Is anti vc anti motoring?

[ianbrettcooper]

The other group concerns itself with making bicycle transport more popular; some members hope to sell more bicycles, while the majority hope to produce a transportationally significant switch from motor to bicycle transport. They are motivated not so much by love of cycling as by opposition to motoring.

I disagree with you that bicycle popularity advocates are motivated by opposition to motoring. I think they love cycling as much as we do. The problem is, they simply cannot believe that cycling in 'protected' lanes or paths can be more dangerous than cycling on the road. They believe the way they do because the alternative just seems so unintuitive. They can feel secure in those beliefs because there is no really brutally clear evidence that they're wrong. The studies available are all mired in reams and reams of confusing details. We've talked about this before, and I realize you don't accept that, but I'm convinced it's the case.

In general though, I agree with you. But I feel it doesn't help our cause when we choose to use emotionally loaded words like 'incompetent', 'subservient' etc. Not everyone responds well to sarcasm and arrogance - some of us enjoy it (to some of us it's like an impossibly hot curry - a challenge), but most people respond poorly to it. When people identify with those labels, they simply stop reading and go into attack mode. And that means that even if there were clear studies showing that what we assert is factual, they'll be that much less willing to give such studies credit.

While I'm sure VC arguments are largely correct, VC has a big credibility problem because VC advocates - almost to a man - tend to be raging ********. You and I for example - we're both freaking ********. We both see VC as 'our way or the highway' (hmmm. not a very apt image) and it seems we can't change. But until we stop being ********, we have no chance of gaining converts. We catch more flies with honey. We simply cannot go around calling anyone who doesn't practice effective cycling an idiot. We just can't. If we do, in a hundred years, cyclists will still be getting themselves injured and killed on the motorists' favoured 'bicycle infrastructure' and all the great work you've done will be for nothing. Heck, even now, 'Effective Cycling' is out of print in the US. This book should be a cyclist's bible, yet it seems it is largely ignored here. There's a reason for that, and it's not because your arguments are unconvincing. It's because your audience feels they're being lectured at and ridiculed rather than being invited into the club and welcomed as valued members.

So for goodness sake, John, do what I do when I really want to persuade someone of something - get your wife or a trusted family member to edit your stuff and tone down the assholery. I want cycling to be safe for everyone, not just for you and me and all the other ********.

[sudo bike]

I disagree with you that bicycle popularity advocates are motivated by opposition to motoring. I think they love cycling as much as we do. The problem is, they simply cannot believe that cycling in 'protected' lanes or paths can be more dangerous than cycling on the road. They believe the way they do because the alternative just seems so unintuitive. They can feel secure in those beliefs because there is no really brutally clear evidence that they're wrong. The studies available are all mired in reams and reams of confusing details. We've talked about this before, and I realize you don't accept that, but I'm convinced it's the case.

In general though, I agree with you. But I feel it doesn't help our cause when we choose to use emotionally loaded words like 'incompetent', 'subservient' etc. Not everyone responds well to sarcasm and arrogance - some of us enjoy it (to some of us it's like an impossibly hot curry - a challenge), but most people respond poorly to it. When people identify with those labels, they simply stop reading and go into attack mode. And that means that even if there were clear studies showing that what we assert is factual, they'll be that much less willing to give such studies credit.

While I'm sure VC arguments are largely correct, VC has a big credibility problem because VC advocates - almost to a man - tend to be raging ********. You and I for example - we're both freaking ********. We both see VC as 'our way or the highway' (hmmm. not a very apt image) and it seems we can't change. But until we stop being ********, we have no chance of gaining converts. We catch more flies with honey. We simply cannot go around calling anyone who doesn't practice effective cycling an idiot. We just can't. If we do, in a hundred years, cyclists will still be getting themselves injured and killed on the motorists' favoured 'cycling infrastructure' and all the great work you've done will be for nothing.

So for goodness sake, John, do what I do when you really want to persuade someone of something - get your wife or a trusted family member to edit your stuff and tone down the assholery. I want cycling to be safe for everyone, not just for me.

Extremely well said. Props.

[ianbrettcooper]

Extremely well said. Props.

Thanks. And sorry, I tend to edit pretty heavily after posting. Hopefully the latest version still works.

I really think VC's main problem is that we VC folks are all such incredible ********. What we need is for all of us to go around saying 'mea culpa'. I mean what we've done is basically screw up the whole VC marketing and PR strategy. We need to be saying "Yes, we're ******** - we find it hard not to be ********, but this stuff is important enough that we really need to say sorry and ask to be allowed to start over, hopefully with a new inclusive and respectful attitude."

With a bit of luck, that might get people willing to listen a bit more.

[genec]

Thanks. And sorry, I tend to edit pretty heavily after posting. Hopefully the latest version still works.

I too think it was well stated... Bear in mind that John has declared he really doesn't care if anyone "joins the club." He is apparently satisfied with himself and his minions.

Personally I have found that vehicular cycling works quite well under most conditions... it has a tendency to fail at higher road speeds, at which point John has provided "alternatives" such as the pedestrian like turn to make a left on a busy street.

On the other hand, "the attitude" tends to take precedence, becomes a repellent to cyclists that might actually become "converts." Strange, eh?

[ianbrettcooper]

Bear in mind that John has declared he really doesn't care if anyone "joins the club."

Remember, we ******** tend to be thin-skinned. I lash out at people who dislike me, so I'm sure John is the same way. The important thing to remember is this: no one who sincerely doesn't want people to join the VC club publishes a meticulously researched 600 page book on effective cycling. People that really don't care publish 90 page no-research hack jobs.

I've published large scale meticulously researched computer game mods. I've also told people that I didn't care if they didn't use those mods. But deep down I wanted those people to use them. I told them I didn't care because it hurts when someone doesn't like your stuff, so you lash out.

[genec]

Remember, ******** tend to be thin-skinned. I lash out at people who dislike me, so I'm sure John is the same way. The important thing to remember is this: no one who sincerely doesn't want people to join the VC club publishes a meticulously researched 600 page book on effective cycling.

Did you ever try to look for that book? Probably one of the most closely guarded secrets in the general cycling community. I personally know of no bike shop carrying it.

I do own a copy, and perhaps one day I might persuade John to autograph it.

[ianbrettcooper]

Did you ever try to look for that book?

I ordered it used from Amazon last week (which is how I knew it was out of print). I actually got it on Monday. I would have bought it earlier, but after my wife's layoff last year we're trying to look after the pennies.

So far I've skimmed a few pages. I'm reading Matthew Simmons' 'Twilight in the Desert' right now, so 'Effective Cycling' is next on my reading list.

I think it's a little weird that I effectively became a vehicular cyclist 25 years ago without knowing anything about John's work. I think the first I even heard about VC was when I came to these forums and became aware of the vitriol that was directed by some at my chosen cycling preference. Heck, until I arrived here, I thought everyone who cycled on the road must use the techniques that John Forester advocates. It was a bit shocking to find that not only was I wrong, but that VC was actively hated by so many cyclists.

[njkayaker]

a meticulously researched 600 page book on effective cycling. People that really don't care publish 90 page no-research hack jobs.

Shorter version (not a hack job either).

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

[genec]

I ordered it used from Amazon last week (which is how I knew it was out of print). I actually got it on Monday. I would have bought it earlier, but after my wife's layoff last year we're trying to look after the pennies.

So far I've skimmed a few pages. I'm reading Matthew Simmons' 'Twilight in the Desert' right now, so 'Effective Cycling' is next on my reading list.

I think it's a little weird that I effectively became a vehicular cyclist 25 years ago without knowing anything about John's work. I think the first I even heard about VC was when I came to these forums and became aware of the vitriol that was directed by some at my chosen cycling preference. Heck, until I arrived here, I thought everyone who cycled on the road must use the techniques that John Forester advocates. It was a bit shocking to find that not only was I wrong, but that VC was actively hated by so many cyclists.

VC isn't hated per se, and indeed many long time cyclists do learn and ride using vehicular cycling techniques much as you and I did... through trial and error. What is detested by many cyclists here is the attitude... which you have discovered and also responded negatively to.

Enjoy the read... don't be surprised if you encounter the same surely self accrediting ego in your reading of EC. For all 600 or so pages, the best stuff really encompasses a tiny portion of the book. John Franklin has summarized the same methodology in a much smaller book, "Cyclecraft," while Robert Hurst takes a slightly different tack in his very readable "The Art of Urban Cycling."

Frankly none of these books is readily available in any bike shop... although I believe "Cyclecraft" was being given away with one particular brand of commuter bike for a while.... certainly a move in the right direction. Lets face it, no tome on cycling need be any larger than a driver's handbook. (and driver's handbooks should probably be as large as Effective Cycling)

Hurst has also written "The Cyclist Manifesto" and others.

I also highly recommend "Traffic, why we drive the way we drive." While not specifically about cycling, it is a study on motorists and why they drive the way they do... any long time cyclist will find they can't help but study traffic... and this book presents some answers as well as offers some insight.

The technique of vehicular cycling is effective, and any cyclist riding many miles over many years will eventually get it... but the attitude is extra, and at times very counterproductive. If the methodology were incorporated at the basic school levels and taught as a precursor to driving, no doubt perhaps we could all "get along."

[genec]

Shorter version (not a hack job either).

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

Ah thanks... Street Smarts... I believe that was the book given away with the commuter bike. Thanks nj. slipped my mind.

[SpiderJones]

The combination of the militant motorists and the bicycle advocates has political control of American bicycle transportation affairs and has produced a governmental program for producing incompetent cycling on bikeways, because that is the popular superstition.

Mmmm, but both these groups are subsumed under the "make-a-buck-from-any-human-need" brigade, evidenced by the fact that there is even more aggressive promotion of incompetent motoring than incompetent bicycling, leading to a whole nation of unfit, incompetent road users. This group holds great sway with support from the great commercial lobbies of internal combustion and construction. All highways are constructed for lowest common denominator driving ability levels. Incompetent, unfit and distracted drivers cause accidents. That's where the major problem lies.

Me? I ride to be visible, safe, legal and to make optimum progress to my destination. It more often involves riding on a road than on a bike path, because on the road you have the right of way, but on a bike path you cede it at every crossing driveway where inattentive drivers aren't expecting you.

[John Forester]

I too think it was well stated... Bear in mind that John has declared he really doesn't care if anyone "joins the club." He is apparently satisfied with himself and his minions. ... On the other hand, "the attitude" tends to take precedence, becomes a repellent to cyclists that might actually become "converts." Strange, eh?

You're wrong, Gene. I have put a great deal of effort into popularizing cycling as it should be done, competently, effectively, and enjoyably. The object is to get more people participating safely and enjoyably in the sport that is also useful transportation. But throughout this time the efforts of all vehicular cyclists have been opposed by the social, anti-motoring, and governmental policies advocating and enforcing incompetent cycling on bikeways. The argument that vehicular cyclists are opposed to cycling is a grotesque inverted travesty, for the opposition to cycling is from those who argue for incompetent cycling on bikeways.

It is true that some people sincerely believe that the policy of incompetent cycling on bikeways is the best small-scale means (other means being much larger and more expensive) of producing a significant reduction in motoring. Strong though their belief may be, no significant reduction in motoring from this cause has occurred anywhere in the world. Meanwhile, there are those who see incompetent cycling on bikeways as serving their interests, while the general populace is quite happy in their superstition, created first by self-serving motorists, that cyclists can be safe only when they ride subservient to motorists.

[genec]

You're wrong, Gene. I have put a great deal of effort into popularizing cycling as it should be done, competently, effectively, and enjoyably. The object is to get more people participating safely and enjoyably in the sport that is also useful transportation. But throughout this time the efforts of all vehicular cyclists have been opposed by the social, anti-motoring, and governmental policies advocating and enforcing incompetent cycling on bikeways. The argument that vehicular cyclists are opposed to cycling is a grotesque inverted travesty, for the opposition to cycling is from those who argue for incompetent cycling on bikeways.

It is true that some people sincerely believe that the policy of incompetent cycling on bikeways is the best small-scale means (other means being much larger and more expensive) of producing a significant reduction in motoring. Strong though their belief may be, no significant reduction in motoring from this cause has occurred anywhere in the world. Meanwhile, there are those who see incompetent cycling on bikeways as serving their interests, while the general populace is quite happy in their superstition, created first by self-serving motorists, that cyclists can be safe only when they ride subservient to motorists.

Have your efforts ever resulted in more people riding bikes?

[John Forester]

Have your efforts ever resulted in more people riding bikes?

Yes, many of my students stated that their cycling had increased as they learned more ways to enjoy cycling, and, indeed, some of my students started from scratch, so that I had to teach them very elementary things before the class sessions started.

[genec]

Enjoy these students.

[rando]

I am not anti-vc. I use vc techniques every day. what I hate is the attitude and the closed-mindedness, the tunnel vision of SOME of it's advocates. (re bike infrastructure, etc)

[John Forester]

I am not anti-vc. I use vc techniques every day. what I hate is the attitude and the closed-mindedness, the tunnel vision of SOME of it's advocates. (re bike infrastructure, etc)

Consider the difference in tone between my work and John Franklin's work. Franklin writes in and for a nation in which vehicular cycling is the standard, both legally and socially. I write in and for a nation whose government and society have done their best to stamp out vehicular cycling, first by prohibitory laws and societal pressure, then by bikeways, then adding patriotism into the stew. The advocacy of vehicular cycling is lawful, competent cyclists' defense against governmental and societal oppression.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Consider ... The advocacy of vehicular cycling is lawful, competent cyclists' defense against governmental and societal oppression.

Oh the Horror, the Horror!!

[AlmostTrick]

Consider the difference in tone between my work and John Franklin's work. Franklin writes in and for a nation in which vehicular cycling is the standard, both legally and socially. I write in and for a nation whose government and society have done their best to stamp out vehicular cycling, first by prohibitory laws and societal pressure, then by bikeways, then adding patriotism into the stew. The advocacy of vehicular cycling is lawful, competent cyclists' defense against governmental and societal oppression.

I hate patriotism as much as the next guy, but I'm curious to hear how it ended up in the anti VC stew.

[John Forester]

I hate patriotism as much as the next guy, but I'm curious to hear how it ended up in the anti VC stew.

Recent announcements by politicians regarding the national program for bicycle transportation, which is for incompetent cycling on bikeways, have added patriotism to the justification. That is, assisting the nation in getting out from under the oil-producing nations and reducing the international debt.

[genec]

Consider the difference in tone between my work and John Franklin's work. Franklin writes in and for a nation in which vehicular cycling is the standard, both legally and socially. I write in and for a nation whose government and society have done their best to stamp out vehicular cycling, first by prohibitory laws and societal pressure, then by bikeways, then adding patriotism into the stew. The advocacy of vehicular cycling is lawful, competent cyclists' defense against governmental and societal oppression.

And in that nation too, there is a lamentable amount of regular commuting cyclists; such is the "success" of vehicular cycling for encouraging cycling.

[John Forester]

And in that nation too, there is a lamentable amount of regular commuting cyclists; such is the "success" of vehicular cycling for encouraging cycling.

Genec, you often produce pie-in-the-sky proposals through not understanding the big picture about cities, societies, and cycling. The only thing that concerns you, despite your use of vehicular cycling skills, is a large amount of incompetent cycling on bikeways. You need to explain why it is necessary to lie to the public about the supposed safety of such cycling to persuade some of them to use bicycle transportation. And then explain why bikeways appear to have success in increasing bicycle transportation in only a few atypical American cities.

[genec]

Genec, you often produce pie-in-the-sky proposals through not understanding the big picture about cities, societies, and cycling. The only thing that concerns you, despite your use of vehicular cycling skills, is a large amount of incompetent cycling on bikeways. You need to explain why it is necessary to lie to the public about the supposed safety of such cycling to persuade some of them to use bicycle transportation. And then explain why bikeways appear to have success in increasing bicycle transportation in only a few atypical American cities.

If there is room to build high speed roads, there is room to build proper bikeways! It is as simple as that.

Bikeways have limited success because they are connected by roads which require vehicular cycling... right back to square one.

[John Forester]

If there is room to build high speed roads, there is room to build proper bikeways! It is as simple as that.

Bikeways have limited success because they are connected by roads which require vehicular cycling... right back to square one.

Simple solutions proposed for complex problems are the product of simple minds.

[bcubed]

Recent announcements by politicians regarding the national program for bicycle transportation, which is for incompetent cycling on bikeways, have added patriotism to the justification. That is, assisting the nation in getting out from under the oil-producing nations and reducing the international debt.

Gee, JF, which of the two major political parties has the "pro-incompetency" platform? I must have missed it.

Or, rather, is this the old "I'll call people who don't behave as I like a bad name and hope it sticks" gambit? I remember that one...also remember dropping it about the same age I excised "big, fat doodyhead" from my vocabulary.