have little regard for discourse nor the thoughts of others - may you find happiness in this life or the next. maybe you'll come back as a grasshopper... or a transportational, everyday cyclist, who rides like a child.

[genec]

maybe you'll come back as a grasshopper... or a transportational, everyday cyclist, who rides like a child.

:beer::beer::beer:

[John Forester]

As misinterpreted by you.



It's the attitude that anyone that doesn't agree with the VC dogma that bikelanes are 'anti-vehicular' are branded as feeling 'inferior', or as 'childish cyclists', despite repeated protestations to the contrary. It stifles any useful discussion, and frankly gets more boring and doesn't become any more true with repetition.

It has been long demonstrated, even here, that obeying the bike-lane stripe contradicts the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. You, along with many others, have asserted that this is not so, but none of your has ever provided any justification for your claim. Put up or shut up.

[genec]

It has been long demonstrated, even here, that obeying the bike-lane stripe contradicts the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. You, along with many others, have asserted that this is not so, but none of your has ever provided any justification for your claim. Put up or shut up.

If one simply rides "as if the stripe is not there" and adheres to the rules that slower vehicles must stay right... you find that you are very often right in the bike lane. (NOT hugging the curb)

The only places I tend to leave bike lanes are where right turns are permitted... usually bike lanes are dashed at that point... so no contradiction there; and left turns... which often means crossing the solid line. I also may leave a BL for obstructions... which again means crossing the solid line. But well over 95% of the time whether a BL exists or not... I would be in the same location as a BL would direct me anyway... obeying the vehicular rules which tell me to ride to the right as slower traffic.

Perhaps my biggest objection to BL are when they are placed in the door zone. But the AASHTO allows for BL to be there, based on the laws that state a motorist is responsible for ensuring that it is safe to open their door. So if motorists follow the law, there should not be dooring situations. But the reality is motorists do not follow the law... as demonstrated by the annual 45,000 deaths suffered by those in cars. That same lack of law abiding also makes vehicular cycling less then ideal... as vehicular cycling depends on all users of the road following rules and laws... which as I mentioned, is obviously not the case.

[nun]

what, are you now riding under the rules of quantum physics? Perhaps, in heads mind, a bicyclist encroaching on a third of a narrow lane actually is not inhabiting that physical space at the time??

There's no actuality about it its all just probability,

[Bekologist]

to the OP:

WHY would you even start this thread if you think VC DOESN'T COME "NATURALLY" to 90 PERCENT of the bicyclists you see?

is this more 'vc' "Logic"? a little vc strokefest for the true believers in prejudical attitudes not grounded in reality???

vc is quantum philosophy. sophistic.

[Ed Holland]

It has been long demonstrated, even here, that obeying the bike-lane stripe contradicts the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. You, along with many others, have asserted that this is not so, but none of your has ever provided any justification for your claim. Put up or shut up.

Who cares?

There is a little matter of theory and practice. It is expediant and frequently safer in many cases to ride within the stripe. It does not, however enable the vehicle operator to abandon observation and anticipation of other road users actions. No-one ever said that it did.

Ed

[noisebeam]

I watched a bit of "The Windsors: A Royal Dynasty" on PBS last night.

There was a 10sec clip of traffic in London 1947. Cyclists were very vehicular, in center of lane in line with other motor vehicles going thru a circus (perhaps Piccadilly) Clearly it was natural then.

Other clips included the royal family on bicycles specifically for promoting their use as a conservation effort. Although this may have been on a very rural dirt road with no other motor vehicles present.

Al

[Bekologist]

i don't know, ed.... the vast majority of the bike lanes here on Maui, for instance, are vehicular treatments for bicycling that are NOT in violation of the rules of the road-

john's crock full of it!!!

[Ed Holland]

I watched a bit of "The Windsors: A Royal Dynasty" on PBS last night.

There was a 10sec clip of traffic in London 1947. Cyclists were very vehicular, in center of lane in line with other motor vehicles going thru a circus (perhaps Piccadilly) Clearly it was natural then.

Other clips included the royal family on bicycles specifically for promoting their use as a conservation effort. Although this may have been on a very rural dirt road with no other motor vehicles present.

Al

Cycle use as a means of transport was a lot more common then, and of course there were fewer cars. So I imagine the lines (the ones we like to draw between cars and cycles) were blurred.

Oxford and its environs in the UK is definitely not 1947, but because cyclists are far more common than many places, it is still treated as a natural part of traffic. Most riders use the road according to the laws - though of course there are exceptions.

Truth is there is no need to describe this "lawful manner of road use" with some fancy term.

Ed

[Ed Holland]

i don't know, ed.... the vast majority of the bike lanes here on Maui, for instance, are vehicular treatments for bicycling that are NOT in violation of the rules of the road-

john's crock full of it!!!

:beer:

[noisebeam]

Cycle use as a means of transport was a lot more common then, and of course there were fewer cars. So I imagine the lines (the ones we like to draw between cars and cycles) were blurred.

Oxford and its environs in the UK is definitely not 1947, but because cyclists are far more common than many places, it is still treated as a natural part of traffic. Most riders use the road according to the laws - though of course there are exceptions.

Truth is there is no need to describe this "lawful manner of road use" with some fancy term.

Ed
My grandmother grew up and still lives in the London area. She never owned a car and cycle commuted to work 9mi ea way for 40 years and after retirement still ran all errands by bike, now she users public transport.
The 1947 (it may not have been exactly, but it was sandwiched between other 1946/7 era clips) video clip I saw had substantial traffic, it was bumper to bumper at a good clip thru the circus: car, car, cyclist, car, cyclist, etc.
In my visits to London in the past years I noted far more vehicular (ok, lawfully manner of integrated road use) type cycling vs. what I've seen in the US.

I assume she and/or my grandfather taught my dad how to cycle (in traffic) and he later taught me. From him I learned to cycle vehicularly, so I assume that is what he learned and how my grandparents cycled. So for me cycling vehicularly is natural.

Al

[hotbike]

It's important to stop, look and listen at every intersection. Same as if you are driving a car. I don't go by bicycle 'race rules' anymore.
Vehicular cycling is slower than , say, 'race training', because you are making more perfunctory stops.
I don't make a right turn onto the shoulder, and try to use it as an 'acceleration ramp' anymore.
Not every road shoulder is wide enough to be a bicycle lane.

[genec]

My grandmother grew up and still lives in the London area. She never owned a car and cycle commuted to work 9mi ea way for 40 years and after retirement still ran all errands by bike, now she users public transport.
The 1947 (it may not have been exactly, but it was sandwiched between other 1946/7 era clips) video clip I saw had substantial traffic, it was bumper to bumper at a good clip thru the circus: car, car, cyclist, car, cyclist, etc.
In my visits to London in the past years I noted far more vehicular (ok, lawfully manner of integrated road use) type cycling vs. what I've seen in the US.

I assume she and/or my grandfather taught my dad how to cycle (in traffic) and he later taught me. From him I learned to cycle vehicularly, so I assume that is what he learned and how my grandparents cycled. So for me cycling vehicularly is natural.

Al

In slower traffic situations it is quite natural to just "blend right in"... but as the speed of traffic increases, slower traffic gets "pushed to the side" by faster more aggressive motorists... the result is the slower traffic on the right issue... which is further exacerbated by faster and faster traffic... thus where there is a great diversity of speed between cyclists and motorists... cyclists appear to be more like pedestrians to the fastest moving motorists... and less like "fellow users of the road."

[nun]

to the OP:

WHY would you even start this thread if you think VC DOESN'T COME "NATURALLY" to 90 PERCENT of the bicyclists you see?

is this more 'vc' "Logic"? a little vc strokefest for the true believers in prejudical attitudes not grounded in reality???

vc is quantum philosophy. sophistic.

Bek, if we aren't allowed to admit we learn and modify our original opinions what are these forums for?

I no longer believe that VC is natural, I'm not sure there is any single natural way to ride a bike as its a fundamentally unnatural thing to do. But after early training and 40 years on a bike I find it to be second nature to me and a sensible and safe approach to riding. Part of my motivation for starting the thread was my amazement that I had been riding in a VC manner without ever hearing of JF or VC, given the maverick reputation both seem to have gained.

[John Forester]

If one simply rides "as if the stripe is not there" and adheres to the rules that slower vehicles must stay right... you find that you are very often right in the bike lane. (NOT hugging the curb)

The only places I tend to leave bike lanes are where right turns are permitted... usually bike lanes are dashed at that point... so no contradiction there; and left turns... which often means crossing the solid line. I also may leave a BL for obstructions... which again means crossing the solid line. But well over 95% of the time whether a BL exists or not... I would be in the same location as a BL would direct me anyway... obeying the vehicular rules which tell me to ride to the right as slower traffic.

Perhaps my biggest objection to BL are when they are placed in the door zone. But the AASHTO allows for BL to be there, based on the laws that state a motorist is responsible for ensuring that it is safe to open their door. So if motorists follow the law, there should not be dooring situations. But the reality is motorists do not follow the law... as demonstrated by the annual 45,000 deaths suffered by those in cars. That same lack of law abiding also makes vehicular cycling less then ideal... as vehicular cycling depends on all users of the road following rules and laws... which as I mentioned, is obviously not the case.


Wonderful, genec! You have just proved my point, that obeying the bike-lane stripe contradicts the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles.

Don't you bike-lane advocates see the utter absurdity of your desired program? You urge lots of public pressure for bike lanes, along with money and bureaucrats and all the rest, while simultaneously urging that these bike-lane stripes that you so desperately want should be ignored to be safe. You argue that having bike-lane stripes is better than trying the difficult task of teaching cyclists to ride properly, but then you also now have to teach the whole population, both motorists and cyclists, to operate according to the rules of the road whenever the bike-lane stripe tells them otherwise.

[genec]

Wonderful, genec! You have just proved my point, that obeying the bike-lane stripe contradicts the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles.

Don't you bike-lane advocates see the utter absurdity of your desired program? You urge lots of public pressure for bike lanes, along with money and bureaucrats and all the rest, while simultaneously urging that these bike-lane stripes that you so desperately want should be ignored to be safe. You argue that having bike-lane stripes is better than trying the difficult task of teaching cyclists to ride properly, but then you also now have to teach the whole population, both motorists and cyclists, to operate according to the rules of the road whenever the bike-lane stripe tells them otherwise.

That is not at all what I have proven... I have pointed out that in fact even if the stripes were not there, the majority of cyclists would be riding in exactly the same location.

For you to not see and understand what I just said just proves that you have an utter bias against anything related to BL stripes while meanwhile pushing your utterly foolish VC program that depends on motorists obeying the laws; which they clearly DO NOT DO. (45,000 deaths a year proves my point).

Perhaps you missed the line in my commentary which said: But well over 95% of the time whether a BL exists or not... I would be in the same location as a BL would direct me anyway... obeying the vehicular rules which tell me to ride to the right as slower traffic.

[John Forester]

That is not at all what I have proven... I have pointed out that in fact even if the stripes were not there, the majority of cyclists would be riding in exactly the same location.

For you to not see and understand what I just said just proves that you have an utter bias against anything related to BL stripes while meanwhile pushing your utterly foolish VC program that depends on motorists obeying the laws; which they clearly DO NOT DO. (45,000 deaths a year proves my point).

Perhaps you missed the line in my commentary which said: But well over 95% of the time whether a BL exists or not... I would be in the same location as a BL would direct me anyway... obeying the vehicular rules which tell me to ride to the right as slower traffic.

I did not fail to recognize your argument about the time spent in or out of the lane. It's just not relevant. Your argument accepts that for some portion of your time cycling on a bike-laned street (5% by your estimate) you would be disobeying the bike-lane stripe. I suppose that a similar proportion would apply to motorists also. There is no problem that really needs to be solved about the typical situation in which the motorist is overtaking the cyclist; 95% of the safety problems occur in the other situations, be they your 5% of the time or not. If you were to get into an argument with your lover and strangled her, you would still be considered a murder, despite the fact that the murderous action took only, say, 0.001%, of your lifetime.

Furthermore, my posting considers far more than the actions of well-experienced cyclists. It considered all the public and governmental bodies concerned, both with organizing to paint the bike-lane stripes and then organizing to persuade the public that they should not obey these stripes for which so much had to be claimed to get them painted in the first place.

[Ed Holland]

Don't you bike-lane advocates see the utter absurdity of your desired program? You urge lots of public pressure for bike lanes, along with money and bureaucrats and all the rest, while simultaneously urging that these bike-lane stripes that you so desperately want should be ignored to be safe. You argue that having bike-lane stripes is better than trying the difficult task of teaching cyclists to ride properly, t then you also now have to teach the whole population, both motorists and cyclists, to operate according to the rules of the road whenever the bike-lane stripe tells them otherwise.

Bike lane stripes, even when absurdly narrow as they are occasionally in parts of the UK, serve a urpose - a reminder to motorised traffic that slower road users may be present.

They still require cyclists to "ride properly". They don't cause problems, nor do they solve all issues for riding in traffic. They are at the very least an official recognition that the road is used by vehicles with differing capabilities.

I am a very fit, able and capable cyclist, yet I do not have the same capability (at least for speed) as a car on most roads. Where is the problem with using a distinguishable space that both I and the motor vehicles understand, when to do so is expedient for BOTH sets of users?

The arguments and wretched semantics are missing the point completely, regarding day to day operation of a bicycle.

Ed

[genec]

I did not fail to recognize your argument about the time spent in or out of the lane. It's just not relevant. Your argument accepts that for some portion of your time cycling on a bike-laned street (5% by your estimate) you would be disobeying the bike-lane stripe. I suppose that a similar proportion would apply to motorists also. There is no problem that really needs to be solved about the typical situation in which the motorist is overtaking the cyclist; 95% of the safety problems occur in the other situations, be they your 5% of the time or not. If you were to get into an argument with your lover and strangled her, you would still be considered a murder, despite the fact that the murderous action took only, say, 0.001%, of your lifetime.

Furthermore, my posting considers far more than the actions of well-experienced cyclists. It considered all the public and governmental bodies concerned, both with organizing to paint the bike-lane stripes and then organizing to persuade the public that they should not obey these stripes for which so much had to be claimed to get them painted in the first place.

And what you have failed to counter is that for that same 5% of the time, I am also violating the keep right laws... that exist whether BL exist or not.

And how indeed do you account for the 45,000 deaths of motorists if they are adhering to the rules of the road so well that a cyclist can just fit right in? (if you are going to throw in "death" as a metaphor... I get to continue to use it too.)

[noisebeam]

Bike lane stripes, even when absurdly narrow as they are occasionally in parts of the UK, serve a urpose - a reminder to motorised traffic that slower road users may be present.


No, if any bicycle related message is actually comprehended by motorists (after all what does a white stripe on the right (left in UK) side of the road communicate other than roadway edge) is that if there are cyclists they will be out of the way and are therefore of no concern.

There are better ways to communicate that cyclists may be present and more importantly one's driving should accommodate that possibility than a white stripe.

Al

[genec]

The arguments and wretched semantics are missing the point completely, regarding day to day operation of a bicycle.

Ed

Indeed, that IS the most truthful thing said here in a long time!

:beer: