Helmet Head

Please use the following definitions (lifted from the "Some VC definitions" thread OP) in answering the questions in the poll.

Vehicular Cycling (VC) is a set of practices, techniques and skills used to ride a bicycle on roadways in accordance to the vehicular rules of the road, including the vehicular rules of the road that govern drivers of slow moving vehicles. It is distinguished from traffic cycling practices that are blatantly in conflict with the vrotr.

Basic VC (BVC) is the collection of VC techniques, skills and practices most experienced cyclists already use, but most novices need to learn, such as:

* Ride on the right half of the road, with vehicular traffic.
* Obey traffic control.
* Use hand signals before turning.
* Use lights/reflectors at night.
* Use speed positioning between intersections, including riding in the margins.
* Use destination positioning at intersections and their approaches.
* Turning left by waiting for a gap before merging left.
* Recognize that door zones should be avoided.
* Etc.

Advanced VC (AVC) is the collection of VC techniques, skills and practices few experienced cyclists already utilize, at least not consistently, and almost all novices have not learned, such as:

* Using negotiation to create gaps.
* Merging left one lane at a time.
* Signaling using look backs.
* Being able to look back for more than a fraction of a second without riding off course.
* Using assertive "centerish" lane positioning to discourage lane sharing/squeezing when the lane is too narrow to be safely shared.
* Using assertive "centerish" lane positioning to improve sight lines and conspicuity when safe and reasonable to do so.
* Recognizing when traffic behind needs a hint about what to do, and providing it appropriately and effectively.
* Recognizing when and where bike lanes are okay to use, and when they should be avoided.
* Avoiding door zones by habitually riding at least five feet from the edge of parked vehicles.
* Etc.


Strict VC is strict adherence to VC while riding a bicycle. It means never riding on sidewalks, never doing a 2-step left turn, never taking a short cut through a parking lot, never mountain biking, never rolling a stop (a.k.a California Stop), never riding on bike paths, etc.

chipcom 

I advocate pie.

rando

I advocate pie and ice cream.

sggoodri

My 3yo son advocates me riding my bike to the ice cream store, with him in the Burley trailer.

When we go to Dairy Queen, we use roads all the way, and use vehicular cycling concepts the whole way.

When we go to Maggie Moo's ice cream shop, we use the Black Creek Greenway, but operate on the right hand side and generally treat it as a miniature road full of pedestrians and dogs on leashes.

We return happy either way.

CTAC

I do not care about any abbreviation except for VC. Anything VC says must be obeyed, unless we are in the situation when following VC may cause an accident. VC strictly regulates lane positioning, BL usage, merging etc. If one is not familiar with VC it is absolute must to go and learn it before entering the road. Just in case if anyone missed it: https://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/vc/vc.htm

sbhikes

I voted no, although I would suggest to people to use certain vehicular techniques if they wanted my advice.

rando

I advocate following the rules of the road and also adapting to your environment and route, which may mean not following the rules of the road or even being on the road.

Paul L.

I am a cyclist. I advocate for cyclists. I wish all people would cycle some but know this is not a reality. I try not to take myself too seriously but fail all to often. Whatever I find keeps me safer out on the road I will advocate, whatever I think could help more people cycle, I will advocate, whatever will make life better for all cyclists, I will advocate. I do not advocate a tunnel vision perception of what is good cycling.

So I guess I am other. I think I will call it, unitarian cycling. Now everyone hold hands and sing-

Kum ba ya! I bike,
Kum ba ya!
Kum ba ya! I bike,
kum ba ya!

Helmet Head

Good one!

JRA

When I joined bikeforums, I would have said I was a VC advocate. That is, until the alarm bells started going off (Helmet Head's VC advocacy has been persuasive).

This poll is even more pre-loaded than the normal HH poll (I never vote in a HH poll-- I haven't in a long time -- HH always has an ulterior motive).

Despite the title, this poll is not about being a VC advocate. It's about riding techniques, using some silly "definitions" that HH made up (AVC, BVC, SVC) in his nearly zillionth attempt to redefine VC (I think they call that trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear).

I've been a regular transportational cyclist who rides in traffic according to the rules of the road for over four decades. I advocate the riding techniques. However, if we're voting about being a VC advocate, I vote "NO!" VC involves way too much nonsense.

It's one of the big lies of VC(-ism) to pretend that VC is just about riding techniques. That's how they hook ya. Then, after they tell you the good stuff, they indoctrinate you into the VC ideology (the book Effective Cycling works that way too- combining good stuff (riding techniques) with arrogant nonsense). The label "VC Advocate" applies only if you swallow the nonsense (or, at least, most of it) along with the good stuff.

I reject the nonsense. The VC-ists can have it.

VC contains more than its share of things I wholeheartedly reject-- this despite the fact that I ride mostly vehicularly and I'm kind of a facilities skeptic.

If a "VC Advocate" label is what you're selling, I don't want it.

Helmet Head

Don't be silly. There is no attempt to deceive.

It just so happens that in some contexts the term VC is used to refer to the techiques, and in others it's used to refer to the advocacy of VC.

So what is the "nonsense" to which you refer?

kalliergo 

Could you share examples, please?

JRA

You are wrong. I consider it one of the worst things that has happened to cycling in my lifetime but the vehicular riding techniques (which I support) have become so closely associated with the divisive "shoot yourself in the foot" politics of JF and his followers, as well as the psychological and social theories of JF that they cannot be separated (or 'segregated', since you are so fond of that term). "VC" (especially when capitalized) means the whole thing, the politics and theories as well as the riding techniques and philosophy (one way to refer to just the riding techniques is to spell it out, thusly: "vehicular cycling". Then it will be clear what is meant).

This "nonsense" question has been answered many times.

Just to review: you can begin on John Forester's website (which I strongly encourage everyone to read). The most nonsensical nonsense is in the "social" section.

https://www.johnforester.com/Articles/social.htm

Enjoy!

I honestly believe that more people actually reading his theories will mean fewer people putting much stock in his theories (especially the psychological ones).

If you want to read a nice long thread which includes posts by the great scientist in his own mind himself, read the thread, "John Forester takes on BF Posters" in this forum.

I know I'm repeating myself, but you crack me up. You repeat yourself a lot, too (in fact, wasn't the first post in the thread kind of a repeat?).

Helmet Head

One man's (even if that man is the coiner of the term) theories about why the philosophy associated with the term is rejected, does not make those theories part of the techniques, philosophy or their advocacy.

Can you cite anyone anywhere (besides yourself) using the term "VC" in a context that makes it clear this meaning is intended?

Helmet Head

Apparently, not.

sbhikes

JRA, you are right on the money.

VC is just an identity politics thing. If HH asks if you are a VC advocate he means are you an evangelist spreading the gospel, and not are you a cyclist who uses vehicular cycling skills.

Helmet Head

Is this your idea of showing respect for the beliefs of other forum members, Diane?

kalliergo 

Is this your idea of showing respect for the concerns of other forum members, Pete?

JRA

In the "What am I?" thread (post 26), MrCjolsen expressed a similar sentiment regarding confusion about the term "vehicular cycling": "The problem is the vehicular cycling is a riding technique that some people have turned into a poltical ideology."

To which Helmet Head replied (post #29):

"Vehicular cycling is an exercise of a political right.
Vehicular cycling is an ideology that holds the right of cyclists to ride in accordance to the vehicular rules of the road as its highest value.
Vehicular cycling is a traffic cycling paradigm based on the premise that cyclists (on roads) fare best when they act and are treated as vehicle drivers."

You even used the word "paradigm" (one of those wonderful meaningless words often used to make an insignificant idea seem important).

And, interestingly, you spelled out "vehicular cycling". So I guess, even if you spell it out, "vehicular cycling" refers to a political ideology. Bummer!

HH, you asked, "Are you a VC Advocate?" and I answered that I did before I saw the way you behave on bikeforums. That's the truth. If you don't like it, tough (in all fairness, you weren't the only thing that turned me against VC, but your zealotry did start me thinking that something had to be wrong. Then I started reading Forester more carefully, plus some of the VC propaganda websites, and I realised that there is a lot wrong).

Brian

Rather than vote in the poll, (which would be throwing my hat into a pissing match) I'm going to ask a simple question which is based on observation and member's comments. Is there anyone here that is an A&S regular who does not know exactly where each of the other regulars stand on this issue?

Helmet Head

Thinking that you know where another person stands is different from actually knowing.

Without mentioning any names, like sbhikes, some regulars regularly show that they don't understand my stand, for one, by misrepresenting and exaggerating what I stand for. Probably a majority of my posts are attempts to correct misstatements about my position.

That's why I started the definitions thread.

Bekologist

do you mean the "Helemt Head defines his cycling techniques" thread masquerading as a "VC definitions" thread?

Helmet Head

Speaking of misrepresentations...

The FIRST SENTENCE of the OP of that thread clearly states: [this is] a slightly different presentation of what vehicular cycling means to me.

Bekologist

maybe the moderators could change the misreprentin' title of that thread then...

Speedo

What is with the pie? I think I like pie as much as anyone, particularly pecan and blueberry. Apple can be good, but sadly, so often it is bad. What I don't get is when somebody pulls the trigger on the baked goods, it always seems to be pie.

Why can't we have cookies. I really love a home made chocolate chip cookie. On top of that they are so much better suited to bike travel. I can eat a chocolate chip cookie while riding my bike. Try that with your pie. I advocate that the Bicycle Forums works to be more open to the more under-represented baked treats, like cookies. And blondies. Who doesn't like blondies?

Back to the original post what do you have to do to qualify as an advocate?

Speedo