deputyjones

IMHO, there are not 2 differences. There are the strict VC folk and then everybody else. To my knowledge the VC folk have never provided a definition of what exactly their position is, but this thread shows the difficulty in doing so:
https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=275173

I-Like-To-Bike

I dispute the specific quantitative claims of significant risk reduction (80%!) attributed to Vehicular Cycling training programs made by its promoters and salesmen; or any other quantitative risk reduction claims that are made without a shred of supporting evidence. Produce some credible evidence to support the grossly exaggerated claims and I'll be happy to stifle my "dispute".

Edit: First step might be to measure before and after training cycling behavior of students to see if the training has any effect at all, especially as the training becomes a distant memory over time.

sggoodri

I'm not interested in Forester's claims. I've said what I believe. I'm interested in what you think the benefits of traffic cycling skills education are.

Bruce Rosar

Operating a pedal vehicle in traffic is no more any of those things than operating a motor vehicle in traffic. The adults that I've trained have almost all been average cyclists (not club, not racing). The one unusual thing about them was their willingness to take a leap of faith and try integrated traffic cycling during the course. Almost all of them became good enough at that to get their certificates (i.e., they passed the written and practical tests).

galen_52657

Sounds somewhat phobic to me....

Helmet Head

(1) I have NEVER claimed that that ALL facilities are dangerous. I just did a search for all my posts with the words "all facilities are dangerous". It's less than two pages. In none of those posts are all those words combined into that particular assertion made by me. For the record, in case you're interested in what I actually mean, I do not believe, nor have ever believed, that ALL facilities are dangerous.

(2) The phrase "VC is incompatible with facilities" implies "it is not possible to cycle vehicularly on a road with faciliites". Forester did not make this claim in 195, or anywhere else, so far as I know. If you or Randya meant something else by Forester claims that "VC is incompatible with facilities", please clarify exactly what that is.

(3) If anything I have ever said implied that "VC is the only correct way to bicycle.", without the critical qualifier, on roadways, then either I wrote something incorrectly or you misunderstood. As far as "VC is the only correct way to bicycle on roadways", do you not agree? If not, what is another correct way?

N_C

Ah hell I'm just going to tell John what is happening in my community.

This is Part I. Part II will come later.

First as I said I live where in Sioux City, Iowa, where Iowa, Nebraska & South Dakota border one another on the Big Sioux & Missouri Rivers. There are 3 states, 3 counties, 6 towns/cities & 2 state parks to take into consideration here. This area is called the Greater Siouxland Area &/or the 2 rivers area.

Over the past 10 years myself & other cyclists were talking about the trail & bike route system & the lack of connectivity. It seemed like every time we met we would discuss it & vent our frustration over it. About 5 years ago I had had enough of the lack of progress & came up with the idea of doing something about it.

The idea was to host an annual bike ride to raise money to help the communities pay for the finishing of the trail system. So I started calling the people who I had discussed it with over the years.

Long story short we formed ourselves into a non-profit organization called The Siouxland Trails Foundation. That's right, a non-profit advocacy group who's main goal & focus is the connection & completion of all seperate Multi-Use Paths, or MUP's, & facilties in the Greater Siouxland Area.

To date we have hosted 3 annual bike rides with the 4th one coming up this May.

The money we have raised through our efforts has been granted to the communities that need it for care, maintenance of the trail system & trail projects. For Sioux City we purchased a brush sweeper to clean the trail as needed. For South Sioux City we granted 10,000 for a trail project of theirs. For the Adam's Nature Preserve, one of the state parks, we granted money for the purchase of a trail side drinking fountain. Before that there was no access to water on the trail, the distance from the fountain to the trail head is 4 miles.

The Siouxland Trails Foundaiton has also endorsed numerous letters & petitions for trail projects in the area.

Currently we are working on raising the funds for a bridge that will connect the trails in Sioux City, Iowa & Dakota Dunes, South Dakota across the Big Sioux River. There has been a lot of political bull crap with this & a lot of opposition, but it is going to be built.

There is a current flood control project going on right now for the Perry Creek Channel. Part of this project includes a trail that will go through the middle of town. The funding was built into the project.

Right now there is a huge gap in the river front trail between the Argosy Casino & the softball complex. The reason it has not been completed is because of the Iowa DOT project for I-29 that will start in 2009. In the funding for the project is money to complete the trail. Also the existing trail & the property along the Sioux City River Front is on the DOT right of way. After the project is over with the DOT will turn it over to the city. This is a good thing.

You may be against MUP's or seperate facilties. But in my area they are not going away, in fact they are increasing. The same goes for the central Iowa region. They have a massive expansion in trail development over the last few years.

Contrary to what you may think about trails. MUP's & seperate facilities, these things help enhance a communities attractivness when it comes to economic development. Businesses look at what the community has to offer for amenities before it decides to move into a community. If the business owner does not like what they see they will not open their doors in that community. More businesses means a stronger tax base, a stronger tax base means better facilties & amenities.

There you have it John. Part I, a trail advocacy group doing good things in the community in which it's members live for the betterment of the entire community.

So does this make you cringe? Or make you upset, concerned, or anything like that?

Edit: For more info. www.siouxlandtrails.org

deputyjones

There seems to be a lot of arguing lately about what VC is and what you believe HH. Maybe you should clarify it for us.

Helmet Head

No, that thread showed the difficulties of Brian to provide such a definition. I did so without difficulty.

In fact, I also recently provided a definition of what I mean by VC in a separate thread:
https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=275653

Helmet Head

Again? No thanks.

See: https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=275653

sggoodri

That thread started as an attempt to redefine vehicular cycling in a way that seriously conflicts with how vehicular cycling proponents define it, so it resulted in an obvious mess.

I posted my own description of mainstream vehicular cycling proponents' claims WRT segregated bicycle facilities in post 298.

-Steve

I_Bike

Brian's "working definition" thread has helped me come up with a slightly different presentation of what vehicular cycling means to me. I'm open to comments, questions and suggestions...

The vehicular rules of the road, or the vrotr, are the rules of the road according to which drivers operate their vehicles on roadways, as opposed to the pedestrian rules of the road, which pedestrians follow.

The undocumented vrotr according to which drivers actually operate should not be confused with the documented legal vehicle code to which drivers must technically adhere in order to avoid getting a citation. There is a lot of overlap, of course, but they are not one and the same. Few drivers have ever even glanced at a vehicle code, much less studied every vehicle code for every jurisdiction in which they have driven. Instead, the vrotr that each driver follows are learned by most drivers through a combination of experience, common sense, driver training, and reviewing (skimming) the driver's manual every 4-8 years. Therefore each driver has his own personal undocumented informal idea of what the vrotr are, but the main principles are understood by all (keep to the right, obey the speed limit, obey traffic controls, slower traffic keeps right, etc., etc.).

The vehicular rules of the road encompass the rules of the road that govern drivers of slow moving vehicles as well.

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.
* 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.
* Etc.

(Mod's butting in: thought I'd bring it over here - it's easer than folks hopping back and forth...)

I-Like-To-Bike

I don't blame you for dissasociating yourself from Forester's claims.

I don't know what the benefits might be for a self selected group of cycling enthusists taking the LAB 1 course. Could be anything at all, or nothing, who knows, since all we have are anecdotes, guesswork and wishfull thinking. Maybe the students will enjoy their cycling more by adapting something they learn; maybe a sense of accomplishment, maybe nothing significant at all will be gained .

skanking biker

Well, according to what I've seen expressed here, the only reason it is dangerous is because your either: 1) to inexperienced to properly use the road; or 2) you have some phsycological disorder called "cyclist inferiority syndrome" that caused your fear

deputyjones

OK, my request was a legitimate one not sarcastic. I had not read the thread you quoted before. Keeping up with every thread in here I find impossible.

galen_52657

Sums it up nicely

skanking biker

That is by far the most intelligent thing that has been written so far in this thread. The problem is, most here seem willing to accept most, if not all, of the VC cyling principles, its all the other stuff that causes the problem. But to some, it seems, it is an all or nothing proposition.

John Forester

The reference is incorrect. Vehicular cycling is obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. There is no prohibition against sharing a lane that is sufficiently wide.

dewaday

Your advocating that all traffic adhere to the needs of the slowest common denominator? Applaud the idea, but as a practicality, currently impossible. Maybe there's a reason the Amish live so far away from large cities.

zeytoun

Let's use "good faith" and assume that merely using wording like the above is not an animosity-driven personal attack, shall we?

N_C

Now for Part II.

John, as well as the things mentioned in Part I here is what else is happening in my community.

I have reduced the amount of time I am able to help out the trail foundation. The reasons are, besides working 40+ hours a week & going to college I am also involved in the Masonic Fraternity, both Blue Lodge & the Scottish Rite, very busy with both. On top of all of that I am also forming a new organization who's purpose will be to improve, increase & enhance the on street facilities.

Like in Part I it covers the same area in Siouxland. We are hoping to convince the communities to adopt a Complete Streets Policy. For more info on Complete Steets: www.completestreets.org & www.thunderheadalliance.org I am working on getting a group of people together, so far there are 5 of us. Part of this also includes working with the MPO as well as the appropriate governments.

We will be conducting survey's to determine what roadways in the area are Complete Streets & which ones are not & what needs to be done to make the roadways a Complete Street.

Part of this also includes combing the on street facilties with the off street & seperate facilities. This includes but is not limited to smooth transitions between the 2, signage, etc.

This is still in it's infancy but the prediction is it will be successfull overall.

Oh, one final thing John. I don't know how you feel about the type or style of bicycle people ride but I ride a recumbent. Do you have issues or conflicts with people riding a bike other then a diamond frame or what is often refered to as a wedgie bike?

rhm

Early in the morning, road traffic is plenty fast (30 to 50 mph?), but there's not much of it, so cars have plenty of room to get around me; and the towpath is deserted except by wildlife. In the evening, road traffic is heavy, a bit slower, and far more dangerous. Evening usage of the towpath depend on weather; in season there may be fishermen (watch out!), kids on four-wheelers, or anything. But for at least half of the year, it's pretty well deserted.

My specific commute isn't the issue, of course. My point was that to ride at all, I must agree with the following statement, even though I also agreed when Randya called it a "pipe dream:"

It's because JF assumes a law-abiding civility that does not, in fact, exist. JF admits as much:

I don't need the passive "it is recognized" to make my point. It is my experience that too few cyclists obey the rules of the road (and I really don't care if they're American or not). If there's anyone who doesn't recognize this, we should start a separate thread on that subject. IMHO this is the primary danger facing me, regardless whether riding on roads or bikeways; though of course when I ride "vehicularly" (is that even a word?), an accident caused by another cyclist is far more likely to involve a car, which may be catastrophic.

Rudi

John Forester

Originally Posted by chipcom
How far gone do our other rights, freedom and liberties have to be before we recognize that it is happening? It HAS been happening, on a broad scale, for as long as this country has existed. Those that recognize it fight the battle, the majority who don't stay on the sidelines and let 'the other guy worry about it'. When we are successful, it is because we are able to mobilize the majority to take some action - when we fail it's because we failed to mobilize the majority. So here's the thing that I have been preaching to you and others since I came aboard this forum - you can't protect squat if you don't have the support of the majority, so alienating that majority doesn't help your cause. The majority could give a crap about our right to ride on the road, but they DO give a crap about having what they perceive as 'safe' places to ride their bicycles and are willing to assist us in protecting our rights as long as we are willing to assist in them getting what they want. THAT is what neither you and John Forester seem to understand, probably because you are both techinical types that THINK they know politics, but in fact are pretty much amateurs. By alienating the population in general with not only anti-facilities rhetoric, but also actively opposing things that people want, you are sewing the seeds of our destruction, not saving the world.

. . . . That means more people will by cycling, whether for transportation, sport or recreation - the more cyclists there are, the more support we can hope to gain to beat back attacks on our right to ride the roadways - IF we don't piss them off or become their enemies by actively opposing their thirst for facilities.

Finally, take a look around the country. The efforts to get us off the road have been decreasing, not increasing. . . . .

Bottom line - our right to the road and facilities - integrated or segregated, can coexist and be mutally supportive IF we speak with one voice, representing cycling and cyclists as a whole, rather than protecting our own self-interest at the expense of others.

===============

I think that chipcom is inaccurate in positing that the majority is willing to accept a policy that vehicular cycling is the proper way to use the roads and the roads should be built for it, in return for our support of bikeways. I have seen no sign of this anywhere. Indeed, the active hatred for vehicular cyclists that so many on this list exhibit rather demonstrates the opposite.

I-Like-To-Bike

The Active Hatred! Oy!

bigpedaler

if VC is as simple as all that, why did you need to write so copiously to try to define it in your avalanche of work?

ONE SENTENCE IS ALL IT TOOK!

i just want to make sure -- vehicular cycling is riding on the road in accordance with the law. is that what you're saying?