Advocacy & Safety - Vehicular or non-vehicular, that's the question

I generally ride like I'm supposed to as a legal vehicle in Georgia, using the same roads as motorists without bike lane stripes to tell me where I should position myself. I usually shy away from paths. I take my position in the traffic queue at lights, even when that means I'm gonna be waaaaay in the back when I could easily sneak to the front. I do it right, partly because I'm communicating lawful cycling to motorists, which I think goes a long way in dislodging the negative image of cyclists not belonging on the road, an image often reinforced by cyclists who disregard traffic laws.

But...

There are times when following the rest of the traffic crowd isn't convenient. I could be waiting a long time in the mess instead of enjoying my ride. What have I done to avoid the jams?

--Taken a bike path (feels like cheating when the signs applying to the road say "Do Not Enter".)
--Walked my bike through a pedestrian underpass.
--Cut through a MARTA rail station (stairs and escalators.)
--Cut through parking lots.
--Cut through college campuses.
--Used a sidewalk cut-through from a cul-de-sac to an arterial road (while waving to pub-goers.)
--Used private drives.
--Walked my bike through a store, then out the back door (ok, that's a lie, but I'm having so much fun!)

:)

What have you done, you naughty rascal?

:eek:

Oh, I've done my share. I've cut through a parking lots to avoid a controlled intersection. I've taken the sidewalk up the wrong way on a one way street to reach my apartment half a block up. I've hopped curbs to get to a bike path through campus instead of taking the road.

That is the wonderful thing about a bicycle. It enables for a hybrid association with the street; fast enough to find a place on the road for long distance traveling with few stops, but maneuverable enough to find a home on pedestrian facilities and paths to avoid the problems of moterized vehicles. Moterized vehicles pay no price to take the long route or to frequently stop and start, but me and my bike do. If I had to restrict my cycling to follow the path moterized traffic all the time, then it would make absolutely no sense to bike.

Can't forget, I've also used the bike lane to pass half mile lines of traffic jams. Makes no sense to bike if you cannot utilize the fact that you are thin and maneuverable. I don't restrict my cycling to simply pretending I am a car, as long as my maneuvers are reasonably safe.

Bike lanes. Pure and simple... on my commute, there is one particular area where the motor traffic backs up for up to a good half hour to do about one mile up a pretty steep hill. (it is unbelievable that people would actually wait this long to go this "shortcut"). The reality is that the only other routes tend to back up also, so folks take this route thinking it is a viable alternative, but there is no escape outlet once you have gone this way... so the queue can become quite unmanageable.

There is a bike lane on the road, and taking the bike lane allows a cyclist to pass all this traffic... with only one intersection (that leads to an apartment complex). I do it at about 8MPH and just zoom past all the motorists sitting right there.

I don't think this is a case of vehicular verses non vehicular, but it sure is a case of "the skinny vehicle" beating the heck out of "the big fat cages."

Other areas that I ride that are non-vehicular involve sidewalks... and slow recreation rides with my wife.

Frankly I really like going fast, and that to me involves cleats and funky pedals... so I really don't like anything that puts me into pedestrian mode... thus I tend to ride vc style, just to get to smooth pavement.

I do however on rare occasion make a quick run to the local stores on my beach cruising fat tire bike... and I use any surface I can ride on with that thing... sidewalks, dirt tracks, alleys, median centers, lawns... If I can roll across it... it is fair game.

Anyone who ever rides across a sidewalk to get to a bike parking facility understands there are advantages to going non-vehicular every now and then, particularly at the start and end of trips, and occasionally mid-trip for short-cut and other purposes (like cutting through a vacant lot on a mountain bike, for example). These exceptions do not contradict the general VC principle that cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles, which applies only to cyclists riding in traffic anyway.

The key is to be particularly vigilant and cognizant of when you are going in and out of "vehicular" mode, for you must typically yield the right-of-way to everyone during those transitions, and your actions are often unexpected.

Like others I prefer the road. Many MUPs and sidewalks are bumpy as heck.
However, I have pretty much done everything listed so far. Except riding the wrong way in a one way street. When I start riding in downtown, I'm sure I will do that on accident.
I've even rode against traffic on a fairly busy street with no sidewalks. I'd just started riding and made a bit of a mistake. Only did that once and never again.

Makes no sense to bike if you cannot utilize the fact that you are thin and maneuverable. I don't restrict my cycling to simply pretending I am a car, as long as my maneuvers are reasonably safe.
You make this statement as if you believe there are cyclists who do not "utilize the fact that you are thin and maneuverable" and/or "restrict [their] cycling to simply pretending [they are] a car".

Do you believe there are such cyclists?
If not, what was the point of making these statements?

Naughty: I ride on the pedestrian overpass.



Frankly I really like going fast, and that to me involves cleats and funky pedals... so I really don't like anything that puts me into pedestrian mode... thus I tend to ride vc style, just to get to smooth pavement.
Cool thing about trikes is you never have to unclip the cleats!

Does anyone think there is anything inherently non-vehicular about passing stopped cars on their right, regardless of whether the pavement width used for this is demarcated by a bike lane stripe or not?



I don't think this is a case of vehicular verses non vehicular, ...
Then why mention it in this thread? Do you think there are others who do believe it is a case of vehicular verses non vehicular?

It seems to me that there is still a sense among at least some of you that "vehicular" still implies "like a car", including in the physical sense, rather than being a reference purely to operating in accordance to the common vehicular rules of the road, and having nothing to do with the particular operating and physical characteristics of any one type of vehicle.

Cool thing about trikes is you never have to unclip the cleats!
Cool thing about getting good at clipping and unclipping is you never have to think about it... it becomes automatic, and a non-issue. Love my Speedplays...

Naughty: I ride on the pedestrian overpass.

me too. ringing my little bell and being passed by joggers as I spin away in my lowest gear.

Anyone who ever rides across a sidewalk to get to a bike parking facility understands there are advantages to going non-vehicular every now and then, particularly at the start and end of trips, and occasionally mid-trip for short-cut and other purposes (like cutting through a vacant lot on a mountain bike, for example). These exceptions do not contradict the general VC principle that cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles, which applies only to cyclists riding in traffic anyway.

The key is to be particularly vigilant and cognizant of when you are going in and out of "vehicular" mode, for you must typically yield the right-of-way to everyone during those transitions, and your actions are often unexpected.
C'mon, Serge, tell us something naughty.

I'm kidding. I agree with everything you just said (you can loosen your tie, now.)

:D

Does anyone think there is anything inherently non-vehicular about passing stopped cars on their right, regardless of whether the pavement width used for this is demarcated by a bike lane stripe or not?



Then why mention it in this thread? Do you think there are others who do believe it is a case of vehicular verses non vehicular?

It seems to me that there is still a sense among at least some of you that "vehicular" still implies "like a car", including in the physical sense, rather than being a reference purely to operating in accordance to the common vehicular rules of the road, and having nothing to do with the particular operating and physical characteristics of any one type of vehicle.

Perhaps you should point us to the definitive source that documents the universal vehicular rules of the road, then people would have something to refer to when confused, perhaps even keep it on them to show motorists, cops and anyone else who might not understand.

Does anyone think there is anything inherently non-vehicular about passing stopped cars on their right, regardless of whether the pavement width used for this is demarcated by a bike lane stripe or not?



Then why mention it in this thread? Do you think there are others who do believe it is a case of vehicular verses non vehicular?

It seems to me that there is still a sense among at least some of you that "vehicular" still implies "like a car", including in the physical sense, rather than being a reference purely to operating in accordance to the common vehicular rules of the road, and having nothing to do with the particular operating and physical characteristics of any one type of vehicle.


Well since certain vehicular cyclists tend to think that bike lanes are the bain of all cyclists, and that particular "constant presentation" may give the impression that bike lane use is non-vehicular... and so on...

But I did put a disclaimer in my post.

Also regarding the issue of "waiting in traffic like a car;" this has indeed been mentioned in the past as the right way to be vehicular... now whether one just waits at a light or in a grueling queue is probably the real question... much like the issue of how long does one wait at a traffic light before admitting that it will not change and then technically running it.

I also went on in my post and described other moves I make that are indeed non-vehicular... and I don't mean riding across sidewalks... I mean riding across anything that happens to be in my way and that I can roll across...

Although a tank IS a vehicle, so I suppose that if I obey the vehicular rules (giving way to those in front... etc) then even rolling across anything can also be construed as vehicular... just as driving a shopping cart can be "vehicular."

Perhaps you should point us to the definitive source that documents the universal vehicular rules of the road, then people would have something to refer to when confused, perhaps even keep it on them to show motorists, cops and anyone else who might not understand.
The "universal vehicular rules of the road" is the common subset of rules and principles that are true in almost all, if not actually all, jurisdictions on earth (with left/right swapped as appropriate).

An example of universal rule is "green traffic signal means you may proceed when safe and clear to do so.
A counter-example of a universal rule is one that prohibits or allows right turns on red.

While there is no definitive source of universal ROTR, by definition, the definition of what is and what is not a univeral rule, and how to determine this, is pretty clear, at least to me.

But the best proof of the existence of the universal ROTR is the fact that one can fly to just about any airport in the world, get in a car or on a bike, and drive or ride, and know how to do so legally in that jurisdiction by following the same universal ROTR that one follows at home, wherever that may be. And one can do so quite effectively without reading one word of the official implementation of the universal ROTR in that jurisdiction. Again, taking into account the right/left swap issue.

The somewhat short wheelbase, 2" higher than normal BB, long stem, and riser bars turned foreward (I've got long arms) on my homebuilt commuter hybrid beater combine to give it remarkable agility, if a little unstable at walking speed. I use that agility to my advantage.

- If the traffic is high speed and heavy and the sidewalk unused, then I have no problem taking the sidewalk, watching out for hook manouvers, of course.
- I'll cut through parking lots, empty lots, mostly complete but not yet open road construction, and take back allys behind stores. A lot of them get me around streets of sudden death and suesidal intersections.
- The kids carve singletracks through greenspaces and unused lots in many neiborhoods. I make a point to know them, they're worthwhile shortcuts and they're a blast to ride.
- I'm surprised the rail trails aren't used more often. Oh well, it just means a straight fast shot for me.
- I'll make like a car through reasonably safe intersections, yet I'll keep an eye on the cars as I move through. When they make a dumb move, I'm ready to pull an evasion. A member of the local chopper gang at the light is a good sign. Most ride along with me, and the cagers don't want to mess with them. :beer:
- I make like a car on residential streets, sans the speeding. Rolling stops at stop signs if I'm in the clear, full stop if I'm not.
- Cars parked on two-lane residential streets, often blocking most if not all of an entire lane means slowing way down and approaching with caution. If neccessary, I'll cut through a yard to safely bypass that bozo. That might be rude to the home owner, but my ass is worth more than his grass, so thar.

hmm... Helmethead's probably having a meltdown reading this.

hmm... Helmethead's probably having a meltdown reading this.
As long as you're cognizant and vigilant about moving in and out of traffic, and the ROW and visibility/predictability ramifications, and are vehicular while in traffic (rollling a stop when it's clear is arguably vehicular), I don't have much of a problem with anything you said, much less having a meltdown.

Cutting across private property, particularly a residential yard, is not too cool, however.

Cutting across private property, particularly a residential yard, is not too cool, however.
I agree, it does suck.
I said I only do it if neccessary, ie when the car is blocking the lane on heavily travelled streets and it's not safe to pass on the remaining open lane. Being a bloody bumper sandwich sucks way more than bike tire tracks in the grass.
It's illegal to block traffic like that, but the law is so lightly enforced, the nimrods that do it will keep doing it. :sigh: Like every other law that apparently carries no weight. Beam me up Scotty...

I'm generally a good boy when I ride, but I'm not above a few shortcuts now and then. Hmm, come to think of it I was the same way on my motorcycle!

I agree, it does suck.
I said I only do it if neccessary, ie when the car is blocking the lane on heavily travelled streets and it's not safe to pass on the remaining open lane. Being a bloody bumper sandwich sucks way more than bike tire tracks in the grass.
It's illegal to block traffic like that, but the law is so lightly enforced, the nimrods that do it will keep doing it. :sigh: Like every other law that apparently carries no weight. Beam me up Scotty...
Try and get into the adjacent same direction lane well before the car causing blockage, which means looking 1/4mi up ahead. Passing stopped vehicles (busses, garbage trucks, road maintance) is one of the more stressful maneuvers, but with practice gets easier - as long as you signal, ensure drivers see you and then merge.
Al

I'm with Al. I'm not troubled by stopped cars... just merge left, and pass them, same as you would do if you were riding a motorcycle.

Are we missing something?

....... there are cyclists who do not "utilize the fact that you are thin and maneuverable" and/or "restrict [their] cycling to simply pretending [they are] a car".

Do you believe there are such cyclists?

there are cyclists like this, who refuse to advance in a WOL to play pretend car on their bikes for some reason.

Cars split lanes with me, I split lanes with cars. Screw the cager that can't handle me passing them at the stops.

One of the reasons I ride my bike is it's faster than cars sometimes, particularily if using selective lane splits and the what not-so-necessarily autocentric style of vehicular bicycling, but a bastard version that serves me best.

The "universal vehicular rules of the road" is the common subset of rules and principles that are true in almost all, if not actually all, jurisdictions on earth (with left/right swapped as appropriate).


In other words, your interpretation of what is vehicular is just that, your own opinion, interpretation or theory. That being the case, who are you to say that if someone considers 'vehicular' to be 'like a car' that they are right or wrong? Indeed, the fact that there are no documented, published and accepted standards defining the vehicular rules of the road, proves out the point that VC is merely a brand of common practices, customs and principles that pre-date the term.

there are cyclists like this, who refuse to advance in a WOL to play pretend car on their bikes for some reason.

Cars split lanes with me, I split lanes with cars. Screw the cager that can't handle me passing them at the stops.

One of the reasons I ride my bike is it's faster than cars sometimes, particularily if using selective lane splits and the what not-so-necessarily autocentric style of vehicular bicycling, but a bastard version that serves me best.

It's not a bastard version, it's just your version, since there is no documented, accepted standard to say otherwise. :)

but, I am the bastard bicyclist, Chip! :) just self ascribing my biking style as a personal, bastardized, 'no rules' method of following some rules some of the time.

but, I am the bastard bicyclist, Chip! :) just self ascribing my biking style as a personal, bastardized, 'no rules' method of following some rules some of the time.

:beer: then here's to us bastards!

It's not a bastard version, it's just your version, since there is no documented, accepted standard to say otherwise. :)
+1 :beer:

Geez, I can see why BFers get so annoyed with Helmethead. I've seen rebar more flexible.

Look, Judge Head, your way obviously works where you ride, and that's all well and fine. Mo' Powah to ya.
But - and that's a but as big as the one sitting in a soccer mom's SUV - we all ride on different roads, dealing with drivers with different attitudes. If the cagers are openly hostile like in Alabama, total VC can can put you under a granite slab. If they're oblivious speedhappy cellphone overusers like they are on my streets, total VC may have you pushing up daisies. Ride where ILTB rides totally VC, and you may wind up impact testing a truck grill.
We have to be like bikin' borgs and adapt to the situation, we can't afford to be inflexible. Maybe you can, but that's your situation. For us, Helmet, you ain't the law. Deal n' chill, dude.

Peace, out. :)

The "universal vehicular rules of the road" is the common subset of rules and principles that are true in almost all, if not actually all, jurisdictions on earth (with left/right swapped as appropriate).

In other words, your interpretation of what is vehicular is just that, your own opinion, interpretation or theory.
Huh? If I say "X" is an example of a VROTR, that certainly does not make it so. What makes it so is if and only if "X" is the law in the vast majority if not all of the jurisdictions on earth. As with any legal issue, there is always a subjective element, of course, but it's about as objective a standard as you can expect to get with rules, and about as far from being anyone's pure "opinion, interpretation or theory" as I can imagine.

If you have a few examples of rules that I think qualify but you or someone else might disagree, please share. If you don't, please stop wasting time and space by making these empty and pointless claims.



That being the case, ...
But of course it's not the case.



who are you to say that if someone considers 'vehicular' to be 'like a car' that they are right or wrong?
It's not up to me. If they're talking about their own definition, "vehicular" can mean lemon juice for all I care. But if I make a statement using vehicular, and someone else says what I mean is "like a car" (or "lemon juice" for that matter), then I have the right to correct them, for that's not what I mean by my usage, and, as far as this thread is concerned, I'm pretty sure "like a car" or "lemon juice" is also not what this OP meant.

I can say the sun rises in the west and sets in the east, and be correct, as long as I clarify that I don't intend the ordinary uses of east and west, but exactly the opposite. If I don't make that clarification, however, then the normal meanings are to be assumed, and the statement would be wrong. We can't stop and provide exact intended definitions of every term we use in every sentence we write. Assumptions about meaning can and must be made, according to various cultural conventions.

In the context of a given specialized term, deference is normally given to the definition intended by the one who coined the term. If someone intends a different meaning, they should be clear about that when they use the term.

With respect to vehicular cycling, the term was coined by John Forester, who clearly intended the meaning to ride a bicycle in traffic according to the vehicular rules of the road. In the context of a bike forum, it is only logical to assume that meaning of vehicular -- in accordance to the VROTR -- unless someone clearly states their intent is something else, and specifies what that is. Without these types of conventions and assumptions in language regarding definitions, communication would be impossible.



Indeed, the fact that there are no documented, published and accepted standards defining the vehicular rules of the road, proves out the point that VC is merely a brand of common practices, customs and principles that pre-date the term.
You seem to like to repeat the fact that VC existed long before Forester coined the term as if it's something new, significant, or challenges something I or someone said or believes. Why?

From the Wikipedia article on Vehicular Cycling:



Origins of Vehicular Cycling

The origins of vehicular cycling go back to the 19th century when bicycles were invented and shared the roads with horses and buggies. Cyclists have been riding in accordance to the vehicular rules of the road ever since.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicular_cycling#Origins_of_Vehicular_Cycling

I'm more of a BC :beer: (bastard cyclist) than VC, but the methods are not exclusive of one another....

one of my 'not' rules: Cars split the lane with me, I can split the lane with cars.

when I pass stopped traffic, it isn't done by signalling left and 'merging like a motorcycle,' but more free form. I pass traffic on both the right and left, splitting lanes, using the shoulder or WOL, or taking the full lane, depending on unique criteria every ride, every time..sometimes even popping a sidewalk to avoid a squeeze...

It's not a bastard version, it's just your version, since there is no documented, accepted standard to say otherwise.
+1 :beer:

Geez, I can see why BFers get so annoyed with Helmethead. I've seen rebar more flexible.

Look, Judge Head, your way obviously works where you ride, and that's all well and fine. Mo' Powah to ya.
But - and that's a but as big as the one sitting in a soccer mom's SUV - we all ride on different roads, dealing with drivers with different attitudes. If the cagers are openly hostile like in Alabama, total VC can can put you under a granite slab. If they're oblivious speedhappy cellphone overusers like they are on my streets, total VC may have you pushing up daisies. Ride where ILTB rides totally VC, and you may wind up impact testing a truck grill.
We have to be like bikin' borgs and adapt to the situation, we can't afford to be inflexible. Maybe you can, but that's your situation. For us, Helmet, you ain't the law. Deal n' chill, dude.

Peace, out. :)
2wheeledsoul, if you have something to say to me with regard to something I said, then please quote that and respond to it, instead of quoting someone else's opinion about what I never said, and then addressing me in response.

In particular, what exactly did I actually say that filled you with the need to inform me that I "ain't the law", or that I need to be told that "we can't afford to be inflexible"? What did I actually say that makes you think I'm not inflexible, or that anything I advocate is inflexible?

I'm more of a BC :beer: (bastard cyclist) than VC, but the methods are not exclusive of one another....

one of my 'not' rules: Cars split the lane with me, I can split the lane with cars.

when I pass stopped traffic, it isn't done by signalling left and 'merging like a motorcycle,' but more free form. I pass traffic on both the right and left, splitting lanes or taking the full lane, depending on unique criteria every ride, every time..
How your BCing different from how motorcyclists do it? How is it non-vehicular?

i honestly don't know how motorcyclists 'do it,' but I'm assuming they can't split narrow outside lanes to the right of stopped cars legally, or ride on the sidewalk. or split the lane to the left of traffic, legally speaking.
Or ride on the shoulder, or use a bike lane, path or other non vehicular cooridor, or beach, or other...

bikin' borgs

HH: We are the VC. Prepare to be assimilated. Resistance is Futile.

2wheeledsoul: We are the BC. Perpare to be left in the dust while we BC around your sorry stuck-in-traffic asses. Resistance is Futile.

It seems to me that there is still a sense among at least some of you that "vehicular" still implies "like a car", including in the physical sense, rather than being a reference purely to operating in accordance to the common vehicular rules of the road, and having nothing to do with the particular operating and physical characteristics of any one type of vehicle.

You know in retrospect... I always operate according to vc principles... and this has nothing to do with any sort of physical characteristics... but simply that I yield to those in front of me, I take my turn at intersections, and I indicate where I plan on being on the road or sidewalk or parking lot... or even dirt track.

I don't always get the respect I deserve though, when others exercise "might makes right" and they try to bully me out of my position where ever it is, simply because they feel I don't belong there.

Now, going one further, there is nothing in vc principles that says I can't use space further to the right, or to the left, only that I should use the space that corresponds to my destination (IE I don't make left turns from the right side of where I might be riding. )

So in reality, even riding on sidewalks and across medians, I am traffic and I do operate vc.

In fact, here is a question... What really is non-vc? Not waiting (standing) in line at the theater... busting in? Going at right angles into other vehicles... going against the flow of any "traffic" situation?

I mean really, what is non-vc?

Huh? If I say "X" is an example of a VROTR, that certainly does not make it so. What makes it so is if and only if "X" is the law in the vast majority if not all of the jurisdictions on earth. As with any legal issue, there is always a subjective element, of course, but it's about as objective a standard as you can expect to get with rules, and about as far from being anyone's pure "opinion, interpretation or theory" as I can imagine.

If you have a few examples of rules that I think qualify but you or someone else might disagree, please share. If you don't, please stop wasting time and space by making these empty and pointless claims.



But of course it's not the case.



It's not up to me. If they're talking about their own definition, "vehicular" can mean lemon juice for all I care. But if I make a statement using vehicular, and someone else says what I mean is "like a car" (or "lemon juice" for that matter), then I have the right to correct them, for that's not what I mean by my usage, and, as far as this thread is concerned, I'm pretty sure "like a car" or "lemon juice" is also not what this OP meant.

I can say the sun rises in the west and sets in the east, and be correct, as long as I clarify that I don't intend the ordinary uses of east and west, but exactly the opposite. If I don't make that clarification, however, then the normal meanings are to be assumed, and the statement would be wrong. We can't stop and provide exact intended definitions of every term we use in every sentence we write. Assumptions about meaning can and must be made, according to various cultural conventions.

In the context of a given specialized term, deference is normally given to the definition intended by the one who coined the term. If someone intends a different meaning, they should be clear about that when they use the term.

With respect to vehicular cycling, the term was coined by John Forester, who clearly intended the meaning to ride a bicycle in traffic according to the vehicular rules of the road. In the context of a bike forum, it is only logical to assume that meaning of vehicular -- in accordance to the VROTR -- unless someone clearly states their intent is something else, and specifies what that is. Without these types of conventions and assumptions in language regarding definitions, communication would be impossible.



You seem to like to repeat the fact that VC existed long before Forester coined the term as if it's something new, significant, or challenges something I or someone said or believes. Why?

From the Wikipedia article on Vehicular Cycling:



Origins of Vehicular Cycling

The origins of vehicular cycling go back to the 19th century when bicycles were invented and shared the roads with horses and buggies. Cyclists have been riding in accordance to the vehicular rules of the road ever since.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicular_cycling#Origins_of_Vehicular_Cycling

Well for one, just as it is not up to you to define what is vehicular, it also isn't up to you to dictate what is or is not a waste of time and space. Your stock answer when challenged is to sputter about wasting time and space. That dawg don't hunt.

Lacking any definitive source that outlines what is or what is not 'vehicular', your views concerning the subject are nothing but opinion. Any of us can interpet historical or current customs and practices in our own way, there is no right or wrong, at least not in the context that YOU are the final judge and jury.

Bottom line is what I have maintained all along - Vehicular Cycling is nothing but a brand with a good helping of dogma. As an 'advocate' you are merely advocating your brand, not the wishes and needs of the majority of cyclists. I know that you are convinced that your way is the right way...but the sooner you realize that people and places are unique and cannot be neatly categorized and covered with the warmth of one blanket gospel solution, the sooner that you may discover that you can advocate cycling in general, not just one narrow brand or aspect of it.

BTW, cycling goes back to the 19th century...Vehicular Cycling is merely a term cooked up by John Forrester in an attempt to describe and brand his perception of how it should be done...just as you do. Some of us don't want or need to be placed neatly into someone else's little box or preached to about the 'one true way'. My Lord, how did people ever survive on a bicycle before Forrester coined a phrase?

I would like to advance a style of bicycling known as BC, 'bicycular cycling'- whereby I operate my bicycle according to the generally accepted practice of riding a bicycle. At the same time, the other definition of 'BC' also applies.

This is BC method. Resistance to BC is futile.

I would like to advance a style of bicycling known as BC, 'bicycular cycling'- whereby I operate my bicycle according to the generally accepted practice of riding a bicycle. At the same time, the other definition of 'BC' also applies.

This is BC method. Resistance to BC is futile.

I like the minimalist approach - JC - Just Cycling - absorbing me is futile. ;)

In particular, what exactly did I actually say that filled you with the need to inform me that I "ain't the law", or that I need to be told that "we can't afford to be inflexible"? What did I actually say that makes you think I'm not inflexible, or that anything I advocate is inflexible?

Remember the little discussion about passing the vehicle parked in the street? Believe me, the following happens often:
The posted speed limit is 30 MPH. There's some huge Dodge truck parked smack in the middle of the lane not far away. Luckily it's empty, so no dooring danger. Far up ahead there's a T intersection. The street is clear, so it looks good to pass the truck on the left. You shift down and go for it, rearbraking to spill some speed.
Suddenly, a Ford Explorer turns off the T straight for you. It looks like he's going slow... Then he suddenly stomps it, going 50 in seconds! :eek: Better, the driver has a cellphone glued to his head and a blank look in his eyes. He's looking right through you! Holy f***!
If you havn't died from a heart attack in your saddle, then you take the only options left, bail into the ditch or be a ghost. Obviously, doing it your way would suck verily there. Now can you blame me or sit in judgement for my bending a few grass blades out of place?

I don't ever count on the drivers here to be parking legally, laying off the throttle, hanging up the damn phone, or watching where the hell they're going. If I did, I'de be typing this from the grave.

As I recall, the only time VC actually worked here was when Wilma ran all the nutbar cagers out of town. While they were running for Dallas in a mad panic - if you can call 2 MPH in bumper to bumper running :D - all the cyclists came out to enjoy a couple of days without having to play dodge the SUV sized bullet for a change. We did the VC thing with no accidents and it was beauitful! All the stores were closed, but that was the price for peace... Too bad it only lasted a couple of days.

WWJCD? what would the 'just cycler' do?

I am starting the 'BC' movement tonight.... the "bike like you are riding a bike" style of riding!

I will slip through a stop sign if visibility is adequate. If there's little traffic, I'll stop for a red light then proceed through before it turns green, especially if ti's real hot, real cold, or there are a lot of crack dealers on that corner. I love cutting through alleys, vacant lots, railyards, parks and parking lots. To me that's a main joy of riding or even walking. You see parts of the city that others don't even know are there. There are beautiful wild spots in the city that you can find if you get off the beaten path. I feel sorry for you if you have never seen them. That's also one reason I ride a mountain bike about nine days out of ten.

It's Roody-Riding!

WWJCD? what would the 'just cycler' do?

I am starting the 'BC' movement tonight.... the "bike like you are riding a bike" style of riding!

Are ya gonna get preachy?

We're going to shoehorn you in somewhere, Mr. JC....

I find the 'BC' method used in a scenario like VC puzzler #8 a much safer style of bicycling than a strict D.L.L.P.- C.L.A.P.P.E.R.interpretation, or the commonly accepted practices of the "whoosawhatsis" school of bicycling.

We're going to shoehorn you in somewhere, Mr. JC....

I find the 'BC' method used in a scenario like VC puzzler #8 a much safer style of bicycling than a strict D.L.L.P.- C.L.A.P.P.E.R.interpretation, or the commonly accepted practices of the "whoosawhatsis" school of bicycling dogma....

Do I gotta join a club, wear spandex, shave my legs, or drink Starbucks? (stuff gives me heartburn)

dang, I can't even edit fast enough!


no, no starbucks required. but why wouldn't you shave your legs like normal bicyclists? ;)

It doesn't impact my BC style if you're going to split lanes to left or right, or not, because, how you ride your bike in Vegas only works in Vegas. and then only sometimes.

I have no clue how to ride a bike except in the BC style. And i think that means for me, I take the lane often, and sometimes split lanes with cars, because they split them with me.

BC not-rule #b, from the appendix: cars split lanes, so can I.

dang, I can't even edit fast enough!


no, no starbucks required. but why wouldn't you shave your legs like normal bicyclists? ;)

It doesn't impact my BC style if you're going to split lanes to left or right, or not, because, how you ride your bike in Vegas only works in Vegas. and then only sometimes.

I have no clue how to ride a bike except in the BC style. And i think that means for me, I take the lane often, and sometimes split lanes with cars, because they split them with me.

BC not-rule #b, from the appendix: cars split lanes, so can I.

OK, I'm in...not-rule number one - you make your own rules. Like my sig? :D

Okay, you BC bastard, ride your bike like that if you want!

You guys are soo funny. :D

I'de like to promote VD = Vehicular driving. As in hang up the phone, pay attention, share the road stupid, Bikes Belong so get used to it, Don't Buzz Me, Shove That Horn Up Your Ass, and the speed limit ain't a god damn minimum!
VC alone won't work. Ask the roadkilled and hospitialized hardline VC riders about that. When VD works, VC works.
Does it make sense?

you better not try riding that thing like it's a bike, dammit, soul !!!

What are all the drivers going to think?

You guys are soo funny. :D

I'de like to promote VD = Vehicular driving. As in hang up the phone, pay attention, share the road stupid, Bikes Belong so get used to it, Don't Buzz Me, Shove That Horn Up Your Ass, and the speed limit ain't a god damn minimum!
VC alone won't work. Ask the roadkilled and hospitialized hardline VC riders about that. When VD works, VC works.
Does it make sense?

I'm visualizing an old military health flick, but instead of warning against VD it's promoting it!

"Good morning Marines, today we are going to talk about VD - good for you, good for me"

:eek:

you better not try riding that thing like it's a bike, dammit, soul !!!

What are all the drivers going to think?

That would be Cyclicular Caging - jump that curb!