sbhikes

It seems to me that the big flaw with VC is that the VC-ists who promote it discount the real issue of motorist harassment and how real people feel about it. They offer in response to those who have experienced harassment, or who simply express concerns that they may experience it, at best pooh-poohing and at worst outright ridicule with phony diagnoses of mental illness, phobias, tauntings that they are superstitious, and insults that they have low IQs and reading comprehension problems.

It's a classic case of something actually well-made being sold by the engineers who made it and not the marketers who know how to sell something.

Can you guys not see that placing those with whom you disagree into your "enemies" camp, or discrediting their concerns, or tossing out only "facts" (such as they may be) without understanding the way people are moved emotionally -- and in fact, discrediting all emotion as weakness and stupidity -- is the real reason for your failure to gain market share?

You need to quit the insults, quit believing that "data" and statistics is the only meaningful measurement of value, and start figuring out a way to work vehicular cycling principles into the existing network of on-street cycling facilities. Otherwise you are doomed to failure. It's time for new packaging, new messaging, new ideas.

Helmet Head

Given that motorist harassment is a real issue, how is it related to VC?

That is, does VC exacerbate or diminish the problem of motorist harassment, or does it have no effect?

In my experience, VC reduces, but does not eliminate, the incidence of motorist harassment a cyclist encounters. But VC - knowing inwardly that one has the same right to the road as any other driver - also seems to help a great deal in not being as intimidated when the inevitable encounters with harassing motorists occur. It helps you react quickly with a smile and a wave, for example.

I think it's also helpful to understand the likely motivations of the motorists: many are kind and good people who simply and genuinely believe that cyclists do not belong on the road. Many are probably not entirely aware of how much their desire for cyclists to not be in their way is a factor in this, but there it is.

joejack951

Real quick, vehicular cycling fits just fine into the already available streets. The attitudes of some motorists are what needs to change (arguably a relatively small amount though). Bike lanes are a step backwards towards the goal of vehicular cycling and don't address the issue of motorist harassment whatsoever. An out of the way cyclist is unlikely to be harassed whether they are in the right hand lane of a multilane road, a bike lane, a shoulder, a wide outside lane, or on the sidewalk. The issue is how to deal with harassment from motorists when the cyclist is required to be in the way and thus slowing the motorist down to some extent (even if it's all just in their head). That requires a cultural change and promoting bike lanes which, whether intended to or not, serve to keep cyclists out of the way of motorists is not going to help one bit.

noisebeam

Why is there an assumed correlation between harrassment and vehicular riding?

The only* way to fully eliminate harassment from other road users is to not have cyclists on or near any roads. But that is not the comprehensive opposite of vehicular cycling.

*yes there is the other option to fully reprogram every other road users brain

Al

joejack951

Because it sells bike lanes?

sbhikes

You don't think that if we eliminated harassment by VC advocates themselves toward those who fear motorist harassment that VC wouldn't have more success?

rando

I think you're onto something, Diane.

Helmet Head

Good question. I wonder if we eliminated harassment of smokers if we'd have more success with getting smokers to quit.

But, then, how do you works towards reducing smoking without harassing, and without appearing to harass, smokers?

How do you work towards eliminating slavery without harassing, and without appearing to harass, slave-owners?

How do you work towards spreading liberalism, without harassing, and without appearing to harass, conservatives?

How do you works towards spreading acceptance of evolution, without harassing, and without appearing to harass, creationists?

I think working towards VC acceptance is just as difficult/impossible to do without appearing to be harassing.

Within the context of U.S. cycling culture, any effort to bring about acceptance of VC is revolutionary and inherently confrontational.

VC challenges fundamental and often deeply held beliefs that must be dislodged before VC can be accepted.

randya

translation - Serge doesn't have a pot to piss in.

chipcom 

Spoken like a true busy-body, elitist, commie.

Answer me this, who died and appointed you as caretaker of the human race, charged with harrassing people into adopting your commie beliefs?

The more you babble, the more you show your stripes.

Helmet Head

Those do not necessarily reflect my beliefs, Chip (some do, some don't).

I could have just as easily written (some of which represent my beliefs, some of which do not) the following:

How do you work towards spreading conservatism, without harassing, and without appearing to harass, liberals?

How do you work towards spreading Christiantiy, without harassing, and without appearing to harass, non-Christians?

How do you work towards spreading the use of designated drivers, without harassing, and without appearing to harass, those who choose to drive drunk?

How do you work towards accepting the war in Iraq, without harassing, and without appearing to harass, those who oppose the war?

How do you work towards eliminating abortion, without harassing, and without appearing to harass, those who choose to have abortions?

chipcom 

How do you mind your own business? That is the difference between you and I, HH, I got over being a busy body, you haven't.

Helmet Head

The personal business of others is none of my business. But behavior that has cultural and social impact can be the business of any citizen who chooses to take it on. That's why we call it a democracy.

chipcom 

HH, we are a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy, which breeds oppression by the majority. Even if we were a democracy, you are not the majority and thus your attempts at social engineering and behavior modification are just the signs of a busy-body. Take care of your own self, the rest of us unwashed massed can fend for ourselves just fine, thank you.

Helmet Head

Dude, I'm a libertarian. I've very aware of majority authoritarianism, which I very much oppose.

You seem to not appreciate the difference between seeking change forcefully and seeking change peacefully through persuasion. There is nothing oppressive about the latter by definition, since free people are free to ignore all such efforts, including you.

P.S., a Constitutional Republic is representative democracy, but it's still a democracy.

noisebeam

I have seen many vehicular cycling proponents constructively help those looking for advice, for teaching and suggesting ideas and skills to those looking for it.

Where I see the nastiness in discourse is only in the debates with those opposing VC and that nastiness goes both ways.

Al

Helmet Head

Many people get nasty when their sacred cows are gored.

webist

Some folks just plain don't like slower vehicles of any kind no matter their right to the roadway. Some of these folks are doing double the speed limit or better or otherwise driving aberantly and are angered by anyone who doesn't get out of their way. These people irritate me, and, I get out of their way no matter what vehicle I am driving.

zeytoun

True that. The best defense is to make sure that you have no sacred cows yourself...

Helmet Head

It's hard, but I try not to hold any ideas above criticism.

But people are often trying to convince me that bike lanes and "concerns of motorist harassment" (see OP) should not be criticized.

I guess holding and defending sacred cows is instinctual.

zeytoun

I don't care what you criticize. However, I think the OPs point is not that a bike lane advocate is exempt from criticism, but rather that VC would do better without resulting to insulting pseudo-psychological diagnoses of "cyclist inferiority complex", especially when you are diagnosing based on a couple internet posts.

Helmet Head

I know. Others do, however.

Perhaps. But we get flak for much more than just that. That some of flak might happen to have legitimate basis is not surprising, considering we get so much (even a stopped clock is correct twice a day).

But we all have room for improvement, and certainly refraining from insulting others is one of those areas.

But, again, it's very hard to do. It's like an evolutionist trying to criticize creationism without insulting those who believe in it. A tough thing to do..., though refraining from assigning psychological labels to them is probably a good idea.

randya

I think it's more about the size and source of the words you're insulting other people with. AJ and HH use big 'scientific' words to insult people with, and they seem to think that's just fine. But call one of them a freakin' idiot and they object and resent you for doing it, even though it might actually be true.

John Forester

This is an interesting thought, but I do not know how accurately it describes the situation and the real issue. The issue at stake is the nature of our nation's bicycle transportation system, whether that will be based on incompetent cycling on bikeways or will be based on lawful, competent cycling on good roads. Among the arguments that have been previously advanced for a policy of incompetent cycling on bikeways have been making cycling safe, making cycling safe for beginners, and some version of popularity, and, of course, clearing the way for motorists. I have never heard the argument advanced seriously, that bikeways are intended to cure the harassment of cyclists by motorists problem.

It seems to me as being patently obvious that the great public demand for bikeways is based on only two thoughts. First, bikeways clear the way for motorists. Second, bikeways make cycling much safer. The motoring advocates don't have to loudly advance their agenda, for two reasons. First, every motorist recognizes the benefit to him. Second, loud advocacy of the motoring argument for bikeways would backfire. The loud advocacy for bikeways comes from the anti-motoring groups presenting the safety argument, with which the large majority of the public probably agrees, without thinking about it. The popularity argument is based on this unthinking agreement about safety, and the safety arguments are all based on the greatly exaggerated danger of same-direction motor traffic.

Since the safety argument has no scientific support, its success is an emotional issue, not a factual one.There would be very little public support for the bikeway program if this greatly exaggerated fear of same-direction motor traffic did not exist. That fear is what has made this program possible. The definition of a phobia is a condition in which a greatly exaggerated fear causes a person to take actions that are contrary to that person's best interests.

Therefore, I say that people who advocate bikeways by either the safety or the popularity arguments are either, if honest, suffering from the phobia to some degree, or, if dishonest, are using the prevalence of that phobia in the general population even though the advocate knows the facts. As long as the vehicular-cycling advocate is faced with bikeway advocacy from bicycle advocates, he is going to state the obvious, that the bikeway advocacy from bicycle advocates is based on false fears and phobic response to them.

Now, if, Diane, you have given up on bikeway advocacy and sincerely desire to assist in cycling advocacy that is based on the best interests of cyclists, and can raise a body of people with similar aims, then discussion of the reduction of harassment by motorists would be useful.

pj7

So is harassing people into believing you using "force" or is it being "peasceful"?
I see no peace in harassment.