Cycling and bicycle discussion forums. 
   Click here to join our community Log in to access your Control Panel  


Go Back   > > >

Vehicular Cycling (VC) No other subject has polarized the A&S members like VC has. Here's a place to share, debate, and educate.

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-31-07, 11:01 AM   #176
genec
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Posts: 24,776
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 460 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
"The best way for cyclists to conserve their already outstanding privileges is not to lobby for new bike paths, ..." - Robert Hurst
That is a bit different from the diatribe of some here that have decried bike lanes "past, present and future."
genec is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-07, 11:04 AM   #177
joejack951
Senior Member
 
joejack951's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Wilmington, DE
Bikes: 1984 Trek 660, 2003 Specialized Hardrock, 2004 LOOK KG386i (RIP), 2005 Iron Horse Warrior Expert, 2009 Pedal Force CX1, 2014 Islabikes CNOC 14 (son's)
Posts: 10,189
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 189 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by zeytoun
Bekologist isn't talking about bike paths. He already pointed this out.
Bike lanes are one step closer to sidepaths.
joejack951 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-07, 11:04 AM   #178
rando
Senior Member
 
rando's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tempe, AZ
Bikes:
Posts: 2,967
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
flaws of forester/HH brand VC:
inflexibility (cyclists fare best when they...)
anti-Bike lane
Cyclist inferiority
can put cyclists in danger (crossing multi-laned high speed traffic lanes)

any more?
rando is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-07, 11:07 AM   #179
Helmet Head
Banned.
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Bikes:
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Well, if you read the Hurst chapter, it's clear he means don't lobby for bike lanes as well as bike paths when he says not to lobby for bike paths. It's just clunky to write bike paths and bike lanes every time, and he apparently did not want to introduce the term bikeway to mean both. Remember, he's writing this in the context of arguing that right now we have the best of both worlds, that the goal of traffic engineers is to get bikes out of the way of motorists, and we don't want to rock the boat. This is also in the context of the "insidiousness of bike facilities" and the "psychological implications".
Helmet Head is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-07, 11:09 AM   #180
sbhikes
Dominatrikes
Thread Starter
 
sbhikes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Still in Santa Barbara
Bikes: Catrike Pocket, Lightning Thunderbold recumbent, Trek 3000 MTB.
Posts: 4,920
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I will repeat myself:

If VC is so good, the practice of it will automatically reduce the requests for "bikeways". Therefore you don't need to toss the anti-bike lane stuff, the cyclist inferiority and all that stuff in there. The bike lane argument will take care of itself if you simply teach people how to ride vehicularly.

It's like a meta-ignore of the bike lane stripe.
sbhikes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-07, 11:10 AM   #181
Ginny
Down 10# and 11 inches
 
Ginny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Denver-ish
Bikes: Jamis, Specialized, CoMotion
Posts: 224
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
uhm, I know I'll get eaten alive for this, but what about different laws for the roads instead of new bike paths (which I love when I can find them)?
What about making the laws better for the slower moving vehicles?
Using the same roads we have, without extra money to widen lanes, add bike lanes, or anything else.
If there are two lanes in the same direction, the right lane is for bikes and other slow moving vehicles. Cars can drive in them but when they see a bike/slow vehicle THEY must merge left. No sliding by taking up half the lane, no squeezing by. Gotta move completely into the left lane. Bikes can take the whole right lane because it's THEIR lane. This, all by itself, would make biking on a busy road safer. There aren't THAT many bikes on the road really, so cars wouldn't have to merge THAT many times. The number of potholes in Denver right now make riding anywhere but dead middle of the lane more dangerous. Especially on my commute.
If the road is one lane each direction, the cars must give the bike at least three feet of space when passing. If the bike is taking the lane, the car must slow and wait patiently until the bike gives a signal that it is moving over to the right. The car then waits until the bike is over before passing SLOWLY.
Honking at a bike for any reason except a demonstrable emergency would be ticketable offense.
If car and bike are going in the same direction on a one lane each direction road and the bike is going speed limit (actual posted limit, which I know some of you can do pretty well) then car may not pass bike and bike may take the lane. If the bike needs to slow, it would then move to the right and slow down.

Doesn't it make more sense to give the slower moving 'vehicles' more rights? Wouldn't that make more people want to take up the sport? I know most of the people I talk to would never commute to work or ride on the roads because the laws aren't in our favor.
Am I dreaming?
Be gentle. . .
Ginny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-07, 11:14 AM   #182
Helmet Head
Banned.
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Bikes:
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rando
flaws of forester/HH brand VC:
inflexibility (cyclists fare best when they...)
anti-Bike lane
Cyclist inferiority
can put cyclists in danger (crossing multi-laned high speed traffic lanes)

any more?
How is "cyclists fare best when they act as vehicle drivers" inflexible?
Is "drivers fare best when they follow the rules of the road" inflexible too?
How about "pedestrians fare best when they look both ways before crossing a street". Inflexible too?

How is being anti-Bike Lane a flaw of the VC brand. The underlying arguments are understood and supported in the cycling community outside of VC circles too. For example:

"The best way for cyclists to conserve their already outstanding privileges is not to lobby for new bike paths, ..." - Robert Hurst

Cyclist inferiority is a flaw of VC? Huh?

Merging to make a left turn is dangerous? Not if you know what you're doing.
Helmet Head is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-07, 11:17 AM   #183
Helmet Head
Banned.
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Bikes:
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sbhikes
I will repeat myself:

If VC is so good, the practice of it will automatically reduce the requests for "bikeways". Therefore you don't need to toss the anti-bike lane stuff, the cyclist inferiority and all that stuff in there. The bike lane argument will take care of itself if you simply teach people how to ride vehicularly.

It's like a meta-ignore of the bike lane stripe.
Yes, I know Diane. Coincidentally, this is the approach of Lauren Cooper, a female VC advocate, and many other VC advocates. There may be something to it. But how do we get someone like Bek who thinks he understands VC to stop lobbying for bike lanes and paths?

"The best way for cyclists to conserve their already outstanding privileges is not to lobby for new bike paths, ..." - Robert Hurst
Helmet Head is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-07, 11:20 AM   #184
Bekologist
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Posts: 18,025
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
you won't get me, a vehicular cyclist, from lobbying for greater infrastructure that benefits bicyclists of all ride and stripe. even foresterites ride in bike lanes.

I see the wild fallacy inherent in demands that all bicyclists need to do is act vehicularily.


I'm for increasing bicycling in communities, and adknowledge that bike specific infrastructure has an indispensible part in increasing ridership.
Bekologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-07, 11:26 AM   #185
Helmet Head
Banned.
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Bikes:
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bekologist
you won't get me, a vehicular cyclist, from lobbying for greater infrastructure that benefits bicyclists of all ride and stripe. even foresterites ride in bike lanes.

I see the wild fallacy inherent in demands that all bicyclists need to do is act vehicularily.


I'm for increasing bicycling in communities, and adknowledge that bike specific infrastructure has an indispensible part in increasing ridership.
Logic and reason has no effect on a jihadist.

"The best way for cyclists to conserve their already outstanding privileges is not to lobby for new bike paths, ..." - Robert Hurst
Helmet Head is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-07, 11:28 AM   #186
Bekologist
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Posts: 18,025
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
huh? I'm a jihadist?

I believe 'zealot' has been self-ascribed to yourself, weekend rider.
Bekologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-07, 11:34 AM   #187
joejack951
Senior Member
 
joejack951's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Wilmington, DE
Bikes: 1984 Trek 660, 2003 Specialized Hardrock, 2004 LOOK KG386i (RIP), 2005 Iron Horse Warrior Expert, 2009 Pedal Force CX1, 2014 Islabikes CNOC 14 (son's)
Posts: 10,189
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 189 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ginny
uhm, I know I'll get eaten alive for this, but what about different laws for the roads instead of new bike paths (which I love when I can find them)?
What about making the laws better for the slower moving vehicles?
Using the same roads we have, without extra money to widen lanes, add bike lanes, or anything else.
If there are two lanes in the same direction, the right lane is for bikes and other slow moving vehicles. Cars can drive in them but when they see a bike/slow vehicle THEY must merge left. No sliding by taking up half the lane, no squeezing by. Gotta move completely into the left lane. Bikes can take the whole right lane because it's THEIR lane. This, all by itself, would make biking on a busy road safer. There aren't THAT many bikes on the road really, so cars wouldn't have to merge THAT many times. The number of potholes in Denver right now make riding anywhere but dead middle of the lane more dangerous. Especially on my commute.
Depending on which state you live in, your state's laws probably already grant you full use of the right hand lane (assuming normal, narrow width) regardless of the presence of a shoulder when there are two lanes in each direction. DE, PA, and NJ all do. Too bad most cyclists don't know or agree with this.
joejack951 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-07, 11:44 AM   #188
RobertHurst
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Denver
Bikes:
Posts: 1,621
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
Logic and reason has no effect on a jihadist.

"The best way for cyclists to conserve their already outstanding privileges is not to lobby for new bike paths, ..." - Robert Hurst
"...but to continue riding the streets in a manner that is smooth, quiet and cooperative."

Robert
RobertHurst is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-07, 11:48 AM   #189
Bekologist
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Posts: 18,025
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
head, i see no inherent discrepancies between riding on the streets in a cooperative manner and riding on streets with bike facilities that are well designed and maintained for bicyclists.

riding in a bike lane and vehicular bicycling are not mutually exclusive, mr. head. vehicular cyclists can advocate for greater bike infrastructure in their communities.
Bekologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-07, 11:49 AM   #190
Helmet Head
Banned.
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Bikes:
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertHurst
"...but to continue riding the streets in a manner that is smooth, quiet and cooperative."

Robert
Right. I included that, and commented on it, in post #166.

While you're here, just to confirm, when you wrote

"The best way for cyclists to conserve their already outstanding privileges is not to lobby for new bike paths, ..."

Did you intend for it to apply to only bike paths, or did you mean for this to apply to all segregated cycle facilities (including bike lanes)?
Helmet Head is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-07, 11:51 AM   #191
Bekologist
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Posts: 18,025
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
good lord, a wiki link to segregationist prattle!

I'll say it again, in case you have forgotten, head-

riding in a bike lane and vehicular bicycling are not mutually exclusive.
Bekologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-07, 11:52 AM   #192
Helmet Head
Banned.
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Bikes:
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bekologist
head, i see no inherent discrepancies between riding on the streets in a cooperative manner and riding on streets with bike facilities that are well designed and maintained for bicyclists.

riding in a bike lane and vehicular bicycling are not mutually exclusive, mr. head.
I agree so far.

Quote:
vehicular cyclists can advocate for greater bike infrastructure in their communities.
I agree with that too. But, cycling advocates should not advocate for new bike facilities for the reasons Robert provides in his book. See post #166 for a summary.
Helmet Head is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-07, 11:56 AM   #193
noisebeam
Al
 
noisebeam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: AZ
Bikes: Cannondale SuperSix, Lemond Poprad. Retired: Jamis Sputnik, Centurion LeMans Fixed, Diamond Back ascent ex
Posts: 14,111
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 140 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bekologist
head, i see no inherent discrepancies between riding on the streets in a cooperative manner and riding on streets with bike facilities that are well designed and maintained for bicyclists.
Do you think other drivers view me as being cooperative when I leave the bike lanes when approaching intersections?
Do you think they view me as being cooperative when I ride on the bike lane stripe because the BL has substanial debris that accumulates faster than 2wk sweeping schedule (such as scattered with 1/2" landscaping rocks that routinely get kicked in lane by bored folks at the bus stop?)
Do you think they view me as cooperative when I ride outside the BL because I am traveling at 25mph and want to stay at least 4-5' from curb?

Al
noisebeam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-07, 11:58 AM   #194
Bekologist
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Posts: 18,025
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
what the HECK allows you to make that fallacious jump in logic, that cycling advocates shouldn't advocate for new bike facilites?

you clearly are out of touch in your internet fantasy bicycling world, head.
Bekologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-07, 12:25 PM   #195
Helmet Head
Banned.
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Bikes:
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bekologist
what the HECK allows you to make that fallacious jump in logic, that cycling advocates shouldn't advocate for new bike facilites?
What part of see post #166 for the reasons Robert Hurst provides for this do you not understand?

Quote:
you clearly are out of touch in your internet fantasy bicycling world, head.
Prove to us that you actually think about the basis for your opinions, Bek, by at least addressing Robert's argument, if you don't care to address mine.
Helmet Head is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-07, 12:26 PM   #196
Laika
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Bikes:
Posts: 3,945
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Continuing to post a quote simply doesn't make it so.
Laika is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-07, 12:28 PM   #197
Bekologist
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Posts: 18,025
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
head, my rebuttal is in post #168.

robert hurst rightfully describes the use of bike PATHS as being anti-vehicular. and true, dat.

a big flaw of VCists is wrongfully purporting vehicular bicycling and bike lanes as mutually exclusive.
Bekologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-07, 12:50 PM   #198
randya
Senior Member
 
randya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: in bed with your mom
Bikes: who cares?
Posts: 13,689
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
notice that this thread has gotten derailed like all the others in this subforum and that Serge and the Foresterologists have no real response to the OP, which is that the Foresterologists simply don't know how to package and market their product effectively, which results in consumers not buying it.

Last edited by randya; 05-31-07 at 12:59 PM.
randya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-07, 12:55 PM   #199
John Forester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bekologist
head, my rebuttal is in post #168.

robert hurst rightfully describes the use of bike PATHS as being anti-vehicular. and true, dat.

a big flaw of VCists is wrongfully purporting vehicular bicycling and bike lanes as mutually exclusive.
One more unsupported claim by Bekologist. Bekologist, you should provide support for your claims. What is it?
John Forester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-07, 01:09 PM   #200
John Forester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by randya
notice that this thread has gotten derailed like all the others in this subforum and that serge and the Foresterologists have no real response to the OP, which is that the Foresterologists simply don't know how to package and market their product, which results in consumers not buying it.
That is simply not correct. Your assumption is that any product can be packaged and marketed so that consumers will buy it. No marketing professional will support that hypothesis. The product itself must provide some perceived value to the consumer before the packaging and marketing can do their work.

It is correct that we vehicular cyclists have not had what you call marketing success, but consider the situation. America has had a history of more than sixty years of opposition to vehicular cycling. America is a nation in which there is not much use for bicycle transportation. American governments have for thirty five years operated a bikeway program that is opposed to vehicular cycling. American environmentally-inded bicycle activists have for thirty years opposed vehicular cycling by frantically advocating that bikeway system.

I suggest, randya, that you admit, even boast, of the success of you and your associates in preventing vehicular cycling from being accepted by the public.
John Forester is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:16 PM.