Originally Posted by Helmet Head
The question is about whether it is "vehicular cycling" to obey or disobey the ban.
It sounds to me like Dana Point is an abnormal situation that needs to be fixed. A somewhat similar situation I think happened in Portland where they tried to ban cyclists from a roadway they were already using and they got that decision reversed without civil disobedience.
In life stuff happens and we do our best to fix those things. While civil disobedience is an option, it would not be at the top of my list of things to try first to get things fixed.
VC is about HOW to ride in a safe and effecent manner (on the road,) multi-modal transportation planning is about WHAT routes are provided for each mode (for safe and efficient travel by that mode.) To me Dana Point sounds like a planning foul up and I’m not following how it relates to VC and I am even more puzzled by your insistence that implies that to be VC you must break laws (the ban.)
Originally Posted by The Human Car
When you make a case that cyclists must disobey laws you create an adversarial situation that is hard to win.
Proper multi modal transportation planning includes VC principles but VC is not about proper multi modal transportation planning or effective advocacy for good multi modal transportation planning.