Vehicular Cycling (VC) - "the essense of the VC vision?"

woah there buddy. i was passing vehicles, capiche?

Don't misconstrue examples of my riding you aren't even clear about to try and bolster your disgusting mischaracterizations, john forester, of bicycling best practices allowed under law.

required to ride in a parking strip, excuse me?

You boasted that you cycled for several hundred yards straight ahead in a Left Turn Only Lane. That is not lawful.

What is a parking "strip"?

When curbside parking is allowed along a roadway, but a considerable length of that space is not being used for parking, then "as far to the right as practicable" means to ride in the space that is allowed for curbside parking. Cyclists whom I know have been prosecuted for not doing so. On what evidence do you argue that they should not have been so prosecuted?

OTOH, John thinks educating motorists is 'a waste of time' and wants to focus solely on the cyclists.
People have to pick their battles. They can't fight every battle presented to them. It's hard enough for a cycling advocate to educate cyclists. It's much, much harder to educate motorists. If you think it's more effective to educate motorists, feel free to do that!


Have you been to New York City John?
check this 2009 streetfilms video out -but sit down first, it mught make your blood boil :lol: so be careful before opening....
bikelanes (http://http://www.streetfilms.org/archives/bike-lanes-in-the-big-apple/) in the big apple
check out this 2009 guide to bike infrastructure in NYC.
by the way ,since there are some new inroads in the USA you're not up to speed on, TRUE Vehicular Cyclists are not stymied by the presence of quality bike infrastructure. :D

While it's my opinion that these facilities are good for cyclists, many of these facilities are still a form of riding in traffic. And, since they aren't everywhere, one has to be able to ride in traffic to get to them.

what is a parking strip? you brought them up in another thread. you know, the part of the road allocated for parking and not part of the travel lanes, to call it a 'parking strip' generally makes the characterization it is a stripe delineated parking strip.


and your interpretation of bicyclists best practice as allowed under law is disgusting, john forester. A disgusting misinterpretation of what is allowed bicyclists under 'practicable' positioning laws.


When curbside parking is allowed along a roadway, but a considerable length of that space is not being used for parking, then "as far to the right as practicable" means to ride in the space that is allowed for curbside parking.

frap 'practicable' rules DO NOT mandate bicyclists use parking lanes to travel in.

the essence of the john foresters' VC vision is a blatant "lie thru ones' teeth about bicyclist best practice as allowed by law."

You boasted that you cycled for several hundred yards straight ahead in a Left Turn Only Lane. That is not lawful.

What is a parking "strip"?

When curbside parking is allowed along a roadway, but a considerable length of that space is not being used for parking, then "as far to the right as practicable" means to ride in the space that is allowed for curbside parking. Cyclists whom I know have been prosecuted for not doing so. On what evidence do you argue that they should not have been so prosecuted?

every single state guideline published for cyclists that I've seen says to ride to the right in a straight line in the travel lane and not to weave in and out of parked cars.

every single state guideline published for cyclists that I've seen says to ride to the right in a straight line in the travel lane and not to weave in and out of parked cars.

The crucial issue is, how long has the gap between parked cars to be before moving into it does not constitute weaving in and out.

The crucial issue is, how long has the gap between parked cars to be before moving into it does not constitute weaving in and out.

Oh, thats easy, it's as long as the piece of string :p

and for a serious response:

I'll pull into the gap if there is a hold up of traffic behind me AND I judge that there is enough room and time to allow some of it to pass , then reestablish my lateral position to overtake the next parked vehicle with a reasonable margain of safety.

and for a serious response:

I'll pull into the gap if there is a hold up of traffic behind me AND I judge that there is enough room and time to allow some of it to pass , then reestablish my lateral position to overtake the next parked vehicle with a reasonable margain of safety.

A reasonable and serious response. The problem I have with using such gaps is the response of the remaining (and closing) motorists when I signal that I want to merge back in...

I often find motorists tend to be less than reasonable in such situations... even when a second lane exists to the left. There is a strong expectation among motorists that a cyclist should stay in the door zone.

So much for courtesy, eh?

Big aside, but surely someone could have given VC a better name than VC. The VC were the bad guys in 50's,60's,70's. Interesting how terms and abbreviations get recycled into something completely different in just a generation or so.

A reasonable and serious response. The problem I have with using such gaps is the response of the remaining (and closing) motorists when I signal that I want to merge back in...

I often find motorists tend to be less than reasonable in such situations... even when a second lane exists to the left. There is a strong expectation among motorists that a cyclist should stay in the door zone.

So much for courtesy, eh?

This is a tricky call and crucial for vehicular cyclists. Ed's formula makes sense. I don't have a hard and fast rule, but something vague along Ed's lines. Basically I stay out unless there's a very long run until the next car. But, as I think of it, most of my riding is in areas where no street parking is allowed. Where there's parking along the street and the lane is narrow enough for the door zone to be an issue, my default position is the middle of the lane.

This call is similar to the one we have to make when we are going to make a left hand turn. Each has to be judged on it's own particulars. I'm getting so I tend to get out into the middle of the left lane earlier. I don't like to be forced into a last second decision. All of this, of course, is predicated on good visibility and checking over my shoulder.

Like Genec says, you can't count on courtesy from all motorists. So I've always tended to claim the lane and claim it early when in doubt.

Big aside, but surely someone could have given VC a better name than VC. The VC were the bad guys in 50's,60's,70's. Interesting how terms and abbreviations get recycled into something completely different in just a generation or so.

You need to remember that the name that I created was vehicular cycling, obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, to distinguish it from the typical American cycling manner which was either unlawful or paid too much attention to the anti-cyclist discriminatory laws. It is those who oppose vehicular cycling who reduced it to the initials VC.

Ahhh, how clever of them, subliminal "badness" by association, and many folks just don't quite remember why VC is "bad".
The VC and anti VC forces take this very seriously-almost blood sport seriously.Yes, VC must have been intentional.This must have come up before. I wonder who was the first to turn it into initials? Guess that is lost in time.



Thanks for the info.

who cares?

the bankruptcy of the 'vehicular cyclists' is well established, their fraudulent misrepresentations of bicyclists best practice is just one glaring black mark on 'vc' interpretations of bicycling.

Face it everyone, some joker is telling bicyclists we are required by law to ride in the parking lane? Bicyclists do not need this type of ludicrous misrepresentation by guys like john forester about how we should ride our bikes.

the vc's disenfranchisement machinations ( ride like a car, DAMMIT!, and the contradictory 'ride in the parking lane, get delayed by cars!') do american bicyclists a grave disservice.


American bicyclists are being sold a faulty bill of goods by these vc jokers, a bevy of lying scoundrels. We should be disgusted wholesale by john's blatant lies about bicyclists best practices allowed under law.

I don't want to sound flippant, but if the number of people attempting to take bikes into stores were to increase significantly, there would soon be a less accommodating attitude. In Oxford there are signs on the iron railings outside many buildings that read "Bicycles chained to these railings will be removed". High bicycle usage modifies the response to cycling and cyclists in some interesting ways.... that are not even related to the road.

I think that a simple solution for complete integration of bicycles is the folding bicycle. Consider something like the Brompton (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNnOdoUn3kg) or the Strida (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkKwCZV7Zyc). You can easily bring that into many buildings and stores without being intrusive as well as integrate the bike with public transportation. Unfortunately, many rules are written for bicycles are mindlessly applied to folding bikes.

Ahhh, how clever of them, subliminal "badness" by association, and many folks just don't quite remember why VC is "bad".
The VC and anti VC forces take this very seriously-almost blood sport seriously.Yes, VC must have been intentional.This must have come up before. I wonder who was the first to turn it into initials? Guess that is lost in time.



Thanks for the info.

This is why many of us use 'vc' instead of 'VC' when discussing the subject here.

The difficulty seems not to be with vehicular cycling's concepts per se, but its representation and some of the abrasive opinions offered by its advocates.

At times it resembles "The Tufty Club" cross bred with National Socialism.

10 points to anyone who gets the Tufty Club reference.

I don't want to sound flippant, but if the number of people attempting to take bikes into stores were to increase significantly, there would soon be a less accommodating attitude. In Oxford there are signs on the iron railings outside many buildings that read "Bicycles chained to these railings will be removed". High bicycle usage modifies the response to cycling and cyclists in some interesting ways.... that are not even related to the road.

This is why extensive, widespread, convenient and secure bike parking is perhaps the most important piece of infrastructure any municipality can provide to encourage bicycling.

:thumb:

The difficulty seems not to be with vehicular cycling's concepts per se, but its representation and some of the abrasive opinions offered by its advocates.

At times it resembles "The Tufty Club" cross bred with National Socialism.

10 points to anyone who gets the Tufty Club reference.

In Berkeley, California, and, I thought, elsewhere in California, boys aged 10 and 11 were trained and assigned as school crossing guards, those at low-traffic intersections being individuals just telling schoolchildren when to cross, those at crossings of arterial roads in squads with semaphores (lollipops apparently in England), sometimes with two at different distances from the stop line, to stop traffic, controlled by the sergeant with whistle commands. I did that in 1940-1.

But really, Ed, abrasive opinions offered by vehicular cyclists? Have you been reading the material posted by others? The difficulty with this discourse is not with vehicular cycling or its presenters. Vehicular cycling is good for cyclists and is enjoyed by those who do it, and is supported by standard traffic-engineering knowledge; but for various reasons, it is not popular. The other side have chosen to advocate the style of cycling falsely believed by the unknowing majority to be safe without requiring traffic skills, and which is the style of cycling advocated by motorists for decades, obviously for their own convenience. There is no evidence that this dumb cycling style and its typical facilities either reduce car-bike collisions or make cycling more useful; what evidence that exists is rather the opposite.

Those who advocate the dumb style of cycling do not do so for its benefits to cyclists, which don't exist, but for the purpose of attracting into bicycle transportation large numbers of unknowing and uncaring motorists. And these bicycle advocates are strongly backed by the governments providing propaganda, political support, and lots of money (lots as gauged in the cycling world). The bicycle advocates hope that their program will switch transportationally large numbers of motorists from motor transport to bicycle transport.

The trouble is that the bicycle advocates cannot admit that their program has no advantage other than popularity among the ignorant. If they did so, their political support would fall drastically. So they advance really foolish arguments about the safety and convenience of their system, and they keep doing so despite being corrected time after time. And, because their arguments are so often shown to be foolish, and because they keep repeating them time after time, those who have a firmer grasp of the science and engineering behind bicycle transportation engineering do have their patience tried.

But, Ed, have you really been reading the presentations of the bicycle advocates? Or do they seem to you to have so much truth behind them that all of them would be acceptable in normal scientific discourse?

But really, Ed, abrasive opinions offered by vehicular cyclists? Have you been reading the material posted by others? The difficulty with this discourse is not with vehicular cycling or its presenters. Vehicular cycling is good for cyclists and is enjoyed by those who do it, and is supported by standard traffic-engineering knowledge; but for various reasons, it is not popular. The other side have chosen to advocate the style of cycling falsely believed by the unknowing majority to be safe without requiring traffic skills, and which is the style of cycling advocated by motorists for decades, obviously for their own convenience. There is no evidence that this dumb cycling style and its typical facilities either reduce car-bike collisions or make cycling more useful; what evidence that exists is rather the opposite.

Most of my knowledge of "VC" has been inferred from reading here, though I have glanced a number of other internet sources, including those with your contributions. I tend to concurr with most notions of operating as a vehicle according to... etc. etc. and partly wonder why there is any fuss about this at all, most of it seems to be "common sense"



Those who advocate the dumb style of cycling do not do so for its benefits to cyclists, which don't exist, but for the purpose of attracting into bicycle transportation large numbers of unknowing and uncaring motorists. And these bicycle advocates are strongly backed by the governments providing propaganda, political support, and lots of money (lots as gauged in the cycling world). The bicycle advocates hope that their program will switch transportationally large numbers of motorists from motor transport to bicycle transport.

The trouble is that the bicycle advocates cannot admit that their program has no advantage other than popularity among the ignorant. If they did so, their political support would fall drastically. So they advance really foolish arguments about the safety and convenience of their system, and they keep doing so despite being corrected time after time. And, because their arguments are so often shown to be foolish, and because they keep repeating them time after time, those who have a firmer grasp of the science and engineering behind bicycle transportation engineering do have their patience tried.

But, Ed, have you really been reading the presentations of the bicycle advocates? Or do they seem to you to have so much truth behind them that all of them would be acceptable in normal scientific discourse?

Again, most of the advocacy I have read is based here - I don't go searching for this material as I'm already a cyclist. However, I'm interested in the debate regarding the issues of facilities, use of the roadway etc. I'm rather surprised at the level to which it has been taken. The main thing I notice about cyclists is that they are all different and choose different strategies to use their machines - I suspect advocacy of any kind has a pretty small chance of reaching them. Promoting mass bike use also has a hard time, even if government backed. Most people looked at me in disbelief when first told it's a 12 mile ride to work... bike use, if it develops at all, grows gradually with each individual. Many people would not be able to identify one journey they make a week that could (in their opinion) be performed by bicycle. They will cite safety, physical difficulty/discomfort, inability to carry anything as valid excuses.

Ed

This is a tricky call and crucial for vehicular cyclists. Ed's formula makes sense. I don't have a hard and fast rule, but something vague along Ed's lines. Basically I stay out unless there's a very long run until the next car. But, as I think of it, most of my riding is in areas where no street parking is allowed. Where there's parking along the street and the lane is narrow enough for the door zone to be an issue, my default position is the middle of the lane.

This call is similar to the one we have to make when we are going to make a left hand turn. Each has to be judged on it's own particulars. I'm getting so I tend to get out into the middle of the left lane earlier. I don't like to be forced into a last second decision. All of this, of course, is predicated on good visibility and checking over my shoulder.

Like Genec says, you can't count on courtesy from all motorists. So I've always tended to claim the lane and claim it early when in doubt.

Which is why I tend to ride the line and not move over... That "move over" is just an invitation to be cut off.

If on the other hand I come to a stop light or stop sign, I am more than willing to let a group of motorists move ahead. But as soon as I have taken a position in a lane where there are parked cars... it is my place and motorist better just move to the lane to the left to pass.

The difficulty with this discourse is not with vehicular cycling or its presenters. Vehicular cycling is good for cyclists and is enjoyed by those who do it, and is supported by standard traffic-engineering knowledge; but for various reasons, it is not popular. The other side have chosen to advocate the style of cycling falsely believed by the unknowing majority to be safe without requiring traffic skills, and which is the style of cycling advocated by motorists for decades, obviously for their own convenience. There is no evidence that this dumb cycling style and its typical facilities either reduce car-bike collisions or make cycling more useful; what evidence that exists is rather the opposite.

Those who advocate the dumb style of cycling do not do so for its benefits to cyclists, which don't exist, but for the purpose of attracting into bicycle transportation large numbers of unknowing and uncaring motorists. And these bicycle advocates are strongly backed by the governments providing propaganda, political support, and lots of money (lots as gauged in the cycling world). The bicycle advocates hope that their program will switch transportationally large numbers of motorists from motor transport to bicycle transport.

The trouble is that the bicycle advocates cannot admit that their program has no advantage other than popularity among the ignorant. If they did so, their political support would fall drastically. So they advance really foolish arguments about the safety and convenience of their system, and they keep doing so despite being corrected time after time. And, because their arguments are so often shown to be foolish, and because they keep repeating them time after time, those who have a firmer grasp of the science and engineering behind bicycle transportation engineering do have their patience tried.



those tired, fraudlent canards? again, john?

where do you come up with that nonsense? the "dumb style" of bicycling? :rolleyes:

states recognize and demand lawful roadway bicycling, publish manuals describing and recommending lawful, safe, "vehicular" cycling behaviors.

all states expect lawful bicycling. federal roadway design standards are designed to encourage and facilitate lawful bicycling behaviors for advanced bicyclists. federal transportation policy is to retain and grow (lawful) road and highway rider share while enhancing safety.

the preponderance of the positive results of supporting infrastructure and social interventions that support bicycling cannot be negated by your dishonest screed and sophistry about planning for bikes in the transportation mix.

your worthless 'vc' visions and mischaracterizations and blatant lies about planning for bikes on public roads in america are reprehensible.

yet you have the gall to self-style yourself a 'bicycle transportation engineer'! ha, more like, "stick in the mud and founding member, flat earth cycling club!"

Seriously john forester, your lying screed about bicyclists best practices and how best to plan for bikes in the transportation mix is transparently fraudulent.

This is why extensive, widespread, convenient and secure bike parking is perhaps the most important piece of infrastructure any municipality can provide to encourage bicycling.

:thumb:

I agree. It's getting more and more difficult to find an open tree in our downtown area.

In Berkeley, California, and, I thought, elsewhere in California, boys aged 10 and 11 were trained and assigned as school crossing guards, those at low-traffic intersections being individuals just telling schoolchildren when to cross, those at crossings of arterial roads in squads with semaphores (lollipops apparently in England), sometimes with two at different distances from the stop line, to stop traffic, controlled by the sergeant with whistle commands. I did that in 1940-1.

But really, Ed, abrasive opinions offered by vehicular cyclists? Have you been reading the material posted by others? The difficulty with this discourse is not with vehicular cycling or its presenters. Vehicular cycling is good for cyclists and is enjoyed by those who do it, and is supported by standard traffic-engineering knowledge; but for various reasons, it is not popular. The other side have chosen to advocate the style of cycling falsely believed by the unknowing majority to be safe without requiring traffic skills, and which is the style of cycling advocated by motorists for decades, obviously for their own convenience. There is no evidence that this dumb cycling style and its typical facilities either reduce car-bike collisions or make cycling more useful; what evidence that exists is rather the opposite.

Those who advocate the dumb style of cycling do not do so for its benefits to cyclists, which don't exist, but for the purpose of attracting into bicycle transportation large numbers of unknowing and uncaring motorists. And these bicycle advocates are strongly backed by the governments providing propaganda, political support, and lots of money (lots as gauged in the cycling world). The bicycle advocates hope that their program will switch transportationally large numbers of motorists from motor transport to bicycle transport.

The trouble is that the bicycle advocates cannot admit that their program has no advantage other than popularity among the ignorant. If they did so, their political support would fall drastically. So they advance really foolish arguments about the safety and convenience of their system, and they keep doing so despite being corrected time after time. And, because their arguments are so often shown to be foolish, and because they keep repeating them time after time, those who have a firmer grasp of the science and engineering behind bicycle transportation engineering do have their patience tried.

But, Ed, have you really been reading the presentations of the bicycle advocates? Or do they seem to you to have so much truth behind them that all of them would be acceptable in normal scientific discourse?

In a way you are right... VC cycling does work... provided you are brave enough to face the motorists that have little idea that you are actually doing it all properly and legally.

Of course the thing to keep in mind is that traffic patterns have changed; traffic density and speeds have gone up quite dramatically since your example 1940s. Even roadways are now different... the interstate freeway system and associated on and off ramps did not exist in the 1940s.

As to the statement of facilities for ignorant cyclists... bear in mind that our current roadways fully support use by ignorant motorists. Why should cyclists have any less advantage?

The roadways right now are filled with all sorts of instructional signs, including signs that warn motorists to give way to pedestrians when turning... clearly a law that is taught in any driver's ed class, and yet we still have to tell motorists to do that of which they apparently are ignorant.

We are no more willing to admit that are roadways are filled ignorant and dangerous motorists, why should we "admit" that we want bikeways so that more than the elite trained cyclist can use a bike for transportation?

I agree with genec-It all boils down to:
1) vc "We don't need bike lanes, and they might imply to other vehicles that we are second class vehicles." Sure, they are right-the most experienced riders don't "need" bike lanes, and some don't want them.

2) Non vc "We want bike lanes because we want more riders and we are convinced that we can't get increased ridership without the cocoon of bike lanes." They are also right.Just ask a prospective rider.

The argument here, is just about numbers-who has the numbers to back up various safety claims.However, safety is really peripheral to your basic arguments, at least as I see your arguments.Besides, the various safety studies you have linked and alluded to can usually be argued. I doubt that bike lanes are widespread enough to actually provide good numbers.

I like bike lanes , but we really don't have any in suburban New Orleans -

BIG ASIDE-"WHO DAT!!"

"Lying screed" ha, ha-Gotta' give you style points for that one!! What do we have here, a couple of English majors?

The FHWA recognizes that the 'most-experienced' riders will always be the in the vast minority of roadway users.

Nonetheless, when bike infrastructure enhancements are considered for roadways, the needs of the 'advanced' bicyclists are always considered, even at the expense of less experienced road riders. (see FHWA highway design guidelines.)

At the minimum, roads are enhanced for lawful, "vehicular" travel by experienced, 'A' type bicyclists.

In a way you are right... VC cycling does work... provided you are brave enough to face the motorists that have little idea that you are actually doing it all properly and legally.

Of course the thing to keep in mind is that traffic patterns have changed; traffic density and speeds have gone up quite dramatically since your example 1940s. Even roadways are now different... the interstate freeway system and associated on and off ramps did not exist in the 1940s.

As to the statement of facilities for ignorant cyclists... bear in mind that our current roadways fully support use by ignorant motorists. Why should cyclists have any less advantage?

The roadways right now are filled with all sorts of instructional signs, including signs that warn motorists to give way to pedestrians when turning... clearly a law that is taught in any driver's ed class, and yet we still have to tell motorists to do that of which they apparently are ignorant.

We are no more willing to admit that are roadways are filled ignorant and dangerous motorists, why should we "admit" that we want bikeways so that more than the elite trained cyclist can use a bike for transportation?

I think we all agree that operators of all vehicles should receive competent instruction. I don't know the percentage of competent cyclists vs. motorists, but I'm guessing the two groups are roughly equal.

One thing that is much more rare with motorists than cyclists, is operating on the wrong side of the road. Just to vent, not to 'prove' anything, Sunday I was riding in a 3' bike lane on a street with bike lanes on both sides of the road. I saw a couple cyclists 100 yards ahead and decided to catch up with them. About this time I see an adult on a road bike coming toward them. After they passed each other he continued on the wrong side of the road, in the bike lane. I stayed in the middle of the lane and he had to move into the street. I'm thinking 'WTF?' Why do they do this especially when they keep encountering other cyclists? ... and when there is a perfectly good bike lane on the other side of the road which has a wider shoulder.

a 3' bike lane? really? where in your city? what street?


bikeways planning include mitigations to reduce wrong way bicycling, and studies have shown reductions in both wrong way and sidewalk cycling as a result of bikelanes.

anecdotal reporting of a supposed scourge of 'wrong way riders' isn't much of a rationale to not plan for bikes in the transportation mix. a quick look at cities with high rider share show remarkable compliance with traffic laws- cyclists in copenhagen ride on the correct side of the road, obey traffic signals, etc.

I've presonally observed lawful rider behavior in cities with bikelanes and high rider share in america....cyclists riding in traffic on the correct side of the road, stopping at traffic signals.

The difficulty seems not to be with vehicular cycling's concepts per se, but its representation and some of the abrasive opinions offered by its advocates.

There are plenty of abrasive opinions here. No need to limit yourself to VC advocates.

a 3' bike lane? really? where in your city? what street?


bikeways planning include mitigations to reduce wrong way bicycling, and studies have shown reductions in both wrong way and sidewalk cycling as a result of bikelanes.

anecdotal reporting of a supposed scourge of 'wrong way riders' isn't much of a rationale to not plan for bikes in the transportation mix.

West Court street, Pasco. The bike lane gets really strange when it takes a fork to head into the park and go along the river. The pavement is 6 to 7 feet wide, with a solid white stripe running down the middle, so it looks like a miniature country road. At the beginning and every mile or two there's a bike symbol on the N lane with arrows going each direction, as if to say 'pedestrians on the S, bikes on the N.' This is crazy of course, and is ignored by almost everyone except a couple militant dog walkers who insist bikes are confined to the N side, making it impossible to pass each other.

This division makes some sense, later when the path widens to 20 feet or so, but on a six foot path it contradicts common sense and years of driving experience

BTW, Bek, contrary to one of your usual ignorant biases, there are bike lanes all over Richland, Kennewick and Pasco. You could look it up.

I'm sorry, dude. that's not a 'three foot bike lane'. and you're griping about the way that road is striped because you saw a couple of wrong way riders? :roflmao:

ah the essence of the vc vision!

I'm sorry, dude. that's not a 'three foot bike lane'. and you're griping about the way that road is striped because you saw a couple of wrong way riders? :roflmao:

ah the essence of the vc vision!

What's not a 3' bike lane? I'll bet you can see Alaska from your house too. :lol:

I purposely said I was not trying to 'prove' anything by mentioning wrong way riders I've seen. These morons likely will ride the wrong way regardless of whether there's a bike lane or not.

The only point is that there are incompetent cyclists as well as incompetent motorists... and incompetent writers.

have you heard of "Google STREET VIEW" out in Podunk?

I think we all agree that operators of all vehicles should receive competent instruction. I don't know the percentage of competent cyclists vs. motorists, but I'm guessing the two groups are roughly equal.

One thing that is much more rare with motorists than cyclists, is operating on the wrong side of the road. Just to vent, not to 'prove' anything, Sunday I was riding in a 3' bike lane on a street with bike lanes on both sides of the road. I saw a couple cyclists 100 yards ahead and decided to catch up with them. About this time I see an adult on a road bike coming toward them. After they passed each other he continued on the wrong side of the road, in the bike lane. I stayed in the middle of the lane and he had to move into the street. I'm thinking 'WTF?' Why do they do this especially when they keep encountering other cyclists? ... and when there is a perfectly good bike lane on the other side of the road which has a wider shoulder.

Well if you are going to use examples of poor behavior as your metric, motorists manage to kill 40,000 of each other annually.

Just how well trained are they anyway?

Street view does not show on Google for the part of Court street I was riding, but I'm sure you're using a different internet. Tell you what, I'll actually measure it next time I'm there. And BTW, what's your point? If the lane is 2.5 feet wide or 3.5 it still does not accommodate two way traffic and bikes riding on the wrong side of the road in or out of a bike lane.

Well if you are going to use examples of poor behavior as your metric, motorists manage to kill 40,000 of each other annually.

Just how well trained are they anyway?

Is this somehow an argument for incompetent cycling? Or against training and education for cyclists?
That's the only point I sought to make, that people who operate vehicles often do so incompetently. As I said, I don't know whether motorists or cyclists follow the rules of the road more or less than the other group, but I'm not betting on cyclists since I see them fail to stop, run red lights, ride on the wrong side and I see these behaviors in a higher percentage of cyclists than motorists.

Is there some reason you bridle at the idea of cyclists receiving proper instruction?

Is this somehow an argument for incompetent cycling? Or against training and education for cyclists?
That's the only point I sought to make, that people who operate vehicles often do so incompetently. As I said, I don't know whether motorists or cyclists follow the rules of the road more or less than the other group, but I'm not betting on cyclists since I see them fail to stop, run red lights, ride on the wrong side and I see these behaviors in a higher percentage of cyclists than motorists.

Is there some reason you bridle at the idea of cyclists receiving proper instruction?

No it is an argument that cyclists should have the same infrastructure that motorists have regardless of how perfect or imperfect their "training" is.

I love how you use typical motorist arguments for forbidding cyclists on the roadways: "fail to stop, run red lights, ride on the wrong side."


I see these behaviors in a higher percentage of cyclists than motorists

The above is classic... how often do you actually see motorists driving at or below the posted speed limit? And keep in mind that every auto collision is due to someone NOT obeying the law.

Now if you propose that cyclists have some minimum form of training, how do you do this, and how do you verify that training... do you license cyclists?

If not, then the whole argument about "ignorant cyclists" falls apart.

Is this somehow an argument for incompetent cycling? Or against training and education for cyclists?
That's the only point I sought to make, that people who operate vehicles often do so incompetently. As I said, I don't know whether motorists or cyclists follow the rules of the road more or less than the other group, but I'm not betting on cyclists since I see them fail to stop, run red lights, ride on the wrong side and I see these behaviors in a higher percentage of cyclists than motorists.

Is there some reason you bridle at the idea of cyclists receiving proper instruction?

I suggest that most people would think it absurd that proper instruction was required just to ride a bicycle - the precident for cycling, with no required instruction, licencing or testing is long established after all. Encouraging anyone to take training would be difficult I think, so general outreach would be rather poor - I certainly would not have entertained the idea for a minute.

What else could be done? Ensure that each new bike sold is accompanied by a copy of the appropriate vehicle code? After all, new bikes in CA are sold with wheel reflectors (removal of which is the first thing many new owners do when they get their purchase home).

Ed

I distrust the hand of government wherever it reaches and do not want to cede any more of my freedom to them that they've already taken, but it makes just as much sense for cyclists that use the public roads to know how to use them as it does for drivers.

I see no problem, since government claims they want to encourage cycling, to have a course of instruction and even a license, provided there is no fee, or actually some kind of rebate or other monetary incentive for getting the license.

Genec you can squirm all you want, but the plain truth is, cyclists are far more likely to be riding the wrong way on a street than a car.

BTW, that bike lane Glenn Bek is whining about not being 3' is 3' 10" wide (inside dimension).

I distrust the hand of government wherever it reaches and do not want to cede any more of my freedom to them that they've already taken, but it makes just as much sense for cyclists that use the public roads to know how to use them as it does for drivers.

I see no problem, since government claims they want to encourage cycling, to have a course of instruction and even a license, provided there is no fee, or actually some kind of rebate or other monetary incentive for getting the license.

Genec you can squirm all you want, but the plain truth is, cyclists are far more likely to be riding the wrong way on a street than a car.

BTW, that bike lane Glenn Bek is whining about not being 3' is 3' 10" wide (inside dimension).

I have always been bewildered by what seems to me an over developed sense of the vulnerability of freedom amongst the American public.

If people really lack the common sense to ride in the right direction along the roadway then perhaps they are beyond reach. I dont justify their actions, but many choose to ride contrary to a variety of traffic laws because it suits them - instruction is unlikely to modify their behaviour no matter how much we disapprove. Of course there is the outside chance that the police take an interest and issue citations to the offenders.

I have always been bewildered by what seems to me an over developed sense of the vulnerability of freedom amongst the American public.

If people really lack the common sense to ride in the right direction along the roadway then perhaps they are beyond reach. I dont justify their actions, but many choose to ride contrary to a variety of traffic laws because it suits them - instruction is unlikely to modify their behaviour no matter how much we disapprove. Of course there is the outside chance that the police take an interest and issue citations to the offenders.

That sense of vulnerability has something to do with the "rugged individual" picture that Americans envision of themselves as having some resemblance to... while watching Network television and chomping down on McDonalds hamburgers... both belying the actual "individualness." There is also the historical connection to our British overlord forefathers that we have had drilled into us in school and celebrate each 4th of July.

As far as your latter statement... I have to fully agree. Not long ago I went face to face with a very intelligent individual that I know as CTO of a large local firm... the man is quite brilliant. There he was riding his Segway the wrong way in my bike lane. I questioned him about it and he well knew the proper way, but had justified his actions based on his perception of the world, and perceived dangers. I suspect that this happens quite often... and without any enforcement mechanism, said action is not likely to change.

I suggest that most people would think it absurd that proper instruction was required just to ride a bicycle - the precident for cycling, with no required instruction, licencing or testing is long established after all. Encouraging anyone to take training would be difficult I think, so general outreach would be rather poor - I certainly would not have entertained the idea for a minute.

What else could be done? Ensure that each new bike sold is accompanied by a copy of the appropriate vehicle code? After all, new bikes in CA are sold with wheel reflectors (removal of which is the first thing many new owners do when they get their purchase home).

Ed

Interesting, Ed. US law requires that every new bicycle sold be equipped with 10 reflectors, one of which is white and faces front, but not even a bracket for a headlamp, and a copy of safe cycling instructions. You remark, perhaps censoriously, that people immediately remove wheel reflectors. Well, while wheel reflectors look gaudy and conspicuous in non-collision situations, they don't work in collision situations. The analysis that went into accepting these as the government's required nighttime safety equipment was a demonstration in which a bicycle so equipped was ridden in a circle, while in the headlamp beams of a car, in the driveway of the regulatory agency. The 10 reflectors proved that, whatever may be the angle of the bicycle to the impinging beams, at least one reflector answered. No consideration at all of how nighttime collisions occur, and, therefore, what might be useful preventive measures. The motorist must be warned of the approach of the cyclist before the motorist's headlamp beams strike the bicycle.

Bekologist, here, keeps arguing about the beneficial effect of our government on cycling. This is just one more example of that skillful and careful beneficence. And, not, all this was done under the authorization of regulating bicycles as "toys or other articles intended for use by children".

The combination above was what did in Derby Cycle Co. when Johnson rode one of their brand new bicycles at night without a headlamp. Johnson was a high-school aged recent immigrant from the Caribbean area. He should have known better, but he didn't, but, then, only a minority of Americans understand lawful cycling, and the bicycle was sold by a Korean shopkeeper who also didn't understand. Johnson bought the bicycle specifically to avoid the bus trip to and from his work as night shift at a fast-food place, which entailed cycling at night. What did Derby Cycle Co in was that their only instruction about using a headlamp was for cycling on off-road trails, and Derby's officials stated in legal documents that they had no idea that state laws required the use of headlamps at night.

I suggest, Ed, that you have not yet realized the full extent to which American governments do harm to cyclists through utter misunderstanding of bicycle transportation.

I think we all agree that operators of all vehicles should receive competent instruction. I don't know the percentage of competent cyclists vs. motorists, but I'm guessing the two groups are roughly equal.
snips


This discussion of relative competency of cyclists and motorists has come up repeatedly herein.

I have made detailed observations of the behavior of cyclists totaling many hours, at least more than several full days of observations. My method was to decide on an area of observation that would include most cyclists in the area. I would take a position near the center of that area and I would then follow the first cyclist that I saw, making voice recorder observations of the cyclist's movements as evaluated to whether they obeyed the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. I followed and observed that cyclist until he or she had completed their trip or had left the observation area. Then I would cycle back toward the center of the area and, again, start observing the first cyclist whom I saw. I often did this for eight hours at a time. The method did not measure the behavior of wrong-way cyclists, because I would not follow them, and it did not measure the behavior of sidewalk cyclists, because nothing that they would do was right.

Each observed movement was recorded by what it was, as in "Left turn", followed by any observed defects, such as "Turned from inappropriate lane". For each observed cyclist, these were tallied on my score sheet, from which scores, for the cyclist's whole trip, were calculated. I set the value of each movement according to my evaluation of how important it was to cyclist safety, and I set the value of each deficiency according to my evaluation of the danger that it produced. I set the scores so that what I considered the worst acceptable defect for any movement would score 70%.

Here are some of my results:

Berkeley: 28 cyclists, 1300 earned points, 208 points lost, 84% average
Davis: 71 cyclists, 2995 earned points, 1018 points lost, 66% average
Palo Alto: 50 cyclists, 2385 earned points, 1002 points lost, 58% average

I did a later survey of adult cyclists commuting in the Sunnyvale CA area, and that worked out to 55% average.

Just to demonstrate that my scoring system provides practical scores, I measured the behavior of a group of cyclists with whom I often cycled on Thursday mornings, through normal urban traffic to some luncheon spot within the urban area. Their average was 98%. As they rode along, they completely forgot that I was scoring them, for they were immersed in the combination of cycling in traffic while gossiping as well.

Consider some specific errors I observed, with their proportions of defective movements.
Left Turn, done from wrong start position and without looking: Palo Alto, 65%; Berkeley, 19%; Davis, 31%

Lane Change, done without looking: Palo Alto, 95%; Berkeley, 100%; Davis, 93%.

So far as I know, I am the only person who has ever done this. I think that my view of the competency of typical American cyclists is well demonstrated by these measurements.

Interesting, Ed. US law requires that every new bicycle sold be equipped with 10 reflectors, one of which is white and faces front, but not even a bracket for a headlamp, and a copy of safe cycling instructions. You remark, perhaps censoriously, that people immediately remove wheel reflectors. Well, while wheel reflectors look gaudy and conspicuous in non-collision situations, they don't work in collision situations. The analysis that went into accepting these as the government's required nighttime safety equipment was a demonstration in which a bicycle so equipped was ridden in a circle, while in the headlamp beams of a car, in the driveway of the regulatory agency. The 10 reflectors proved that, whatever may be the angle of the bicycle to the impinging beams, at least one reflector answered. No consideration at all of how nighttime collisions occur, and, therefore, what might be useful preventive measures. The motorist must be warned of the approach of the cyclist before the motorist's headlamp beams strike the bicycle.

Bekologist, here, keeps arguing about the beneficial effect of our government on cycling. This is just one more example of that skillful and careful beneficence. And, not, all this was done under the authorization of regulating bicycles as "toys or other articles intended for use by children".



Actually, I did not condemn the removal of wheel reflectors (having done this myself...) My purpose in mentioning these items was not too clear: I intended to suggest that any safety/vehicle code literature that could be supplied with a bike might easily go the same way as the mandatory reflectors.



P.S. When riding at night, I use plenty of lights, with steady and flashing sources at the rear, and a bright white headlamp on the front of the bike. There is no substitute, though reflective materials can play a supplementary role.

I have always been bewildered by what seems to me an over developed sense of the vulnerability of freedom amongst the American public.

If people really lack the common sense to ride in the right direction along the roadway then perhaps they are beyond reach. I dont justify their actions, but many choose to ride contrary to a variety of traffic laws because it suits them - instruction is unlikely to modify their behaviour no matter how much we disapprove. Of course there is the outside chance that the police take an interest and issue citations to the offenders.

=o) I agree some are beyond reach, but this wrong way riding issue is singular. I've instructed lawyers and judges on the fact the law says if we ride in the street it is to be in the same direction as traffic. In every case they are surprised. Apparently what goes on is that they think of the bicycle as first and foremost a pedestrian enhancement device. Years ago they learned to walk on the left so they can see oncoming traffic and dodge out of the way.

This old Boy Scout advice has somehow flummoxed them. When advised of the law and it's rationale, they show little resistance to the idea of lawful cycling.

I'd like to see an end to wrong way cycling. It is disconcerting to a "right way" cyclist, to have some grinning twerp pedaling towards them without a care in the world, and no easy way to tell what will happen next... or how to negotiate the situation safely.

I'd like to see an end to wrong way cycling. It is disconcerting to a "right way" cyclist, to have some grinning twerp pedaling towards them without a care in the world, and no easy way to tell what will happen next... or how to negotiate the situation safely.

It's even worse in the dark, when a wrong-way cyclist without a headlamp pops out from behind a parked car. Can't remember how many times that's happened to me.

I was in San Diego's Balboa Park last Friday evening, walking to the Old Globe Theatre. Some kind of bicycle event was running in San Diego, with the route going through the park. Even had fleets of cop cars there. But, here it was, about an hour after lighting-up time, with about half of the cyclists operating without lights. One damn near ran me down as I was walking on one covered sidewalk that crossed another covered sidewalk. And the cops did nothing.

It's even worse in the dark, when a wrong-way cyclist without a headlamp pops out from behind a parked car. Can't remember how many times that's happened to me.

I was in San Diego's Balboa Park last Friday evening, walking to the Old Globe Theatre. Some kind of bicycle event was running in San Diego, with the route going through the park. Even had fleets of cop cars there. But, here it was, about an hour after lighting-up time, with about half of the cyclists operating without lights. One damn near ran me down as I was walking on one covered sidewalk that crossed another covered sidewalk. And the cops did nothing.

Their attitude reminds me of the "We are the cyclists" video.

"We are cyclists. We can do no wrong. We are morally superior to mere mortals who drive cars or walk. We are above the law. We are idiots."

Interesting, Ed. US law requires.......

I suggest, Ed, that you have not yet realized the full extent to which American governments do harm to cyclists through utter misunderstanding of bicycle transportation.


that's laughable. you've used the CPSC reflector smokescreen? :roflmao:

State laws ALSO require lawful roadway bicycling from bicyclists, john, and states explicitly grant bicyclists all the rights and responsibilities of vehicles except some that have no relative application to bicycles.

federal road standards require roads be built in compliance with rules of the road and for vehicular use by bicyclists. federal policy mandates roadway design be considered to keep and increase rider share while enhancing safety.



these are some of the other things state and us laws and roadway design guidelines require.

john forester's tired canards about states planning for lawful roadway bicycling along public roads and highways are worthless.His claims the entirety of uniform traffic codes in conjunction with AASHTO roadway design guidelines are somehow MISconstruable as plans for 'incompetent' cycling, of cyclists being 'pushed aside' to operate 'childlike' and 'ignorant' are transparently fraudulent and worthless accusations.

a laughable position coming from a self styled bicycle transportation ingenue like yourself, john forester.


the 'essence of the vc vision' is bankrupt, fraudulent misrepresentation of American planning for bikes in the transportation mix.

...One (bicyclist) damn near ran me down...

yeah, he probably recognized you.

It's even worse in the dark, when a wrong-way cyclist without a headlamp pops out from behind a parked car. Can't remember how many times that's happened to me.

I was in San Diego's Balboa Park last Friday evening, walking to the Old Globe Theatre. Some kind of bicycle event was running in San Diego, with the route going through the park. Even had fleets of cop cars there. But, here it was, about an hour after lighting-up time, with about half of the cyclists operating without lights. One damn near ran me down as I was walking on one covered sidewalk that crossed another covered sidewalk. And the cops did nothing.

last friday? fleets of cop cars? what about lycra (probably under-represented...)?

it sounds to me like you ran into the San Diego Critical Mass ride...or they ran into you...

:lol: