Advocacy & Safety - The role of attitude in traffic cycling

...It's only not VC if you're doing that in a lane that is too narrow to be safely shared.

To clarify, I still do this if the lane is too narrow, but the car can pass by moving out partially into the adjacent lane on a two lane road. I only tend to take the lane if there are cars in the outer lane or there is no outer lane. Not sure whether this is VC or not.

Street cycling is a lot like the war on terrorism... we have to be ever vigilant, because all it takes is one driver making a mistake or just being too aggressive...
What a load of total crap. I was enjoying this thread until I read this. there is as much connection as there is between my belly button & a digital clock.

To clarify, I still do this if the lane is too narrow, but the car can pass by moving out partially into the adjacent lane on a two lane road. I only tend to take the lane if there are cars in the outer lane or there is no outer lane. Not sure whether this is VC or not.

To be clear on a situation that is definitely not VC:

Lane is "narrowish" - too narrow to be safely shared, but can be unsafely shared. Cyclist rides as close to the curb as he can, thus inviting motorists to try to pass entirely within the lane, unsafely.

This, on the other hand, is VC:

Lane is too narrow to be safely shared. Cyclist rides right of center to facilitate passing by faster motorists, to be considerate and helpful, but not so far to the right so as to invite motorist unsafe passing entirely within the lane. Most cyclists err on riding too far to the right in this situation, effectively compromising safety in order to be accomodating. Vehicular cyclists err on riding too far to the left, unwilling to compromise their safety in order to be accomodating. The refined VC skill is knowing how to find that "sweet spot" between far enough left to make it clear a within-lane pass is not possible, and not so far left so as to be unnecessarily impeding safe passing. Learning to find the sweet spot can be challenging... sometimes a few inches can make the difference. But, like anything else, it becomes easier with practice, and finding the sweet spot can come to feel instinctive and obvious. You learn to know automatically what effect a particular lane position has on passing motorists, and position yourself to the greatest advantage accordingly.

Street cycling is a lot like the war on terrorism... we have to be ever vigilant, because all it takes is one driver making a mistake or just being too aggressive...

What a load of total crap. I was enjoying this thread until I read this. there is as much connection as there is between my belly button & a digital clock.
I am heartened by your outrage at this gross misrepresentation of street or traffic cycling. The person you quote represents the attitude of Robert Hurst, author of The Art of Urban Cycling, who advocates the sense of constant fear, and, not surprisingly, expects surprisingly frequent crashes and collisions.

I prefer to listen to the advice of vehicular cyclists who go decades and tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of miles without crashes or collisions. They recommend vigilance too, of course, but not in a climate of fear. They advocate viewing motorists as cooperative equals in traffic, and treating them accordingly, not like an enemy.

These guys don't seem to understand the role of their attitude of fear in leading to behavior that makes traffic cycling more dangerous.

Serge

I was unaware that tapping your breaks means back off. I thought it meant the driver ahead was doing one of the following:
- releasing the cruise-control
- riding the breaks lightly
- simply tapping the brakes.

While I'm on the subject of how people can't always tell what a signal means, the other day I was riding along and gave the right turn hand signal (left arm up at right angle) and a passing cyclists waved to me. That was funny.

You're making this too complicated.

In simplest terms, brake lights mean: CAUTION. Because of this, some motorists tap their brakes to get tail-gaters to back off. I've done it, and I've had it done to me. But it works because all anyone has to know about it is that brake lights mean: CAUTION.

A slow/stop hand signal ultimately means the same thing: CAUTION.
And that's why it works.

Every cycling book I've read in the last decade recommends signalling right with right hand for precisely the reason you allude: signalling with the left arm is not intuitive, and a lot of people don't even know what it means any more.

But it doesn't take a DMV groupie to know that a stretched out left arm pointing down with hand out means... CAUTION.

There ya go, folks, vehicular cycling works even in Spain. Glad to hear it!
I know this is off the thread, and maybe I'm getting a bit picky here, but that 'even in Spain' is at the very least unnecessary, if not contemptuous. The following would be valid for any other country that you could have mentioned. Now, since you said Spain, what do you think Spain is? Why should anyone be surprised that anything works in Spain? I can tell you that the bonehead-attitudes of drivers and the eye4eye cyclists' responses that you can see/read in http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=106638 are absolutely unknown to me in Spain or Europe in general... it's a matter of general reasonable, vengeful-free attitude over here. So, gone into stereotypes, should I say that the US is still in the ol' wild west or the Neanderthal? Or that Europe is the last bastion of civilization? Nope, out of sheer compromise with reality and wide range of possible behaviour. Same with everything else.

So, good row- and cliché-free commute.

...The person you quote represents the attitude of Robert Hurst, author of The Art of Urban Cycling, who advocates the sense of constant fear, and, not surprisingly, expects surprisingly frequent crashes and collisions.
...


Now that is just silly and irresponsible misrepresention. The Hurst book does _NOT_ advocate a constant sense of fear, nor are frequent crashes to be expected-- whatever "frequent" means.

I've read both books. The Hurst book is more to the point, concise and realistic. His outlook is more in line with the challenges of cyclists in dense urban environments. Forester's book is detailed, and does a great job defining and making a case for VC, but there is an undercurrent of inflexible pendantry that really undermines his excellent cause.

In practice, riders who follow either method will behave similarly almost all the time. I'm not about to split hairs over a few inches (literally less than a foot) on the pavement making all the difference.

As for that lane issue: any competent cyclist (not just purely dogmatic VC'ers) will take the whole lane if it is unsafe to pass.

Now, since you said Spain, what do you think Spain is? Why should anyone be surprised that anything works in Spain?

Wasn't Spain the home country of Miguel Indurain? 'Nuff said.

...The person you quote represents the attitude of Robert Hurst, author of The Art of Urban Cycling, who advocates the sense of constant fear, and, not surprisingly, expects surprisingly frequent crashes and collisions.
...

Now that is just silly and irresponsible misrepresention. The Hurst book does _NOT_ advocate a constant sense of fear, nor are frequent crashes to be expected-- whatever "frequent" means.
I don't have the book with me, or I would cite numerous excerpts that would establish my point. But if I recall correctly, the last line in the book is a good place to start. Anyone got it handy?

Amazon has quoted a section from the back of the book. That will have to do. Read this carefully, paying attention to the bold, and you tell me what you think might be the underlying theme here. The comments in italics are mine too.


Road rash is a precious gift. Road rash is your friend.
Bask in it, appreciate it, love it. Above all, learn from it.
The bicyclist is under attack from all directions - the streets are ragged, the air is poison, and the drivers are angry. As if that weren’t enough, the urban cyclist must carry the weight of history along on every ride.
After a brief heyday at the turn of the twentieth century, American cyclists fell out of the social consciousness, becoming an afterthought when our cities were planned and built. Cyclists today are left to navigate,like rats in a sewer, through a hard and unsympathetic world that was not made for them. Yet, with the proper attitude and a bit of knowledge, urban cyclists can thrive (like rats, presumably) in this hostile environment.


Road rash is a precious gift? Learn from it? Uh thanks, but I'd rather learn first and avoid the road rash in the first place. That's my approach. That's Forester's approach. Hurst is all about learning from the school of hard knocks. Quite possibly because he's incapable of learning from the school of study and hard thinking.

Under attack? Ragged? Poison? Angry drivers? What an ugly and pessimistic perspective! His attitude sucks. Now, he does love cycling, that's made quite clear in his final brilliant chapter. But the obsession with the ugliness of the urban world in which the cyclist must "survive" is a real downer. His attitude, and the attitude he advocates, in the subtext if not explicitly, is terrible.

Like rats in a sewer? Thanks Robert Hurst, but speak for yourself.

That's just the back cover, which is all I have access to at the moment, but I think it's enough to give some credence to my point.

The biggest contrast between Hurst and Forester in terms of attitude that can be seen on Hurst's back cover is the reference to cyclists having to navigate in an "unsympathetic world that was not made for them". Believing that is the opposite of what Forester teaches, which is that the roadway system is a wonderful facility for cycling, and cooperation with equals is the key to navigating through it effectively. Saying that the traffic system was not made for cyclists is like saying it was not made for hybrid cars. The traffic system was made for vehicles being operated vehicularly. That applies to cyclists just as much as it does to drivers of cars, trucks, bull dozers, motorcycles, motor scooters, and parking meter maid carts...



I've read both books. The Hurst book is more to the point, concise and realistic. His outlook is more in line with the challenges of cyclists in dense urban environments. Forester's book is detailed, and does a great job defining and making a case for VC, but there is an undercurrent of inflexible pendantry that really undermines his excellent cause.
I'll give you "more to the point and concise" in terms of how he gets across what he wants to get across when you look at both books as a whole. Forester rambles... there is no arguing that. However, when you look at the 3 chapters or so, maybe 80 pages out of the 599, which are devoted to how to ride in traffic, I think it stands up to Hurst quite well (in terms of being to the point and concise).

And books like this should not be just solely on HOW they are written, but more so on WHAT they say. On that score, I can see what you mean by Hurst's book seeming more realistic, because Forester is more abstract. Hursts talks more about specific real world situations, true. However, in terms of realistic advice on how to ride in traffic, I'd say Forester wins hands down.

As far as the "undercurrent of inflexible pedantry"... you are not the only one with that impression. Hurst has it too. But I think that comes from not reading carefully. If you do go back and try to find some specific examples of this, I predict you won't be able to. It is easy to miss Forester's subtleties. Because he's not a great writer, they are easy to miss. For example, read his section on stop signs and you'll see that his method allows for rolling through when it's appropriate. But you have to read it carefully to understand that. And again, that's more about HOW it is written rather than WHAT he writes.


In practice, riders who follow either method will behave similarly almost all the time. I'm not about to split hairs over a few inches (literally less than a foot) on the pavement making all the difference.
It's not about splitting hairs... it's about Hurst having no method. He offers a grab bag of disconnected and contradictory "nuggets" of advice. The only theme that comes close to connecting it all is fear. True, much of his advice is consistent with VC, but I would hardly call it a "method".

To me, Forester's book provides a clear set of consistent guidelines on how to ride in traffic, all stemming from basic principles that govern all vehicular traffic behavior on the road, including riding to be visible and predictable.

Hurst openly scoffs at Forester's method (how many excerpts would you like?), yet finds it impossible to not recommend basically the same thing in his disconnected fashion. What he completely misses are the subtleties, and the contradictions in his own advice when he strays from recommending cycling vehicularly. At one point or two, he seems to realize this problem exists, but he writes it off (unconvincingly) as being inherent in "urban cycling", and not a problem specific to his approach.

Yes, if you skim both books, it may seem like they're saying much the same thing, except that Hurst is more readable. But if you read both books carefully, and really think about what they're saying, and in particular what they're advocating about the all-important (hence this thread) attitude of the cyclist, I think you will see that they are recommending radically different attitudes. And different attitudes will lead to different behavior. I think it would be impossible to ride vehicularly if one adopts Hurst's attitude about cycling in traffic.

In my view, vehicular cycling is inherently courteous.

A cyclist who uses the full lane without good reason is being discourteous, and, in my view, is not riding vehicularly.

A cyclist correctly using the full lane, even though it may hold up some traffic for a bit (the delays vehicular cyclists cause can usually be measured in seconds), is no more discourteous than is a driver of bulldozer driving on the street. In other words, not discourteous at all.



Such as when?

If you're holding up a bunch of traffic on a 2-lane road where easy passing is not possible, then the vehicular rules of the road dictate that one should pull out and let faster traffic pass. Sounds pretty courteous to me. On a multilane road this is not required because other lanes can be used to pass you. Of course, if the outside lane is wide enough to be safely shared, then the vehicular cyclist will ride far enough right to allow such sharing.

What's not courteous about vehicular cycling?

Serge

I think we all know what it's like to "hold up traffic for a bit". A lot of motorists these days do not have the patience for even "a bit". What to do? Obstinately assert my right to the road?

I like the idea of pulling over and letting faster traffic pass. Hadn't really ever considered this and never heard mention in a VC context. Thanks. But in the case you mention, if there is a sidewalk available adjacent to the road with long driveways where a motorist may be seen by a cyclist from far away, and with no pedestrian traffic; you honestly maintain you would actually stop and let faster traffic pass than hop on the sidewalk and continue? I have a street I ride with such a sidewalk, and make use of it in some exceptional cases. It is not a business district so Missouri vehicle code allows for sidewalk riding in this case.

Another case where I routinely use a sidewalk for about 50 feet is on a section of 4-lane road with a traffic light at the bottom of a hill and before a steep incline with a Y turn off to my right onto a smaller street, I take the turnoff. When I have the green, I maintain position in the lane. When I have the red, I hop on the sidewalk, cross in the pedestrian crosswalk, and use the sidewalk until my turnoff. Otherwise, starting from a stop in the lane, I creep up the incline while traffic on the inside lane gains speed and passes, but I block traffic in the outer lane until my turnoff. It's much more courteous to just use the sidewalk (again, legally) until my turnoff a short distance ahead, but again, even what I consider "short" is an eternity to the morning rush-hour motorist.

I know this is off the thread, and maybe I'm getting a bit picky here, but that 'even in Spain' is at the very least unnecessary, if not contemptuous.

SORRY! I did not mean to say anything disparaging about Spain!

Countless times I run into people who say something like "Well, VC might work where you live, but it would never work here in {Houston, Portland, New York City, Australia, Holland, Chicago, etc. etc., take your pick}"

I was pleased to see someone here post about successfully adopting VC in Spain. So now people will undoubtedly claim, "Well, VC might work where you live, and in Spain, but it would never work here ...".

Anyway, I'm sure cycling in Spain is wonderful, and VC is no harder to adopt there than any other place in the world where traffic generally follows the vehicular rules of the road (which is everywhere so far as I know).

Serge

Now that is just silly and irresponsible misrepresention. The Hurst book does _NOT_ advocate a constant sense of fear, nor are frequent crashes to be expected-- whatever "frequent" means.

I've read both books. The Hurst book is more to the point, concise and realistic. His outlook is more in line with the challenges of cyclists in dense urban environments. Forester's book is detailed, and does a great job defining and making a case for VC, but there is an undercurrent of inflexible pendantry that really undermines his excellent cause.

I haven't read Forester's book. I've read Hurst's book. I didn't get the impression it tried to distill constant fear. It basically just preached diligence, being alert to your surroundings, and never taking for granted a vehicle is going to see you and/or yield to you. As far as I'm concerned, this is sound advice. Relying on any set routine, no matter how good it is, to keep you safe is not going to keep you safe in all circumstances.

I think we all know what it's like to "hold up traffic for a bit". A lot of motorists these days do not have the patience for even "a bit". What to do? Obstinately assert my right to the road?
I don't think of it as "Obstinately assert my right to the road", but yeah, I guess that's what I do. Let's just say that I'm not going to compromise my safety because some dork can't wait "for a bit". That's their problem, not mine, and they've never made it my problem, and I fully expect they never will. I know I have a right to be there, and my lane position and body language shows it. So far as I can tell, they seem to get it. If they accelerate as they pass me, I choose not to take it personally, nor let it bother me.


I like the idea of pulling over and letting faster traffic pass. Hadn't really ever considered this and never heard mention in a VC context. Thanks.
In CA on a 2-lane road if you're holding up 5 cars or more you are required to pull over.


But in the case you mention, if there is a sidewalk available adjacent to the road with long driveways where a motorist may be seen by a cyclist from far away, and with no pedestrian traffic; you honestly maintain you would actually stop and let faster traffic pass than hop on the sidewalk and continue? I have a street I ride with such a sidewalk, and make use of it in some exceptional cases. It is not a business district so Missouri vehicle code allows for sidewalk riding in this case.
I never use the sidewalk, and my commute includes sections where other cyclists use sidewalks routinely. I pass them.


Another case where I routinely use a sidewalk for about 50 feet is on a section of 4-lane road with a traffic light at the bottom of a hill and before a steep incline with a Y turn off to my right onto a smaller street, I take the turnoff. When I have the green, I maintain position in the lane. When I have the red, I hop on the sidewalk, cross in the pedestrian crosswalk, and use the sidewalk until my turnoff. Otherwise, starting from a stop in the lane, I creep up the incline while traffic on the inside lane gains speed and passes, but I block traffic in the outer lane until my turnoff. It's much more courteous to just use the sidewalk (again, legally) until my turnoff a short distance ahead, but again, even what I consider "short" is an eternity to the morning rush-hour motorist.
How do cement truck drivers affect traffic when they get stuck at the same red light? Do they ride up on the sidewalk in order to be courteous? What about mopeds and scooters?

We will never be treated with respect as vehicle drivers if we don't act like vehicle drivers. We will never act like vehicular drivers until we think and feel like vehicle drivers. We can't think and feel like vehicle drivers if we're riding on sidewalks.

Serge

Relying on any set routine, no matter how good it is, to keep you safe is not going to keep you safe in all circumstances.
Vehicular cycling is not the "set routine" that Hurst and others portray it as.

It is about establishing good and consistent habits though.

Vehicular cycling incorporates vigilance, but does not rely on it.
Hurst's approach is based on vigilance.

A momentary lapse in vigilance can be deadly to the Hurst-style cyclist, and he admits as much, but to the vehicular cyclist, since his habits are to automatically ride visibly and predictably, he's still in good shape with a momentary lapse.

Vehicular cycling is not the "set routine" that Hurst and others portray it as.

It is about establishing good and consistent habits though.

Vehicular cycling incorporates vigilance, but does not rely on it.
Hurst's approach is based on vigilance.

A momentary lapse in vigilance can be deadly to the Hurst-style cyclist, and he admits as much, but to the vehicular cyclist, since his habits are to automatically ride visibly and predictably, he's still in good shape with a momentary lapse.

I didn't get the impression Hurst based his method on vigilance. He points out many of the exact same methods you mentioned, including how to ride like a vehicle, and how to position yourself in a lane to make yourself the most highly visible. He does point out that from his own experience, and the experience of many others have related that accidents quite often happen when minds wander and likely could have been avoided if the rider had been paying attention. A lot of the book details the situations in which a rider is most likely to be involved in an accident, and how to be aware of those situations and how to avoid them.

A momentary lapse in vigilance can be deadly to anyone on the road. It doesn't matter if they are riding a bike or driving a car. I don't think it's safe to say you can follow any particular method and then not worry about letting your mind wander.

When I get around to riding my full review, with excerpts, I will be able to explain better what I mean.


A lot of the book details the situations in which a rider is most likely to be involved in an accident, and how to be aware of those situations and how to avoid them.
Yes, he does detail many situations, and often gets it wrong. From memory, I can give you this one example. Remember where he talks about riding in a bike lane and not noticing a Mercedes pull out in front of him because of being distracted by seeing an attractive woman? I think he (or whomever he's talking about) ran into the side of it.

The lesson he is trying to convey is the importance of being vigilant.

He even notes that he was in what he believes to be the correct lane position, on the outside of the bike lane, because he understands the hazards of bike lanes.

This is all from memory, so I don't remember all the details, but I do remember thinking that what he missed was that he shouldn't even have been in the bike lane at all. There was no same-direction traffic.

Forester, on the other hand, teaches that you should ignore bike lane stripes... decide where to ride independent of the presense of the stripe. Now, you may still end up riding in the bike lane, if the appropriate and safe position happens to be in the bike lane. In this case, he should have been riding in what John Franklin (Cyclecraft) calls the primary riding position - the center of the lane. In fact, Hurst gives some lip service to the same concept, calling it the default position, but while Franklin consistently refers to when, where and why one should use the primary vs. the secondary (off to the side) riding position in all of his examples, Hurst rarely uses the concept, and usually ignores it completely, like he did in this particular example.

The point of Hurst's example was: be more vigilant. Since he does not feel like a vehicle driver, he does not think like one, and so could not even recognize the problem with the cyclist's lane position, and its role in the incident, in his own example.

I don't think of it as "Obstinately assert my right to the road", but yeah, I guess that's what I do. Let's just say that I'm not going to compromise my safety because some dark can't wait "for a bit". That's their problem, not mine, and they've never made it my problem, and I fully expect they never will. I know I have a right to be there, and my lane position and body language shows it. So far as I can tell, they seem to get it.



In CA on a 2-lane road if you're holding up 5 cars or more you are required to pull over.



I never use the sidewalk, and my commute includes sections where other cyclists use sidewalks routinely. I pass them.



How do cement truck drivers affect traffic when they get stuck at the same red light? Do they ride up on the sidewalk in order to be courteous? What about mopeds and scooters?

We will never be treated with respect as vehicle drivers if we don't act like vehicle drivers. We will never act like vehicular drivers until we think and feel like vehicle drivers. We can't think and feel like vehicle drivers if we're riding on sidewalks.

Serge

Hold on. There is a big difference in mass between cement trucks and bicycles. But back to the "act like" principle. "Act like" does not mean "act the same as". The bicycle is a vehicle, agreed? And it has some features in common with other vehicles and others that are unique. Therefore, what is vehicular for a bicycle might not be vehicular for a car, say. Bicycles have the unique ability to operate in narrow spaces, say a sidewalk. And laws allow for their use on the sidewalks. I agree that in general it is not a good idea to ride on the sidwalk, but I'm not so rigid to never ride on the sidewalk given a situation that in my view warrants it, as in the examples given above. Instead of stopping altogether to let fast traffic pass, if the particular sidewalk is safe (eg. good view at intersections and drives, lack of ped traffic), then by all means use it. It is simply making use of the vehicular aspect of bicycles that is unique to the bicycle.

We will never be treated with respect as vehicle drivers if we don't act like vehicle drivers. We will never act like vehicular drivers until we think and feel like vehicle drivers. We can't think and feel like vehicle drivers if we're riding on sidewalks.

Serge

First we are not cement truck drivers... and that makes a huge difference... motorists out there see cement trucks as something painful yet inevitable, they do not give (or feel cyclists deserve) the same rights as others on the road... and they show disrespect for cyclists... and in fact others...

Ran into an interesting very parallel situation over the weekend... Moved a panio in a small truck across town. Maintained 55MPH on freeways where often traffic moved at 70MPH+. The reactions from drivers seemed soooo familiar. It was obvious that we were carrying a heavy load, and climbing some local steep hills. We stayed in the right lane... yet the crowding, close passing and honking were evident of some very rude motorists.

In spite of the fact that we had the right of way, and there was plenty of road... some folks just seem to want to turn "Right of Way" into "My Way is the Right Way." :D .

Oh well.

I think we all know what it's like to "hold up traffic for a bit". A lot of motorists these days do not have the patience for even "a bit". What to do? Obstinately assert my right to the road?...

I pretty much feel the same way. There is place where I hold up traffic for about 20 seconds and another for about 15 seconds. I always feel uncomfortable about it, especially when there is a sidewalk with a bike lane that I consider to be safe (usually no predestrians, no driveways). At these places I always feel the need to sprint as fast as I can to inconvenience traffic as least as possible. I guess it is a bit ironic that in the same way as traffic don't like being inconvenienced by bikers, I don't like being inconvenienced by going off the road.

...The refined VC skill is knowing how to find that "sweet spot" between far enough left to make it clear a within-lane pass is not possible, and not so far left so as to be unnecessarily impeding safe passing...
[/indent]

Interesting concept. Based on what I have read, I have found the following useful with regard to lane positioning in general:
1. Take up 1/3 of the available lane space. I find this useful to prevent me from riding too close to the curb.
2. Ride on the inside tire mark of traffic. Also useful for the same reason as above, but also to make sure you are not riding too far out.
3. Ride as close to the flow of traffic as you feel is safe. This actually makes you more visible to cars at intersections and driveways since that is where they usually look, according to Forrester.

By keeping the above in mind I find this helps me ride in a reasonable lane position.

No, we're not cement truck drivers. Did I ever say we were? Did anything I say depend on the premise that we are cement truck drivers? No. So why do two of you bring it up?

I simply asked whether cement truck drivers affect traffic similarly to the way cyclists affect traffic after stopping at a red light and the proceeding up a steep grade. My point is that it is normal and vehicular for drivers of slower vehicles to hold up faster traffic.

The fact that Gene is bothered by the same types of attitudes when he's holding up traffic while hauling a heavy load in a small pickup is interesting. Get over it. Ignore it.. It's not your problem, it's their problem... why are you bothered by it?

steel_is_real expresses the sentiment of most cyclists regarding delaying traffic: "I always feel uncomfortable about it". This is why attitude has such an important role in traffic cycling. You really have to get over it, and learn to ignore it. You have to believe, deep down, that sometimes, even often, it really is okay to hold up traffic. You have the same right to use the roadway as does any other vehicle driver, and to use them to get to whereever you need to go, however you need to use them to get there. That's what it means to feel like a vehicular driver.


Until you feel like a vehicle driver (which includes feeling comfortable with holding up traffic when necessary to proceed on your route on the roadways), you can't really think in realtime like one.

Until you can think in realtime like a vehicle driver, you cannot truly act like a vehicle driver.

Until you act like a vehicle driver, you are unlikely to be treated like one.

If you can't feel like a vehicle driver until you're treated like one, you're stuck in a vicious circle, because ... go to Step 1.


Serge

First we are not cement truck drivers... and that makes a huge difference... motorists out there see cement trucks as something painful yet inevitable, they do not give (or feel cyclists deserve) the same rights as others on the road... and they show disrespect for cyclists... and in fact others...

Again, I say, so what?

OK, there are motorists out there who don't respect us as vehicle drivers. So what? So what are you recommending we do about it? Capitulate to them and ride like second-class users of the roadway, hopping on and off sidewalks as required to avoid holding up traffic? What are you saying?

What I'm saying is:


I know there are motorists out there who think bicycles don't belong on the road.
I don't care what they think; I know we belong on the road.
If I capitulate to them, I'm just reinforcing their wrong-headed notions.
The more of us that ride vehicularly, the more likely others will get used to it.
If I stand up for my rights, at least I'm doing my part in encouraging others to get accustomed to the idea that cyclists are vehicle drivers with the same rights as drivers of any other vehicle.
What is the alternative?


Serge

Interesting concept. Based on what I have read, I have found the following useful with regard to lane positioning in general:
1. Take up 1/3 of the available lane space. I find this useful to prevent me from riding too close to the curb.
2. Ride on the inside tire mark of traffic. Also useful for the same reason as above, but also to make sure you are not riding too far out.
3. Ride as close to the flow of traffic as you feel is safe. This actually makes you more visible to cars at intersections and driveways since that is where they usually look, according to Forrester.

By keeping the above in mind I find this helps me ride in a reasonable lane position.

Yes, very good, still assuming a lane too narrow to be shared, right?

Of course, in a lane that is wide enough to be shared, often riding about 1 meter (3 feet) to the right of faster traffic works fine.

Well, I'm not fast enough to stake a claim to the center of the lane just because there's no traffic going my way. I stick to the side at all times.

For me the sweet spot is a spot where there's exactly as much space on my right as there is to my left. The boundaries of this space include the curb, parked cars and potential parked cars on one side and traffic or potential traffic on the other. The space I claim shrinks and widens as conditions permit. I only leave this space when absolutely necessary.

Maybe it doesn't meet the Forester standards, but it's a system that has worked well for me and doesn't cause a lot of acrimony with drivers.

Again, I say, so what?

OK, there are motorists out there who don't respect us as vehicle drivers. So what? So what are you recommending we do about it? Capitulate to them and ride like second-class users of the roadway, hopping on and off sidewalks as required to avoid holding up traffic? What are you saying?

What I'm saying is:


I know there are motorists out there who think bicycles don't belong on the road.
I don't care what they think; I know we belong on the road.
If I capitulate to them, I'm just reinforcing their wrong-headed notions.
The more of us that ride vehicularly, the more likely others will get used to it.
If I stand up for my rights, at least I'm doing my part in encouraging others to get accustomed to the idea that cyclists are vehicle drivers with the same rights as drivers of any other vehicle.
What is the alternative?


Serge

The alternative is to define "vehicle" differently for bicycles because, well, bicycles are in fact different than any other vehicle, with some characteristics similar to other vehicles and some characteristics unique. It is the unique characteristics that allow cyclists to ride vehicularly on sidewalks, under given, hopefully infrequent, circumstances. No, that does not mean hopping on and off sidewalks with frequency, but it might mean making use of a sidewalk to avoid backing up traffic in heavy rush hour traffic on a 2-lane street with narrow lanes. This is a valid vehicular alternative to stopping and letting other vehicles pass when 5 or more are backed up, per CA law, for example.

Sure, this is "giving in", but it is also being realistic. We as vehicular cyclists have to realize that we are doing something very, very counter-cultural and we are the minority. As such, we are at a disadvantage. Therefore, we must choose our battles wisely. We can only push the culture so far before individuals start breaking, and then we get hurt, not them.

I watched Ghandi the other night, for the first time, believe it or not. It was great. Unfortunately, I'm no Ghandi. I have a wife, a child, and a mortgage. I can't afford to get hurt on my bike on the way to work. I have to give a little to get a little. I can't afford to ride in the lane at all costs, while the oppressors beat me silly, figuratively speaking. Maybe there are some radicals who can. I'm with you in spirit, but I will take incremental change for the time being.

No, we're not cement truck drivers. Did I ever say we were? Did anything I say depend on the premise that we are cement truck drivers? No. So why do two of you bring it up?

I simply asked whether cement truck drivers affect traffic similarly to the way cyclists affect traffic after stopping at a red light and the proceeding up a steep grade. My point is that it is normal and vehicular for drivers of slower vehicles to hold up faster traffic.

The fact that Gene is bothered by the same types of attitudes when he's holding up traffic while hauling a heavy load in a small pickup is interesting. Get over it. Ignore it.. It's not your problem, it's their problem... why are you bothered by it?

steel_is_real expresses the sentiment of most cyclists regarding delaying traffic: "I always feel uncomfortable about it". This is why attitude has such an important role in traffic cycling. You really have to get over it, and learn to ignore it. You have to believe, deep down, that sometimes, even often, it really is okay to hold up traffic. You have the same right to use the roadway as does any other vehicle driver, and to use them to get to whereever you need to go, however you need to use them to get there. That's what it means to feel like a vehicular driver.


Until you feel like a vehicle driver (which includes feeling comfortable with holding up traffic when necessary to proceed on your route on the roadways), you can't really think in realtime like one.

Until you can think in realtime like a vehicle driver, you cannot truly act like a vehicle driver.

Until you act like a vehicle driver, you are unlikely to be treated like one.

If you can't feel like a vehicle driver until you're treated like one, you're stuck in a vicious circle, because ... go to Step 1.


Serge


I was not bothered by it, I noticed it and just stated that some motorists tended to show the same stupid selfish attitudes... Perhaps if I had been driving a large U-Haul, they would have treated me as a cement truck... It was an interesting insight. It was not cyclists they were pissed off at... it was the perception that I was slowing them down, or using their road or whatever... and there was plenty of other road for them to use. It indeed was not my problem... it was theirs. Yet they did not deal with it well.

It was just interesting to note that some drivers seem to have a hangup about trying to control others rather than simply plan for the actual road conditions. Ever see someone tailgate another driver for long distances, in spite of the adjacent lane being very usable?

Some folks seemed to be wired in some odd way in that they just cannot deal with ANYONE slowing them up, even though you are not in fact really effecting their timeline... they are oddly possessive about "their space."

On the other hand, saw a great example of VC working over the weekend too.

There were 6 of us on a bridge where motorists were coming off the freeway and merging through us while other motorists were merging across us onto the freeway... typical CA merging lane... busy traffic... really pretty heavy. (805@Clairemont... if you know SD) Riding in the right tire track, just out of the merge lane... in this vast sea of asphalt... darn slowly, it worked for the most part... motorists simply went around on either side of us toward their destinations. Except for one... she just did not know what to do. She paralleled the cyclists with her blinker on and just kept her speed and position. But at the same time she was a barrier to us. No amount of signalling would get her to just get on with it. It then suddenly became obvious what the solution was... just fall back and get behind her... suddenly she had ROW and went on. She was hung up on being careful to be nice to the cyclists, and lost all contact with her goal... simply making it obvious that we were going straight and wanted to continue to use that part of the road made it very easy for her to resolve.

She was not abusive or mad or arrogant, just confused and trying to be nice, but exacerbating the situation rather than simply dealing with it as she might with other motorists. (BTW, in case any one asks... there were no bike lanes involved in any way... :rolleyes: )

The only problem I have with Serge's constant message: "You have the same right to use the roadway as does any other vehicle driver." While quite true, there are motorists that do not believe that you have any rights, and will act accordingly. Yes, they are few and far between, and probably will not actually hurt you... But these jerks can sure make you uncomfortable. Whether they do it out of stupidity or arrogance I don't know, but their actions to a cyclist are similar to the actions of some to a small truck loaded with piano. :D

...steel_is_real expresses the sentiment of most cyclists regarding delaying traffic: "I always feel uncomfortable about it". This is why attitude has such an important role in traffic cycling. You really have to get over it, and learn to ignore it.


BTW, to me it has nothing to do with being on a bike, I would feel the same way if I held up traffic in my car!

The only problem I have with Serge's constant message: "You have the same right to use the roadway as does any other vehicle driver." While quite true, there are motorists that do not believe that you have any rights, and will act accordingly. Yes, they are few and far between, and probably will not actually hurt you... But these jerks can sure make you uncomfortable. Whether they do it out of stupidity or arrogance I don't know, but their actions to a cyclist are similar to the actions of some to a small truck loaded with piano.
Again, Gene, so what? Whether it's out of ignorance or arrogance that they don't believe we have the same rights, are you recommending we act like we don't have the same rights? If not, then what's the problem that you have with my constant message: "You have the same right to use the roadway as does any other vehicle driver."

Again, I say, so what?

OK, there are motorists out there who don't respect us as vehicle drivers. So what? So what are you recommending we do about it? Capitulate to them and ride like second-class users of the roadway, hopping on and off sidewalks as required to avoid holding up traffic? What are you saying?

What I'm saying is:


I know there are motorists out there who think bicycles don't belong on the road.
I don't care what they think; I know we belong on the road.
If I capitulate to them, I'm just reinforcing their wrong-headed notions.
The more of us that ride vehicularly, the more likely others will get used to it.
If I stand up for my rights, at least I'm doing my part in encouraging others to get accustomed to the idea that cyclists are vehicle drivers with the same rights as drivers of any other vehicle.
What is the alternative?


Serge


Thanks... that really was my point...

First, I would not suggest riding on sidewalks... I ride at 20MPH+ on flats, so that doesn't make sense. I maintain 15MPH + average normally... so sidwalks are just out. But not all riders ride like this, nor will they ever, but they can still use a bicycle.

And why does speed matter, you will ask... because speed and confidence convey that often quoted need: Predictibility. You have stated that confidence and predictiblity allow you to deal with motorists as a peer... Other cyclists may never be able to exude that "ATTITUDE." Period.

I do agree generally with VC riding... I don't however think that it works all the time for all riders, due to the attitudes of some isolated motorists... and the fact that some riders will not try to "stand up for their rights," it simply is not in their nature." While it works for you and I, and others, there are folks that are intimidated by trying to ride in that manner... Such as "Betty" in my Road One class... she did not believe that one could ride in heavy merging traffic. While she did it, I doubt that she would ever do it on her own.

For these folks, some form of alternative road design may be a better solution, just as side streets and quiet comfortable residential streets are good for beginning riders.

But "side streets" do not exist to enable connections to all locations...

For these folks, Bike Lanes such along steep climbing roads, offer the ability for the slower traffic (like on a mountain grade) to have their own lane. For these folks, a clearly defined Blue Lane may be the best way to cross that busy merging intersection.

Now clearly these BL are not for all riders, (and laws should support that option) and what I just pointed out is for the isolated instances where bad road design or geography call for some special handling... Other instances might be where the roadway is a 45-55MPH densely used road for motorists, and merging cyclists (while possible) may find the task extremely difficult (such as noisebeam's AZ urban hiways).

Just don't through all the BL "out with the bathwater... "

Again, Gene, so what? Whether it's out of ignorance or arrogance that they don't believe we have the same rights, are you recommending we act like we don't have the same rights? If not, then what's the problem that you have with my constant message: "You have the same right to use the roadway as does any other vehicle driver."

Because that clearly puts the 200 LB cyclist in confict with the 4000 LB jerk that will ultimatly win.

There are times when you may have to give way no matter how much you know you are right... yet you seem to deny that. Be flexible enough to recognize that and wise enough to know the difference.

We as vehicular cyclists have to realize that we are doing something very, very counter-cultural and we are the minority. As such, we are at a disadvantage.
This, in a nutshell, is the cyclist inferiority complex that John Forester keeps writing and talking about.

And, by the way, we as vehicular cyclists do not have to realize this at all.

And what the heck do you mean by this: "We can only push the culture so far before individuals start breaking, and then we get hurt, not them."


I have a wife, a child, and a mortgage. I can't afford to get hurt on my bike on the way to work.
Me too. That's why I ride vehicularly, and why I ride vehicularly when I'm riding the tandem with my wife, and our daughter in tow in the trailer.

Bill, with your references to Ghandi, "battles", and "oppressors beat me silly", you obviously view riding in traffic as some kind of war-like situation. I see it as a cooperative system. When I behave reasonably and cooperatively, I am treated reasonably and cooperatively.

Serge

This Hurst vs Forrester thing, we can argue until we're blue in the face about it. What we need is some empirical evidence to show which is safer. And I don't see that happening any time soon. Also, why can't they both be good? Sure, one may be safer than the other but they are both probably safer than someone who goes out there without reading anything at all. I would say read both, and pick the one that you think works for you.

This, in a nutshell, is the cyclist inferiority complex that John Forester keeps writing and talking about.

And, by the way, we as vehicular cyclists do not have to realize this at all.
When I behave reasonably and cooperatively, I am treated reasonably and cooperatively.

Serge
I also don't have any problem being a slower vehicle, I don't feel inferior. I do enjoy my rights to the road. I've been tailgated (about 2ft behind me) for a 3/4mi stretch by a jacked up pickup who was honking about every 10-15 seconds. I ignored them and laughed to myself as every other vehicle on this stretch simply passes me in the other same direction lane.

BUT - I do have concern about my safety. As a slower vehicle riding in the center of the right lane or on the right tire track, I do get passed closely, brushed on occasion, or on rare occasion harrassed as above example.

I also wonder about getting rear ended - yes the stats are that this is unlikely, but I have been rear ended on the same streets I ride while driving an SUV slowing to make a right turn with the right turn signal on well before turn (guy thought he could speed up and pass me in gap to his left, but misjudged). I have been in a city bus that was rear ended (corner cliped by suddenly swerving passing car) as it was slowing to a bus stop. My friend was in a city bus that was fully stopped and rear ended by a car going 45mph (car was totalled, bus riders felt a mild jolt) So isn't my fear of being rear ended as a vehicle going 25mph in a 50mph zone real or is it a personality complex?

Al

I had a nice time thinking and acting vehicularly on an organized 100km ride this weekend. Much of the course was on two-way single-lane roads with a narrow shoulder ("bike ghetto" as someone's tagline here says). Many of the riders were riding on the line or squeezing into the shoulder. I kept the "right tire track" motto in my head and the behavior of the cars was exactly as VC predicts: they realized it would be impossible to squeeze past me in the lane, so they performed an ordinary passing maneuver into the oncoming lane. Although sometimes it took the drivers over a double yellow, they universally (even the ones in big trucks) did the right thing -- because it was also the obvious thing.

Bonus, I missed four or five big piles of glass that my shoulder-riding comrades had to dodge.

Although sometimes it took the drivers over a double yellow, they universally (even the ones in big trucks) did the right thing -- because it was also the obvious thing.
Yes! Exactly! Because it was also the obvious thing. People often try to claim that motorists must be trained about vehicular cycling for VC to work. That's wrong. No motorist training is required. What to do is with a cyclist riding vehicularly is obvious. I get complements from motorists for riding so "professionaly". They like it, because, for once, when they see me they know what I'm doing and why, which all too often is not at all obvious with most cyclists.


Bonus, I missed four or five big piles of glass that my shoulder-riding comrades had to dodge.
Yes, that's a much overlooked bonus of vehicular cycling.

...

Road rash is a precious gift. Road rash is your friend.
Bask in it, appreciate it, love it. Above all, learn from it.


Road rash is a precious gift? Learn from it? Uh thanks, but I'd rather learn first and avoid the road rash in the first place. That's my approach. That's Forester's approach. Hurst is all about learning from the school of hard knocks. Quite possibly because he's incapable of learning from the school of study and hard thinking.
...



Road rash means you crashed. It means that an accident occured that was your fault _or_ at least partly your fault. Note that there is no mention made of how the road rash occured. If you have road rash, it most likely means you did something wrong and you should take a good hard look at what happened. In that sense it is very much a "gift".

You can pretend you never had (or will never get) road rash as much as you want, but all cyclists will get road rash at some point. Some more often than others. I get the feeling that some of you VC'ers would be the last people on earth to take any blame in the event of an accident because you have the "I was cycling vechicularly" excuse.

My point is if you get road rash, you should consider yourself lucky, even if you practice "vehicular cycling".

I don't have the book with me, or I would cite numerous excerpts that would establish my point. But if I recall correctly, the last line in the book is a good place to start. Anyone got it handy?
...


Sorry, I had to break up my response to your overly verbose posting.

Here is the last paragraphy from Hurst's book:


... Good luck out there, fellow cyclists. Keep your eyes open, your heads up, and the rubber side down. Be considerate to other road users, especially the non-cyclists, poor fellows. Ride with fear and joy.


I guess you can take that in a number of ways, depending on how pedantic you are. I can imagine your take on it, helmet head.

My interpretation, based on the preceeding paragraphs in the epilogue, is that he means the streets can be dangerous for cyclists. Whatever the theory of traffic design says, the implementation and actual functioning of many streets _are_ hostile to cyclists. If you don't have some amount of fear, you are fooling yourself. I think this is true regardless of how the cyclist handles the road.

In other words, a cyclist has to have a much more cautious "attitude" than a motorist. The stakes are much higher for a cyclist. The canonical "I am a vehicle" attitude that you are pushing on us is of limited utility in real-world situations.

....
What I'm saying is:


I know there are motorists out there who think bicycles don't belong on the road.
I don't care what they think; I know we belong on the road.
If I capitulate to them, I'm just reinforcing their wrong-headed notions.
The more of us that ride vehicularly, the more likely others will get used to it.
If I stand up for my rights, at least I'm doing my part in encouraging others to get accustomed to the idea that cyclists are vehicle drivers with the same rights as drivers of any other vehicle.
What is the alternative?





The alternative is not to be so persnickety about rules and things like "vehicular" attitude. You VC'ers should embrace people like Hurst. You should be glad for organizations like "transportation alternatives" in NYC for fighting long and hard to make manhattan bridges accessible to cyclists.

Basically, all I hear from the purist VC camp is a lot of nagging and very little results. Meanwhile, bike paths and bike lanes are popping up everywhere. At some point you have to accept reality.

Yes! Exactly! Because it was also the obvious thing. People often try to claim that motorists must be trained about vehicular cycling for VC to work. That's wrong. No motorist training is required. What to do is with a cyclist riding vehicularly is obvious. I get complements from motorists for riding so "professionaly". They like it, because, for once, when they see me they know what I'm doing and why, which all too often is not at all obvious with most cyclists.


What to do is only obvious if the motorist doesn't believe you do not belong on the road.

But what about the flip side... when motorists honk... Would they do the same thing to another motorist... such as that cement truck... under the same circumstances? Or is that illustrative of a motorist trying to claim more space than really belongs to him? What message didn't the motorist get... what are they trying to convey?

Why would a motorist honk at a road using peer?

Today there were two instances where motorists honked that I noticed. One I observed from the left turn lane... and I was not involved in any way. A group of middle school children were crossing the road with a walk sign... a motorist was making a left turn across the crosswalk and came up to the walkers and honked... what gave him the right, what was he trying to convey? Clearly the pedestrians had the ROW and yet this driver felt they were impeding him... he finished the left turn and the walk sign started blinking.

As I was riding home, down a 4 lane road (two either way), I took the right hand lane due to a number of freeway on ramps and off ramps that converge in one particular area and quite a bit of broken road surface (potholes). There were two vehicles behind me, both in the left lane. An impatient motorist in an older Cadillac that was in the left lane, moved past a smaller red vehicle and into my lane... then came up behind me and honked... There were two lanes, they were the only vehicles on that part of the road. And yet this motorist felt that I was somehow blocking his way... BTW there was no way for me to move, as I was merging with traffic coming off the freeway in about 50 feet. Yet this motorist felt that I was impeding him.

Why... He did not honk at the red car to get them to move... no, he honked at the cyclist. Why?

This, in a nutshell, is the cyclist inferiority complex that John Forester keeps writing and talking about.

And, by the way, we as vehicular cyclists do not have to realize this at all.

And what the heck do you mean by this: "We can only push the culture so far before individuals start breaking, and then we get hurt, not them."



Me too. That's why I ride vehicularly, and why I ride vehicularly when I'm riding the tandem with my wife, and our daughter in tow in the trailer.

Bill, with your references to Ghandi, "battles", and "oppressors beat me silly", you obviously view riding in traffic as some kind of war-like situation. I see it as a cooperative system. When I behave reasonably and cooperatively, I am treated reasonably and cooperatively.

Serge

No, it's not an inferiority complex, it is a reality complex. I'm just stating the truth. Cyclists use vehicles that are smaller and slower. Therefore, when you suggest that cyclists should "act like" drivers of other vehicles, "act like" needs to be qualified to refer to the special definition of bicycle-vehicle, which is different from car-vehicle or cement-truck-vehicle. Bicycles have unique vehicle characteristics that allow them to be used in areas that cars and other heavier vehicles cannot. This is a distinct advantage.

For example. For several years, I insisted obstinately to ride my bicycle like a car in a shared right/straight lane. According to my limited definition of a bicycle, I took the entire lane and made larger vehicles wait behind me. I suffered for asserting my right. A motorist finally got fed up, left their van, and physically attacked me. Then after discussing the situation on this board, you among others suggested that I bias left and let cars make the right! What a novel idea. Cars do not have the unique ability to shift laterally several inches to let other vehicles pass. I doubt if motorcycles are light enough either. But, a 20 lb bicycle is no problem to shift left and right from a stopped position. What a wonderful thing! Now I operate my bicycle at that intersection like a little gate, directing traffic with it. Couldn't do that with a car.

The same principle applies to high-traffic situations with narrow lanes and an available sidewalk with few or no pedestrians, wide range of vision and a steep uphill. I have such a street on my commute. When it is heavy traffic, and I would back up traffic behind me, I argue the correct vehicular move is to use the sidewalk, and take advantage of the unique characteristic of the bicycle to operate safely in a narrow space. I'm not saying cyclists should regularly use the sidewalk, but I don't see how anyone can say categorically that vehicular cyclists should never use the sidewalk.

What I mean by "individuals breaking" is exactly what I described the guy in the van who attacked me. I'm talking about losing it emotionally and acting out in road rage. You might say that is entirely their fault. I'm saying there are certain actions on the part of the cyclist that provokes such rage. We have to take responsibility for actions that are interpreted as provocation in the current culture.

Today I observed a beer truck barreling down on me, flashing his lights at me. He clearly wanted me to pull right and stay out of his way. I was already to the right, but there were parked cars so I was not hugging the curb.

To avoid becomming road kill, I had to pull behind a parked car at the last minute because it was clear he wasn't going to allow me my rightful right of way, even if he had to prove it to me. Odd thing was as soon as he passed me he got into the left lane.

Seems confidence and lane position aren't much match for a speeding beer truck intent on telling you who's boss.

Cyclists use vehicles that are smaller and slower. Therefore, when you suggest that cyclists should "act like" drivers of other vehicles, "act like" needs to be qualified to refer to the special definition of bicycle-vehicle, which is different from car-vehicle or cement-truck-vehicle. Bicycles have unique vehicle characteristics that allow them to be used in areas that cars and other heavier vehicles cannot. This is a distinct advantage.

Bill, I wish we could go for a ride together... I think it would be interesting to talk to you in person. There was a time when I traveled for work, and went to St. Louis quite a few times (account at Southwestern Bell). Anyway...

Please understand. I agree with everything you said in this quote, as does Forester, so far as I know. I'm frustrated why you and others feel it's salient to the discussion to point out that bicycles are different from cars, as if vehicular cycling ignores that rather obvious fact.

Vehicular cycling is not based on the premise that a bicycle is the same type of vehicle as a car or cement truck, just as vehicular driving is not based on the premise that a motorcycle is the same type of vehicle as a car or cement truck. Remember, the meaning of vehicular cycling is cycling where the cyclist rides in accordance to the vehicular rules of the road. The vehicular rules take into account not only differences in physical and operating characteristics of vehicles, but differences in styles of driving by different operators.

For a cyclist to "act like" a vehicle driver, does not mean to "act like" a car driver, cement truck driver, or even a motorcycle driver, certainly not in all or perhaps not even in most instances. It means to act like a vehicular bicycle driver, as opposed to acting like a non-vehicular bicycle rider.

Yes, bicycles are narrow, like motorcycles, and low-powered, like a horse and buggy. All cyclists, including vehicular cyclists, take these characteristics into account when riding, just like all drivers take into account the particular characteristics of whatever vehicle they are driving. Vehicular cyclists take into account these characteristics, and take advantage of them, but still do so in accordance to the vehicular rules of the road. Riding vehicularly and taking into account/taking advantage of the slow/narrow characteristics of a bicycle are not mutually exclusive concepts.


I don't see how anyone can say categorically that vehicular cyclists should never use the sidewalk.
No one does. Even Forester says he use a sidewalk on occasion. Even I do. Now, whether I would use one to not impede fast traffic on a roadway with a narrow outside lane... I doubt it. Perhaps I've done so in the past, but I know I haven't since I adopted vehicular cycling. It just doesn't feel right, and, you can't ride as fast on the sidewalk.

Most importanly, why should a cyclist give up his right to the roadway in order to facilitate faster travel by others? And what is the message conveyed if he does? Do you think motorists who see a cyclist riding on the sidewalk are thankful and respectful of his decision? I doubt it. I don't think sidewalk riding enhances our reputation. If anything, it enforces the notion that bicycles don't belong in vehicular traffic. On the other hand, cycling according to the vehicular rules might not help us gain respect with everyone, but where it does make a difference, I think it can only help.

We will never be treated like vehicle drivers as long as we don't act like vehicle drivers.
We will not act like vehicle drivers until we think in realtime like vehicle drivers.
We cannot think in realtime like vehicle drivers unless we see ourselves as vehicle drivers, and feel like a vehicle drivers.

When we're riding on sidewalks we're not acting like vehicle drivers.
We cannot see ourselves as vehicle drivers, we cannot feel like vehicle drivers, while riding on a sidewalk.

There are exceptions, of course. Al cyclists, including vehicular cyclists, switch to pedestrian mode from time to time (some more often than others), for various reasons. lLike you're on the wrong side of the road and only need to go a short distance, or your destination is three doors up from the corner on a busy arterial, or you just couldn't work out that merge to the left turn only lane in fast/busy traffic, etc. But I don't think avoiding slowing down traffic is a good reason to switch from vehicular to pedestrian mode. Use the full narrow lane, ride in the right tire track to allow partial sharing of the lane, but tfar enough left to make it clear that a full within-lane pass is unsafe.

Serge

Bill, I wish we could go for a ride together... I think it would be interesting to talk to you in person. There was a time when I traveled for work, and went to St. Louis quite a few times (account at Southwestern Bell). Anyway...

Please understand. I agree with everything you said in this quote, as does Forester, so far as I know. I'm frustrated why you and others feel it's salient to the discussion to point out that bicycles are different from cars, as if vehicular cycling ignores that rather obvious fact.

Vehicular cycling is not based on the premise that a bicycle is the same type of vehicle as a car or cement truck, just as vehicular driving is not based on the premise that a motorcycle is the same type of vehicle as a car or cement truck. Remember, the meaning of vehicular cycling is cycling where the cyclist rides in accordance to the vehicular rules of the road. The vehicular rules take into account not only differences in physical and operating characteristics of vehicles, but differences in styles of driving by different operators.

For a cyclist to "act like" a vehicle driver, does not mean to "act like" a car driver, cement truck driver, or even a motorcycle driver, certainly not in all or perhaps not even in most instances. It means to act like a vehicular bicycle driver, as opposed to acting like a non-vehicular bicycle rider.

Yes, bicycles are narrow, like motorcycles, and low-powered, like a horse and buggy. All cyclists, including vehicular cyclists, take these characteristics into account when riding, just like all drivers take into account the particular characteristics of whatever vehicle they are driving. But we should all still operate according to the vehicular rules of the road.



No one does. Even Forester says he use a sidewalk on occasion. Even I do. Now, whether I would use one to not impede fast traffic on a roadway with a narrow outside lane... I doubt it. Perhaps I've done so in the past, but I know I haven't since I adopted vehicular cycling. It just doesn't feel right, and, you can't ride as fast on the sidewalk.

Most importanly, why should a cyclist give up his right to the roadway in order to facilitate faster travel by others? And what is the message conveyed if he does? Do you think motorists who see a cyclist riding on the sidewalk are thankful and respectful of his decision? I doubt it. I don't think sidewalk riding enhances our reputation. If anything, it enforces the notion that bicycles don't belong in vehicular traffic. On the other hand, cycling according to the vehicular rules might not help us gain respect with everyone, but where it does make a difference, I think it can only help.

We will never be treated like vehicle drivers as long as we don't act like vehicle drivers.
We will not act like vehicle drivers until we think in realtime like vehicle drivers.
We cannot think in realtime like vehicle drivers unless we see ourselves as vehicle drivers, and feel like a vehicle drivers.

When we're riding on sidewalks we're not acting like vehicle drivers.
We cannot see ourselves as vehicle drivers, we cannot feel like vehicle drivers, while riding on a sidewalk.

There are exceptions, of course. Al cyclists, including vehicular cyclists, switch to pedestrian mode from time to time (some more often than others), for various reasons. lLike you're on the wrong side of the road and only need to go a short distance, or your destination is three doors up from the corner on a busy arterial, or you just couldn't work out that merge to the left turn only lane in fast/busy traffic, etc. But I don't think avoiding slowing down traffic is a good reason to switch from vehicular to pedestrian mode. Use the full narrow lane, ride in the right tire track to allow partial sharing of the lane, but tfar enough left to make it clear that a full within-lane pass is unsafe.

Serge

Our positions are not far apart. In fact, probably identical in theory, the only difference in application. Sounds like we see the bicycle as vehicle the same way. But the difference comes in the logical extension of that view. Cyclists already give up their right to the roadway to allow faster vehicles to drive fast, riding to the right for example. There is already a principle of slower traffic to the right. In some cases, the sidewalk is on the right, free of pedestrians, and with a wide view of driveways and intersecting streets, which are the main hazards of cycling on the sidewalk. Add to that an uphill and heavy traffic, I may start taking the sidewalk in this case. Will I lose the respect of motorists? I doubt it. 99% of the time I'm in the street. Now if I rode on the sidewalk 99% of the time, I could see the problem. All I'm arguing is for a little flexibility in practice, based on the same notion of the uniqueness of the bicycle-vehicle.

In reality, sidewalk riding is part of the development of every cyclist. I have a 7-year old and he rides the streets around our house because there are no sidewalks. But on the busy streets with fast heavy traffic, he better be on the sidewalk or not ride there at all, and take special care in crossing at intersections. We ride together and talk about that all the time. Similarly, adult cyclists who are new to vehicular cycling should not ride outside their comfort zone. Usually, this involves some sidewalk riding at a very, very slow pace, much much slower than you or I would be comfortable with. Should we push them out into traffic on the notion that they will gain more respect for cycling as a movement? Or deride them for their sidewalk riding? No. Let them ride the sidewalk until they feel confident enough to venture on small streets, then bigger streets, pretty soon they are riding the big streets. But once a cyclist reaches that point of development, maybe there should be the flexibility and wisdom to realize we ride our bicycles in a transportation culture that is mostly hostile to slow, small vehicles. That we have an unwritten contract with motorists. And part of that contract is not to slow them down "unnecessarily". So even though we have reached an advanced level of riding, we should give up some of that progress so that motorists as whole can catch up. Not sure if I am making sense, but just trying to work out the fine points in my personal philosophy of vehicular cycling.

Today I observed a beer truck barreling down on me, flashing his lights at me. He clearly wanted me to pull right and stay out of his way. I was already to the right, but there were parked cars so I was not hugging the curb.

To avoid becomming road kill, I had to pull behind a parked car at the last minute because it was clear he wasn't going to allow me my rightful right of way, even if he had to prove it to me. Odd thing was as soon as he passed me he got into the left lane.

Seems confidence and lane position aren't much match for a speeding beer truck intent on telling you who's boss.

I assume you saw him coming in your mirror?

In any case, I would have moved a foot or so to the LEFT, to make it clear I wasn't going to give up my rightful right of way, and he could only take it from me over my dead body, literally. Nothing gets you respect, even from a homocidal maniac, like assertively putting your life on the line. I know of no, zero, nada, cases where a motorist intentionally hit a cyclist. Is it possible? Sure, anything is possible. But some things are so improbable that it makes sense to assume it's simply not going to happen. I'm willing to make that assumption about motorists knowingly hitting cyclists. Are you?

Drivers are like sheep. Act like the shepherd, and they will follow.

Serge

No offense but that's terrible advice. There's a place to be assertive and there is a place not to be. Usually that is up to personal judgement at that place and at that time.

That situation above imho, qualifies as let the ******* go. I honestly don't want to die for something as simple as moving over to the right for some maniac. Your death would be meaningless and useless at the same time.

At most you'll get a short paragraph, "Cyclist crushed under truck". With all the other media stereotypes and, put-the-blame-on-the-cyclist type reporting.

I know of no, zero, nada, cases where a motorist intentionally hit a cyclist.

Really? You better read up fast, because if you keep up your line of reasoning you'll be a dead man. I mean that in a good way. There are people out there who are crazy enough to intentionally want to hit you, just because you are out there.

Here's one http://www.compfused.com/directlink/772/
Yeah their motorbikes, but the point is there are those people crazy enough to want to hurt/kill you.

Yes, I saw him in my mirror. Recumbent riders must use mirrors to see behind. We cannot turn our bodies to see behind. Not much anyway.

There's no way I'll do what you suggest. I wasn't going to move at all, until I realized at the last moment it might be worth my life to lunge toward the curb.

I know of no, zero, nada, cases where a motorist intentionally hit a cyclist. Is it possible? Sure, anything is possible.
Serge

Not to get into the dodging rocks mode... etc, but...

Frankly how do you KNOW that this has not happened? "I just didn't see the cyclist..."

Seems to me that anyone that might have been hit in this manner isn't telling their side of the story...

This just seems to another one of your "absolutes."

I will clearly admit that the odds of it happening have got to be close to the odds of winning the lottery... but damn man... some isolated road or similar condition and this has "never" happened? (or at least no one has told you... but of course, how could they... ) :rolleyes:

I will clearly admit that the odds of it happening have got to be close to the odds of winning the lottery... but damn man... some isolated road or similar condition and this has "never" happened? (or at least no one has told you... but of course, how could they... ) :rolleyes:

The odds are much better than that.

The odds are much better than that.

The odds of it happening? Kinda odd semantically... how are you defining "better?"

... some isolated road or similar condition and this has "never" happened? (or at least no one has told you... but of course, how could they... )
Dead men tell no tales...