HH's version of VC v.s. what?
 

I think a lot of bandwidth is wasted here with assertions about the way I present vehicular cycling as being biased, or incorrect, or twisted, etc. Lately, these have mostly come from Chipcom, Bekologist and Brian Ratliff.

For the record, I'm the originator and the major editor of the vehicular cycling entry in Wikipedia (see my signature). Others have edited and contributed.

If there is some other definition of vc, please present it here, or provide a pointer to it. Or at least state clearly what specifically is different about the vc presented by me in these posts, or that presented in the Wiki article, with "the real vc", or whatever you want to call it. Also, please cite my actual words, not an interpretation of my words.

Otherwise, let's put these nonsense assertions to rest and stop wasting so much time and bytes on it.

Thank you.

Here. Concise, unbiased, correct, and untwisted. It speaks to the strength of the vehicular cycling technique, and it carries no extra political, sociological, or philosophical baggage.

I don't see much difference between Helmet Head's version and Brian Ratliff's. Well, HH's is more fully articulated and he probably has put more time and thought into it. If either could explain any core or fundamental differences, I'd appreciate it. But if you start arguing about trivial **** I'll just leave you to it.
You both tend to get carried away about the politics, but you actually agree on about 99.9 % of the stuff. That's what gets a little tedious: trying to follow the arguments over such fine distinctions. Reformation versus counter-reformation versus counter-counter Reformation. Whatever.

It seems that bike lanes are the major point of contention (and definitely not a trivial point). But VC as a riding method must approach bike lanes as a reality. They exist, and we have to ride on them or around them, or whatever. The political issue, "Should bike lanes be extended or removed?" Is really a separate topic from "How should we ride our bikes in traffic?" I thought that had been decided, but apparently the ghost of bike lanes still haunts all VC discussions! Again, I really fail to distinguish the bones of dissention that remain, and I'm beginning to doubt that anybody will ever explain it in terms that are simple enough for me to understand.

Brian: And how is that any different from what I have been promoting/advocating? Again, please use my actual words (including words from the Wiki article) to compare/contrast, not an interpretation of my words.

Exactly. And, yet, they make assertions as if "my version" is somehow significantly different from some other mystical version of vc, without ever stating how that is.

I'm tired of it. It's time to state once and for all what the significant differences are, or stop asserting that there are any, admit that there are none, and move on already.

VC™ is all yours. Enjoy.

Victory is yours. I concede.

Wikipedia is bad. Whoever takes that thing for fact must be ********.

Well the two things that stand out in my mind are the DCBLLP or what ever it was and the comments you made about bumping stop signs.

Beyond that, anything that advocates violating the laws of the road as a regular course of action is not vc.

Your whole anti bike lane attitude is not vc... and you have even stated that using bike lanes is not anti-vc.

Your alpha dog attitude is not vc as vc should and can work for anyone on the road... from grandma to newbie... with or without an attitude.

I agree that ADA is not vc, but I don't think vc must work for eveyrone on any road. Just as newbie drivers shouldn't start driving on arterials without more residential road experience, I don't think newbie cyclist should be expected to ride (vc or not) on arterials without some other experience under their belt.

Al

The fact that you can't take Wikipedia for fact does not make it bad.
The fact that I can't take your posts, or anyone's posts, for fact, does not make them bad either.
Some Wikipedia articles are persuasive, some are not.
Some posts here are persuasive, some are not.

But it's all good.

The arterials are usually the only way to get from A to B. What do they do then? My small city is split east/west by a freeway (typical) with only two fast one-way bridges crossing it. Luckily there is a two-way bike lane across one of them. It's not perfect, but it's a start.



Oh and back on topic, who can forget the pack-o-roadies as one vehicle argument a while back. I seem to recall that being VC™ too.

That describes where I live. Until I gained the skills, experience and confidence to ride on heavily used arterials, I used the bike for recreational rides, running errands and took the bus to work. I re-learned cycling after not riding for over 20yrs and it took me about 6mo. before I was ready to cycle the commute to work. It would have been irresponsible of me to try these arterials during rush hour even if they had perfect bike lanes.

Al

You're confusing specific methods I've developed and promoted with something I presented as vc. If you think about it, you will realize I have never talked about specifics like "use a mirror to check for approaching faster traffic from the rear every 3-5 seconds" in the context of a presentation of vc. In particular, you will note that none of this is part of the Wikipedia article on VC, and never has been.

I have never advocated violating the laws of the road as a regular course of action.

I have never presented my anti-BL arguments as being part of vc (though I believe they are part of VC advocacy, which is very different).

Again, please provide my specific words, not a (mis)interpretation of them.

Your recollection is faulty. I only raised the question of whether a pack of cyclists acting as a single vehicle behaves consistent with VC. I never presented it as being a part of VC, as is supported by the fact that this issue is not addressed in the Wiki article, and never has been.

Actually, I think HH and I agree about more than we disagree about. However, that is not to say I believe there are no other cycling techniques out there that may be effective for a given area.

And let's begin the process of reducing time-wasting by starting YET MORE USELESS THREADS about our own behavior.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Helmet Heads assertions in just the last 24 hours have been doozys!!!

"Bad drivers can be herded"

"If I don't have a mirror, I don't take the lane as much, but still use traffic approaching from behind as my reference point for lane positioning on high speed roadways"

"when faced with an 8 foot wide bike lane, with 8 feet of parked cars to the right, take the travel lane because of traffic approaching from behind on a little travelled, slow speed roadway."

There's plenty more gaffes in the last 24 hours, but I'll be damned if I'm going to go over helmet heads' illogical absurdities over and over again....

I agree. The only area of disagreement I've been able to discern is whether VC includes cyclists having to obey the part of the traffic law that recognizes a distrinction between cyclists and drivers of other slow vehicles, and treats them differently.

(note the extra effort expended in saying the above without using baggage-laden terms like segregation and discrimination).

I am not the only one "confused," go back and look at the thread called "
Vehicular cycling vs. cycling legally - what's the diff?"

You will see several replies from folks that have read your vc messages interspersed with your other "concepts" and could not separate the two.

And specifically in the opening post you stated:
I am pretty sure that is not out of context nor misquoted. But just in case, the thread is here:
http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=166357

So stating that constitutes "advocating violating the laws of the road as a regular course of action"?

Don't you think that's something of a stretch?

Stating that it's consistent with vc to stop, or roll (in that particular situation) -- which is what I basically said -- is not necessarily advocating one or the other.

If I simply point out that "hanging 10" is a surfing technique, am I necessarily advocating hanging 10?

How about Center Lane Biasing (case insensitive) being presented as VC (case insensitive). Or if you don't like those exact words, can you prove you have never said anything remotely similar to "the center lane as a default position is VC" (case insensitive)? Or can you prove that you have never linked or implied a link between center lane biasing or center lane as the default position and vc (case insensitive) by mentioning center lane biasing or center lane as the default position only in posts or threads that weren't discussing vc (case insensitive)?

Sheesh I almost sound like a lawyer.

In fact, Serge, you have to take the body of your work as a whole and not the exact words used in post number xyz. The whole of your body of work here links vc, center lane biasing, mirrors and anti-bike lane arguments all as one and the same. And lately you can add treating the laws as suggestions to follow only when convenient.

+10

Something of a stretch... heck no, which is why I argued against it on that thread... I thought you were promoting vc as violating laws, and I stated just that... even though as a practice I often do just that. That does not make it right... but the way you stated it, it was "gospel."

Remember you have made yourself the unequivocal "VC expert" here... therefore your words tend to carry the weight of the expertise you profess.

You want to be a cyclist with an idea... well that is different... but that is not the tack you took.

Especially when a couple of the VC™ jesters believe in the loony logic of Planet Serge that going over those gaffes and illogical absurdities adds credence to them.