VC = Vigilant Cycling
 

We've talked about the relationship between vigilance and VC (obeying the rules) before.

I don't want to take this thread up in A&S off topic, so I'm starting this one, but if you read the OP you'll find an excellent example of how paying attention is often required in order to be able to consistently obey the rules of the road. In this case, these guys were not paying attention, and, so, were not able to notice a stop sign in time to stop for it.

The point here is to counter Robert Hurst's criticism of EC/VC that we don't emphasize vigilance. The reason for that is that vigilance is inherent in obeying the rules of the road: if you're not paying careful attention for potential hazards, you cannot consistently obey the rules.

VC may stand for Vigilant Cycling as well as for Vehicular Cycling.

Other things that VC can stand for

Value-Added Cycling for those that think in business terms
Vehement Cycling for those that are full of zeal for their technique
Verbal Cycling for those that just talk about cycling on the internet
Vestigial Cycling for those that consider the fine points of the technique a superfluous carry-over from former times

Vegan Cycling-- for those who don't consume animal products

Verboten Cycling-- for those who want to feel like a rebel

Varmint Cycling-- for those who like to ride with possums and such

vagabond Cycling-- kind of like touring, but you make a lifestyle out of it.

Vivaldi Cycling-- while listening to "The Four Seasons"

Vermicelli Cycling-- Cycling and eating Pasta at the same time

Venture Capitalist.

Vicious cycling, like the way these arguments go 'round...

Vain Cycling ;)

Nice double entendre :)

By the way, Casque Tete, it appears you are using "paying attention" and "vigilance" interchangeably in your OP. Am I mistaken? If I am, would you highlight the big difference between the two, in the terms of you OP?

Vigilance is paying attention over time, with particular attention paid to potential danger.

So how does VC emphasize vigilance?

Or is vigilance just an implied stepping stone to VC?

Some VC were not just weekend peloton riding blabbermouths.

http://www.transchool.eustis.army.mil/museum/VCBIKE.htm

I thought that cycling was a relatively non-hazardous sport (some here say so). If so, why the need to be so vigilant?

John

I brought up this connotation of "VC" for US ex-military from the 1960s and 1970s, and I don't think people realized what I was talking about. Thanks for sharing this link.

John

verbosa craposa disorder.

characterized by delusions and paranoid thought processes.

It helps to sell/market/promote Safety-Related Materials.

Think Styrofoam, as well as proprietary Safety Training courses.

:roflmao:

Vicarious Cycling. The kind one does from the comfort of your computer chair, or your automobile, or your RV.

but head you talk repeatedly about NOT following the rules of the road if it doesn't benefit your riding..... why the contradictions?

and like diane states above, a lot of this VC blather is vicarious bicycling, engaged in front of a computer screen by a sometimes, part timer, weekend club fred rider, and emphatically NOT a transportational bicyclist.

ding ding ding ding ding ding ding!!!! ....... Tell 'er whats shes won Johneeey!

Helmie,

Do any of the VC publications of John Forrester specifically highlight the need for vigilance?

Or is vigilance just an implied stepping stone to VC?

I have frequently written that the cyclist who understands and practices vehicular cycling, because he understands the pattern by which traffic should operate, is well equipped to detect the motions of a vehicle that indicate that it is being driven in a non-vehicular manner. Therefore, such a cyclist is more able to take evasive action than is a person who, not understanding how traffic should operate, does not detect the non-vehicular operation until much later.

Forester has written;
Therefore it is so;
Got it? :rolleyes:

What about a cyclist who "understands" traffic patterns, but does not practice VC?

Comparing a vehicular cyclist who also understand traffic patterns to a non-vehicular cyclist who does not understand traffic is like comparing the test scores of a smart kid with a pencil and a dumb kid with a pen, and saying that a pencil is the factor that causes the better test score.

Then, when riding on the roadway, he is riding dangerously. I rather doubt that a cyclist who understands how traffic works is then going to consciously violate the rules of the road that he recognizes endanger him. Oh, well, we know of the scofflaw cyclists who deliberately violate the rules of the road in the belief that their superior competence will enable them to avoid the dangers so created. Bike messengers are one example, but there are some others, including ILTB according to his own confession, and some pseudo-racing groups which have become notorious.

It appears to work though:

And that's my point. In science you need to isolate a variable to show causation. Does VC show an improvement in safety between identical riders (same understanding of traffic, same athletic levels, same bicycles) who ride differently (say, on VC, one "inferior-style", and one "scofflaw-style")?
It hasn't.
So, scientifically, riding VC cannot be said to cause an improvement in safety.

Funny but all this "understanding" of traffic patterns can be done quite well from a bike lane. Not sure what it has to do with vehicular cycling.

Confessin' da VC Blues was I, eh? You must have me confused with Junior Wells who was singing the Viet Cong Blues.
http://www.bluesforpeace.com/lyrics/vietcong-blues.htm

You are asking more than social science can deliver. We have to reach conclusions on similar but not identical cases. I rather doubt that a cyclist who understands traffic would ride in the cyclist-inferior method, because he would recognize that it endangered him. The scofflaw-style I identified as one who understands traffic but that refuses to obey the rules, trusting to his superior skill to counteract the added danger. But scoff-law cyclists are relatively rare. The typical cyclist who rides in the cyclist-inferior style is just plain incompetent; hence so many of the car-bike collisions documented in such things as the Cross study.

You comment is utterly irrelevant. The understanding of traffic patterns is a form of knowledge that, once learned, is carried around in your brain to wherever you happen to be.

No. I am asking more that you have delivered.

All you have to do is measure the subjects of a study. Have them take a knowledge test. Have them take a fitness test. Have them fill out a survey or take a test on their riding style. Then have them log their miles, document any accidents, injuries. Is this beyond the ability of science?

Circular logic.

All I am pointing out, John, is that you are comparing a vehicular cyclist who also understand traffic patterns to a non-vehicular cyclist who does not understand traffic.

Understanding traffic is a pretty big variable in safety as you have admitted, and yet has no required correlation to riding behavior, as I have demonstrated.