Originally Posted by Helmet Head
I think the problem with the term "vehicular" is that the only (non cycling ) "vehicular" experience the vast majority of the public has had does not include operating a slow moving vehicle. Therefore, to them, the legitimate behavior of drivers of slow moving vehicles, including moving aside, using shoulders and sharing lanes in order to allow faster same direction traffic to pass easier, when safe and reasonable to do so, does not seem "vehicular". But such behavior for drivers of slow moving vehicles is most certainly vehicular, and most if not all legal manifestations of the vehicular rules of the road mandate it. To eliminate it from the "definition" of "vehicular cycling" does reflect the common sense interpretation of the term vehicular, but ignores the operational and physical characteristics of the bicycle that make the vehicular rules of the road that apply to drivers of slow moving vehicles so relevant to bicyclists operating in traffic on roads in accordance to the vehicular rules of the road.
I'm glad that someone is still on topic here. Anyway...
The problems you speak of are largely political. I sympathize because most of the battles cyclists have fought with governments have been political. The terminology from these battles have political meanings which conflict with technical meanings, and this is part of the problem.
The fact that the term "vehicular" has an understanding in common vernacular that is somewhat separate from how some of us use the term is what is at the center of all this. The OP definition takes this common vernacular definition and codifies it into the technical language. The issue I disagree with is that the term "vehicular cycling" need take into account any operational characteristics of bicycles. I guess I am taking up your position in this matter, that speed and size of the vehicle don't matter, in the context of vehicular cycling (in the OP definition sense).
The very point of redefining "VC" is to get away from this battle of words between "pro-facilities" people and "anti-facilities" people. Look at the heckling from galen, for example, I get for a simple tightening up of the definition. I want a true discussion of the effects of how cyclists ride on the road. The effects on safety, the effects on the traffic system as a whole, and the effects on cyclist and driver's perception of cycling. It might be expedient for vehicular cycl
ists to lay claim to the term "vehicular cycling," but realize that by doing this, and combining generalized safe cycling practices in with ideology, you are essentially politicizing a very valuable cycling technique.
The whole goal here is to separate these valuable cycling techniques from the politics. A cyclist who takes the lane through an intersection should not be labeled a "vehicular cyclist." This hypothetical cyclist might take issue with the politics of vehicular cyclists, and get the idea that he shouldn't use
any of the techniques that John Forester popularized, because then he'd be a member of a group against his will and opinion.
To separate these cycling techniques from politics, the definition has to be tightened up to the point where it only includes the basic hallmarks of the technique, namely, taking the lane and destination lane positioning. All the other stuff, like lane sharing or stopping at stop signs, is simply stuff that any cyclist has to do to get anywhere on a bike. I want to separate all this extraneous stuff from the term, so that these uniquely vehicular techniques can be evaluated given specific situations. Why have a war over a word which already has a common vernacular meaning which most of the population will recognize? Why not make the common vernacular meaning the formal meaning. It seems like it'd save a lot of confusion.