Fred Smedley

In this state it is legal to roll a stop sign as long as you are yield the right of way to any other vehicles that might be present. I great law IMO.

CommuterRun

+1

royalflash

this has actually be a very enlightening thread. I used to think that maybe I had simply not understood the definition of VC and that when I did it would perhaps all become clear. Now I can see that there simply is no clear definition of VC. VC is just cycling according to the word of Forester as interpreted by the high-VC priests.

Referring back to an earlier thread VC should just be renamed Forester-cycling. This would make it a lot clearer and avoid the impression that VC is somehow based on absolute and immutable laws of nature or that VC has been scientifically proved.

VC is really just a belief system. A sort of cycling religion. This may be why the subject of VC is so contentious as there is a clash of civilisations between believers and non-believers.

I-Like-To-Bike

As explained in the post below.

John Forester spaketh that side reflectors are not important (just like mirrors), John Forester makes a BFD about the unimportance of side refectors, and therefore the high priests/acolytes repeat it as VC gospel.

LittleBigMan

Hmm. "Defensive Cycling." I like that concept. The techniques may be debated forever, but the concept is a good starting point.

I found the original post clear, concise, and helpful. Thanks for posting it.

PaulH

I like "Defensive Cycling." There is should be lot of transfer to and from "Defensive Driving" habit patterns. It alows us to take Forrester's ideas, which are often quite good, and generalize beyond the "Effective Cycling" mindset, which is highly oriented toward recreational cyclists on road bikes in warm, sunny places. We could discuss the safest way to plan and ride trips without getting hung up on dynamic lane positioning and whether or not a particular act is "VC" or "non-VC."

Paul

sbhikes

People who claim to be VC feel that since they position themselves in front of drivers that drivers will always see them. Or since they are taking the lane, they are where a car would be so drivers looking to cross at an intersection will see them because they are looking where cars are expected to be. They don't believe there is ever a time when drivers can't see the front or back of them, so why bother lighting up the sides?

I love those sidewall reflective tires. I don't care if they are VC or not or even if they aren't effective. When the light up they look really cool.

genec

Great, but that law does not apply to all 50 states... wish it did.

noisebeam

Refectors visible from the side are very important especially if you use left turn lanes to make left turns. When you are in the middle of an intersection waiting to make a left, it is the only way x-traffic can see you at night. Often what happens to me is that I can not complete the left turn until my light turns red, a few stragglers going straight from the other direction have run the red light, then I turn. My side reflectors let x-traffic see me so they 'proceede with caution' on green, meaning, not run into me as I am completing my left turn.

Al

genec

Side reflectors... another "Foresterism" along with "no mirrors." And in this latter regard the guy was off base.

Side reflectors have minimal effect actually... If someone is aimed right at you, perpendicular to you, they will see the reflectors, but if they are close enough to hit you when they see them, they probably will... otherwise they might see the reflectors from a block away, in which case they don't matter. That is the reasoning... thin but probably true.

noisebeam

Seems that Forrester didn't have much experience cycling in rush hour traffic in an urban/subruban setting where completing left turns is only possible after the light turns red. Thats how it tends to work around here. One or two vehicles get legally in intersection for each light cycle, then complete the left turn when the light turns red and opposing traffic stops. If one chooses to wait for a left turn behind the stop light, one can never make a left turn.

Al

I-Like-To-Bike

Again, if it doesn't happen on Planet Forester, it doesn't happen. Period. Your concerns mean nothing, earthling.

squeakywheel

Hugging the right gutter is discouraged by some VC philosophies. In Minnesota, the law says to "Ride as close as practicable to right hand curb or edge of roadway." There are some exception situations listed, but the general rule is to hug the right gutter.

So at least where I live, there is one case were bicycles are not allowed to behave like other vehicles.

MarkS

No mirrors? No side reflectors? I'm beginning to see why the VC concept seems to annoy so many people.

Cars have lights on their sides for better visibilities. Every car made in the last 50 years has at least 3 mirrors looking back. It seems like side reflectors and mirrors would make a biker *more* vehicular.

Would true VC'ists take their side reflectors off (they come with bikes in my State)?

Helmet Head

By side reflectors I mean those that go in the spokes of your wheels. In some jurisidictions these are required by law.

A vehicular cyclist could ride without side reflectors in a jurisdiction where side reflectors are required by law and still be a vehicular cyclist. In other words, breaking the law does not necessarily mean you're not a vehicular cyclist.

Being vehicular and being legal are not one and the same.

In my OP I said they were "different", to which Pat objected because he said "different" could be interpreted as "compeletely different", but that's not what I mean of course. By "different", I mean they are not identical, and the differences are significant (see OP for 15 examples).


I never wrote that side reflectors or sidewall reflective tires were not VC.
I said not having them does not prevent you from being VC, though it may very well be illegal.
You can be VC with or without side reflectors, regardless of what the law says. That's the only point. No offense to side reflectors or their users was intended! Anything that makes you more visible is great with me.


Because side reflectors are not required by the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, and because they are not needed to be predictable and visible, even at night.

Having said that, Al presents a compelling argument for why side reflectors can be significantly important because of left turns. So maybe I'm wrong about that. But I won't get into that there, the details would be for separate thread. The relevant point to this thread is that what determines whether side refectors are required to be VC is not what the law says is required. Whether the law requires cyclists to have side reflectors is irrelevant to the issue of whether using side reflectors are required for being VC.

As an aside, what determines whether side reflectors (or anything else) is required to be VC, is not only not the law, but it's also not my opinion, or the opinion of Al, or Forester, or the opininion of anyone else. It's objective data that shows whether side reflectors are necessary to establish reasonable visibility at night, period. Now, when there is a different of opinion about what the data shows, then whether using side reflectors is VC is an issue upon which reasonable people can disagree, that's all.

I-Like-To-Bike

If so commanded by their guru; as well as replace adequate legal rear reflectors with Forester approved amber rear reflectors for unspecified BFD benefits.

patc

Bingo.

Helmet Head

Now you're getting into EC (or Forester cycling) vs. VC.

Nothing in VC requires amber red, white or black rear reflectors or anything so specific. VC only requires lighting and reflectors to make you visible at night.

Helmet Head

Hugging the right gutter is definitely not VC, regardless of what the law says.
Edit: assuming you're not riding very slowly. But that would be an "edge case" over which some might enjoy nit-picking, but is ultimately not very important.

However, it could be argued that hugging the right gutter is not practicable, since it is not reasonably safe to do so, for several reasons, not the least of which are that doing so leaves insufficient "escape/swerve space" to the right, leaves the cyclist too vulnerable to obstacles (balls, dogs, children, etc.) suddenly appearing from the right, and encourages passing motorists to try to squeeze into the lane with them, when it is not safe to travel side-by-side sharing the lane.

genec

This is exactly why I have mentioned to others that "Effective Cycling" is so dated... the basic concepts are pretty good, but the details are dated... Right turns on Red were not even common in the 70's when EC was written... along with the urban hiway situation that many of us now face.

Couple this with the acerbic writing style and frankly I am sure it turns many folks, who might be thinking bicycle as transportation, right off.

Helmet Head

I agree. Very good. Thanks.


I might be missing something; I won't rule that possibility out.

But, if you are correct, then you should be able to identify some examples of VC equivalents to eggs and milk products for vegans, which arguably qualify as "healthy eating" (at least if you skip the yolks and the milk fat), but not for vegans. So what qualifies as "defensive bicycle driving on roads visibly, predictably, assertively, and in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles", but is not VC for most VC proponents?

For example, let's say that most VC proponents contended that cyclists should never use bike lanes and that using bike lanes was necessarily not VC. If that were true (which of course it isn't), that would qualify as the "eggs and milk products", for riding in bike lanes is often consistent with "defensive bicycle driving on roads visibly, predictably, assertively, and in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles".

So, do you have any specific examples of cyclist behavior that would qualify as the VC proponent's equivalent of the vegans' healthy eating not including eggs and milk products? If not, then I would say that it appears that you're the one missing something, and an actual answer to this question is what you're missing.

patc

Let me think about it.

Helmet Head

If the cyclist doesn't know if a relevant motorist understands his signal - regardless of the signal used - there is a problem. How one signals a turn is irrelevant - what's relevant is whether the signal is recognized and, more importantly, whether the right-of-way is yielded per the signal. Using an arm signal does not guarantee recognition, much less yielding. If a signal can be issued, recognized, and achieves the desired yielding, why bother with the formality of taking one hand off the bars?


Your statement is based on the premise that the definition of vehicular cycling includes always obeying the letter of the law. What is your source for this definition?


It is not at all clear that your liberal interpretation of "as far right as practicable" is the the legal intent. If it were, why would states like CA specify substandard lanes, for example, as a condition that warrants an exception to the "as far right as practicable" rule?


Your statement is based on the premise that the definition of vehicular cycling includes always obeying the letter of the law. What is your source for this definition?


My statement is not a reference to right only lanes. I'm referring to right-or-straight lanes at intersections (with driveways, mall entrances, alleys and other streets). Moving left, further left than "as far right as practicable", is often a useful lane positioning technique at intersections in order to discourage right and left hooks.

But, technically, in states that don't have the CA exception to the side-of-the-road law for "places where right turns are authorized", it's illegal. Sometimes you have to break the law to cycle vehiculary...

genec

Is this just your opinion? Or can you cite a second resource that says this about VC.

Wikipedia does not count as you are the primary editor of the VC listing.

noisebeam

An example of this from last week is where a bus was stopped just across the 3 same direction lane intersection I was waiting at in the center of the right most lane.
Light turns green. It is always by desired to pass the bus instead of getting stuck behind it along with a mass of other vehicles tryig to pass it which I find very dangerous.
So I accelerate hard and look over left shoulder to prepare for a merge. If absolutely needed I will left signal, but I prefer not to as I am also accelating hard and need to be nible to take the merge just at the right time. Just like usual the looking over my shoulder was enough to slow the lead car in the adjacent lane so I could safely merge in front of it. No need to left signal, in fact I think it was safer I kept both hands on bars. I did take my hand off the bar after merging back in front of the bus to wave thanks to the driver who slowed.
This is what is looks like from the handlebar. It was the blue Mustang that paused for me:
Jan 12 2006 Passing Bus (1.8MB right click, save target as... then open from local to view)

Al