CommuterRun

I utilize a machine on the roadways to transport me, and various tools and equipement, from place to place for various purposes. Therefore this machine must be a vehicle.

By the laws of the state I live in a bicycle on the roadway is a vehicle.

Therefore I must be "Vehicular Cycling".

As much as I enjoy riding, I very rarely ride a bicycle just for the sake of riding a bicycle.

None of the highways in this area have bike lanes, a few have paved shoulders, all but a few have sub-standard width lanes, too narrow to share. A person not willing to ride in the center of the traffic lane on these two-lane highways, as a vehicle, is going to do very little cycling.

mac

I, too, utilize a machine on the roadways to transport me, but I don't think anyone calls it "Vehicular Motoring." Just sayin' Besides, it's cool to go driving, so I drive my bike.

Helmet Head

I would appreciate a little expansion on this point of view that you express repeatedly. Frankly, I don't know if you've really got an important point, if you're just yanking my chain, so an honest and serious reply to this would really be helpful. Thanks.

We have terms for all kinds of particular kinds of activities. There is walking, and speed walking.
There is swimming, and "swimming the butterfly".
There is applying first aid, and there is suturing.
There is driving, reckless driving, drunk driving and defensive driving.
Each term for a particular kind of general activity has a specific meaning.

I'm just asking for a term for a particular kind of cycling, "Cycling on roads in accordance with the universal/common rules of the road for drivers of vehicles". Why are you so against having a term, any term, that refers to that particular kind of cycling?

I don't particularly care what the term is, I just want one that can be effectively used to mean "cycling on roads in accordance with the universal/common rules of the road for drivers of vehicles" so I can use the term instead of having to say "cycling on roads in accordance with the universal/common rules of the road for drivers of vehicles" every time I want to refer to "cycling on roads in accordance with the universal/common rules of the road for drivers of vehicles".

But now that I have it in my copy buffer... Do you agree that the photo of the cyclist provided by Al earlier in this thread shows a cyclist who is "cycling on roads NOT in accordance with the universal/common rules of the road for drivers of vehicles"? Do you believe doing so makes cycling for him more dangerous? If so, do you think he's aware of it? Do you think it's useful to point this out, either to him or to others? If not, why not? If so, then in the process of pointing it out, don't you think it's useful to point out that this is but one example of something cyclists do who are "cycling on roads NOT in accordance with the universal/common rules of the road for drivers of vehicles", and thus often unnecessarily putting themselves in more danger than if they were "cycling on roads in accordance with the universal/common rules of the road for drivers of vehicles"? If not, why not? If so, then don't you think it gets a little cumbersome to keep having to say "cycling on roads in accordance with the universal/common rules of the road for drivers of vehicles" and "cycling on roads NOT in accordance with the universal/common rules of the road for drivers of vehicles", and shorthand terms like VC and non-VC would make it much easier? Can you appreciate that this is the reason we seek a term for this meaning, just like we have terms for many other particular types of general activities?

And why do you believe seeking a term to mean "cycling on roads in accordance with the universal/common rules of the road for drivers of vehicles" is "designed to neatly categorize people into little boxes for political reasons"? What exactly would those political reasons be?

Roody

I voted for vehicular cycling, not realizing that controversy existed outside this insular forum. What is so bad (or difficult or harmful or controversial) about following the rules of the road for vehicles? What else are we to do but follow the rules? Individuals and society both suffer when rules are not obeyed.

As far as I know, good citizens try hard to follow rules. Even if they disagree with the rules, they will obey them until they are able to change them.

The only exception would be civil disobedience, which hardly seems called for in this case.

genec

While the world would indeed be a wonderful place if the good citizens did just as you suggested, things just don't seem to be working out that way. Look for instance at the current issues of scandle in government by elected officials, who should be showing us citizens examples of they way the world should work...

Look at the 10s of thousands of deaths annually by auto by citizens that seemed to overlook some rule.

Look at the wrong way cyclists that Al was able to show us pictures of...

So the issue remains... some folks either don't know the rules, or fail to heed them. The name "vehicular cycling" while somewhat accepted, does present an image of "cycling like a car." So perhaps there is a better metaphor/name/acronym that can be used.

oldguy52

+1, Well said!

chipcom 

Why is it when you don't like a response you assume it's not an honest and serious reply? I've stated this before - when riding on the road you follow the laws of the road, period, no categorization, branding, or cutsie terms are required. It's not a new species, it's not the missing link, it's merely riding a bike like people were riding bikes long before someone decided 'hey, let's publish a book, coin a new term and make a name for myself as the lord savior of all cyclists'. I never even heard the term Vehicular Cycling until 1996 when some nutcase decided to torpedo a perfectly good bike lane on a highway reconstruction project - yet I managed to ride my bicycle on the streets and in traffic quite safely for a good 30 years prior to being introduced to the term VC and it's political agenda. I can see why you want a new label, the current one carries so much baggage it dooms any cycling issue where it rears it's ugly head. THAT is my problem, IMHO you are looking to make a duck look like the golden goose by application of a new buzzword. It's still a duck.

Edit: Logic and common sense dictates that if want your mode of transportation to be considered a vehicle, you need to follow the LAWS (not some unpublished general myth you believe in) of the roadways you are on. Just because some don't doesn't mean we need to create a category, brand or other description of the practice. You either follow the law or you don't - it's that simple, if you don't, that's your problem as along as you don't endanger others, if you do, great, you are doing what society assumes any law abiding citizen would do.

Helmet Head

So do I, as does every VC advocate I've ever encountered. This misconception about VC is addressed in the Wikipedia article on VC:

Common Misconceptions About VC

There is considerable confusion expressed about the meaning of vehicular cycling. Among these, are:
...
"VC is needlessly blocking cars"

Cyclists who ride in the center of a lane needlessly impeding faster traffic are sometimes mistakenly referred to as vehicular cyclists; yet by definition a cyclist who needlessly impedes faster traffic is violating the vehicular rules of the road and is hence not riding vehicularly.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicular_cycling


That's vehicular cycling.


Everything you say is perfectly consistent with vehicular cycling. This is why a synonym for vehicular cycling often used by VC advocates is "cooperative cycling" (and why this is one of the choices offered in this poll).


You ride and write like a bonafide vehicular cyclist.


I can understand why you might get the impression that VC advocates have a negative attitude toward anyone not in agreement with the type of cycling you describe so eloquently in this post, but having a negative attitude towards motorists? That does not sound like any VC advocate I've every encountered. Quite the opposite. We VC advocates often get criticized for taking the side of motorists in situations where the cyclist clearly did something wrong. But isn't that like criticizing Democrats for having a negative attitude about Bush? Or Republicans about Clinton? Or pro-choicers about pro-lifers? Or carfree folks about SUV owners? Or animal rights' activists about fur traders? What about the "negative attitudes" towards VC advocates expressed by some of the forum members here? Is the "negative attitude" you perceive in VC advocates towards those who disagree with us any different from the "negative attitudes" members of these other groups have towards those who disagree with them? I mean, are "negative attitudes" not to be naturally expected in the context of disagreement, or are you referring to something beyond that?

Helmet Head

Because in the past I've taken you seriously and you later told me you were just jerking my chain, so now I'm always wondering whether you're being serious or doing it again. But now I am assuming you are being honest and serious on this issue.


Well, just like good driving is more than just following the laws, "cycling on roads in accordance with the universal/common rules of the road for drivers of vehicles" is more than just following the laws. It's a particular methodology that involves techniques such as strategic lane positioning to maximize visibility and predictability as well as following the laws.

And just because walking existed before languages even existed, doesn't mean we shouldn't have a word for it now, doesn't it? So just because cyclists riding according to the vehicular methodology existed before we had a term for it, doesn't mean we shouldn't have a word for it now. I still don't understand your strong distaste for giving "it" a name.

Why are you okay with the terms "speed walking", "jogging", "defensive driving", "fly fishing", "debugging" and probably countless other terms that depict specific types of activities that existed before they had names, but you're so opposed to giving a name to "cycling on roads in accordance with the universal/common rules of the road for drivers of vehicles"? I'm sorry, and I don't mean to frustrate you, but ignoring my questions and restating reasons that don't address them doesn't explain it.

sbhikes

Since whan does following the rules of the road suddenly contain your strategic lane positioning nonesense? Last time I looked the rules of the road said that bikes must stay as far to the right as practicable except...

This means the default position is RIGHT, not center, and you leave the right only for the exceptions. It is only the VC evangelists who feels every inch of the road is cause for an exception.

chipcom 

You don't get it - the 'universal rules of the road' are a figment of your imagination. Insisting that there are some universally accepted rules that everyone accepts just indicates that you haven't spent a lot of time in other parts of the world. There is only one universal rule of the road - to get from point A to point B in one piece. Everybody has different ways of accomplishing that and trying to claim that VC is the one true way using some mythical rules that you can't document is just plain silly.

There's a good project for you. Since you insist on claiming that VC is based on universally accepted rules of the road, how about documenting what you think those rules are and putting them out there for scrutiny, debate and acceptance? That would be much more valuable to everyone than obsessing over names, brands and categories and might help to give your VC brand some credibility.

chipcom 

See Diane, you are confusing specific laws with the holy grail of universal rules of the road. Personally, until I see documentation of these stone tablets that can be scrutinized, debated and accepted, I'll be sticking to the laws and leaving the theories to the theorists.

DnvrFox

Who is your audience for any of these terms?

Do you suppose the average Joe Blow driver of a car cares a hoot what you might call yourselves?

Is the audience the other members of this forum - if so - big deal!

Newspaper reporters writing about bicycle crashes? I can read it now:

"Hank Smith was hit by a car today, even though he was "vehicular cycling" (or whatever you call it)." Yeah, right!

So, why do you care? Some sort of a status attempt? Most folks just call it bicycling.

buzzman

This expresses my experience and my sentiments exactly.

And since it seems that it is par for the course to label those who disagree with this Vehicular Cycling dogma as NON-Vehicular Cyclists please put a NON- before all of these terms to describe any heathens to this policy.

P.S- my personal favorite being: NON-Cooperative Cycling

Helmet Head

I don't get it? Maybe. I won't dismiss that possibility out of hand. But it appears to me that you're the one who doesn't get it.

Please read the part of my post that you quoted. In particular, I bring your attention to the final sentence: "ignoring my questions and restating reasons that don't address them doesn't explain it."

So what do you do? You ignore my questions and restate reasons that don't address them, of course!

You have two basic arguments: 1) there is no need for a term for "this", and 2) there is no such thing as universal rotr.

When I push you on one, you ignore my questions and points and shift to your other argument. I spent a lot of time addressing your first argument in post #28, explaining in great detail why I didn't get your resistance to have a term for "it". In your reply, #32, you ignored the majority of my #28 post, answered none of my questions, and just repeated your assertions that there is no need for the term, adding that you had been doing "it" for 30 years before you first heard the term "VC". In #34 I replied to you, and added one more point and question (quoted above). In #36 you completely ignored this too, though you did quote it. Instead of answering my questions (again), you presented your argument #2. Either concede your first argument, or address my rebuttals. Please. And you wonder why I don't get it. My friend, you're not giving me much to go on.

As to this second argument, my answer goes simply like this:

a) Concepts exists whether they are written down or not.

b) You and I, and any competent driver, can fly to any state, and, indeed any country in the world, rent a car, and drive quite safely and most probably quite legally, basically following the laws of our own state (unless the left/right thing is reversed, in which case we just need to reverse accordingly), yet those laws have no jurisdiction in these other states and other countries.

c) The reason (b) is true is because all traffic laws in the world are based on the same conceptual "universal rules of the road". If this were not true, then (b) would not be true. Yes, these "universal rules of the road" (for lack of a better term) are not written down anywhere. Yet (b) is true. How would this be possible if the "UROTR" did not exist? Put it this way, whatever-it-is that allows (b) to be true, and since (b) is true whatever-it-is must exist (documented or not), or (b) would not be true, that's what I'm referring to by the term (imperfect as it may be) as the "universal rules of the road".

Before you again assert that the UROTR do not exist and/or exist only in my imagination, or that no term is needed to mean "cycling on roads in accordance with the universal/common rules of the road for drivers of vehicles", please address the reasoning I have (again) laid out, here and in posts #28 and #34. Addressing my arguments does not include quoting my words and then writing yet another non-sequitor as if it is a response to what I wrote.

As far as documenting the UROTR, the essentials were captured by Forester in the 5 principles of traffic:


the five basic principles of traffic operation.

1. Always ride on the right-hand side of the roadway, not on the left and never on the sidewalk
2. When approaching a road that is larger than the one you are on, or carries more traffic, or faster traffic, or is protected by a stop or yield sign, you must yield to traffic on that roadway. Yielding means looking left and right until you see that no traffic is approaching so closely as to constitute a danger.
3. When intending to move your line of travel either left or right upon the roadway, you must yield to traffic in the new line of travel. Yielding means looking in front and behind until you see that both directions are clear, that there is no traffic approaching so closely as to constitute a danger.
4. When approaching an intersection, you must position yourself according to the direction in which you want to go. Right-turning drivers are at the right, left-turning drivers are at the left, close to the center of the roadway, and straight-through drivers are between them.
5. When cycling between intersections, you must position yourself according to your speed relative to other traffic. Parked vehicles are next to the curb, slow drivers are next to them, while fast drivers are to the left, next to the centerline.


https://www.johnforester.com/BTEO/ectraining.htm

These can be expanded on, of course, but I think they effectivley capture the least obvious essentials.

Helmet Head

Like Chipcom said, you're confusing the laws of your particular jurisdiction with the general/universal/common "rules of the road" upon which all laws are based (and which make it possible for competent vehicle drivers to drive in just about any jurisdiction in the world safely and legally without knowing the particular written implementation of these ROTR in the jurisdiction where they are driving).

The "bikes must stay as far to the right" law is not a universal ROTR - it is a particular law in a particular jurisdiction (and cloned in some others). It is arguably based on a universal ROTR - slower traffic keeps to the right - but it goes beyond that, and hence is not an example of a universal ROTR that must be followed by a cyclist to be a "vehicular cyclist" (for lack of a better term - I'm sticking with "vehicular cycling" because it's winning in the poll, and that's without my vote... i voted for integrated traffic cycling). However, we are dangerously close to being called "bicycle dancers". Pat is going to love that!

As far as the lane positioning stuff goes, technically that's not encoded in any laws that I know of either, and hence, is arguably not "vehicular cycling". However, "cycling on roads in accordance with the UROTR" is not a complete description of "vehicular cycling", it's just a definition. For a complete definition, you need more detailed explanations, the Wiki article (see my signature), for example, the relevant chapters in Forester's Effective Cycling, John Franklin's book Cyclecraft, the summary of VC in Jeffrey Hiles' essay, Listening to Bikelanes (have you read this yet? I think you'll like it and agree with it ... I don't... google it...), or John S. Allen's Streetsmarts (also online). Anyway, the definition of VC would be too long if it included detailed techniques such as lane positioning. But that's an important part of of it, for the same reasons that lane positioning is covered in the DMV's motorcycle handbook, even though the law does not say anything explicit about lane positioning for motorcyclists either. The point is all drivers follow the principle to be visible and predictable. That's why car drivers don't drive a foot from the curb, typically, when they could be 7 feet over and still within their lane. This principle is an unwritten ROTR for vehicle drivers, if you will, and vehicular cyclists should follow it just like all other vehicle drivers (adjusted for as appropriate due to our slow speed and narrowness, of course). But an explicit law requiring us to keep as far right as possible, even with all the exceptions, is going too far, for it puts the burden on the cyclist to justify being away from the side. The real motivation there should be obvious: to keep cyclists out of the way of motorists.

I-Like-To-Bike

As stated before; individuals comfortable with endlessly debating the number of angels who can dance on a pin head.

DnvrFox

Thanks. That is helpful.

Bekologist

I think Sbikes brings up a very good point:

Slower traffic keeps to the outside of the roadways.

The missing link in all of the lane grabbing, dynamic lateral lane pissing, C.L.A.P.P.E.R. speak.

When there's a 12 foot bike lane, or a 5 foot shoulder, the bicyclist should be using it! NOT in the travel lane.

The universal rules of the road, and any version of bicycling mantra, needs to embrace this missing link- bikes keep to the outside of the lane.

- Of course, that is vastly oversimplified bike method, but does NOT counterdict my bicycling techniques of either riding frogger or caveman biking.

chipcom 

These are your universally accepted vehicular rules of the road? I don't think I even need to comment further, your cite proves my point - there are no universally accepted vehicular rules of the road outside the imaginations of Forrester minions.

budster

I can boil those down further:

When practicable, or unless otherwise posted:

1. Slower traffic keeps to the outside of the roadway
2. Traffic on smaller roads yields to traffic on larger roads
3. Drivers changing lanes/road position must yield
4. At intersections, right-turning traffic on the right, left-turning traffic on the left, through traffic in the center
5. Drive only as fast as road conditions and other traffic permit

(HH's rule 5 is covered by rule 1)

Less controversial? Did I leave anything out?

LittleBigMan

Defining a precise term like "vehicular cycling" is needed only if the term includes other practices not covered by traffic laws. For example, riding in a door zone might be legal, but not part of "vehicular cycling" as you define it. So if "riding outside the door zone" is part of the definition of "vehicular cycling," then it means more than following basic traffic rules.

In the end, the important thing is that once you use a term like "vehicular cycling" to mean a specific set of cycling practices which apply beyond the basic traffic laws, you should always use that same term in exactly the same way, or the meaning will be confused. Also, using multiple phrases to mean the same thing, or similar things, might add to the confusion.

Like I said, "cycling in traffic"

sbhikes

I have the perfect term:
- High Performance Cycling. HPC. It carries none of the negative baggage of VC and indeed many of the techniques used in this style of cycling become increasingly important the faster you ride. The rest of us can then be free to opt in or out of the High Performace club without shame.

Other terms:
- Standard Lawful Cycling. This is for folks who prefer to stay right, use bike lanes, possibly make a few two-corner turns here and there, and otherwise follow all the rules of the road.
- Extreme Cycling. XC. Or bike messenger style. Everybody expects bike messengers, especially in NYC, to ride this way. Certainly I would be disappointed to visit NYC and not get to see them in action. Extreme Cycling is informed.
- Unlawful Cycling. This is wrong-way, sidewalk (when prohibited), no-lights, blow the stops, etc. cycling. Differs from Extreme Cycling because the operator practices his cycling from an uninformed or fearful perspective. In otherwords, unlike the extreme cyclist who is taking advantage of the special properties of his vehicle, the uninformed cyclist is compensating for a perceived disadvantage of the properties of his vehicle.

Treespeed

Diane,

that was great.
Beautiful ride in today.

2wheeledsoul

And one more...
- Insane Cycling Everything in Unlawful, plus taking MUPs at high speed, riding at night sans lights and/or reflectors and dressed in dark clothes, using cellphones/walkman headhones while on the move, rides on the freeway and/or freeway speed roads, ignores risk, and generally act like there's no risk and they can't possibly get hurt or killed, and/or has a deathwish. A loose cannon gone kamakazi, the Insane Cyclist probably pisses drivers off the most.