Be safe or risk injury?

[maximus meridius]

So is there something a bit more definite - "The Official Guide To Vehicular Cycling" from "The International Institute of Vehicular Cyclists", or something like that?

It sounds bonkers, to me, to be honest. But before I declare it so, it would be good to read something a bit more definite than the (very) divided opinions of two people on an internet forum. Two people who, it seems, have something of a "history".

[Pete Owens]

I find it weird that "Cyclists dismount" signs are never followed by another sign saying "Cyclists Remount"

Usually a cyclist dismount sign denotes the end of a cycleway - so there will be a cycleway sign on the reverse side showing the start of the cycleway approaching from the opposite direction.

The most common use is where a roadside cycle path crosses a side road. Since this is an unsafe arrangement for vehicles, the solution is to end the cycleway before the crossing, for cyclists to dismount, approach the crossing on the footway, cross the road as a pedestrian, then get on again when the cycleway restarts shortly beyond the crossing::

http://wcc.crankfoot.xyz/facility-of-th ... er2007.htm

Note it is not the signs themselves that are the problem, but the dangerous segregated infrastructure design that makes them necessary in the first place.

[Pete Owens]

So is there something a bit more definite - "The Official Guide To Vehicular Cycling" from "The International Institute of Vehicular Cyclists", or something like that?

Try contacting your local council to enrol on a Bikabilty course - many offer tailored individual sessions for adults.
Or order a copy of Cyclecraft:
http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/book.html
Neither of these things will mention "Vehicular Cycling" because that is an American term for what we take for granted in the UK where bicycles have always been considered to be vehicles. But they are talking about the same principals.

Or you could read this short explanation from the author of Cyclecraft:
http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/vehicular.pdf
Key extract:

John Forester, a principal advocate of vehicular cycling, gives five basic rules as underpinning the technique.
Translated to UK conditions they are:

1. Cycle on the left side of the road, never on the right and never on the pavement.

2. When you reach a road with priority over the one you are on, give way to traffic on it.

3. When you intend to change lanes, or to move across the road, give way to traffic in the new lane or line of travel.

4. When approaching a junction, position yourself according to your intended direction.

5. Between junctions position yourself according to your speed relative to other traffic.

[Jdsk]

So is there something a bit more definite - "The Official Guide To Vehicular Cycling" from "The International Institute of Vehicular Cyclists", or something like that?

It sounds bonkers, to me, to be honest. But before I declare it so, it would be good to read something a bit more definite than the (very) divided opinions of two people on an internet forum. Two people who, it seems, have something of a "history".

The Wikipedia article, including multiple references to Forester's publications:

"Vehicular cycling":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicular_cycling

Jonathan

[pjclinch]

So is there something a bit more definite - "The Official Guide To Vehicular Cycling" from "The International Institute of Vehicular Cyclists", or something like that?

It sounds bonkers, to me, to be honest. But before I declare it so, it would be good to read something a bit more definite than the (very) divided opinions of two people on an internet forum. Two people who, it seems, have something of a "history".

As Pete Owens suggests above, in the UK Franklin's Cyclecraft is effectively that, published by The Stationary Office and the basis for the National Standards for Cycle Training (e.g., Bikeability and similar) which at levels 2 & 3 teach participants how to share roads with other modes of traffic.

As for the divided opinions thing, I don't think there's any real dissension from the idea that if you only have a road with motor traffic on it and no allowance for bikes then VC is the way to cope with that. Your militant VC fanboys will say you shouldn't have/need/want anything else where their opponents will argue that dedicated cycle-specific infrastructure should be in place where you'd be mixing with fast/heavy traffic, but the people arguing for the latter don't necessarily think everyone should wait until it's built before riding their bike along that route.

Bikeability instructors (I'm one) can teach you how to co-exist with fast/heavy traffic on unpleasant roads, but I think you'd find most of us don't really expect everyone to be happy with doing that, or being okay with letting their primary school aged children loose on Hyde Park Corner. Die-hard VC proponents tend to be adult cycling enthusiasts labouring under the "if I can do it and enjoy it, anyone can do it and enjoy it!" fallacy. But if there's 5 miles of busy roads and no alternatives between you and your destination then it's VC or walk.

Pete.

[maximus meridius]

So is there something a bit more definite - "The Official Guide To Vehicular Cycling" from "The International Institute of Vehicular Cyclists", or something like that?

It sounds bonkers, to me, to be honest. But before I declare it so, it would be good to read something a bit more definite than the (very) divided opinions of two people on an internet forum. Two people who, it seems, have something of a "history".

As Pete Owens suggests above, in the UK Franklin's Cyclecraft is effectively that, published by The Stationary Office and the basis for the National Standards for Cycle Training (e.g., Bikeability and similar) which at levels 2 & 3 teach participants how to share roads with other modes of traffic.

As for the divided opinions thing, I don't think there's any real dissension from the idea that if you only have a road with motor traffic on it and no allowance for bikes then VC is the way to cope with that. Your militant VC fanboys will say you shouldn't have/need/want anything else where their opponents will argue that dedicated cycle-specific infrastructure should be in place where you'd be mixing with fast/heavy traffic, but the people arguing for the latter don't necessarily think everyone should wait until it's built before riding their bike along that route.

Bikeability instructors (I'm one) can teach you how to co-exist with fast/heavy traffic on unpleasant roads, but I think you'd find most of us don't really expect everyone to be happy with doing that, or being okay with letting their primary school aged children loose on Hyde Park Corner. Die-hard VC proponents tend to be adult cycling enthusiasts labouring under the "if I can do it and enjoy it, anyone can do it and enjoy it!" fallacy. But if there's 5 miles of busy roads and no alternatives between you and your destination then it's VC or walk.

Pete.

Thanks, that all makes sense.

[Pete Owens]

As for the divided opinions thing, I don't think there's any real dissension ..

You start off attempting to appear reasonable - but before long the mask slips.

... militant VC fanboys ...

Not the sort of language that you would use about someone you claim not to have any fundamental disagreement with.

As I pointed out above the term vehicular cycling only really makes in a US context - in the UK it is mainly used as a term of abuse.

Much the same way as right wing commentators abuse the American term "Woke". They will start off insisting that they are not racist, but then castigate any opponents of racism as "woke". And because noone this side of the pond understands the term it is very easy to misrepresent.

[Vorpal]

I'll be honest that I do not like Ashley Neal. He not only victim-blames cyclists and pedestrians, he's not even always right when it comes to operating a motor vehicle, and he's a driving instructor.

He's better than the vociferously anti-cyclist folks doing the same sort of thing on YouTube, but that's about it. Riding a bike once in a while doesn't mean he's overcome car-brain.

With regard to this specific video, while I largely agree with him, in that I would do more or less what he recommends, I don't agree with his suggestion that cyclists who do otherwise are 'riding dangerously'. There are an awful lot of elements that cannot be understood or accounted for by video clips. There's more to take in about the surrounding environment than just the forward facing clip. In addition, I really think that avoiding victim blaming is important, even if you think someone is being an idiot. Especially since he's a driving instructor.

If he analysed as 'what could I have done better, here', fine. But he takes to victim blaming, which to my mind is inappropriate for a driving instructor.

[maximus meridius]

As for the divided opinions thing, I don't think there's any real dissension ..

You start off attempting to appear reasonable - but before long the mask slips.

... militant VC fanboys ...

Not the sort of language that you would use about someone you claim not to have any fundamental disagreement with.

As I pointed out above the term vehicular cycling only really makes in a US context - in the UK it is mainly used as a term of abuse.

Much the same way as right wing commentators abuse the American term "Woke". They will start off insisting that they are not racist, but then castigate any opponents of racism as "woke". And because noone this side of the pond understands the term it is very easy to misrepresent.

As it happens I've got a copy of John Franklin's book. Which I've only dipped into a little.

I'll read it cover to cover when I've got a bit more time. I'll try not to be racist when I read it, or when I cycle.

[Bmblbzzz]

He's better than the vociferously anti-cyclist folks doing the same sort of thing on YouTube, but that's about it. Riding a bike once in a while doesn't mean he's overcome car-brain.

Car brain is deeply embedded within society and thus we have to actively expunge it from our blood. Many, many cyclists, including on this forum, exhibit car brain, usually without being aware of it. To actively declare yourself non-car brained is see almost like declaring yourself a communist or a hare krishna – believing in something which, to most people, is not part of reality and thus puts you at odds with others' way of seeing the world.

[pjclinch]

As for the divided opinions thing, I don't think there's any real dissension ..

You start off attempting to appear reasonable - but before long the mask slips.

... militant VC fanboys ...

Not the sort of language that you would use about someone you claim not to have any fundamental disagreement with.

You removed the context of what there is no disagreement on. If you have no option but to use roads then VC is the way to do it.

You might not like my description of hardcore VC fans, but faced with their preferred solution having an established track record of never pushing up modal share beyond a small percentage, and faced with their not-preferred solution having an established track record of being fundamental to a successful cycling culture, they just keep on with their not-actually-working outside of a small niche idea.

As I pointed out above the term vehicular cycling only really makes in a US context - in the UK it is mainly used as a term of abuse.

I don't recognise that. And nor, as far as I can tell, does the cycle training community I'm part of that will happily teach you how to do it.

Pete

[Cowsham]

I'll be honest that I do not like Ashley Neal. He not only victim-blames cyclists and pedestrians, he's not even always right when it comes to operating a motor vehicle, and he's a driving instructor.

He's better than the vociferously anti-cyclist folks doing the same sort of thing on YouTube, but that's about it. Riding a bike once in a while doesn't mean he's overcome car-brain.

With regard to this specific video, while I largely agree with him, in that I would do more or less what he recommends, I don't agree with his suggestion that cyclists who do otherwise are 'riding dangerously'. There are an awful lot of elements that cannot be understood or accounted for by video clips. There's more to take in about the surrounding environment than just the forward facing clip. In addition, I really think that avoiding victim blaming is important, even if you think someone is being an idiot. Especially since he's a driving instructor.

If he analysed as 'what could I have done better, here', fine. But he takes to victim blaming, which to my mind is inappropriate for a driving instructor.

What did he do wrong ? Which video do you refer to ?

[awavey]

You sure are attributing some unlikely attitudes to Ashley Neal. I've never seen anything on any of his videos where he expresses those sorts of opinions.

The thread started with a video about a very specific traffic interaction. You seem to have used this as an opportunity to have a general moan about drivers. Whatever your beef is about motorists, Ashley gives good advice in that video, and in other videos of his I've seen. If there are dangerous drivers on the roads, I don't think he's one of them.

Perhaps the problem is that he doesn't display an "all cyclists are perfect" posture.

well then Id encourage you go to watch alot more of his videos from his back catalogue, then maybe you wont think he is so "perfect" on the cycling or even the driving part, but then he gets ad revenue from that,as thats kind of how the Youtube algorithm works...

but he did the video on how drivers should use their horn to beep at cyclists as a friendly reminder the car is there, even though the HC tells you not to use your horn for that reason. he does his compilation "fail" videos usually chucks in a few idiot cyclists for balance, but theres always one "fail" which involves a cyclist doing absolutely nothing wrong, he bangs on alot about getting in the wrong position, often by just barely a handle bars width, but he often misses crucial things like potholes or drain covers as to why the cyclist isnt inch perfect in that situation, its because they arent driving a car!!! .He did his video on riding prime and spends most of his time giving thumbs up to drivers for not driving into him, though he picks some weird moments when to and not use prime.

I think its the Audi rage one recently he blames the cyclist for being slightly left by no more than a few inches, on a wet road where the surface wont allow you to ride this perfect line he imagines, and which in his mind encouraged a stupid close pass, and its like the close pass was totally on the drivers fault and Id wager good money even if the cyclist had followed his imaginary perfect position, the idiot in the Audi would still have close passed, because thats what the majority of drivers do if youve ever spent any time on your bike riding in traffic day in day out and arent just someone who goes for the odd leisure ride to make a video about it.

And he's done videos about why riding two abreast is dangerous, its not really, he did one one how cyclists should deal with emergency vehicles where the rider does everything right and beyond what most people do in that situation and he still criticised the guys positioning. even his latest Jeremy vine analysis video, and he doesnt like Jeremy Vine but its the popular topic at the moment, even though he acknowledges the driver was completely in the wrong, still ends complaining that Jeremy was causing unnecessary risk to himself.

no I dont like drivers of cars much, especially the ones who get too close, but I dont transfer that ire to Ashley Neal just because, Ive seen the content he produces, Ive commented on his videos, and I just dont think he's very good at analysing cycling because his mindset is always in driving instructor mode first

[maximus meridius]

You sure are attributing some unlikely attitudes to Ashley Neal. I've never seen anything on any of his videos where he expresses those sorts of opinions.

The thread started with a video about a very specific traffic interaction. You seem to have used this as an opportunity to have a general moan about drivers. Whatever your beef is about motorists, Ashley gives good advice in that video, and in other videos of his I've seen. If there are dangerous drivers on the roads, I don't think he's one of them.

Perhaps the problem is that he doesn't display an "all cyclists are perfect" posture.

well then Id encourage you go to watch alot more of his videos from his back catalogue, then maybe you wont think he is so "perfect" on the cycling or even the driving part,

I didn't say that I think he's "perfect".

[Vorpal]

What did he do wrong ? Which video do you refer to ?

From the OP: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-K4KZnUd_A

He says stuff like, "Is priority given or taken?", "Riding like this is just as dangerous as riding past that bull." and "Why put yourself at risk like this."

As I said, if he just approached it as 'here is how I would do it differently', it would be fine, but he doesn't. He blames the cyclist by implication.