Is "vehicular cycling" "poisoned"? Change name of group to BicycleDriving?
213 views
Skip to first unread message
Serge Issakov
Nov 16, 2009, 2:00:59 PM11/16/09
to VehicularCycling
It has been suggested to me that the term "vehicular cycling" is
poisoned and we should use a different name for this group, like
"bicycle driving".
Comments?
Thanks,
Serge
P.S.
Please note the only rule on this group is NO PERSONAL ATTACKS.
poisoned and we should use a different name for this group, like
"bicycle driving".
Comments?
Thanks,
Serge
P.S.
Please note the only rule on this group is NO PERSONAL ATTACKS.
pete van nuys
Nov 16, 2009, 4:16:56 PM11/16/09
to Serge Issakov, VehicularCycling
Serge, hi.
In reference to the factionalization of American bicycle advocates,
Brian D' commented to me yesterday, "with friends like these who needs
enemies."
If "vehiclular cycling" is seen as the ideology of intractable
"vehicularists," then the messages may be less accepted to
"non-vehicularists," and whatever wisdom might be gained by hearing
varied points of view would be lost.
If your Google group is to be a forum for discussion among core
vehicularists only, no problem. If you'd like to attract and hear from
those leaning toward but not fully enrolled in vehicular cycling,
"Bicycle Driving" might be better.
If you'd like an even more inclusive title to lure a broader audience,
"Sharing the Road" might work. Broaden the audience sufficiently and
Google ad revenue will surly trickle in which ain't a bad thing either...
--
Pete
949 492 5737
John Forester
Nov 16, 2009, 4:21:36 PM11/16/09
to VehicularCycling
Since I am the major participant, or shall we say designated victim,
in the discussion in which this suggestion arose, while my comments
will not be personal (in fact most participants in that discussion
refuse to reveal their names), they will be severely critical of those
who created the situation in which this suggestion arose.
Those who advocate bikeways, calling themselves bicycle advocates, for
the purpose of creating a very large switch from motoring to
bicycling, attempted to demonstrate that vehicular cycling meant
nothing at all, because, as they claimed, cyclists can use bike lanes
(and other bikeways also). Some ill-informed new participant had
jumped in with the statement that vehicular cyclists rode only in
motor traffic lanes, never used any other facility. The discussion was
almost entirely about whether vehicular cyclists rode in bike lanes,
as if that proved anything, and which, of course, had never been
disputed by vehicular cyclists. The only other part of the discussion
was about the three restrictive traffic laws.
The bikeway advocates had to demonstrate both that vehicular cyclists
sometimes (but they never said sometimes) used bike lanes and that
they were not obliged by law to use them. The most vocal of the
bikeway advocates went so far as to declare that the meaning of the
restrictive laws meant that he was allowed to ride in whatever manner
he claimed was reasonable. Therefore, so he declared, vehicular
cycling was no more than bicycle driving.
I think that we all understand the motives of the bikeway advocates.
That is to produce the largest possible switch from motor transport to
bicycle transport by deploying the sweetest possible bait, the promise
that bikeways make cycling safe without having to learn and brave
vehicular cycling. They don't care about safe cycling, only about
numbers. And they get around this difficulty by declaring that if one
is riding on the right-hand half of the roadway and stops at stop
signs, one is therefore riding in the lawful manner.
I say that the kind of careless cycling called lawful by bikeway
advocates is clearly distinguished from vehicular cycling, which is
obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. They want that
difference to be abolished, that lawful riding is no more than the
popular way of careless cycling. Therefore, I say that the name
vehicular cycling is both necessary and, so far as I can tell, the
most appropriate name for that activity.
in the discussion in which this suggestion arose, while my comments
will not be personal (in fact most participants in that discussion
refuse to reveal their names), they will be severely critical of those
who created the situation in which this suggestion arose.
Those who advocate bikeways, calling themselves bicycle advocates, for
the purpose of creating a very large switch from motoring to
bicycling, attempted to demonstrate that vehicular cycling meant
nothing at all, because, as they claimed, cyclists can use bike lanes
(and other bikeways also). Some ill-informed new participant had
jumped in with the statement that vehicular cyclists rode only in
motor traffic lanes, never used any other facility. The discussion was
almost entirely about whether vehicular cyclists rode in bike lanes,
as if that proved anything, and which, of course, had never been
disputed by vehicular cyclists. The only other part of the discussion
was about the three restrictive traffic laws.
The bikeway advocates had to demonstrate both that vehicular cyclists
sometimes (but they never said sometimes) used bike lanes and that
they were not obliged by law to use them. The most vocal of the
bikeway advocates went so far as to declare that the meaning of the
restrictive laws meant that he was allowed to ride in whatever manner
he claimed was reasonable. Therefore, so he declared, vehicular
cycling was no more than bicycle driving.
I think that we all understand the motives of the bikeway advocates.
That is to produce the largest possible switch from motor transport to
bicycle transport by deploying the sweetest possible bait, the promise
that bikeways make cycling safe without having to learn and brave
vehicular cycling. They don't care about safe cycling, only about
numbers. And they get around this difficulty by declaring that if one
is riding on the right-hand half of the roadway and stops at stop
signs, one is therefore riding in the lawful manner.
I say that the kind of careless cycling called lawful by bikeway
advocates is clearly distinguished from vehicular cycling, which is
obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. They want that
difference to be abolished, that lawful riding is no more than the
popular way of careless cycling. Therefore, I say that the name
vehicular cycling is both necessary and, so far as I can tell, the
most appropriate name for that activity.
Serge Issakov
Nov 16, 2009, 5:02:39 PM11/16/09
to pete van nuys, VehicularCycling
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 1:16 PM, pete van nuys <petev...@cox.net> wrote:
If your Google group is to be a forum for discussion among core vehicularists only, no problem. If you'd like to attract and hear from those leaning toward but not fully enrolled in vehicular cycling, "Bicycle Driving" might be better.
Frankly, I wish the vehicular cycling concept would be less misunderstood, and this list could help accomplish that, that would be great. How the concept is named does not matter to me much, but it does seem like "vehicular cycling" has more momentum, and baggage, than does "bicycle driving".
I do hope to "attract and hear from those leaning toward but not fully enrolled in vehicular cycling" on this list. That is, I do not mean to limit it to only advocates of vehicular cycling (thus differentiating this list from chainguard). Cogent and respectful discussions about vehicular cycling - pro and con - are intended to be welcome here.
Anyway, I want to invite more people, but want to resolve this list name issue before I invite anyone else (so not too many are affected by the name - having to change email filters, etc.).
I'm somewhat conflicted about this issue. A part of me wants to promote and defend the name "vehicular cycling" as well as the concept, but promoting and defending the concept - regardless of how it is named - has to be more important. To that end I suppose I'm leaning towards changing the name to "bicycle driving". Does anyone object?
Serge
John Forester
Nov 16, 2009, 5:07:11 PM11/16/09
to VehicularCycling
I know that there are people out there with very strange ideas about
vehicular cycling, such as what Pete refers to as "the ideology of
intractable vehicularists". But vehicular cycling is really very
simply defined: when cycling on the roadway operate according to the
rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. Vehicular cycling doesn't
apply on sidewalks, MUPs, parking lots, or mountain trails, all of
which require rather different styles of cycling. However, Pete wishes
to attract people who don't have this point of view by watering down
the core to any method at all of driving a bicycle. In a way, he is
correct, in that nearly all Americans have been raised to have a
horror of vehicular cycling. That's why bikeways are so popular.
But, if the subject is to be vehicular cycling, what really is there
to discuss? Yes, I know about the variation in lateral position
permitted, and about just how slow enables the proper yield at a stop
sign, and what is the best means of obtaining, and recognizing,
agreement by another driver of one's desire to move in front of him.
But all these are within the subject field.
There really isn't anything significant to discuss outside vehicular
cycling. Suppose that someone asks to what extent one should obey a
bike-lane stripe. There is only one answer to that, obey the rules of
the road for drivers of vehicles without paying attention to the
existence of the bike-lane stripe.
That's all there is to vehicular cycling as such. There are other
considerations which I will discuss in my next.
vehicular cycling, such as what Pete refers to as "the ideology of
intractable vehicularists". But vehicular cycling is really very
simply defined: when cycling on the roadway operate according to the
rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. Vehicular cycling doesn't
apply on sidewalks, MUPs, parking lots, or mountain trails, all of
which require rather different styles of cycling. However, Pete wishes
to attract people who don't have this point of view by watering down
the core to any method at all of driving a bicycle. In a way, he is
correct, in that nearly all Americans have been raised to have a
horror of vehicular cycling. That's why bikeways are so popular.
But, if the subject is to be vehicular cycling, what really is there
to discuss? Yes, I know about the variation in lateral position
permitted, and about just how slow enables the proper yield at a stop
sign, and what is the best means of obtaining, and recognizing,
agreement by another driver of one's desire to move in front of him.
But all these are within the subject field.
There really isn't anything significant to discuss outside vehicular
cycling. Suppose that someone asks to what extent one should obey a
bike-lane stripe. There is only one answer to that, obey the rules of
the road for drivers of vehicles without paying attention to the
existence of the bike-lane stripe.
That's all there is to vehicular cycling as such. There are other
considerations which I will discuss in my next.
Serge Issakov
Nov 16, 2009, 5:22:44 PM11/16/09
to John Forester, VehicularCycling
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 1:21 PM, John Forester <fore...@johnforester.com> wrote:
I say that the kind of careless cycling called lawful by bikeway
advocates is clearly distinguished from vehicular cycling, which is
obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. They want that
difference to be abolished, that lawful riding is no more than the
popular way of careless cycling. Therefore, I say that the name
vehicular cycling is both necessary and, so far as I can tell, the
most appropriate name for that activity.
But as long as we define "bicycle driving" as "cycling on roads while obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles" we're talking about the same thing, are we not? Is that not an appropriate name?
For example, riding in a bike lane that is to the right of a right-or-straight lane while going straight is "lawful cycling", but is not, arguably, "bicycle driving".
And there is precedence for the use of "bicycle driving" rather than 'vehicular cycling" by vehicular cycling advocates, including:
http://bicycledriving.org (Paul Schmiek)
http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving (Steven Goodridge and Wayne Pein)
http://www.bicycledriver.com/ (David Smith)
In a subsequent post, John Forester also asked, "if the subject is to be vehicular cycling, what really is there
to discuss? " Not to limit the potential scope of discussions here, but I envision discussion in at least the following areas:- Behavior that is or is not consistent with it, and why.
- How it relates to increasing or inhibiting more bicycling.
- Whether there is a continuum (discussion started by Peter).
- Ways to promote it.
- Comparing/contrasting/evaluating "Dutch cycling" to it and "American out-of-the-way cycling" (for lack of a better term).
In all of the above, "it" can be "vehicular cycling" or "bicycle driving" as far as I can tell, and would mean the same thing.
Serge
John Forester
Nov 16, 2009, 5:41:09 PM11/16/09
to VehicularCycling
So far, the discussion has concentrated on the activity of vehicular
cycling, about which there appear to be little significant
differences. However, quite distinct from the activity of vehicular
cycling is consideration of the political and social strategy to be
employed by those who practice vehicular cycling and believe in its
value. Is that also to be part of the content of this discussion
group?
Assuming that the subject has been raised, here are my views.
We live and must operate in a society in which there are powerful
forces opposed to vehicular cycling. On one side is society's general
view that cyclists should stick close to the edge of the roadway, or
off it if that can be arranged, implemented by laws and by bikeways.
Based on historical facts, the most reasonable motive for these laws
and bikeways is the convenience of motorists, although these laws and
bikeways were made politically acceptable by the political argument,
contradicted by traffic engineering knowledge, that these made cycling
safe without having to learn vehicular cycling. On the other side, we
have the bicycle advocates who believe, or cynically believe that the
ill-informed population believes, the motorists' propaganda that
bikeways make cycling safe without having to learn vehicular cycling.
The motorists act only out of their self-interest, while the bicycle
advocates act through, and in accordance with, their anti-motoring
zeal.
I say, and I don't think there is much reasonable doubt, that the tiny
minority of vehicular cyclists cannot reverse this program of
unskilled, cyclist-inferiority cycling on bikeways. There is far too
much political power behind it. From the beginning, bicycle
transportation engineers have demonstrated the engineering futility
and falsity of the bikeway system if vehicular cycling is considered
to be the standard. We have deflected the very worst initial blunders
in the system, but by now those blunders are being re-introduced with
sufficient political power behind them. All that our efforts have
accomplished is to anger the bikeway-promoting bicycle advocates, so
much that they really hate us for opposing their faith.
We have to work out how to preserve our right to operate according to
the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, no matter what the
majority want to do.
We have two aspects in our favor. One is that, even within a bike-lane
system, there are times and locations and movements when the cyclist
has to operate outside the bike lane, in which case he should be
operating in the vehicular manner. It doesn't matter so much that
vehicular operation is desirable; what matters is that the cyclist has
to operate outside the bike lane. It is impossible to specify when
that should occur; the system is too complicated for all the
exceptions to be listed in any way that makes an understandable law.
So, get the restrictive laws repealed. Furthermore, there is also the
basic argument from fairness and justice. Why should lawful cyclists
be prohibited from operating according to standard law, when that is
just for the convenience of motorists?
So that's what I think vehicular cyclists should be working to
accomplish, beyond the simple activity of riding in the vehicular
manner.
cycling, about which there appear to be little significant
differences. However, quite distinct from the activity of vehicular
cycling is consideration of the political and social strategy to be
employed by those who practice vehicular cycling and believe in its
value. Is that also to be part of the content of this discussion
group?
Assuming that the subject has been raised, here are my views.
We live and must operate in a society in which there are powerful
forces opposed to vehicular cycling. On one side is society's general
view that cyclists should stick close to the edge of the roadway, or
off it if that can be arranged, implemented by laws and by bikeways.
Based on historical facts, the most reasonable motive for these laws
and bikeways is the convenience of motorists, although these laws and
bikeways were made politically acceptable by the political argument,
contradicted by traffic engineering knowledge, that these made cycling
safe without having to learn vehicular cycling. On the other side, we
have the bicycle advocates who believe, or cynically believe that the
ill-informed population believes, the motorists' propaganda that
bikeways make cycling safe without having to learn vehicular cycling.
The motorists act only out of their self-interest, while the bicycle
advocates act through, and in accordance with, their anti-motoring
zeal.
I say, and I don't think there is much reasonable doubt, that the tiny
minority of vehicular cyclists cannot reverse this program of
unskilled, cyclist-inferiority cycling on bikeways. There is far too
much political power behind it. From the beginning, bicycle
transportation engineers have demonstrated the engineering futility
and falsity of the bikeway system if vehicular cycling is considered
to be the standard. We have deflected the very worst initial blunders
in the system, but by now those blunders are being re-introduced with
sufficient political power behind them. All that our efforts have
accomplished is to anger the bikeway-promoting bicycle advocates, so
much that they really hate us for opposing their faith.
We have to work out how to preserve our right to operate according to
the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, no matter what the
majority want to do.
We have two aspects in our favor. One is that, even within a bike-lane
system, there are times and locations and movements when the cyclist
has to operate outside the bike lane, in which case he should be
operating in the vehicular manner. It doesn't matter so much that
vehicular operation is desirable; what matters is that the cyclist has
to operate outside the bike lane. It is impossible to specify when
that should occur; the system is too complicated for all the
exceptions to be listed in any way that makes an understandable law.
So, get the restrictive laws repealed. Furthermore, there is also the
basic argument from fairness and justice. Why should lawful cyclists
be prohibited from operating according to standard law, when that is
just for the convenience of motorists?
So that's what I think vehicular cyclists should be working to
accomplish, beyond the simple activity of riding in the vehicular
manner.
John Forester
Nov 16, 2009, 5:54:23 PM11/16/09
to VehicularCycling
I hate to say it, but the name "bicycle driving" has already been
taken over by the bikeway promoters as representing whatever kind of
bicycling they choose to advocate. Of course, they never specifically
say what they advocate, all that they advocate is whatever the ill-
informed public want to do, except wrong way cycling. We absolutely
need to have a name that clearly distinguishes the popular method of
cycling and cycling in accordance with the rules of the road for
drivers of vehicles. Bicycle driving not only fails to make the
difference distinguishable, it has already destroyed the difference.
I would like to see more argument as to why "vehicular cycling" should
not be the name of the activity. I doubt that such argument will be
persuasive, but we should allow the possibility.
taken over by the bikeway promoters as representing whatever kind of
bicycling they choose to advocate. Of course, they never specifically
say what they advocate, all that they advocate is whatever the ill-
informed public want to do, except wrong way cycling. We absolutely
need to have a name that clearly distinguishes the popular method of
cycling and cycling in accordance with the rules of the road for
drivers of vehicles. Bicycle driving not only fails to make the
difference distinguishable, it has already destroyed the difference.
I would like to see more argument as to why "vehicular cycling" should
not be the name of the activity. I doubt that such argument will be
persuasive, but we should allow the possibility.
Serge Issakov
Nov 16, 2009, 8:16:26 PM11/16/09
to John Forester, VehicularCycling
This is a pretty strong objection to changing the name from Vehicular
Cycling in general, and to changing it to Bicycle Driving in
particular, and so unless someone presents an argument stronger than
"VC has been poisoned", I'm not going to change the name of the group.
I am BCCing the one original invitee who objected directly to me in an
offline email.
Serge
Cycling in general, and to changing it to Bicycle Driving in
particular, and so unless someone presents an argument stronger than
"VC has been poisoned", I'm not going to change the name of the group.
I am BCCing the one original invitee who objected directly to me in an
offline email.
Serge
Bob Shanteau
Nov 16, 2009, 8:20:27 PM11/16/09
to VehicularCycling
John Forester wrote:
> I hate to say it, but the name "bicycle driving" has already been
> taken over by the bikeway promoters as representing whatever kind of
> bicycling they choose to advocate.
> I hate to say it, but the name "bicycle driving" has already been
> taken over by the bikeway promoters as representing whatever kind of
> bicycling they choose to advocate.
I belonged to the APBP list for two years, and I don't recall anyone on
that list using the term "bicycle driving" to mean the new rules of the
road for bicyclists that some were advocating. Could you give us some
examples of bikeway promoters using the term?
Bob Shanteau
John Forester
Nov 16, 2009, 8:36:12 PM11/16/09
to Bob Shanteau, VehicularCycling
The name "bicycle driving" was proposed by members of the Vehicular
Cycling group of Bike Forums.
-- John Forester, MS, PE Bicycle Transportation Engineer 7585 Church St. Lemon Grove CA 91945-2306 619-644-5481 fore...@johnforester.com www.johnforester.com
Bob Shanteau
Nov 16, 2009, 8:53:13 PM11/16/09
to VehicularCycling
John Forester wrote:
> The name "bicycle driving" was proposed by members of the Vehicular
> Cycling group of Bike Forums.
> The name "bicycle driving" was proposed by members of the Vehicular
> Cycling group of Bike Forums.
I suspect that they were not serious and were simply to try to pull your
chain. I think that we can safely ignore that proposal.
I support the idea of changing the name of this group to BicycleDriving.
Bob Shanteau
Serge Issakov
Nov 16, 2009, 9:07:21 PM11/16/09
to John Forester, Bob Shanteau, VehicularCycling
I am very sorry the first issue being debated here is whether the name
of this group should be "vehicular cycling" or not. But, that's the
way it goes. Sigh.
Here is an argument sent to me by email:
> [Vehicular Cycling] is used by those that don't like [John Forester] as a rallying cry against
> education efforts. Besides, I don't ride vehicularly; I'm a bicycle driver which is to > say that
> I engage in normal integrated driver behavior with other drivers when I bicycle in traffic as traffic.
> I don't drive vehicularly because my method of conveyance is a device, and I don't
> anthropomorphize my method of conveyance. In other words, I'm not a cyclist of the class
> vehicular; I'm a member of the driver class who happens to drive a bicycle. The term
> "vehicular" is also not liked by those that are anti-motorists, since it identifies cyclists as
> being "vehicular", or like a vehicle, which they dislike. "
I have to agree that "vehicular cycling" is problematic in that it
does not seem to naturally convey the intended meaning of the term to
most people. How many of us have spent countless hours explaining
that it does not mean "acting like a car"?
I did a search for "bicycle driving" in the vehicular cycling subforum
of Advocacy & Safety at bikeforums.net. I don't see any bike
advocates suggesting the use of the term "bicycle driving" to mean
riding in the separated way that most cyclists favor, or anything like
that. I did find this post from Stephen Goodridge:
> Bek's point is that the wording of the traffic laws in most states may be interpreted
> as allowing defensive bicycle driving on roadways in the vehicular manner. This is true; bicyclist advocates have
> worked hard politically for many years to achieve and/or protect legal language that either explicitly allows such
> operation or is vague enough that they feel such operation is legally defensible. These efforts have sometimes
> even been supported by government professionals competent in the field of bicycling safety.
> John's point is that much or most of the government's actions toward cyclists has been treat them as an inconvenience
> to motor traffic, to be kept out of the way where possible and otherwise ignored. This is also true; much of the past
> opposition to defensive bicycle driving in the vehicular manner has come from traffic enforcement and highway transportation
> departments in our government. These groups have traditionally paid little attention to cyclists' safety at intersections,
> use of lights at night, or efficient access to destinations. The vast majority of their energy and spending directly relevant
> to bicycling has involved enforcement and engineering activities designed to prevent cyclists from slowing motorists. "
Link: http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=9484385&postcount=345
Stephen's words could be construed to imply that there are both
vehicular and non-vehicular forms of bicycle driving, but I think
that's a stretch. That is, I think Stephen used "defensive bicycle
driving in the vehicular manner" instead of just "bicycle driving" to
be clear about what "bicycle driving" is rather than to differentiate
it from "bicycle driving in a non-vehicular manner".
If you search for "bicycle driving" in quotes, Goodridge seems to be
the biggest user of the term there. But even Stanley Batt seems to
use "Bicycle Driving" as a synonym for vehicular cycling:
> Genec is right, the cyclists who wish to join the Forester Bicycle Driving Club club and meet "our standards" are few and
> far between. Nor are they interested in any lame effort by the Club members to advocate/induce membership on an uninterested public.
> John Forester and his ilk just can't get over the fact that few cyclists, except his handful of devotees, gives a darn about what
> it takes to operate according to his interpretations of "rules of the road for drivers of vehicles," or "our standard of competence,"
> or whatever his spin is on any bicycling subject."
http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=9706721&postcount=1409
If you took 10 people at random and asked them what they thought
"vehicular cycling" means, i wonder what they would say? And if you
asked another random group of 10 what "bicycle driving" means, I
wonder what they would say? I'm guessing that the second group would
be more likely to conceive the type of riding we VC advocates engage
in and promote. But perhaps the results would vary if you're choosing
from a group of Brits or a group of Yanks.
Serge
of this group should be "vehicular cycling" or not. But, that's the
way it goes. Sigh.
Here is an argument sent to me by email:
> [Vehicular Cycling] is used by those that don't like [John Forester] as a rallying cry against
> education efforts. Besides, I don't ride vehicularly; I'm a bicycle driver which is to > say that
> I engage in normal integrated driver behavior with other drivers when I bicycle in traffic as traffic.
> I don't drive vehicularly because my method of conveyance is a device, and I don't
> anthropomorphize my method of conveyance. In other words, I'm not a cyclist of the class
> vehicular; I'm a member of the driver class who happens to drive a bicycle. The term
> "vehicular" is also not liked by those that are anti-motorists, since it identifies cyclists as
> being "vehicular", or like a vehicle, which they dislike. "
I have to agree that "vehicular cycling" is problematic in that it
does not seem to naturally convey the intended meaning of the term to
most people. How many of us have spent countless hours explaining
that it does not mean "acting like a car"?
I did a search for "bicycle driving" in the vehicular cycling subforum
of Advocacy & Safety at bikeforums.net. I don't see any bike
advocates suggesting the use of the term "bicycle driving" to mean
riding in the separated way that most cyclists favor, or anything like
that. I did find this post from Stephen Goodridge:
> Bek's point is that the wording of the traffic laws in most states may be interpreted
> as allowing defensive bicycle driving on roadways in the vehicular manner. This is true; bicyclist advocates have
> worked hard politically for many years to achieve and/or protect legal language that either explicitly allows such
> operation or is vague enough that they feel such operation is legally defensible. These efforts have sometimes
> even been supported by government professionals competent in the field of bicycling safety.
> John's point is that much or most of the government's actions toward cyclists has been treat them as an inconvenience
> to motor traffic, to be kept out of the way where possible and otherwise ignored. This is also true; much of the past
> opposition to defensive bicycle driving in the vehicular manner has come from traffic enforcement and highway transportation
> departments in our government. These groups have traditionally paid little attention to cyclists' safety at intersections,
> use of lights at night, or efficient access to destinations. The vast majority of their energy and spending directly relevant
> to bicycling has involved enforcement and engineering activities designed to prevent cyclists from slowing motorists. "
Link: http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=9484385&postcount=345
Stephen's words could be construed to imply that there are both
vehicular and non-vehicular forms of bicycle driving, but I think
that's a stretch. That is, I think Stephen used "defensive bicycle
driving in the vehicular manner" instead of just "bicycle driving" to
be clear about what "bicycle driving" is rather than to differentiate
it from "bicycle driving in a non-vehicular manner".
If you search for "bicycle driving" in quotes, Goodridge seems to be
the biggest user of the term there. But even Stanley Batt seems to
use "Bicycle Driving" as a synonym for vehicular cycling:
> Genec is right, the cyclists who wish to join the Forester Bicycle Driving Club club and meet "our standards" are few and
> far between. Nor are they interested in any lame effort by the Club members to advocate/induce membership on an uninterested public.
> John Forester and his ilk just can't get over the fact that few cyclists, except his handful of devotees, gives a darn about what
> it takes to operate according to his interpretations of "rules of the road for drivers of vehicles," or "our standard of competence,"
> or whatever his spin is on any bicycling subject."
http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=9706721&postcount=1409
If you took 10 people at random and asked them what they thought
"vehicular cycling" means, i wonder what they would say? And if you
asked another random group of 10 what "bicycle driving" means, I
wonder what they would say? I'm guessing that the second group would
be more likely to conceive the type of riding we VC advocates engage
in and promote. But perhaps the results would vary if you're choosing
from a group of Brits or a group of Yanks.
Serge
Serge Issakov
Nov 16, 2009, 9:14:23 PM11/16/09
to VehicularCycling
Another argument sent to me by email, slightly edited:
> The goal is to fix the laws so cyclists can be full and equal drivers, and be taught to act as drivers.
> The vehicle or vehicular part actually creates confusion, as is evidenced by what the LAB asked us
> to do to change our laws in CA to achieve a higher BFS rating; they wanted us to redefine bicycles
> as vehicles. Framing is very important to me, and I do not want to be associated with the framing you
> and John have chosen. BTW, [John Forester] is [incorrect]; the name bicycle driving was to my knowledge
> first used by the Bruce Rosar and Steven Goodridge of the NCCBD <http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/> ,
> and others who followed to describe driver behavior, Do notice that John provides no examples of his [snip] claim.
>
> You ought to name this group Bicycle Driving in memory of Bruce Rosar for his efforts to have us treated as full and equal drivers.
I find that last point to be particularly compelling.
Serge
Serge Issakov
Nov 16, 2009, 11:56:46 PM11/16/09
to BicycleDriving
Per the discussions on the list and emails I received in private, and
in memory of Bruce Rosar who was one of the champions of the "bicycle
driving" term, I have change the named of this group from
"VehicularCycling" to "BicycleDriving".
Done. See the footer of this and all emails sent to the list for
instructions on how to post messages, unsubscribe, and get more
information.
If there are any issues with using the new name, please let me know.
Serge
Bob Shanteau
Nov 17, 2009, 1:45:00 AM11/17/09
to BicycleDriving
John Forester wrote:
> On the other side, we have the bicycle advocates who believe, or cynically believe that the ill-informed population believes, the motorists' propaganda that bikeways make cycling safe without having to learn vehicular cycling. The motorists act only out of their self-interest, while the bicycle advocates act through, and in accordance with, their anti-motoring zeal.
> On the other side, we have the bicycle advocates who believe, or cynically believe that the ill-informed population believes, the motorists' propaganda that bikeways make cycling safe without having to learn vehicular cycling. The motorists act only out of their self-interest, while the bicycle advocates act through, and in accordance with, their anti-motoring zeal.
My impression is that bikeway advocates' two goals are (1) to replace
cars with bicycles; and (2) to increase bicycle mode share. As Roger
Geller once said in an interview on PBS radio, "Safety is not the
point." Whenever we bring up safety, however, they point to Jacobsen's
Safety in Numbers paper, as though increasing the number of bicyclists
were a safety intervention (it is not). It has been known since at least
1948 that increasing the exposure of any mode decreases the accident
rate per unit of exposure, but that is not a safety intervention. But
bikeway advocates think it is, and that the best way to decrease the
bicycle accident rate is to increase the number of bicyclists. We, on
the other hand, believe that the best way is through better behavior and
laws.
According to Ted Buehler's Master's Thesis on the history of bicycling
in Davis, the couple who brought back ideas from their trip to Europe
wanted to improve cycling conditions in Davis. Their motivation was to
accommodate the multitudes of students, staff and faculty who were
encouraged to bicycle by the new pro-bicycling Chancellor at UCD.
Buehler himself does not see the irony of how pro-motoring the new bike
lanes, bike paths and bike signals really were. It's interesting to see
that what he thinks is a pro-cycling bias is really founded in a
fundamental anti-cycling bias.
The members of the Statewide Bicycle Committee in 1974 were both
paternal and ignorant. They really did want to improve bicycle safety,
but had no data or experience on which to base their opinions. Senator
Mills introduced a bill in 1975 to allocate $60K to Caltrans to study
the safety and efficacy of bikeways, but the bill died in the Assembly
the following year. So we are still suffering from the same paternalism
and ignorance, compounded by the discriminatory laws.
A major effort has to be to finally get a real research study done of
the safety and efficacy of bikeways. Of the possible funding agencies,
Caltrans is the most likely to cooperate. Perhaps others around the
country might know of other agencies that might help.
Bob Shanteau
Darrell Noakes
Nov 17, 2009, 11:07:45 AM11/17/09
to BicycleDriving
I don't know if I would agree that the term is "poisoned", but I've
always noticed that the surest way to be identified as part of any
radical or unpopular fringe is by having an adjective applied to your
activity or cause. Any adjective, by definition, identifies a subset
of a broader concept. "Vehicular" cyclists see the term merely as
descriptive, but to many people, including politicians and various
advocates, the term is understood to refer to a small and decreasing
minority of cyclists. To them the term is synonymous with "elite",
"foolhardy", "suicidal" or worse. The use of the term gives legitimacy
to other, more "mainstream" or "popular" forms of cycling, while
reducing the legitimacy of "vehicular" cycling as the term
increasingly is used as a pejorative. (There may, in fact, be nothing
wrong with other forms of cycling, but they should not obtain their
legitimacy at the expense of "vehicular" cycling). I think the use of
the term only makes it easier for the public to marginalize cyclists
and for motorists and politicians to ban cyclists from the road, while
making it harder for cyclists to argue for their rights to the
roadway.
By all means, remind people that "cyclists fare best when they act and
are treated as drivers of vehicles", describe safe and reliable
methods for interacting with traffic, but avoid shortening these
principles to the term "vehicular cyclist", especially when addressing
audiences who don't understand the term. To someone who understands
the shorthand, it encapsulates a lot of meaning and a thorough
understanding of traffic principles. To everyone else, it's just
weird.
always noticed that the surest way to be identified as part of any
radical or unpopular fringe is by having an adjective applied to your
activity or cause. Any adjective, by definition, identifies a subset
of a broader concept. "Vehicular" cyclists see the term merely as
descriptive, but to many people, including politicians and various
advocates, the term is understood to refer to a small and decreasing
minority of cyclists. To them the term is synonymous with "elite",
"foolhardy", "suicidal" or worse. The use of the term gives legitimacy
to other, more "mainstream" or "popular" forms of cycling, while
reducing the legitimacy of "vehicular" cycling as the term
increasingly is used as a pejorative. (There may, in fact, be nothing
wrong with other forms of cycling, but they should not obtain their
legitimacy at the expense of "vehicular" cycling). I think the use of
the term only makes it easier for the public to marginalize cyclists
and for motorists and politicians to ban cyclists from the road, while
making it harder for cyclists to argue for their rights to the
roadway.
By all means, remind people that "cyclists fare best when they act and
are treated as drivers of vehicles", describe safe and reliable
methods for interacting with traffic, but avoid shortening these
principles to the term "vehicular cyclist", especially when addressing
audiences who don't understand the term. To someone who understands
the shorthand, it encapsulates a lot of meaning and a thorough
understanding of traffic principles. To everyone else, it's just
weird.
Darrell Noakes
Nov 17, 2009, 11:56:07 AM11/17/09
to BicycleDriving
An interesting take on perception, that I just ran across this
morning:
http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2009/11/17/perception-is-everything/
I wonder how people's perception of vehicular cycling is influenced by
factors they don't understand.
morning:
http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2009/11/17/perception-is-everything/
I wonder how people's perception of vehicular cycling is influenced by
factors they don't understand.
John Forester
Nov 17, 2009, 4:01:52 PM11/17/09
to BicycleDriving
Now that we have decided to change the name of this group and of the
activity formerly called vehicular cycling, to the new name bicycle
driving, we must take certain precautions.
By the way, once I had an afternoon to think the matter over, I
decided that I am quite happy with bicycle driving.
I take it that bicycle driving, or driving a bicycle, means operating
a bicycle on a roadway in accordance with the rules of the road for
drivers of vehicles. If there is any doubt about this we should work
this out immediately.
I think that "bicycle driving" and "driving a bicycle" do not qualify
as brand names or service marks, because they are no more than a
simple combination of common words. Vehicular cycling might have
qualified as a brand name or service mark, because its words are less
common, but I never tried to obtain protection for it and, while
others opposed the concept, nobody tried to take over the name. But
bicycle driving has been used by others, at least some of the time
without conforming to the definition that I think we agree on. I think
that we need to take steps to insist that bicycle driving be used only
in conformity with our definition. I think it is clear that a Google
discussion group is insufficient base for such an endeavor. At the
very least, we need an organization titled Bicycle Driving Institute,
or similar, with its own website, to make clear to the public that
this is an ongoing endeavor with very specific activities entitled to
their proper definition.
This is just an opener for further discussion.
activity formerly called vehicular cycling, to the new name bicycle
driving, we must take certain precautions.
By the way, once I had an afternoon to think the matter over, I
decided that I am quite happy with bicycle driving.
I take it that bicycle driving, or driving a bicycle, means operating
a bicycle on a roadway in accordance with the rules of the road for
drivers of vehicles. If there is any doubt about this we should work
this out immediately.
I think that "bicycle driving" and "driving a bicycle" do not qualify
as brand names or service marks, because they are no more than a
simple combination of common words. Vehicular cycling might have
qualified as a brand name or service mark, because its words are less
common, but I never tried to obtain protection for it and, while
others opposed the concept, nobody tried to take over the name. But
bicycle driving has been used by others, at least some of the time
without conforming to the definition that I think we agree on. I think
that we need to take steps to insist that bicycle driving be used only
in conformity with our definition. I think it is clear that a Google
discussion group is insufficient base for such an endeavor. At the
very least, we need an organization titled Bicycle Driving Institute,
or similar, with its own website, to make clear to the public that
this is an ongoing endeavor with very specific activities entitled to
their proper definition.
This is just an opener for further discussion.
Serge Issakov
Nov 17, 2009, 5:38:40 PM11/17/09
to John Forester, BicycleDriving
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 1:01 PM, John Forester <fore...@johnforester.com> wrote:
Now that we have decided to change the name of this group and of the
activity formerly called vehicular cycling, to the new name bicycle
driving, we must take certain precautions.
By the way, once I had an afternoon to think the matter over, I
decided that I am quite happy with bicycle driving.
Outstanding!
I take it that bicycle driving, or driving a bicycle, means operating
a bicycle on a roadway in accordance with the rules of the road for
drivers of vehicles. If there is any doubt about this we should work
this out immediately.
That's how I take it.
I think that "bicycle driving" and "driving a bicycle" do not qualify
as brand names or service marks, because they are no more than a
simple combination of common words. Vehicular cycling might have
qualified as a brand name or service mark, because its words are less
common, but I never tried to obtain protection for it and, while
others opposed the concept, nobody tried to take over the name. But
bicycle driving has been used by others, at least some of the time
without conforming to the definition that I think we agree on. I think
that we need to take steps to insist that bicycle driving be used only
in conformity with our definition. I think it is clear that a Google
discussion group is insufficient base for such an endeavor. At the
very least, we need an organization titled Bicycle Driving Institute,
or similar, with its own website, to make clear to the public that
this is an ongoing endeavor with very specific activities entitled to
their proper definition.
This is just an opener for further discussion.
This group has a website:
I've set up access so that members can create and edit pages.
I've created a "Links" page, but I foresee that we'll also at least have a Glossary, FAQ, and potentially a plethora of essays on various topics, all provided for free to us by Google and its advertisers. Good enough?
Serge
Eli Damon
Nov 17, 2009, 5:49:23 PM11/17/09
to John Forester, BicycleDriving
Hi John. Your proposed organization reminds me of the North Carolina
Coalition for Bicycle Driving
<http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/> so I thought I would
mention it in case your or other were not aware of it. I really like the
stuff on their website. They use a catch phrase "Ride big", meaning that
you should ride as if you actually occupied the full amount of space
that you would like other drivers to give you.
Incidentally, the term "bicycle driving" puts me off, personally,
although I certainly don't think like most other people so my opinion is
not a good measure of political efficacy. To me, the term represents a
distortion of the words "ride" and "drive" from their traditional
meanings, similar to the way the words "liberal" and conservative" have
been distorted. It seems to use cars as a reference to which bicycles
are compared and using the term "bicycle driving" seems like an
acceptance of this car-chauvinism.
Eli
Coalition for Bicycle Driving
<http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/> so I thought I would
mention it in case your or other were not aware of it. I really like the
stuff on their website. They use a catch phrase "Ride big", meaning that
you should ride as if you actually occupied the full amount of space
that you would like other drivers to give you.
Incidentally, the term "bicycle driving" puts me off, personally,
although I certainly don't think like most other people so my opinion is
not a good measure of political efficacy. To me, the term represents a
distortion of the words "ride" and "drive" from their traditional
meanings, similar to the way the words "liberal" and conservative" have
been distorted. It seems to use cars as a reference to which bicycles
are compared and using the term "bicycle driving" seems like an
acceptance of this car-chauvinism.
Eli
pete van nuys
Nov 17, 2009, 5:49:53 PM11/17/09
to Serge Issakov, John Forester, BicycleDriving
Yes, indeed.
Now if I can just recover from that "watered down" criticism I may
regain some self esteem.
Now if I can just recover from that "watered down" criticism I may
regain some self esteem.
pete van nuys
Nov 17, 2009, 5:59:09 PM11/17/09
to Eli Damon, John Forester, BicycleDriving
The semantics between riding and driving derive from "riding a horse"
and "driving a team," and do seem awkward. But our challenge-- to be
understood in a motor vehicle dominated environment-- means we go with
the flow. To me, it's just a concession to good marketing.
and "driving a team," and do seem awkward. But our challenge-- to be
understood in a motor vehicle dominated environment-- means we go with
the flow. To me, it's just a concession to good marketing.
John Forester
Nov 17, 2009, 6:48:02 PM11/17/09
to BicycleDriving
I am not familiar with Google's operation, but I suggest that a
permanent domain name would be more permanent and more suitable. I
have just looked at
bicycledrivinginstitute and that is available with any extension. Same
is available with hyphens between words. I suggest .org would be best.
Setting up one of these is not difficult, and the cost is not
excessive, provided that we did not intend to conduct commercial
transactions. The host for my website is iPower, and I have had
satisfactory service. At the moment I forget what the cost is. I will
have to look that up, if the suggestion is discussed further.
permanent domain name would be more permanent and more suitable. I
have just looked at
bicycledrivinginstitute and that is available with any extension. Same
is available with hyphens between words. I suggest .org would be best.
Setting up one of these is not difficult, and the cost is not
excessive, provided that we did not intend to conduct commercial
transactions. The host for my website is iPower, and I have had
satisfactory service. At the moment I forget what the cost is. I will
have to look that up, if the suggestion is discussed further.
Alan Forkosh
Nov 17, 2009, 7:12:47 PM11/17/09
to John Forester, BicycleDriving
I'd suggest registering both .com and .org if the cost is not excessive and have them point to the same actual site. That prevents someone else from registering .com and causing confusion.
Alan Forkosh Oakland, CA
afor...@mac.com
Alan Forkosh Oakland, CA
afor...@mac.com
Wayne
Nov 18, 2009, 6:13:19 PM11/18/09
to BicycleDriving
On Nov 17, 5:49 pm, Eli Damon <pub...@eli-damon.info> wrote:
> Hi John. Your proposed organization reminds me of the North Carolina
> Coalition for Bicycle Driving
> <http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/> so I thought I would
> mention it in case your or other were not aware of it. I really like the
> stuff on their website. They use a catch phrase "Ride big", meaning that
> you should ride as if you actually occupied the full amount of space
> that you would like other drivers to give you.
>
> Incidentally, the term "bicycle driving" puts me off, personally,
> although I certainly don't think like most other people so my opinion is
> not a good measure of political efficacy. To me, the term represents a
> distortion of the words "ride" and "drive" from their traditional
> meanings, similar to the way the words "liberal" and conservative" have
> been distorted. It seems to use cars as a reference to which bicycles
> are compared and using the term "bicycle driving" seems like an
> acceptance of this car-chauvinism.
>
> Eli
NCCBD at its inception. But I warmed up to "bicycle driving" and now
it is firmly part of my advocacy vocabulary. The term REALLY slaps the
general population upside the head, and immediately changes their
thinking, as does equating bicycles with motorcycles, only slower
going.
Wayne
Dan Gutierrez
Nov 18, 2009, 8:02:11 PM11/18/09
to BicycleDriving
Eli wrote: "It [Bicycle Driving] seems to use cars as a reference to
(Game show buzzer sound!) I'm sorry Eli, but that's not correct. The
correct answer is drivers follow driver rules, and this is independent
of the method of conveyance. Thus the driver of a bicycle, car, or
horse follows driver rules. The idea that the term bicycle driving is
car-centric reads to me like an expression of anti-car angst.
.
Ei also wrote: "To me, the term represents a distortion of the words
"ride" and "drive" from their traditional meanings."
.
Really? I think the traditional meaning of "driver" predates the
invention of the wheel, and is used world-wide, especially in
traditional agrarian/herding societies to describe what a shepherd or
sheepdog does to move a herd of animals from one place to another!
.
I respectfully submit that you focus on the person (driver), not the
method of conveyance (bicycle). Drivers have movement rights, whereas
conveyances, be they devices, vehicles or animals do not!
.
.
- Dan Gutierrez -
Long Beach, CA
LCI #962
http://www.cyclistview.com
http://www.youtube.com/user/CyclistLorax
> Wayne- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
which bicycles are compared and using the term "bicycle driving" seems
like an acceptance of this car-chauvinism."
.
like an acceptance of this car-chauvinism."
(Game show buzzer sound!) I'm sorry Eli, but that's not correct. The
correct answer is drivers follow driver rules, and this is independent
of the method of conveyance. Thus the driver of a bicycle, car, or
horse follows driver rules. The idea that the term bicycle driving is
car-centric reads to me like an expression of anti-car angst.
.
Ei also wrote: "To me, the term represents a distortion of the words
"ride" and "drive" from their traditional meanings."
.
Really? I think the traditional meaning of "driver" predates the
invention of the wheel, and is used world-wide, especially in
traditional agrarian/herding societies to describe what a shepherd or
sheepdog does to move a herd of animals from one place to another!
.
I respectfully submit that you focus on the person (driver), not the
method of conveyance (bicycle). Drivers have movement rights, whereas
conveyances, be they devices, vehicles or animals do not!
.
.
- Dan Gutierrez -
Long Beach, CA
LCI #962
http://www.cyclistview.com
http://www.youtube.com/user/CyclistLorax
>
> - Show quoted text -
Trevor Bourget
Nov 19, 2009, 2:54:39 AM11/19/09
to Dan Gutierrez, BicycleDriving
> Ei also wrote: "To me, the term represents a distortion of the words
> "ride" and "drive" from their traditional meanings."
Their meanings were already distorted, for car operators do little more than steer.
> "ride" and "drive" from their traditional meanings."
I think "auto pilots" and "bicycle drivers" are more descriptive for what's happening.
:-)
-- trevor
Paul Schimek
Nov 19, 2009, 10:22:16 AM11/19/09
to BicycleDriving
Back in 2000-2001, when we briefly made an attempt to set up a
'Bicycle Transportation Institute', I was searching for a domain name
to register. I came upon the idea of "Bicycle Driving" since in
briefly conveyed the meaning in terms that are more familiar to the
(American) public. "Vehicle" and "vehicular" applies only to "motor
vehicle" to most people, and "cycling" is much less common than
"bicycle" or "bicycling." Furthermore, etymologically, we say we
"ride" a bicycle because of the analogy to horseback riding -- it is
like being on a horse. On the other hand, we "drive" a car because it
is like driving a team of horses leading a carriage. Both terms are
only related to their original meanings by analogy (keeping in mind
that 'drive' means 'urge forward' or 'lead'). Further, I liked the
deliberate peculiarity of saying "drive a bicycle", because it might
make people wonder what you mean, while also having a pretty good idea
just from the phase.
I own the domain names bicycledriving.org and bicycledriving.com. They
are currently set up using Wordpress blogging software. I am happy to
permit other authors make posts on this site, rather than to have it
as a personal blog (especially since I have been a very infrequent
blogger). Wordpress makes it easy to have multiple bloggers post
independently (and of course anyone can make comments in response to a
posting). It is also easy to change the 'look and feel' of the site,
which I was planning to do anyway. I also think we might consider
setting up a forum, which is an easier way to have a public archive of
discussions and announcements, rather than (or in addition to) a
mailing list.
--Paul
'Bicycle Transportation Institute', I was searching for a domain name
to register. I came upon the idea of "Bicycle Driving" since in
briefly conveyed the meaning in terms that are more familiar to the
(American) public. "Vehicle" and "vehicular" applies only to "motor
vehicle" to most people, and "cycling" is much less common than
"bicycle" or "bicycling." Furthermore, etymologically, we say we
"ride" a bicycle because of the analogy to horseback riding -- it is
like being on a horse. On the other hand, we "drive" a car because it
is like driving a team of horses leading a carriage. Both terms are
only related to their original meanings by analogy (keeping in mind
that 'drive' means 'urge forward' or 'lead'). Further, I liked the
deliberate peculiarity of saying "drive a bicycle", because it might
make people wonder what you mean, while also having a pretty good idea
just from the phase.
I own the domain names bicycledriving.org and bicycledriving.com. They
are currently set up using Wordpress blogging software. I am happy to
permit other authors make posts on this site, rather than to have it
as a personal blog (especially since I have been a very infrequent
blogger). Wordpress makes it easy to have multiple bloggers post
independently (and of course anyone can make comments in response to a
posting). It is also easy to change the 'look and feel' of the site,
which I was planning to do anyway. I also think we might consider
setting up a forum, which is an easier way to have a public archive of
discussions and announcements, rather than (or in addition to) a
mailing list.
--Paul
Michael Graff
Nov 19, 2009, 11:13:14 AM11/19/09
to Paul Schimek, BicycleDriving
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 07:22, Paul Schimek <paul.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
I also think we might consider
setting up a forum, which is an easier way to have a public archive of
discussions and announcements, rather than (or in addition to) a
mailing list.
http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving/topics
Serge Issakov
Nov 19, 2009, 11:52:26 AM11/19/09
to BicycleDriving
to http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving/topics
Serge
Avery
Mar 5, 2013, 3:49:35 PM3/5/13
to bicycle...@googlegroups.com, VehicularCycling
No.
Vehicular cycling is clear and precise. "Bicycle driving" is awkward. The term "driving" is normally associated with motor vehicles.
Change it once and you'll change it each time the Copenhagen new urbanists call vehicular cycling (or whatever its current name were) the pastime of a cult. Vehicular cycling is normal cycling. It just needs to be promoted on that basis.
Serge Issakov
Mar 5, 2013, 5:15:31 PM3/5/13
to Avery, bicycle...@googlegroups.com, VehicularCycling
That ship has sailed, four years ago. Bicycle Driving is here, vehicular cycling is gone.
--
--
To post: bicycle...@googlegroups.comTo unsubscribe: bicycledrivin...@googlegroups.com
Only rule: no personal commentary (please comment about content, not people)
Group website: http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving
Discussion archives: http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving/topics?hl=en---
Glossary: http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving/web/glossary
Links: http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving/web/links
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BicycleDriving" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bicycledrivin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Serge Issakov
Mar 6, 2013, 12:51:39 PM3/6/13
to BicycleDriving
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 5:15 PM, Serge Issakov <serge....@gmail.com> wrote:
That ship has sailed, four years ago. Bicycle Driving is here, vehicular cycling is gone.
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 10:34 PM, wrote:
http://thesource.metro.net/2013/03/04/share-the-road-its-the-law/
Maybe where you are.
I'm not talking about San Diego or California, which is where I am. I'm talking about the entire US.
On Facebook, for example,
- Cyclists are Drivers! has 2,958 members.
- Bicyclists Belong in the Traffic Lane has 1,926 likes.
- i am traffic has 1,722 likes (and was launched only a month or two ago)
- vehicular cycling has 63 likes
- Effective Cycling has 24 likes
Again, outside of our echo chamber, in the few places where "vehicular cycling" is even referenced, it's almost always incorrectly and negatively.
In the mean time, things are starting to move our direction. One example is the installation of sharrows and BMUFL signs on several miles of Coastal 101 in Encinitas, CA. Another is that the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) is launching a new campaign to increase bicycle traffic safety in Los Angeles County. The campaign will include signs on buses, billboards and radio spots with the message “Every Lane is a Bike Lane … Bicyclists may need a full lane; Please share the road.” The ads will run from March to May, leading up to Bike Week May 13 through 17.
Associating full lane use with bicycle safety, by a government agency, which underlies both of these examples, undermines the "vehicular cycling" premise about a government cycling program contrary to the interests of bicycling driving. [http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/Social/law01.htm].
Also, an ambitious new national bicycle education organization, "I am traffic", is being launched this year.
The tide is turning. We need to focus on the positive bicycle driving future, not remain mired in the negativity of the vehicular cycling past.
Serge
Robert Cooper
Mar 6, 2013, 2:15:41 PM3/6/13
to bicycle...@googlegroups.com
On Wednesday, March 6, 2013 12:51:39 PM UTC-5, Serge Issakov wrote:
Every Lane is a Bike Lane
I need this slogan on 1,000 bumper stickers.
Please advise.
Bob
Robert Cooper
Mar 6, 2013, 3:33:33 PM3/6/13
to bicycle...@googlegroups.com
> On Facebook, for example,
> Cyclists are Drivers! has 2,958 members.
> Bicyclists Belong in the Traffic Lane has 1,926 likes.
> i am traffic has 1,722 likes...> Cyclists are Drivers! has 2,958 members.
> Bicyclists Belong in the Traffic Lane has 1,926 likes.
> vehicular cycling has 63 likes
> Effective Cycling has 24 likes
> Again, outside of our echo chamber, in the few places
> where "vehicular cycling" is even referenced, it's almost
> always incorrectly and negatively.
I only know two persons personally, two LCIs in my club, who know the name John Forester, and I know no one who knows the name John Franklin. Even among my club mates.
About five years ago, I convinced the club to start buying *Street Smarts* in bulk and give copies to members. No one had heard of it before or of John S. Allen, except for the two gentlemen mentioned above.
I think the entire movement, much to my chagrin, is essentially invisible to the general public and even among “bikers.”
There are 300,000,000 people in the US, and Cyclists are Drivers! has 2,958 members on Facebook. I’m sure many of them are not in the US. Looonnnggg way to go, folks.
Bob “One Man’s Data Point” Cooper
Robert Cooper
Mar 6, 2013, 3:39:42 PM3/6/13
to bicycle...@googlegroups.com
I have no axe to grind, because I’m thrilled with what’s already been done, by John Forester, by John S. Allen, and by John Franklin -- to all of whom I am eternally in debt -- to improve the lot of cyclists.
And by what has been done by many others, several of whom subscribe to this list.
However, the OP raised the question of a name, and I’d like to comment on the importance of a name.
When I was a kid, 55 years ago, we had bikes with “gas” tanks, big spring suspensions on the forks, streamlined headlights and taillights, and sculpted fenders, in essence, imitation Harley-Davidson motorcycles.
We put cards in the fork to make a “motor” sound as the cards hit the spokes.
If we didn’t have cards at the moment, we made imitation motor sounds with our mouths. Vroom, Vroom.
We couldn’t spin the rear tire on takeoff, motorcycle style, but we could slide the rear tire when stopping.
When we weren’t imitating motorcyclists with our bikes, we were imitating cowboys with our cap guns and BB guns.
We were ten, eleven years old, and we had rich, and I think healthy, fantasy lives.
The problem is that now, as it has been for many decades, the term “driving” in American lingo is still synonymous with “motoring.”
The expression “Get out of the road. You think you’re a car. You’re not a car.” expresses the general view, redundantly.
It restates.
The speaker feels that he has merely said the same thing three times. “You think you’re a car, but you’re not. You think you belong in the road, but you don’t.”
Our challenge is to behave in the manner that we know is best for us while at the same time avoiding the appearance, the assumption, on the part of our fellow, wheeled travelers, that we are pretending to be something that we are not. That we imagine anything at all.
In writing and speaking about ourselves and each other, we need to project a clear identity.
I know that I’m not a car, and I know that I belong in the road.
The challenge is to develop a public persona that places us in the road with the motorists without giving the impression that we think we ARE motorists. Motorists don’t pretend to be cart drivers, or pedestrians or cyclists. They have a clear identity. They and their “audience” are secure in that identity.
What I’m saying is that cyclists have a dignity all their own, just as horse-drawn buggies in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania have a dignity all their own. (On my home turf, the Finger Lakes and the Southern Tier of New York State, I see lots of horse-drawn buggies, and I don’t see the drivers of the buggies emulating or pretending. They have a dignity that is theirs alone. They are not making motor sounds with their mouths.)
“I’m not cycling in the road, because I think I’m a car. I’m cycling in the road, because I’m a cyclist, and because I and thousands of my mates know that cyclists belong in the road.” It’s a tradition so old and so well-tested -- in many parts of the world -- that it only has one simple name: “Cycling.”
There is a subtle but crucial difference in these two points of view. Or, maybe not so subtle, in their effect.
The best name for us will be the one that conveys our point of view in simple, easy-to-understand terms.
“Easy-to-understand” is a test that will be defined by those who do not now understand. Our audience is everyone who isn’t us.
As a newcomer to this list and as a person with immense respect for those who went before in this struggle,
Bob Cooper
http://www.facebook.com/robert.cooper.79677471
www.rochesterbicyclingclub.org
And by what has been done by many others, several of whom subscribe to this list.
However, the OP raised the question of a name, and I’d like to comment on the importance of a name.
When I was a kid, 55 years ago, we had bikes with “gas” tanks, big spring suspensions on the forks, streamlined headlights and taillights, and sculpted fenders, in essence, imitation Harley-Davidson motorcycles.
We put cards in the fork to make a “motor” sound as the cards hit the spokes.
If we didn’t have cards at the moment, we made imitation motor sounds with our mouths. Vroom, Vroom.
We couldn’t spin the rear tire on takeoff, motorcycle style, but we could slide the rear tire when stopping.
When we weren’t imitating motorcyclists with our bikes, we were imitating cowboys with our cap guns and BB guns.
We were ten, eleven years old, and we had rich, and I think healthy, fantasy lives.
The problem is that now, as it has been for many decades, the term “driving” in American lingo is still synonymous with “motoring.”
The expression “Get out of the road. You think you’re a car. You’re not a car.” expresses the general view, redundantly.
It restates.
The speaker feels that he has merely said the same thing three times. “You think you’re a car, but you’re not. You think you belong in the road, but you don’t.”
Our challenge is to behave in the manner that we know is best for us while at the same time avoiding the appearance, the assumption, on the part of our fellow, wheeled travelers, that we are pretending to be something that we are not. That we imagine anything at all.
In writing and speaking about ourselves and each other, we need to project a clear identity.
I know that I’m not a car, and I know that I belong in the road.
The challenge is to develop a public persona that places us in the road with the motorists without giving the impression that we think we ARE motorists. Motorists don’t pretend to be cart drivers, or pedestrians or cyclists. They have a clear identity. They and their “audience” are secure in that identity.
What I’m saying is that cyclists have a dignity all their own, just as horse-drawn buggies in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania have a dignity all their own. (On my home turf, the Finger Lakes and the Southern Tier of New York State, I see lots of horse-drawn buggies, and I don’t see the drivers of the buggies emulating or pretending. They have a dignity that is theirs alone. They are not making motor sounds with their mouths.)
“I’m not cycling in the road, because I think I’m a car. I’m cycling in the road, because I’m a cyclist, and because I and thousands of my mates know that cyclists belong in the road.” It’s a tradition so old and so well-tested -- in many parts of the world -- that it only has one simple name: “Cycling.”
There is a subtle but crucial difference in these two points of view. Or, maybe not so subtle, in their effect.
The best name for us will be the one that conveys our point of view in simple, easy-to-understand terms.
“Easy-to-understand” is a test that will be defined by those who do not now understand. Our audience is everyone who isn’t us.
As a newcomer to this list and as a person with immense respect for those who went before in this struggle,
Bob Cooper
http://www.facebook.com/robert.cooper.79677471
www.rochesterbicyclingclub.org
Willie Hunt
Mar 6, 2013, 5:15:36 PM3/6/13
to bicycle...@googlegroups.com
Maybe I should have told Irvine PD officer that when he pulled me over. :) I wonder if I could have gotten out of the ticket that way??
Willie
Willie
Serge Issakov
Mar 6, 2013, 5:38:23 PM3/6/13
to Robert Cooper, bicycle...@googlegroups.com
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 12:33 PM, Robert Cooper <robert...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
I think the entire movement, much to my chagrin, is essentially invisible to the general public and even among “bikers.”
There are 300,000,000 people in the US, and Cyclists are Drivers! has 2,958 members on Facebook. I’m sure many of them are not in the US. Looonnnggg way to go, folks.
Just as an FYI, though the "Bicyclists Belong in the Traffic Lane" Facebook page has less than 2,000 "likes", many of the posts are seen by people who did not "like" the page. This is because if a person who has liked the page sees a post and clicks "Like" on it, or "Shares" it on his own page, then that person's friends will see the page, and they too in turn may like or share.
For example, Facebook reports that the "Bicyclists Belong in the Traffic Lane" post below has been seen by over 30,000 people. Still a Loonnnggg way to go, but perhaps not a Looonnnggg way to go...
This is the power of social media, and we're trying to leverage it.
Serge
Frank Krygowski
Mar 7, 2013, 11:30:10 AM3/7/13
to bicycle...@googlegroups.com
"Vehicular cycling" vs. "Bicycle driving"? I think it matters very little when speaking to the general (uninformed) public, and only a little more when speaking to other cyclists. Despite the beliefs of each term's fans, I think neither term is perfectly clear when first encountered. Both need some explanation.
Among the tiny percentage who have encountered these terms (which is, I believe, mostly those people taking part in internet discussions) both terms have the same connotations. Those in the paint-and-path crowd do not object to the words, they are objections to the concepts - or to what they mistakenly believe are the concepts.
Presently, that crowd disparages "vehicular cycling" more than "bicycle driving" only because the "VC" term has been around longer and is thus more familiar. (Yes it is, despite counts of Facebook clicks. Sorry, Serge. Try googling the two phrases using quotation marks.)
More to the point, as I've said before, if we never used the "VC" term again because of p-n-p disparagement, that crowd would simply switch their attacks to the "BD" term - probably by saying "vehicular cycling, also known as bicycle driving." Name changing is an ineffective defense.
I'm glad to see signs of hope, such as the "Every lane is a bike lane" poster. I attended the I Am Traffic event in Orlando, and I like the statement that bicyclists should be accepted and expected as normal traffic. OTOH, I'm dismayed by the popularity of weirdly "innovative" facilities.
So we've got enough work to do without quibbling over vocabulary.
- Frank Krygowski
Among the tiny percentage who have encountered these terms (which is, I believe, mostly those people taking part in internet discussions) both terms have the same connotations. Those in the paint-and-path crowd do not object to the words, they are objections to the concepts - or to what they mistakenly believe are the concepts.
Presently, that crowd disparages "vehicular cycling" more than "bicycle driving" only because the "VC" term has been around longer and is thus more familiar. (Yes it is, despite counts of Facebook clicks. Sorry, Serge. Try googling the two phrases using quotation marks.)
More to the point, as I've said before, if we never used the "VC" term again because of p-n-p disparagement, that crowd would simply switch their attacks to the "BD" term - probably by saying "vehicular cycling, also known as bicycle driving." Name changing is an ineffective defense.
I'm glad to see signs of hope, such as the "Every lane is a bike lane" poster. I attended the I Am Traffic event in Orlando, and I like the statement that bicyclists should be accepted and expected as normal traffic. OTOH, I'm dismayed by the popularity of weirdly "innovative" facilities.
So we've got enough work to do without quibbling over vocabulary.
- Frank Krygowski
Serge Issakov
Mar 7, 2013, 12:12:18 PM3/7/13
to Frank Krygowski, bicycle...@googlegroups.com
We can speculate about what baggage "bicycle driving" might get associated with in the future. But the fact is that today, "vehicular cycling" has a ton of baggage associated with it that makes it challenging to effectively convey our message using that term, and "bicycle driving", at least for now, does not have that baggage.
While we are speculating, as long as we focus on the positives of bicycle driving, campaigns consistent with the concept of bicyclists as drivers, road treatments like sharrows and BMUFL, I believe we have a good chance of not accumulating similar baggage.
Serge
P.S. For the record, on Google:
- "vehicular cycling" - About 218,000 results (0.25 seconds)
- "bicycle driving" - About 42,300 results (0.31 seconds)
- "vehicular cyclist" - About 8,720 results (0.35 seconds)
- "bicycle driver" - About 22,600 results (0.31 seconds)
--
John Forester
Mar 7, 2013, 12:34:32 PM3/7/13
to bicycle...@googlegroups.com
Frank's reasoning about the source of opposition to the phrase
"vehicular cycling" is quite reasonable, as is his view of the effect
upon the general public.
But we have to discuss matters with much more than the general public,
who really have little effect in this discussion. We have to discuss the
matter with traffic engineers, legislators, lawyers, police officers,
judges, and the like. The term vehicular cycling, defined as cycling in
accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles (RRDV) has
the advantage that it is addressed specifically to the way that traffic
law is written. In states in which bicycles are vehicles, cyclists have
to be drivers of vehicles. In states in which bicycles are defined
otherwise, cyclists are specifically given the rights and duties of
drivers of vehicles. That is, cyclists are demanding their right to
operate as drivers of vehicles, which is exactly what the law has always
required of us. That is, we object to only those two or three laws which
apply only to cyclists and are used to deny us the safety of doing, and
the right to do, what the basic law requires of us.
It is obvious that the RRDV have been developed to provide for the safe
and reasonable movement of roadway traffic and are therefore a
legitimate expression of the police power. The only excuse for the
existence of the two or three laws that apply to cyclists only (FTR,
MBL, MBP) is that motorists believe that they make motoring easier.
There never has been any valid safety evidence for them, and there's
plenty of evidence that they are more likely to cause, rather than
prevent, car-bike collisions. Since the convenience of motorists is
insufficient justification for endangering cyclists, these laws are not
legitimate expressions of the police power.
It is through presentation of the legal and safety tangles that have
been created by the conflict between the RRDV and the cyclist laws that
we will be able to get legislators to clear away the tangle. All roadway
traffic must operate according to the same movement rules; having
different rules creates conflicting movements and collisions. In this
task, the clear legal definition of vehicular cycling provides the
foundation.
> - Frank Krygowski --
John Forester, MS, PE
Bicycle Transportation Engineer
7585 Church St. Lemon Grove CA 91945-2306
619-644-5481 fore...@johnforester.com
www.johnforester.com
"vehicular cycling" is quite reasonable, as is his view of the effect
upon the general public.
But we have to discuss matters with much more than the general public,
who really have little effect in this discussion. We have to discuss the
matter with traffic engineers, legislators, lawyers, police officers,
judges, and the like. The term vehicular cycling, defined as cycling in
accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles (RRDV) has
the advantage that it is addressed specifically to the way that traffic
law is written. In states in which bicycles are vehicles, cyclists have
to be drivers of vehicles. In states in which bicycles are defined
otherwise, cyclists are specifically given the rights and duties of
drivers of vehicles. That is, cyclists are demanding their right to
operate as drivers of vehicles, which is exactly what the law has always
required of us. That is, we object to only those two or three laws which
apply only to cyclists and are used to deny us the safety of doing, and
the right to do, what the basic law requires of us.
It is obvious that the RRDV have been developed to provide for the safe
and reasonable movement of roadway traffic and are therefore a
legitimate expression of the police power. The only excuse for the
existence of the two or three laws that apply to cyclists only (FTR,
MBL, MBP) is that motorists believe that they make motoring easier.
There never has been any valid safety evidence for them, and there's
plenty of evidence that they are more likely to cause, rather than
prevent, car-bike collisions. Since the convenience of motorists is
insufficient justification for endangering cyclists, these laws are not
legitimate expressions of the police power.
It is through presentation of the legal and safety tangles that have
been created by the conflict between the RRDV and the cyclist laws that
we will be able to get legislators to clear away the tangle. All roadway
traffic must operate according to the same movement rules; having
different rules creates conflicting movements and collisions. In this
task, the clear legal definition of vehicular cycling provides the
foundation.
> --
> To post: bicycle...@googlegroups.com
> Only rule: no personal commentary (please comment about content, not
> people)
>
> To unsubscribe: bicycledrivin...@googlegroups.com
>
> Group website: http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving
> Discussion archives:
> http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving/topics?hl=en
> Glossary: http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving/web/glossary
> Links: http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving/web/links
>
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "BicycleDriving" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to bicycledrivin...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
--
> To post: bicycle...@googlegroups.com
> Only rule: no personal commentary (please comment about content, not
> people)
>
> To unsubscribe: bicycledrivin...@googlegroups.com
>
> Group website: http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving
> Discussion archives:
> http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving/topics?hl=en
> Glossary: http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving/web/glossary
> Links: http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving/web/links
>
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "BicycleDriving" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to bicycledrivin...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
John Forester, MS, PE
Bicycle Transportation Engineer
7585 Church St. Lemon Grove CA 91945-2306
619-644-5481 fore...@johnforester.com
www.johnforester.com
Bruce Kulik
Mar 7, 2013, 12:51:24 PM3/7/13
to bicycle...@googlegroups.com
Here's a timely real world example of what some think of Vehicular
Cycling. Not sure that the term Bicycle Driving would make any
difference to him.
This is about the controversial bicycle track proposed for Beacon
Street, Somerville, that I have brought up in past discussions.
http://somerville.patch.com/articles/letter-to-the-editor-misinformation-abounds-about-beacon-street-cycletracks#comments_list
Quote from the article:
Another bit of misinformation is the
cycletracks-and-bike-lanes-are-deathtraps statements issued forth from
an extreme group of "vehicular cyclists," who sincerely believe that
bicycles are cars and should not be "driven" slower than 25 mph. They
say if there's a new separate place on the street for bikes that is 15
mph, more protected, and comfortable for the majority of the
non-spandexed population, bicyclists will die. Pedestrians will be hit.
The sky will fall. I'd like to hear just one documented example where
public health, safety, or businesses have suffered because a city
installed a protected bike lane that they later regretted.
You can reach Alex, the person who was quoted at: alexe...@gmail.com.
Bruce Kulik
Cycling. Not sure that the term Bicycle Driving would make any
difference to him.
This is about the controversial bicycle track proposed for Beacon
Street, Somerville, that I have brought up in past discussions.
http://somerville.patch.com/articles/letter-to-the-editor-misinformation-abounds-about-beacon-street-cycletracks#comments_list
Quote from the article:
Another bit of misinformation is the
cycletracks-and-bike-lanes-are-deathtraps statements issued forth from
an extreme group of "vehicular cyclists," who sincerely believe that
bicycles are cars and should not be "driven" slower than 25 mph. They
say if there's a new separate place on the street for bikes that is 15
mph, more protected, and comfortable for the majority of the
non-spandexed population, bicyclists will die. Pedestrians will be hit.
The sky will fall. I'd like to hear just one documented example where
public health, safety, or businesses have suffered because a city
installed a protected bike lane that they later regretted.
You can reach Alex, the person who was quoted at: alexe...@gmail.com.
Bruce Kulik
Patricia Kovacs
Mar 7, 2013, 1:19:48 PM3/7/13
to Serge Issakov, Frank Krygowski, bicycle...@googlegroups.com
Dear Bicycle Drivers,
Something John Forester said at the I Am Traffic colloqium got me started thinking (no jokes please). He was saying wouldn't motorists much prefer us to be predictable and following the rules for drivers of vehicles? We often hear that motorists want us out of the way. But putting bicyclists out of the way just makes life more difficult for motorists to avoid hitting us. I tried to put together a list of pros and cons for bicycle driving. Well, I ended up using cons, but reverse the logic and you get the pros (e.g. if we are segregated, we don't impede faster
traffic).
Driving following the rules for bicycle driving:
Cons:
- We impede faster traffic
- We can be encountered unexpectedly if we are not visible (wearing dark clothing or no lights at night)
Driving in
segregated facilities (e.g cycletracks, sidepaths, bike lanes) and using "innovative" facilities (bike boxes and bicycle signals):
Cons:
- Drivers need to look behind them to the right when turning right across bike lanes, sidepaths, cycletracks
- Drivers need to look far left (to the far side of the roadway) when turning left rather than just the travel lanes
- Drivers need to look for wrong-way riding cyclists in 2-way sidepaths and cycletracks and contra-flow bike lanes
- Drivers are delayed by the additional timing required for pedestrian, bicycle AND vehicular signals
- Drivers need to be more vigilant for cyclists swerving around parked cars from door zone bike lanes
- Drivers need to be more vigilant for cyclists in door zone bike lanes when leaving parked cars
- Drivers need to watch for bicycles passing on the right in bike lanes and bike boxes
- Drivers are delayed by cyclists violating the first come, first serve rules when using bike boxes
Some of the above cons apply to pedestrians on sidewalks as well, but the faster speed of cyclists requires drivers to look farther than required for pedestrians.
I don't think drivers want to hit us. Putting us out of their way just makes that more likely. I checked out the AAA PSA that's on the LAB Summit website, but noticed that it was a little too much let's be nice to eachother
rather than practical tips like this one:
(and note how far right the cyclists is at 00:20 in the above video).
A video of the common bike/car crashes and how to avoid them on the AAA website would be nice. I don't think we'll ever get AAA to lobby against segregated bicycle facilities, though, because no matter how many arguments we make that we should drive bicycles predictably, the "impeding traffic" is the one that motorists focus on.
But maybe part of our education for motorists is that we are all better off if we follow RRDV.
Tricia
From: Serge Issakov <serge....@gmail.com>
To: Frank Krygowski <frkr...@gmail.com>
Cc: bicycle...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thu, March 7, 2013 12:13:35 PM
Subject: Re: [BicycleDriving] Re: Is "vehicular cycling" "poisoned"? Change name of group to BicycleDriving?
robert...@frontiernet.net
Mar 7, 2013, 1:22:44 PM3/7/13
to Bruce Kulik, bicycle...@googlegroups.com
----- Bruce Kulik <bku...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
| Here's a timely real world example of what some think of Vehicular
| Cycling. Not sure that the term Bicycle Driving would make any
| difference to him.
Some thoughts about names:
| Here's a timely real world example of what some think of Vehicular
| Cycling. Not sure that the term Bicycle Driving would make any
| difference to him.
bicycle driving
effective cycling
vehicular cycling
vehicular left turn
mandatory bike lane
cycle-track
freestyle (BMX)
fixie
bike polo
loaded touring
.......................
ultimate (frisbee)
frisbee golf
rugby football
association football
curling
badminton
tiddlywinks
bird banding
ice fishing
daguerreotypy
This is a list of activities that Americans (and I would submit most English speakers world-wide) are effectively clueless about, and I would further propose that about 299,000,000 Americans would draw an almost complete blank on almost all of the cycling activities named above.
In any case, most people would likely know more about badminton than about “driving a bicycle.”
It’s like that TV show where Jay Leno goes out into the street and asks people in which US city is located the national capital or who is the vice-president, and lots of adults cannot answer correctly.
I wish this were not true, but I am a realist and an astute observer of my fellow citizens.
Although I applaud your effort to name this activity formerly called “vehicular cycling,” based on the notion that the name is tainted or exhausted or something, I propose that, to the contrary, almost no one has even heard of it, including most of the 400 members of my cycling club. The only people who are tired of the expression are the ones -- some of them -- who are already inside the echo chamber.
I further propose that most people, on hearing that we thought we were “driving our bikes” as if they were cars, would only chuckle.
(I wrote this yesterday, and today, before I posted, Bruce Kulik posted an example of a newspaper reporter from Somerville MA doing some chuckling on the “they think they are a car” idea.)
I wish this were not true, but I am a realist and an astute observer of my fellow citizens.
What I would like to see is an identity, a dignity, a persona attached to “cycling” without any adjectives needed.
There are no “vehicular Amish buggy drivers” in the Southern Tier of NY, and in parts of Europe, one simply rides one’s bike.
Bob Cooper
Trevor Bourget
Mar 8, 2013, 3:45:59 AM3/8/13
to John Forester, bicycle...@googlegroups.com
Cycling is the term used by people who actually ride bicycles a lot. We don't even say bicycles, we say bikes. The way in which we ride is the question, not the fact of whether we ride. The term "Bicycle Driving" is wrong on both counts.
Vehicular Cycling is well-known, and people who hate it will hate it by any other name. The only request I would have is not to abbreviate it. "VC", for those who had formative emotions during those years, means something totally different. Either you know what I mean or you don't; if you do, I hope you agree with my request.
I don't agree that we should change the name of the group. People don't come here or stay away because of spelling or punctuation. It is the content that matters.
I don't see too much "policy making" of how to spread vehicular cycling. About as much, in fact, as I see useful advice for instructors on the LCI list.
This was a long-winded way of saying that I agree with John Forester. We know what we have to do:
1. Get rid of the mandatory requirement to use facilities that prevent vehicular cycling
2. Make sure that no new laws get created that restrict the ability of cyclists to operate according to the same traffic laws that would apply if they were operating a motor vehicle
-- trevor
On Mar 7, 2013, at 9:34 AM, John Forester <fore...@johnforester.com> wrote:
> It is through presentation of the legal and safety tangles that have been created by the conflict between the rules of the road for motorists and bicyclists that we will be able to get legislators to clear away the tangle. All roadway traffic must operate according to the same movement rules; having different rules creates conflicting movements and collisions. In this task, the clear legal definition of vehicular cycling provides the foundation.
Vehicular Cycling is well-known, and people who hate it will hate it by any other name. The only request I would have is not to abbreviate it. "VC", for those who had formative emotions during those years, means something totally different. Either you know what I mean or you don't; if you do, I hope you agree with my request.
I don't agree that we should change the name of the group. People don't come here or stay away because of spelling or punctuation. It is the content that matters.
I don't see too much "policy making" of how to spread vehicular cycling. About as much, in fact, as I see useful advice for instructors on the LCI list.
This was a long-winded way of saying that I agree with John Forester. We know what we have to do:
1. Get rid of the mandatory requirement to use facilities that prevent vehicular cycling
2. Make sure that no new laws get created that restrict the ability of cyclists to operate according to the same traffic laws that would apply if they were operating a motor vehicle
-- trevor
On Mar 7, 2013, at 9:34 AM, John Forester <fore...@johnforester.com> wrote:
> It is through presentation of the legal and safety tangles that have been created by the conflict between the rules of the road for motorists and bicyclists that we will be able to get legislators to clear away the tangle. All roadway traffic must operate according to the same movement rules; having different rules creates conflicting movements and collisions. In this task, the clear legal definition of vehicular cycling provides the foundation.
Frank Krygowski
Mar 8, 2013, 10:44:55 AM3/8/13
to BicycleDriving
On Mar 7, 1:22 pm, robertcoo...@frontiernet.net wrote:
>
> Although I applaud your effort to name this activity formerly called “vehicular cycling,” based on the notion that the name is tainted or exhausted or something, I propose that, to the contrary, almost no one has even heard of it, including most of the 400 members of my cycling club. <
majority of people that keeps neither term in their heads. I'll
generally mention something like "cycling competently as a legitimate
vehicle operator." I may add "not riding in the gutter or blowing
through traffic lights..." as needed.
Once the concept is defined, I can use "vehicular cycling" or
"competent cycling" or "effective cycling," whatever term or terms I
choose. I've had no problems communicating in this way.
- Frank Krygowski
John Forester
Mar 8, 2013, 12:27:46 PM3/8/13
to bicycle...@googlegroups.com
Beck has campaigned for years to retain the anti-cyclist
discriminatory laws (FTR, MBL, MBP), most particularly the FTR law.
Since this is an argument about laws, his arguments have been
legalistic rather than sociological. But his legalistic arguments
have failed to be credible. He argues that the FTR law gives
cyclists one special right that is not available to drivers of
vehicles; the right to full use of a lane. Arguing that the typical
motorist, as the driver of a vehicle, does not have the right to
full use of a lane is just plain absurd. Beck gets around that by
arguing that the typical motorist, if he chooses to move slower than
other traffic, loses his right to full use of a lane and is required
by law to move as far to the right as practicable. If a cyclist is
to obey the same rules, the rules of the road for drivers of
vehicles (RRDV), then he must usually, being slower than other
traffic, ride as far to the right as practicable. Beck's argument
that slowly moving motorists lose their right for full use of their
lane is laughable, but all too many bicycle advocates appear to have
been persuaded that it does apply to cyclists.
Beck's legalistic argument turns upon two points. First, that two-lane roads do not have a right-hand and a left-hand lane, as these phrases are used in the statutes. That's manifestly absurd. Second, that a statute that requires a slowly-moving driver to use the right-hand lane for traffic or move as far to the right as practicable permits only movement as far to the right as practicable, thus denying the other choice of using the right-hand lane for traffic. This is incorrect reading of statutory law. The correct reading of the statute says that only if a road has no marked lanes, then the second choice, moving as far right as practicable, must apply. This situation is rather insignificant in the whole traffic mix.
The fact that Beck has spent so much time in presenting these legally absurd arguments suggests that he has some strong motive for doing so. Beck's other actions show that he, like other bicycle advocates, desires a large switch from motor to bicycle transport and has advocated bikeways as the means of producing this switch. Clearly, the policy of cyclist inferiority embodied in the FTR law and the feelings of inferiority it generates in most cyclists are strong political motives for increased bikeway funds.
Beck's legalistic argument turns upon two points. First, that two-lane roads do not have a right-hand and a left-hand lane, as these phrases are used in the statutes. That's manifestly absurd. Second, that a statute that requires a slowly-moving driver to use the right-hand lane for traffic or move as far to the right as practicable permits only movement as far to the right as practicable, thus denying the other choice of using the right-hand lane for traffic. This is incorrect reading of statutory law. The correct reading of the statute says that only if a road has no marked lanes, then the second choice, moving as far right as practicable, must apply. This situation is rather insignificant in the whole traffic mix.
The fact that Beck has spent so much time in presenting these legally absurd arguments suggests that he has some strong motive for doing so. Beck's other actions show that he, like other bicycle advocates, desires a large switch from motor to bicycle transport and has advocated bikeways as the means of producing this switch. Clearly, the policy of cyclist inferiority embodied in the FTR law and the feelings of inferiority it generates in most cyclists are strong political motives for increased bikeway funds.
On 3/8/2013 2:49 AM, beck michaels wrote:
as a clarification, FRAP laws don't "prevent vehicular cycling"; in the case of California and most other states, 'vehicular cycling' is codified under the aegis of a states FRAP laws, which clearly and explicitly provide for full use of the lane of substandard width.
fide sidepath laws, shoulder use and bike lane laws? absolutely. frigger around with the laws that allow riders to control the lane? Unsound advocacy.
Beck,
LCI
as a clarification, FRAP laws don't "prevent vehicular cycling"; in the case of California and most other states, 'vehicular cycling' is codified under the aegis of a states FRAP laws, which clearly and explicitly provide for full use of the lane of substandard width.
fide sidepath laws, shoulder use and bike lane laws? absolutely. frigger around with the laws that allow riders to control the lane? Unsound advocacy.
Beck,
LCI
John Forester
Mar 8, 2013, 12:56:34 PM3/8/13
to bicycle...@googlegroups.com
We must remember that names of activities serve several purposes. Except
for a very few messages, all the discussion regarding the name of our
activity has addressed only one purpose, that of talking to the general
public, largely to attract new recruits. The only conclusion arrived at
is that any proposed name requires explanation; cycling according to the
rules of the road for drivers of vehicles is an activity so foreign to
the general public that understanding it requires explanation.
Being able to talk with the public is a necessity, but the public is
neither sophisticated nor powerful. Our prime target is government,
which is far more sophisticated and powerful, and our prime aim is the
return of our former full rights as drivers of vehicles, through repeal
of the few anti-cyclist discriminatory traffic laws that contradict
those rights. In that arena, and with that purpose, the most appropriate
name is vehicular cycling, defined as operating according to the rules
of the road for drivers of vehicles. That name and definition clearly
limit the discussion to the necessary scope and clearly define the
content of the discussion.
On 3/8/2013 7:44 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> On Mar 7, 1:22 pm, robertcoo...@frontiernet.net wrote:
>> Although I applaud your effort to name this activity formerly called �vehicular cycling,� based on the notion that the name is tainted or exhausted or something, I propose that, to the contrary, almost no one has even heard of it, including most of the 400 members of my cycling club. <
for a very few messages, all the discussion regarding the name of our
activity has addressed only one purpose, that of talking to the general
public, largely to attract new recruits. The only conclusion arrived at
is that any proposed name requires explanation; cycling according to the
rules of the road for drivers of vehicles is an activity so foreign to
the general public that understanding it requires explanation.
Being able to talk with the public is a necessity, but the public is
neither sophisticated nor powerful. Our prime target is government,
which is far more sophisticated and powerful, and our prime aim is the
return of our former full rights as drivers of vehicles, through repeal
of the few anti-cyclist discriminatory traffic laws that contradict
those rights. In that arena, and with that purpose, the most appropriate
name is vehicular cycling, defined as operating according to the rules
of the road for drivers of vehicles. That name and definition clearly
limit the discussion to the necessary scope and clearly define the
content of the discussion.
On 3/8/2013 7:44 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> On Mar 7, 1:22 pm, robertcoo...@frontiernet.net wrote:
> Exactly. Occasionally I mention such things to members of the vast
> majority of people that keeps neither term in their heads. I'll
> generally mention something like "cycling competently as a legitimate
> vehicle operator." I may add "not riding in the gutter or blowing
> through traffic lights..." as needed.
>
> Once the concept is defined, I can use "vehicular cycling" or
> "competent cycling" or "effective cycling," whatever term or terms I
> choose. I've had no problems communicating in this way.
>
> - Frank Krygowski
>
> majority of people that keeps neither term in their heads. I'll
> generally mention something like "cycling competently as a legitimate
> vehicle operator." I may add "not riding in the gutter or blowing
> through traffic lights..." as needed.
>
> Once the concept is defined, I can use "vehicular cycling" or
> "competent cycling" or "effective cycling," whatever term or terms I
> choose. I've had no problems communicating in this way.
>
> - Frank Krygowski
>
Bruce Kulik
Mar 8, 2013, 3:18:09 PM3/8/13
to bicycle...@googlegroups.com
I have found that government officials both elected and appointed are at
least as unsophisticated as the general public. Sometimes acting even
more so, because they have already adopted an agenda influenced by the
need to accumulate votes.
I generally tell people that I operate my bicycle according to the
"rules of the road". That what's important is that I am visible,
noticeable and predictable. Nobody disagrees with any of those sentiments.
I then explain how many common practices, much of the bicycle
infrastructure, and even certain laws violate those principles. I often
get a returned sentiment along the lines of "I never thought of it that
way before", and the path has been opened for a dialog about bicycle
safety and infrastructure based on the primary principles.
If I mention vehicular cycling or the "Bicycles fare best..." mantra
(which I happen to agree with) they just don't get it, and it's had to
proceed from that point.
Bruce Kulik
least as unsophisticated as the general public. Sometimes acting even
more so, because they have already adopted an agenda influenced by the
need to accumulate votes.
I generally tell people that I operate my bicycle according to the
"rules of the road". That what's important is that I am visible,
noticeable and predictable. Nobody disagrees with any of those sentiments.
I then explain how many common practices, much of the bicycle
infrastructure, and even certain laws violate those principles. I often
get a returned sentiment along the lines of "I never thought of it that
way before", and the path has been opened for a dialog about bicycle
safety and infrastructure based on the primary principles.
If I mention vehicular cycling or the "Bicycles fare best..." mantra
(which I happen to agree with) they just don't get it, and it's had to
proceed from that point.
Bruce Kulik
Trevor Bourget
Mar 9, 2013, 3:07:41 AM3/9/13
to John Forester, bicycle...@googlegroups.com
On 3/8/2013 2:49 AM, beck michaels wrote:
as a clarification, FRAP laws don't "prevent vehicular cycling"; in the case of California and most other states, 'vehicular cycling' is codified under the aegis of a states FRAP laws, which clearly and explicitly provide for full use of the lane of substandard width.
fight sidepath laws, shoulder use, and bike lane laws? absolutely. frigger around with the laws that allow riders to control the lane? Unsound advocacy.
Beck, the very definition that John Forester provides for vehicular cycling destroys your obsession. There is no law that requires a motorist in a marked traffic lane to drive in any specific lane position. In fact, the law about traffic lanes is even less strict. It merely requires that a motorist should try to keep within one traffic lane as much as practicable. For a motorist going slowly, that means nothing. For a motorist trying to pass, it means that passing the slow vehicle requires getting into the other lane unless that is not practicable. Any law which says specifically how a bicyclist should behave, which imposes a different restriction than on a motorist, by John's definition is not compatible with vehicular cycling.
There is no law that "allows riders to control" a traffic lane. Motorists use a traffic lane, and overtaking motorists are required to respect that right to the way by passing only when it is safe and at a safe distance. If bicyclists are specially restricted so that they do not have such rights, but then some special provisions are made that remove the restrictions, the result still is not equivalent to having no class-oriented restrictions to begin with.
I will start by accepting and applauding Beck's agreement to help strike mandatory bike lane laws.
-- trevor
John Forester
Mar 9, 2013, 11:14:22 AM3/9/13
to bicycle...@googlegroups.com
While Bruce states that "government officials both elected and appointed
are at least as unsophisticated as the general public," I am sure that
he means unsophisticated in cycling matters, in which case his statement
is certainly correct. However, government people are more sophisticated
than the general public in matters of government and in the disciplines
in which they have been trained. Many government officials were trained
in the law; many of those with whom we need to discuss cycling have been
trained in using the law as police officers and judges; also many of
them have had some training, even if only by experience, in traffic
engineering. Our best attack on the present system for bicycle transport
is at its weakest point, the legal and engineering tangles produced by
the laws that discriminate against cyclists. The people who are best
able to understand the existence of those tangles are those with legal
and engineering experience, and they are in positions to recommend
repeal, or to actually repeal, those laws. That is why I have been
recommending this strategy as being the best that we have available.
are at least as unsophisticated as the general public," I am sure that
he means unsophisticated in cycling matters, in which case his statement
is certainly correct. However, government people are more sophisticated
than the general public in matters of government and in the disciplines
in which they have been trained. Many government officials were trained
in the law; many of those with whom we need to discuss cycling have been
trained in using the law as police officers and judges; also many of
them have had some training, even if only by experience, in traffic
engineering. Our best attack on the present system for bicycle transport
is at its weakest point, the legal and engineering tangles produced by
the laws that discriminate against cyclists. The people who are best
able to understand the existence of those tangles are those with legal
and engineering experience, and they are in positions to recommend
repeal, or to actually repeal, those laws. That is why I have been
recommending this strategy as being the best that we have available.
Trevor Bourget
Mar 9, 2013, 12:40:48 PM3/9/13
to John Forester, bicycle...@googlegroups.com
now we have beck stating that bicyclists should be required legally to act just as backhoe operators in the roadway and again i applaud and accept the progress.
so i think to complete the violent agreement we need a rewrite of the bicycle specific frap law to be stripped while clarifying exceptions are generalized and added to smv law.
i will follow with a proposal for discuss from a device with a real key-board.
-- trevor
ps giving way to the right while being overtaken is not the same as always driving frap.
and it can be done without a mirror (that's what ears and peripheral vision are for) while it may arguably be easier for some to have such augmentation.
Trevor Bourget
Mar 9, 2013, 7:56:40 PM3/9/13
to beck michaels, John Forester, Serge Issakov, bicycle...@googlegroups.com
i think "for the purpose of this section" kind of wording is more cohesive and comprehensible. merging the two laws into one will help people understand that golf carts, combines, motor scooters, bobcats, and bicycles are all the same in some general sense of how they affect traffic flow and their operational requirements for safe and fast travel as is their right to the public way.
-- trevor
On Saturday, March 9, 2013, beck michaels wrote:
On Saturday, March 9, 2013, beck michaels wrote:
you mean, like, add some specific exceptions to smv-frap laws that bicyclists and other slow moving vehicles would be allowed to control substandard width lanes, for debris, etc?does it matter that its directly in the smv law, or can it be a stand alone statue, trevor?Beck
From: Trevor Bourget <trevo...@gmail.com>
To: John Forester <fore...@johnforester.com>
Cc: "bicycle...@googlegroups.com" <bicycle...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 9, 2013 12:40 PM
Subject: Re: [BicycleDriving] Re: Is "vehicular cycling" "poisoned"? Change name of group to BicycleDriving?
Trevor Bourget
Mar 15, 2013, 4:07:03 AM3/15/13
to beck michaels, John Forester, Serge Issakov, bicycle...@googlegroups.com
Two points to make now the clatter has subsided:
1. Bicycle "driving" for me connotes the "pushbike" term used in other countries. Unlike the drive train of motor vehicles, which is not in any way powered by the operator, a human-powered vehicle is totally driven by the operator.
There are bicycle riders, of course, but it is a characteristic trait of those we call cyclists that they pedal with fervor.
2. Slow-moving vehicles are an annoyance to motorists in any and every lane. It is one of the most frequent topics in California driving discussion that people won't get out of the number one lane and let other faster motorists go by.
Here's a whole web site dedicated to someone's obsession of being able to pass another motorist in the left lane.
Taking one good example from that list, Utah has up-to-date laws with multi-lane (in the same direction) highways in mind.
41-6a-701(3) A person operating a vehicle on a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic shall operate the vehicle in the right-hand lane then available for traffic, or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, except when:
(a) overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction;
(b) preparing to turn left; or
(c) taking a different highway or an exit on the left.
Of course they weren't thinking of couches or cows in the middle of the lane, 8-foot oil slicks, or pedestrians wielding jousting lances. But those would naturally be assumed to be good reasons not to be in the right-hand lane, also. Explicit addition (adapted from CVC 21208) would help it:
(d) "reasonably necessary to leave the lane to avoid debris or other hazardous conditions."
Ingress/egress "drive-out" collisions aren't as frequent or dangerous for people in cages, but certainly motorcyclists would be happy to have such "hazardous conditions" explicitly noticed:
(e) "approaching a place where a right turn is authorized."
-- trevor
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages