New guy to forum with his point of view after reading a lot of this section
 

Well, seems there is a lot of interesting debate going on concerning VC.

I would first like to say that for the most part it appears that most of you at least agree that cyclists don't have a right to run red lights. Stop signs seem to be a little more "loose" with at least a few thinking that a cyclist only need to slow down (parent A&S forum). Up here in Montana we call that "Californian-ing a Stop Sign" and it is usually motorists that do it (Apparently Montanan’s are trying to say something about the driving habits of those that learned to drive in that other state).

Long story short, there is not very much "infrastructure" for cycling up here. There are a select few big path routes positioned and suitable for commuter use which almost laughably have a few stretches with the pavement laid down but apparently they ran out of money to build the bridges over the streams and rivers so they just dead end on either side of the river bank and you have to “cross country” up to the regular road to use that bridge to cross over. There is every great once in a while also a bike lane that is basically just some extra paint added to the existing shoulder of the road labeling that area as the bike lane.

Our state law code does require bicyclists to FRAP while using the highways if they are unable to match the speed of traffic with the usual list of exceptions and does require “safe passing” for motorists going around bicyclists.

----------------------------------------------------------------

So, now that I have set the stage as far as the physical and legal environment. My biggest and most serious complaint is that the significant majority of cyclists in my own personal observations of at least the areas where I ride have nearly zero respect for the rules of the road. To date I have never seen another cyclist stop at a stop sign unless they would be committing suicide not to do so and they are stopping to not get run over not because of the stop sign. If no one is coming (or more correctly they think no one is coming) the other way they run right through; they do not even slow down. What gets even scarier is that about half maybe a just a little less then half do the exact same thing with red lights not just stop signs.

It gets worse, there are a few, two of which in my local area I know as regular repeat offenders to the point where I know what they look like and what bikes they ride that do “kamikaze runs” with both stop signs and red lights forcing motorists to brake and let them through sometimes severe braking and or skidding emergency type stops. Of course there are also plenty that ride on the wrong side of the road, the scary part is that I have witnessed a few cases where they were riding on the wrong side of the road and were not curb hugging but right out in the road (in light traffic obviously or they would be squashed pancakes).

There is part of me that doesn’t care that they misbehave to such utter and down right disgusting extents since sooner or later they are going to pay dearly for their misbehavior on the wrong end of a motor vehicle bumper, their problem not mine. The reality of the situation is though that they tick off the motorists and make the motorists hate cyclists and then I get to bear the brunt of the ensuing road rage as well even though I choose to behave myself (okay I might slip up a little bit every now and again but I don’t run red lights and stop signs or ride on the wrong side of the road and play chicken with oncoming traffic).

----------------------------------------------------

I personally think that both VC and FRAP cyclists do have valid points and that which method of riding is preferred and provides the best overall benefits for both cyclists and motorists depends considerably on the specific road conditions under which one is riding.

For me personally, in almost all in town roads in 25mph or lower speed zones I use the VC cycling method with the considerably rare exception of roadways that are wide enough to ride FRAP without putting myself in the “door opening danger zone.” Under these conditions I have no problem keeping up with the flow of traffic, in fact I am a little too good at it and have to keep myself from tailgating the person in front of me since I have already had one at fault collision where I rear ended a motorist in traffic when I was following too closely and they stopped suddenly. I used to even occasionally switch to the left hand land to pass slower moving motor traffic in the right hand lane, but have stopped doing that even though it slows me down because even though it is completely legal if I really am moving faster then they are it tends to upset some motorists when they get passed by a bicyclists and they can respond by speeding up after you have passed them and now are tailgating you.

But, on the high speed roadways I absolutely ride FRAP not VC unless it is a narrow roadway without a shoulder which are roads I only cycle on if absolutely necessary and will choose an alternate route if at all possible. I’m sorry if this gets under some of the VC guys skin but there is no way in hell the average cyclist riding the average cycle under human power only or even electric and motor assisted cyclists has the slightest chance in of keeping up with the flow of traffic on a high speed roadway with motor traffic zipping along at speeds of 55 to 75 mph. If you are out in the roadway, and especially if it is a two lane road you are going to p*ss the living h_ll out of the motorists and sooner or later your going to p*ss off the wrong one and they are going to kill you.

For riding on roadways with high speed traffic my most preferred situation is a road that has a wide shoulder on both edges with “rumble strips” just on the outside edge of the white line but not quite wide enough for motor vehicles to park in. In my opinion the shoulder area of such roads are the best possible places to cycle on a roadway with high speed motor traffic. That nice wide shoulder keeps me safely out of the way of traffic and they appreciate that which ultimately is good for me. In addition it allows me to avoid most problems with traffic entering and exiting the main highway from side roads and driveways since my position on the shoulder of the highway makes me more visible and allows me to safely assert my right of way along with the main flow of motor vehicle traffic without unduly p*sssing off the motorists that are entering and exiting the highway from side roads since there is much less confusion about who has the right of way as is encountered when a bicycle path that is separated from the main roadway intersects a side road especially if the bicycle path across the side road isn’t marked with paint on the roadway like a pedestrian cross walk (most aren’t). The significant benefit of having rumble strips separating you from the high speed motor traffic is often overlooked. Those rumble strips are a life saver for a cyclist that rides on the shoulder of a high speed highway, sometimes literally. A motorist that for whatever reason accidently strays out of their lane onto the shoulder area (fatigue, cell phone, distraction, etc . . . ) will be instantly alerted to their error when their tire hits those rumble strips and that almost without exception keeps them out of “your” shoulder riding area and out in the main roadway where they belong away from you since an impact even a slight nick on a close pass between a motor vehicle at high speed and a cyclist almost always ends badly for the cyclist. There is also a secondary benefit on your end of the rumble strips on the edge of the roadway serving as an audible early warning system for you as the cyclist when a motor vehicle approaching from behind strays towards you from behind whether their approach be an honest mistake or a deliberate attempt to run you off the road either way you can hear them coming when their tires hit that rumble strip giving you a chance to avoid being hit.

In my personal opinion the best way to build bicycle infrastructure would be to take all high speed roadways (speeds greater then 25mph) and build them with wide shoulders that are marked as being bike lanes with rumble strips in-between the bike lanes and the motor traffic lanes. That is where most of us cyclists who have a brain ride on high speed roadways that have a wide shoulder with rumble strips on the outer edge of the white line so why not just make it official and use a little paint to mark those shoulder areas as bike lanes. Obviously, this would involve widening a few roads that don’t have a shoulder as of present. Not a bad idea anyway. And of course no parking on the sides of those roads parallel or otherwise, even not considering cyclists parking along the sides of high speed roads is a bad idea anyway and an accident waiting to happen between high speed traffic and those pulling into or out of parking spaces.

On all low speed roadways (25mph or less) don’t make any bike lanes and instead put up signs directing cyclists to merge with traffic and for motorists to respect the cyclists as equal users of the roadway, or in other words officialize VC cycling on these low speed roadways. Most importantly in those low speed road areas VC must by officialized to the point of full and complete rules of the road enforcement against cyclists where if a cyclist runs a red light or stop sign they get busted and ticketed for it just like a motorist. Equal rights, equal responsibilities, law equal enforcement for on such low speed roadways where cyclists do have the ability under human power alone to keep up with the flow of traffic no problem.

On the high speed highways with the bike lanes on the shoulder edge divided off by both painted lines on the roadway as well as rumble strips which are an excellent passive defense mechanism for the cyclist. Laws protecting cyclists from motorist entering their lane should be strictly enforced. The legal right for a cyclist to exit the bicycle lane and enter the main roadway in order to enter the left hand turn lane, pass another slower moving cyclist, and/or avoid a problem in the bicycle lane should be preserved. How the bicycle lane is routed through intersections, especially intersections with a right hand turn lane would be very important. It is very dangerous for a cyclist (I know this from personal experience) to hold FRAP on the outer right hand edge of a right hand turn lane and then go straight across the intersection instead of turning right. Motor traffic turning right will not respect you and will side swipe off the road. If you are going to go straight through an intersection with a right hand turn lane when the right and turn lane starts you should proceed straight forward and depending on the width of the traffic lanes either ride with your tires right on top of the white line separating the right hand turning lane from straight through traffic or just inside that white line on the far left side of the right hand turn lane. The idea of course being to make your intention to proceed straight through the intersection clear to other road users and allow motor traffic on both sides of you to either proceed forward straight through the intersection or enter the right hand turn lane and turn right without you preventing them from doing so easily and swiftly and allowing you as the cyclist to maintain your safety and not have problems with being side swiped by motor traffic turning right or those turning onto the main highway not seeing you or not realizing you intend to continue straight through the intersection and coming at you from the side. A couple pictures are worth a couple thousand words and this is how I think the bicycle lanes should be set-up on a high speed highway for a win/win situation for both motorists and cyclists:

Before:
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6090/...66f243c57e.jpg

The intersection shown is a hypothetical traffic light intersection between a high speed four lane concrete divider highway with both right and left turn turning lanes and a high speed two lane highway without right or left turning lanes. Such high speed highways and such intersections are quite common where I ride. You can see what I am saying about the wide shoulder with the rumble strips between you and traffic being a good place to ride if you are riding FRAP. I can believe you can see what I am saying about the potential of being side swiped by motorists turning right off the main four lane highway if you continue to ride your bicycle on the shoulder when the right hand turning lane starts and you want to go straight across the intersection. Riding on the line between the straight through traffic and the right turn lane being preferable since it separates the two hazards into two steps. Namely the motorists traveling in the same direction as you are who want to turn off the road to the right. You deal with them and them only when you cross over from riding on the shoulder to riding with your wheels on the line between the through traffic and the right hand turn lane. The second hazard being the opposing traffic turning left in front of you and entering traffic turning onto the four lane taking a “right on red” (your light is green). If you do not take that line through the intersection you have to deal with all of those hazards all at once and usually it is the motorist next to you turning off the road to the right that will get you since they are the least visible to them and they are the least visible to you.

After:
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6085/...5ccce2a637.jpg

The intersection has been converted to be bicycle friendly in the second picture with only minimal addition of pavement. The shoulders of both roads are now officially marked as bicycle lanes with the rumble strips separating them from motorist traffic. The line I follow to avoid getting side swiped by motorist in the right hand turn lane when I am going straight is now an official bike lane for bicycle through traffic as well as the bicyclists having their own right hand turn lane. In addition just like a freeway ramp entrance system four bike path circles have been added to the four corners of the intersection which allow bicycle traffic to take a left hand turn in two steps when traffic is heavy and they cannot safely cross over to the left hand turn lane. They can simply go straight across the side road and go around the bike path loop and be lined up to go straight across again once the light changes significantly reducing the hazards and confrontations between cyclists and motorists for cyclists who need to make a left hand turn in heavy high speed traffic.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Concerning bike paths (separated from main roadway). I use two of them.

The first runs along a narrow winding high speed two lane road that doesn’t have any shoulder with alternating deep ditches and embankments along both sides and the motor traffic does 55 to 65 mph. The only safe way to ride a bike on that road way would be to “take the lane” otherwise you would be surely forced off the road into a deep ditch or sandwiched up against an embankment wall. That, however, would still be extremely hazardous since because of the way the roadway dips and winds there are many sections of the road where motorists could not slow down in time to keep from running into you even if they wanted to if they are moving at the speeds that traffic moves on that road. Personally, I think the speed limit on that road should be 45 mph maximum and strictly enforced just for the safety of the motorists alone not even considering bicyclists because at the current speed levels people are out driving their visibility distance and ability to brake in time to avoid hitting even a stalled out car on the roadway. Thus I use the bike path that has been built along that roadway although its route differs slightly and sometimes it goes around the other side of the hill then the road does but they both go in the same direction if you need to go out that way. It is missing a bridge in two spots so I do have to use the main roadway bridge to cross over. In my personal opinion trying to VC on that roadway instead of using the bike path would be suicidal.

The second runs through the edge of a park inside city limits and provides unique access. It does not follow any road but instead cuts through and connects two different parts of the town that to travel between by roadway would mean a couple extra miles of travel distance. That bike path is heavily used for the obvious reason that it provides a unique shortcut not offered by the conventional roadway network, unfortunately, many pedestrians use it as well (more on this later).

There are two bike paths that I refuse to use and there used to be a third before they tore it out because it was creating more problems then it solved:

The first is a bike path alongside a four lane divided roadway that has a wide shoulder with a rumble strip as previously described above as my preferred place to ride on a high speed highway. The bike path is separated from the roadway and creates several extra intersections where the bike path crosses major roads that connect to the highway creating dangerous conflict points between motorists and cyclists. Riding on the shoulder of the main highway is much better since the motorists coming in and out of those major side roads are much more likely to see you and much less apt to run you down when you are riding on the shoulder of the main roadway instead of on the bike path. In addition that bike path is missing a bridge as well so even those who use it have to come up on the shoulder of the main highway to cross the river.

The second is also along a main high speed highway a five lane highway with middle turning lane that has a wide shoulder with a rumble strip as previously described above as my preferred place to ride on a high speed highway. The bike path is separated from the roadway and once again creates several extra intersections where the bike path crosses major roads that connect to the highway once again creating dangerous conflict points between motorists and drivers where the bike path crosses those major roads that connect with the highway right before the main intersection. In addition, there is a community college campus right in that area and during certain parts of the day that bike path is clogged up with massive numbers of pedestrians who prefer to walk side by side blocking the path and refusing to yield to bicycle traffic and usually verbally assault and sometimes even physically assault bicyclists who are “on their walking path” even though it is clearly labeled as a bike path the same problem to a lesser extent does exist on the path I do use that provides the shortcut mentioned earlier that I still use despite this problem because it provides such an advantage.

The third bike path that used to exist but was torn out had all the problems that I have mentioned previously with both of the paths that still exist that I refuse to use (dangerous traffic conflict points when crossing side roads and militant belligerent pedestrians who insist on walking side by side and taking up the whole path) but with the additional problem that the in town road it ran along side didn’t have a shoulder edge that would allow cycling on the roadway without “taking the lane”. They tore it out and widened the road shoulder instead and labeled the new wide shoulder as a bike lane. An action that was a significant, welcome, and very beneficial improvement and correction of a serious and dangerous mistake in my opinion.

The other two bike paths that still exist are wasted public funds in my opinion and they should have just spent one tenth of the money they cost on paint and turned the shoulders along both sides of those highways into official bike lanes. A wide shoulder with a rumble strip separating it from the main flow of high speed traffic is the best place to ride along a high speed roadway in my opinion as I explained earlier.

----------------------------------------------------

In conclusion, with respect, I think in reality for true advocacy we have a lot bigger fish to fry with self policing and educating our fellow cyclists about the most basic rules of the road (red lights, stop signs, and which side of the road to ride on) and VC vs. FRAP along with a lot of other debates that are active and ongoing are secondary to that.

When it does come to what I believe would be the best choice for adapting the road ways to better accommodate cyclists I believe that on low speed roads (25mph and below) where cyclists can keep up with traffic. The policy and the law should be VC all the way. But for high speed highways repainting existing roadways with rumble strips and wide shoulders to make those shoulders officially bicycle lanes is the way to go. And then you need to add rumble strips and a wide shoulder to high speed roads that don’t have them to accommodate the same set-up and then the intersections need to be slightly updated to accommodate these bicycle lanes in the design of the intersection to relieve the conflicts between motorist and cyclists in those intersections.

As for bike paths that are separate but built along the side of existing roadways they do not relieve but rather exasperate the conflicts between motorists and cyclists at the intersections. On roads without intersections or as stand alone paths that don’t follow the roadway, yah, they work fine but when built along existing roads and intersecting side roads just slightly back from the main intersections they create a double intersection which only exasperates conflict between motorists and cyclists at those intersection points.

----------------------------------------------------

P.S. ~ Since I know that this section of the forum is mainly a “debate” section and this thread will certainly result in such and create tension. I feel it is important to point out that I am not one of those guys who goes around picking internet fights on forums. I do not enjoy fighting or love a good argument (that would be my woman not me; opposites attract). Normally, I generally shy away from conflict. But on things that are truly important to me I do stand my ground.

I am just making this clear so that I don’t end being seen as the FNG Troll for starting a thread like this when I am so new to this forum.

Welcome to the forum, this should be an interesting thread.

Three quick points.

1. You obviously have put a lot of thought into this.

2. FRAP and VC are not exclusive methods. Both can be practiced at the same time.

3. It seems you may be overly concerned with causing motorists to ever have to slow down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AlmostTrick (Post 13079895)

. . . 2. FRAP and VC are not exclusive methods. Both can be practiced at the same time. . .

---

I politely disagree, VC is not FRAP but rather "taking the lane". I just call it what it is rather then biting around the edges. By “taking the lane” you are effectively deliberately preventing motorists from passing you without going completely around you like you were another motor vehicle. As you can already tell from my OP I most certainly not a militant VC but I do understand that it is necessary and even preferred in some environments to ensure your own survival.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AlmostTrick (Post 13079895)

. . . 3. It seems you may be overly concerned with causing motorists to ever have to slow down.

---

In truth I don’t give a flip about motorists never having to slow down. I do care about unnecessarily p*ssing them of and inciting road rage. In a motor vehicle vs. bicycle road rage incident the bicyclist doesn’t have a chance in hell of wining. I like to stay alive and uninjured.

Very interesting read, and here in Cali we call it a "California Roll" =). I try to observe all the rules when cars are around, but when it's empty I tend to be more lax. But in general I think there is just a lack of education on how cyclist should behave on the road. When I learned to ride, my dad pushed me and let go, and that was that. No rules of the road, no exams, nothin. When I learned to drive, I didn't remember any lessons or questions concerning watching for cyclists. Consequently we see cyclists breaking laws and riding irresponsibly and drivers getting too close, or throwing objects and profanities. This probably should be addressed along with infrastructure change.

a slight correction : VC riding encompasses FRAP.

there is no conflict between operating vehicularly and operating FRAP as a slowly driven vehicle.

"Ride safely right when faster traffic wishes to overtake" is one of the purest embodiments of VC riding around.

Courteous, safe, vehicular. Fully in agreement with the John Franklin "primary-secondary" method of vehicular style bicycling.

Can't have it both ways if you're pleding adherence to the VC ideology, turbo1889. That's for all us moderates with a more realistic view of bicycling traffic and planning.

it sounds like you have come to one of the near universal truths of planning for bike traffic, repeated around the world - bike traffic and even pedestrians can safely co-mingle on slower speed roads, but as traffic speeds increase, space for and separation of bike and pedestrian traffic is the only sensible response for humanly engineered roadways.

Vehicular cycling does not equal always taking the lane.

I agree about the higher traffic speeds making cycling more unpleasant, difficult, sometimes even dangerous. I just think the threshold is higher than 25 mph. Cyclists don't always have to "keep up with traffic" to be safe.

Sure, the real threshold is when motor traffic is moving 15MPH or greater than the cyclist... this speed was identified by John Forester who declared that "negotiation" between cyclist and motorist becomes difficult when such a speed differential is reached. So for a cyclist moving at 20PH, 35MPH+ motor traffic starts to become "difficult to negotiate with."

Personally traffic moving at 35MPH doesn't really present any issues to me... But motorists moving at 50MPH really do look "unpleasant, difficult, sometimes even dangerous."

Sadly, in my area, many arterial roads have speeds at 50MPH or higher. I'd be willing to bet Montana has a lot of similar high speed roads. Massachusetts, I believe, doesn't allow cyclists on roadways with such speeds. Here in CA they just paint a strip along the side of such high speed roads some 5 feet from the edge of the pavement and declare it a bike lane.

Bekologist, you seem to have been confused by what I have said. I am well aware that you view VC not as a description of a methodology of operating a bicycle on the public roadway but rather as a religious cult like sect of bike riders. You view it as a religious cult philosophy as your many posts on the subject that I have been reading clearly indicate.

In some cases that description of VC may indeed be true and accurate, but just like any other term the context in which it is used is part of determining the meaning of the word. For example the word “nail”. I could use it to refer to my thumb nail the hard protective biological coating on the top of my thumb or I could use it to refer to a short steel rod with a point on one end and a flared head on the other that is driven by kinetic impact force and is used to connect two different pieces of wood or other similar material together with each other in a fairly permanent structural bond. Your response to my use of VC to describe not a religious cult but rather a method of riding is analogous to you telling me I’m an idiot because I want to hit my nail with a hammer and doing that will only injure my thumb and cause me pain when it was clear from the context of my usage of the word “nail” that I was not talking about that type of nail but rather the other kind you are suppose to hit with a hammer.

I am thankful that you at least correctly quoted me and didn’t trim down my quote to remove my clarification that I only view the VC method of riding as appropriate in slow traffic areas. I guess I should be a little more clear why I say “all the way”. I would consider the addition of bike paths or lanes to such roadways as a problem and do not want that to happen. If I can keep up with the flow of motor traffic and more often then not in such areas am actually slowed down by motor traffic I would find the addition of bicycle infrastructure more then just a waste of resources but actually an insult and harassment of my right to use the roadway like any other vehicle. You are correct of course about how this theory falls apart on higher speed roadways and I was very careful to clearly clarify this to only roadway speeds where the a cyclist can keep up with the flow of motor traffic.

----------------------------------------------------

AlmostTrick, with respect if I were driving down a low speed roadway (25mph or less speed limit) in a motor vehicle at about 15 to 20 miles an hour whether that motor vehicle is the biggest street legal motor vehicle I own (1-ton dually flatbed firewood hauling truck) or the smallest street legal motor vehicle I own (180cc street legal motor bike) I would not FRAP with that motor vehicle, I would take the lane, and mainly stay in the center of the lane only varying my position in the lane to accommodate hazards such as the other guy in the oncoming lane riding the yellow line or someone opening their parallel parked car door on the other side without looking first.

By definition VC (method not religion) is to operate a cycle (presumably a pedal powered cycle) in the same manner and way as one would operate a motor vehicle on the same roadway. When I am on my little 180cc motor bike I don’t pull to the right to encourage someone to pass me with minimal clearance and in so doing endanger my own life. Why would I do so with a pedal powered bicycle when the laws of the state where I live allow me the option to “take the lane” if I can keep up with the flow and speed of motor traffic in areas where I can indeed do so? Why add the additional risk and hazard of encouraging motorists to pass me with minimal clearance if it isn’t necessary by not taking the lane when my speed compared to the speed of motor traffic allows me to safely do so?

As I stated earlier where I can keep up with traffic then I do believe VC (method not religion / taking the lane instead of FRAPing) is the safest option giving the greatest amount of visibility to other users of the road and preventing a large number of the right of way confusion problems among motorists since they can tell that I am behaving myself according to the same rules of the road as they are using.

Once again, though, once the motorist traffic speeds go above about 25mph not a hard fast rule but in the ball park then I as a bicyclists can no longer keep up with and maneuver around with motor vehicle traffic as an equal and FRAP riding preferably on a wide shoulder with a rumble strip between me and high speed motor vehicle traffic becomes the better choice. I do fully agree that this is mainly due to the fact that motorists’ ability to treat bicyclists as equals on the roadway rapidly evaporates once the bicyclists are no longer able to keep up with the speed of motor vehicle traffic. Unfortunately, I don’t see this attitude that the motorists have where they will tolerate bicycles on the roadway and give them fair play only so long as they can keep up with motor vehicle traffic changing any time soon. When it comes down to a road rage battle between a motorist and you the bicyclists, unless you are willing to wear military delta force complete body coverage body armor and helmet and pack a fully automatic military grade weapon with the training to use it to maximum effect you are going to loose that fight and it is best not to pick fights you can’t win.

Asserting myself in a respectful manner by riding VC style (method not religion / taking the lane instead of FRAPing) in low speed motor traffic is a situation where I win and the motorists don’t take a loss but merely break even with my presence just basically increasing traffic volume by one unit and that is all so they don’t usually get upset. Doing the same in high speed traffic is a loose/loose proposition.

----------------------------------------------------

I have seen VC riders of the militant religious cult type. The cyclists who “take the lane” of a 45 to 70 mph two lane highway and will not get over no matter what. I am not one of them and I think they are stupid and are part of the problem not the solution.

I have seen FRAP only riders who do nothing but FRAP just about get themselves killed by encouraging motorists to pass them when it is not safe to do so and just about get taken out by parked cars. Not just doors opening but the cars actually pulling out of their parking spots. I think they are stupid and are part of the problem not the solution.

But even worse are the bicyclists who refuse to respect even the most basic of all rules of the road. They run red lights, they run stop signs, they ride on the wrong side of the road and play chicken with oncoming traffic. They are stupid, stupid, stupid and they are THE BIGGEST part of the problem.

Then of course there are the motorists who don’t like bicyclists and take it upon themselves to deliberately run bicyclists off the road or worse. They are stupid and they are part of the problem. Yup, that’s right I just rated those motorists less of a problem then the bicyclists who refuse to respect even the most basic of all rules of the road. Why? Well because they to a large part are the ones responsible for why many motorists don’t like bicyclists. Which is worse the cause or the effect considering the cause is what leads to the effect?

I think your post comes across as anything but trollish. You've obviously put a fair amount of thought and time into it. I'd largely agree with what you post and would probably make exactly the same cycling choices as you have.. One exception though would be the idea that 25mph is a boundary beyond which it makes sense to have some sort of separate "facility". It can be much higher than that depending on the number of lanes available and how wide the outside lane is.

Good post though, thanks.

Huh. An A&S poster with reasonable, real-life opinions, who also notes that cyclists aren't always perfect.

I predict the locals will tear him limb from limb.

Simply riding high speed roads in a legal manner using techniques proven to be safest for the conditions at hand does not necessarily a militant make. The road layouts you (and most other cyclists) prefer are not always available. Sometimes, the only practical choices are: A. Take the lane and be considered a "religious militant" by some, B. Ride the crumbled edge of a narrow lane were the actual risks of sustaining an injury would certainly be higher, or C. Drive a car.

So unless I choose B or C I'm stupid and part of the problem? I'm not sorry when I say that I refuse to accept that.

Oh, I see. you DO ride safely right to share the road with faster traffic wishing to overtake, at times i guess, so you do understand the concept of fair road sharing while operating a narrow, slowly driven vehicle such as a bicycle. Fair enough.

FRAPALICIOUS! It's not UN-vehicular at all.

Ride safely right to share the road with faster traffic wishing to overtake. Safe, considerate with the duty of care required of public roadway users, and vehicular.

AlmostTrick, your reply would make sense if this is what I had said:

But that is NOT what I said; this is:

In addition I also wrote this in my original post:

Those two statements of mine are by no means inconsistent. In one I call out militant religious cult VC riders who will deliberately impede the flow of motor traffic on a high speed roadway and will always “take the lane” and will not get over no matter what. The “whats” most definitely include roadways with lanes wide enough to safely accommodate both a bicyclist and motor vehicle if the cyclists where to hold to the right edge of the lane as well as roads that have wide shoulders that are more than adequate if not ideal for bicycle traffic. Anyone who thinks this doesn’t happen either can count their blessings that it doesn’t happen in their area or they need to stop burying their head in the sand.

You have probably noticed that I write long posts. They are long because I do my best to clearly clarify what I mean. Unfortunately, effective communication is a two way street and requires not only carefully chosen wording but also careful listening or reading on the other end as well.

----------------------------------------------------

I did make that fairly clear in my opening post; namely that both riding VC style (method not religion / taking the lane instead of FRAPing) and riding FRAP style both have their place and both are appropriate and both are inappropriate depending on the riding situation.

----------------------------------------------------

At this point I think both of you guys (AlmostTrick & Bekologist) have your head so far up your politics (I said politics and mean politics not anything else) that you have lost the ability to have an independently generated thought on the subject. All you can do is to try to apply your party talking points as best as you can and ignore anything that you don’t have a talking point for.

To refuse to acknowledge that either of the two methods under discussion are not fully adequate for all situations and/or to refuse to acknowledge that “taking the lane” and that riding as “far right as possible” are mutually exclusive and that both can not be done by the same bicyclist on the same roadway at the same moment in time is not intellectually honest. Yes, there is the technical loop hole of saying if a cyclist “takes” the right hand lane if there are several lanes they are to the right of the other lanes, but that is a loop hole technicality only usable as a cop out excuse to avoid the question and we all know it. It is also not logical to refuse to acknowledge that the same cyclist is capable of utilizing both methods just not at the same moment in time and choosing which method is preferable depending on changing conditions. It is, also, not logical to refuse to acknowledge that infrastructure improvements are necessary on some roadways before they can be considered a wise choice for bicycling. Some roadways are built with such magnified and multiplied built in conflicts between motorists and cyclists that they should only be used for cycling if there is no alternate route available. To refuse to acknowledge that such roads exist is not wise.

Let me be utterly blunt, in the U.S. regular on roadway cyclists do not represent a majority of the population. All that needs to happen is for at least 51% to decide they don’t want cyclists to be allowed on the road at all and they can change the law and none of us will be able to legally use any of the roadways for cycling PERIOD. We have to learn how to do what we need to do while reducing the percentage of the rest of the population we p*ss off in the process right, wrong, or indifferent. Not to mention the safety issues and the potential for a very mortal confrontation right there on the spot if you p*ss the wrong one off.

This is not a sports match people, it is not a game. We are playing for keeps here and the score is not always a win for one side and a loss for the other. Both sides can loose and both sides can win. Win/win solutions are the most effective and aggressively asserting yourself and “forcing” the motorist to loose does not guarantee a win for the other side. In fact it almost ensures a loss on our side as well in the long run.

The greatest wins and the greatest losses for advocacy are not decided in some court room or through some petition or getting some infrastructure built. No, the battle is won or lost based on how we conduct ourselves on the roads and the impressions we generate in the minds of hundreds on non-cyclists mainly motorists that we interact with on a daily basis. The supposed advocacy techniques suggested by some are nothing more then shooting yourself in the foot on that front of the battle.

Bek, one of your mantras has been "Ride safely right when faster traffic wishes to overtake." Please provide a complete description of the action recommended and the results that it produces.

you don't like my truism I frequently mention about vehicular bicycling technique?

What do i have to do? explain to a guy that's written books about bicycling how to integrate with traffic and the principles of road sharing?

Here's a book you might want to read, it might help. John Franklins' Cyclecraft, maybe you've heard of it? Cyclecraft is the principal reference for the National Cycle Training Standard in the UK.

Mr. Franklin likens it to a 'primary-secondary' lane positioning method to integrate effectively on any type of road as a vehicular bicyclist.


North American edition now available! but i'd also suggest a Bikes 1-2-3 class, and then maybe a Smart Cycling class, to brush up on your road cycling skills, john.

http://www.cyclecraft.org

Turbo1889, you might want to find a copy of cyclecraft or take a smart cycling class, it could clear up this whole road riding - road sharing - FRAP=VC stuff and make you a safer, more considerate cyclist to boot. check out the League of American Bicyclists, i'm confident you can find a smart cycling class in Montana.

Egads! I think I agree with the OP 100%.

I take the lane when needed (Excessive debris, or broken pavement in the far-right, or when making a turn and needing the turn lane), but generally, I right AFRAP.

It keeps motorists from becoming PO'd to the point where they'd try to run me off the road, keeps me moving, keeps auto traffic moving, and everyone seems pretty happy with it (From the experiences of riding I've had).

Egads! Sometimes, I even take to the sidewalks if there is no ped traffic, and the roads are that unbearable to be on (A mountain bike would be more apropo in some sections of Buffalo).

tl;dr

No, Bek, you can't wiggle out of answering my question by declaring that my expert knowledge should inform me of what you mean when you proclaim "Ride safely right when faster traffic wishes to overtake". Were I to write such a thing my expert knowledge would inform me of what I meant, but I can't read your mind, while your proclamation could mean any of several things. Therefore, I repeat my request. Bek, provide a complete and detailed description of the actions you recommend and a complete and detailed description of the results produced. Until then, I consider your words to be useless.

:rolleyes:

perhaps a quick read of cyclecraft could fill you in on the technique. its the official principal reference for cycle training in the UK, I imagine you've read it, maybe even have a copy on the bookshelf.

John, please retrain from posting until you regain the capacity to discuss without rehearsing your personal battle with Bek. The continuing fuss just demeans you and pollutes the forum.

I did not proclaim "Ride safely right when faster traffic wishes to overtake" as some primary rule of cycling. Bek did so, though he added some dig about VC to his proclamation. Lateral positioning is a very important part of traffic cycling. What does Bek mean by this instruction, as to action and results expected? I don't know; I think it appropriate that this be understood. Did you know what Bek meant before he deferred to Cyclecraft?

Now that Bek has deferred to Cyclecraft, I say explicitly that Cyclecraft is quite vague on the actions recommended and says nothing about the results to be expected.

I could swear I'm watching a political news TV station. Just talking points targeted as jabs for the other side and no one willing to actually get specific and lay things out in very clear and clarified way detail by detail. Plus of course the usual constant attempts to redefine the terms of the debate to gain advantage. And then when all else fails just drop yourself down to the level of saying the other guy needs to go take a class or read a book instead of actually answering the question and taking a stand and putting yourself on the line. Smoke, mirrors, politics, and semantics.

For some reason I am left wondering if at least two of the posters possibly three may be professional politicians for their real life jobs.

At least have the courage to lay out your position clearly and concisely doing your best to make it clear what you mean rather then using carefully planned talking points specifically and carefully designed to be deliberately void of details which could expose you to specific criticism but rather worded to make you look higher and nobler by the exact words chosen while still retaining an attack pattern on your opponent. :notamused:

Are you new to internet forums :lol:

No, just new to cycling forums. Do a google search on my username (I always use the same one) and you will find I have been an active member of several forums for many years.

Apparently, the cyclist forum crowd handles debates more like politicians and less like the internet forum crowd I normally hang with.

Meh, I've found the same style across ALL forums I've ever participated in. This pic is apropos:
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png

And this:
http://blog.ezyang.com/img/wrong-on-...t/argument.jpg