Vehicular Cycling (VC) - the impact of vc in popular culture is nonexistant

interesting blog post today from the estimable Mikhail Collville-Anderson at Copenhagenize.

he researched the etymology of various cycling terms in popular literature using a google parsing search function,

the graphed results are hilarious as the concept of 'vc' doesn't even register! :roflmao:

the link:

historical references about bicycling (http://www.copenhagenize.com/2010/12/historical-reference.html)

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_kSNVKrktKUQ/TREgLlsBZNI/AAAAAAAAFTc/v6lQJ9ivRUc/s1600/books%2Bvehicular%2Bcyclist.jpg

Just a linguistic nitpick, but there is no such word as "entymology". "Entomology" = the study of insects, and "etymology" = the derivation of a word. I believe you intended the latter, yes?

How many hits did he get for segregated/childish/incompetent/inferiority cycling?

Just a linguistic nitpick, but there is no such word as "entymology". "Entomology" = the study of insects, and "etymology" = the derivation of a word. I believe you intended the latter, yes?

How many hits did he get for segregated/childish/inferiority cycling?

About 35,000 results... but alot of that comes from "Segregated" and "Cycling..."

Please keep in mind that Google's n-gram viewer (1) only searches in the corpus of books that have been scanned into Google's book search engine, and (2) is an exact match only search. Their web search does stemming ( run will match running and ran ), but the book data has to be a perfect match. It's even case sensitive.

A meaningless exercise (though perhaps an interesting idea) and a meaningless result. Garbage in, garbage out.

I would ask how it is possible to disentagle the word "bike," meaning bicycle, from the identical word meaning motorcycle. I have a similar question regarding the word "cycle."

The fact that "vehicular cyclist" doesn't register isn't news. A lot of bicyclists have never heard of vehicular cycling and even those that promote it don't use the term "vehicular cyclist" all that much. I'll bet if you tried the term "dynamic lateral lane positioning" or even "danger zone cycling," they wouldn't register, either.

I would ask how it is possible to disentagle the word "bike," meaning bicycle, from the identical word meaning motorcycle. I have a similar question regarding the word "cycle."

Term extraction, and TF/IDF against a meaningful set of corpora.

Next question.

In my opinion the term vehicular cycling is a redundancy any way. Bikes are vehicles, riding a bike at any time, under any circumstances is a vehicular pursuit. I understand what is meant by the title to the thread, but as long as we are nitwitting....

Marc

i would not be surprised to find that sharrows are equally unknown if not in google search, in practical understanding by the average person (vs the people who hang here)

i would not be surprised to find that sharrows are equally unknown if not in google search, in practical understanding by the average person (vs the people who hang here)

Perhaps, but sharrows are relatively new to roadways. The term "vehicular cycling" has been around at least since the mid '70's.

The impact of any kind of cycling in popular culture is nonexistent. If you have a DVR, try saving searches for any cycling specific word. Apart from bicycle racing (which is a niche sport to say the least), the only hits I get are 'I Love Lucy' reruns (the show has one bicycle-tour episode), three episodes of 'Cops', a Martha Stewart show episode and now 'Triple Rush' - which is, sadly, the only show in the history of US TV to cover cycling as more than a one-off curiosity or a bad joke.

You're more likely to get hits for the 'Bicycle Playing Card Poker Tournament' than anything remotely to do with cycling.

In terms of movies, we have to go back 25 years to find 'Quicksilver'. Cycling, as a serious issue to be considered by media, is about as popular as circumcision.

In terms of VC, TV and movies tend to show VC practices much more commonly than the alternative. You don't see Dave Stoller riding in the gutter, or on a bike path, in 'Breaking Away'.

you do see Dave pull up on the right of a car at a stoplight though in Breaking Away.... someone around here would call that "incompetent" :rolleyes:

did you even read the article, or are you just coming to the defense of vehikular cykling, Ian? The riding and racing and flirting by bike in Breaking Away as exemplary vc is quite the stretch.


A simple look at the article i linked to shows the phrase 'bicycling' was quite the hit at the google ngram books viewer.

The vc political platform of fighting tooth and nail against any and all bike specific road designs is vc's own self-inflicted deathknell. vc will be little more than a bile-filled hiccup in the history of world cycling.

the political elements of VC certainly isn't catching on in any significant manner in popular culture, and that's Mikhail Colville-Andersen's point about the non-existence of vc in popular culture.

Safe cycling is promoted by every state, and lawful cycling is certainly expected of ALL road users on bikes in ALL states. What is catching on in states around the country (and world for that matter- The Dutch, the Germans, the Finns, have mandatory bike ed) is the distillation and perpetuation of lawful, competent cycling in communities planning for bike traffic, and smart cycling for both children and adults.

The vc political platform of fighting tooth and nail against any and all bike specific road designs is vc's own self-inflicted deathknell. vc will be little more than a bile-filled hiccup in the history of world cycling.

You have a horribly obscured vision of what vehicular cycling promotes. Where I live, vehicular cycling isn't about getting rid of bike specific facilities, but promoting their usage in areas that need them. Florida is a state with a mandatory bike lane law; if one is available we MUST use it. This is highly problematic here, as many of the bike lanes end, drop you off in horrible conditions, have tons of debris, are never checked after they are painted, and most importantly, don't seem to be taken in on a case-by-case basis. Instead of seeing a road that is perfectly fine for riders to take the lane, they install a bike lane under low-hanging trees. In a matter of weeks glass and other debris litter the lane making it a lackluster area to ride a bicycle. Vehicular cycling here, is promoted in a way that looks at the given conditions of a road and aids us in choosing the best way in which to ride it. Putting bike lanes on fast roads also tend to be horrible. One of the main roads around the college campus here is technically a shoulder, not a bike lane. But it is ridden by cyclists anyway. I know of four collisions THIS SCHOOL TERM of students turning into cyclists on the shoulder, pulling out into the side of the cyclist, and an instance where a car turned right and nailed the back wheel of a cyclist. All of these took place in broad daylight.

This particular use of a bike lane is a good example of how much is lacking in the basic knowledge of placing these: http://www.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Baldwin+Park,+Orlando,+FL&aq=0&sll=28.590626,-81.193171&sspn=0.060066,0.111494&g=central+florida+blvd&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Baldwin+Park,+Orlando,+Orange,+Florida&ll=28.5935,-81.207993&spn=0.240255,0.445976&z=12&layer=c&cbll=28.5935,-81.207993&panoid=QoS9Sn28fi7OCmL1Y41lDg&cbp=12,274.56,,0,14.38

Two cyclists were hit here: one going left to access the shoulder and one going straight to get into the development. Both of these instances could have been prevented by utilizing the lane to the left, queuing up, and going straight and/or left. It is also an unsafe bike lane in the sense that it puts the rider in a situation such as that. By getting rid of it, you are helping to rid these conflicts.

This entire bike lane: http://www.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Baldwin+Park,+Orlando,+FL&aq=0&sll=28.590626,-81.193171&sspn=0.060066,0.111494&g=central+florida+blvd&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Baldwin+Park,+Orlando,+Orange,+Florida&ll=28.590853,-81.193085&spn=0.240261,0.445976&z=12&layer=c&cbll=28.590628,-81.193129&panoid=F3S5INEJ4PGavEmZvkYc0Q&cbp=12,3.39,,0,10.05

is broken, has debris, tons of sand, etc. It also ends abruptly around this corner and leave the cyclist in the middle of traffic leaving school. Is this bike lane needed? I mean, it does encourage and promote more cycling. The short answer is no. The road here is smoothly paved and is a slow speed that doesn't necessarily need to facilitate a bike lane at all. There have been numerous falls, close calls, and accidents on this lane. Could have been avoided had the cyclists known to move over into the lane away from the debris and with the flow of motorists.

Another problematic bike lane: http://www.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Baldwin+Park,+Orlando,+FL&aq=0&sll=28.590626,-81.193171&sspn=0.060066,0.111494&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Baldwin+Park,+Orlando,+Orange,+Florida&ll=28.560929,-81.332088&spn=0.02989,0.055747&z=15&layer=c&cbll=28.560988,-81.331978&panoid=bOuiSfTR_nDNfzPd5K3FdA&cbp=12,74.95,,0,0

This is put in a slow speed area next to on street parking. The spots to the right are filled with cars and pre/post work hours have cars moving in and out and opening doors. By moving over into the lane you avoid all of these conflicts. The bike lane isn't needed at all.

My point here, is that I am for bike lanes and facilities that are MADE PROPERLY. Increasing cycling doesn't really mean much if they are still unsafe. All new road plans here are made to include bike lanes, which is part of the problem. They add them without seeing how traffic works in said areas. If an accident occurs because someone was curb-hugging, their immediate reaction is "well, a bike lane will solve this" when it really does nothing. They are mere afterthoughts, and they hope paint and a sharrow solves problems. I think you pay way more attention to John Forester than really seeing how vehicular cyclists promote safe riding. We are NOT against bicycle facilities, we are against bicycle facilities done WRONG. I feel vehicular cycling is promoting the notion to not be restricted by the bicycle facilities based on the sole fact that they are there. Because the city put them in, it must be safe to ride them. I have noticed many conflict areas since I have been riding in the roads and leaving the gutters and sidewalks. We are all always going to have different viewpoints on the matter. I don't live where you live and you don't see what I see. I see the clear possibilities of utilizing the roads in the safest and lawful manner as possible. Stop lumping everyone into the "John Forester's of the 21st century" and see what is actually being promoted.

My point here, is that I am for bike lanes and facilities that are MADE PROPERLY.

Then advocate for such and decry those that keep insisting that "all roads are bike lanes" and that one merely just need to "man up" and "become the alpha dog" and expect to be treated as the driver of a vehicle simply by acting as the driver of a vehicle. :rolleyes:

The problem is that the VC crowd fails to advocate for anything but simply joining their very small (and remaining small) club.

If perhaps those voices joined together and stated in one loud voice that they want facilities that are "MADE PROPERLY," progress might just take place.

Stop lumping everyone into the "John Forester's of the 21st century" and see what is actually being promoted.

it's now 'smart cycling' and traffic skills dontchyaknow.

I most assuredly promote safe roadway cycling.

Then advocate for such and decry those that keep insisting that "all roads are bike lanes" and that one merely just need to "man up" and "become the alpha dog" and expect to be treated as the driver of a vehicle simply by acting as the driver of a vehicle. :rolleyes:

The problem is that the VC crowd fails to advocate for anything but simply joining their very small (and remaining small) club.

If perhaps those voices joined together and stated in one loud voice that they want facilities that are "MADE PROPERLY," progress might just take place.

Again, we see things differently. I never mentioned once about manning up and being an alpha dog and am not necessarily speaking for every VC out there. What vehicular cycling has taught me is to view the road as a viable way to get from point A to point B. I was a sidewalk rider prior to knowing anything much about VC, and I feel I am more adept at dealing with what the roads offer and how to optimize my commute. I don't advocate for people to join the group, but I am an advocate for at least showing and making cyclists realize that roads can be used safely (which is something not many cyclists see). Vehicular cycling is a great way to ride a bicycle, and I have run into far less problems since doing so than before. I can only speak for me.

it's now 'smart cycling' and traffic skills dontchyaknow.

I most assuredly promote safe roadway cycling.

I am sure you do promote safe roadway cycling. We all love cycling and we all want to be safe. VC, to me, is a viable option for riding and does provide adequate skill sets for understanding the roads available. To be honest, I don't know the spectrum of VC advocates out there, but where I live and with the people I ride with, I never feel there is a negative vibe towards other cyclists that don't adhere to VC rules or regulations. Maybe I just feel that the whole of VC seems to have effected the parts.

I am sure you do promote safe roadway cycling. We all love cycling and we all want to be safe. VC, to me, is a viable option for riding and does provide adequate skill sets for understanding the roads available. To be honest, I don't know the spectrum of VC advocates out there, but where I live and with the people I ride with, I never feel there is a negative vibe towards other cyclists that don't adhere to VC rules or regulations (whatever those may be). Maybe I just feel that the whole of VC seems to have effected the parts.

The definition of vehicular cycling is very simple. It is cycling in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. In the typical Vehicle Code for each state, there is a section titled Rules of the Road. The rules in that section control traffic movements. By far the greater number of these rules are stated to apply to all drivers of vehicles. Cycling in accordance with those rules is vehicular cycling. In that section there are also a few rules that apply only to drivers of motor vehicles; neither cyclists nor wagon drivers need to obey these rules. The same would go for the rule for drivers of streetcars, if such a rule still exists in the code. There are also a few rules that apply only to persons riding bicycles. Those rules were created by motorists for their own convenience and their own view of bicycle traffic as seen by the "superior" motorist, and they cause infinite trouble. Obeying those rules is not part of vehicular cycling.

I will edit, John. I understand the definition, my issue was more with how people (especially in these forums) tend to understand said definition. There also seems to be MANY different ideas of what exactly strict VC means, or, at least, interpretations are misinterpreted and eschewed.

Woah, woah WOAH, there, john, hold on. don't be giving bad advice in the forum.... cyclists have to break the laws to ride in a vehicular manner in most states?



.....By far the greater number of these rules are stated to apply to all drivers of vehicles.Cycling in accordance with those rules is vehicular cycling. In that section there are also a few rules that apply only to drivers of motor vehicles; neither cyclists nor wagon drivers need to obey these rules. The same would go for the rule for drivers of streetcars, if such a rule still exists in the code. There are also a few rules that apply only to persons riding bicycles. Those rules were created by motorists for their own convenience and their own view of bicycle traffic as seen by the "superior" motorist, and they cause infinite trouble. Obeying those rules is not part of vehicular cycling.

Cyclists should not follow the laws applicable to them and need to break the law?

lawbreaking while riding doesn't sound like very smart cycling.

I want to emphasize my following statement, and if people don't grok it you'll have to give it some thought - I can confidently make the statement that

I've never broken the law on my bike avoiding bikelanes in mandatory bikelane states.


Vc is quite the fractured, incomplete and unrealistic method if its predication is that cyclists will have to break the law to ride vc. No wonder vc has no relevance in popular culture. it's walter mittyish. Riding to the highest moral standard, breaking the law to attain 'true' vehicular operation.... :eek:

:roflmao:

Daydream believers with idle *pocketa pocketa pocketa* vehicular fantasies of how the world works and how to ride a bike.

Postulating that VC is the act of breaking the law while riding your bike in most states is the self immolation of VC.

Common lawbreakers!

I will edit, John. I understand the definition, my issue was more with how people (especially in these forums) tend to understand said definition. There also seems to be MANY different ideas of what exactly strict VC means, or, at least, interpretations are misinterpreted and eschewed.

Or it may be an issue of what people promote in the name of VC vice what John really means.

Some of Forester's Followers can be pretty extreme in their way of thinking.

Or it may be an issue of what people promote in the name of VC vice what John really means.

Some of Forester's Followers can be pretty extreme in their way of thinking.

I agree with this. This extreme way of thinking seems to overshadow what VC tries to do, which, in my opinion and what I have been exposed to, is a way of looking at roads as a viable means to get from one point to another as safely and considerately as possible.

Woah, woah WOAH, there, john, hold on. don't be giving bad advice in the forum.... cyclists have to break the laws to ride in a vehicular manner in most states?




Cyclists should not follow the laws applicable to them and need to break the law?

lawbreaking while riding doesn't sound like very smart cycling.

I want to emphasize my following statement, and if people don't grok it you'll have to give it some thought - I can confidently make the statement that

I've never broken the law on my bike avoiding bikelanes in mandatory bikelane states.


Vc is quite the fractured, incomplete and unrealistic method if its predication is that cyclists will have to break the law to ride vc. No wonder vc has no relevance in popular culture. it's walter mittyish. Riding to the highest moral standard, breaking the law to attain 'true' vehicular operation.... :eek:

:roflmao:

Daydream believers with idle *pocketa pocketa pocketa* vehicular fantasies of how the world works and how to ride a bike.

Postulating that VC is the act of breaking the law while riding your bike in most states is the self immolation of VC.

Common lawbreakers!

Bek has carried on for two years of so that obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, as I advocate, is a bad standard, but it has taken him at least as long, perhaps longer, to recognize that obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles means exactly what it says, rather than obeying the conflicting rules of the road for persons riding bicycles. That has been my stated position for forty years now, and Bek has just begun to understand it? But Bek has firmly put himself as supporting obeying the anti-cyclist traffic laws for persons riding bicycles, laws created by motorists to make motoring more convenient regardless of the danger to cyclists. How does it feel, Bek, when doing motorists an anti-cyclist favor?

I agree with this. This extreme way of thinking seems to overshadow what VC tries to do, which, in my opinion and what I have been exposed to, is a way of looking at roads as a viable means to get from one point to another as safely and considerately as possible.

What is this extreme VC view that merits your disapproval?

What is this extreme VC view that merits your disapproval?

The way people tend to shy from VC on these forums and on the roads. Using Bikeforums as an example, it seems that people hear the words vehicular cycling and immediately hone on the "anti-ness" of the culture. They see VC as an extreme way of cycling claiming it blatantly disregards the use of bike facilities and the such and that we frown on anything other than roads for cycling on. My disapproval is with the people that tend to not understand the idea surrounding VC and base their understanding on what they consider extreme ideologies that are just untrue of vehicular cyclists. I feel that many blogs, posts, etc., written by vehicular cyclists push these notions, which seem to show VC as something "holier than thou" or "above" any kind of infrastructure that COULD work.

Bek has carried on for two years of so that.......

woah, there John. I do NOT AGREE WITH YOU. (you have a PM by the way, at the 'notifications' bar at the top of the screen, if you haven't read it yet.)

Stop putting words into my mouth. You're telling the forum cyclists must break the laws in most every state to ride VC.

You obviously have lost touch with how to ride a bicycle in a vehicular manner. I, as a vehicular cyclist, have NO problem riding a bike in a vehicular manner and in accordance with all applicable laws in California and Oregon and Washington, for example.

I will say it again, since john still doesn't get it. I've never broken the law on my bike while avoiding bikelanes in mandatory bikelane states.. which are only about a half dozen states anyways! John thinks, ardently proclaims his mistaken belief that cyclists avoiding bikelanes or unsafe road positions in (for example) California are breaking the law.

John tirelessly advances unsubstantiated bluster that vehicular cyclists cannot ride a bike without breaking the law in california or most other states, that cyclists break the law when choosing a safe road position.

What incredibly marginalizing and misleading advice to bicyclists about how the laws apply to us!

Only ideologically addled cyclists think their act of avoiding a bikelane for safety or positioning reasons in mandatory bikelane states breaks the spirit or the letter of the law.

Proclaiming that cyclists must break the law to ride in a safe, vehicular manner in most states is a wholly fraudulent ideology.

That type of misleading, marginalizing skew about cyclists rights is worthless and a disservice to cyclists and cycling.

I do NOT agree with the lousy, fractured ideology that cyclists must break the law to ride VC.

That's a crock of unsafe and misleading road advice. Its no wonder VC has absolutely no cultural relevance.

woah, there John. I do NOT AGREE WITH YOU.

Stop putting words into my mouth. You're telling the forum cyclists must Who is the one trying to put words in others mouth?:rolleyes:

Who is the one trying to put words in others mouth?

Why, John is.

As to john's position.....

John's telling cyclists we have to break the law when we ride our bikes if we want to do so in a 'vehicular' manner. To john, obeying the rules- obeying the laws - that apply to bicycles as vehicles is not vehicular cycling.

that position is lousy and marginalizing, its' a gross mischaracterization of 'vehicular' road riding, cyclists rights, safe riding and how the laws apply to bicyclists.

Misleading, incorrect and unconscionable.

if john does indeed think breaking the law is a necessary component in riding VC, is it any wonder his interpretation of VC has absolutely no cultural relevancy?

Its smart cycling now, folks. " VC" is obsolete. VC -a lousy, marginalized, and fractured ideology that has absolutely no credibility, what with dubious proclamations of lawbreaking as a necessary and prime attribute.

Why, John is.

As to john's position.....

John's telling cyclists we have to break the law when we ride our bikes if we want to do so in a 'vehicular' manner. To john, obeying the rules- obeying the laws - that apply to bicycles as vehicles is not vehicular cycling.

that position is lousy and marginalizing, its' a gross mischaracterization of 'vehicular' road riding, cyclists rights, safe riding and how the laws apply to bicyclists.

Misleading, incorrect and unconscionable.

if john does indeed think breaking the law is a necessary component in riding VC, is it any wonder his interpretation of VC has absolutely no cultural relevancy?

Its smart cycling now, folks. " VC" is obsolete. VC -a lousy, marginalized, and fractured ideology that has absolutely no credibility, what with dubious proclamations of lawbreaking as a necessary and prime attribute.

Bek, you still don't understand, or you merely pretend to understand. Correcting your mistakes, which I have come to assume are deliberate, has always been tiresome. The objectionable laws do not "apply to bicycles as vehicles". Read them, please. They apply to persons riding bicycles, which is entirely different.

What is this extreme VC view that merits your disapproval?

This view was actually displayed by the poster "Helmet Head" (http://www.bikeforums.net/search.php?searchid=2560911) years ago, with whom you had disagreements, and who was also one of your staunchest supporters. He has since been banned from BF.

It was Helmet Head that was largely responsible for the creation of the vehicular cycling sub forum. No doubt you probably converse with him regularly on the Chainguard message board.

The irony of you telling him that he didn't understand vehicular cycling was just too rich. One of the forum members even used the comment as a sig tag for a while.

Other equally extreme views have been displayed by "Chip Seal" (http://www.bikemonkey.net/reed-bates-jailed-again/), who did time in a Texas jail for "taking the lane" as a VC technique.

This view was actually displayed by the poster "Helmet Head" (http://www.bikeforums.net/search.php?searchid=2560911) years ago, with whom you had disagreements, and who was also one of your staunchest supporters. He has since been banned from BF.

It was Helmet Head that was largely responsible for the creation of the vehicular cycling sub forum. No doubt you probably converse with him regularly on the Chainguard message board.

The irony of you telling him that he didn't understand vehicular cycling was just too rich. One of the forum members even used the comment as a sig tag for a while.

Other equally extreme views have been displayed by "Chip Seal" (http://www.bikemonkey.net/reed-bates-jailed-again/), who did time in a Texas jail for "taking the lane" as a VC technique.

Based on your single reference to a specific difference of opinion, that of the Bates case, it is clear that you consider to be an extreme view of VC anything that upsets those with an arrogant belief in the motorist superiority superstition, particularly with the power to enforce it even in ways that are against the law. VC stands against the motorist-superiority, cyclist-inferiority superstition, which is the root cause of most of American cycling's troubles.

Based on your single reference to a specific difference of opinion, that of the Bates case, it is clear that you consider to be an extreme view of VC anything that upsets those with an arrogant belief in the motorist superiority superstition, particularly with the power to enforce it even in ways that are against the law. VC stands against the motorist-superiority, cyclist-inferiority superstition, which is the root cause of most of American cycling's troubles.

John you are lost again... I neither deny nor support Reed Bates... and in fact have done just what he has done... ridden Texas roads and have taken the lane. If I have an opinion about the case it is that that he put himself in hot water by his actions with the police... through his arrogant attitude... similar to the arrogant attitude that many Forester Followers have...

I noticed you did not talk about Helmet Head, but chose to avoid that subject while focusing on totally wrong aspects (the specific case, rather than the views of the person) of the fact that I pointed out two people who act in extreme, all in the name of VC.

Way to go John. Classic. Forester Followers love you, no doubt.

John you are lost again... I neither deny nor support Reed Bates... and in fact have done just what he has done... ridden Texas roads and have taken the lane. If I have an opinion about the case it is that that he put himself in hot water by his actions with the police... through his arrogant attitude... similar to the arrogant attitude that many Forester Followers have...

I noticed you did not talk about Helmet Head, but chose to avoid that subject while focusing on totally wrong aspects (the specific case, rather than the views of the person) of the fact that I pointed out two people who act in extreme, all in the name of VC.

Way to go John. Classic. Forester Followers love you, no doubt.

I asked ZCow the following question:
http://www.bikeforums.net/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by ZCow http://www.bikeforums.net/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?p=12627165#post12627165)
I agree with this. This extreme way of thinking seems to overshadow what VC tries to do, which, in my opinion and what I have been exposed to, is a way of looking at roads as a viable means to get from one point to another as safely and considerately as possible.

By Forester: What is this extreme VC view that merits your disapproval?

You, Genec, provided a statement that was not an answer. As a subject of your disapproval, you described Bates in only one way, as: "who did time in a Texas jail for "taking the lane" as a VC technique." That would cause any reader to believe that you disapproved of taking the lane, in this case. But no, that's not your complaint. Your complaint is that Bates did not debase himself before arrogant police officers who had no legal case against his actions. Need I say more about your attitude?

You also claim that I ignored your mention of Helmet Head. But there was nothing for me to say, for you did not describe his view which you consider to be extreme. Without such a statement by you, there is nothing further to be said. It would be a good idea for you to think before you write.

The way people tend to shy from VC on these forums and on the roads. Using Bikeforums as an example, it seems that people hear the words vehicular cycling and immediately hone on the "anti-ness" of the culture. They see VC as an extreme way of cycling claiming it blatantly disregards the use of bike facilities and the such and that we frown on anything other than roads for cycling on. My disapproval is with the people that tend to not understand the idea surrounding VC and base their understanding on what they consider extreme ideologies that are just untrue of vehicular cyclists. I feel that many blogs, posts, etc., written by vehicular cyclists push these notions, which seem to show VC as something "holier than thou" or "above" any kind of infrastructure that COULD work.

I'm sorry, ZCow, that I missed your answer earlier. I understand that you don't like the anti- aspect of VC, the idea that nothing else is as good as VC. Yes, I speak as holier than them when I confirm that statement. But science and engineering support that statement.

With respect to the anti- argument, what do VCs oppose? VCs oppose the American policy regarding bicycle traffic, which has for seventy years had laws against vehicular cycling and has for forty years had bikeways to physically enforce those laws and builds those bikeways to suit persons who won't operate in the vehicular manner. That is, won't operate according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. All of that was done by motorists to suit their convenience and their view of bicycle traffic as a nuisance to be controlled. Your complaint, when analyzed, is merely that VCs resist that governmental and societal oppression. What should you expect, under the circumstances?

You hope that some kind of something will be produced that makes cycling safer and more convenient than VC. Hoping for improvement isn't bad at all; we wouldn't have progress without that. But the changes that have been made are largely attempts to make things better for people who won't obey the standard traffic laws, rather than getting them to do much better by obeying the standard traffic laws. As I have written before, the bikeway system has never been tested to determine that it reduces car-bike collisions or makes bicycle transportation more convenient or reduces the level of skill that is required for safe cycling, when compared to proper operation according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles.

It is obvious that America is most unlikely to adopt the policy that cyclists ought to obey the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. VCs today accept this. All they want is to get out from under the legal oppression that prohibits them from obeying those rules. I have always argued that that is a justified opposition to oppression.

I asked ZCow the following question:
http://www.bikeforums.net/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by ZCow http://www.bikeforums.net/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?p=12627165#post12627165)
I agree with this. This extreme way of thinking seems to overshadow what VC tries to do, which, in my opinion and what I have been exposed to, is a way of looking at roads as a viable means to get from one point to another as safely and considerately as possible.

By Forester: What is this extreme VC view that merits your disapproval?

You, Genec, provided a statement that was not an answer. As a subject of your disapproval, you described Bates in only one way, as: "who did time in a Texas jail for "taking the lane" as a VC technique." That would cause any reader to believe that you disapproved of taking the lane, in this case. But no, that's not your complaint. Your complaint is that Bates did not debase himself before arrogant police officers who had no legal case against his actions. Need I say more about your attitude?

You also claim that I ignored your mention of Helmet Head. But there was nothing for me to say, for you did not describe his view which you consider to be extreme. Without such a statement by you, there is nothing further to be said. It would be a good idea for you to think before you write.

John, I gave you examples by offering bike forum posters who exemplified "that extreme vc attitude."

You chose to shoot the messenger.

John, I gave you examples by offering bike forum posters who exemplified "that extreme vc attitude."

You chose to shoot the messenger.

I see. You can't describe what you call the extreme VC attitude; you can only say that, whatever it might be, it is exhibited by particular persons. Not much use is such an argument.

I see. You can't describe what you call the extreme VC attitude; you can only say that, whatever it might be, it is exhibited by particular persons. Not much use is such an argument.

Yes, I can describe it, in many paragraphs. Or you can take a look at the history of what is already here, pages and pages of it, by merely searching for Helmet Head or Chip Seal. Or even going to the link pertaining to Chip Seal that I provided in my post.

But apparently you want it compressed, Reader's Digest fashion, so you can shoot the messenger rather than the message.

Here, all these threads contain posts by Helmet Head... you can just go to the posts started by him to save time.
http://www.bikeforums.net/search.php?searchid=2568050
These are the threads started by Helmet Head
http://www.bikeforums.net/search.php?searchid=2568059

Here are threads of ChipSeal http://www.bikeforums.net/search.php?searchid=2568066
Here are threads started by ChipSeal: http://www.bikeforums.net/search.php?searchid=2568075

Yes, I can describe it, in many paragraphs. Or you can take a look at the history of what is already here, pages and pages of it, by merely searching for Helmet Head or Chip Seal. Or even going to the link pertaining to Chip Seal that I provided in my post.

But apparently you want it compressed, Reader's Digest fashion, so you can shoot the messenger rather than the message.

Here, all these threads contain posts by Helmet Head... you can just go to the posts started by him to save time.
http://www.bikeforums.net/search.php?searchid=2568050
These are the threads started by Helmet Head
http://www.bikeforums.net/search.php?searchid=2568059

Here are threads of ChipSeal http://www.bikeforums.net/search.php?searchid=2568066
Here are threads started by ChipSeal: http://www.bikeforums.net/search.php?searchid=2568075

All of the links that you provide return the report "no matches found".

But more than that, even if I read all the sentences written by these two persons, how could I determine which sentences express what you consider to be "extreme VC"? There's no way in which I can reasonably accurately reach that conclusion. You don't want to express what you mean, lest I discredit your statement? Then you should not participate in any debate whatever.

All of the links that you provide return the report "no matches found".

But more than that, even if I read all the sentences written by these two persons, how could I determine which sentences express what you consider to be "extreme VC"? There's no way in which I can reasonably accurately reach that conclusion. You don't want to express what you mean, lest I discredit your statement? Then you should not participate in any debate whatever.

Apparently the links don't work outside of the original requester. For that I apologize. As for the comments, I'll have to address those later. No time at the moment.

Wow, Helmet head-- who could forget that loveable scamp? :banned:

There's no way in which I can reasonably accurately reach that conclusion.
Why not? All your allegedly "scientific" conclusions about cycling safety are drawn from your own fabrications, imagination, suppositions and/or manipulation of selected data. Specifically your conclusions about the alleged incredible effectiveness of your brand of Effective Cycling™ (AKA Vehicular Cycling) in reduction (80%!!) of cycling risk for those who are "trained" in EC/VC.

When it comes to "properly done facilities" it *sounds* like a great idea until it actually comes to fruition.

Without fail the majority come out of 1-time monies which means there is little incentive for them to keep up the facilities when times get tough.

If the facilities are separate they are usually treated as "recreational" and not functional. I have often been detoured on my long rides off off the bike lane and on to surface roads when the bike facilities are shutdown for some unknown and unannounced reason. Heck, whole sections were closed last summer for repaving, not just a few weeks.... the whole summer ( 1 time funds no less ).

Push come to shove, if the bike facilities are separate from roads they will get neglected over time when budgets are hard. Just the time that people may be exploring biking themselves to save money.

So when it comes to having fun, the separate facilities are there for some quiet riding. When I want to go somewhere it's on the regular roads and I would much rather see properly integrated facilities including traffic calming and education than one off bike facilities. The problem is most people not involved in cycling can't see the difference between functional and recreational facilities since they have no comprehension of a bike as a functional device.

http://ngrams.googlelabs.com/graph?content=biking+to+work%2Ccycling+to+work%2Cbike+traffic&year_start=1920&year_end=2000&corpus=0&smoothing=5

Not bad for exact, case sensitive, matches. Vehicular cycling is a very specific phrase which is not used by the general population and with the way ngrams are built, it's no wonder that there may be 0 hits for it.

Vehicular cycling is a very specific phrase which is not used by the general population and with the way ngrams are built, it's no wonder that there may be 0 hits for it.

I agree. I am a staunch defender of this mode of cycling, yet I very rarely call it 'vehicular cycling'. The phrase is just too awkward. I call it 'road cycling', 'commuting', 'avoiding badly designed bike lanes & bike paths' - or simply 'cycling'. I'd rather spend a paragraph explaining how I ride, rather than use the word 'vehicular'. Most people don't know what 'vehicular cycling' even means, and those who do are usually contemptuous of it and prejudicial towards it, so the term is useless for any kind of self-description.

Heck, I've been cycling in this 'vehicular' manner for 40 years (that's how we were taught to ride in England), but the first time I ever heard the term was a year ago after I found this site. As far as I can see, the only people who really use it are its detractors. It seems to me that it's a term that was invented (or co-opted) by people who wanted to demonize riding on the road (which is how almost all cycling is still - even now - done). They had to invent the term because they could hardly demonize 'cycling' itself. They had to pretend that the way that experienced cyclists rode their bikes was somehow 'other', so they invented (or co-opted) this word to describe what had, until then, been the norm. They were very successful, probably in part because it sounds so odd and awkward.

As far as I can see, the only people who really use it are its detractors. It seems to me that it's a term that was invented (or co-opted) by people who wanted to demonize riding on the road (which is how almost all cycling is still - even now - done). They had to invent the term because they could hardly demonize 'cycling' itself. They had to pretend that the way that experienced cyclists rode their bikes was somehow 'other', so they invented (or co-opted) this word to describe what had, until then, been the norm. They were very successful, probably in part because it sounds so odd and awkward.

I suggest you read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicular_cycling for the source and use of the term "vehicular cycling" in the U.S. I believe the principal author of the Wiki article is one of your comrades from the Chainguard list.

I agree. I am a staunch defender of this mode of cycling, yet I very rarely call it 'vehicular cycling'. The phrase is just too awkward. I call it 'road cycling', 'commuting', 'avoiding badly designed bike lanes & bike paths' - or simply 'cycling'. I'd rather spend a paragraph explaining how I ride, rather than use the word 'vehicular'. Most people don't know what 'vehicular cycling' even means, and those who do are usually contemptuous of it and prejudicial towards it, so the term is useless for any kind of self-description.

Heck, I've been cycling in this 'vehicular' manner for 40 years (that's how we were taught to ride in England), but the first time I ever heard the term was a year ago after I found this site. As far as I can see, the only people who really use it are its detractors. It seems to me that it's a term that was invented (or co-opted) by people who wanted to demonize riding on the road (which is how almost all cycling is still - even now - done). They had to invent the term because they could hardly demonize 'cycling' itself. They had to pretend that the way that experienced cyclists rode their bikes was somehow 'other', so they invented (or co-opted) this word to describe what had, until then, been the norm. They were very successful, probably in part because it sounds so odd and awkward.

No, Ian, your guess at the origination of "vehicular cycling" is not correct. I understand your view, for I brought the same British view to America in 1940. Since the 1940s, American society expected, American law required, and American bikeways enforced, a different method of cycling, subservient to motorists and done while often disobeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. Of course, a small minority of American cyclists cycled in the British manner (but on the other side of the road) because they knew that it was better, but the authorities paid them no attention, didn't really believe that they existed. American law has always been two-faced about cyclists: it gives them the rights and duties of drivers but then tries to take those rights and duties away.

The uproar started when California started its bikeway system and laws (1971), all intended to force all cyclists to cycle in the American way (more accurately, in the way that American motorists and other adults thought that cyclists should operate). I was there two months after the start, and, let me tell you, the authorities were utterly astounded that there would be any opposition to their plan, because the only way that they could think about cycling was in the cyclist-inferiority context. To deal with this situation I had to invent a name for a kind of cycling that was different from what Americans understood by the word, cycling in which cyclists obey the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. The name that I invented was "vehicular cycling", precisely to emphasize that it was obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles.

You, Ian, have come across many detractors of vehicular cycling. That's not unexpected, since the detractors far outnumber the proponents. The detractors don't oppose vehicular cycling by arguing that it is bad for cyclists; indeed many major detractors admit that they cycle in the vehicular manner. They oppose vehicular cycling on the grounds that it is bad for the world, that only by having a society that cycles incompetently on bikeways will motoring be sufficiently reduced to save the world. That's their passion; so they demonize vehicular cycling in their effort to attain that goal.

......... the term is useless for any kind of self-description.

It seems to me that it's a term that was invented (or co-opted) by people who wanted to demonize riding on the road (which is how almost all cycling is still - even now - done). They had to invent the term because they could hardly demonize 'cycling' itself.

I've excerpted some of your comments above, Ian. I agree with a couple of your points.

prattle about vehicular bicycling, how it is illegal in every state because of 'three discriminatory laws' has absolutely no relevancy so the phrase is useless.

I do agree as well, that the phrase may very well have been invented by someone intent to demonize cycling and make it even more of a fringe activity. Tactics included incessant blusterous acrimony towards planning for roadway bike traffic and a fraudulent message of bicycling suffragism.

Interesting, however, that 'safe cycling' entertains many hits at the Google Books ngram viewer.

I've excerpted some of your comments above, Ian. I agree with a couple of your points.

prattle about vehicular bicycling, how it is illegal in every state because of 'three discriminatory laws' has absolutely no relevancy so the phrase is useless.

I do agree as well, that the phrase may very well have been invented by someone intent to demonize cycling and make it even more of a fringe activity. Tactics included incessant blusterous acrimony towards planning for roadway bike traffic and a fraudulent message of bicycling suffragism.

Interesting, however, that 'safe cycling' entertains many hits at the Google Books ngram viewer.

Come on, Beck, there is no need to go on passing falsehoods about me when there is plenty of evidence to the contrary and available to you. I invented the phrase "vehicular cycling" in the effort to make cycling as respectable as driving a car in America, or as riding a bicycle in Britain. That you disapprove of this motive does not legitimize falsehoods about it.

john, if your version of cycling is illegal cycling under oppressive rules of the road, and the simple act of vehicular bicycling is lawbreaking, because of 'three discriminatory laws' that supposedly prevent vehicular bicycling,

I'd say your methods and message have neither relevancy nor applicability here.

Your demagoguery consists of a message that riding like a 'vehicular bicyclist' supposedly engages riders in a state of perpetual lawbreaking.

time to modify the message. you've failed to prove to me how CVC 21202 prevents a cyclist living in California from taking the lane and sharing roads while safe as a vehiclular cyclist anyway, your entire platform is bankrupt and you're well aware of this.


you abjectly fail to properly interpret the laws affecting bicycling in america.

john, if your version of cycling is illegal cycling under oppressive rules of the road, and the simple act of vehicular bicycling is lawbreaking, because of 'three discriminatory laws' that supposedly prevent vehicular bicycling,

I'd say your methods and message have neither relevancy nor applicability here.

Your demagoguery consists of a message that riding like a 'vehicular bicyclist' supposedly engages riders in a state of perpetual lawbreaking.

time to modify the message. you've failed to prove to me how CVC 21202 prevents a cyclist living in California from taking the lane and sharing roads while safe as a vehiclular cyclist anyway, your entire platform is bankrupt and you're well aware of this.


you abjectly fail to properly interpret the laws affecting bicycling in america.

Don't be silly, Beck. I have never claimed that vehicular cycling is a state of perpetual lawbreaking. It sometimes is, and sometimes isn't, depending on the circumstances, changing from moment to moment.

But the perpetual lawbreaking issue is still always with the cyclist, who has to be prepared to demonstrate that, whenever he is not far to the right, he is covered by one of the clauses of the exceptions list. That is, he is made to feel guilty for using the roadway unless he can demonstrate his particular right to do so. And that is the intent of those who revised the FTR laws and the MBL laws and tried to expand the MBP law, because that is how they felt about bicycle traffic.

You claim that I have failed to prove that CVC 21202 "prevents a cyclist from taking the lane and sharing roads while safe". That's right. You are demanding a legal argument about a concept that is so amorphous that it has no legal meaning. Since you choose to present an argument based on amorphous concepts, I will reply with another. It is clear that the intent of CVC 21202 is to establish the principle that, both legally and psychologically, cyclists do not have rights to use the roadway equal to the rights of other drivers of vehicles.

You claim intellectual superiority on this issue. I say only that the history of the statute, its wording, and its typical use all support my view, while your view, that FTR statutes are a great benefit to cyclists, ignores these considerations and depends on an idiosyncratic view without such supports.

oh, don't be coy. your assertions are that vehicular cycling is prohibited in all 50 states because of the 3 discriminatory edicts.

you claim your method cannot be engaged in without breaking the law.

and claims picking a safe road position, and sharing the road safely with faster traffic is 'so amorphous' that somehow you cannot ascertain if CVC 21202 allows legal safe road positioning in the primary/secondary road positioning method?

I'm demanding a legal argument about a concept, you mean, road bicycling?

yes, this confusion you possess about traffic statues is readily apparent.