I think the main tenet of VC is to occupy the entire thread... duh, sorry... lane
lol :)

Agreed, HH, prior to every intersection, a 'most visible' postioning coupled with clear directional signalling can save a cyclist a lot of hassle or worse. I've taken to indicating my straight aheads, or angling, slight turns to opposing traffic (as well as traffic behind) with my hand and finger and right-of-way eye contact'. Pointing to my direction if it is unclear to drivers opposite to me my intent.

This will be from the middle of the lane, bike lane, wherever.

However, I digress. If we all got togther and rode Rainier Ave S I surmise many of us here would be riding with a bike lane bias because they are right in that biking sweet spot on Rainier, with well designed roadway accomodations for bicyclists. HH, and noisy, if you guys wanted to ride in the traffic lane all the time, i guess I would consider that a little strange. and stupid, actually.

what is a VC
A vehicular cyclist is a bicyclist who rides according to the vehicular rules of the road. That's fairly simple although it means slightly different things to different people.

The meaning of 'VC' is not so simple. To some it may mean, simply, vehicular cycling, although I think that's the minority opinion. To a significant extent, the term VC is associated with a number of social, psychological and political theories that have nothing to do with riding style. Many bicyclists ride vehicularly but reject many of the theories associated with 'VC' and, therefore, reject the VC label.

On these forums, the term 'VC' has become a kind of lightening rod. Unless you want to start the kind of mindless debate that is all to common a feature of these forums, I would avoid it. The abbreviation 'VC' is flame bait, especially if capitalized. The easiest way to talk about vehicular cycling without starting a flame war is to spell it out: "vehicular cycling". That doesn't seem to have the negative connotations that 'VC' does.

Since the OP asks where a VC would ride, the question is not directed it me. Assuming it was a serious question, I will make a guess at where I would ride although, to a certain extent, it's difficult to say since I've never actually seen the road in question. (Or, as they are fond of saying on another forum, YHTBT (you had to be there)).

If the road is how I understand it to be, with a sufficient buffer zone between parked cars and the BL, I'd ride in the BL.

There are a number of reasons I might leave the BL. Among these reasons would be to make myself more visible (although I'd probably be visible enough in a BL like the one described).

No, I don't have any proof that I'm more visible farther to the left. I base that belief on common sense and experience. I evaluate every situation individually based on a number of factors. Mostly, I weigh the risk of changing lane position against the expectation that I will be more visible if I do.

Even if I do leave the BL, what I do could not be accurately described as 'swerving'. I don't call it 'DLLP', or any other such gobbledy-gook, either. I call it trying to be more visible. My 'primary position' is with my rear end on the seat. To answer a question posed in the OP, where I like to position my bicycle is between my body and the ground.

A vehicular cyclist is a bicyclist who rides according to the vehicular rules of the road. That's fairly simple although it means slightly different things to different people.

The meaning of 'VC' is not so simple. To some it may mean, simply, vehicular cycling, although I think that's the minority opinion. To a significant extent, the term VC is associated with a number of social, psychological and political theories that have nothing to do with riding style. Many bicyclists ride vehicularly but reject many of the theories associated with 'VC' and, therefore, reject the VC label.

On these forums, the term 'VC' has become a kind of lightening rod. Unless you want to start the kind of mindless debate that is all to common a feature of these forums, I would avoid it. The abbreviation 'VC' is flame bait, especially if capitalized. The easiest way to talk about vehicular cycling without starting a flame war is to spell it out: "vehicular cycling". That doesn't seem to have the negative connotations that 'VC' does.
Thats a good point JRA. I guess I fall into the vehicular cyclist category. I just do it cause its safest for me and it works. However as the politics go I do wish more cyclists around here did it as it would help improve the perception that cyclists may use the street and may use the full lane where appropriate. But all this stuff about how one gets labled for being a proponent of v.c. actually goes over my head sometimes, I don't get it.

Al

Every discipline has its terminology. The other day I heard a money guy on the radio compare two alternatives and descibed one as coming "off the top". He did not stop and explain all he benefits of being able to invest pretaxed income. That was implied by the term "off the top".

I don't understand why so many forum members here appear to be averse to using specific "gobbledy-gook" terms to refer to specific concepts in traffic cycling.

Every discipline has its terminology. The other day I heard a money guy on the radio compare two alternatives and descibed one as coming "off the top". He did not stop and explain all he benefits of being able to invest pretaxed income. That was implied by the term "off the top".

I don't understand why so many forum members here appear to be averse to using specific "gobbledy-gook" terms to refer to specific concepts in traffic cycling.

The difference between terminology and "gobbledy gook" is acceptance. It is not enough to simply coin a phrase and get it accepted as terminology. It takes the acceptance of others.

To form that acceptance, one needs to be respected as an "expert." I doubt there are any true "experts" on vehicular cycling with enough credibility to start coining terminology. Certainly none on this forum.

Every discipline has its terminology.It's called jargon.

And it's not necessarily a good thing.

Here are some of the definitions of jargon in my Webster's unabridged dictionary:

4. the specialized vocabulary and idioms of those involved in the same work... a somewhat derogatory term implying unintelligibility.
1. confused, unintelligible talk or language; gabble; gibberish.

I question the need for a lot of special terminology.

The purpose of language is to communicate. As often as not, a specialized vocabulary gets in the way of communication. The English language is quite good enough for most purposes.

Brian makes a good point about acceptance.

The difference between terminology and "gobbledy gook" is acceptance. It is not enough to simply coin a phrase and get it accepted as terminology. It takes the acceptance of others.

To form that acceptance, one needs to be respected as an "expert." I doubt there are any true "experts" on vehicular cycling with enough credibility to start coining terminology. Certainly none on this forum.
Bruce Rosar? Stephen Goodridge? LCI_Brian? Do I need to go on? These guys are not vc experts? Would you know a VC expert if you encountered one? And not to toot my own horn, but I wrote much of the Wiki article on VC which you have acknowledged is a fair representation.

At any rate, it is common practice in writing to define terms and use them consistently within the context of what is being written. You don't have to be an expert in the field, or achieve wide acceptance to employ this technique. I think you'd be hard pressed to find anything written of any significant length that does not use this technique to at least some extent, especially when the writer is trying to convey original concepts.

Just as two relevant example, consider John Franklin's primary riding position and Robert Hurst's default position terms. Both are used to refer to the same concept in their respective books. Neither is widely accepted.

In computer programming, it's common practice to package a set of instructions that you find yourself using repeatedly into a subroutine. That way, instead of repeating the same set of instructions every time you need to perform a particular task, instead you just invoke the subroutine. That's how terms are used in writing. If you find yourself referring to the same concept over and over, instead of describing the entire conscept anew each time you need to refer to it, it's easier to define it once, give it a name, or term, and then refer to the concept by using this term instead of repeating the entire concept each time. Call such term creation gobbledy-gook if you want, but it's a commonly used and highly effective writing technique.

It's called jargon.

And it's not necessarily a good thing.

Here are some of the definitions of jargon in my Webster's unabridged dictionary:

4. the specialized vocabulary and idioms of those involved in the same work... a somewhat derogatory term implying unintelligibility.
1. confused, unintelligible talk or language; gabble; gibberish.

I question the need for a lot of special terminology.

The purpose of language is to communicate. As often as not, a specialized vocabulary gets in the way of communication. The English language is quite good enough for most purposes.

Brian makes a good point about acceptance.
Never-the-less, fields like engineering, medicine, law, finance, etc. etc all have their own unique jargon for a very good reason: effective communication is not possible without it. Some might argue that "legalize", the jargon of lawyers, and geek-speak, the language of technologists, is not intelligible either... That doesn't mean it isn't.

If you want to point to specific posts of mine that you believe are unintelligible due to overuse of specialized terminology, please do. But a general rejection of jargon, or using terms to refer to concepts that someone is trying to convey and build on, doesn't make sense to me.

Anyone else besides me think that this whole thread is pretty much a waste of bandwidth?

But a general rejection of jargon... doesn't make sense to me.I'm not saying that specialized terminology does not have its place. It does.

But all too often special terminology gets in the way of communication.

Other common uses of special terminolgy are to either obfuscate or propagandize. Some of the special terminology you have created seems rather close to the danger zone.

Actually, Helmet Head your use of defining terms on bikeforums is ANYTHING but clear. Think about how the use of language requires effective comprehension to be understood by the reader, not just the postulator.


Clear, concise; undiluted by wordy, loose obsufaction.

Ah, but I digress. I do notice HH did not choose his 'primary' or a 'default riding position' in this thread, he just started tossing VC obstructionist jargon around to muddy up the topic, just like noisy did this morning.

Anyone else besides me think that this whole thread is pretty much a waste of bandwidth?
No one is forced to participate. If someone doesn't like the thread, there are thousands of others to read, most of which don't mention VC (although I am trying to figure out a way to slip it into the bottom bracket discussion over in bike mechanics).

No one is forced to participate. If someone doesn't like the thread, there are thousands of others to read, most of which don't mention VC.
I completely understand this; I'm deliberately trolling the thread because, IMHO, this type of discussion is a tremendous waste of energy which should in fact be directed outwards to produce solutions to this and other similar problems in the real world. No such results will ever be obtained by the same old folks rehashing the same tired old discussion yet again here in this small isolated corner of the internet.

Nothing to see here, please move along...

The meaning of 'VC' is not so simple. To some it may mean, simply, vehicular cycling, although I think that's the minority opinion. To a significant extent, the term VC is associated with a number of social, psychological and political theories that have nothing to do with riding style. Many bicyclists ride vehicularly but reject many of the theories associated with 'VC' and, therefore, reject the VC label.
In his book "Effective Cycling", John Forester did a great job outlining the basic five rules that all traffic follows, as well as the vehicular cycling techniques that result from them. But IMO, he made a big mistake by allowing himself and his personal views (such as "cyclist inferiority phobia") to be too closely attached to the vehicular cycling concept. Thus, there's all this baggage that results in the situation JRA is describing.

Actually, Helmet Head your use of defining terms on bikeforums is ANYTHING but clear. Think about how the use of language requires effective comprehension to be understood by the reader, not just the postulator.


Clear, concise; undiluted by wordy, loose obsufaction.
Well, I can't disagree with this. However, my inability to convey concepts in writing may or may not be due to the use of the jargon.

I think JRA's own reference to my danger zone concept here indicates that it actually might be quite effective. I think the problem is that I use it to convey concepts that others find objectionable, and that's really the underlying issue. Not an improper use of jargon. Do pro-lifers really pay attention to pro-choice arguments? Do pro-choicers really pay attention to pro-life arguments? The best test of this is to demonstrate the ability to present the argument of those on the opposite side in an unbiased fashion, something that very few of those who chastise me here have been able to show.


Ah, but I digress. I do notice HH did not choose his 'primary' or a 'default riding position' in this thread, he just started tossing VC obstructionist jargon around to muddy up the topic, just like noisy did this morning.
I believe I simply addressed questions and issues raised by others. Do you disagree?

A modest proposal:

Why not present Helmet Head and I-Like-to-Bike with pictures and maps documenting an actual route and have each describe how they would ride it. Each could submit a route to the other; anternatively, a third party could submit a route description to both.

Assumption: both people ride thousands of miles per year, have been riding for many years, and could be reagarded as expert cyclists.

Hypothesis: they would ride a given route in a very similar manner.

If there are any signigicant differences, those differences would make an enlightening discussion.

Paul

I propose a race. Points wouldn't only be awarded for reaching the destination in the least amount of time, but also for the least amount of spandex worn, least crap removed from the bike before locking up, and fewest black eyes from angry motorists.

The only time I'd want to be in the middle of the road in that situation is if I wanted to make a left turn and or pass/avoid something on my right.

ILTB: can you point me to where someone with a clue about VC suggests taking the lane for the sake of taking the lane, as when an acceptable bike lane/wide road is present?


Yes, and I've read a lot of his posts and I've never read anything of the sort. If I missed a post, I'd certainly like to see it. I usually agree with "him" but I'd definitely disagree about that point.



Try message #154 or #223 in the Taking the whole WOL? VC? Thread.
http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost....7&postcount=154
http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost....4&postcount=223

If this doesn't answer your question nothing will. Even more of the same can be found on other lists that cater to or have been overrun by VC zealots.

NEVER EVER NEVER have I advocated "taking the lane for the sake of taking the lane"

I have, on the other hand, repeated the advice of John Franklin ("Cyclecraft") and Robert Hurst ("The Art of Urban Cycling") that the default riding position (Franklin) or default position (Hurst) of a cyclist should be a "centerish" (Hurst's word) position in the lane for the purpose of being more visible to others, and to improve one's ability to see others.

Forester's advice in EC (both the book and video) seems generally more conservative about taking the lane in the absence of same direction traffic than these other authors and many experienced cyclists.

Bek, are there any driveways along Rainier Ave S? If so, can traffic make midblock left turns into these driveways (or make midblock left or right turns for any other reason)?

The concept of bike lanes in and of itself isn't necessary anti-vehicular. After all, for example, on freeways with a steep grade, they have slow moving vehicle lanes for trucks. Now a bike lane to the right of a right turn only lane would be anti-vehicular. But a bike lane in the situation you describe wouldn't be anti-vehicular, assuming laws in your state allow the cyclist to legally move out of the bike lane to avoid hazards, pass a slower cyclist, make a left turn, etc.
I don't think you will ever see a slow vehicle lane along a stretch of road where unslow vehicles are allowed to turn across the slow vehicle lane... for very good reason. The fact that motor vehicle drivers are allowed to turn across bike lanes, is what makes them non-vehicular. Generally, any part of the roadway that a vehicle driver is prohibited from driving on, he is also not permitted to turn across. Bike lanes are an exception to this rule, and that makes them anti-vehicular. This is not only a conceptual problem, but it is the underlying problem with many of the practical problems assocated with bike lanes (e.g., others don't expect traffic in bike lanes, and therefore, tend not to look there before crossing, etc.).

But, yes, on a stretch of intersectionless roadway without any driveways, alleys or mall entrances, yes, a bike lane is not anti-vehicular. But those types of roads are relatively rare in the typical urban/suburban areas where most bike lane stripes are painted.

A modest proposal:

Why not present Helmet Head and I-Like-to-Bike with pictures and maps documenting an actual route and have each describe how they would ride it. Each could submit a route to the other; anternatively, a third party could submit a route description to both.

Assumption: both people ride thousands of miles per year, have been riding for many years, and could be reagarded as expert cyclists.

Hypothesis: they would ride a given route in a very similar manner.

If there are any signigicant differences, those differences would make an enlightening discussion.

Paul
I'm game.

In his book "Effective Cycling", John Forester did a great job outlining the basic five rules that all traffic follows, as well as the vehicular cycling techniques that result from them. But IMO, he made a big mistake by allowing himself and his personal views (such as "cyclist inferiority phobia") to be too closely attached to the vehicular cycling concept. Thus, there's all this baggage that results in the situation JRA is describing.
VC baggage includes not only personal views being passed off as "science", but the deliberate fabrication of data about a chimeric gang of Vehicular Cyclists and distortion of existing data about cyclists in general to create Forester Brand Scientific Evidence to support "VC rules and conclusions". Would not mean anything at all except that the the Forester Brand VC acolytes endlessly and shamelessly repeat this "scientific evidence" mantra everywhere as gospel.

I propose a race. Points wouldn't only be awarded for reaching the destination in the least amount of time, but also for the least amount of spandex worn, least crap removed from the bike before locking up, and fewest black eyes from angry motorists.
Good idea. I would also subtract points for every time the cyclist mentions that whatever method he/she used is the ONLY correct/real/competent/legal/best method for every other cyclist. Double the subtraction if any scheme is implied about re-educating other cyclists to meet your own expectation from cycling.

If there are any signigicant differences, those differences would make an enlightening discussion.
Not really. I recognize that what works for me, may or may not meet other cyclists' requirements and don't want to stand on a pedestal preaching my mantra of the one true method of cyling. It leaves little to discuss with the One Way/My Way proselytizer(s).

Good idea. I would also subtract points for every time the cyclist mentions that whatever method he/she used is the ONLY correct/real/competent/legal/best method for every other cyclist. Double the subtraction if any scheme is implied about re-educating other cyclists to meet your own expectation from cycling.
I'm okay with that. BTW, got any examples of where you think I mentioned that some method is the ONLY correct/real/competent/legal/best method for every other cyclist?

If not, what's your point of saying this?

I still do not see any choice of 'default' or 'preferred riding position' by Helmet Head in this thread.

He also failed to rebut my last point in "Taking the whole lane? VC?"

HH, you are a sham, my man. But verbose.

Generally, any part of the roadway that a vehicle driver is prohibited from driving on, he is also not permitted to turn across. Bike lanes are an exception to this rule, and that makes them anti-vehicular.
You may not drive over the double-yellow line yet you may cross it to make a turn. You may not drive on the sidewalk yet you may drive across it. You may not drive down the center dual turn lane, yet you may enter it and make a turn.

NEVER EVER NEVER have I advocated "taking the lane for the sake of taking the lane"
But "default" is a term that implies that you take the lane based on some other choice besides need. Unless you are really that terrified of rocks, parked cars and driveways. I think there's more fear of that around he than is really necessary.

What I'd like to see is how HH would negotiate his usual route riding a tadpole trike. Not how he thinks he would do it, but how he actually did do it. That would be interesting.

In his book "Effective Cycling", John Forester did a great job outlining the basic five rules that all traffic follows, as well as the vehicular cycling techniques that result from them. But IMO, he made a big mistake by allowing himself and his personal views (such as "cyclist inferiority phobia") to be too closely attached to the vehicular cycling concept. Thus, there's all this baggage that results in the situation JRA is describing.

I tend to agree, throw into that the anti-BL bias that often comes from those who have heavily studied Forester, and you have a good definition of the "VC" problem... which has little to to with actual vehicular cycling.

In computer programming, it's common practice to package a set of instructions that you find yourself using repeatedly into a subroutine. That way, instead of repeating the same set of instructions every time you need to perform a particular task, instead you just invoke the subroutine.


HH you are behind the times with your programming analogy, which is stuck in the bad old days of VB. Today we use object-oriented programming and invoke the methods and properties of objects we create based upon a real world model. You might want to consider converting your 'VC subroutine' into an object, so that the practical cyclist can merely invoke the properties and methods that are suited to their riding style and conditions without the need to invoke an entire antiquated subroutine.

NEVER EVER NEVER have I advocated "taking the lane for the sake of taking the lane"

I have, on the other hand, repeated the advice of John Franklin ("Cyclecraft") and Robert Hurst ("The Art of Urban Cycling") that the default riding position (Franklin) or default position (Hurst) of a cyclist should be a "centerish" (Hurst's word) position in the lane for the purpose of being more visible to others, and to improve one's ability to see others.

Serge,

Sorry to gum up your arguments here, but it seems the term "default position" has been hijacked a bit in this forum.

To clarify, my hit-and-run use of the generic term "default position" and the advice to maintain a "centerish" lane position explicitly refers to cycling in congested urban areas, where 80-90% of bike-car collisions involve turning or crossing (as do all bike-ped collisions). This is a strategy specific to streets with lots of side traffic, pedestrians, and (classically) on-street parking, and is to be heavily modified around overtaking vehicles (pp. 75-77). Nowhere do I, nor would I, advise cyclists to take a lane for the sole purpose of becoming more visible to traffic approaching from the rear. The major difference between my approach and that outlined by VC talking points is the level of trust in the vision of other road users.

Robert

Serge,

Sorry to gum up your arguments here, but it seems the term "default position" has been hijacked a bit in this forum.

To clarify, my hit-and-run use of the generic term "default position" and the advice to maintain a "centerish" lane position explicitly refers to cycling in congested urban areas, where 80-90% of bike-car collisions involve turning or crossing (as do all bike-ped collisions). This is a strategy specific to streets with lots of side traffic, pedestrians, and (classically) on-street parking, and is to be heavily modified around overtaking vehicles (pp. 75-77). Nowhere do I, nor would I, advise cyclists to take a lane for the sole purpose of becoming more visible to traffic approaching from the rear. The major difference between my approach and that outlined by VC talking points is the level of trust in the vision of other road users.

Robert
Thanks for joining in. Your book is one of useful guides to riding in traffic. Forester should read your book to see how to write effectively without being so insulting. (edited to tone down original comment)

I often ride centerish for two purposes. First, as you said, to deal with traffic from side streets. But I also often ride centerish when I am in a lane in which I cannot safely ride side-by-side with a car (which is most of them). I find that when I am to the right, I get a lot more close calls from cars buzzing me.

Daily commute, let me applaud how you ride your bike generally.

However, I don't think Mr Hurst is joining in so much as attempting to set the record straight.

Serge,

Sorry to gum up your arguments here, but it seems the term "default position" has been hijacked a bit in this forum.

To clarify, my hit-and-run use of the generic term "default position" and the advice to maintain a "centerish" lane position explicitly refers to cycling in congested urban areas, where 80-90% of bike-car collisions involve turning or crossing (as do all bike-ped collisions). This is a strategy specific to streets with lots of side traffic, pedestrians, and (classically) on-street parking, and is to be heavily modified around overtaking vehicles (pp. 75-77). Nowhere do I, nor would I, advise cyclists to take a lane for the sole purpose of becoming more visible to traffic approaching from the rear. The major difference between my approach and that outlined by VC talking points is the level of trust in the vision of other road users.

Robert
Thank you for your clarification, Robert. But, I don't see how it's "gumming up" anything I said. I too do not recommend or practice controlling an entire lane for the sole purpose of being more visible to traffic approaching from the rear. In the post you quoted, I wrote, "for the purpose of being more visible to others". I have said that being more visible to those approaching from the rear is one secondary reason to take a more centerish position. Here is a link to a recent post where I went into more detail on this:

http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=1817807&postcount=154

Key statements there include the following:



Choosing a more centerish position is done for several reasons, but it does include to be more visible to those approaching from the rear."
...
Finally, reducing the possibility of becoming a victim to an inadvertent drift is simply a secondary reason for practicing DLLP [Dynamic Lateral Lane Positioning - the term I use to describe an approach to traffic cycling that involves adjusting lateral lane position to ever-changing factors and conditions, as opposed to what I see as the cultural norm for cycling: generally maintaining a static position near the edge of the roadway]. The other reasons to choose a more centerish position, out of the danger zone, are:


to make yourself more visible to traffic that is intending to cross your path, so that they don't cross right in front of you, or into you.
to give yourself more of an escape buffer zone to your right.


I don't think I ever wrote or implied that you recommend the centerish default position in order to be more visible to traffic approaching for the rear. I realize this is a concept I have developed on my own, and I'm probably not as good as I could be at keeping that reason from getting muddled with all the other reasons that you and others agree justify a centerish position.

However, now that we have your attention, I would very much like to hear your opinion on this. The above link, well here it is again,

http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=1817807&postcount=154

describes the reason I believe the centerish "default position" is also useful for becoming more visible to traffic from the rear. Specifically, it involves taking a centerish position during gaps in light traffic, and moving aside to allow them to pass (assuming there is no other reason to stay centerish), but not until you've improved the odds that they are aware of you. Note that there is no more greater level of trust in the vision of others with this approach than with being off to the side in the first place, because, either way, you're off to the side in the same position before they reach you. On a quiet road you can rely on hearing to do this. In noisier environments, it does require a split-second glance in a mirror every 3-5 seconds (exactly how often depends on the usual speed of traffic, sight lines, etc.).

I developed this idea after reading about too many incidents where "inadvertent drift" was clearly a factor. There were a series of such fatalities in Sonoma County, CA a few years ago, and then quite a few more discussed on this forum. In each case, the cyclist was riding off to the side, often in a bike lane or shoulder, when a motorist approaching from the rear would drift out of his intended path right into the cyclist. It is my assumption that the motorist was distracted in each instance, and was also unaware of the cyclist's presence. There is no evidence in any of the cases that the motorist intentionally ran down the cyclists. So, I began to think. What could the cyclists have done in these cases? What can I do to prevent something like this happening to me? At the same time I had become very aware of the difference between riding near the side, and riding in a more centerish position, in terms of being "engaged" with motor traffic. When riding at the side, perhaps in a bike lane or shoulder, but even to the side in a wide lane, motorists seem to pass you as if you are not even there. And why not? Just like anything else that is not in their path, motorists tend to ignore it. For good reason. They need to focus on their intended path. It's their responsibility to do so, and only makes practical sense. But what that means is that the cyclist outside of their intended path is much less likely to be on their "conscious radar", if you will, then a cyclist up ahead who is riding directly in their path. So, it seems to me, that if I'm riding up ahead in their path, causing them to notice me, and then I move aside, I'm less likely to be a victim of "inadvertent drift" than if I was riding off to the side the whole time and they never had reason to take notice of me.

Again, I want to stress that all this is a secondary reason to taking a centerish position because inadvertent drifts are so rare. I don't think it even applies in heavy urban traffic, where motorists basically cannot allow themselves to be distracted the way they might on "ruralish" roads where these types of collisions tend to happen. Never-the-less, I use this method regularly and find it useful for staying "engaged" with other traffic.

I would be very interested in hearing what you think of this, since I don't recall that you addressed this in your book.

Serge

I wrote in post #42 (to the great dismay of some here) that I would ride in the primary travel lane (vs. bike lane) on the road in question if risk factors were high or if traffic very light. Of course if I noticed a car approaching from rear I would move over so it wouldn't need to slow. My reason for riding this way is to be better seen by cars and pedestrian entering/exiting parking spots and side streets and so I can better see what is going on. But it is not so much so drivers from the rear see me, it perhaps helps, but it not the primary reason.

Al

Do you guys really have to belabor issues with such minuatae?


I still see no choice of primary lane positioning by HH along Rainier Ave S, with well demarcated bike lanes with buffer zones and parking strips. Good lines of sight because parking was light.

Where does a VC choose to ride? With a bike lane bias, or in the center of the traffic lane?


Boy, hope I never wind up opposite the banquet table and have to listen to people like you prattle on, serge.


A sham, but verbose.

I still see no choice of primary lane positioning by HH along Rainier Ave S, with well demarcated bike lanes with buffer zones and parking strips. Good lines of sight because parking was light.
Can someone translate this into English, please?

Helmet head, i'll ask you again...

in the context of this original post, where would you ride your bike? Try to anwser in English, and in 50 words or less.

Can someone translate this into English, please?

It sounds like the bike lanes are wide enough,or spaced out far enough,that they don't run through the door zone.

HH you are behind the times with your programming analogy, which is stuck in the bad old days of VB. Today we use object-oriented programming and invoke the methods and properties of objects we create based upon a real world model. You might want to consider converting your 'VC subroutine' into an object, so that the practical cyclist can merely invoke the properties and methods that are suited to their riding style and conditions without the need to invoke an entire antiquated subroutine.
You realize a "method" is simply a subroutine associated with an object, do you not?

I'm using the term subroutine to refer to a set of instructions that is invoked by name, which is what a method is. A method is simply a specialized subroutine, dude. A call to foo.doit() compiles into something like "jsr doit_1200889" (this is an example, the actual label of the subroutine generated depends on the implementation of the OO compiler, of course, while the instruction depends on the architecture for which it is being compiled).

The major difference between my approach and that outlined by VC talking points is the level of trust in the vision of other road users.

Robert

Just wanted to say,I'm almost finished with your book. Good on yer. It's nice to know that at least someone writing lives in the real world where daily situations don't fall into well defined pigeonholes. Keep up the good work.

You realize a "method" is simply a subroutine associated with an object, do you not?

I'm using the term subroutine to refer to a set of instructions that is invoked by name, which is what a method is. A method is simply a specialized subroutine, dude. A call to foo.doit() compiles into something like "jsr doit_1200889" (this is an example, the actual label of the subroutine generated depends on the implementation of the OO compiler, of course, while the instruction depends on the architecture for which it is being compiled).

What? HH, the above is an example of 'if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS'. Back to school for you!!

If you think something in the post is BS, please specify exactly what, and why you think it's BS.

Schooled!

Can someone else with a degree in Computer Science or Engineering, and preferably knowledge in the area of OO languages and compilers, please comment as to the BS content in the posts of Chipcom and myself on the topic of subroutines vs. OO methods?

Do you agree with me that OO methods are essentially specialized subroutines that are associated with a particular object or class, or do you agree with Chipcom that this assertion is BS?

Helmet head, i'll ask you again...

in the context of this original post, where would you ride your bike? Try to anwser in English, and in 50 words or less.
Unless doing so would impede passing traffic, I would ride in a centerish position in the rightmost traffic lane. When faster traffic approached from the rear, I would temporarily move aside, probably into the bike lane. Once they passed, I would merge back into and continue in the default position.

Interesting, so a BL is provided, well isolated (by description) from the door zone, and far enough out in the overall road to be well visible from any auto travel lanes, cross streets, and intersections, and yet you still choose to be in the "auto travel lane," using "default position" as your reasoning?

Interesting, so a BL is provided, well isolated (by description) from the door zone, and far enough out in the overall road to be well visible from any auto travel lanes, cross streets, and intersections, and yet you still choose to be in the "auto travel lane," using "default position" as your reasoning?
I described my reasoning above - which boils down to having a commanding view and space to deal with all possible side, rear and front situations. But Bek has a point when he writes above "Do you guys really have to belabor issues with such minuatae?" Its really a simple situation and frankly it doesn't matter that much where one rides as long at its not in a door zone and as long as one has time to react to side front and rear situations. Basically ride wherever you want, move over (or already be moved over) when traffic is behind you and its safe to do so. There are far more complex situations a cyclist needs to deal with than this road.

Al

Unless doing so would impede passing traffic, I would ride in a centerish position in the rightmost traffic lane. When faster traffic approached from the rear, I would temporarily move aside, probably into the bike lane. Once they passed, I would merge back into and continue in the default position.
I'm convinced that you don't actually ride a bicycle.

Now perhaps I misunderstood the street layout, but I am picturing (from right to left) a wide street, with parking along the right curb, a buffer zone, then a BL, then an auto travel lane, then the center turn lane, then the other direction auto travel lane, then a BL, another buffer zone and then at last, more parked cars along the curb on the left curb side of the street.

In that picture, with the parked cars, and the buffer zones pushing the Bike Lane out quite a bit into the actual roadway (gotta be careful of terms here)... the Bike Lane should be well out enough to allow a good view of cross traffic and intersections. About the only time one might consider leaving the BL is to avoid any hazards in the street (such as potholes) and to be well visible at intersections and to prevent right hooks... Thus my "default position" would tend to be toward the left side of the BL... I would only go into the auto lane to make left turns or for hazards and to prevent right hooks, as mentioned.

By the sounds of the layout of the road, and the prevailing speeds, this road should be quite usable with the BL as the "default position" or "primary position."

Now I am not a VC expert and I do like Bike lanes where they work and make sense (sociological arguments aside)... and this layout does make sense to me... provided that the BL was a decent width and the door zone buffer was really wide enough. Certainly the 35MPH speed limit of this road barely qualifies for a BL in my mind, but what the heck, if done right, the BL could easily help the flow of all traffic on that road... especially during a rush hour when the motor traffic might be bumper to bumper.