I may get flamed for this, but I think that the question by the O.P. might not really be answered by a bunch of GUYS stating that the odds are low.

This presupposes that there exist VC-ists (in the vein of racists and Islamists) and that they have an actual ideology to promote. I think I may have noticed one or two possible VC-ists with such an ideology, but I consider them insignificant.

Instead, I perceive vehicular cycling to be a model, useful for discussion of the operation of bicycles in traffic. One has a choice of models, depending on what works best in context. Just as sometimes it is more useful to model the behavior of light as a wave, or as a particle, there are different advantages to modeling the bicycle operator as the driver of a vehicle, versus as a pedestrian on wheels.

The vehicular cycling principle, as John Forester puts it, is that cyclists fare best when they act, and are treated, as drivers of vehicles. This is a general statement that many experienced cyclists agree with, especially those with very critical, scientific minds. Most cyclists will also agree that there are special times where it is advantagous to act or be treated as a pedestrian, but these situations appear to be relatively rare. Thus, we believe that the vehicular model is the most useful in general.

There are valid academic discussions about maneuverability, mass, visibility, and speed potential compared to other vehicles on the road that may define under which conditions the vehicular model provides more or less benefit to cyclists, as well as whether the vehicular model always fits, but that stronger restrictions should be placed on road design and driver behavior to accommodate the model. The engineers who argue about this stuff may have favorite theories, but I don't consider this to be a matter of ideology.

The clearest case of ideology that I see on this list is the concept that if cyclists fare best under a particular condition, that condition ought to be pursued. We all appear to want cyclists to fare as well as possible.

In other words, you believe cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles. Thus, you are a VC-ist.

HH (a VC-ist in the vein of scientists and evolutionists)

This is very vague.

Please identify what you believe these basic premises of "VC-ist ideology" are, explain what makes you believe they are premises of VC-ist ideology, and why you have some serious problems with them.

The only potentially controversial premise I am aware of (which leaves me open to made aware of other premises I have not noticed), the one that all "VC-ist ideology" is based on, is simply this:Everything else in VC-ist ideology, again, that I am aware of, follows logically from this one fundamental premise.

One might make the distinction between a person who thinks the vehicular cycling principle is a useful theory/concept that applies most/nearly all of the time, and a person who believes the vehicular cycling principle is an ideology that requires outright rejection of ideas or evidence that seem incompatible with it.

The efforts of vehicular cycling detractors to equate vehicular cycling supporters with religious idealogues illustrates their confusion between people who dispassionately choose a model that best fits the evidence available to them with people who reject alternate explanations of the universe due to emotional, likely socially-reinforced attachment to a single view.

Given that we vehicular cycling supporters freely disagree and debate the scientific and social issues among ourselves in open view, it is curious that so many detractors label us as non-skeptical idealogues. I suspect it is just a weak attempt at insult substituting for a more substantive challenge that they do not have the time or energy to muster.

You do pick up on something the others completely miss.

However, trying to measure the severity of the harassment, or rank it on a scale from bad to worse to deadly is missing the point entirely. Harassment is a common occurrence out there for cyclists of all genders, and for some cyclists of either genders, one instance is often one too many.

The simple fact of the matter is you get less harassment when you are not in the way. But as many of you say, staying out of the way reinforces the belief that you belong out of the way. How are cycling advocates going to address this issue in a meaningful way?

This issue seems to be a major hole in the VC mindset because the VCers say that it's your problem if you let threats to your personal safety bother you. This is unacceptable to most people. It's probably one of the reasons that VC hasn't caught on.

I'm a guy, so I can only speak for myself.

Most people think I'm crazy for riding my bike on the road. I think I know why.

When I'm driving, I get harrassed, too. Minor, perhaps, but people pull @&*# all the time--cut off, tailgated, buzzed, etc. It's bad enough in a car--no wonder nobody wants to ride a bike out there on the road!

But the strange thing I can't seem to get anyone to believe is that I get much less harrassment on my bike than I do driving my car. Much less.

But that is not to say it's not a very important issue. Being on a bike makes you feel very vulnerable.

Very well stated. Of course, we VC-ists are of the first type, while the VC contrarians try to paint us as the latter, The distinction with religious ideologues can easily be made. Ask a typical Bible thumper or suicide bomber whether it's possible he is wrong in his beliefs regarding his ideology: his religion and beliefs about the afterlife. They will answer, unequivocally, no. Ask any VC-ist, or any evolutionist, and he will answer, "of course it's possible that we're wrong, but the best evidence we have indicates we are not wrong."



You might be amused that I wrote my response to the first paragraph before I read your 2nd and 3rd.

By the way, I can't believe you wrote earlier that it's reasonable for a cyclist to assume he is invisible you blasphemous infidel.

Cut your hair, shave you beard, loose the tie-dyed shirts, shants and sandals and you'll get along much better, you commie, pinko, hippie.

No, the major reason it hasn't caught on is most cyclists think it's too scary or odd to even try it, assuming they are even aware of it. If they did try it, they would soon discover that they would be subjected much less often to the very treatment that they wish to avoid.

Edit: I did not address this point directly: "you get less harassment when you are not in the way." That's not true. The only time I ever got physically harrassed was before I read EC and so before I adopted Advanced VC practices: I was riding in a bike lane between intersections, when I got an egg thrown at me. Hit me in the leg.

Anyway, I never got much harassment in the past, but I'd say I get even less now, though by all rights I'm "in the way" much more often now. I think the key is to be able to pull off making it look like you belong there, like you're supposed to be there. And the first step to pulling that off is to believe it's true, inwardly. And, of course, it also means that you're not in the way when you're not supposed to be. So much of it is about knowing when it's appropriate and when it's not.

Riiiight. Really that only happens when you are commuting the same route over and over again... any fresh route will bring freshly frustrated motorists who are not used to seeing you or any other cyclist on "their road" and no doubt they will "voice" their frustration.

Although I do have to admit it is quite ironic that I was honked at in both Road I and Road II... the latter situation which you admit to ignoring.

I never said it never happens. I let you know about the rare exceptions, by email if not by a thread in this forum.

And it's not like I only ride the same route at the same time. Again, today I rode close to noon - totally different drivers out there, yet no harassment.

As to the Road 2 incident, I will merely suggest that maybe you or the other student didn't actually pull off looking like you're supposed to be there in the middle of the left lane of the 6 lane arterial, perhaps because one or both of you didn't really believe it, inwardly.

The beard STAYS! YOU go!
Hey now, no shantz or tie dies here!

Also a distinction between those who dispassionately reach a conclusion or opinion from experience and/or empirical evidence that "Cyclists fare best when the act and are treated as drivers of vehicles." And those who have established the same as a mantra-like premise through which all evidence/observations/arguments must be filtered, with only that evidence which supports the premise being recognized as true; and rejecting with great passion any argument that doesn't support the inviolate premise. Thus the appropriate conclusion is obtained.


Really? I must have missed the part where "we vehicular cycling supporters" ever addressed the fatal flaws in the risk analysis methods and statistical techniques supporting the quantitative claims of risk reduction effectiveness for vehicular cycling training and materials. I must have doubly missed the open debate and disagreement among "we vehicular cycling supporters" on this issue.

"Pull off looking like we were supposed to be there... " And how many motorists have to pull off like they belong on the road to use the road? I have a Howdy Doody face with a red and white beard... you expect me to growl at motorists so they know I am "supposed" to be there?

This fails the test of logic. If I am on the road in front of a motorist, where in the "vehicular rules" does it state that I must present myself in some particular manner in order to be accepted as "a driver of a vehicle?"

Oh wait... let me quote Forester: Cyclists fare best when they act like they are supposed to be there... and when they snarl, are treated as drivers of vehicles.

Damn, I have got to remember to read that fine print... I guess just being there like the driver of a vehicle doesn't work... you have to act like you are supposed to be there...

I suppose I need a CD player, cup holder, and cell phone for my bike... so I can "act" like the driver of a vehicle.

LOCATION is a big deal! Depending what city and area you ride in, honks and jerks will come like crazy or not at all - no matter how confident you are. I got honked at twice and yelled at once today over a 27 mile errand ride on roads that I always travel on - and I am by far one of the more confident riders I know when it comes to handling traffic, asserting my right to be part of it and maintaining traffic speed. You have to know your area and just deal with the jerks if that is what your town is full of - simplistic but so are motorists - just dumb cattle.

Just waiting... just treat me like a driver of a vehicle... that's all I ask...

Name the location, and I'll try to find some VCs from there.

^^^
You only trust the experience of VC's (whoever these people are: are they ones who ride VC, or ones who subscribe to CG, or ones who have taken road 1, both 1 and 2, only LCI's?)? Why wouldn't you take natelutkjohn on his word?

because natelukjohn doesn't know the secret handshake.

DOH! I'm really hurt that you don't trust me HH

But just so you can have more fuel for your fire - Norfolk, Virginina Beach area of Virginia, oh wait, I forgot, I told you that already with the Military presence here, but I'm not a professed VC-ist, so what I say goes in one ear and out the other.

Some roads to ask your buddies about -
Virginina Beach Boulevard
Hampton Boulevard
North Hampton Blvd
Shore Drive
Independence Blvd
Princess Anne (norfolk section)
Little Creek
Newtown Road
Five Points
Ad nauseum.....

Find those people who ride like they belong on any major road in this area for 30+ miles daily who don't deal with daily jerks - I'd like to meet them.
Weekend peteloners (sp?) don't count - When I ride in a group on occasion, we rarely get honked at. Solo is where its at.

Why? What do you think finding a VC from there will prove? Why do you think presenting such a 'proof' is important? How will you identify a VC? Would a person who has ridden according to the vehicular rules of the road for 4 decades count or are only those who have accepted VC dogma considered VC? Is the a secret sign you guys have? Have you ever run across any infiltrators (non-believers pertending to be believers)? How can we be sure the VCs you find aren't imposters? Please make your response long-winded and please include tons of pointless rhetorical questions, so we know it's really you and not just someone else using your account.

The underlying issue is how much the factors of location and cyclist behavior play a role in determining how much a given cyclist is harassed.

One way to shed some light on this question is to consider a location where the claim has been made that harrassment is very high (daily) independent of cyclist behavior, and then inquire other cyclists who ride in that area if that is consistent with their experience.

The VCers have long learned to simply ignore honks... therefore they do not hear them. HH has said many times in the past that he too simply ignores the honks.

He has admitted recently that he may have heard a honk or two in his life.

Well, by all means, I am interested in your "research" results. I however have less faith in the results if you are asking strictly confessed VC-ers only, as from your posts recently I have found that VC-ers also ride in gutters when traffic is high and fast when compared to your speed. Most of the roads I mentioned have NO gutters, or extra width - this town is OLD, revolutionary war buildings and road widths and plenty 55+ posted roads with terribly designed interstate ramps everywhere- that's why location is so important - from what I have gathered, a VC-er like you would avoid the roads that someone like me has no choice to ride on if I want to get to my appointments, meetings, etc in a reasonable time.
Still, I would love to see if your pre-concieved notions are supported.