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 06-06-07, 06:08 PM   #1
Helmet Head
Banned.
Thread Starter
 
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)
Does VC rest on a false dichotomy?

Commenting on the VC principle:
"Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles." - John Forester
Zeytoun raised the following objection in another thread:

Quote:
Originally Posted by zeytoun

Part of my problem with it is that I think it implies a false dichotomy.

you could add on the end: as opposed to acting and being treated as a pedestrian.

One of the core foundations of VC seems to me that there are only two choices for road using cyclists: to be vehicles, or to be pedestrians.

Now, if you give me the choice of acting and being treated as a vehicle, or acting and being treated as a pedestrian, I will of course choose the former.

Somehow I feel that the choice, though, is forced.
I thought this was such an important issue -- whether VC rests on a false dichotomy -- that it deserved a separate thread. So here we are.

This idea implies the "third mode" theory - that cyclists comprise a third mode of travel in addition to the vehicular and pedestrian modes.

The short answer is that there are two sets of rules: those for vehicle drivers and those for pedestrians. They are separate sets which do not overlap (that is, the two sets do not share any rules in common).

There is no such separate set of rules for bicyclists. The most you can argue is that the rules for bicyclists are comprised of a slight modification to the rules for vehicle drivers combined with a slight modification to the rules for pedestrians (in particular, bicyclists are supposed to yield to pedestrians on pedestrian facilities, such as MUPs and sidewalks). But if you start going down that path at all it gets very messy very quickly. By "messy" I mean ROW is unclear, which diminishes safety.

The VC paradigm is that the cyclist can choose to abide by either set, but should be cognizant and clear about which he is doing when, and be particularly careful whenever transitioning from one to the other.
Helmet Head is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-07, 06:09 PM   #2
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)
where's the HeadPoll?
randya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-07, 06:28 PM   #3
zeytoun
Non-Custom Member
 
zeytoun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Portland, Oregon
Bikes: 1975-1980 SR road bike
Posts: 1,613
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
But there are distinctions between the rules that apply to motorists, motorcyclists, equestrians, bicyclists, and stand-up-motorized-scooterists. Not to mention airplanes, boats, trains, dogsleds etc.

Trains have very different rules of operation. Trains are "vehicles". You would be silly to try to argue that train traffic should follow "vehicular" rules because they don't fit the pedestrian mold.

Boats and airplaines have even more different rules, since they operate in 3 dimensions. It would be even sillier to try to force them into "vehicular" rules simply because they don't fit the pedestrian mold.

It really misses the point.

The point is smooth and safe access for everyone. That's the goal.
zeytoun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-07, 06:30 PM   #4
chipcom 
Infamous Member
 
chipcom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ohio
Bikes: Surly Big Dummy, Fuji World, 80ish Bianchi
Posts: 24,366
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Simple substitution provides the answer:

Wheelchairs fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles.

Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of wheelchairs.

Horses fare best when they act and are treated as bears.

Advocates fare best when they act and are treated as purveyors of religion.
__________________
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
chipcom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-07, 06:36 PM   #5
ChezJfrey
Rider in the Storm
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Portland, Oregon
Bikes: LeMond Zurich, KHS Fiero (Fixed), Centurion Ironman Expert
Posts: 736
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by chipcom
Simple substitution provides the answer:

Wheelchairs fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles.

Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of wheelchairs.

Horses fare best when they act and are treated as bears.

Advocates fare best when they act and are treated as purveyors of religion.
You are such an idiot! Horses fare best when they act and are treated as tigers, dumbass! [insert wink thing here]
ChezJfrey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-07, 06:39 PM   #6
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 zeytoun
But there are distinctions between the rules that apply to motorists, motorcyclists, equestrians, bicyclists, and stand-up-motorized-scooterists. Not to mention airplanes, boats, trains, dogsleds etc.

Trains have very different rules of operation. Trains are "vehicles". You would be silly to try to argue that train traffic should follow "vehicular" rules because they don't fit the pedestrian mold.

Boats and airplaines have even more different rules, since they operate in 3 dimensions. It would be even sillier to try to force them into "vehicular" rules simply because they don't fit the pedestrian mold.

It really misses the point.

The point is smooth and safe access for everyone. That's the goal.
Insofar as road traffic is concerned, the traffic laws address two great classes of person, pedestrians and drivers of vehicles. The specific laws that refer to cyclists, motorcyclists, drivers of heavy trucks, drivers of passenger buses, drivers of animals, all are small items within the large class of drivers of vehicles.

Any reference to yachts, planes, trains is completely irrelevant because these are not roadway vehicles.
John Forester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-07, 06:43 PM   #7
ChezJfrey
Rider in the Storm
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Portland, Oregon
Bikes: LeMond Zurich, KHS Fiero (Fixed), Centurion Ironman Expert
Posts: 736
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Forester
Insofar as road traffic is concerned, the traffic laws address two great classes of person, pedestrians and drivers of vehicles. The specific laws that refer to cyclists, motorcyclists, drivers of heavy trucks, drivers of passenger buses, drivers of animals, all are small items within the large class of drivers of vehicles.

Any reference to yachts, planes, trains is completely irrelevant because these are not roadway vehicles.
Hmmmm, one might even say subclasses...to which different rules may apply.
ChezJfrey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-07, 06:47 PM   #8
Niles H.
eternalvoyage
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 2,360
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
Commenting on the VC principle:
"Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles." - John Forester


This idea implies the "third mode" theory - that cyclists comprise a third mode of travel in addition to the vehicular and pedestrian modes.
How about a subset of "vehicles" -- the word is too generic, as others have pointed out.

It needs a modifier.

We're on the level of genus with that word, when we should be on the level of species (while still recognizing membership in the genus).

We need a clear and appropriate category, not such a fuzzy, wide, and ambiguous category.

We need a clearly communicated category -- one that says something meaningful that is clear to people.

***
Bikes may be just as much "vehicles" as cars and other vehicles; but there are clear and unclear ways of saying that. And they are also different in some ways, and the differences can be recognized without compromising the status of bikes, and their status on the road.

The word just just isn't saying (to most people) what it could be saying, and what you want it to be saying.
Niles H. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-07, 06:52 PM   #9
natelutkjohn
Cheesmonger Extraordinair
 
natelutkjohn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Bikes:
Posts: 417
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
cyclists comprise a third mode of travel in addition to the vehicular and pedestrian modes.

HOLY CRAP!!!!!
A breakthrough I tell you, a break through!

Seriously though, did you just finally open your mind to that?!

Oh wait, yours was rhetorical, you would never concede to that statement...since you don't break vehicles into the categories of motorized and non-motorized.... you machine you
natelutkjohn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-07, 06:56 PM   #10
skanking biker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Madison, WI
Bikes:
Posts: 2,209
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
There is no such separate set of rules for bicyclists.
Sure there are. Almost every state has a completely seperate section of their traffic code devoted to rules governing the operation of bicycles.


In my view, the fundamental flaw/false dichotemy underlying VC (as propounded on these forums) is that VCrs conflate the following propositions:

1. Cyclists should act as vehciles when using the roadways;
2. Cyclists should be treated as equals to other vehicles by other
users of the roadways;
3. Cyclists are equal to other vehciles on the roadway

I have no problem with the first proposition in most cases. I wholeheartedly believe the second proposition. [Although I dispute that 1. ipso facto leads to 2.] However, I simply cannot agree with the third proposition.

Advocating for equal RIGHTS for two classes of people does not necessarily mean having to accept that those two classes are in fact equal in all respects.

This is a major source of disagreement here. The "adapting cycling folks" while desiring equal rights to the roadway recognize that physically cars and bikes are not "equal." The VCrs want equal rights to the roadway but also seem to assume that a catrike is the equivilent of an H3.

Once one accepts the fact that there are real differences between the two classes, one must also accept that proposition 1. is not an inviolate rule. That is, sometimes it is better to NOT ride like other vehciles due to the safety issues created by the physical differences between cycles and automobiles.

This is where the facilities disagreement arises. Some people (like me), who are cognizant of the real physical differences between bikes and cars (not the least of which is relative speed) realize that on some roads it is not safe for cylists to ride as other vehciles and it doesn't make sense from a transportational efficiency standpoint to expect them to do so. On these roads, cycling specific facilities are appropriate both to ensure cyclists safety and to ensure the transportational efficiency of all road users. In other words, while riding vehicularly on a 30 mph two lane road with plenty of extra lane width is fine, it does not make sense to do so on a 50 mph road with narrow lanes.

VC folks on the other hand conflate the concept of equal rights for cyclists with the physical reality of being equal. Hence, they oppose facilities and do not accept any concerns over safety due to disparagent vehicle size and speed. This, in turn leads them to present the false dichotemy: If you don't ride vehicularly in all circumstances you are incompetent and/or a "anti-cyclist" in sheep's clothing.

As Aristotle said: Justice is treating people equally to the extent they are equal and treating people unequally to the extent they are unequal.
skanking biker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-07, 07:09 PM   #11
chipcom 
Infamous Member
 
chipcom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ohio
Bikes: Surly Big Dummy, Fuji World, 80ish Bianchi
Posts: 24,366
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by skanking biker
Sure there are. Almost every state has a completely seperate section of their traffic code devoted to rules governing the operation of bicycles.
Thou shalt not confuse the mythical, unpublished 'Rules of the road' with mere laws that are only applicable when convenient.
__________________
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
chipcom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-07, 07:11 PM   #12
JRA
Senior Member
 
JRA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: St. Louis
Bikes:
Posts: 945
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
VC-ism rests on at least one false dichotomy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
This idea implies the "third mode" theory...
There are the rules of the road for vehicles and there are the rules of the sidewalk for pedestrians.

There are other modes. To name just one, there is the (as yet poorly defined) mode for multi-users of multi-use paths (some VC-ists fantasize that the rules of the road can be applied to MUPs but that's nonsense as evidenced by John Forester's infamous self-test ).

VC-ism is all about dichotomies, black and white, with no shades of grey (or gray, for that matter).

It's great propaganda for VC-ists to imply that the only alternative to riding according to the rules of the road as they existed in England in the 1930s (what at least one VC-ist fanatic has called the "traditional rules of the road") is riding as a POW (pedestrian on wheels). But propaganda is all it is. It's bull - just another of the many loads of horse hockey the Foresterites have been dumping on the cycling community for so long that some VC-ists appear to have begun believing their own propaganda.

VC-ism is founded on the quicksand of John Forester's wacky psychological and social theories -- his conspiracy theories and, as much as anything, false dichotomies, sloganing and propagandizing.

"real cyclists" vs. the incompetent unwashed masses
vehicular cyclists vs. POWs
anti-motorists vs. the followers of The Great One

As a life-long vehicular cyclist, it's my considered opinion that VC-ism is mostly one gigantic load of horse manure founded on some truly nutcase theories presented by John Forester.

Quote:
Originally Posted by randya
where's the HeadPoll?
wait for it
JRA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-07, 07:25 PM   #13
zeytoun
Non-Custom Member
 
zeytoun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Portland, Oregon
Bikes: 1975-1980 SR road bike
Posts: 1,613
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Any reference to yachts, planes, trains is completely irrelevant because these are not roadway vehicles.
How about light rail, and ovehead electric powered busses?
zeytoun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-07, 07:36 PM   #14
Machka 
In Real Life
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Bikes:
Posts: 46,633
Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 550 Post(s)
Pedestrian - a person who travels by foot.

I'm only a pedestrian when I WALK my bicycle. Otherwise my bicycle and I are vehicles of the road. It is that simple.

Therefore as a vehicle of the road, I must follow the local traffic laws, whatever they may be.

I don't see why anyone has a problem with that concept. It is not hard to understand.
Machka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-07, 08:56 PM   #15
larryfeltonj
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Atlanta GA
Bikes: Raleigh Supercourse, Peugeot Iseran, Raleigh Twenty
Posts: 528
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
Commenting on the VC principle:
"Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles." - John Forester
Zeytoun raised the following objection in another thread:

I thought this was such an important issue -- whether VC rests on a false dichotomy -- that it deserved a separate thread. So here we are.

This idea implies the "third mode" theory - that cyclists comprise a third mode of travel in addition to the vehicular and pedestrian modes.

The short answer is that there are two sets of rules: those for vehicle drivers and those for pedestrians. They are separate sets which do not overlap (that is, the two sets do not share any rules in common).

There is no such separate set of rules for bicyclists. The most you can argue is that the rules for bicyclists are comprised of a slight modification to the rules for vehicle drivers combined with a slight modification to the rules for pedestrians (in particular, bicyclists are supposed to yield to pedestrians on pedestrian facilities, such as MUPs and sidewalks). But if you start going down that path at all it gets very messy very quickly. By "messy" I mean ROW is unclear, which diminishes safety.

The VC paradigm is that the cyclist can choose to abide by either set, but should be cognizant and clear about which he is doing when, and be particularly careful whenever transitioning from one to the other.
I don't believe that the issue is forced at all. Bikes are relatively fast moving vehicles. They are quite dangerous to pedestrians if they are on the same path and moving at speeds which make them useful as transportation in modern American cities. The roadways are well suited to accommodate vehicles of a number of sorts. What's the dichotomy? What's the problem?

Larry
larryfeltonj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-07, 09:38 PM   #16
The other Inane
Senior Member
 
The other Inane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Brisvegas
Bikes: Fixed Gear and Cannondaler R4000
Posts: 67
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Forester
Insofar as road traffic is concerned, the traffic laws address two great classes of person, pedestrians and drivers of vehicles. The specific laws that refer to cyclists, motorcyclists, drivers of heavy trucks, drivers of passenger buses, drivers of animals, all are small items within the large class of drivers of vehicles.
The rules where I am are slightly different

16 Who is a driver
(1) A driver is the person who is driving a vehicle (except a
motorbike, bicycle, animal or animal-drawn vehicle).
(2) However, a driver does not include a person pushing a
motorised wheelchair.

17 Who is a rider
(1) A rider is the person who is riding a motorbike, bicycle,
powered wheeled recreational device, animal or
animal-drawn vehicle.
(2) A rider does not include—
(a) a passenger; or
(b) a person walking beside and pushing a bicycle.

18 Who is a pedestrian
A pedestrian includes—
(a) a person driving a motorised wheelchair than can not
travel at over 10km/h (on level ground); and
(b) a person in a non-motorised wheelchair; and
(c) a person pushing a motorised or non-motorised
wheelchair; and
(d) a person in or on a wheeled recreational device or
wheeled toy.

A class all of our own (well shared with the motorcyclists).

"A cyclist fares best when he acts and is treated as the rider of a bicycle" looks about right to me
The other Inane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-07, 09:49 PM   #17
JRA
Senior Member
 
JRA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: St. Louis
Bikes:
Posts: 945
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by larryfeltonj
I don't believe that the issue is forced at all. Bikes are relatively fast moving vehicles. They are quite dangerous to pedestrians if they are on the same path and moving at speeds which make them useful as transportation in modern American cities...
Oh, bull! A large percentage of bicyclists who use their bicycles for transportaion every day ride on the sidewalk. And most of them aren't a great threat to pedestrians.

But that wasn't the question at all. The question was whether there are other alternatives and whether VC-ism is based on a false dichotomy.

Yes, there are other alternatives and yes, VC-ism is based on at least one false dichotomy.

Sidewalk cycling is a red herring that VC-ist propaganists use to build a strawman argument against those with the audacity to disagree with their anti-bike lane fanaticism.
JRA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-07, 10:10 PM   #18
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)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete Fagerlin
So someone rollerblading or skateboard is a driver of a vehicle then?

After all, many jurisdiction lump those devices in with bicycles.

I wonder if there is some forum out there with a couple of nutjobs pontificating about incompetent skateboarders who don't practice Vehicular Skakeboarding.


Actually, Portland has some officially designated 'skate routes', although their skatepark development is woefully inadequate...
randya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-07, 04:55 AM   #19
larryfeltonj
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Atlanta GA
Bikes: Raleigh Supercourse, Peugeot Iseran, Raleigh Twenty
Posts: 528
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRA
But that wasn't the question at all. The question was whether there are other alternatives and whether VC-ism is based on a false dichotomy.
The question was pretty easy to understand, and my answer of course was no. Now that I've clarified that for the polemically challenged, let's talk about whether the alternatives are realistic or wise. There are always alternatives, and in this case we could propose anything from sidewalk riding to sidepaths to a massive system of habitrails suspended over the streets. Sidewalk riding is slow and dangerous, bike lanes have a variety of problems, the primary in my estimate being conflicts at intersections, and the habitrails, while a very nifty idea would be a bit expensive to build and maintain.

My point is really that we have a very good existing road system, which goes where I want to go on a day-by-day basis.
larryfeltonj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-07, 07:32 AM   #20
genec
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Posts: 24,956
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 840 Post(s)
The only dichotomy I experience is the lack of "...and are treated as drivers of vehicles."

Motorists should have no more problems passing me than they would a slow cement truck. In fact, fewer problems... I am narrow and easy to see around. Waiting for a safe moment to pass me with plenty of clearance should be no problem.

On any given day, when I am on a narrow road, I can guarantee some motorist will have "issues" passing me.
genec is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-07, 08:22 AM   #21
sbhikes
Dominatrikes
 
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 thought the false dichotomy was that VC disciples believe you cannot ride vehicularly and support bike lanes. This is a false dichotomy.
sbhikes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-07, 08:51 AM   #22
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: 14,112
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 379 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sbhikes
I thought the false dichotomy was that VC disciples believe you cannot ride vehicularly and support bike lanes. This is a false dichotomy.
Why should I support BLs that at nearly all intersection approaches do not meet the destination I am gong that vast majority of the time, or otherwise suggest a roadway position that is more dangerous than if I was not in that BL.
Al
noisebeam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-07, 09:08 AM   #23
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)
..boy al, they don't do that, dude. a grid system of roads like your city would be able to, likely does have, bike lanes that serve destination positioning for thru travel. for turning travel on bike laned roads, leave the bike lane to move into destination position.

you vehicular cycle, and you don't understand destination positioning on roads with lanes striped for thru travel?

yes, Diane has it right- Vcist insistance you cannot ride vehicularily and support bike infrastructure like bike lanes IS a false dichotomy-

vehicular cycling and bike lanes ARE NOT mutually exclusive. the insistence in such by some of the VCists is evidence of one of the falsehoods of the VC political platform.

I think the other inane states it well when he stated above "A cyclist fares best when he acts and is treated as the rider of a bicycle looks about right to me "
Bekologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-07, 09:56 AM   #24
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: 14,112
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 379 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bekologist
..boy al, they don't do that, dude. a grid system of roads like your city would be able to, likely does have, bike lanes that serve destination positioning for thru travel. for turning travel on bike laned roads, leave the bike lane to move into destination position.
No, in my city most bike lanes at intersections, small and large, controlled and not, are to the right of the thru lane. I find I go straight thru intersections far more than I turn (which makes sense for a city built on a grid system - for example travel 9 blocks north, 5 blocks east, far more thru travel than right/left turns)

Sure some intersections have RTOLs, but only the largest - which covers perhaps 10% of intersections.

So the bike lanes at intersections (with exception of those with RTOL) only at best serve right turning cyclists, which on average is the least common destination for all cyclists.

Al
noisebeam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-07, 10:37 AM   #25
flipped4bikes
ROM 6:23
 
flipped4bikes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Coastal Maine
Bikes: Specialized Tricross Comp, Lemond Tourmalet, Bridgestone MB-5
Posts: 1,713
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by genec
The only dichotomy I experience is the lack of "...and are treated as drivers of vehicles."

Motorists should have no more problems passing me than they would a slow cement truck. In fact, fewer problems... I am narrow and easy to see around. Waiting for a safe moment to pass me with plenty of clearance should be no problem.

On any given day, when I am on a narrow road, I can guarantee some motorist will have "issues" passing me.
+1. At least for me, clearly explains why though I'd like to ride my bike as a vehicle, it is not acceptable to some motorists. Being VC is a great pipe dream, but not if ALL the other "vehicles" aren't smoking it.
flipped4bikes 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 02:18 PM.