Vehicular Cycling (VC) - I'm a little confused as to why the 'VC' subforum exists.

Its my (American; primarily Californian) perspective that most roads are in place for all forms of transportation. Few roads have specific accommodations for any specific type of vehicle- the basic 'road' is a bare strip of pavement (I'm not sure if a white line on either side is even a legal requirement for a road). Sometimes, there are posted limits to follow- lines to pilot your vehicle between, speed limits to obey, maximum height and weight allowances- but not always, and in an absence of posted limits (and in addition to them), all rules default to the vehicle code.

Of course, in many places, there are bike lanes and separated bike paths- but they're not everywhere (in fact, they're only on a tiny percentage of roads in the US). I'm assuming a non-'vehicular cyclist' would default to the shoulder of a road in the absence of a designated bike lane, which would increase the percentage of roads usable to non-'vehicular cyclists', but would not be 100%. This means that its (currently) impossible to be a non-'vehicular cyclist' on all roads. Also, a non-'vehicular cyclist' on a road, with or without specific accommodations for a bicycle will always be a vehicle and subject to the vehicle code.

My point is that I think this part of the forum is organized backwards, and that the separation is bizarre. I realize that it sounds like I'm taking the term 'vehicular cycling' too literally, but I think splitting cyclists into specific camps is unnecessary. I consider myself a 'vehicular cyclist' because I ride on the roads with everyone else- but you'll typically (not always) find me on the shoulder or bike lane if there was a separated bike path that was faster or safer than the road, I'd use that too. By the typical definitions, I'm not a hardcore 'vehicular cyclist', nor am I whatever the other school of thought calls itself.

Bike lanes and bike paths are tools, just like the law is a tool and my bike is a tool. When I ride, I try to use the best tool for the job. I feel that vehicular cycling is the norm, and the use of additional cycling infrastructure is a bonus, but not the default method of cycling.

Sorry if that was long-winded, redundant, and/or pedantic.

Forum suggestion: If a separation in the forum is truly needed, eliminate 'VC' and install 'Grandma, Not Lycra' or, uhh, 'Progress Toward the European-Style Cycling Utopia' in its place.

A friend of mine (banned a long time ago, he was a smart-a$$) told me it was because there was a lot of conflict going back and forth about VC vs. other styles of riding; it was getting into every thread, or so it seemed to him. He didn't help it any, either; he was impatient and aggressive with other people.

The capsule description of this sub-forum seems to bear that out -- "nothing has polarized ... like VC...."

He told me his screen name; I looked it up, and found a couple threads he'd been on; they were pretty contentious.

The difference is that strict vehicular cyclists abhor shoulders and bike lanes... While you may ride on the streets, your use of shoulders and bike lanes is counter to the thinking of those that consider themselves "vehicular cyclists" and who generally tout full lane use on all but the very widest streets, and decry the use of shoulders or any other non travel lane use such as segregated facilities for cyclists.

Your view of how you ride is not considered "vehicular" by the VC folks... may cyclists ride the way you do and it has been called "adaptive cycling" by many here.

I fail to understand why someone wouldn't use a perfectly good shoulder, if they are moving slower than the normal flow of traffic. Of course, I would probably fathom a guess that someone who refuses to use a perfectly good shoulder, might be the same person who drives 10mph under the speed limit in a car on a one lane highway without provisions for passing, and refuses to pull off to the side to let the 20 cars behind them pass.

A friend of mine (banned a long time ago, he was a smart-a$$) told me it was because there was a lot of conflict going back and forth about VC vs. other styles of riding; it was getting into every thread, or so it seemed to him. He didn't help it any, either; he was impatient and aggressive with other people.

The capsule description of this sub-forum seems to bear that out -- "nothing has polarized ... like VC...."

He told me his screen name; I looked it up, and found a couple threads he'd been on; they were pretty contentious.

Hmm- maybe we need a 'Helmets? We Don't Need No Stinkin' Helmets!' subforum.

yes, assertive lane positioning was creeping into every thread, wether it was a thread about children riding to school, or daytime running lights for safety, any topic.

so the VC forum was created to shunt a lot of this sidetracking and smokescreening away from the general safety and advocacy forum. to allow discussions to continue largely unfettered.

even in the VC subforum ,however, its still not possible to discuss certain subjects without other posters getting so uppity threads get locked and deleted...... there's a lot of foot soldiers protecting their vision of cycling to the extent healthy debate is virtually impossible, even in the VC subforum.

even in the VC subforum ,however, its still not possible to discuss certain subjects without other posters getting so uppity threads get locked and deleted......

You are fairly efficient at getting posts locked (you seem quite the expert at it).

"Uppity" is nicely racist (and quite revealing too)!

look up the screen name "Helmet head" and soon you will understand.

The difference is that strict vehicular cyclists abhor shoulders and bike lanes... While you may ride on the streets, your use of shoulders and bike lanes is counter to the thinking of those that consider themselves "vehicular cyclists" and who generally tout full lane use on all but the very widest streets, and decry the use of shoulders or any other non travel lane use such as segregated facilities for cyclists.

Your view of how you ride is not considered "vehicular" by the VC folks... may cyclists ride the way you do and it has been called "adaptive cycling" by many here.

This is a false description of vehicular cycling invented for the purpose of denigrating it. Equally false is the other description, also frequently used in these discussions, of vehicular cycling as curb-hugging, also invented for the purpose of denigrating vehicular cycling. I think that, to an outside observer, the creation of this Vehicular Cycling forum was intended to denigrate vehicular cycling for the purpose of proclaiming the superiority of bikeways in attracting new cyclists.

This is a false description of vehicular cycling invented for the purpose of denigrating it. Equally false is the other description, also frequently used in these discussions, of vehicular cycling as curb-hugging, also invented for the purpose of denigrating vehicular cycling. I think that, to an outside observer, the creation of this Vehicular Cycling forum was intended to denigrate vehicular cycling for the purpose of proclaiming the superiority of bikeways in attracting new cyclists.


Do you support the use of shoulders and bike lanes and the use of segregated facilities?

Do you support the use of shoulders and bike lanes and the use of segregated facilities?

It is useless to ask such meaningless questions, for no answer is possible without trying to work out what you, and what the readers, might mean by such a question and its possible answers. Sometimes I wonder whether you don't understand the problem, sometimes I wonder the reverse, that you are brilliantly smart at asking unanswerable questions.

It is useless to ask such meaningless questions, for no answer is possible without trying to work out what you, and what the readers, might mean by such a question and its possible answers. Sometimes I wonder whether you don't understand the problem, sometimes I wonder the reverse, that you are brilliantly smart at asking unanswerable questions.

Well in this case you pointedly stated that my earlier response was "a false description of vehicular cycling invented for the purpose of denigrating it." All I am trying to do is determine what exactly is false about my statement. So quite simply, do you support the use of shoulders and bike lanes and the use of segregated facilities by cyclists?

As far as my statement that vehicular cyclists "generally tout full lane use on all but the very widest streets," I believe you will find that IS the case of many of those on the bicycle driving and chainguard lists... They typically recommend wide outside lanes, which are travel lanes of about 16 feet in width and nearly as rare as bike lanes when one considers all the streets in America.

So just feel free to tell us all exactly what you find false about my description of vehicular cycling with regard to the content given in the opening post. The opening post discusses the use of the road, and bike lanes, and paths... the latter which you often decry as being for "incompetent" cyclists.

Well in this case you pointedly stated that my earlier response was "a false description of vehicular cycling invented for the purpose of denigrating it." All I am trying to do is determine what exactly is false about my statement. So quite simply, do you support the use of shoulders and bike lanes and the use of segregated facilities by cyclists?

As far as my statement that vehicular cyclists "generally tout full lane use on all but the very widest streets," I believe you will find that IS the case of many of those on the bicycle driving and chainguard lists... They typically recommend wide outside lanes, which are travel lanes of about 16 feet in width and nearly as rare as bike lanes when one considers all the streets in America.

So just feel free to tell us all exactly what you find false about my description of vehicular cycling with regard to the content given in the opening post. The opening post discusses the use of the road, and bike lanes, and paths... the latter which you often decry as being for "incompetent" cyclists.

You ask what part of your description of vehicular cycling is false. Here is one false part of your description of vehicular cycling: "While you may ride on the streets, your use of shoulders and bike lanes is counter to the thinking of those that consider themselves "vehicular cyclists"." That is false, as you should know from the detailed discussions that have long taken place.

You ask what part of your description of vehicular cycling is false. Here is one false part of your description of vehicular cycling: "While you may ride on the streets, your use of shoulders and bike lanes is counter to the thinking of those that consider themselves "vehicular cyclists"." That is false, as you should know from the detailed discussions that have long taken place.

That is not the view held by many cyclists that call themselves vehicular cyclists. As a primary example is "chipseal" who himself has had run-ins with the sheriff in Texas for not using the shoulder of the road. There are quite a few "vehicular cyclists" that feel only designated travel lanes are valid places to ride a bike.

http://chipsea.blogspot.com/

Frankly I am in disagreement with this, as I have found road shoulders quite suitable, especially on CA state highways such as 94 and highway 1. I have toured several western states and Baja, and found road shoulders to be quite usable. (oddly enough, this puts you and I in utter agreement)

This is why there is a VC subforum, (the question of this whole thread) as some here in BF constantly advocated the use of the traveled way, while others felt that any part of the paved roadway was suitable for use by cyclists.

As far as my statement that vehicular cyclists "generally tout full lane use on all but the very widest streets," I believe you will find that IS the case of many of those on the bicycle driving and chainguard lists... They typically recommend wide outside lanes, which are travel lanes of about 16 feet in width and nearly as rare as bike lanes when one considers all the streets in America.

Here's a nice short and available "standard" VC text by an early, authoritative proponent of VC techniques. Where is a quote from this that "touts full lane use on all but the very widest streets"? (I don't assume that Allen speaks for Forester.)

http://www.bikexprt.com/streetsmarts/usa/index.htm

It's hard to argue against random, non-authoritative people posting at places "bicycle driving", etc, without actually seeing what they actually say.


That is not the view held by many cyclists that call themselves vehicular cyclists. As a primary example is "chipseal" who himself has had run-ins with the sheriff in Texas for not using the shoulder of the road. There are quite a few "vehicular cyclists" that feel only designated travel lanes are valid places to ride a bike.
So what? People can call themselves whatever they want. They can believe whatever they want. As an primary example, Chipseal doesn't succeed in presenting himself as a "expert" (in my opinion). (He's just some guy on the internet with an opinion not soundly argued. http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?556181-A-cyclist-Killed-While-Driving-on-the-Shoulder&highlight=)

It doesn't make any sense to require Forester to defend them.

Here's a nice short and available "standard" VC text by an early, authoritative proponent of VC techniques. Where is a quote from this that "touts full lane use on all but the very widest streets"? (I don't assume that Allen speaks for Forester.)

http://www.bikexprt.com/streetsmarts/usa/index.htm

It's hard to argue against random, non-authoritative people posting at places "bicycle driving", etc, without actually seeing what they actually say.


So what? People can call themselves whatever they want. They can believe whatever they want. As an primary example, Chipseal doesn't succeed in presenting himself as a "expert" (in my opinion). (He's just some guy on the internet with an opinion not soundly argued. http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?556181-A-cyclist-Killed-While-Driving-on-the-Shoulder&highlight=)

It doesn't make any sense to require Forester to defend them.

Foster stepped in himself. My response was to the original poster that asked why there was a VC subforum. I presented the issues of the constant debate. Forester stepped in and defended vehicular cycling in general, without addressing the terms of the OP, but in doing so, he attacked me with his statement of "false description of vehicular cycling invented for the purpose of denigrating it."

I had no intention of denigrating vehicular cycling, I merely tried to explain the rhetorical wars that caused a separate sub forum. Perhaps I should have been more verbose in my response.

BTW I tend to agree with your opinion of chipseal. I think that some who consider themselves vehicular cyclists take the rhetoric of "rights" way too far without considering the practicality of the use of the roadways. Of course that is exactly why this sub forum exists.

Foster stepped in himself. My response was to the original poster that asked why there was a VC subforum.
No problem there.


Forester stepped in and defended vehicular cycling in general, without addressing the terms of the OP, but in doing so, he attacked me with his statement of "false description of vehicular cycling invented for the purpose of denigrating it."
No, Forester is defending his definition of "vehicular cycling". He isn't defending anybody else's peculiar definitions.


That is not the view held by many cyclists that call themselves vehicular cyclists.
The error here is the assumption that Forester has some sort of responsibility for whatever unspecified views these people have.


I had no intention of denigrating vehicular cycling, I merely tried to explain the rhetorical wars that caused a separate sub forum. Perhaps I should have been more verbose in my response.
He's mostly commenting about the "rhetorical wars" too. I suspect that he is mostly talking about other posters (not you) here who clearly are more interested in denigration than having a discussion. Personally, I think the "rhetorical wars" are stupid and make this forum a bit of a cesspool.


BTW I tend to agree with your opinion of chipseal. I think that some who consider themselves vehicular cyclists take the rhetoric of "rights" way too far without considering the practicality of the use of the roadways. Of course that is exactly why this sub forum exists.
And Forester isn't required to defend people who happen to call themselves "vehicular cyclists" and have some other unspecified meaning for the term.

It's hard to argue against random, non-authoritative people posting at places "bicycle driving", etc, without actually seeing what they actually say.




The error here is the assumption that Forester has some sort of responsibility for whatever unspecified views these people have.


He's mostly commenting about the "rhetorical wars" too. I suspect that he is mostly talking about other posters (not you) here who clearly are more interested in denigration than having a discussion.



So why not specify what other authoritative/unnamed poster(s) and posts Forester and you ARE talking about?

So why not specify what other authoritative/unnamed poster(s) and posts Forester and you ARE talking about?
????

You are not making sense.

Please explain why anybody should be required to defend the following "sources"? Who is saying what, exactly? Seems awfully vague to me.


many of those on the bicycle driving and chainguard lists...

...yes, john forester does like to *****foot around his admission that vehicular cyclists can and do ride in bike lanes and on shoulders of roads when safe and appropriate to do so. In some instances - and more so as bike infrastructure is more well designed according to speed and destination positioning rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, VEHICULAR CYCLISTS will find themselves choosing to ride vehicularily in a shoulder or bikelane and choose it as a default riding position.


Extreme vehicularism to the derailment of reasonable discussion is why this subforum was created.

Oy, colorful discussion as usual. Thanks for the brief bikeforums history lesson :)

????

You are not making sense.

Please explain why anybody should be required to defend the following "sources"? Who is saying what, exactly? Seems awfully vague to me.
YOU are saying, " I suspect that he is mostly talking about other posters (not you) here who clearly are more interested in denigration than having a discussion."

WHO are the "other" posters that YOU vaguely reference. Be sure to include yourself before naming anybody else.

you are saying, " i suspect that he is mostly talking about other posters (not you) here who clearly are more interested in denigration than having a discussion."

who are the "other" posters that you vaguely reference. Be sure to include yourself before naming anybody else.

????

Still not making sense! What are you going on about?

Bzzt! Criticism <> "denigration".



The following are examples of "denigration"!


I can only guess about the location of the planet where all these BF cry baby cyclists who are shocked, shocked at cyclists who don't wait for red lights come from.


There are even a few anal cyclists who can't comprehend why most cyclists with working senses (and who know how to use them) do not treat traffic codes/law as if written in stone, nor as commandments brought down from a mountain top that MUST BE OBEYED.


Then of course there are the Junior Members all full of themselves who have it all figured out about how all cyclists who aren't like themselves are too lazy/weak/tired, stupid and inept.

Whaddya gonna do? Try growing up, Jack.


True, as long as *legitimate reason* is defined as any reason found acceptable and approved by Brontide.


My "logical" thought can discern the difference between riding a bicycle and driving a car and the effects of each. If you cannot, no explanation will satisfy you.


My guess is that Brontide is a member of the oh-so-special "Cycling Community" I have been hearing so much about on A&S lately. Ya know, the pompous fellows who are embarrassed by the antics of all those lowllife cyclists who don't meet the lofty standards set by the Righteous Cyclists such as themselves.

Oy, colorful discussion as usual. Thanks for the brief bikeforums history lesson :)

I suspect we've answered your original question, eh?

????

Still not making sense! What are you going on about?

Bzzt! Criticism <> "denigration".
My take is that you have searched the Forum for Pearls of Wisdom that in fact accurately reflect and describe the posts/posters that they are in response to and are appropriate (as well as pithy) responses.

A "denigerator" might post responses taken out of context to try and make a point, or better yet read meanings into posts that are from left field such as your semantic nit picking over the term "uppity". Maybe you should be taken to task for use of the term "denigration."

semantic nit picking over the term "uppity".

:roflmao:

My take is that you have searched the Forum for Pearls of Wisdom that in fact accurately reflect and describe the posts/posters that they are in response to and are appropriate (as well as pithy) responses.
No, it didn't require any searching. And "pearls of wisdom" they are not.


A "denigerator" might post responses taken out of context to try and make a point, or better yet read meanings into posts that are from left field such as your semantic nit picking over the term "uppity".
No, they are clear examples of your made-up rules for other people. You complain about other people's comments and yours are worse.


Maybe you should be taken to task for use of the term "denigration."
No, actually. You should look up the etymology. And it at term you first used!

http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-den1.htm

(Interesting that "blackpoliticalthought" has no problem using the word.)

http://blackpoliticalthought.blogspot.com/2010/03/barbara-york-maine-selectwoman-under.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+TheHinterlandGazette+(The+Hinterland+Gazette)

(While a few people attempt to paint "denigrate" as being racist it appears that the usage of the word does not have racial overtones.)

:roflmao:

^^^^^

Empty headed Bek!

why WAS this subforum created anyway? the hysterical petty arguments were coloring the main safety and advocacy forum. seems like some posters can't help but derail the threads into petty off topic semantic tirades to the extent any valid discussion is lost in the noise.

and its really too bad. it has driven posters like patc up in Canada off the forum.

why WAS this subforum created anyway? the hysterical petty arguments were coloring the main safety and advocacy forum

"hysterical petty arguments" like yours!!


[people like you] have driven posters like patc up in canada off the forum.
ftfy.

Has anybody ever agreed on anything in this forum?

Just curious.

Has anybody ever agreed on anything in this forum?

Just curious.

genec and myself and bek appear to agree mostly about chipseal's "position" (so to speak).

Anyway, I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing that people don't often agree. If the discussion is made honestly and without the leading/loading rhetorical stuff that "certain" people employ to "support" their position, people might learn something about other perspectives.

Its my (American; primarily Californian) perspective that most roads are in place for all forms of transportation. Few roads have specific accommodations for any specific type of vehicle- the basic 'road' is a bare strip of pavement (I'm not sure if a white line on either side is even a legal requirement for a road). Sometimes, there are posted limits to follow- lines to pilot your vehicle between, speed limits to obey, maximum height and weight allowances- but not always, and in an absence of posted limits (and in addition to them), all rules default to the vehicle code.

Of course, in many places, there are bike lanes and separated bike paths- but they're not everywhere (in fact, they're only on a tiny percentage of roads in the US). I'm assuming a non-'vehicular cyclist' would default to the shoulder of a road in the absence of a designated bike lane, which would increase the percentage of roads usable to non-'vehicular cyclists', but would not be 100%. This means that its (currently) impossible to be a non-'vehicular cyclist' on all roads. Also, a non-'vehicular cyclist' on a road, with or without specific accommodations for a bicycle will always be a vehicle and subject to the vehicle code.

My point is that I think this part of the forum is organized backwards, and that the separation is bizarre. I realize that it sounds like I'm taking the term 'vehicular cycling' too literally, but I think splitting cyclists into specific camps is unnecessary. I consider myself a 'vehicular cyclist' because I ride on the roads with everyone else- but you'll typically (not always) find me on the shoulder or bike lane if there was a separated bike path that was faster or safer than the road, I'd use that too. By the typical definitions, I'm not a hardcore 'vehicular cyclist', nor am I whatever the other school of thought calls itself.

Bike lanes and bike paths are tools, just like the law is a tool and my bike is a tool. When I ride, I try to use the best tool for the job. I feel that vehicular cycling is the norm, and the use of additional cycling infrastructure is a bonus, but not the default method of cycling.

Sorry if that was long-winded, redundant, and/or pedantic.

Forum suggestion: If a separation in the forum is truly needed, eliminate 'VC' and install 'Grandma, Not Lycra' or, uhh, 'Progress Toward the European-Style Cycling Utopia' in its place.

I definitely consider myself a VC because, I have been in several accidents where, I acquiesced to a motorist and paid for it. Because of my experiences, I no longer use a bike lane or, a shoulder. I 'take the lane' AND, I force motorists to pass me, just as if they were passing another car/truck by passing in the passing lane. Not in the same lane, basically squeezing me on shoulder.

I suspect we've answered your original question, eh?

Yeah. I figured it was for some sort of school of cycling thought I wasn't understanding- I didn't think before that it was created specifically as a reaction to the behavior of posters.

Chris- I'd say you should consider yourself a VC because your description of yourself fits the title of one exactly. I feel that someday, after taking a right/left hook or two, I might be firmly in your camp, rather than just skirting it.

Mikeshoup- Wandering from my topic a little- I see two divides in this forum- one is of the different beliefs of what a truly 'safe' cycling environment is (possibly defined as complete roadway integration/VC-ing on one side, and complete segregation on the other), and the divide of what resources currently exist for those types of riding to take place (aggressive VC-ing for short rides in a dense urban city that possesses an exemplary cycling infrastructure makes as much sense as a cyclist avoiding riding on roads when he lives in a rural area with zero cycling or pedestrian infrastructure. I think laws change interpretations of conditions, too- when cycling in most cities in CA, the bike lanes and the laws regarding their use make them a beneficial tool; if the proposed change to FL law (presented in a recent thread) goes through, it would make their bike lanes prisons. Just thinking.

Yeah. I figured it was for some sort of school of cycling thought I wasn't understanding- I didn't think before that it was created specifically as a reaction to the behavior of posters.

Chris- I'd say you should consider yourself a VC because your description of yourself fits the title of one exactly. I feel that someday, after taking a right/left hook or two, I might be firmly in your camp, rather than just skirting it.

Be careful.

.......
Mikeshoup- Wandering from my topic a little- I see two divides in this forum- one is of the different beliefs of what a truly 'safe' cycling environment is (possibly defined as complete roadway integration/VC-ing on one side, and complete segregation on the other), and the divide of what resources currently exist for those types of riding to take place (aggressive VC-ing for short rides in a dense urban city that possesses an exemplary cycling infrastructure makes as much sense as a cyclist avoiding riding on roads when he lives in a rural area with zero cycling or pedestrian infrastructure. I think laws change interpretations of conditions, too- when cycling in most cities in CA, the bike lanes and the laws regarding their use make them a beneficial tool; if the proposed change to FL law (presented in a recent thread) goes through, it would make their bike lanes prisons. Just thinking.

Raiden,

you need to do a little more thinking about bicycling. there is no false ideal to be reached of 'absolute' safety thru infrastructure.

plans to facilitate bicycling in communities can and often are vehicular by design and do not contradict vehicular operation by bicyclists.

why would mandatory bikelane use be beneficial in California and Oregon but lead to hysterical visions of prisions in florida?

design of roadway architecture and traffic controls can include bike-specific elements that vehicular cyclists can and will use in a vehicular manner and will likely be the default roadway bicycling position for thru bicycle traffic on any given well-designed right of way.

This separate forum was created to shunt a lot of static off the main forum. its a shame the quality of some of the posters led to this subforum. perhaps i had a hand in it, but i think there's clear differences between strong, argumentative debate and petty, nitpicking semantic thread derailment.

Raiden, you need to do a little more thinking about bicycling. there is no false ideal to be reached of 'absolute' safety thru infrastructure.

I disagree with this, tbh. As much as I consider myself leaning toward being a VC, I think enough money and planning could create communities that were nearly completely safe for bikes (whether it be by creating segregated bike/ped facilities, or by increasing law enforcement or education for motorists).

Also, by 'infrastructure', I'm talking about even the most basic elements, down to streetsweeping and fixing potholes.


why would mandatory bikelane use be beneficial in California and Oregon but lead to hysterical visions of prisions in florida?

design of roadway architecture and traffic controls can include bike-specific elements that vehicular cyclists can and will use in a vehicular manner and will likely be the default roadway bicycling position for thru bicycle traffic on any given well-designed right of way.

I totally agree- they CAN include bike-specific elements- but let's jump to the Florida thread: http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?642634-FL-Legislature-passes-mandatory-bike-lane-use-law-doesn-t-consult-cyclists.

Check the picture in the second post. If that's a recently-built road in FL, and the proposed edit to the law were to go through, I'm afraid that bikelane is going to kill somebody. Even if the dashed line were to allow a bike into the lane, its too short to actually be used. There's no way to avoid a right hook.

I thought that it was a place where rants could go unimpeded.

why would mandatory bikelane use be beneficial in California and Oregon but lead to hysterical visions of prisions in florida?

Is it beneficial? Why?

Is it beneficial? Why?

...well, i didn't call them that, but i'm certain you understand the beneficial nature of preferred class lanes for bicyclists - in California or anywhere else - when well implemented along select road corridors as part of a regional transportation master plan.

I'd suggest you and the OP both read the latest AASHTO proposed revisions to the bicycle manual, it explains and outlines better planning for bikes in the transportation mix, some of which includes class specific lanes for some traffic conditions/ types of travel corridors.

this should all be covered in other threads already....

I thought that it was a place where rants could go unimpeded.


No, actually not. i still can't start a thread to ask John Forester to clarify one of his blanket proclamation about bicyclists rights without the threads getting locked & shut down because of all the rabble. then some moderators actually delete the entire thread. you've been a poster in some of the disappearing threads..

this place is contentious but it is NOT a place they allow ranting to go on unimpeded. Just watch what happens next. If my forecast of one of the forum user's reaction is correct, this thread has a chance to go ballistic since i even mentioned johns erroneous proclamations about cyclists rights in all 50 states.

I'm replying to the OP, who makes excellent points. I believe that much of this contentiousness and division (and sub, sub divisions) comes from the same quality that makes some people ardent cyclists. There is as psychological component to their motivation, some kind of need for exclusivity, of ownership of 'cycling,' as if it were their private domain, their own invention. They guard this neurotic belief jealously. Some of these folk are simply bigots. They advocate cycling as an end in itself and put cycling and bicycles above any other form of transportation or machine. Then they launch themselves from there to the notion that there is some ideal way to cycle: THEIR way.

Although I share the notion that the bicycle is an almost ideal form of transportation, I am more concerned that machines, whether bicycles, cars, or weaving looms, be operated safely and competently, as opposed to the notion that operators of any particular type of machine are automatically superior to others.

Bicycle bigots have got to be better than some of the other bigots. :D


active transportation activists that aspire for bicyclist amenable communities, communities where more of the citizenry feels empowered to engage in public road bicycling are the big bad bigots. right.... hows your local bike master plan coming, dan? getting bigger, better shoulders and bikelanes yet?

i'd think for all the benefits attendant with bicycling, its' not a mistaken belief in the superior value from normalizing bicycling as transportation for more of the american public. Benefits that are as far reaching as senior mobility and mental health in addition to the more obvious benefits from encouraging and normalizing bicycling as a viable mode of personal transportation.

sure, notions of elitist roadway bicycling on autocentric roads with nerves of steel, an assertive nature and reflexes of a cat must make some cyclists feel real special. Those cyclists must be the bigots dan arnold is looking for.

No, actually not. i still can't start a thread to ask John Forester to clarify one of his blanket proclamation about bicyclists rights without the threads getting locked & shut down because of all the rabble. then some moderators actually delete the entire thread. you've been a poster in some of the disappearing threads..

this place is contentious but it is NOT a place they allow ranting to go on unimpeded. Just watch what happens next. If my forecast of one of the forum user's reaction is correct, this thread has a chance to go ballistic since i even mentioned johns erroneous proclamations about cyclists rights in all 50 states.

It is obvious that Bek and I have different views about the legal status of cyclists in many states. I have worked with the governmental and quasi-governmental committees that write traffic laws, some of my words appear in the laws regarding cyclists, one of the aspects of my profession is advising attorneys of the meaning of the laws in their states. I feel no need to say more about this subject.

why would mandatory bikelane use be beneficial in California and Oregon but lead to hysterical visions of prisions in florida?


Is it beneficial? Why?


...well, i didn't call them that

Why is mandatory bike lane use beneficial? Or did you make a mistake?

the OP called california bike lane laws benficial. maybe he just meant the bikelanes?

It is obvious that Bek and I have different views about the legal status of cyclists in many states. I have worked with the governmental and quasi-governmental committees that write traffic laws, some of my words appear in the laws regarding cyclists, one of the aspects of my profession is advising attorneys of the meaning of the laws in their states. I feel no need to say more about this subject.

Will you confirm for the record, john forester, that you have previously opined in bike forums that cyclists, in all 50 states are prohibited from leaving the edge of the roadway unless a legal excuse is demonstrated?

did you or did you not make that erroneous proclamation about cyclists rights, john forester? because you did, you have, and it is not just misleading but grossly incorrect. there are several states that have no lateral lane positioning restriction on bicyclists. Additionally, laws regulating cyclists riding riding safely right do not often apply on multiple lane roads or when there is no overtaking traffic.

we can discuss this in another thread, john forester, if you'd care to.

the OP called california bike lane laws benficial. maybe he just meant the bikelanes?

I feel that in CA, the existence of bike lanes, in conjunction with the laws governing their use, to be a beneficial tool for cyclists. They're a protected zone, but there's a lot of allowance for movement out of them, spelled out plainly (more than I've seen in most other states).

In comparison, I disliked the proposed changes to the law in Florida because I feel they limited a cyclist's options. (I won't disagree that my opinion of the proposed change might be hyterical/knee-jerk.)

I fail to understand why someone wouldn't use a perfectly good shoulder, if they are moving slower than the normal flow of traffic. Of course, I would probably fathom a guess that someone who refuses to use a perfectly good shoulder, might be the same person who drives 10mph under the speed limit in a car on a one lane highway without provisions for passing, and refuses to pull off to the side to let the 20 cars behind them pass.

To be a true 'vehicular cyclist', a cyclist should be going at least 20mph. At the same time, when the road is two lanes each way, there is no reason for a motorist to lean on their horn, when they can very easily pass in the passing lane.

Will you confirm for the record, john forester, that you have previously opined in bike forums that cyclists, in all 50 states are prohibited from leaving the edge of the roadway unless a legal excuse is demonstrated?
Since you do not link to where this was allegedly "opined", people should not assume that you are representing the "quote" accurately.

Anyway, the notion that any thing expressed here is seen by any significant number of people is highly risable.