I’m not saying it doesn’t happen among the other crowd I hang out with. It just doesn’t happen near as often, they are a lot more willing to state what they mean clearly and then stand their ground and stick to their guns. I’m not that used to dealing with those who won’t take a stand but slip slide and wiggle around like a greased pig.

It’s one thing to have a debate with someone who is intellectually honest, quite another thing to have a debate with a politician. Internet or otherwise.

I do get what you are saying though about internet debates being a lot more crazy then any other kind of debate.

Just googled you UberGeek (search term: "UberGeek" forum profile) we have similar interests as far as vehicle forums but I usually only read those and rarely post or even sign up for those but other then that are interests don't seem to match that much. Seems your on a few e-gamming forums, not really my cup of tea. You would probably say the same though about other forums I hang out on though with the guys who are much more apt to clearly mark out their position and then stick to their guns.

Those probably aren't me. I think I've only used this name in 3 or 4 forums. I don't think any gaming ones (I like gaming, but not socially really).

The acrimonious nature of the discussions in forums concerned with bicycle transportation is caused by the presence of three different and incompatible direct motivations and one more indirect motivation. One group is concerned about the welfare of those people who choose to cycle. Such cyclists do best when they obey the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles and when government, and society, accept that that is best. Another group uses bicycle transportation as a weapon against motoring and other items allowed by motoring, such as suburbia. Their aim is to persuade the greatest number of motorists to switch many trips to bicycle transportation; they believe that this is best accomplished by
having government build bikeways for use by traffic-incompetent bicycle riders.

This controversy might not be so significant, except for the third party, that of motorists. Motorists assist the anti-motoring group because they believe that bikeways make motoring more convenient while paying no attention to the welfare of cyclists, and motorists have the political power to control the highway system as they wish.

The fourth, indirect, party consists of those who stand to make money from bicycle transportation: the bicycle trade and the bikeway designing quacks.

With all these incompatible purposes driving discussions, it is no wonder that acrimony develops.

OP: Out of curiosity and it might help frame the conversation...where in Montana?. I grew up there, in Chinook and just got back from a visit. For those not familar...the majority of montana has no bicyling infrastructure. Many of the roads are 2 lane, narrow and have very little pavement to the right of of the side white line, and beyond that there is often a steep drop off from the road to the "borrow" pitm and you don't have to go far to move from pavement to gravel. there is really no option but to ride FRAP and cross your fingers a bit.

Highway 2, which is a fairly common east west bicycle touring route is a good example. I used to ride this road on my 3 speed and my first 10 speed. The vast majority of drivers, especially the truckers, would do every thing possible to move a bit to the left to give you a break. Local drivers are used to things like tractors, combines and the like going slow on the road.....so that helps the driver awareness

fify ;)

The fact that you use the term "quack" to describe someone who favors a different approach illustrates why I changed your post the way I did.


As for turbo1889, you happened to jump into one of the most contentious forums here at BikeForums. If you want to have a similar discussion with less acrimony, try over at the Commuting forum. That's where the rubber hits the road, so to speak, and the issue of cycling in traffic is discussed in more practical terms. There's more of an air of cooperation there, and different approaches are tolerated more readily.

Oh I don't know.... Utility has it's moments.... there has been a total of one thread locked ever as far as I know :)

Turbo, I'm not sure what you were expecting. You claimed to be following the forum for a while before making your post, so you should have already been aware that the VC sandbox mainly consisted of a small handful of posters arguing the same tired points over and over. It is the reason I have been avoiding it for the most part.

Then I see "New guys point of view" (YAY!) and decide to post my thoughts. Your post was long but I read it all. I agreed with much of it and so decided to comment on the couple of points I took issue with.

Why do you take offense to this, and exactly how is it talking points or politics? I like to make my posts as brief and to the point as necessary. Follow up posts can always offer more "details" as the thread moves along.

I stand by my first comment that this could still be an interesting thread.

Wall of words; demands that others "stand their ground and stick to their guns," and that those who don't meet his requirements for debating style "wiggle around like a greased pig." All from some guy who joined a couple days ago? I suspect the reincarnation of Helmet Head.

I deliberately applied the description of "quacks" to those who officially design bikeways. Bikeway design has the same relationship to traffic engineering as homeopathy and spinal fluxion manipulation have to the practice of medicine. There's no traffic-engineering knowledge in bikeway design; it is no more than doing what the public (which includes motorists) desire. Even so famous a practitioner as John Pucher admitted that in public discussion about a year ago in San Diego.

And yet, even bad infrastructure increases rideshare more than VC. VC, especially as represented by you, scares people off, frankly.

Reading the OP again, however, the biggest complaint the OP has is with other bicyclists that have zero respect for stop sign law or the rules of the road. :rolleyes: trolling the bike forums looks like.

I wonder if the OP has moved one state to the west into Idaho without realizing his change of address, where bicyclists rolling yields thru stops and stop and go thru red lights is legal for bicyclists?

maybe the OP accidently moved to Idaho and didn't realize it?

I kind of want the OP to explain why HE thinks sharing the road is somehow considered UN-vehicular, or that riding as far to the right as practicable under a states' traffic laws is somehow considered UN-vehicular. because, to the best of most everyone's understanding of road cycling and vehicular road use, road sharing by bicyclists is most assuredly part and parcel of vehicular road cycling. maybe john can detail lateral lane positioning for the OP so he can be more clear about the concepts of road sharing as a vehicular cyclist. Of course, some ascribe their duties to position themselves to ride "to the right of" faster traffic - a distinctly second class and inferiority laden method!!!!

i suggest positioning onself by "riding safely right", not the inferiority laden Effective Curbhug positioning 'to the right of' faster traffic, as a better, safer, more vehicular depiction of how and where to position one self as a vehicular bicyclist, and much less inferiority laden.

But try to tell that to the VC crowd and you are branded an anti-motorist, studies are demanded and denied, cyclists demanding infrastructure are branded as "incompetent," and the beat goes on. Go figure.

I just know what I see around here. I don't need a study to confirm it. Fort Worth still flies under the "cycling friendly" radar, but a little bike lane paint and some sharrows markings, along with the MUP along the river and, yes, permeable neighborhoods and an increase in bike racks, and people are starting to ride with increasing frequency. They are building a major toll road to connect the southwest suburbs with the city. Original projections showed plenty of income for the road. They recently revised those projections down because they realized that more people are moving into the city and not so much to the suburbs. I can see that a good chunk of that is because of the cycling friendly attitude around here. Part of that is that people do respect bikes on the road, in the traffic lane, riding vehicularly. But another component is conspicuous bicycle infrastructure.

I respect John for documenting what VC is. VC methods have been very instrumental in my bicycle riding. But he's drunk on his own koolaid. VC is not the only game in town, it's just one tool in the toolbox.

And another quotation from Gene: "But try to tell that to the VC crowd and you are branded an anti-motorist, studies are demanded and denied, cyclists demanding infrastructure are branded as "incompetent," and the beat goes on. Go figure."

Not quite so. There is reasonable evidence that doing what the public wants regarding bicycle transportation increases the amount of bicycling. Not surprising, that. But the public wants facilities that enable it to believe that those facilities make bicycling safe without having to obey the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. In short, they want cyclist-inferiority, incompetent cycling, and they get it. However, there has never been any study demonstrating how that style of cycling makes cycling safer and more convenient. That's no more than public superstition. The studies that get criticized are those that attempt to demonstrate that the cyclist-inferiority, incompetent, subservient bikeway cycling is safer than obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. Nobody has yet made that demonstration in a scientifically rigorous way.

It is politically impossible to stop the rush for incompetent cycling on bikeways, because that is the public superstition. However, preserving the right of those cyclists who recognize the value, safety, and convenience of obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles is very important for preserving useful bicycle transportation in the USA.

I note that busybodies often mention how concerned they are with everyone else's welfare. That they know better how to further our welfare than we do is implicit in that argument, of course, so I wonder why they seem so surprised when their prospective subjects aren't always receptive.

If you choose to believe that your cycling welfare is best served by disobeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, that's your right. We who recognize the value of obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles also recognize that most Americans don't understand that, and prefer to disobey those rules. That doesn't surprise us at all, because we recognize the historic great majority American preference for cyclists disobeying those rules. All that we care about, now, is preserving our right to operate by obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles.

And if you choose to believe that man is descended from an ancient race of aliens, it will be every bit as relevant as what you've just posted.

Of course, you can snarl as much as you like, but it would do all of us a service if you were to provide facts and reason to support your dislike of my thesis.

Your "thesis" boils down to the idea that the VCers who go online to insult strangers for not intentionally blocking traffic while on their bicycles are doing so because they're really, really concerned about the welfare of said cyclists. One doesn't need to "provide facts and reason" when debating such an obvious fly-gatherer.

John just gets up set because not everyone acknowledges that his way is the ONLY way. Sorry, Johnny boy, but there is more than one way to skin a cat. Or ride a bike.

The immediately previous post was: "Your "thesis" boils down to the idea that the VCers who go online to insult strangers for not intentionally blocking traffic while on their bicycles are doing so because they're really, really concerned about the welfare of said cyclists. One doesn't need to "provide facts and reason" when debating such an obvious fly-gatherer."

I consider both together, since they seem to concern the same subject. I have to make a presumption about what you mean by "blocking traffic". If you mean preventing faster drivers from making a lawful overtaking movement, then that is not my thesis. The rules of the road are pretty reasonable, and, if followed, allow faster drivers reasonable opportunities to overtake in a safe manner. My recommendation has always been that cyclists should obey the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles.

Good! So a reasonable and basic concept such as a bicyclist "riding safely right so faster traffic may overtake" should make sense to you then.

Bek, you have not explained what you mean by your mantra, although you have stated that it is the same as is in Cyclecraft. As I have already written, Cyclecraft's instruction is too vague and fails to consider the results to be achieved. So, I do not consider that your mantra makes sense to anyone.