By the way, you've claimed before that VC was defined in your book.
Originally Posted by RobertHurst
There is no clear definition of VC in your book. Not on p. 61 onward. Not in the introduction. There is nothing in your book that would allow anyone to complete the following sentence:
Originally Posted by RobertHurst
Robert's definition of vehicular-cycling is _____________________.
You write about VC as if the definition is obvious, but you never actually define it.
You do write vague stuff like this tidbit from p. 61, in a chapter entitled "vehicular cycling": "Just by obeying traditional traffic-law principles and riding predictably, a bicyclist will eliminate a large portion of the danger of urban cycling". From that one might infer that you define vc as "obeying traditional traffic-law principles and riding predictably", but you're not clear on it. Again, allow me to contrast your misrepresentation of VC with the fair approach of Forester critic Jeffrey Hiles, who actually quotes those he critiques:
Originally Posted by Hiles quoting Forester
There is not a hint in your book about the fact that there is much more to VC than only obeying the traffic laws. In fact, you constantly make comments that reflect your apparent interpretion (though you never clearly define it) of VC to mean strict adherence to the letter of the law, period, like in this excerpt from p. 62:
That Forester, Goodridge, Galen, Joejack, Daily Commute, Al or I or any other "vocal proponents of vehicular-cycling dogma" are not above using a bike path is evidence of how vehicular cycling is a failure? How so? You don't explain it, apparently assuming it's obvious. Hint: it's not, again, primarily stemming from the fact that you never clearly defined what you meant by VC in the first place, and the definition you imply is not consistent with any that I recognize as used by any VC proponents, or even by Forester critics such as Hiles.
Evidence of this failure [with the VC principle] is provided in the fact that few experienced cyclists, even those who are vocal proponents of vehicular-cycling dogma [thank you very little for that slam], apply it consistently in their everyday travels. Instead, they use it whenever it suits their purpose and discard it when doesn't. They're not very above using an off-street bike path if it's headed in the right direction.
I've never seen a red light treated like a yield sign (except for right turns) by a vehicular cyclist. What is your source for this (most if not all of the basis for your opinion about vehicular cyclists and vehicular cycling is conspicuously and unprofessionally unsourced). Other than that, basically you're saying that vehicular cyclists acting like typical drivers of motorcycles indicates that VC has "big problems" (your words, top of p. 62). How is that nonvehicular? How is that a failure?
They roll through stop signs, treat red lights like yield signs, and filter past lines of stopped cars in traffic jams and at intersections. Not very vehicular of them.
On p. 62 there is also some fantastic gibberish about what you call "neo-vehicularlists", but still nothing that makes it clear what you believe vehicular cycling to mean, except whatever it is, you have have great disdain for it.
There is another very revealing comment on p. 63:
The number of errors in those few dozen words are astounding. Among the most blatant:
Originally Posted by Robert Hurst
- For most practical purposes, cyclists have been granted equal rights to drivers of vehicles, subject to the same or very similar restrictions as are all drivers of slow moving vehicles (i.e., equal), in all 50 states. There is room for improvement, of course, but basically one can practice VC just about anywhere in the U.S. today.
- There were no "hopes" for respect: it was recognized that the respect was already there from the start (as it still is). In EC on p. 300 Forester writes: "The basic thesis for all traffic cycling is this: If you make the motorist believe you are a vehicle, the motorist will treat you correctly without thinking about it, but if you get the motorist thinking you are different you will be subjected to the motorist's version of your rights. This is also true of traffic engineers and bicycle advocates who emphasize the difference between motorists and cyclists. Those people are more dangerous than the rare maniacs who try to run you off the road."
Indeed, the people that emphasize the difference between motorists and cyclists were more dangerous than the rare maniacs decades ago, and they still are in this millenium. It's very sad that you and your fans apparently do not recognize this.
- The contention that "vehicular-cycling ideologues" hoped to be able to cruise in front of cars and trucks - without any qualification for appropriateness of situation to do so - is yet another indication of how much you misunderstand VC. The basic VC riding position - when faster same direction is present, between intersections, the lane is wide enough to be safely shared, and it is safe and reasonable to do so - is "about 3 feet to the right of passing traffic". Always was, always will be. The ability to take the lane in all other conditions has always been there, and still is. Are you not aware of any of this? If you are aware of all of it, then why make these silly statements in your book?
- I don't know of any "VC idealogue", including Forester, a champion of useful bike paths, who ever hoped "the whole concept of separate facilities would wither and die from lack of usefulness". Again, this claim about vehicular cyclists is unsourced. One can only assume you made it up as you were typing, perhaps trying to meet the publisher's deadline?
- America already was as close to a VC utopia 25 years ago as one could reasonably hope for, and it still is today. That's the point! Sure, there are too many potholes, and some signal detectors don't detect us, a few laws in a few states are unfair to cyclists, and now and then someone honks, but the difference between reality 25 years ago, reality today, and a "VC utopia" is, for all practical purposes, marginal at most.
The "dream" that you say failed to materialize, was never a dream. It was recognition of reality. Here then, here today. The only issue is whether it will still be here tomorrow.