Helmet Head

Au contraire. Everyone has beliefs. Some people base their beliefs on reasons, others base their beliefs on something else. A person whose beliefs are based on reason only needs to be provided with reasons to change his beliefs, including reasons presented via logical argument. It is the other type of person who is not open to discussion, because his beliefs are not based on reason, so there is nothing to discuss.


See post #97. If those reasons are not compelling, please explain why.


Does it not make sense to you that a driver is more apt to choose to attend to a distraction when he believes it is safe to take his eyes off the road for a few seconds than when it is not?


Nor do I have a reason to believe that cyclists are necessarily more prone to this than are motorists. It doesn't matter to me, since reducing the likelihood of being inadvertently drifted into by utilizing the Cyclecraft methodology is just a bonus for using that method. The primary benefit is reducing the likelihood of collision at intersections (including minor intersections like driveways).

To summarize, the Cycledraft/vehicular methodology I advocate includes using a centerish default primary riding position, and using a secondary at-the-side (or in the bike lane) position only to allow faster traffic to pass when safe and reasonable to do so.

The reason I advocate this methodology is because of the benefits achieved when using it:

1. Reducing the likelihood of collision at intersections (including minor intersections like driveways).
2. Drivers generally pass me with greater passing distance.
3. Less travel time in rubble-filled bike lanes (fewer flats).
4. Fewer conflicts and "close calls" with drivers.
5. Riding in traffic is safer and feels more comfortable.
6. By drawing the attention of drivers approaching from behind by riding in their intended path, reduce the likelihood that they will choose to attend to a distraction prior to passing me, and, thus reduce the likelihood that they will inadvertently drift into me while attending to a distraction.

Other than having to learn how to use a mirror effectively, what's the downside? What are the drawbacks? Why oppose my advocacy of this methodology? Why not join me?

Brian Ratliff

Okay HH, you missed my point. Nobody is against you. In fact, I believe that many of us here are already beyond you. I and others are already looking at departures from theory, and you are still behind trying to convince people who know better that there are no departures.

I get it. VC is the best thing since sliced bread. But the core of VC is already accepted and has been since the 1970's. There is no one but newbies to convince. The basics no longer interest me. What interests me is where reality departs from theory. The difference between philosophy and dogma is that philosophy always pushes ahead. Dogma insists there is nothing more to find. But perhaps that's okay. Dogma has its uses.

So go and teach. Show newbies the ropes and how to ride in general terms. I'll not stand in your way. But I have no general interest in this because there are already innumerable references which can do an infinitely better job of teaching riding style over the internet. Of course, on a personal level I am glad to help and teach; but over the internet? Naw. Here, I look to forward the theory and philosophy of cycling with traffic.

But it's a big world. You can be dogmatic and I can be overly theoretical and the world can still benefit. You dream of a world where all cyclists act as one in teaching vehicular cycling to the world over. But it's like herding cats; it won't happen. I ride because I am naturally rebellious. I am perverse because I ride for transportation even though I know a car is more efficient in time and energy in my particular environment. I suspect that many of us on this forum are similar.

We all have our opinions and the world is a big place. We can all work together, separately. Even if all it appears that all we do is quarrel.

Helmet Head

You lost me. Where have I ever tried to convince anyone, much less "people who know better", that there are no departures from theory?

That may be your honest interpretation of what you think I'm doing, but, I assure you, if that's what you think, you're wrong. Note that if you're right, you should be able to find any number of examples of me doing this.

You claim the core of VC is already accepted and has been since the 1970's. Accepted by whom? Where?

You say the difference between philosophy and dogma is that philosophy always pushes ahead. I agree. But what you're apparently not seeing is that I am the one pushing theory/philosophy ahead here. For example, my advocacy of the Cyclecraft assertive lane positioning methodology and mirror use is relatively novel in the U.S., limited mostly to VC advocacy circles mostly. It's certainly beyond the core of EC. And I sure get a lot more opposition to my presentation of it here than I get support.

What are you doing on the internet to push philosophy ahead?

By the way, how do you decide if a particular movement in philosophy is "ahead", or behind?

Bruce Rosar

No more so than ordinary writing is all about the definitions in the English language dictionary. The Table of Contents shows that there are ten Parts in the MUTCD. The definitions of words and phrases used in the MUTCD occupy just one Section (out of fourteen) in Part One. Most of the MUTCD consists of standards and the support for those standards.

Here the travel lanes are marked, signed (by the Engineering Dept.) and swept (by the traffic).

A clean and marked segregated facility may be better in a practical sense than a dirty and unmarked segregated facility, but both are inferior to the integrated facility known as the traveled way.*

*the portion of the roadway for the movement of vehicles, exclusive of the shoulders, berms, sidewalks, and parking lanes

Brian Ratliff

Tell me, what is the practical difference between the MUPTC's "traveled way" and a clean and clear bike lane? Because, um... your quoted statement above applies to bike lanes in that they are "exculsive of shoulders, berms, sidewalks and parking lanes." Can you do this based on your own experiences without resorting to canned arguments (I can get those off a website)? In practice, do you shun this "clean and marked segregated facility" at all times (I'm not just referring to when it is obvious to shun it, such as near parked cars and such)?

Or is it just the "segregation" aspect you object to?

Brian Ratliff

You, again, have missed my point. But that's you, I suppose. I'll give it a rest.

FWIW, you get opposition because you prize theory over experience, evangelicalize and you believe you have found something novel in an idea which has even made its way in to government documents. Taking a lane, mirror use, assertiveness, left turn from left turn lane... all these are not new ideas and by no means limited to the small VC mailing lists circles you subscribe to.

In other words, it is not your ideas, but you, which people oppose.

Anyway... giving it a rest.

Bruce Rosar

Answer the question "What's the practical difference between the traveled way and a sidewalk?" and you'll have a better idea of how I'd probably answer your question.
If you're a member of a minority group (say, cyclist) and you come upon a public facility (such as a water fountain, a bathroom, a road, etc.) which is partioned just on the basis of whether or not you're a member of that group, would you shun that facility at all times?

I don't object to public water fountains, bathrooms, or roads, but I do object to the separation of a person using those facilities on a basis other than their own individual merit or performance.

sbhikes

Brian these people are so dogmatic that they will refuse to ride in a clean and clear bike lane out of principle even when it makes no difference to anyone. I even asked them, If you were to find yourself riding on one of those perfectly straight desert roads where you can see the road disappearing into a pinprick on the horizon, and there are clearly no intersections and clearly no traffic and the bike lane is generous and in perfect condition where would you ride? And the answer was that they would avoid the bike lane.

Brian Ratliff

Bruce: Okay, so it's just the segregation aspect. Just asking. The argument does not resonate with me, however, so the comparison to racial segregation is moot to me. I simply don't see how bike lanes and racial segregation meet. I mean, if I had my very own drinking fountain (just for me) which worked as well and was maintained as well as the one next to it, and I could freely move over and use the other one if someone hocked a loogie in mine, what's there to complain about? But Jim Crow was different, of course. So I don't get it.

FWIW, a sidewalk has annoying furniture and pedestrians to dodge. Also, the controls are for pedestrians and I don't get free access to the road because it is raised above grade. I'm not sure how this relates to bike lanes though. I'd still like your answer in your own words.

Helmet Head

Brian, I suggest that if you want someone to understand your point, try making it without resorting to making ridiculous statements.


If you're referring to my answer some time ago, you misunderstood.
It's not dogma, it's practicality.

I find it impractical to ride in an inconspicuous lane position off to the side when a much more conspicuous lane position is available. When the inconspicuousness of the bike lane position becomes moot (traffic approaching from behind is within a few seconds of reaching me), then I have no qualms about temporarily moving aside into the bike lane to let them pass.

But once they've passed and the inconspicuousness of the bike lane position becomes relevant again, what practical reason would I have to stay in the bike lane?

Brian Ratliff

HH: I still think you don't get it. Now you are just covering by making a non sequitur.

But now I'm just playing with ya.

noisebeam

Hey I understand and tend to ride this way, but...

In practical terms for a decent sized city, this is essentially riding to the right unless unsafe or impractical to do so. What I mean is that there is always going to be someone on my tail. The exceptions are so few it hardly makes a difference to get back into the center of the lane.

Of course riding in a more rural area centerish is more practical to do.

Al

galen_52657

All you have to do is try HH's mirror-and-positioning theory. Just try it. It's not going to turn bike-haters into bike-lovers but in my experience, it's going to buy you a little more time, a little more space and more often than not, a safer pass.

Having been a high-mileage cyclist for 19 years, I have never used a mirror until a few weeks ago. Nor, had I used a more centered lane position. I was always 2' off the edge of the road and looking back/listening for overtaking cars.

Now, I sit almost out in the middle of the lane. I can see cars way, way off. I can see cars barrelling around blind turns. If it's a narrow lane and somebody is coming the other way, I don't move over. When it's clear, I move over. The best part is, even if I somebody tries to pass when unsafe or insufficient room, since I was not hugging the road edge to begin with, I have more room to slide right as the pass is made.

Bruce Rosar

There are many forms of social discrimination besides race, such as; religion, gender, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, national origin, disability, and age.

OK, how about if the B(icyclist) only fountains were only on the right side of town, the water supply pipe was really narrow compared to the much more numerous W(hite wall) fountains, and the B(icyclist) fountains (being only on the right) didn't help you with the biggest risk that drinkers face (collisions with other drinkers where traffic between fountains crosses

The (D)BLs here sometimes have parked vehicles, garden debris, and joggers.

The MUPs (multi use paths) that are being installed instead of some sidewalks here have nice little stop signs at every road crossing.

Isn't being separated from other traffic a good thing?

(D)BLs, shoulders, sidewalks and MUPs are paths

1. which are separate from that portion of the public's way for travel by vehicle, and
2. which cyclists are often expected (in some jurisdictions, required) to use just because they're cycling

sbhikes

Does your conspicuousness increase when nobody is there to see it? What is the sound of one hand clapping? When a tree falls in the forest...When you can see 40 miles of road in front of you do you really honestly believe that you are inconspicuous anywhere?

I loaned my mirror out to somebody the other day (the one on my mountain bike.) Been riding my mirror-less mountain bike to work lately. I think I like it better without the mirror.

Helmet Head

I beg to differ... Unless you consider San Diego to not be a decent sized city?

There are two basic lane positioning methods:

1. Keep to the right unless unsafe or impractical to do so (using your words). The primary riding position is "as close as practicable to the right". The secondary position is more centerish.
2. Keep centerish except to allow faster traffic to pass when safe and reasonable to do so. The primary riding position is centerish. The secondary position is about 3 feet to the outside of passing traffic.

Of course, often times, the cyclist riding according to A is going to choose the same position as the cyclist riding according to B. But the problem with adopting A is that you are more likely to end up being in an inconspicious position unnecessarily at a critical moment.

One way to think of the difference between A and B is having a mental spring that tends to pull you into your primary/default position. Thus, the A cyclist is constantly being pulled to the side, and he has to make a conscious effort to note that conditions are such that he should be in a more centerish position temporarily. The B cyclist is opposite: for him, the centerish position is the default, and he actually has to "work" to pull aside temporarily.

To the A cyclist, because his default position is off to the side, it's easy to not notice all the long gaps that occur in traffic. They're irrelevant or insignificant, so they're missed. He ends up believing, "The exceptions are so few it hardly makes a difference to get back into the center of the lane". In these words you can almost feel the effort the A cyclist wishes to avoid in working against the A spring that keeps him at the side most of the time.

Upgrade your A spring to a B spring. Vive la difference!

Helmet Head

Bingo.

Brian Ratliff

B. Roser: First, you were the one who mentioned fountains; an example in history of racial discrimination. I'm just running with what you presented.

No, the fountains, or bike lanes as it were, are not all on one side of town; not hypothetical, it's a fact.

Yes, I am free to use the road if there are any of your parked vehicles, garden debris, or joggers. Again, a fact, not hypothetical.

Not talking about MUPs. We're talking about bike lanes. Different facility, different treatment.

Not talking about being separated from traffic; you are in a bike lane. I can cross that line just as easily as anyone, and have the right to by law and common sense. Obviously on a sidewalk, this is a bit harder.

We are back to segregation and theory. I want your answer in practical, personal terms. It is your suggestion to lump shoulders, sidewalks, MUPs in with bike lanes. This is not current practice in law or design.

So, a bunch of red herrings and non sequiturs, but nothing in practical terms. Hmm... even Helmet Head argues better than that. At least he answers directly and knows why he believes what he believes. I don't think you know quite why you oppose what you oppose. If your opposition is simply on principle, just come clean with it.

JRA

In response to Brian Ratliff:
The 'vehicular' riding style has been widely accepted since at least the 1970s by experienced bicyclists and it's still widely accepted today (although some VC-ist are seemingly doing everything they can to give the riding style a bad reputation by associating it with ridiculous social and psychological theories and counter-productive politics).

The riding style was accepted before John Forester wrote a book, incorrectly got credit for it and forever crippled it by adding his own social and psychological theories to it.

The vehicular riding style is accepted by many, including myself, who are strongly opposed to VC politics and social theory.

I've ridden successfully according to the vehicular rules of the road for decades. In your silly jargon, HH, you describe the style as, "using a centerish default primary riding position, and using a secondary at-the-side (or in the bike lane) position only to allow faster traffic to pass when safe and reasonable to do so". I've ridden that way for a long time. I even use what you once gave the absurd name of DLLP (Dynamic Lateral Lane Positioning). In plain English, I ride in the center of the lane when I can because I think it makes me more visible.

The riding style is widely accepted.

VC (the social theories and the politics) is widely ridiculed. I personally think it's absurd, especially the nonsense about 'discrimination' and 'segregation', and the fear-mongering about bike lanes as typified by this thread. VC social theories and the politics have done much to cast a bad light on the riding style (yes, it's guilt by association). That's unfortunate. I'd agree with a lot of what some vehicular cycling advocates say but, with their ridiculous rhetoric, VC advocates shoot themselves in the foot. Their credibility is damaged. I've come to the conclusion that the VC ideology is probably the worst thing that has happened to bicyclist advocacy in my lifetime.

sbhikes

C'mon, HH. La Jolla? Torrey Pines? You live in Paradise. You have no right to tell people how things should be. It's worse than me in Santa Barbara telling people how things should be.

JRA

Go Gauchos!

At least you don't live in Lemon Grove.

nova

The biggest problem with this thread is hh is atempting to make it look like the onlyy cyclists killed were in bike lanes in other threads where some one got ran down he did his best to point out they were not riding in a vc manner and had they been they would not have been hit. Not to terribly long ago a motorcyclist travling at normal trafic speeds was hit and killed from behind. I did not see the accident as it happened but i did ride by it. I can asure you from the black skid marks from his tires and other road damage caused by his big old honda with full touring kit he was dead center in the lane. You could see where the suv had smashed his rear end of his bike down so hard as to jam up the rear wheel resulting in a skid mark from his rear tire. You could also see the drag marks from the foot pegs shifter lever and other various bits of metal.

The only diffrence between a motor cycle being hit like this and a cyclist is the motor cycle will leave very obvious traces of how it was hit while the cyclist will not.

I am sure there have been cyclist killed in the very same manner as this motorcyclist. I am sure there have been cases where cyclist where hit head on when a car has cossed the doulble yellow and hit them on the shoulder the bike lane or even the side walk.

Where are these death hh? Why do you not mention these incidents? Is it because the news outlets dont pick them up? Or is it simply do to the fact they do nothing for your political views on vc?

I my self ride vc where it is safe and sensible to do so. Where it is not safe or just not make sence i ride on the extra wide shoulder (cleveland massilion road for example) I know chipom knows the shoulder i mean the dang thing is wide enough to be another trafic lane. The shoulder out beyond it is a soft shoulder. So no cutter to stop the trashetc. Its sort of self cleaning theres little in the way to stop wind so it just blows it all off.

I ride on it not because its a bike lane i ride there because in general it makes sense to do so. I can ride there and relax just watching the road ahead for any misc junk in my path and when theres a car behind me i just stick out my arm and move over.

I think the closest call i ever had there was a man leaving for his daily jog. He started to step out in to the shoulder i was fairly far over to the right. He saw me and said woops heya as he back up and i moved over. I missed hittign him by a good 3 to 4 foot and still had a couple feet to my left.

So why in hell would i not ride there? I have great line of sight cars have the same. Its generaly pretty free of trash glass and other hazards.

To me its far less sensible to take the lane and slow down the 45mph trafic there. Drivers simply expect cyclist to be there same for center road same for hametown road. These roads are some of the best and most fun to ride. Portage street is damn busy some times and is a huge hill to boot. Guess what i do there? I ride centerish in the lane. Its sensible to do so. Going down that hill im at or near trafic speed (45mph speed limit) going down hill i hit 35 to 40 with out much effort.

Going up it i take the lan because its fairly curvy lots of semi blind corners. Being in the centerish postion makes me more visable. Cars expect cyclist to be on this road. Its a chalenging climb and dolystown is a nice little town to ride in nice views and fairly well kept roads.

Heres a gmap link you might beable to make out the shoulder on cleve mass

follow the mini route i created. The skinny road is a normal width road the extra wide one is south cleve mass

https://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=171587.

All told its about 70% or so wider than a standard road.

Helmet Head

The biggest problem with your post, nova, is it starts with an absurd premise.

Bruce Rosar

I didn't mean for anyone to take the analogy quite that literally.

Another point of view:

• (D)BL - a path just for cyclists that's within the right-of-way, but to the side of the traveled way
• MUP - a path for cyclists that's within the right-of-way, but to the side of the traveled way

Those who are in a (D)BL are in a portion of the roadway (or shoulder) for use by bicyclists.
Those who are in the Traveled Way are in the portion of the roadway for the movement of vehicles.
Those two portions are separate.

Maybe not so much. Quoting from MUTCD Section 3B.04, White Lane Line Pavement Markings:Which type of "common sense" are we discussing? As defined
"Common Sense is sound judgment not based on specialized knowledge; native good judgment."
or as observed?
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." - Albert Einstein (1879-1955), quoted in "Mathematics, Queen and Servant of the Sciences", E.T. Bell, 1952

But more separation is good, right?

I'm pretty sure I never suggested lumping.
The bad news is that what we do in the the present is imperfect. The good news is that what we do in the future can be improved.

I oppose segregated public facilities on principle (ah, I feel much cleaner now

JRA

I oppose propaganda and the intentional misrepresentation of reality on principle. Play all the word games you want. You discredit yourself. Your use of the pejorative word 'segregation' is ridiculous. If you want to waste whatever credibility you may have by insisting on using it when it is not appropriate, that's your choice. The implied analogy is obviously for propaganda purposes only. I oppose it on principle.

Make whatever ridiculous analogies you want but don't whine later that your message is being misunderstood. You've made it quite clear on this and other threads that you think a patently absurd analogy is somehow valid. You don't want to be confused by reason or reality.

Hopefully I've made it clear why I have lost the respect I once had for you and your website.


Me, too.