noisebeam

I have 'taught' several friends and my wife to ride vehiculary with only a few tips/ideas, the rest they caught on with as they flow naturally once the concept is practiced. As randya gets at, one fundamental beyond same rights, same rules, is destination positioning. Other key concepts are predictability, communication of intent/desire and negotiation with other road users.

I still think you are missing the differnece between arguing on the net about the nuances and nitpicks about bike lanes, VC, etc. vs. real world teaching about how to ride vehicularly. Have you taken a class that teaches vehicular cycling?

Al

genec

Well engineers have never been known for their marketing, social skills or tact. Frankly I thought Effective Cycling read quite a bit like a tech manual... that latter reason was why I recommended Hurst's book over Forester's for some coworkers that wanted a bit more on cycling.

joejack951

You said: "Therefore, VC advocates must accept and learn to deal with the fact that most people experience motorist harassment and genuinely fear riding on busy roads."

My logic goes like this: Anti-VC people want bike lanes. VC people would rather the space that would be marked off by a bike lane be left without markings. If an anti-VC person fears riding on a road it's usually because the road doesn't have a bike lane or a shareable outside lane. When either of these exists, motorist harassment is not an issue because motorists can pass the cyclist without having to slow down. You are saying that anti-VC people do not accept VC advocates message because people fear motorist harassment and busy roads, so I conclude that you think the VC message is to ride in front of traffic all the time on busy roads, which one would have to do if a bike lane or wide outside lane did not exist. If the bike lane or wide outside lane existed, the harassment would not be occurring.

Does it make sense how I went from what you said to my conclusion? If I went wrong somewhere, then I'd like to know where.

Of course they do, because most cyclists try to ride out of the way on roads where riding out of the way or at places where riding out of the way is not possible, such as narrow lane roads and at intersections. The VC message is to ride like you are supposed to be in the way and be comfortable with being in the way and the harassment will go down. Part of getting acceptance from motorists is destroying the notion that cyclists should always be at the side of the road, a notion which is reinforced by bike lane striping.

No one denies that motorist harassment can be a problem. THe VC message is that riding like you belong on the road will greatly decrease the amount of harassment one sees, to the point where it becomes a non-issue. That anti-VC people refuse to accept this does not mean that VC's deny that harassment is an issue.

Most criticizers of the VC message have only read what has been posted on these forums, and sometimes that is stretching it. Have you read any of the books dealing with VC? If not, how can you truly criticize how the message is being presented?

rando

because how you and others present the message on this website is how we unwashed masses get to learn about VC, you dimwit.

Bekologist

A big flaw of VC'ist camp is the adamant refusal to get with the program of integrated bike infrastructure that is being built up in cities around the country.

Cities are adding bike infrastructure. cyclist numbers are increasing. what do the Foresterites do in my city? fight the accomodation plans, talk to radio shock jockeys about mandatory bicycle liscensing.

VC'ists do the rest of the bicycling community a grave disservice by acting as obstructionist loggerheads that can't handle bike infrastructure and riding on it appropriately.


COPE, foresterites. stop being obstructionists.

joejack951

Have you read the Wikipedia article? Do you disagree with what's written there?

skanking biker

Whoa-----that is some circular reasoning.

To clarify:

1. when I said "VC advocates must accept and learn to deal with the fact that most people experience motorist harassment and genuinely fear riding on busy roads"----I meant that VC advocates have to accept that most people DO have a fear of riding in traffic (whether justifiable or not) when trying to persuade people. Most people have never heard of "VC" or "anti-VC" as you put it. Most "non-cyclists" could care less what you label it---they beleive or feel that riding as traffic in the road is dangerous. I am not saying you have to "accept" this fear in terms of recognizing its validity. I certainly don't. What you must accept is the fact that most average Joe's DO have this fear and that attitude must be taken into account when presenting your position---I.O.W. "Know your audience". In other words, given that people have this fear, are you more likely to persuade them by calling them names ("non-cyclists" suffering from "cyclist ineriority syndrome") or by explaining them that their fear can be overcome and that riding vehicularly doesn't have to evoke fear.

2. My post was not intended to address the SUBSTANCE of VC doctrine, only the manner in which it was presented. Nevertheless, I would be remiss if I did not mention that I vehemently disagree with the following statement: "riding like you belong on the road will greatly decrease the amount of harassment one sees, to the point where it becomes a non-issue."

This proposition results in the fallacious conclusion that if one expereinces harrassment, one is not riding correctly. In my experience, and that of most people with whom I converse---including those on this forum---riding like you belong on the road does NOT--in and of itself--decrease harrassment; in fact, in many instances, depending on the road in question (such as roads with one lane in each direction sans wide shoulder or bike lane) riding like you belong on the road INCREASES harrassment. In other words, while "riding like you belong on the road" may in some instances decrease harrassment it is not SUFFICIENT to eliminate harrassment as you postulate.

None of this means that I necessarily disagree with the mechanics of VC riding; whether one SHOULD ride vehicularly is a completely different issue from whether doing so will produce a given result--in this case, decreased motorist harassment.

zeytoun

Good point.

Every one's experience is different.

HH says that he gets almost no harrassment from motorists.

JoeJack has said that he gets more harrassment when riding vc on a bike-laned road then not.

I seldom get harrassment, and have found no correlation to my riding style or the presence of bike lanes.

-----

I am happy to take HH and JoeJack at their word re: their individual experiences.

However, while a cyclist is usually best able to change their own behavior, this does not mean that changing their own behavior is necessarily a cure-all. It might be a cure-a-lot.

This is a sacred cow of some people. The idea that VC is a cure-all. Now someone might say that they don't think this is a cure-all, and maybe they don't consciously....

But if a person chooses to resort to diagnosing people with psychological disorders, questions a person's individual experience unrelentlessly, or makes claims of "no exceptions" to this rule, rather then to admit that the scenario might be an example of behavior not cured by VC, then you have your sacred cow.....

joejack951

The cyclist inferiority syndrome was a way of explaining why it is so common in the US to have the attitude that cycling is dangerous. How else do you propose to explain how the vast majority of people in the US feel that it is too dangerous to cycle on the roads when the reality is that it is not dangerous at all? I believe that you are oversimplifying the problem if you want to dance around this issue. This fear, first and foremost, needs to be addressed before any of the VC principles can be accepted. If you have a gentler way of putting it, I'd like to hear it. I think that "cyclist inferiority" gets right to the heart of the issue though. But I also like things straightforward.

In my experience, when riding on roads sans bike lane/shoulder, I receive vastly better treatment (little to no harassment or mistreatment like close passing) when riding like I belong on the road versus riding off to the side as if I don't really belong in the traffic lane. Note that I included mistreatment (non-audible harassment) this time (and I should have before as well but forgot to) because to me, close passing is another form of harassment and one that can actually cause harm to a cyclist such as if the close pass is misjudged, unlike a mistimed yell out a window which has no physical effect. There have been times where I could have chosen to accept multiple close passes or similar mistreatment by motorists (but no audible harassment) but instead elected to ride like I belong and had to put up with a small amount of audible harassment for it. If this is where anti-VC's get off saying that VC increases harassment, then they are not looking at the bigger picture.

Also, I never did say that VC riding will eliminate harassment. In my experience, it has removed so much of the harassment and mistreatment that the harassment and mistreatment I recieve is a non-issue, meaning I don't end each ride frustrated with the treatment I received on the road. Some of that is mentally not caring about a honk here and there but the rest is from adjusting how I ride and the resulting better treatment from that.

sgtsmile

But which?

randya

of what?

randya

A lot of us have tried to say this and the message simply falls on deaf ears.

randya

more of that VC 'philosophy' that hurts you so bad...all of your perceived 'enemies' are 'anti-motorist'. it's so convenient to label people thusly, then you can just dismiss them out-of-hand.

Helmet Head

We know that's what you're trying to say.
The question is, how does one say something controversial that challenges sacred cows without appearing to be, well, the way that we are, and without having the effect that we have?

genec

Easy to explain why "the vast majority of people in the US feel that it is too dangerous to cycle on the roads..." Most of this vast majority are also drivers and realize how poorly they actually drive... thus they feel that anyone wanting to get on the road when they are driving, without the protection of bumpers, seatbelts, side impact and airbags, must be insane.

If drivers felt better about their own skills and those motoring around them and the fact that autos are filled with "safety features," perhaps the motoring public wouldn't have a bad feeling about "naked" users of the road.

skanking biker

Well..... when I am on my way to work and have a big yellow Hummer come up behind me, lay on his horn, and nearly clip me while passing me and gunning his engine---I consider that harassment.


Does the fact that I feared for my safety when this occurred (despite riding in the "right tire groove") make me "incompetent," a "non-cyclist" or a victim of "cyclist inferiority syndrome."?

Helmet Head

I think that's a big part of it.

A related part is that because bicyclists are less visible and more exposed than cagers and yet still "out there", the impression is that we're putting an extra load on the responsibility of motorists to avoid hitting us, and they resent us for that.

However, I think that's largely a delusion. The fact is motorcyclists are not much more visible and just about as exposed (if not more) than are bicyclists, but the resentment is really not there. Motorcyclists are most notably resented only when they take advantage of their narrowness to pass slow or stopped car traffic, which has nothing to do with their low visibility and cagelessness. So I believe the real resentment of bicyclists is all about us getting in the way and slowing motorists down, whether they realize it or not.

skanking biker

I do not disagree with the above quote .

Oodly enough I was having a discussion that somewhat pertains to this with a co-worker over the lunch hour. I mentioned I was considering purchasing a scooter for those days when i couldnt ride my bike in. My co-worker told me that she thought "scooters are dangerous because they are not as big as cars, people don't watch for them, and there is no protection---they shouldn't be allowed on any road where the speed limit is above 25 mph." I then asked if she felt the same way about motorcycles. She said "no---a motorcycle is big enough and loud enough that you hear it coming, although I still don't like them on the roads because there is nothing to protect them if they get hit. I then asked how she felt about bicyclists on the road. She responded that it is OK if a group of club cyclists are on the road because you can see them but that people should not ride on the roads by themselves. I responded, so you don't approve of me riding my bike into work. She said "no. I don't. I think you are nuts. Its just a matter of time before someone hits you because they can't see you or because you are slowing them down too much."

When I informed her I always ride with a green ansi vest and plenty of lights she said--"well, even if you can be seen you are still stopping people from getting where they have to go and getting in their way. I responded, "why are you worried about being slowed down when most of the roads here arw 25-35 mph and most people live 15 minutes from where they work? Am I really slowing you down because you get to the stoplight a couple seconds behind me."

The debate ensued and got pretty contentious until she finally yelled: " I don't care what the law says, people don't want to think when they are coming home from work and watch out for people like you."

I said: "thank you" and walked away


The reason I mention this is because this person's views confirm HH's view that at least for some motorists, cyclist resentment is premised on the fact they actually have to pay attention to what they are doing and not simple "zone out" on their way to work. However, it also demonstrates that for some motorists, it doesn't matter HOW you ride in the road, they object to your presence there altogether. If this woman came up behind me on my way to work, it wouldnt matter whether I was riding in the middle of the road, the right tire line or all the way over. She doesn't want me there and I would have gotten honked at and aggressively passed no matter what.

Now, I understand that one piece of ancedotal evidence doesn't "prove" anything, but it at least for me confirms that my opinions have some basis in fact.

joejack951

I would consider it harassment too. The nearly clipped part is subjective though (please don't think I'm saying you are lying about being nearly clipped). Those who are not used to the feeling of a motor vehicle passing them a few feet away might get really freaked out by it the first time, especially if it's a big vehicle. I would call those who feel fearful getting passed at the same distances that are common amongst motorists to be unskilled or inexperienced or even incompetent. Assuming you were nearly clipped, I'd say that you found one of the few true a$$holes on the road who isn't used to having to slow down for a cyclist and took out his childish anger on you. The guy in the Hummer believes that you are inferior to him (either because you are too slow or too unsafe or both) thus, for lack of a better term, makes you a victim of cyclist inferiority syndrome.

Of all the things you could do about it, harping about that one passing experience, when surely you had plenty more that were uneventful (or maybe even all of the rest were uneventful), is the last thing I'd recommend doing.

joejack951

Huh? You made an anti-motorist comment and I commented that I don't think that has anything to do with the subject beign discussed. I've never labeled all bike lane advocates anti-motorist. I seriously doubt that's true given how rare anti-motorist feelings are (look at how many motorists there are in the US) and how widely supported bike lanes are.

randya

for the third and last time:

randya

of course the motorists realize it and so do most of us. you seem to one of the only ones that doesn't...

Helmet Head

Yes, that's what I'm talking about.

To be fair, most people don't have much of a clue about why they believe what they believe about anything. Whether it's religious, political or moral, most cannot answer questions about their beliefs in those areas to any reasonably satisfactory degree. Most inherit their views by osmosis, largely uncritically, from parents, friends and the rest of the culture around them. Views on cycling, bike lanes, etc. are no different.

Someone who actually drills down in his or her beliefs to actually identify the reasons that underlie them, and questions those reasons, much less analyzes them critically for integrity with his other beliefs, is quite rare. I haven't read Gore's new book yet, The Assault on Reason, but I suspect his thesis is related to mine.

Helmet Head

I read that book many years ago.
I don't see how it applies in the area of discussing and persuading others in the arena of ideas and sacred cows.

noisebeam

(I only post this as it is similar to the Hummer example above)

This is an example of a driver who intentionally merged from inside lane into outside lane which I was in just to harrass me, I watched her merge in my mirror and swerved right as she did:
youtube OOvTU4VpZuY - Honk Pass
This was the 2nd of three times this exact same driver has harrassed me within the same 1mi stretch of road. That is why I know it was harassment vs. not seeing me before they merged.

Here is the first time, five days earlier. She honked at me as I was in line in a RTOL, after we turned she yelled something unintelligible, I then yelled back.
youtube nGuZOpEou1s - RTOL honk

The third time happened about 3 days after the 2nd incident, honking and yelling as she closed passed, similar to the 2nd time. Video was down at the time.

Note: Yes I was cycling vehiculary (or semi-vc), but this is a singular example, not a pattern due to one type of cycling or another. I have also received harrassesment (of the yelling type) while riding in BLs.

Al