1. We 'supposedly' have the ROW. But motorists' want cyclists' out of their way, and off the road.
2. Cyclists' are consistently accused of holding up traffic. When motorists' are not accused of doing the same thing.
3. Motorists' will pass another MOTORIZED vehicle. Not complaining about it as they pass. Motorists' will pass a CYCLIST, but with heaps of consternation, or an unwillingness to pass. When there is plenty of opportunity.
Most people understand that loving something (or someone) doesn't make it good. The OP is having a tough time walking away from cycling... even though cycling no longer seems to be a good fit for him. Marriages [/relationships] can be like that sometimes too.
But adults often have to make pragmatic decisions. And even though cycling may not be the OPs sport.... that doesn't mean he has to live without sports. The ocean is full of fish.... or is fish suppose to mean "choices"? Is there a genuine parody with cycling (and other sports) and human relationships..... YEAH. And I think most people catch that! Sorry my post was over your head.
Thanks for your excellent posts in this thread.
Where in Montana is this a big problem, or is it everywhere in Montana? Or is it everywhere in that area of the country, like Idaho and Wyoming too? Don't know if I want to go cycling out there on our next trip out West if this problem is common.
You talk of special privileges. So far as I know, the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles grant no privileges to drivers of bicycles that are not granted to other drivers of vehicles. The basic privilege is that of operating in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles.
The restrictions with which we are concerned restrict cyclists' right to operate on roadways open to other drivers of vehicles. The restrictions limit cyclists to the right-hand edge of the roadway or to a bike lane or prohibit them from using the roadway where there is an adjacent path. These restrictions were originally created by motordom and enacted by motordom (about 1940) to make motoring more convenient, without regard for the safety or convenience of cyclists. When the operation of these restrictions was finally examined, in 1974, they were found to endanger cyclists. But instead of repealing the restrictions, motordom demanded that they be retained, but with exceptions saying that cyclists didn't have to obey the restriction under some conditions, at some times, maybe. As a result, the public and the police know full well that cyclists are not allowed to obey the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, while remaining ignorant of the exceptions.
How does the theory of"VC" effect these privlages and restrictions?
Your response shows that you don't understand my previous post. VC is cycling in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. Therefore, it applies only when cycling on the roadway, but that does not limit cyclists to operating only on the roadway. So VC has no relevance to cycling on the sidewalk. You say that being allowed to use bike lanes is a privilege. That's not the view of the general public, who believe that cyclists should be required to use them. Filtering forward, splitting lanes, riding two abreast (why only two?) are not legal privileges but are simply the consequence of a bicycle's narrow width. You argue that it is a special privilege that cyclists are allowed to travel at their normal speeds. How silly can you be? That's allowed for all drivers of vehicles. You refer to the 5-vehicle following rule, but your sentence structure doesn't say anything about it. One has to assume, from the paragraph, that you consider it a privilege that cyclists don't have to obey that rule. If that legal exception is specifically made, then I am surprised, for I consider that rule one of the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles and therefore a rule that cyclists ought to obey. No state that I know of requires cyclists to display the orange triangle; what's your point about that?
You claim that the restrictions on cyclist travel apply only to "some freeways, tunnels, and bridges." You are utterly ignoring the far greater restriction, let us just say 1,000 times greater, that you are prohibited from using most of the width of most roadways and are prohibited from occupying a lane in the normal manner for drivers of vehicles.
My question is how does the theory of "VC" differ from the rules and laws of Washington state as they exist today, how does it supposedly improve my riding experience, and how motorists will behave around me?
"For all we know his skills may be excellent, allowing him to ride like an idiot without actually being one." - FBinNY
Road rash is a precious gift. Road rash is your friend. Bask in it, appreciate it, love it. Above all, learn from it. --Robert Hurst
I think that underlying most of these rules there is a principle of the least disruption of the orderly flow of traffic. I don't mean speed, but rather how smoothly and easily vehicles move within the flow.
Vehicular cycling posits that adhering to the traffic rules minimizes disruptions, hence is the safest and most efficient practice. In that sense it doesn't really matter how or for what purpose the rules were created, because the key objective involves interacting within the traffic as it exists now.
Vehicular Cycling: If It Worked, It Wouldn't Work | streets.mn
There is also a difference between American Vehicular Cycling and that practiced elsewhere. American vehicular cycling is very type-A aggressive and self-centered—"I have a right to the road and I'm going to take it." However in Europe it is much more cooperative. Bicycle riders in Europe aren't in to 'taking the lane', they're more considerate of those driving cars and car drivers are likewise more considerate of bicycle riders.
That said, people driving cars in the U.S., and people in general, are much less considerate of others as Europeans are. This is part of the reason we are about three times as likely to be killed on the road (in a car, riding a bicycle, or walking) as someone in Europe. It is also why Dutch style segregated bicycle facilities are more important here than in Europe.
Last edited by CrankyOne; 06-18-14 at 07:50 AM.
Here is a key statement from that link:
Everyone should take a look at that link:What will happen when cycling in the U.S. increases from its current 1% of trips to 5% or 10%? Or 25%? When many more people begin bicycling to local stores, restaurants, and schools? Imagine all of these cyclists, three to ten times as many as today, most traveling about 12 mph, on the roads mixed with and sometimes blocking motor traffic
Vehicular Cycling: If It Worked, It Wouldn?t Work | streets.mn
This is cycling advocacy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1d1gaRQ2ZM
So is this: http://www.railstotrails.org/resourc...A_20081020.pdf