You haven't demonstrated such: the example of the bicycle messengers is not such a demonstration, being quite out of the ordinary for the typical cycling populations. Yes, it is theoretically possible to take a large sample of cyclists, test their riding styles, and then log in their riding history over the duration of the test, with accidents. This has not been done. However, what has been done is to measure the accident rate per mile for different groups of cyclists. The groups were general child cyclists, general university-associated cyclists, members of several cycling organizations, new members of Cyclists' Touring Club, old members of CTC. The assumption made about cycling style is that the members of the cycling organizations studied rode in a more vehicular style than did the members of the general public or the new members of CTC. That assumption was well in accordance with observations made many times at the era of these studies. The accident rate ratios were of the order of 25 for the members vs 100 for the nonmembers.

What do you think is the causative factor behind the fact that "scofflaw" bike messengers have safety levels similar to vehicular cyclists?

I would think that reasonable hypotheses would include, fitness, conditioned reflexes, hyper-vigilance, awareness and understanding about how traffic flows, etc.

If I told you that it was because their riding behavior was inherently safer you would laugh at me.


And now, you can imagine very easily how the CTC members likely also share such attributes as fitness, conditioned reflexes, hyper-vigilance, awareness and understanding about how traffic flows.

So now, we can suspect that it is these attributes that are a causative factor, or we can credit something else, namely VC riding techniques.

Have you heard of Occam's razor? ;)

Why would anybody think that unless they only think about cycling from the armchair and not from the bicycle seat?

Understanding traffic doesn't stop when there's bike lane paint in the vicinity.

You guys crack me up with your magical paint theories.

This puzzles me. It appears to me that bike-lane advocates have the magical paint theories, while vehicular cyclists consider the stripe to be irrelevant. The problem with bike-lane stripes is that they confuse those who are not firm in their understanding of traffic patterns, meaning the typical cyclist and the typical motorist.

I have seen bicycle messengers in operation, and I have seen films of them in operation. The levels of skill that they exhibit, and of risk they run, in their unlawful methods of operation, are far beyond that of the typical CTC member, or of a typical member of an American cycling club. I am considered to have very good bike handling skills, and the films I have seen taken from the handlebars of a messenger's bike, scare me to death. None of my associates would operate in that manner.

john, do you ride in bike lanes when that's the space on the road you should be riding?

do you ride much any more?

Well, of course I do. It has been written a dozen times or more that the vehicular cyclist ignores the bike-lane stripe and rides in the proper location, whatever that happens to be for the particular location and the particular traffic conditions there and the route that the cyclist intends to follow.

glad to see you admit vehicular cyclists can ride in bike lanes.

There's no degree of admission in my statement. There's nothing to admit. There never has been any question about this, except in your own weird mind.

Nice topic and nice spin on the VC moniker. Vigilance requires that the cyclist be alert, fully aware of the road (through rear view mirrors of whatever type you prefer), and able to anticipate and respond to actions by motor vehicles. What a nice alternative view to the endless barking about "share the road" and "we are traffic."

roughstuff

Variable Chicanery

john, john.

weather you insist in dodging the reality of vehicular cyclists by pretending to ignore bike lane striping; if a bicyclist is riding in the space demarcated by a bike lane; THAT BICYCLIST IS RIDING IN THE BIKE LANE.

sometimes, depending on traffic and road conditions, it IS expedient for a bicyclist to be positioned in the bike lane.

Vehicular cyclists can ride, vehicularily, in the bike lane.

you are agreeing by your dodge.

The twisting and turnings of your warped mind absolutely puzzle me. I don't understand what point you are making, though I have some clue as to the point that you think you are making. However, the dominant information transmitted by your statements is that your mind works in very peculiar ways.

The messenger videos out there are almost all of the informal yet occasionally intense races (popularly known as 'alleycats'), which tend to involve various levels of intoxication and the type of risk-taking that does not often occur during business hours. The only video I've seen of actual messenger work was created by a co-worker of mine, and even his video contains race footage and general fooling around with riders who know they're being filmed. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1J9U...%5Flloc%2Ehtml The presence of a helmet cam has a profound effect. Video of nothing but regular messenger activity would be pretty boring I imagine. Veteran messengers are among the most conservative riders out there. While they run lights and break various laws they do it in a very conservative fashion, for the most part.

Robert

dodger, john, dodger.

vehicular cyclists can ride in bike lanes, vehicularily.

agree?

I fail to understand why you consider this to be dodging. There never has been any issue of this kind.

do you agree? vehicular bicyclists can ride in a bike lane, vehicularily. yes or no?

since bicyclists can ride in bike lanes, vehicularily, then a lot of your prattle about bike infrastructure is meaningless.

vehicular bicyclists can ride in a bike lane, vehicularily. vehicular cyclists can advocate for bike infrastructure like bike lanes on high speed arterials.

vehicular bicyclists can keep to the side of a wide lane, can ride in a bike lane vehicularily, can ride on well accomodated shoulders of high speed roads.

since these are possible, then the anti-facilities prattle is meaningless, john.

Vile Council

Your position, then, is that since a bike-lane stripe does not influence my cycling, my opposition to such stripes is either meaningless or without right. That is an interesting claim, indeed. Shall we turn it around, on the similar assumption that you cycle in the vehicular manner (correct me if I am wrong). Since the bike-lane stripe does not affect your cycling, then you have no right to advocate bike-lane stripes.

I've given you two choices, bekologist. You may choose to argue that you have the right to advocate bike-lane stripes because they do influence your cycling. If that's your choice, then explain the changes and the reasons for them. You may choose, instead, to argue that your right to advocate bike-lane stripes comes from some other reason. If that's your choice, then please inform us of what that reason is and why it gives you the right.

Vociferous Conmen

john, you keep dodging, dude.

here's the question, one more time...

vehicular bicyclists can ride in a bike lane, vehicularily. yes or no?

and what do you mean, I have no right to advocate for bike infrastructure like bike lanes, despite my riding vehicularily???

are you the bicycling morality police? if not,bugger off and stuff it, old man.

http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/1...9cap002dv4.jpg
VC won't catch on because CHARLIE DON'T SURF!!!

The Messengers know .... take it to the streets long enough and will all make sense. But you can't learn it by reading about it. Respect your environment and be ready for anything. Surfers know, skaters know, climbers know, messengers know.

You, Bekologist, are the one who introduced the right to advocate various things of relevance to this discussion, by saying that I had no right to advocate. All I did was to turn the issue to your advocacy, to see how you would justify your advocative activities in the light of your stated requirement of a right. I notice that, despite your demand that a right must exist to justify advocacy, you have failed to provide any justification for your own advocacy.

Both the kind of illogic that you use, and the language that you use, are unfit for polite society.

I don't trust your argumentative style. I will repeat, however, for the N'th time, that, on occasion, a vehicular cyclist will find himself riding in a bike lane. On the other hand, when on a street with a bike lane, he may also find himself not riding in the bike lane.

...you don't trust MY argumentative style.... :roflmao::roflmao::roflmao:

so john, it IS within the scope of vehicular cycling to use a bike lane in a vehicular manner.

let's NOT turn it around, you argumentative old man.

i ride similarily to Traffic Jammer, in an extra-vehicular manner. I'm slicing and dicing traffic, riding the wrong way sometimes-

did so today, wrong way riding heading north on first to a red light and a left turn into the Pike Place Market versus getting stuck behind cars and waiting in the road for oncoming traffic at the actual intersection..

I ride the double yellows, split lanes to stops, weaving and dodging the urban traffic dance without a lot of fancy pants concessions to 'vehicularism'- although I ride 'vehicularily' the majority of the time, it is not a method to follow dogmatically.

I understand how to ride vehicularily...i take the lane when needed, and also know how to use a bike lane.

I know riding strictly 'vehicularily' will get bicyclists stuck in traffic in the big city. a lot.

I ride with a safety first, traffic be damned style.

I understand what bike lanes do for the bikeability of a community, i know that riding on the shoulder of a high speed country road is the most natural, vehicular position for a bicyclist to be in, i understand the spiel against facilities is largely groundless because

vehicular bicyclists can ride vehicularliy in a bike lane. particularily along high speed suburban arterials, but also on any road that has a well provided bike lane. i also understand that on occasion a vehicular bicyclist will need to leave a bike lane, negotiating for lane position as required.

bike lanes increase the bikeability of a community, encourage greater bicycling, encourage more visible lane position from average cyclists than wide outside lanes alone, discourage curb hugging, and help average bicyclists negotiate communities by bicycle.

to assert I have no right to my opinion is the height of rudeness, old man, and you deserve my scorn. stuff it.

I say ...... *smacks with bugs bunny glove with a brick in it.*
I demand satisfaction.

The wonderful thing about our sharing the road is that cars (shark) can accelerate and catch up once things clear up in city traffic, whereas the bike (grouper fish) is more agile and prone to carving past the blocked up section of the roadway.

You are the one who first introduced the concept of the right to advocate. I did not consider your comment to be the height of rudeness, whatever your age might be, but simply asked for your claim to such a right since you advocate so much. Your reply simply goes with the unpleasantness of both your words and the acts that you say you commit.

since it's within the realm of vehicular cycling to ride vehicularily in a bike lane, advocating for bike infrastructure like on road bike lanes is also within the right of a vehicular cyclist.

take your sophistry and argumentative style masquerading as polite banter and stuff it, john. you are NOT the bicycling morality police, your an out of touch, quixotic old man with an anti-populist stance on bicycling.

that's my opinion and I'm entitled to it.

as to vehicular cycling on accomodating shoulders of highway speed roads, and vehicular cycling in bike lanes, those are blatantly obvious part and parcel of vehicular cycling.

I just like mentioning it often & repeatedly, since you've joined up the forums, john-
vehicular cyclists can ride vehicularily in a bike lane. neener, neener, neener!