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 07-29-07, 04:43 AM   #26
I-Like-To-Bike
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Posts: 23,506
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by markhr View Post
I had no problem choosing and cycling down the A40 a 6 lane elevated 50mph+ road using VC. That is, until, afetr a month, I found out that what I was doing was illegal as there is bicycle prohibition notice at the on ramp .
It only took you a MONTH to figure that out? No wonder you have "no problems" with your cycling, you see and hear what you want to see and hear.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-07, 05:57 AM   #27
CommuterRun
Conservative Hippie
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wakulla Co. FL
Bikes:
Posts: 4,271
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Am I the only one that's a little confused on how the most direct route could add several miles to a commute?
CommuterRun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-07, 09:18 AM   #28
markhr
POWERCRANK addict
 
markhr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: North Acton, West London, UK
Bikes:
Posts: 3,783
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
It doesn't matter which route you take. You can VC on either route and your choice to VC is not dictated by the route. Bek why do you appear to confuse route choice with the choice to VC? It's not about always being direct, it's not about JF, it's not about bike lanes only on scenic routes - it's about cycling in a safe and responsible manner. That many others and me can VC any route is surely a sign that the whole VC thing works and imho shouldn't be turned into an argument to push cyclist away from the main routes
__________________
shameless POWERCRANK plug
Recommended reading for all cyclists - Cyclecraft - Effective Cycling
Condor Cycles - quite possibly the best bike shop in London
Don't run red lights, wear a helmet, use hand signals, get some cycle lights(front and rear) and, FFS, don't run red lights!
markhr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-07, 10:22 AM   #29
Bekologist
totally louche
Thread Starter
 
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)
no, mark, you misunderstand my reason for asking this question. I never said ANYTHING about bike lanes in my questions. they are irrelevant to the question.

there's a lot of dogmatism surrounding vehicular cycling surrounding competant versus incompetancy. jihad jhonny is most verbal about incompetant bicyclists.

my question is:

If a vehicular cyclist chooses a more enjoyable route, it is personal choice, but if the average bicyclist chooses a more enjoyable route, it is incompetancy??

I dispute the notions embodied in the vc dogma.
Bekologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-07, 10:40 AM   #30
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)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
Question or two:

IF so called "Vehicular bicyclists" are purportedly comfortable on any road allowed to bicycle travel,

do ALL foresterite vehicular bicyclists choose the most direct route regardless of traffic volumes or road design?

or are vehicular bicyclists free of dogmatism and can choose a comfortable, low traffic route that may meander and take longer to travel, but is more senic, pleasant, or lower travelled?

Why?

Do foresterites HAVE to choose the most direct route, regardless of road pleasantries or traffic speeds/volumes?

is it comfort, enjoyment, or is it inferiority complexes? why would an everyday bicyclist that understands how to ride according to the rules of the road choose a more pleasant route? why would foresterite vehicular bicyclists?
taking the way less traveled adds to my enjoyment and safety on my commute. less stress, more happiness. I'm all about the happiness.

if it makes you happy to ride in heavy fast moving traffic, cool. but a lot of these people don't seem to be having fun at all. it's just their vehicle, they're just going from point A to point B. OK, but not for me. I actually think it could be a blast riding in downtown traffic that is going the same speed or slower than me, but those aren't my conditions. it's either crazily fast traffic onthe arterials or nearly deserted back streets (cause everyone's on the arterials.)

I think in some people's minds, taking the crazy route gives you more standing as a "serious" member of the serious VC cyclists club. I'm not a member, obviously. and many are enamored of making a statement about their rights to the road...
__________________
"Think of bicycles as rideable art that can just about save the world". ~Grant Petersen

Cyclists fare best when they recognize that there are times when acting vehicularly is not the best practice, and are flexible enough to do what is necessary as the situation warrants.--Me

Last edited by rando; 07-29-07 at 11:06 AM.
rando is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-07, 10:58 AM   #31
markhr
POWERCRANK addict
 
markhr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: North Acton, West London, UK
Bikes:
Posts: 3,783
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
no, mark, you misunderstand my reason for asking this question. I never said ANYTHING about bike lanes in my questions. they are irrelevant to the question.

there's a lot of dogmatism surrounding vehicular cycling surrounding competant versus incompetancy. jihad jhonny is most verbal about incompetant bicyclists.

my question is:

If a vehicular cyclist chooses a more enjoyable route, it is personal choice, but if the average bicyclist chooses a more enjoyable route, it is incompetancy??

I dispute the notions embodied in the vc dogma.
Who is Jihad Johnny and could you either quote or link where this was said please? The incompetency bit, that is.
__________________
shameless POWERCRANK plug
Recommended reading for all cyclists - Cyclecraft - Effective Cycling
Condor Cycles - quite possibly the best bike shop in London
Don't run red lights, wear a helmet, use hand signals, get some cycle lights(front and rear) and, FFS, don't run red lights!
markhr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-07, 10:58 AM   #32
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 View Post
Question or two:

IF so called "Vehicular bicyclists" are purportedly comfortable on any road allowed to bicycle travel,

do ALL foresterite vehicular bicyclists choose the most direct route regardless of traffic volumes or road design?

or are vehicular bicyclists free of dogmatism and can choose a comfortable, low traffic route that may meander and take longer to travel, but is more senic, pleasant, or lower travelled?

Why?

Do foresterites HAVE to choose the most direct route, regardless of road pleasantries or traffic speeds/volumes?

is it comfort, enjoyment, or is it inferiority complexes? why would an everyday bicyclist that understands how to ride according to the rules of the road choose a more pleasant route? why would foresterite vehicular bicyclists?
As is usual with Bekologist, his beliefs prevent him from separating the irrelevant from the relevant. His questions above are completely irrelevant to the vehicular-cycling versus incompetent-cycling-on-bikeways controversy, because that controversy is about government policy implemented by government practices. When a vehicular cyclist wants to reach a particular destination in a short period of time (as is frequently the case when riding to work), he chooses the least-time route, which is frequently a route involving arterial streets because of their directness and fewer delays. Government policy needs to recognize this fact, rather than building bikeways that produce longer trips because of indirectness and more delays, based on the superstition that cyclists don't belong on arterial streets. All streets should be designed to accommodate the volume and mix of traffic to be expected on them, and cyclists, like any other driver of a small vehicle (allowing heavy vehicles to be limited), should be allowed, expected, and accommodated, to choose their routes according to their needs and pleasures. This contrasts with the governmental bicycle planning policy, which produces bikeways according to bicycle transportation plans, a procedure that in both details and in gross is based on superstition and, at its base, on the desire to clear the way for motorists.
John Forester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-07, 11:11 AM   #33
markhr
POWERCRANK addict
 
markhr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: North Acton, West London, UK
Bikes:
Posts: 3,783
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
As is usual with Bekologist, his beliefs prevent him from separating the irrelevant from the relevant. His questions above are completely irrelevant to the vehicular-cycling versus incompetent-cycling-on-bikeways controversy, because that controversy is about government policy implemented by government practices. When a vehicular cyclist wants to reach a particular destination in a short period of time (as is frequently the case when riding to work), he chooses the least-time route, which is frequently a route involving arterial streets because of their directness and fewer delays. Government policy needs to recognize this fact, rather than building bikeways that produce longer trips because of indirectness and more delays, based on the superstition that cyclists don't belong on arterial streets. All streets should be designed to accommodate the volume and mix of traffic to be expected on them, and cyclists, like any other driver of a small vehicle (allowing heavy vehicles to be limited), should be allowed, expected, and accommodated, to choose their routes according to their needs and pleasures. This contrasts with the governmental bicycle planning policy, which produces bikeways according to bicycle transportation plans, a procedure that in both details and in gross is based on superstition and, at its base, on the desire to clear the way for motorists.
agreed - it comes down to the old "i'm a cyclist and don't belong in traffic, I'm a driver and that cyclist doesn't belong in traffic" issue. Until we can get that out of both cyclists' and drivers' heads we'll be stuck with planning that in a misguided attempt to help cyclists pushes us further and further away from motorists.
__________________
shameless POWERCRANK plug
Recommended reading for all cyclists - Cyclecraft - Effective Cycling
Condor Cycles - quite possibly the best bike shop in London
Don't run red lights, wear a helmet, use hand signals, get some cycle lights(front and rear) and, FFS, don't run red lights!
markhr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-07, 11:15 AM   #34
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 markhr View Post
Who is Jihad Johnny and could you either quote or link where this was said please? The incompetency bit, that is.
The statements regarding incompetent cycling may be summarized as follows. Most American bicyclists using the roadway rarely obey the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. When measured on the traffic-behavior parts of the Forester Cycling Proficiency Test, the population averages in many places thought good for cycling fall below the passing score of 70%. In short, most American cyclists, when riding on the roadway, behave in an incompetent manner.

One vehicular cycling aim is to improve the traffic behavior of cyclists. Another, of course, is to revitalize the legal standard of vehicular cycling as the social norm. Another, of course, is to have government act as if it expects cyclists to operate in the vehicular manner, and to build accordingly.

However, government insists on the policy that accommodating bicycle traffic requires bikeways, which were initially designed to control incompetent cyclists to keep them out of the way of motorists. Those bicycle advocates who strongly advocate bikeways today care most about the superstitious appeal of these bikeways as making cycling safe without having to learn vehicular cycling. In short, those who advocate bikeways today as benefits to cyclists prefer to have more incompetent cyclists on the road than they do to improve the behavior of existing cyclists.

Of course, the bicycle advocates don't like having typical cyclists described as incompetent, so they denigrate the scoring system (as we have read on these lists) rather than demonstrating the level of competence of the existing population. Facts don't bother these ideologues; that's what makes them ideologues.
John Forester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-07, 11:16 AM   #35
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)
Quote:
Originally Posted by markhr View Post
agreed - it comes down to the old "i'm a cyclist and don't belong in traffic, I'm a driver and that cyclist doesn't belong in traffic" issue. Until we can get that out of both cyclists' and drivers' heads we'll be stuck with planning that in a misguided attempt to help cyclists pushes us further and further away from motorists.
I beginning to think a lot of it is, as genec often says, the speed issue. if the cars were travelling slower, the comfort level of many cyclists would higher.
__________________
"Think of bicycles as rideable art that can just about save the world". ~Grant Petersen

Cyclists fare best when they recognize that there are times when acting vehicularly is not the best practice, and are flexible enough to do what is necessary as the situation warrants.--Me
rando is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-07, 11:25 AM   #36
markhr
POWERCRANK addict
 
markhr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: North Acton, West London, UK
Bikes:
Posts: 3,783
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rando View Post
I beginning to think a lot of it is, as genec often says, the speed issue. if the cars were travelling slower, the comfort level of many cyclists would higher.
no argument there - even the driving instructors in the UK encourage/insist learner drivers peg the speed limit at every opportunity. So much for the 5kph under suggestion
__________________
shameless POWERCRANK plug
Recommended reading for all cyclists - Cyclecraft - Effective Cycling
Condor Cycles - quite possibly the best bike shop in London
Don't run red lights, wear a helmet, use hand signals, get some cycle lights(front and rear) and, FFS, don't run red lights!
markhr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-07, 11:31 AM   #37
markhr
POWERCRANK addict
 
markhr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: North Acton, West London, UK
Bikes:
Posts: 3,783
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
The statements regarding incompetent cycling may be summarized as follows. Most American bicyclists using the roadway rarely obey the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. When measured on the traffic-behavior parts of the Forester Cycling Proficiency Test, the population averages in many places thought good for cycling fall below the passing score of 70%. In short, most American cyclists, when riding on the roadway, behave in an incompetent manner.

One vehicular cycling aim is to improve the traffic behavior of cyclists. Another, of course, is to revitalize the legal standard of vehicular cycling as the social norm. Another, of course, is to have government act as if it expects cyclists to operate in the vehicular manner, and to build accordingly.

However, government insists on the policy that accommodating bicycle traffic requires bikeways, which were initially designed to control incompetent cyclists to keep them out of the way of motorists. Those bicycle advocates who strongly advocate bikeways today care most about the superstitious appeal of these bikeways as making cycling safe without having to learn vehicular cycling. In short, those who advocate bikeways today as benefits to cyclists prefer to have more incompetent cyclists on the road than they do to improve the behavior of existing cyclists.

Of course, the bicycle advocates don't like having typical cyclists described as incompetent, so they denigrate the scoring system (as we have read on these lists) rather than demonstrating the level of competence of the existing population. Facts don't bother these ideologues; that's what makes them ideologues.
Thanks for that and agreed - although JF cycling test? Do you mean cyclist's ability/desire/attempt to follow the rules of the road? If so, I'd hazard a guess that it's lower than that if not closer to 50% in London

Kind of amusing that, if I'm guessing correctly, you're labeled as a religious fantic by people obviously very threatened by your views. If I'm wrong about that assumption someone please explain who Jihad Johnny is.
__________________
shameless POWERCRANK plug
Recommended reading for all cyclists - Cyclecraft - Effective Cycling
Condor Cycles - quite possibly the best bike shop in London
Don't run red lights, wear a helmet, use hand signals, get some cycle lights(front and rear) and, FFS, don't run red lights!
markhr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-07, 11:36 AM   #38
The Rob
Almost Immortal
 
The Rob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Portland, Oregon
Bikes: 2004 Trek 7500FX
Posts: 820
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I cycle as I drive. I choose my routes based upon safety and past experiences (and annoyances). Just as I may avoid certain roads in my car, so too do I avoid certain roads while riding my bicycle. Riding as a VC doesn't mean that I had to learn a secret g_ddamned handshake, or chant as I ride to make myself identifiable to others as if I'd joined some fraternal order of rolling monks.

I ride as a VC because it makes sense to me to ride that way. It's not a religion, but you wouldn't know it from this ongoing vituperative debate. Just ride your damned bike as you see fit and let others make their own choices!
__________________
"Ignorance begets confidence more frequently than does knowledge." -Charles Darwin


http://blog.myspace.com/robcatg

http://therob.wordpress.com
The Rob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-07, 12:02 PM   #39
CB HI
Cycle Year Round
 
CB HI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Honolulu, HI
Bikes:
Posts: 11,806
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 101 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rando View Post
I think in some people's minds, taking the crazy route gives you more standing as a "serious" member of the serious VC cyclists club. I'm not a member, obviously. and many are enamored of making a statement about their rights to the road...
Completely false, there never has been any such VC status club.
Bek seems to be the one with some self serving mental status requirement for those who post; such as his declaration of consistent 29 mph sprinting. As if that gives him some special right to post with the implication that others are not worthy of posting.

Last edited by CB HI; 07-29-07 at 06:01 PM.
CB HI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-07, 12:17 PM   #40
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 markhr View Post
Thanks for that and agreed - although JF cycling test? Do you mean cyclist's ability/desire/attempt to follow the rules of the road? If so, I'd hazard a guess that it's lower than that if not closer to 50% in London

Kind of amusing that, if I'm guessing correctly, you're labeled as a religious fantic by people obviously very threatened by your views. If I'm wrong about that assumption someone please explain who Jihad Johnny is.
The measurement is of cyclists' actual behavior, whether or not they obey the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. It is not measurement of what they say, or what they attempt, or what they would like to do. It is measurement of what they actually do when operating in traffic in, presumably, their own area [only a small proportion of cyclists at any one time are operating in unfamiliar areas] and when going about their own business or pleasure, whatever it is.
John Forester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-07, 12:52 PM   #41
markhr
POWERCRANK addict
 
markhr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: North Acton, West London, UK
Bikes:
Posts: 3,783
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
The measurement is of cyclists' actual behavior, whether or not they obey the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. It is not measurement of what they say, or what they attempt, or what they would like to do. It is measurement of what they actually do when operating in traffic in, presumably, their own area [only a small proportion of cyclists at any one time are operating in unfamiliar areas] and when going about their own business or pleasure, whatever it is.
thanks again and from that I'm even more certain London commuters come in at 50%
__________________
shameless POWERCRANK plug
Recommended reading for all cyclists - Cyclecraft - Effective Cycling
Condor Cycles - quite possibly the best bike shop in London
Don't run red lights, wear a helmet, use hand signals, get some cycle lights(front and rear) and, FFS, don't run red lights!
markhr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-07, 12:44 AM   #42
Brian Ratliff
Senior Member
 
Brian Ratliff's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Near Portland, OR
Bikes: Three road bikes. Two track bikes.
Posts: 10,060
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
As is usual with Bekologist, his beliefs prevent him from separating the irrelevant from the relevant. His questions above are completely irrelevant to the vehicular-cycling versus incompetent-cycling-on-bikeways controversy, because that controversy is about government policy implemented by government practices. When a vehicular cyclist wants to reach a particular destination in a short period of time (as is frequently the case when riding to work), he chooses the least-time route, which is frequently a route involving arterial streets because of their directness and fewer delays. Government policy needs to recognize this fact, rather than building bikeways that produce longer trips because of indirectness and more delays, based on the superstition that cyclists don't belong on arterial streets. All streets should be designed to accommodate the volume and mix of traffic to be expected on them, and cyclists, like any other driver of a small vehicle (allowing heavy vehicles to be limited), should be allowed, expected, and accommodated, to choose their routes according to their needs and pleasures. This contrasts with the governmental bicycle planning policy, which produces bikeways according to bicycle transportation plans, a procedure that in both details and in gross is based on superstition and, at its base, on the desire to clear the way for motorists.
Odd, nowhere does the concept of bikeways enter the picture in the opening post. (BTW, at some point, CB_HI was wondering why all threads lead to bike lanes; well, it's Mr. Forester to blame here)

The question, and why not answer without reading between the lines, is simple: is route choosing (with the intent of lowering the overall risk of traveling between point A and point B) a technique which fits within the framework of idealogically pure vehicular cycling?

Perhaps the vehicular cycling philosophy does not address this at all?
__________________
Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
"If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --the tiniest sprinter
Brian Ratliff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-07, 02:14 AM   #43
Cyclaholic
CRIKEY!!!!!!!
 
Cyclaholic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Bikes: several
Posts: 4,270
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by CommuterRun View Post
Am I the only one that's a little confused on how the most direct route could add several miles to a commute?
Let me highlight the important bit in what I said earlier...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclaholic View Post
The most direct route which avoids the segragated cycleways would add several miles and at least 30% more time to my commute. I tried it once to see what it was like, never again.
Still confused?
__________________
There are 10 types of people in the world - the ones that can count in base 2, the ones that can't count in base 2, and the ones that didn't expect this to be in base 3.
Cyclaholic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-07, 02:34 AM   #44
CommuterRun
Conservative Hippie
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wakulla Co. FL
Bikes:
Posts: 4,271
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclaholic View Post
Still confused?
Now I think I understand. So you're saying that your most direct route is on segregated cycleways, correct?

Sure you can ride using VC priciples on segregated cycleways. Traffic is traffic, it doesn't have to be motorized.

A quick, hypothetical example: You're on a bike trail. You have cyclists approaching from in front. You have a paceline approaching from your 6. Take your lane. The paceline can slow until it's safe to pass.

Last edited by CommuterRun; 07-30-07 at 02:51 AM.
CommuterRun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-07, 04:04 AM   #45
CB HI
Cycle Year Round
 
CB HI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Honolulu, HI
Bikes:
Posts: 11,806
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 101 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Ratliff View Post
Odd, nowhere does the concept of bikeways enter the picture in the opening post. (BTW, at some point, CB_HI was wondering why all threads lead to bike lanes; well, it's Mr. Forester to blame here)
Check out post 25, well before Mr. Forester entered the discussion.

And can you point out the post where I "was wondering why all threads lead to bike lanes". I do not recall asking such a question?

A Bek style straw man, always looking to put some false blame on the VC folks, right Brian.

Last edited by CB HI; 07-30-07 at 04:13 AM.
CB HI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-07, 07:03 AM   #46
Bekologist
totally louche
Thread Starter
 
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)
"false blame on the VC folks" you do realize I ride vehicularily dontchya, CBHI?



According to the "VC" ideology,

if a zealous vehicular cyclist chooses a more pleasant route, its personal choice, but if a more everyday cyclist - that still understands how to bicycle according to the rules of the road- chooses a more pleasant route, it's purportedly a result of some far fetched inferiority complex. I dispute that.

Can a cyclist choose routes based on pleasant cycling conditions?
Can a loud-n-proud vehicular cyclist do the same?
why or why not?

Last edited by Bekologist; 07-30-07 at 07:12 AM.
Bekologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-07, 07:48 AM   #47
Brian Ratliff
Senior Member
 
Brian Ratliff's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Near Portland, OR
Bikes: Three road bikes. Two track bikes.
Posts: 10,060
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
CB: post 25 was a non sequitur as far as the OP is concerned; he is just stating that his route is an exception to the assumptions that Bek implied. Mr. Forester, on the other hand, addressed the OP directly by introducing "bikeways". And I still fail to see any mention of bikeways in the OP.

Did you read my post? What is your thinking on the subject? Should route adjustment to reduce risk be part of vehicular cycling?
__________________
Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
"If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --the tiniest sprinter
Brian Ratliff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-07, 07:54 AM   #48
joejack951
Senior Member
 
joejack951's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Wilmington, DE
Bikes: 1984 Trek 660, 2003 Specialized Hardrock, 2004 LOOK KG386i, 2005 Iron Horse Warrior Expert, 2009 Pedal Force CX1, 2014 Islabikes CNOC 14 (son's)
Posts: 9,938
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 54 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
if a zealous vehicular cyclist chooses a more pleasant route, its personal choice, but if a more everyday cyclist - that still understands how to bicycle according to the rules of the road- chooses a more pleasant route, it's purportedly a result of some far fetched inferiority complex. I dispute that.
More like, "I made this up because I'm really bored at home and felt like trolling."

Vehicular cycling has nothing to do with route choice. If you think it does, you have no idea what vehicular cycling is. Cyclist inferiority complex (as defined by JF) has nothing to do with cycling pleasant routes and everything to do with staying out of the way of all traffic (making my "pleasant routes" uncyclable by someone affected with such a complex).

The whole discussion surrounding "pleasant routes" has always been that those who generally choose the pleasant routes seem to think that those who choose the more direct routes are doing so only to make a statement or to show off their VC skills (which is far from the truth).

I cycle pleasant routes, and I cycle direct routes. Sometimes the direct route is the most pleasant route. Sometimes the multilaned, higher speed limit, higher traffic route is the most pleasant route (I've experienced some serious road rage on 2 lane 25mph roads with relatively little traffic). Sometimes the pleasant route is unuseable due to lack of traffic (as is the case when it snows around here). Or the pleasant route floods or trees are down due to storms, all things that make the pleasant route unuseable and make understanding vehicular cycling and how to use a multilaned arterial a useful thing to know even if I only rarely need to use it.
joejack951 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-07, 07:58 AM   #49
Brian Ratliff
Senior Member
 
Brian Ratliff's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Near Portland, OR
Bikes: Three road bikes. Two track bikes.
Posts: 10,060
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Joejack: so you are saying that route adjustment or management is not a technique addressed by vehicular cycling? Is this still true if the only reason for the route adjustment is for risk aversion?
__________________
Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
"If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --the tiniest sprinter
Brian Ratliff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-07, 08:17 AM   #50
Bekologist
totally louche
Thread Starter
 
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)
joejack-

I'm riding 100 miles for some pizza today- vehicularily. Me and my buddy will choose a combination of most pleasant as well as direct routes to get there. State highways, Hood Canal Bridge, etc.

Is a vehicular cyclist free of dogma and able to choose a more pleasant route without falling victim to john's mischaracterized 'cyclist inferiority' syndrome?

Why, in my case, is a vehicular cyclist choosing a pleasant route okay, but an everyday bicyclist -that still understands the rules of the road- choosing a more pleasant route a manifestation of some far-fetched psychobabel?

And like Brian mentioned above, bike infrastructure has nothing whatsoever to do with the question. And I think Brian also asks a valid question...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Ratliff
... route adjustment or management is not a technique addressed by vehicular cycling?

Why does the VC dogma introduce false dichotomies into the bicycling population?

I think there's some deliberate clouding of the issues here by the foresterites here. even vehicular cyclists can choose routes to manage risk, despite the insistence there is none of that. some foresterite 'certified' 'vehicular cyclists' may not be comfortable taking the lane of 50 MPH arterials, despite the knowledge they are traffic and understand how to ride according to the rules of the road.

Last edited by Bekologist; 07-30-07 at 08:25 AM.
Bekologist 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 05:50 AM.