chipcom 

A simple yes or no poll. Should so-called vehicular cyclists obey the applicable traffic and vehicular laws of their area, or are the laws unimportant and can be ignored or modified at will?

Helmet Head

False dichotomy alert, again.

chipcom 

Come on HH, it's a simple yes or no question. What's the matter, no room for pages and pages of BS totally unsupported by fact or legal precedent?

LittleBigMan

It was a pretty simple answer. (Who said laws were unimportant and need not be obeyed?)

Helmet Head

Since you did not clarify what you mean by "obey the applicable traffic and vehicular law", in particular you did not specify that it means "obey the letter of the law without exception", I am going to interpret it as follows:

obey the applicable traffic and vehicular law" with the same adherence that drivers of vehicles tend to obey the law.

Given that interpretation, I am voting Yes.

skanking biker

Its not a simple yes or no. First, by "should" do you mean "its a good idea" or "its mandatory"? Next, "unimportant" is a loaded & subjective term. Also---just becuase a rule or law is "important" does not mean that there are not exceptions to it. Your questions presents 2 extremes as the only alternatives when there is a lot of room in the middle.

Helmet Head

Good luck. The import of addressing the details that determine actual underlying meaning is challenging for some to grasp.

Exactly. Like I said earlier, false dichotomy alert.

chipcom 

There is no middle ground. You either think the law should be obeyed, or you don't. If there are exceptions, they are outlined in the law.

The question didn't ask if you do or don't obey the law, it merely asked if vehicular cyclists 'should' do so.

skanking biker

Well, I am a little fuzzy as to how "vehicular cylists" are defined here. There apparrently is no consensus on that here.

skanking biker

[QUOTE=chipcom]There is no middle ground. You either think the law should be obeyed, or you don't.[QUOTE]

Only a Sith deals in absolutes

chipcom 

Your interpretation is both dishonest and invalid. There is nothing in the law that I know of that qualifies it's obedience to include "with the same adherence that drivers of vehicles tend to obey the law.".

That statement tells me that you believe that we only should follow the law if everyone else is doing it - so you, like other JAMs feel no need to obey speed limits, wear seat belts, give pedestrians the right of way in crosswalks, pass cyclists safely, etc.

If you were honest, you'd have voted no...but you'd rather hedge your bets and throw up a smoke screen. Nice.

rando

Chip's a Sith!

I voted yes, but I have to say I'm not obeying laws where strictly doing so might get me killed or injured.

chipcom 

You're right. In the context of this thread, let's use the favorite of HH and other vc proponents:
"riding according to the rules of the road for vehicles".

chipcom 

[QUOTE=skanking biker][QUOTE=chipcom]There is no middle ground. You either think the law should be obeyed, or you don't.Like you're the first to notice that about me!

rajman

Yeah - I'm gonna vote 'yes' but I think there is some wriggle room where the spirit of the law can be followed, if not the letter. A bit like a motorist who is generally law abiding, but might go 5-10 k(or m)ph over the limit from time to time - or turns left on a yellow(also not legal - a friend of mine got a ticket for it).

I do have a beef with the 'complete stop' as it applies to bikes at stop signs (another one that motorists tend to honour more in the breach) but I agree that bikes have to come to a 'substantial stop' at stop signs.

sbhikes

If the definition of vehicular cyclist includes that they obey the law then the answer is Yes.

If the definition of vehicular cyclist does not include that they obey the law then the answer is No.

The thing with laws is that they often are defined based upon what the common reasonable person would do. Since Vehicular Cyclists have a definition of "as far to the right as practicable" that differs from what the common reasonable person would perceive it to be, one of their core concepts is already contrary to law.

The answer cannot be Yes. It must be No.

skanking biker

I agree that generally one should follow all applicable rules of the road if one wants to act and be treated as any other vehicle. However, as someone else said---I am not gonna follow the law if it gets me killed. For instance, if somejackof is bumping me with his front fender, I'm gonna blow the red light.

I don't usually frequent this forum, so excuse my naievette---but to me there seems to be a difference between the notion that cyclists should have the same rights as other vehicles and follow the same rules, versus the notion that one should always ride a bike on the road like one is driving an automobile.

I agree with the first propositiojn but not the second because the second ignores the physical fact that bikes are NOT the same an automobiles in a number of areas: speed, mass, visibility, etc. In some circumstances the physical differences between the two vehicles necessitates different forms of action.

ghettocruiser

The scofflaw checks in.

I think I am probably in the top 10% of all road users for adherence to the letter of the law.. that is to say, I break a traffic law every two minutes instead of every 20 seconds. Guilty as charged.

chipcom 

I won't claim that I obey them all either...which is why I consider myself an adaptive cyclist or anything BUT a vehicular cyclist. Supposedly a vehicular cyclist rides according to the rules of the road for vehicles, which obviously should include any applicable traffic or vehicular laws. But HH and others seem to think that the laws are unimportant and only the mythical 'universal rules of the road for vehicles' should be followed.

It funny how the vs crowd crows on about these mythical rules that are not documented or accepted by any authorative source, but have little respect for actual laws that are documented and accepted by the governments we elect as a free society. Bunch o hypocrites if you ask me. At least of the rest of us honest enough to admit that we don't always follow rules or laws.

Helmet Head

When you refuse to specify what you mean by the ambiguous terms in your question, everyone answering is forced to interpret those terms any way they wish.

Characterizing the person who at least clarifies what interpretation he is going with before answering as being dishonest is laughable.

chipcom 

Again, this is not about our behavior or adherance to the law. The question is, should Vehicular Cyclists, who claim to ride 'according to the rules of the road for vehicles' obey the applicable laws pertaining to traffic and vehicles.

Helmet Head

Some people just get it.

chipcom 

There is nothing ambigious in "Should so-called vehicular cyclists obey the applicable traffic and vehicular laws of their area" Yes or no? Trying to overcomplicate a simple question and add your own exceptions is dishonest...I suspect because you don't have the courage to supply a simple answer that might come back again to bite you in your future debates concerning the vc religion.

You don't believe that vehicular cyclists should obey the law, yet you answer yes - pretty dishonest.

Helmet Head

If you're too obtuse and/or lazy to make a genuine effort to understand what others are saying, fine. But please do not characterize your understanding of others' positions in a derogotary manner when you've been told repeatedly that you simply don't get it.

chipcom 

Too bad that you don't.