Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 52
  1. #1
    totally louche Bekologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    A land that time forgot
    My Bikes
    the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
    Posts
    18,016
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    different levels of ability amongst "vehicular cyclists"

    ... I'm beginning to decipher there are different levels of traffic comfortability and riding ability among bicyclists that understand how to ride on the roads like vehicles.

    this lack of total traffic comfort is a big, glaring discrepancy not given a lot of emphasis by the dogmatic vc, becuase, in this forum, anyway, supossedly all it takes to ride any road is the knowledge of how to ride like a vehicle.

    I see some big, gaping holes in the vc point of view. I see glaring fallacies inherent that all it takes to ride a road, any road, is the knowedge of how to operate like a vehicle, and everything else magically falls into place, the cyclist is immune from bad traffic conditions or dangerous roadways, drivers become obsequious, well mannered, and drive according to the rules of the road, politely and legally.

    I also suspect incompetancy among some of the EC chip holders.

    I doubt all-road traffic competancy is automatically assured just because someone understands how to ride like a vehicle- I suspect there are many levels of ability among the so called 'vehicular cyclists.'
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Atlanta GA
    My Bikes
    Raleigh Supercourse, Peugeot Iseran, Raleigh Twenty
    Posts
    528
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
    ... I'm beginning to decipher there are different levels of traffic comfortability and riding ability among bicyclists that understand how to ride on the roads like vehicles.

    this lack of total traffic comfort is a big, glaring discrepancy not given a lot of emphasis by the dogmatic vc, becuase, in this forum, anyway, supossedly all it takes to ride any road is the knowledge of how to ride like a vehicle.

    I see some big, gaping holes in the vc point of view. I see glaring fallacies inherent that all it takes to ride a road, any road, is the knowedge of how to operate like a vehicle, and everything else magically falls into place, the cyclist is immune from bad traffic conditions or dangerous roadways, drivers become obsequious, well mannered, and drive according to the rules of the road, politely and legally.

    I also suspect incompetancy among some of the EC chip holders.

    I doubt all-road traffic competancy is automatically assured just because someone understands how to ride like a vehicle- I suspect there are many levels of ability among the so called 'vehicular cyclists.'
    You really seem to be on a roll with the straw man arguments. Of course there are many levels of ability among vehicular cyclists, just like any occupation has people of a variety of levels of ability. Practice, experience, physical condition, and aptitude all play a role in cycling skill, and there are a lot of nuances within those variables. What are you trying to get us to say? That vehicular cyclists are some sort of superhuman species apart?

  3. #3
    totally louche Bekologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    A land that time forgot
    My Bikes
    the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
    Posts
    18,016
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    there's no 'straw man' argument, larry.

    what? the concept of 'vc' as bandied about here in this forum by the ardent, rabid, vc, is that there's only two types of bicyclists.

    and I totally dispute that.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  4. #4
    Senior Member sggoodri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Cary, NC
    My Bikes
    1983 Trek, 2001 Lemond, 2000 Gary Fisher
    Posts
    3,068
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
    there's no 'straw man' argument, larry.

    what? the concept of 'vc' as bandied about here in this forum by the ardent, rabid, vc, is that there's only two types of bicyclists.

    and I totally dispute that.
    Again, you are disputing a straw man argument that vehicular cycling advocates haven't made. Either you don't understand the actual arguments made, or you deliberately distort them.

    The degree to which a cyclist is comfortable operating on a particular roadway in the vehicular manner will be proportionate to his skill and understanding of the operational principles of vehicular cycling. It will also be affected by the nature of the roadway, other road users, and possibly weather and related visibility conditions. I for instance am not fond of cycling on a narrow-lane road with 55 mph speeds in the dark in the rain in January rush hour.

    The fact that some roads are unpleasant for some cyclists at some times does not discount the value of the vehicular cycling principle. That is, they still fare worse if they violate vehicular rules than if they operate in accordance with the vehicular rules. It is better for them to choose a different route where they are comfortable operating according to vehicular rules than to operate contrary to vehicular rules, and it is better for the government to improve the roadway to make it safer and more pleasant for cyclists operating according to vehicular rules than it is for the government to modify the corridor to entice cyclists into operating contrary to vehicular rules.

    I believe a valid conclusion from the vehicular cycling principle applied to a diversity of trip types and trip purposes is that the government should accommodate vehicular cycling on all normal roadways (in addition to designing off-road paths with consideration to vehicle dynamics and vehicular traffic negotiation) and provide a diversity of routes of varying traffic volume and speed to accommodate the diversity of trip types, purposes, and preferences. The contrary approach would be to design roads and paths in ways that conflict with the vehicular rules that support cyclists' safety and convenience.

  5. #5
    totally louche Bekologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    A land that time forgot
    My Bikes
    the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
    Posts
    18,016
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    vc advocates haven't argued that there's the vehicular way to ride and then there's everybody else?

    so, steve you agree with me as well. there are different levels of ability and traffic comfortabilty among 'vehicular cyclists' and some roads will be uncomfortable or unpleasant for vehicular cyclists.

    uncomfortable enough so that they may choose alternate routes as oppossed to the most direct route, despite their knowledge of 'vehicular' cycling.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  6. #6
    Senior Member sggoodri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Cary, NC
    My Bikes
    1983 Trek, 2001 Lemond, 2000 Gary Fisher
    Posts
    3,068
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
    vc advocates haven't argued that there's the vehicular way to ride and then there's everybody else?

    so, steve you agree with me as well. there are different levels of ability and traffic comfortabilty among 'vehicular cyclists' and some roads will be uncomfortable or unpleasant for vehicular cyclists.

    uncomfortable enough so that they may choose alternate routes as oppossed to the most direct route, despite their knowledge of 'vehicular' cycling.
    You fail to understand the consistency of the vehicular cycling advocates' position:

    Operate in the vehicular manner, or don't ride your bike on that corridor and/or at that time.

    The position that is opposite of that of vehicular cycling proponents is this:

    If you don't feel comfortable following the vehicular rules, then operate contrary to them.

  7. #7
    totally louche Bekologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    A land that time forgot
    My Bikes
    the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
    Posts
    18,016
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    so, steve, you agree with me. there are different levels of ability and comfortability among 'vehicular cyclists' and that some roads will be uncomfortable or unpleasant for vehicular cyclists. Enough that they may choose not to ride there.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Wilmington, DE
    My Bikes
    2003 Specialized Hardrock, 2004 LOOK KG386i, 2005 Iron Horse Warrior Expert, 2009 Pedal Force CX1
    Posts
    8,795
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
    so, steve, you agree with me. there are different levels of ability and comfortability among 'vehicular cyclists' and that some roads will be uncomfortable or unpleasant for vehicular cyclists. Enough that they may choose not to ride there.
    At first glance, I think I can agree with that statement as long as you added one more section that read: "More experience with that type of road/condition usually increases comfortability. Initally being uncomfortable is NO reason to exclude a roadway from being able to be used in the vehicular manner by a cyclist." This would be consistent with my experience at least.

  9. #9
    Senior Member rando's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Tempe, AZ
    Posts
    2,967
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by joejack951 View Post
    At first glance, I think I can agree with that statement as long as you added one more section that read: "More experience with that type of road/condition usually increases comfortability. Initally being uncomfortable is NO reason to exclude a roadway from being able to be used in the vehicular manner by a cyclist." This would be consistent with my experience at least.
    hmmm, I don't know, if a rider is initially uncomfortable with a road and chooses another,and is happy with that one, what's the problem? I think that's a great reason. not every road has to be ridden by every vehicular cyclist. sure the road is useable, but not chosen.
    "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

  10. #10
    Senior Member sggoodri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Cary, NC
    My Bikes
    1983 Trek, 2001 Lemond, 2000 Gary Fisher
    Posts
    3,068
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
    so, steve, you agree with me. there are different levels of ability and comfortability among 'vehicular cyclists' and that some roads will be uncomfortable or unpleasant for vehicular cyclists. Enough that they may choose not to ride there.
    I agree well enough - the important question is, what should be done about this?

    The vehicular cycling advocates' position is threefold: (1) improve the skills and knowledge of the cyclists; (2) modify the roads to make them more pleasant when operating in the vehicular manner - if this is practical to do; (3) preserve and promote alternate usable routes that can be chosen for operation in the vehicular manner.

    The detractors of the vehicular cycling principle have a very different response: Modify the unpleasant corridor to make cyclists operating contrary to the rules of the road and contrary to recommended defensive driving more comfortable. For example, here in NC, the most common problematic proposals are to design/designate a sidewalk as a two-way bike path, or to stripe a bike lane in the door zone, or in the gutter area to the right of right-turning traffic.

  11. #11
    totally louche Bekologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    A land that time forgot
    My Bikes
    the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
    Posts
    18,016
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    you agree that there are different levels of ability among people that know how to ride according to the rules of the road.

    Thank you for your agreement. I personally think your efforts in NC have been limiting the numbers of everyday bicyclists by your anti-accomodationalist spiel, but that's the subject of another thread..... I do read you have increasing numbers of weekend bicyclists though..... interesting..... but again, the subject of another thread.

    there are different levels of traffic comfortability and riding ability among bicyclists that understand how to ride on the roads like vehicles.

    this lack of total traffic comfort is a big, glaring discrepancy not given a lot of emphasis by the dogmatic vc.

    I see a flaw in the vc point of view. I see a fallacy in the argument that all it takes to ride a road, any road, is the knowedge of how to operate like a vehicle.

    all-road traffic competancy is NOT automatically assured just because someone understands how to ride like a vehicle- there are different levels of ability among the so called 'vehicular cyclists.'
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  12. #12
    totally louche Bekologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    A land that time forgot
    My Bikes
    the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
    Posts
    18,016
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    and steve, I'm not a 'detractor' of the vehicular cycling principle. why do you INSIST in bringing up bad roadway design seen in your community -that are largely infrastructure problems- in a thread about bicycling competency?

    you don't have to anwser that. the writing is on the shanty wall.
    Last edited by Bekologist; 08-01-07 at 09:42 AM.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Wilmington, DE
    My Bikes
    2003 Specialized Hardrock, 2004 LOOK KG386i, 2005 Iron Horse Warrior Expert, 2009 Pedal Force CX1
    Posts
    8,795
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by rando View Post
    hmmm, I don't know, if a rider is initially uncomfortable with a road and chooses another,and is happy with that one, what's the problem? I think that's a great reason. not every road has to be ridden by every vehicular cyclist. sure the road is useable, but not chosen.
    No, not every road has to be chosen but there are times when using those roads could come in handy (a nice-to-have if you will). For example, there are two routes I can take to my parents' house. The route I started off taking avoided all but 3 miles of major arterial roadway and consisted mostly of 2 lane country road. I was more comfortable on these roads because I had more experience on those roads (which says nothing about how well they suited my needs by the way). The country road route is 14 miles and has almost 900 feet of climbing up and down steep grades. My fastest trip ever on this route was 50 minutes because I got lucky with a tailwind the entire way. Usually, it was more like an hour if not more.

    The other route is 12 miles and much flatter but consists entirely of 4 lane arterial roads with and without shoulders with speed limits from 35-50mph. I initially shyed away from this route because I was not comfortable using it (I lacked experience on 4 lane roads on a bike). A few times when leaving my parents it was quite late at night and I just wanted to get home so I decided to try the shorter route counting on the lack of traffic increasing my comfortability. Well, it was fine and a few more trips at higher traffic times proved that it was fine then too. This route is significantly faster with my fastest ride time being less than 40 minutes and a max of around 50 but with much less exertion. After significant experience on 4 lane NOL roads, I've actually come to prefer them over 2 lane roads because passing is so much easier and destination positioning is as easy as it gets.

  14. #14
    Part-time epistemologist invisiblehand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    My Bikes
    Jamis Nova, Bike Friday NWT, STRIDA, Austro Daimler Vent Noir, Haluzak Horizon, Salsa La Raza, Hollands Tourer
    Posts
    5,160
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
    I see a fallacy in the argument that all it takes to ride a road, any road, is the knowedge of how to operate like a vehicle.
    I don't believe this is a VC argument/position.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
    all-road traffic competancy is NOT automatically assured just because someone understands how to ride like a vehicle- there are different levels of ability among the so called 'vehicular cyclists.'
    Of course not.

  15. #15
    Grumbly Goat Bushman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    My Bikes
    bicycles with round wheels
    Posts
    896
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Exclamation

    there are those of us that like riding in traffic, and there are those of us that dont. Neither way is "bad" or "wrong". Some cyclists are just better skilled and adapted to riding in traffic, and are perfectly comfortable in doing so. The rest can ride the bike lanes (bike segregation) or take side streets.

    nuff said.

    Thread closed.
    You ride a bike, we GET IT, no need to rant about it or look down on others....its JUST A BIKE...get over yourselves.

  16. #16
    genec genec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    san diego
    My Bikes
    custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
    Posts
    22,527
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by larryfeltonj View Post
    You really seem to be on a roll with the straw man arguments. Of course there are many levels of ability among vehicular cyclists, just like any occupation has people of a variety of levels of ability. Practice, experience, physical condition, and aptitude all play a role in cycling skill, and there are a lot of nuances within those variables. What are you trying to get us to say? That vehicular cyclists are some sort of superhuman species apart?
    No, I think he is trying to say that it may take a long learning curve to "join the club." And with that I really agree.

    I have taken the Road I and Road II classes, and I have seen how the classes can move timid cyclists from the sidewalk to the road... but I really doubt that same timid cyclist is going to turn around and jump right on a 50MPH multilaned road with narrow lanes and play the alpha dog. It just ain't gonna happen.

    The bottom line is, that sort of riding and technique does take time and experience... in spite of the classes. (bear in mind I took the classes out of curiosity, after some 30+ years of cycling).

    I feel that vehicular cycling does work, but at the same time it is not exactly everyone's cup of tea, and it takes experience and a certain attitude to make it work effectively. (JF's claims not withstanding... he is not going to put a 10 year old out on these mean streets with the attitudes of motorists today... I don't care what he "claims.")

    Now on the flip side... bike lanes (at least how they are implimented around here (and in many places) have their own set of issues... which have been widely discussed (and perhaps exaggerated).

    The reality (the 5000 pound gorilla that everyone keeps stepping around) is that the physical differences of cycling verses the motor car places some, uh, interesting issues on the table... and if there were a serious adoption of the laws and enforcement thereof regarding cyclists and ANYONE's rights to the road, road design and speeds would be dramatically different.

    But the fact remains that the world's general public like to be lazy and sit in powered vehicles and push a control and go. So the politics of the road are such that publically we all have the same rights, but in reality, bigger, faster "rules the road."

    There really is no getting around that... as soon as you put power in folks' hands... there are going to be those that abuse it... so that legal equality goes right out the window... (heck even some that enforce the laws don't "buy" into them.)

    With that in mind... some provision for sharing access to the places we all want to go (and a real admissison of the physical issues involved) is going to require some sort of compromise. What that compromise is... is yet to be perfected.

  17. #17
    Senior Member sggoodri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Cary, NC
    My Bikes
    1983 Trek, 2001 Lemond, 2000 Gary Fisher
    Posts
    3,068
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
    this lack of total traffic comfort is a big, glaring discrepancy not given a lot of emphasis by the dogmatic vc.

    I see a flaw in the vc point of view. I see a fallacy in the argument that all it takes to ride a road, any road, is the knowedge of how to operate like a vehicle.

    all-road traffic competancy is NOT automatically assured just because someone understands how to ride like a vehicle- there are different levels of ability among the so called 'vehicular cyclists.'[/b]
    Without providing a viable alternate solution, your point is of no practical value.

    Vehicular cycling skill development maximizes the available existing routes on which one can cycle safely, and also increases comfort. Engineering policies that respect vehicular cycling practices maximize the safety, convenience, and comfort of cycling on new and improved roadways.

    What alternate solutions exist to increase cyclists' safety, comfort, access, and convenience? I have heard of two proposed. The first, proposed by the detractors of vehicular cycling, is that on unpleasant roads, cycling contrary to vehicular rules should be facilitated and consequently encouraged. This has the problem of increased collision risks and lower convenience compared to vehicular cycling. The second, proposed by many of the anti-motorists, is that roads should be made much less convenient for motoring in order to reduce traffic speeds and volumes, making them easier to negotiate by bicycle. This approach has practical problems, first because the overwhelming political majority of motoring voters oppose its implementation on important roads, and second because many of the methods proposed to reduce the convenience of motoring reduce the safety and convenience of cycling. The devil is in the details - the number of locations where motoring can be made less attractive without adversely affecting cyclists is small, and in many cases, increasing the convenience of motoring on some long-distance arterial roads siphons motor traffic off of local roads that are of greater interest to casual cyclists. So aside from a few modest limitations in road width and speed, including a well-designed road diet here or there, not much is likely to be gained here.

    So, we return to the conclusion that, as John Forester tirelessly repeats, cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles. Often slower, more vulnerable, more exposed to the elements, more affected by noise and pollution than other drivers - yes. But still drivers of vehicles, not pedestrians on wheels, not incompetent children or purely recreational participants to be restricted from travel to their destination of choice. Designing the road system to work well for cyclists to operate according to the rules for drivers, and teaching cyclists how to use those rules effectively, is the best approach to support people who enjoy cycling for transportation and pleasure.

  18. #18
    Banned.
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Honolulu, HI
    Posts
    11,420
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    +1 vote that this is just another Bek straw man argument thread

  19. #19
    genec genec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    san diego
    My Bikes
    custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
    Posts
    22,527
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sggoodri View Post
    Without providing a viable alternate solution, your point is of no practical value.

    Vehicular cycling skill development maximizes the available existing routes on which one can cycle safely, and also increases comfort. Engineering policies that respect vehicular cycling practices maximize the safety, convenience, and comfort of cycling on new and improved roadways.

    What alternate solutions exist to increase cyclists' safety, comfort, access, and convenience? I have heard of two proposed. The first, proposed by the detractors of vehicular cycling, is that on unpleasant roads, cycling contrary to vehicular rules should be facilitated and consequently encouraged. This has the problem of increased collision risks and lower convenience compared to vehicular cycling. The second, proposed by many of the anti-motorists, is that roads should be made much less convenient for motoring in order to reduce traffic speeds and volumes, making them easier to negotiate by bicycle. This approach has practical problems, first because the overwhelming political majority of motoring voters oppose its implementation on important roads, and second because many of the methods proposed to reduce the convenience of motoring reduce the safety and convenience of cycling. The devil is in the details - the number of locations where motoring can be made less attractive without adversely affecting cyclists is small, and in many cases, increasing the convenience of motoring on some long-distance arterial roads siphons motor traffic off of local roads that are of greater interest to casual cyclists. So aside from a few modest limitations in road width and speed, including a well-designed road diet here or there, not much is likely to be gained here.

    So, we return to the conclusion that, as John Forester tirelessly repeats, cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles. Often slower, more vulnerable, more exposed to the elements, more affected by noise and pollution than other drivers - yes. But still drivers of vehicles, not pedestrians on wheels, not incompetent children or purely recreational participants to be restricted from travel to their destination of choice. Designing the road system to work well for cyclists to operate according to the rules for drivers, and teaching cyclists how to use those rules effectively, is the best approach to support people who enjoy cycling for transportation and pleasure.

    Again the oft repeated issue is actually being "treated like drivers of vehicles..." that takes co-operation from the other users of the road... who themselves often feel that cyclists do not belong... hence those "other users" may work to create a very negative environment that forces those with less skills back to rolling pedestrian mode.

    It's rather a circular argument... those that treat us poorly would also fare best by simply treating us a peers... which would make traffic in general work better for all. But how to do that? No one has yet been able to figure out how to make "bullies" stop being bullies.

    Yeah Bek may be throwing out a strawman... but there really is something behind it... that 5000 pound gorilla that I mentioned in my post above that we keep stepping around...
    Last edited by genec; 08-01-07 at 12:43 PM.

  20. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Atlanta GA
    My Bikes
    Raleigh Supercourse, Peugeot Iseran, Raleigh Twenty
    Posts
    528
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by genec View Post
    No, I think he is trying to say that it may take a long learning curve to "join the club." And with that I really agree.
    Actually he seems to have a fixation on one small epiphany. That vehicular cyclists have a range of skill levels, and that not all vehicular cyclists are at exactly the same development point. When I acknowledged that yes, there are indeed variations of cycling skills among vehicular cyclists his reaction is a histrionic gotcha.

    I've developed a number of skills in my life, and in every related skillset there are baseline things that one needs to know in order to be considered competent, and then there are refinements to the basic techniques and advanced techniques. It's the way the world works.

    As for learning curve, yes there is one. How long it is depends on a number of factors, but the main controlable one is how much time one spends cycling, and how much one applies themselves to study and learning from other cyclists.

  21. #21
    genec genec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    san diego
    My Bikes
    custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
    Posts
    22,527
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by larryfeltonj View Post
    Actually he seems to have a fixation on one small epiphany. That vehicular cyclists have a range of skill levels, and that not all vehicular cyclists are at exactly the same development point. When I acknowledged that yes, there are indeed variations of cycling skills among vehicular cyclists his reaction is a histrionic gotcha.

    I've developed a number of skills in my life, and in every related skillset there are baseline things that one needs to know in order to be considered competent, and then there are refinements to the basic techniques and advanced techniques. It's the way the world works.

    As for learning curve, yes there is one. How long it is depends on a number of factors, but the main controlable one is how much time one spends cycling, and how much one applies themselves to study and learning from other cyclists.
    I hear ya in that Bek does tend to parrot the same message...

    But beyond that... things can be done to make the transition into effective road cycling and sharing of the roads easier... and often those middle approaches are thown out like the babie's bath water.

    A long learning curve can be quite discouraging... as can the reaction to the general motoring public's general attitude toward cycling... some middle ground should be fostered to encourage cycling (and help the general health of the nation and reduce our dependence on oil). This really is not a black and white problem... there is lots of room for gray.

  22. #22
    Senior Member rando's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Tempe, AZ
    Posts
    2,967
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sggoodri View Post
    Vehicular cycling skill development maximizes the available existing routes on which one can cycle safely, and also increases comfort. Engineering policies that respect vehicular cycling practices maximize the safety, convenience, and comfort of cycling on new and improved roadways.

    What alternate solutions exist to increase cyclists' safety, comfort, access, and convenience? I have heard of two proposed. The first, proposed by the detractors of vehicular cycling, is that on unpleasant roads, cycling contrary to vehicular rules should be facilitated and consequently encouraged. .
    you're talking about facilities, aren't you? like bike lanes? how is using a designated lane not VC?

    Quote Originally Posted by sggoodri View Post
    This has the problem of increased collision risks and lower convenience compared to vehicular cycling. .
    Baloney. stop the scare tactics.

    Quote Originally Posted by sggoodri View Post
    The second, proposed by many of the anti-motorists, is that roads should be made much less convenient for motoring in order to reduce traffic speeds and volumes, making them easier to negotiate by bicycle. This approach has practical problems, first because the overwhelming political majority of motoring voters oppose its implementation on important roads, and second because many of the methods proposed to reduce the convenience of motoring reduce the safety and convenience of cycling. The devil is in the details - the number of locations where motoring can be made less attractive without adversely affecting cyclists is small, and in many cases, increasing the convenience of motoring on some long-distance arterial roads siphons motor traffic off of local roads that are of greater interest to casual cyclists. So aside from a few modest limitations in road width and speed, including a well-designed road diet here or there, not much is likely to be gained here. .
    well, yeah, with a defeatist attitude and the notion that the best way is the way benefitting only those high mileage cyclists like yourself and apparently every other cyclist in Cary, nothing WILL be gained. traffic calming is not the devil, and it doesn't have to reduce the safety and convenience of cycling. it may, however, reduce the effectiveness and speed of a certain type of high mileage cyclist. I suspect this is what really bothers you...


    Quote Originally Posted by sggoodri View Post
    So, we return to the conclusion that, as John Forester tirelessly repeats, cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles. Often slower, more vulnerable, more exposed to the elements, more affected by noise and pollution than other drivers - yes. But still drivers of vehicles, not pedestrians on wheels, not incompetent children or purely recreational participants to be restricted from travel to their destination of choice. Designing the road system to work well for cyclists to operate according to the rules for drivers, and teaching cyclists how to use those rules effectively, is the best approach to support people who enjoy cycling for transportation and pleasure.
    Whoa there, nope, not all of "us" return to that conclusion at all, Clarence Darrow. the best approach may be a combo of education, facilities and traffic calming.
    Last edited by rando; 08-01-07 at 01:49 PM.
    "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

  23. #23
    Part-time epistemologist invisiblehand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    My Bikes
    Jamis Nova, Bike Friday NWT, STRIDA, Austro Daimler Vent Noir, Haluzak Horizon, Salsa La Raza, Hollands Tourer
    Posts
    5,160
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by rando View Post
    I'm astonished that the diehard hardcore VC dogmatists can't admit that.
    Hah! No intent on pushing buttons here, but if you call someone "diehard" "hardcore" and "dogmatist" why would you expect him/her to change their mind?

    -G
    Last edited by invisiblehand; 08-01-07 at 01:42 PM. Reason: grammar

  24. #24
    Senior Member rando's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Tempe, AZ
    Posts
    2,967
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by invisiblehand View Post
    Hah! No intent on pushing buttons here, but if you call someone "diehard" "hardcore" and "dogmatist" why would you expect him/her to change their mind?

    -G

    Fixed it.
    "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

  25. #25
    Senior Member sggoodri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Cary, NC
    My Bikes
    1983 Trek, 2001 Lemond, 2000 Gary Fisher
    Posts
    3,068
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by rando View Post
    you're talking about facilities, aren't you? like bike lanes? how is using a designated lane not VC?
    If the proposed facility for an "unpleasant" corridor is a sidewalk designated as a two-way bike path, as is commonly the problem here in NC, the conflict with VC is clear. If the proposed facility is a bike lane squeezed into a door zone, or into a curbside location where right turns are common, then this is in conflict with proper defensive bicycling. These are common "cheap" retrofits proposed by those seeking to encourage novice bicyclists to feel more comfortable on existing "unpleasant" roads.

    If the facility change is instead consistent with proper vehicular cycling, then it matches the type of engineering improvement I previously advocated. As I've said before, I don't have a real problem with wide non-door-zone bike lanes or wide paved shoulders between intersections if they are swept clean of debris, but as an artifact of the way roads are maintained where I live, there are no "unpleasant" corridors where regular street sweeping is a viable option.

    Quote Originally Posted by rando View Post
    well, yeah, with a defeatist attitude and the notion that the best way is the way benefitting only those high mileage cyclists like yourself and apparently every other cyclist in Cary, nothing WILL be gained. traffic calming is not the devil, and it doesn't have to reduce the safety and convenience of cycling. it may, however, reduce the effectiveness and speed of a certain type of high mileage cyclist. I suspect this is what really bothers you...

    Whoa there, nope, not all of "us" return to that conclusion at all, Clarence Darrow. the best approach may be a combo of education, facilities and traffic calming.
    I don't have a problem with some types of traffic calming that don't hurt cyclists. I have 25mph speed humps on my street in front of my house. I supported them. They have reduced speeds and cut-through volumes.

    But there is very active discussion among cyclists on a Durham, NC bike/ped advocacy list complaining about a recent traffic calming project there that added bulbouts on a wide-laned road, forcing cyclists to frequently merge with motorists into the newly narrowed lane or crash into the numerous bulbouts. The anti-motoring effort behind the bulbouts project has already resulted in one crash by a bicyclist, only a short time after its installation.

    Traffic calming efforts must respect implications for cyclists' operation as drivers of vehicles on roadways.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •