I've been on the mend from breaking my hip in April and have recently gotten back on the bike and riding on the street.

My riding style has been assertive, deliberate and very 'take the lane' for many years. I usually kept pace quite well with traffic and was quite adept at claiming lanes and make lefts on high speed roads.

Since returning to the bike two weeks ago (and riding with a crutch sticking out of pannier or saddlebag!) I am about half the speed I used to be while my muscles and leg sort out the recovery.

My observations:

Taking the lane, being traffic, and making lefts on high speed roads IS different when the bicyclists' speed is 7-10 MPH.

I've still riding quite vehicular but also find myself able to ride closer to the edge of the road at slower speeds in marginally wide lanes when I'm moving 8mph versus 24mph.

Bek,

First off, OUCH. How did you break your hip? I am luckily unfamiliar with broken bones, and a hip sounds extra painful.

So with your newfound views on VC riding have modified your habits? Maybe things like seeking out routes that are better accomodated?

You haven't said it, but I would imagine this is yet another argument for better facilities. For those who are new to cycling, or just out of shape, injured, or partially disabled. Pretty much anyone who for whatever reason is unable to keep up with traffic as easily.

Hope you finish healing up quickly.

-D

no 'newfound' views here, except as a rider on the injured reserve list.

vc 'techniques' vary according to the riders' ability. what was once an easy move across lanes of traffic if you can sprint 27mph becomes a more difficult type of move when you're topping out at 12mph. Even the simple lateral move from lane sharing to taking the lane becomes a more bearish maneuver at slower speeds.

But derath has a point, to facilitate vehicular cycling, maybe (american) society needs

....better facilities. For those who are new to cycling, or just out of shape, injured, or partially disabled. Pretty much anyone who for whatever reason is unable to keep up with traffic as easily.

My observations:

Taking the lane, being traffic, and making lefts on high speed roads IS different when the bicyclists' speed is 7-10 MPH.

I've still riding quite vehicular but also find myself able to ride closer to the edge of the road at slower speeds in marginally wide lanes when I'm moving 8mph versus 24mph.

Broadly speaking, I agree. A little extra horsepower definitely helps on high speed roads.

Is this what I have to look forward to when I return to the bike? It has been 4 1/2 weeks since knee surgery.

Bek, good to hear you are on the mend, and retrospectively, I'm sorry to hear of your troubles.

I think your observations regarding speed and its influence on behaviour are spot on. I know if I'm simply not feeling well, then this has an affect on one's level of assertiveness.

Get well soon,

Ed

Since we are all so quick to jump on the bandwagon agreeing with Bek that indeed speed does count, why is it that the grandfather of VC John Forester so often disagreed that speed is an issue, and that speed should not matter, and never mind that the speeds of roads has been increasing in places like southern California, and that the average American car now has the acceleration abilities of muscle cars of days of old?

Either Forester didn't get it, or you guys are not getting it. BTW for the record, I too believe that speed counts... and I argued that point often with Forester, even quoting his book where he mentions that a difference of 15MPH can make "negotiating" with motorists "impossible."

Since we are all so quick to jump on the bandwagon agreeing with Bek that indeed speed does count, why is it that the grandfather of VC John Forester so often disagreed that speed is an issue, and that speed should not matter, and never mind that the speeds of roads has been increasing in places like southern California, and that the average American car now has the acceleration abilities of muscle cars of days of old?

Either Forester didn't get it, or you guys are not getting it. BTW for the record, I too believe that speed counts... and I argued that point often with Forester, even quoting his book where he mentions that a difference of 15MPH can make "negotiating" with motorists "impossible."

Which guys? Just trying to understand this blanket statement.

-D

Which guys? Just trying to understand this blanket statement.

-D

Just about everyone that responded to the thread at that point. But bear in mind that I was really pointing out that JF didn't get it... while everyone else commented that speed does matter in some way or another.

No matter how you spin it... trying to merge with 50 MPH traffic while you are moving at say 8MPH is not going to be a breeze. And I am quite willing to bet that anyone that does say "I do that all the time" also has the word "gap" in their description of how they do it.

BTW I don't think "facilities" would help... I think lower speed limits is the key. The 50MPH traffic can go use the darn freeway if they really need to "go somewhere fast."

Just about everyone that responded to the thread at that point. But bear in mind that I was really pointing out that JF didn't get it... while everyone else commented that speed does matter in some way or another.

No matter how you spin it... trying to merge with 50 MPH traffic while you are moving at say 8MPH is not going to be a breeze. And I am quite willing to bet that anyone that does say "I do that all the time" also has the word "gap" in their description of how they do it.

BTW I don't think "facilities" would help... I think lower speed limits is the key. The 50MPH traffic can go use the darn freeway if they really need to "go somewhere fast."

Hmm, I think I understand then? I was just trying to figure out where I had ever said I merge with 50MPH traffic or that the speed differential doesn't matter.

And I do think well placed facilities can help. My only problem is that they don't negate the need to learn how to ride in traffic. Mostly due to the fact that even in the most bike centril locales, the percentage of roads with facilities is still tiny compared to the total number of roads.

-D

who's EVER stated well placed bike lanes or networks of path facilities negate the need to learn how to ride in traffic? That's spin and nothing any conscious bike advocate would endorse.

speed differential does matter. I am seeing "road" "traffic" cycling from a new perspective being on the injured reserve list. feeling much less traffic adept, being less able to take the lane, less opportunities to react as greater speed differential cuts closing times..... and moving 8mph in front of a crowd of motorists on 30mph streets feels a lot less 'okay' then when I am motorpacing traffic.


Imagining myself in decline in a few more short years, I am totally able to relate better to a lot of the customers at the bike shop. the idea a higher stem, of handlebars with a little more reach or north road style make sense... everyone isn't able or willing to sprint off the stops to hold the lane over multiple city blocks.

who's EVER stated well placed bike lanes or networks of path facilities negate the need to learn how to ride in traffic? That's spin and nothing any conscious bike advocate would endorse.

Chill dude. Don't read too much into it. It was just a thought. You gotta admit that historically threads on this VC board typically ended up on both polarized sides. That's all I am referencing. I think good cyclist training and education is important. I think well designed accomodations can be equally important. It isn't an either or, its a both.



speed differential does matter. I am seeing "road" "traffic" cycling from a new perspective being on the injured reserve list. feeling much less traffic adept, being less able to take the lane, less opportunities to react as greater speed differential cuts closing times..... and moving 8mph in front of a crowd of motorists on 30mph streets feels a lot less 'okay' then when I am motorpacing traffic.

I am still curious. Has this caused you to re-think your route, maybe to pick roads that might not be so direct but more accomodating? Just considering that you live in one of the best cycling cities in the nation. It would be a good example of how having those accomodations gives you greater choice etc.

Of course it may be that your route is already well accomodated, in which case there is no need.



Imagining myself in decline in a few more short years, I am totally able to relate better to a lot of the customers at the bike shop. the idea a higher stem, of handlebars with a little more reach or north road style make sense... everyone isn't able or willing to sprint off the stops to hold the lane over multiple city blocks.

Oh please! I am willing to bet you are younger than I am. But it would be nice for people of all ages to feel comfortable getting out there to ride, rather than sitting getting even older in their cars.


-D

bikelanes=traffic cycling ignorance is a fallacious straw man oft spouted by infrastructure opponents, and one no bike advocate posits.

who's EVER stated well placed bike lanes or networks of path facilities negate the need to learn how to ride in traffic? That's spin and nothing any conscious bike advocate would endorse.

I recall that the typical argument is against people who push hard for accommodations while putting little to no emphasis on the human element. That is, it is more of an argument of omission.

the 'typical' strawman against bike infrastructure supporters is that they omit from their platform the GIVEN that bicyclists require skill to operate a bicycle along public roads?

weak.

When did this turn into an anti infrastructure debate? Nobody so far on this thread has even said infrastructure is bad. I am sure your well accommodated city has made it easier to cope with your slower speeds while you heal. Yes that is a good thing.

How about talking about that? Talking about the positives (something I have asked about twice, well three times already in this thread). Or are you simply interested in taking every opportunity to spout your Bek talking points.?

-D

the 'typical' strawman against bike infrastructure supporters is that they omit from their platform the GIVEN that bicyclists require skill to operate a bicycle along public roads?

weak.

Assuming that by "skill" you are not discussing trivial matters such as balancing on a bicycle, what is given is debatable ... particularly to an average user which in all likelihood does not resemble the cyclists on this forum.

The point is that creating lots of hoopla for accommodations while giving little lip service to the importance of the rider is misleading. For instance, I think that all of the emphasis on bike helmets does a real disservice to the community. Anecdotally, I see people putting on helmets thinking that they are making a significant improvement in their safety -- it is easy to find conversations where people talk about mortality and helmets -- and chiding others for riding without one.

And as an aside, there are plenty of strawman arguments in this forum. For instance, in my post I did not write that this was an argument against infrastructure supporters like you suggest. I wrote ...

... the typical argument is against people who push hard for accommodations while putting little to no emphasis on the human element.

Anyway, I fail to see what is causing the big stink.

speed differential does matter. I am seeing "road" "traffic" cycling from a new perspective being on the injured reserve list. feeling much less traffic adept, being less able to take the lane, less opportunities to react as greater speed differential cuts closing times..... and moving 8mph in front of a crowd of motorists on 30mph streets feels a lot less 'okay' then when I am motorpacing traffic.


Imagining myself in decline in a few more short years, I am totally able to relate better to a lot of the customers at the bike shop. the idea a higher stem, of handlebars with a little more reach or north road style make sense... everyone isn't able or willing to sprint off the stops to hold the lane over multiple city blocks.

:D Hmmm, seeing the road through the eyes of those with "a bit more experience in life," eh? ;)

Oh please! I am willing to bet you are younger than I am. But it would be nice for people of all ages to feel comfortable getting out there to ride, rather than sitting getting even older in their cars.


-D

AMEN!!!

I am not of the belief that children need to be fully accommodated, but if grandma can't do it, then there are some serious design flaws with our cities and traffic system.

AMEN!!!

I am not of the belief that children need to be fully accommodated, but if grandma can't do it, then there are some serious design flaws with our cities and traffic system.

I don't think it is realistic to make anything that would be completely safe for children that requires interaction with other vehicles etc. Kids in most cases just plain lack the mental skills to make the judgements necessary to stay safe. Even a fully segregated path would have accidents from kids stopping in the middle of the path, freaking out and swerving etc.

-D

I don't think it is realistic to make anything that would be completely safe for children that requires interaction with other vehicles etc. Kids in most cases just plain lack the mental skills to make the judgements necessary to stay safe. Even a fully segregated path would have accidents from kids stopping in the middle of the path, freaking out and swerving etc.

-D

Exactly.

That is why I always view it as a strawman whenever bike facilities are discussed and someone throws in that such facilities "should be safe for children."

The reality is that facilities need to be safe for reasonably trained operators... and I realize there is a bit of margin in that statement too, but it comes down to the fact that we expect motorists to have a certain amount of minimal training, pedestrians to have a basic knowledge of lights, signs and traffic conditions; we should expect that cyclists are also at least basically educated about the rules of the road and the situations to expect in traffic. Anybody that has the equivalent of driver's ed plus some specific bike handling/traffic knowledge should be able to negotiate any surface street in America. If that is not the case due to the design of the street, or the traffic situations or the speed of traffic... then those issues need to be resolved so that cycling is not considered an "extreme sport" by the general population.

I would no more expect a child on a bike to successfully negotiate "traffic" than I would a tribesman from some lost south American tribe (http://www.sentientdevelopments.com/2008/05/amazing-images-of-lost-south-american.html) to understand how to cross a busy city street.

how do other countries make it safe for children to bicycle to school? How does the american 'safe routes to school' work to facilitate kids bicycling?

I have long been a supporter of consideration of the less fit and the less abled when designing public space, genec. Also greater consideration for children as bicyclists and all ages of pedestrians.


sorry derath, i take issue with the comment you made My only problem is that they (bike lanes) don't negate the need to learn how to ride in traffic. right, they don't and why is that a problem???

your implied assertion that 'bike lanes eliminate the need to learn how to ride in traffic" is proven false seconds later when you posited even in the most bike centril locales, the percentage of roads with facilities is still tiny compared to the total number of roads.

no one expects accomodations to negate the need to ride in traffic (at least on road facilities). Bike infrastructure goes hand in hand with bicyclist and public education, both abroad and in the USA-

The League of American Bicyclists, when gauging cities for their various 'bikeability' ratings, considers bicyclist education efforts as one of the five rating criterea.

how do other countries make it safe for children to bicycle to school? How does the american 'safe routes to school' work to facilitate kids bicycling?

I have long been a supporter of consideration of the less fit and the less abled when designing public space, genec. Also greater consideration for children as bicyclists and all ages of pedestrians.

I think it comes down to more than just the proper facilities. My thoughts when this comes up is the standard bike lane. Take a normal downtown busy road. Stripe a lane and suddenly it is safe for a child to ride? I think not.

However, I biked/walked to school most of my life. And I had no accommodations. In fact the community I grew up in didnt even have sidewalks. But it was a walkable community with the elementary and high schools within it's limits. So every street was a 25mph or less neighborhood road. The other BIG key IMO is that I had little choice. We had no bus service (as we lived too close to the schools to warrant it). As a result there were hundreds of kids walking or biking to school each day. Safety in numbers works.

Sadly today when I am there, I see far fewer kids walking, but there is a HUGE line of Cars dropping off the kids.




sorry derath, i take issue with the comment you made

My only problem is that they (bike lanes) don't negate the need to learn how to ride in traffic.

right, they don't and why is that a problem???

It is only a "problem" on this board, in that many people here hold up both sides of the argument as the end all be all. The hard core infrastructure folks hold it up as the solution. And as soon as someone cites "cyclist education" they must be anti infrastructure.

This however seems to be only an anomoly here, not out in the real world.

If you hold to the belief that infrastructure as well as education are key, then we have more common ground than you realize. (well throw in driver education as well).


-D

Since we are all so quick to jump on the bandwagon agreeing with Bek that indeed speed does count, why is it that the grandfather of VC John Forester so often disagreed that speed is an issue, and that speed should not matter, and never mind that the speeds of roads has been increasing in places like southern California, and that the average American car now has the acceleration abilities of muscle cars of days of old?

Either Forester didn't get it, or you guys are not getting it. BTW for the record, I too believe that speed counts... and I argued that point often with Forester, even quoting his book where he mentions that a difference of 15MPH can make "negotiating" with motorists "impossible."

Ignoring the fact that we could summarize JF simply as "often disagreeing" JF often posted here that staying to the right was the preferred road position over taking the lane in order to facilitate faster overtaking traffic. Faster implies a greater speed differential so while not in so many words to me he did imply that the cyclists speed can have a baring on the preferred road position. That's my take on it anyway.

It always seemed to me that Forester and others never encouraged dangerous moves in the name of assertiveness. For example, when positioning for a left turn, there will be times when it's just not possible and it's better to stop and wait until there is a reasonable break in traffic. Same with taking the lane. Vehicular cycling is at its best in real urban type riding where the speed of motor traffic isn't usually that much faster than a good road bike can go, or within towns and on country roads. But it becomes less safe when talking about the kinds of arteries that were deliberately designed to move large volumes of traffic fast. Bicycles really don't fit well in that scenario, which unfortunately includes many roads that can't be avoided in more suburban areas when you actually need to get someplace (because that's all there is). Vehicular cycling is the way to go, but it has to be combined with a measure of common sense. Lack of common sense can get you killed.

Lack of common sense can get you killed.

I agree and disagree with this, as many peoples definition of common sense is to ride against traffic or ride on the sidewalk and both of these have been shown to decrease cyclists safety. So knowledge of what works and what does not work is a critical ingredient. I also think that it is possible to be over dogmatic with a particular riding style, there is no such thing as one size fits all, be flexible and use some common sense.

in my experiences riding at less than half my usual pace, vc begins to falter as speed differential increases.

At some point as the speed differential increases, a vehicular cyclist will be forced to use a pedestrian left turn to avoid taking the lane of high speed, high volume traffic.

I've been finding the failures in vehicular cycling technique even more striking as I ride 7 mph instead of 22. maybe this is why jf opted out with depictions of 'road sneaking' and avoiding taking the lane to facilitate faster traffic as well.

in my experiences riding at less than half my usual pace, vc begins to falter as speed differential increases.

At some point as the speed differential increases, a vehicular cyclist will be forced to use a pedestrian left turn to avoid taking the lane of high speed, high volume traffic.

I've been finding the failures in vehicular cycling technique even more striking as I ride 7 mph instead of 22. maybe this is why jf opted out with depictions of 'road sneaking' and avoiding taking the lane to facilitate faster traffic as well.

But Bek,

Since it is certainly appropriate to ride VC

-In the Bike Lane
-On the shoulder
-while curbhugging

It would seem that your riding lately is just as VC as it was before, even though you may be a different style that you have ridden pre-injury.

-D

the inadequate whitewash of vc paints poorly.

my experiences riding on the injured reserve list, I can't:

claim the lane as quickly or in as fast of traffic.

move laterally as deftly.

make lefts in heavy or moderately fast traffic.

feel vehicular while doing a fifth of the motorists speeds.

able to hold as fast a lane of traffic without motorist static- what is tolerable by motorists when a cyclist is doing 22-24mph is not as tolerable when the cyclist is doing 11mph .

my experiences riding on the injured reserve list, I can't:

claim the lane as quickly or in as fast of traffic.

move laterally as deftly.

make lefts in heavy or moderately fast traffic.

feel vehicular while doing a fifth of the motorists speeds.

able to hold as fast a lane of traffic without motorist static- what is tolerable by motorists when a cyclist is doing 22-24mph is not as tolerable when the cyclist is doing 11mph .

It's ok though bek.

riding like a curbhugger can be a VC technique!!

speed positioning of slower traffic keep right is one of the tenets of vehicular cycling;

You are just as VC as before. You just have to employ a different set of techniques.

-D

I would not say that VC falters but the preferred position in the road that is subject to change (less likely to take the lane at slower speeds.) If I am going 4mph uphill with touring gear (staying far right) and some motorists does a right hook while I am traveling at that speed it's no big deal. At faster cycling speeds right hooks become more of a critical factor to mitigate. But that's not to say I won't take the lane at slower speeds, just depends what the potential hazard is.

it appears quite the vacuous discipline and DOES falter if a cyclist takes the lane at one speed and stays out of the way of traffic at another, makes vehicular lefts at one speed and pedestrian lefts at another.

my tongue in cheek criticisms of vehicular cycling in the VC subforum

"curbhugging can be VC"

illustrate the contradictory and vacuous lane positioning advice of vehicular cycling....

if it's okay to both take the lane or stay out of the way of traffic, is there really any substance of worth?

I often asked jf at what speed a vehicular cyclist should go from claiming lanes to staying out of the way of traffic and all he did was dodge the question. I suspect it's about 15 miles per hour difference in speed, the speed difference at which negotiation with traffic becomes impossible (according to vc doctrine).

Since vc involves contradictory lane positioning advice, based on bicyclist speed and the speed of motorists, the message 'cyclists fare best when the act like and are treated like vehicles' falls flat, worthless and deflated, at the side of the road in a narrowly striped lane, uphill, or while ridden by a slow rider.


fast riders, take the lane, slow riders, stay the heck out of the way?

my tongue in cheek criticisms of vehicular cycling in the VC subforum

"curbhugging can be VC"

illustrate the contradictory and vacuous lane positioning advice of vehicular cycling....

if it's okay to both take the lane or stay out of the way of traffic, is there really any substance of worth?

I often asked jf at what speed a vehicular cyclist should go from claiming lanes to staying out of the way of traffic and all he did was dodge the question. I suspect it's about 15 miles per hour difference in speed, the speed difference at which negotiation with traffic becomes impossible (according to vc doctrine).

Since vc involves contradictory lane positioning advice, based on bicyclist speed and the speed of motorists, the message 'cyclists fare best when the act like and are treated like vehicles' falls flat, worthless and deflated, at the side of the road in a narrowly striped lane, uphill, or while ridden by a slow rider.


fast riders, take the lane, slow riders, stay the heck out of the way?

Well since Forester chose to stay away and HH was banned... you are not likely to ever get a VCer to answer this... however I do recall Forester mentioning that he would hug the side of the road if it were a high speed road...

Of course that would mean that in San Diego he would ride in the gutter pan of our high speed arterials.

Well since Forester chose to stay away and HH was banned... you are not likely to ever get a VCer to answer this... however I do recall Forester mentioning that he would hug the side of the road if it were a high speed road...

Of course that would mean that in San Diego he would ride in the gutter pan of our high speed arterials.

Forester said he would use the edge of the road on a 65mph, lightly travelled country road. He may or may not choose the same position on a fast arterial. I would guess that his position, much like mine, would have much more to do with lane width, traffic density, intersections, and cyclist speed than anything else.

FWIW, I did a 30 mile ride this morning with my wife at about a 10mph average. I've biked on the same roads at closer to a 20mph average and didn't feel any less vehicular at half that speed. I still stayed out of door zones and used the full lane where appropriate, including defaulting to the right hand lane even when a bike lane was present but there was no faster same direction traffic.

Dude, I hope you get well. I have been riding VC based on your advice and I can't do 12mph. I haul a Bike At Work trailer, so I don't feel as if sharing the lane is a good idea. VC is scary siht when you are slow. When I was fast I could change lanes for left turn easier and I could share the lane easier too. Motorists react in a bad way to me now. If they have to deal with riders liker me on a regular basis (more than once or twice a day) it's going to get ugly. I have been run over once already since I started hauling the big trailer and it hurt. I'm trying to earn my living as a freight biker.

... VC is scary siht when you are slow. When I was fast I could change lanes for left turn easier and I could share the lane easier too. Motorists react in a bad way to me now.


yes, there's a lot of traffic 'friction' when you are riding slow.

sharing the lane is easier at speed. It's difficult to explain to someone (like joejack) who's drunk the vc koolaid - speed differential IS (one of the) inherent weaknesses in vc dogma.

jf endorses riding like a road sneak, sharing narrow lanes with faster traffic. jf's endorsement of lane sharing narrow lanes like a road sneak is a stunning admittance of the failures of vc.

Take the lane approaching left turns if you're fast; stay the heck out of the way (ride like a road sneak) if you're slow!

my tongue in cheek criticisms of vehicular cycling in the VC subforum

"curbhugging can be VC"

illustrate the contradictory and vacuous lane positioning advice of vehicular cycling....

if it's okay to both take the lane or stay out of the way of traffic, is there really any substance of worth?

I often asked jf at what speed a vehicular cyclist should go from claiming lanes to staying out of the way of traffic and all he did was dodge the question. I suspect it's about 15 miles per hour difference in speed, the speed difference at which negotiation with traffic becomes impossible (according to vc doctrine).

Since vc involves contradictory lane positioning advice, based on bicyclist speed and the speed of motorists, the message 'cyclists fare best when the act like and are treated like vehicles' falls flat, worthless and deflated, at the side of the road in a narrowly striped lane, uphill, or while ridden by a slow rider.


fast riders, take the lane, slow riders, stay the heck out of the way?

Well since Forester chose to stay away and HH was banned... you are not likely to ever get a VCer to answer this... however I do recall Forester mentioning that he would hug the side of the road if it were a high speed road...

Of course that would mean that in San Diego he would ride in the gutter pan of our high speed arterials.

From what I remember, lots of people read what they wanted in several exchanges. For instance, using the example already discussed here, I recall JF tried to make a point that rural roads where people drive that fast have certain qualities that affect lateral positioning that was ignored. Whether it is true or not is another issue. More generally, there were "strawmen" all over the place.

These points have been argued ad nauseum and we already know the sequence of arguments. Grandiose statements and naive/distorted interpretations -- one will find this on all sides of debates -- really doesn't help anyone.

got any input on the contradictions of lane positioning advice and speed differentials, versus your personal interpretation of 'grandiosity'????

at one speed, jf would endorse taking the lane approaching a left turn. at another speed, he endorses 'riding like a road sneak' in narrow lanes,setting up for a left turn, so as to not get in the way of the motorists.

sometimes, ride vehicularily, other times, ride unvehicularily or even use a pedestrian left turn......


a breakdown of vehicularism.

I've noticed, while riding injured and at slower speeds, that vehicular operation of a bicycle becomes more difficult. not the riding itself but the interaction with traffic.

jf codified and illustrated the breakdown of vehicular cycling in his writings.

From what I remember, lots of people read what they wanted in several exchanges. For instance, using the example already discussed here, I recall JF tried to make a point that rural roads where people drive that fast have certain qualities that affect lateral positioning that was ignored. Whether it is true or not is another issue. More generally, there were "strawmen" all over the place.

These points have been argued ad nauseum and we already know the sequence of arguments. Grandiose statements and naive/distorted interpretations -- one will find this on all sides of debates -- really doesn't help anyone.

Grandiose or not, when one presents theory that contradicts the actual experiences of others, then too it doesn't help anyone.

Grandiose or not, when one presents theory that contradicts the actual experiences of others, then too it doesn't help anyone.

Oh ... I did not mean to suggest that only one side was making grandiose comments. That is, simple statements of "truth" without the caveats and details is often misleading and detrimental.

With no intention of stealing Bek's thunder, but it is the case that many have commented that the optimal strategy is speed dependent. Which is probably the reason why there is so little to argue/discuss.

With no intention of stealing Bek's thunder, but it is the case that many have commented that the optimal strategy is speed dependent. Which is probably the reason why there is so little to argue/discuss.

IMHO Speed differential is one of many variables a VC has to take into account, other factors may out weigh the speed differential. There are times when I am riding with the kids (8mph avg) and we take the lane time to time, it's just a matter of what the current conditions call for safety.

so, it is vc to both take the lane, or not.

:rolleyes:

IMHO Speed differential is one of many variables a VC has to take into account, other factors may out weigh the speed differential. There are times when I am riding with the kids (8mph avg) and we take the lane time to time, it's just a matter of what the current conditions call for safety.

agreed.

so, it is vc to both take the lane, or not.

:rolleyes:

Yes that seems to be what I have gathered reading everyone's POV, including yours. You act surprised considering you are one who touts that very idea.

-D

Oh ... I did not mean to suggest that only one side was making grandiose comments. That is, simple statements of "truth" without the caveats and details is often misleading and detrimental.

With no intention of stealing Bek's thunder, but it is the case that many have commented that the optimal strategy is speed dependent. Which is probably the reason why there is so little to argue/discuss.

I understood you...

And yes most experienced cyclists admit that speed in some form can make a difference...

What I did find discouraging was that Forester constantly said "speed doesn't matter." But at the same time he outlined in one very public paper that speed is one of the primary goals of the true Vehicular Cyclist, and at the same time in his book he also outlined how negotiating with traffic becomes difficult at differentials of 15MPH or greater. Speed then is both desired by the Vehicular Cyclist, and it is also important in certain traffic maneuvers... so in essence, again, speed does mater.

I understood you...

And yes most experienced cyclists admit that speed in some form can make a difference...

What I did find discouraging was that Forester constantly said "speed doesn't matter." But at the same time he outlined in one very public paper that speed is one of the primary goals of the true Vehicular Cyclist, and at the same time in his book he also outlined how negotiating with traffic becomes difficult at differentials of 15MPH or greater. Speed then is both desired by the Vehicular Cyclist, and it is also important in certain traffic maneuvers... so in essence, again, speed does mater.

Speed does not matter in terms of whether or not one can operate vehicularly. As Bek has so graciously pointed out, at slower speeds, one can share a marginally wide lane much easier than at faster speeds. Going slow doesn't mean one should ride against traffic though.

Speed does not matter in terms of whether or not one can operate vehicularly. As Bek has so graciously pointed out, at slower speeds, one can share a marginally wide lane much easier than at faster speeds. Going slow doesn't mean one should ride against traffic though.

Sharing a lane is one thing... However, try driving slow on a freeway and see how well that works. That would be akin to "taking a lane" on a 50MPH arterial. Sure it can be technically done, but the motorist friction will be plenty.