Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Let's forget names....

OK I'm tired of VC versus non VC, effective this, adaptive that. I think this subforum is too important to have been filed away as an eclectic and eccentric niche. But I know why this is the case...

It might be helpful to loose the "Vehicular Cycling" title label here in favour of something less divisive e.g. Cycling Road Users. Then we could all settle down into a sensible discussion, sharing good ways to operate our bikes legally and safely in the big wide world.

Anyone agree?

Ed

Old topic. Search for "adaptive cycling".

There are various methods to ride on the road, and only some of those are consistent with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. I think it's important to differentiate those methods that are consistent with the rules, from those that are not. And vehicular cycling seems to be better than any other I've seen, certainly better than "cycling in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles", which means the same thing, only is much longer.

With respect HH this is what I want to avoid, because it has become a mire of entrenched viewpoints. I was there for "adaptive cycling".

Even the "rules of the road" have seemed to divide us. Plus I think this is a pretty vague term, albeit a staple of advocacy language.

I'd call it Road Cycling, but that has gone already...

There is too much an attempt to turn cycle usage into a theoretical excercise for the academic instead of the cyclist. This has frightened most of the rest of bikeforums away - even the commuters.

With respect HH this is what I want to avoid, because it has become a mire of entrenched viewpoints. I was there for "adaptive cycling".

Even the "rules of the road" have seemed to divide us. Plus I think this is a pretty vague term, albeit a staple of advocacy language.

I'd call it Road Cycling, but that has gone already...

There is too much an attempt to turn cycle usage into a theoretical excercise for the academic instead of the cyclist. This has frightened most of the rest of bikeforums away - even the commuters.
Uh, the topic of this subforum is Vehicular cycling.
The only academic/theoretical discussions here are threads like this one.
Pretty much everything else is practical.

With respect HH this is what I want to avoid, because it has become a mire of entrenched viewpoints.

HH's particular brand of mire is why this sub-forum was created in the first place. I think it should stick to it's roots. ;)

Uh, the topic of this subforum is Vehicular cycling.
The only academic/theoretical discussions here are threads like this one.
Pretty much everything else is practical.

Yes, and I don't think that that is doing advocacy any favours. So I wondered if a change to a broader scope on riding technique (and perhaps a change of name) would enhance our appeal and reach. That might open up the debate a bit.

Never mind. I'm off home, on the bike. I'll probably use a variety of legal methods to make this as safe and pleasant as possible, but will be sure not to discuss them here unless they are VC.

lots of love,

Ed

Interesting effort, but ultimately pointless in my estimation. Folks will still attack the person presenting ideas instead of the ideas themselves no matter what the ideas are called (for example see post #5)

Anyway, some folks, including me, sometimes use 'vehicular cycling' to describe/discuss the practical and 'Vehicular Cycling' to discuss the ideas related to vehicular cycling.

Al

Interesting effort, but ultimately pointless in my estimation. Folks will still attack the person presenting ideas instead of the ideas themselves no matter what the ideas are called (for example see post #5)


You thought that was an attack? :rolleyes:

It's nothing more than a simple fact.

Interesting effort, but ultimately pointless in my estimation. Folks will still attack the person presenting ideas instead of the ideas themselves no matter what the ideas are called (for example see post #5) Al

You may well be right...



Anyway, some folks, including me, sometimes use 'vehicular cycling' to describe/discuss the practical and 'Vehicular Cycling' to discuss the ideas related to vehicular cycling.

Al

:)
I've no problem with using the term vehicular cycling in postings, I'm not opposed to many of the principles under its purvue myself. However, I feel the forum might benefit from an attempt to broaden horizons here and attract some fresh thoughts.

Ed

OK I'm tired of VC versus non VC, effective this, adaptive that. I think this subforum is too important to have been filed away as an eclectic and eccentric niche. But I know why this is the case...

It might be helpful to loose the "Vehicular Cycling" title label here in favour of something less divisive e.g. Cycling Road Users. Then we could all settle down into a sensible discussion, sharing good ways to operate our bikes legally and safely in the big wide world.

Anyone agree?

Ed

totally agree.

I hate to burst the bubble but I tried this route just about a year ago in this thread, which I titled "Name Your Cycling Technique" (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=269377&highlight=improvisational).

Unfortunately, it degenerated when it eventually fell prey to a hijack (guess who?). :(

I fear Allister may be correct when he suggests that since this sub-forum was created to allow for the more dogmatic among us, who prefer the moniker of "VC" and hold those truths to be self evident till death do them part, to have a place to blow their horn and some of us tag along for entertainment value it should go on as is. Eventually some of us depart out of rage, boredom or frustration but others continue on to fight the good fight. It's fun to watch as new people join and we get to watch the same dialogue devolve into the broken record that seems to play in here.

this is the part of bike forums that's most like riding a trainer. You work really hard and the wheels are spinning furiously but you never actually get anywhere.:rolleyes:

Nice try Ed. :)

I may not have had the shortest naive commitment to forums, but I'll bet it's close.

Since it appears that a very small number of folks actually participate, and when they do it's pretty rigidly defined repetition of 'I'm right and you are wrong therefore there is nothing to change my position"; I'm going back to doing the things I used to do before finding this fourm... Riding in my own unlabeled way- trying to observe the rules of the road and ignoring the craziness that defines the knowledge of the average American rider. :rolleyes:

Honestly, My biggest takeaway is the observation of how extreme certainty can crush any opportunity for cooperative progress. There are those out there who have tried...Ed, buzz, bek, Alister, etc., but it still seems like the pig refuses to learn to sing.:D

Script, buzzman - Thanks ;)

Especially the trainer analogy. It's a good job I don't have my morning coffee yet...

Let's forget names....
I forget names all the time! :D

How about this name: "The Cycling Technique Formerly Known as..." :p

Ha! I like it.

I think VC is a fine name, and just needs to shed it's baggage. VC is also a fine way of biking. My contention is that in the hands of some people, it became an ends and not a means. When something refuses to entertain the possibility of future evolution (i.e. the rules of the road, which have in fact evolved successful exceptions, and will no doubt change in the future - are seen as a sort of perfect constitution by some). The goals are safety and convenience - whichever method best takes you there is best. And there's certainly nothing wrong with being pro-VC, provided you don't lose sight of those goals, and reasonableness. Many of our pro-VCers on this forum do that successfully.

I forget names all the time! :D

How about this name: "The Cycling Technique Formerly Known as..." :p

Wait, don't you have to propose some inane symbol too...

I think VC is a fine name, and just needs to shed it's baggage. VC is also a fine way of biking. My contention is that in the hands of some people, it became an ends and not a means. When something refuses to entertain the possibility of future evolution (i.e. the rules of the road, which have in fact evolved successful exceptions, and will no doubt change in the future - are seen as a sort of perfect constitution by some). The goals are safety and convenience - whichever method best takes you there is best. And there's certainly nothing wrong with being pro-VC, provided you don't lose sight of those goals, and reasonableness. Many of our pro-VCers on this forum do that successfully.

Can you give some examples of where the ROTR have "evolved successful exceptions"? I'm not sure what you are referring to.

Can you give some examples of where the ROTR have "evolved successful exceptions"? I'm not sure what you are referring to.

LOL I have to laugh at this... Can you give examples of the ROTR?

Chipcom challenged HH to cite these in the past... and the truth is that there are no universal ROTR... There are laws in cities and states and countries that define specifics that are the actual Laws of the Road, but there are no ROTR per se.

LOL I have to laugh at this... Can you give examples of the ROTR?

Chipcom challenged HH to cite these in the past... and the truth is that there are no universal ROTR... There are laws in cities and states and countries that define specifics that are the actual Laws of the Road, but there are no ROTR per se.

There are plenty of universal rules of the road. It is true that there is not a universal vehicle code though. So what? The vast majority of the every day rules of the road are the same no matter where you drive.

There are plenty of universal rules of the road. It is true that there is not a universal vehicle code though. So what? The vast majority of the every day rules of the road are the same no matter where you drive.

tell me a universal rule of the road.

Can you give some examples of where the ROTR have "evolved successful exceptions"? I'm not sure what you are referring to.

A successful change is the right turn on red. I can remember dire predictions that the right turn on red would be the end of civilized society. At least in some ways, the change was successuful (at least until some people began using RTOR as an excuse to run over pedestrians).

Actually, the rules of the road have undergone tremendous changes in the rather short time since automobile use became common. It's only about 100 years since driving on the right (or left, as the case may be) became the norm. Historically, that's a very short time-- a short period during which there have been many successful changes to the ROTR: yield signs, stop signs, electric traffic signals, laned roadways, left turn lanes, RTOL lanes, to name a few.

The suggestion that the ROTR have a long established history, that they do not change and that they have achieved anything approaching a state of perfection is utter nonsense.

tell me a universal rule of the road.

Stop on red.

A succssful change is the right turn on red. I can remember dire predictions that the right turn on red would be the end of civilized society. At least in some ways, the change was successuful (at least until some people began using RTOR as an excuse to run over pedestrians).

That's a good example of an evolution.


Actually, the rules of the road have undergone tremendous changes in the rather short time since automobile use became common. It's only about 100 years since driving on the right (or left, as the case may be) became the norm. Historically, that's a very short time-- a short period during which there have been many successful changes to the ROTR: yield signs, stop signs, electric traffic signals, laned roadways, left turn lanes, RTOL lanes, to name a few.

Those are also good examples of evolutions.


The suggestion that the ROTH have a long established history, that they do not change and that they have achieved anything approaching a state of perfection is utter nonsense.

I think the important thing to remember is that none of the evolutions you listed drastically (or even somewhat) contradict rules of the road that had been developed before the evolution came about. They were devised as a "better" way of doing things, not a whole new way, throwing out completely what came before it.

I think VC is a fine name, and just needs to shed it's baggage. VC is also a fine way of biking. My contention is that in the hands of some people, it became an ends and not a means. When something refuses to entertain the possibility of future evolution (i.e. the rules of the road, which have in fact evolved successful exceptions, and will no doubt change in the future - are seen as a sort of perfect constitution by some). The goals are safety and convenience - whichever method best takes you there is best. And there's certainly nothing wrong with being pro-VC, provided you don't lose sight of those goals, and reasonableness. Many of our pro-VCers on this forum do that successfully.

Riding according to the rules of the road is a fine way of bicycling but 'VC' is about as far from a fine name as you can get. It emphasizes the most ambiguous and least important part of the phrase "vehicular rules of the road" and ignores the most important part.

Granted, "rules of the road cycling" is a bit cumbersome (but "ROTR cycling" isn't bad).

The term "vehicular cycling" was a good try at finding a shorthand but I don't think it has worked out all that well.

I used to call myself a vehicular cyclist-- back before I became aware of the extent to which "VC" was little more than a brand of cycling know-it-all-ism and obstructionism. VC is an ill-defined brand, to be sure. Far worse than being ill-defined, though, is the bad image VC has acquired -- due partly to an association with radical anti-facilities-ism and partly to the incredible arrogance and condescention associated with at least some (but certainly not all) proponents of VC-ism.

Because of the many negative connotations that the term "VC" has come to have and, since getting people to accept a distintion between "VC" (which has come to represent a radical anti-facilites ideology) and "vc" (meaning riding according to the rules of the road) is an exercise in futility, I no longer call myself a vehicular cyclist.

I cringe if anyone calls me "VC" (them's fightin' words :D)

I have taken to calling myself a "rules of the road bicyclist," a phrase which far more accurately describes what I do and what I advocate.

VC-ists might do well to look for another name-- that is, if they want to disassociate themselves from the more ridiculous social, psychological and political theories of the person who founded the VC brand.

But, heck, VC-ists can adopt whatever silly brand name they want for the ideology which I and many other life-long ROTR bicyclists find at least a little offensive.

Stop on red.
Good luck enforcing that one in my neighborhood.

:D

Example: my wife pulls up to a stop sign, slows, then rolls into the intersection. Next, she sort of crawls through it, as if to say, "I meant to stop back there."

Whatever works for you. :rolleyes:

( :lol: )

(At least she has part of the cycling technique down. She just needs to work on the confidence thing, where you look both ways and hammer)

emoticon following :eek:

Can you give some examples of where the ROTR have "evolved successful exceptions"? I'm not sure what you are referring to
trains
pedestrians

both have evolved to be exceptions to the ROTR principle of destination positioning.

Riding according to the rules of the road is a fine way of bicycling but 'VC' is about as far from a fine name as you can get. It emphasizes the most ambiguous and least important part of the phrase "vehicular rules of the road" and ignores the most important part.

Granted, "rules of the road cycling" is a bit cumbersome (but "ROTR cycling" isn't bad).

The term "vehicular cycling" was a good try at finding a shorthand but I don't think it has worked out all that well.

I used to call myself a vehicular cyclist-- back before I became aware of the extent to which "VC" was little more than a brand of cycling know-it-all-ism and obstructionism. VC is an ill-defined brand, to be sure. Far worse than being ill-defined, though, is the bad image VC has acquired -- due partly to an association with radical anti-facilities-ism and partly to the incredible arrogance and condescention associated with at least some (but certainly not all) proponents of VC-ism.

Because of the many negative connotations that the term "VC" has come to have and, since getting people to accept a distintion between "VC" (which has come to represent a radical anti-facilites ideology) and "vc" (meaning riding according to the rules of the road) is an exercise in futility, I no longer call myself a vehicular cyclist.

I cringe if anyone calls me "VC" (them's fightin' words :D)

I have taken to calling myself a "rules of the road bicyclist," a phrase which far more accurately describes what I do and what I advocate.

VC-ists might do well to look for another name-- that is, if they want to disassociate themselves from the more ridiculous social, psychological and political theories of the person who founded the VC brand.

But, heck, VC-ists can adopt whatever silly brand name they want for the ideology which I and many other life-long ROTR bicyclists find at least a little offensive.

Nice post, which addresses all but one of the issues at hand as far as I can see.

I don't, though, subscribe to the notion that I need some sort of 'label' to describe me. I'm a cyclist, and that's not only a good enough label but it also identifies me as a person who enjoys privileges which motorists do not enjoy.

I'm not required to sit a test and gain a license in order to qualify me for using the public roads system for my cycling, for starters.

I'm permitted to ride on the road shoulder, where I consider that shoulder to be adequate for my riding. Motorists aren't.

I'm able to ride on shared pathways or cycling-specific pathways, where those are provided, to avoid vehicle traffic. I'm not obliged to do so, though.



The hard-line, anti-facilities stance adopted by some is a short-sighted and quite inappropriate one, which really presupposes an impossible, ideal world. Cycling facilities are necessary features, because not all cyclists are mature and responsible adults who have attained road use proficiency, and we do not have any moves in place toward requiring them to be. Kids ride bikes too, for starters. I've a 'date' with one of my young grand-daughters next week, because we've planned to go riding together. Thank goodness for the cycling/shared pathways.


Yes, I'm all in favour of the notion that, when I'm riding my bike on public roads I need be mindful of the road rules and motorists need be mindful of me. but please don't try to take away those privileges I also enjoy!





Oh! that other issue I mentioned, when I said the post addressed "all but one" of the issues I see?


It was that matter of people who interject their ideology into just about every remotely related forum topic, rendering considered discussion almost impossible. Many a fine internet forum has been ruined by people who do that, and unfortunately all too often forum supervisors, in their genuine effort to allow free discussion, don't recognise that approach as the disruptive behaviour which it is.


:D

Stop on red.

Wasn't aways that way... gee, something evolved.

And the exception... right turn on red.

You're supposed to stop first, but that seems to be slipping by the wayside... with the result being that pedestrians are now at jeopardy and new signs are warning motorists that they must give way to pedestrians before turning.

tell me a universal rule of the road.

Quickly a few:

When entering a roadway yield to traffic
When on a minor road crossing a major one, yield to x-traffic.
Drive on the same side of the road as everyone else in your region.
Make left turn from the left most space available, and right turns from the right most.

Al

Quickly a few:

When entering a roadway yield to traffic
When on a minor road crossing a major one, yield to x-traffic.
Drive on the same side of the road as everyone else in your region.
Make left turn from the left most space available, and right turns from the right most.

Al

Those are pretty good... simple and good... too bad so many folks fail on that last rule. Ever heard of a Jersey Swoop... that's folks that turn fail to do that last item... so common it has a name.

Riding according to the rules of the road is a fine way of bicycling but 'VC' is about as far from a fine name as you can get. It emphasizes the most ambiguous and least important part of the phrase "vehicular rules of the road" and ignores the most important part.

Granted, "rules of the road cycling" is a bit cumbersome (but "ROTR cycling" isn't bad).

The term "vehicular cycling" was a good try at finding a shorthand but I don't think it has worked out all that well.

I used to call myself a vehicular cyclist-- back before I became aware of the extent to which "VC" was little more than a brand of cycling know-it-all-ism and obstructionism. VC is an ill-defined brand, to be sure. Far worse than being ill-defined, though, is the bad image VC has acquired -- due partly to an association with radical anti-facilities-ism and partly to the incredible arrogance and condescention associated with at least some (but certainly not all) proponents of VC-ism.

Because of the many negative connotations that the term "VC" has come to have and, since getting people to accept a distintion between "VC" (which has come to represent a radical anti-facilites ideology) and "vc" (meaning riding according to the rules of the road) is an exercise in futility, I no longer call myself a vehicular cyclist.

I cringe if anyone calls me "VC" (them's fightin' words :D)

I have taken to calling myself a "rules of the road bicyclist," a phrase which far more accurately describes what I do and what I advocate.

VC-ists might do well to look for another name-- that is, if they want to disassociate themselves from the more ridiculous social, psychological and political theories of the person who founded the VC brand.

But, heck, VC-ists can adopt whatever silly brand name they want for the ideology which I and many other life-long ROTR bicyclists find at least a little offensive.

I tend to agree. Thanks for the good post.

Quickly a few:

When entering a roadway yield to traffic
When on a minor road crossing a major one, yield to x-traffic.
Drive on the same side of the road as everyone else in your region.
Make left turn from the left most space available, and right turns from the right most.

Al

To be universal, wouldn't they have to apply in Mexico?

To be universal, wouldn't they have to apply in Mexico?
They generally do in my frequent observations

Wasn't aways that way... gee, something evolved.

And the exception... right turn on red.

You're supposed to stop first, but that seems to be slipping by the wayside... with the result being that pedestrians are now at jeopardy and new signs are warning motorists that they must give way to pedestrians before turning.

Even with right turn on red, you still stop first at the red light. You can go if it's clear though. At a flashing red, again you stop first, then go when it's your turn or when it's clear. "Stop on red and don't go until it's green" seems to be what you are referring to.

The fact that some people have begun treating right on red like a yield situation does not take away the fact that the rule is stop on red. Stop signs still mean stop yet not everyone stops every time.

Some great points made earlier, esp. JRA - that is close to my feelings as the VC debate has worn on.

However, I now feel that labels are exactly what we need and after much deliberation and mental application, have devised the following, which I submit here for the approval of the forum.

Cycling Roads As Proscribed (by law)

Ed

Even with right turn on red, you still stop first at the red light. You can go if it's clear though. At a flashing red, again you stop first, then go when it's your turn or when it's clear. "Stop on red and don't go until it's green" seems to be what you are referring to.

The fact that some people have begun treating right on red like a yield situation does not take away the fact that the rule is stop on red. Stop signs still mean stop yet not everyone stops every time.

You don't drive or bike around here... While there is a rule, it is so often disobeyed... to such an extent that new signs are going up everywhere, reminding motorists that they MUST give way to pedestrians. (I don't recall the actual wording). Bottom line is the "Stop" part is pretty much discretionary.

You don't drive or bike around here... While there is a rule, it is so often disobeyed... to such an extent that new signs are going up everywhere, reminding motorists that they MUST give way to pedestrians. (I don't recall the actual wording). Bottom line is the "Stop" part is pretty much discretionary.

No, it's not discretionary otherwise the signs wouldn't be going up. They still need to stop at the red and they still need to yield to peds in a crosswalk (whether the light is red or not).

I'm not sure how you've concluded that something is no longer a rule simply because you believe the majority don't follow it.

No, it's not discretionary otherwise the signs wouldn't be going up. They still need to stop at the red and they still need to yield to peds in a crosswalk (whether the light is red or not).

I'm not sure how you've concluded that something is no longer a rule simply because you believe the majority don't follow it.

A rule that is not followed and is not enforced is pretty much non-existent.

^^ well, I hear stories of tickets handed out for ignoring this rule here in California, so the Police must take it seriously... Of course CHP also hangs out every Sunday in my neighborhood to make sure the cyclists stop at the stop sign - and they ticket a few who do not.

P.S. Jeremy Clarkson (well known English motoring journalist) cited the "Right on red" allowance as America's only contribution to modern civilisation...

Should I have added a smiley to my earlier post, or are you lot just ignoring me ;)

^^ well, I hear stories of tickets handed out for ignoring this rule here in California, so the Police must take it seriously... Of course CHP also hangs out every Sunday in my neighborhood to make sure the cyclists stop at the stop sign - and they ticket a few who do not.

P.S. Jeremy Clarkson (well known English motoring journalist) cited the "Right on red" allowance as America's only contribution to modern civilisation...

Should I have added a smiley to my earlier post, or are you lot just ignoring me ;)

I wonder if Jeremy ever walks... :rolleyes:

A rule that is not followed and is not enforced is pretty much non-existent.

Perfect timing for Ed to chime in. In response to your post though, that's your opinion based on your experience that the rule is not followed or enforced. That does not make it a fact.

I wonder if Jeremy ever walks... :rolleyes:

Not much, judging by what I saw of him once in the pub in Oxford. Let's just say TV can be quite flattering...

Perfect timing for Ed to chime in. In response to your post though, that's your opinion based on your experience that the rule is not followed or enforced. That does not make it a fact.

No, the posted new signs make it a fact. :mad:

These new signs popping up everywhere are clear indicator that there are problems...

http://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01103/images/recch1p5.gif

Some great points made earlier, esp. JRA - that is close to my feelings as the VC debate has worn on.

However, I now feel that labels are exactly what we need and after much deliberation and mental application, have devised the following, which I submit here for the approval of the forum.

Cycling Roads As Proscribed (by law)

Ed

I saw it, Ed!

Yes, I am a CRAP cyclist!

Thank you rando. Its nice to be appreciated, even in disdain :). I'm a CRAP cyclist too!

Yes, I am a CRAP cyclist!

http://www.azcrap.org/

I can remember dire predictions that the right turn on red would be the end of civilized society.

You mean it wasn't ?

Paul

I used to call myself a vehicular cyclist-- back before I became aware of the extent to which "VC" was little more than a brand of cycling know-it-all-ism and obstructionism. VC is an ill-defined brand, to be sure. Far worse than being ill-defined, though, is the bad image VC has acquired -- due partly to an association with radical anti-facilities-ism and partly to the incredible arrogance and condescention associated with at least some (but certainly not all) proponents of VC-ism.

Because of the many negative connotations that the term "VC" has come to have and, since getting people to accept a distintion between "VC" (which has come to represent a radical anti-facilites ideology) and "vc" (meaning riding according to the rules of the road) is an exercise in futility, I no longer call myself a vehicular cyclist.

IMO, the real problem is highlighted in red: that people mix the VC riding strategy -- which, judging from posts, a high proportion of the A&S regulars use -- with VC advocacy. They really are two different animals.

Anyway, it is (1) rare that I run into anyone outside of A&S that knows what VC means and (2) "a strike of lightning" that I run into someone with an anti-VC bent.

This has frightened most of the rest of bikeforums away - even the commuters.

I signed up for BF a couple months ago and I'm an example of what you've stated above. I have been commuting on and off for as long as I can remember, to school, to work, to everywhere. I knew that I had the same "rights" to the road as cars and that I had to obey the same laws. I also knew that being on a bike meant that I had to ride predictably and that I had a greater chance of injury compared to driving. All of this shaped my riding decisions and habits (like walking around left turns at heavy-traffic lighted intersections, etc..) I didn't know, at age 15, that there were philosophies on how to ride with traffic. I hadn't even heard the term "vehicular cyclist" until I moved to Dallas in '07.

Now I join the BFs and I see this battle going on with people already entrenched on different sides and it deters me from posting anything. What would I have to say to add to this? Why pick sides if it just antagonizes an already heated debate? So I stopped coming back. I even slowed down on my routine of riding. It had an effect on me. Now, I don't care. I'll ride how I like because I think it's pretty safe and obvious. But, I can see how it could affect people to a greater extent. We are generally very liberal thinkers (not to exclude the politically-conservative riders) and being on this side of the fence involves a lot of innovation of ideas. It's where the term progressive comes from, I think. We are always trying to better things with new ideas and new ways of living. It causes a lot of animosity as ideas often collide. It divides us. This happens all over where liberal minded people live and work. If we'd just come together on the issues that we could all agree on more, and spend less time nit-picking about the smaller details, we'd get more done. Now, I'm not for doing without thinking, but look around. We still have people in this country that don't know we belong on the road. We have people who ride without helmets. We have people that shout at us, regardless of our lane position. These things need fixing. And I don't think nit-picking about the small nuances of lane positions and what have you are doing squat to fix them.

Why pick sides if it just antagonizes an already heated debate? So I stopped coming back... We are generally very liberal thinkers... We are always trying to better things with new ideas and new ways of living. It causes a lot of animosity as ideas often collide. It divides us. This happens all over where liberal minded people live and work. If we'd just come together on the issues that we could all agree on more,...We have people who ride without helmets...These things need fixing.
Yes, why antagonize all of "us" who don't agree with your simple minded analysis of what "we" think or what "we" need to fix.