Advocacy & Safety - Not a vehicle, not a pedestrian...

I ride based on a philosophy I call "centaurian".

My bike takes me places, but is different enough from a car to not limit itself to the legal hinderances I face while driving.

I am not a pedestrian while riding a bicycle, but I have the same perspective and hazards as a person walking.

When I ride my bike in the city, I approach each situation as a pedestrian (i.e. use of sidewalks, crosswalks, and safely running lights/crossing streets) and as a vehicle (i.e. riding in traffic, signaling lane changes, etc.)

My sister is a former triathalete, and very 'VC'. I actually commute by bicycle, and play by the rules above.

Having a bike to me is like being a centaur, half'n'half. Why should I treat my bike like a car?

What's wrong with my way, that it makes my sister so angry? I'm curious. My way works for me.

My health insurance company considered me a pedestrian as far as my accident (hit by car), what about the police?

jw

The police in Atlanta don't really care what you do on your bicycle, as long as you don't kill anybody (intentionally). We are 'below the radar'.

I ride based on a philosophy I call "centaurian".

My bike takes me places, but is different enough from a car to not limit itself to the legal hinderances I face while driving.

I am not a pedestrian while riding a bicycle, but I have the same perspective and hazards as a person walking.

When I ride my bike in the city, I approach each situation as a pedestrian (i.e. use of sidewalks, crosswalks, and safely running lights/crossing streets) and as a vehicle (i.e. riding in traffic, signaling lane changes, etc.)

My sister is a former triathalete, and very 'VC'. I actually commute by bicycle, and play by the rules above.


Having a bike to me is like being a centaur, half'n'half. Why should I treat my bike like a car?

What's wrong with my way, that it makes my sister so angry? I'm curious. My way works for me.
Interesting concept.
By a very basic definition, a vehicle is any mechanical device designed to take a person from point A to point B. So a bike is a vehicle by that definition. A star trek teleporter is a vehicle by that definition. A pair of skates, heck, a pair of sneakers is a vehicle by that definition.
Texas vehicle code, and probably other states, reconizes bicycles, recumbents, hand cranked cycles, wheelchairs (!) and kick scooters (!!) as human powered vehicles that can be legally operated on the roads, the only exception being the freeway.
The code doesn't call bikes cars, and damned sure doesn't give the car any right to bully bikes. The code says bikes are legal road vehicles, just as it calls cars legal road vehicles.
If it helps, just think of yourself on your bike as a very light, very quiet, agile motorcycle that can go anywhere but the freeway and sips gatoraid instead of gas. :) Serious problems arise when drivers believe that bikes have no right to the road, contrary to what the law says, and believe they can terrorize riders and get away with it. Then you got the oblivious nimrods that aren't paying attention and driving recklessly and even illegally with complete disregard for anyone's safety...
It's a mentally ****ed up, incredibly lazy, stupid, paranoid, self-indulgent, insanely greedy mindset the car culture has created, and that mindset refuses to see the trouble it's causing for everyone. And don't get me started on the connection between the car, oil gluttony, resource wars, and terrorism. Bikes aren't the problem; bikes are the solution.
Ride with pride!
[/endrant]

My health insurance company considered me a pedestrian as far as my accident (hit by car), what about the police?

jw

Here accidents involving cyclists are categorized as pedestrian accidents, and the cyclist is described as "pedestrian" on the accident form. Just the kind of little thing that sticks in your craw.

Interesting concept.
By a very basic definition, a vehicle is any mechanical device designed to take a person from point A to point B. So a bike is a vehicle by that definition. A star trek teleporter is a vehicle by that definition. A pair of skates, heck, a pair of sneakers is a vehicle by that definition.
Texas vehicle code, and probably other states, reconizes bicycles, recumbents, hand cranked cycles, wheelchairs (!) and kick scooters (!!) as human powered vehicles that can be legally operated on the roads, the only exception being the freeway.
The code doesn't call bikes cars, and damned sure doesn't give the car any right to bully bikes. The code says bikes are legal road vehicles, just as it calls cars legal road vehicles.



CA vehicle code calls a bicycle a "human powered device," not a vehicle.

I'd feel better about bicycling if I could buy bicycle insurance, just like I get auto or motorcycle insurance -This is my personal preference, and not one that reflects the good of the general bicycling populace .
I use my bikes as transportation every day on roadways with a bunch of idiots just like myself, but most of them are driving 2 ton vehicles.
I'd like to be covered as a bicyclist on the road, instead of the cobbed togther version of personal property and injury protection advanced by the American insurance industry.

What's wrong with my way, that it makes my sister so angry? I'm curious. My way works for me.

Here's a scenario I frequently encounter. I pull up to a 4-way stop and I actually stop. But behind me another cyclist whips past me and blows the stop. The problem is that I stopped and everybody assumed their rightful right of way in relation to my behavior. But the other cyclist has come careening through the intersection, cross-traffic be damned. Now everybody screetches to a stop to avoid hitting that guy. Now all eyes turn to me because now I can't be trusted. What am I going to do? Follow the cyclist who blew the light? Are we together? And because I'm left waiting at the stop, all anti-cyclist rage can now focus on me. Everybody stares. Everybody glares. And then no matter how long I wait for them to complete their rightful right of way moves, they all wave and glare and wait until I finally go.

I HATE that!!!

Stop at the bloody stop signs why don't you already? You'll make us a whole lot more friends out there and we'll all be a whole lot safer.

I ride based on a philosophy I call "centaurian".

My bike takes me places, but is different enough from a car to not limit itself to the legal hinderances I face while driving.

I am not a pedestrian while riding a bicycle, but I have the same perspective and hazards as a person walking.
The term I've seen used for what you describe is a "rolling pedestrian".



When I ride my bike in the city, I approach each situation as a pedestrian (i.e. use of sidewalks, crosswalks, and safely running lights/crossing streets) and as a vehicle (i.e. riding in traffic, signaling lane changes, etc.)
Me too. The key is to be especially vigilant and cognizant during the transition between being a "rolling pedestrian" and a "vehicular cyclist". For example, yesterday I saw a cyclist ride off a sidewalk and into traffic without even a half-hearted look-back, much less a signal and check for a gap. The driver he pulled in front of had to suddenly hit the brakes to avoid hitting him. I'm not saying you do this, I'm just saying it's really easy to overlook the hazards when switching between the two modes. The most common place I see this is when cyclists exit bike paths into traffic.



Having a bike to me is like being a centaur, half'n'half. Why should I treat my bike like a car?
Have you read something somewhere that indicates you should treat your bike like a car?

Have you read something somewhere that indicates you should treat your bike like a car?

I've seen recommendations about using auto wax to keep your frame shiny, but I'm lazy and use lemon pledge. :D

Seriously though the one problem I see with all of our different riding styles is that it confuses motorists. When motorists see the majority of cyclists riding in the gutter they assume I'm in the wrong when I'm more safely away from the curb or door zone. But I don't see anything changing that when most motorists can't all agree what speed a roadway should be travelled at and that the left lane is supposed to be for passing only.

I clean my frame with liquid auto wax... works great and the stuff helps remove road grime. I highly recommend it.

How about joggers who jog in the road ?
Am I a bad guy for riding up on the sidewalk to avoid them or
should I swing way out into the road and slow up cars at the risk
of adding to the potentiality of an undesirable situation ??
I cant worry about what cars think of me. Im only bound by my
own rules of staying out of everyones way and my own safety.
The only rule I abide by is Never impede a car or a ped.
If I blow stop signs but havent impeded a cars forward motion in any
way, so what. It's a 'them' problem if they dont like it, not mine.
Each mode of transportation has benefts inherent to them. Cars keep
thier occupants out of the weather but at the risk of being inefficient in
a congested situation whereas bycycles allow thier occupants to
traverse from point "A" to "B" in a hightly efficient manner but at the risk
of the riders exposure to the elements for two minimal examples.....
How silly is to think that I should have to sit in a traffic jam or 5-car-deep
stop sign mess created by cars.......??
We live in a society that increasingly has no regard for other peoples/cyclists
wellbeing or consideration. As the weaker element, cyclists suffer worse for it.
There will be peace in the Middle East before the average car driver is going to
say "gee....I dont mind being held up for someone higher societal concience than
I do" Let Lance be an ambassador, Im not going to flatter myself or waste time
worrying or thinking about if I just changed a car drivers perception of cyclists by
my freindly, VC riding style or by rolling a stop sign when there are no other cars
crossing me.

CA vehicle code calls a bicycle a "human powered device," not a vehicle.
Ouch!! :( I hope CA at least reconizes you as a legal road user. Then again, considering the CHP cops that bullied the club riders...
My condolences, Gene.

I clean my frame with liquid auto wax... works great and the stuff helps remove road grime. I highly recommend it.

I coat cables with turtle wax. It makes a great long lasting dry lube that scares the rust demon away from exposed cables.

If I blow stop signs but havent impeded a cars forward motion in any way, so what. It's a 'them' problem if they dont like it, not mine.

How silly is to think that I should have to sit in a traffic jam or 5-car-deep stop sign mess created by cars.......??

This is an excellent post. Logical, efficient, simple.

kill all cars

an no time during the operation of a bike either in a vehicular manner, extravehicular manner, or a mischarecterized 'rolling pedestrian' manner, at NO TIME have I ceased to be the rider of a bicycle, and should be recognized by all other humans in public conveyance as a bicycle rider.

I don't want to look like a shopping cart, pedestrian, car or other. I am riding a bike.

Usually the road or lane or shoulder or path or walk, a 'most expedient' for others and also safe for me. I'll wrong way it, if it helps a crowded, congested situation. I split lanes. I use both sides of any lane, and ride in the middle on occasion if expediency dictates and safety doesn't deny it.

Its not in accordance with a code of vehicular conduct or whatisit to compel me to ride my bike as if it was a vehicle...i mean, really! like surly fem points out,w hy get caught up in a traffic snarl of cars' own devising, if a bike can skirt the issue cleanly?

How I ride, is so I don't get killed, thats number one. I take the lane, I don't let cars push me around. Most of the time I bike as if my bike is a car. I do use bike path to bypass freeway, here in Wisconsin we can't by law. Bike paths our also good for getting out of the city. Of couse I bike in city and out. I have taken highways out of town where there are no bike paths. KEEP SAFE!!
Super Geek

One of my favorites:
http://www.spikedhumor.com/articles/7071/Saigon_Traffic.html

Im only bound by my
own rules of staying out of everyones way and my own safety.
The only rule I abide by is Never impede a car or a ped.
If I blow stop signs but havent impeded a cars forward motion in any
way, so what. It's a 'them' problem if they dont like it, not mine.
.....
How silly is to think that I should have to sit in a traffic jam or 5-car-deep
stop sign mess created by cars.......??
Im not going to flatter myself or waste time
worrying or thinking about if I just changed a car drivers perception of cyclists by
my freindly, VC riding style or by rolling a stop sign when there are no other cars
crossing me.
This is exactly what happens when there are insufficient bicycle facilities on the road. It becomes an invitation to bike free-for-all. This is why I personally am opposed to a pure VC WOL only type of solution as it offers no guidance out there to real cyclists in the real world.

You need markings on the road to shape the behavior of free-for-all cyclists into lawful, safe behavior. Otherwise you get guys who think the only choice is to either a) blow the stops after filtering to the front, or b) wait in line at a long line of traffic. Otherwise you get wrong-way and sidewalk cycling and people riding in a totally antisocial, me-first, "it's your problem if you don't like it" manner.

All it takes is a few guys blowing the stops and then the next time something happens, every letter to the paper about cyclists will be all about how those outlaw cyclists never stop at stop signs, they ride in a way that almost gets them killed and gives the motorists a near heart attack. They'll think all of us are like that. Then they'll ban us from the streets because obviously we're all a bunch of arrested adolescents playing with our toys and impeding the safe passage of the grownups in their cars, and not people with jobs just trying to get to work or get a little exercise.

It's very simple. You ride down the bike lane or off to the right of a lane without one. You're in a predictable spot on the road. Everybody can trust you. They know what your direction of travel will be.

At the light or stop you filter to the front, wait your turn, and go. Negotiate your way through the intersection from the rightmost ridable portion of the lane that is going in your direction, whether that's left, right or center, and whether that lane has a bike lane or not.

You haven't impeded anybody. You haven't obsessed over what's happening behind you. You haven't had to make a lot of gratuitous lateral lane positioning changes all along the way, or crazy hand signals nobody will understand (they'll just think you're crazy or giving them the finger anyway). Smooth and simple. Point A to point B. The real world.

This is how I ride. It is not rocket science. It's the polite thing to do. Remember, this is still the civilized world.

[/rant]

This is exactly what happens when there are insufficient bicycle facilities on the road. It becomes an invitation to bike free-for-all. This is why I personally am opposed to a pure VC WOL only type of solution as it offers no guidance out there to real cyclists in the real world.

You need markings on the road to shape the behavior of free-for-all cyclists into lawful, safe behavior. Otherwise you get guys who think the only choice is to either a) blow the stops after filtering to the front, or b) wait in line at a long line of traffic. Otherwise you get wrong-way and sidewalk cycling and people riding in a totally antisocial, me-first, "it's your problem if you don't like it" manner.

All it takes is a few guys blowing the stops and then the next time something happens, every letter to the paper about cyclists will be all about how those outlaw cyclists never stop at stop signs, they ride in a way that almost gets them killed and gives the motorists a near heart attack. They'll think all of us are like that. Then they'll ban us from the streets because obviously we're all a bunch of arrested adolescents playing with our toys and impeding the safe passage of the grownups in their cars, and not people with jobs just trying to get to work or get a little exercise.

It's very simple. You ride down the bike lane or off to the right of a lane without one. You're in a predictable spot on the road. Everybody can trust you. They know what your direction of travel will be.

At the light or stop you filter to the front, wait your turn, and go. Negotiate your way through the intersection from the rightmost ridable portion of the lane that is going in your direction, whether that's left, right or center, and whether that lane has a bike lane or not.

You haven't impeded anybody. You haven't obsessed over what's happening behind you. You haven't had to make a lot of gratuitous lateral lane positioning changes all along the way, or crazy hand signals nobody will understand (they'll just think you're crazy or giving them the finger anyway). Smooth and simple. Point A to point B. The real world.

This is how I ride. It is not rocket science. It's the polite thing to do. Remember, this is still the civilized world.

[/rant]

I respect your opinion but it wont change the way I ride. BTW, Ive been riding since 1964 and
commuting for parts of the last three decades. Ive survived. I can only think the differences in
our opinions stem from the geographical differences of where we live, as evidenced by your last
statement ........"Remember, this is still the civilized world." Here on the East Coast it is anything
but civilised if you are a cyclist. Anger and open hostility is what one can expect to suffer on
any given ride. It is not a civilised world here and peoples riding styles and attitudes have
evolved accordingly.

I think that the way you wrote conveyed an attitude of mayhem-style cycling. I did not read it that way, but perhaps others did. There is a difference between blatantly disregarding rules and sensibly bending rules/taking advantage of your vehicle's abilities in your favor. I'm picturing the latter, since you've allegedly been safe where you're riding.

^^^^ It must be feline mind meld. I :love: cats !!!

Your interpritation is correct. I am a very meek and mild mannered
person who goes out of my way to avoid conflict in any situation.
I suppose upon rereading my own rantage I come across more like a
Starbuck amped NYC messenger. I am scared of cars and go out of
my way to make sure they can go about thier business in anyway
they want and if they let me do the same, I am happy. In the 80's it was
very different. No real anger toward bikes. But when the development
bomb hit all of our scenic roads became thru-ways. I can almost side
with cars in some situations where militant lycra roadies on group rides
would tie up roads and create traffic issues by not letting cars go by.
I think when this phenomenon started to happen regularly we all suffered.
I guess that could lead into a whole 'nother argument though.
I still believe car drivers opinions of us as weirdo's, liberal radicals, etc
are already formed and nothing anyone could do will change that.
Be safe !

http://www.anikaos.com/0013-cats/kaos-cats02.gif http://www.anikaos.com/0013-cats/kaos-cats10.gif

My suggestion to a new rider would be to follow the rules of the road religiously for a couple years, and use a vehicular cycling strategy during that time, until you feel comfortable riding in the many different situations the world throws at you. During that time, read the several books about cycling that are referenced here, and pay attention to what experienced riders here say, people with diverse opinions such as sbhikes, DC, bekologist, noise beam, genec and several others.

This period is an apprenticeship, and your goal should be to learn from others and also establish a good experience base. Also, learn bike handling techniques, get in better shape, and start finding bikes and gear that work for you.

At a certain point, you will know the basics and you won't feel stressed out by traffic, weather and the other vagaries of cycling. THEN AND ONLY THEN you can easily begin to develop your own riding style. At that point, but not before it, you can throw out the rule book and ride as you see fit.

I have been riding (as an adult) for only 3 1/2 years, but for many thousands of miles. Only now do I really begin to feel comfortable riding in "my own style."

I ride based on a philosophy I call "centaurian".
I thought a centaur is half man, half horse's *ss -- probably not the best creature to draw inspiration from..... :D

That aside, I don't think there's any set of hard rules that works for all situations. I personally prefer to ride as a car when possible. My experience is that if you ride in the lane, follow the rules, and act with consideration for others, people will treat you with respect. We have a nice new law in our state that allows cyclists to pass on the right if it can be done safely, so following the law doesn't imply that you need to sit in traffic jams.

There are times when following the law to the letter actually causes problems. At that point, the basic rule is to be avoid impeding or endangering others in a manner that makes you easy to predict. I bend a few rules, but I don't do anything that I wouldn't be willing to do cop right behind me (I pass within 2 blocks of 2 police stations in different towns on my commute so I see them often).

My suggestion to a new rider would be to follow the rules of the road religiously for a couple years, and use a vehicular cycling strategy during that time, until you feel comfortable riding in the many different situations the world throws at you. During that time, read the several books about cycling that are referenced here, and pay attention to what experienced riders here say, people with diverse opinions such as sbhikes, DC, bekologist, noise beam, genec and several others.

This period is an apprenticeship... <and more.>
I have been riding (as an adult) for only 3 1/2 years, but for many thousands of miles. Only now do I really begin to feel comfortable riding in "my own style."
Sounds like good advice if a new rider wants to make riding a bicycling into some sort of rocket science, or at least as complicated (and as much fun) as flying like an albatross-wannabe.

If that sort of apprenticeship is what it took for Roody to reach his present state of comfortable cycling; no further comment is necessary.

I had a dream, too. In my dream, bicycle facilities (bike lanes) were available everywhere there were roads for other vehicles. These lanes were in like another dimension or something. No cars or trucks or farm tractors or pedestrians. Just bicycles. There were on ramps and off ramps all over the place so you could get where you needed to go with relative ease. It was like paradise. There were a few rules to follow and everyone followed them. Everyone was happy.

Then all kinds of self-centered, disrespectful, more entitled types started showing up on the bike lanes that didn't want to or didn't think they had to follow the rules. It seemed as though they were making up their own rules. It didn't take long and what started out as a dream soon became a chaotic nightmare. Atleast it was just bicycles.

Some of you people are either extremely paranoid, or chronic weed smokers.

I have ridden in various terrain/cityscapes/situations for the past 25 years, some as chaotic as a messenger's fixed Halloween Critical Mass, without ever seeing the kind of pandemonium you predict.

Where did some of you come up with such fanciful, terrific notions of bicycle anarchy? :lol:

Maybe you should ride more. I find cycling to put my mind at ease....

...
This period is an apprenticeship, and your goal should be to learn from others and also establish a good experience base. Also, learn bike handling techniques, get in better shape, and start finding bikes and gear that work for you.

At a certain point, you will know the basics and you won't feel stressed out by traffic, weather and the other vagaries of cycling. THEN AND ONLY THEN you can easily begin to develop your own riding style. At that point, but not before it, you can throw out the rule book and ride as you see fit.

I have been riding (as an adult) for only 3 1/2 years, but for many thousands of miles. Only now do I really begin to feel comfortable riding in "my own style."

Odd, this advice. We sit and talk about cycling and the associated skills, but it is not really that complicated, provided that you also know the general goals of riding in an urban environment and the basic rules of the road. One thing I've always noticed is that this stuff about technique is complicated if you talk about it, but if you are actually doing it, it is not really that difficult. It is like throwing a ball or swimming; actually describing the mechanics requires a bunch of complicated language and long explanations, but doing it is not that difficult, after the person is made aware of what to be aware of. We cannot lose sight of this fact.

Sometimes people who are good at something, or think they are, like to make what they do appear harder than it really is. I think there is a bit of this tendency running around this forum.

I ride based on a philosophy I call "centaurian".

My bike takes me places, but is different enough from a car to not limit itself to the legal hinderances I face while driving.

I am not a pedestrian while riding a bicycle, but I have the same perspective and hazards as a person walking.

When I ride my bike in the city, I approach each situation as a pedestrian (i.e. use of sidewalks, crosswalks, and safely running lights/crossing streets) and as a vehicle (i.e. riding in traffic, signaling lane changes, etc.)

My sister is a former triathalete, and very 'VC'. I actually commute by bicycle, and play by the rules above.

Having a bike to me is like being a centaur, half'n'half. Why should I treat my bike like a car?

What's wrong with my way, that it makes my sister so angry? I'm curious. My way works for me.

Your way make work for you, but it may give you a bad reputation amongst other road users that can't see your system, and will just assume the worst about you. When I'm walking (no bike) and I'm waiting for the light to change, and it does, and I see a cyclist coming from the other direction, I have no idea whether or not the cyclist will stop or try and mow me down in the crosswalk. Since enough cyclists around here don't stop for reds. FWIW I try to signal stops wherever possible for the benefit of a pedestrian to know that I do plan to stop for them :) How do you expect the car that you are trying to negotiate a lane change with to respect the fact you want in the lane when he's just seen you get to where you are on the roadway from the sidewalk and crosswalk?

Even though you haven't encountered any problems with your system (luckily since riding on the sidewalk often puts you in a position where cars don't think to look before turning) you may have made lots of pedestrians jumpy by passing them on the sidewalk at speed, or by riding at them in the crosswalk.

Would you like cars to treat stoplights as stop signs?

Yes a bicycle is not a car and that makes it much easier and safer to do a lot of things that cars can't. A lot of traffic law is written with the car in mind and is not particularly necessary for a bicycle - having a narrow footprint and a lower speed.

I do break the odd traffic law (riding down residential one way streets the wrong way, but only the same kind of ones I would walk down the middle of the road as well) but try to follow the rules as much as I can so that I can encourage respect of cyclists. Stopping at the red light doesn't cost much time, and provides a nice little break at the same time. Lots of otherwise nice people I know think cyclists are idiots and mostly because they see the ones like you who think they are half and half, and it is really annoying the cyclist-hatred is pervasive. The hatred that gets honked at and aggressive driving and yelling out the window, to someone that is following all the rules, because you happen to be a convenient cyclist to pick on.

Odd, this advice. We sit and talk about cycling and the associated skills, but it is not really that complicated, provided that you also know the general goals of riding in an urban environment and the basic rules of the road. One thing I've always noticed is that this stuff about technique is complicated if you talk about it, but if you are actually doing it, it is not really that difficult. It is like throwing a ball or swimming; actually describing the mechanics requires a bunch of complicated language and long explanations, but doing it is not that difficult, after the person is made aware of what to be aware of. We cannot lose sight of this fact.

Sometimes people who are good at something, or think they are, like to make what they do appear harder than it really is. I think there is a bit of this tendency running around this forum.
If it's not so hard, then why do the vast majority of cyclists make the most basic mistakes all the time?

Actually, I agree, in the end, it really isn't all that hard. What's hard is losing the albatross that prevents most people from even trying to be part of traffic.

Your way make work for you, but it may give you a bad reputation amongst other road users

Cool. I ride for transportation, not reputation. :beer:


Would you like cars to treat stoplights as stop signs?

Yes a bicycle is not a car....

No argument with you here. No, I wouldn't want cars to break traffic laws, as they weigh several tons.
But, as for bikes, yes you are right. A bicycle is not a car. You argue against yourself quite effectively, no need for me to jump in. :D


I do break the odd traffic law...riding down residential one way streets the wrong way....
...nice people I know think cyclists are idiots and mostly because they see the ones like you who think they are half and half...

You sure those 'nice' people are referring to me (someone they have never seen before in their life) or you when they see you careening down a one-way the wrong way? ;)

Your user name is quite appropro, BTW. Kudos for living up to it in every way possible.

Every person riding a bicycle upon a roadway shall be granted all of the rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this chapter, except as to special regulations in this article and except as to those provisions of this chapter which by their nature can have no application.

(Acts 1980, No. 80-434, p. 604, &sect;12-102.)

The code doesn't say a bicycle is a car ... it says the person operating the bicycle (on a roadway) is subject to the same rights and responsiblities of a driver of a vehicle ...

I don't think it's matter of what we are (vehicle or pedestrian). I think it's a matter of what pathway (roadway or sidewalk or trail) that we operate on that determines the laws that we are required to comply with. On the roadway, we are to comply with vehicular traffic laws; on the sidewalk, we comply with pedestrian traffic laws ... regardless of what we want to call ourselves.

Good Luck,
d.tipton

If it's not so hard, then why do the vast majority of cyclists make the most basic mistakes all the time?
Because what you consider to be among the "most basic mistakes" are quite often not really mistakes at all.

Odd, this advice. We sit and talk about cycling and the associated skills, but it is not really that complicated, provided that you also know the general goals of riding in an urban environment and the basic rules of the road. One thing I've always noticed is that this stuff about technique is complicated if you talk about it, but if you are actually doing it, it is not really that difficult. It is like throwing a ball or swimming; actually describing the mechanics requires a bunch of complicated language and long explanations, but doing it is not that difficult, after the person is made aware of what to be aware of. We cannot lose sight of this fact.

Sometimes people who are good at something, or think they are, like to make what they do appear harder than it really is. I think there is a bit of this tendency running around this forum.
I did not mean to imply that cycling according to the rules is difficult. It really isn't, especially if you have experience as a driver.

What is tricky is learning enough about cycling in traffic to "throw away the rule book" and begin espousing your idiosyncratic cycling methods. It seems obvous that some posters here are not experienced vehicular cyclists. Nevertheless, they seem to think that they know more about cycling than the experts, who almost unanimously advocate VC. Before preaching some strange hybrid of vehicular and pedestrian cycling, or devising any other personalized "system" of riding in traffic, you owe it to yourself and to other road users to first learn the right way.

If it's not so hard, then why do the vast majority of cyclists make the most basic mistakes all the time?

Actually, I agree, in the end, it really isn't all that hard. What's hard is losing the albatross that prevents most people from even trying to be part of traffic.
I saw this after I posted my previous message. It's what I was trying to say, only I was much less coherent and concise.

Cool. I ride for transportation, not reputation. :beer:



No argument with you here. No, I wouldn't want cars to break traffic laws, as they weigh several tons.
But, as for bikes, yes you are right. A bicycle is not a car. You argue against yourself quite effectively, no need for me to jump in. :D



You sure those 'nice' people are referring to me (someone they have never seen before in their life) or you when they see you careening down a one-way the wrong way? ;)

Your user name is quite appropro, BTW. Kudos for living up to it in every way possible.

Off Topic: Crazybikerchick disagreed with you in a respectful manner. You saw fit to respond rudely. Is it your belief that centaurs and other mythological creatures don't have to follow the rules of civilization, whether cycling on the streets or surfing on the internet?

It seems obvous that some posters here are not experienced vehicular cyclists. Nevertheless, they seem to think that they know more about cycling than the experts, who almost unanimously advocate VC. Before preaching some strange hybrid of vehicular and pedestrian cycling, or devising any other personalized "system" of riding in traffic, you owe it to yourself and to other road users to first learn the right way.
Yeah, sure thing Roody.
The right way = Your way.

Expert = Anyone able to "educate" Roody.

Too silly; and not worth wasting anymore electrons on such blarney.

What is tricky is learning enough about cycling in traffic to "throw away the rule book" and begin espousing your idiosyncratic cycling methods. It seems obvous that some posters here are not experienced vehicular cyclists. Nevertheless, they seem to think that they know more about cycling than the experts, who almost unanimously advocate VC. Before preaching some strange hybrid of vehicular and pedestrian cycling, or devising any other personalized "system" of riding in traffic, you owe it to yourself and to other road users to first learn the right way.

I still disagree. While there are some things to learn about vehicular cycling, there are people out there who survive just fine using different "styles" of cycling. The "experts" you speak of are all self described. Perhaps this is by necessity, but it is still a self described title. That the "experts" with which you agree with their self description are all advocating vehicular cycling is no suprise, given your opinions on the subject. Perhaps you feel you owe some of these people credit for having their ideas get you out on your bike 3 years ago, but not everyone feels this debt.

For instance, messengers, some of whom have survived on the city streets for 50-60 hours a week all year for several years might legimately call themselves "experts," though it is unlikely that you would agree with their self assessment, given their "style" of cycling.

Perhaps coming up with a formal (and politically independent) school of study regarding vehicular traffic and including cyclist interactions should be a goal of cycling advocacy. This would clear up the need for self described experts and would inject some much needed "hard" data into our debates.

I still disagree. While there are some things to learn about vehicular cycling, there are people out there who survive just fine using different "styles" of cycling. The "experts" you speak of are all self described. Perhaps this is by necessity, but it is still a self described title. That the "experts" with which you agree with their self description are all advocating vehicular cycling is no suprise, given your opinions on the subject. Perhaps you feel you owe some of these people credit for having their ideas get you out on your bike 3 years ago, but not everyone feels this debt.

For instance, messengers, some of whom have survived on the city streets for 50-60 hours a week all year for several years might legimately call themselves "experts," though it is unlikely that you would agree with their self assessment, given their "style" of cycling.

Perhaps coming up with a formal (and politically independent) school of study regarding vehicular traffic and including cyclist interactions should be a goal of cycling advocacy. This would clear up the need for self described experts and would inject some much needed "hard" data into our debates.


Experts are people who have used principles of observation and analysis to develop a replicable system of rules. There are experts on this forum, in fact you, Brian, are probably one of them. (I am not, nor do I claim to be. Maybe some day....)

All experts are "self-described" to some extent. Newton did not have a degree in physics, nor did Einstein. Both were "self-described" experts. They became full-fledged experts when others read their books and agreed with their ideas. The books published by experts in cyling safety, agreed to by the many people who read these books, basically agree that bicycles should be driven on the roadway in a vehicular manner. Do you know of anybody who has thought this matter through, who is an expert, who believes that there is any other way to ride? While there are many disagreements on details, the basic assumptions of all experts support a vehicular cycling style.

The "style" I see most cyclists use around here is definitely not vehicular. It is a mish-mash of dangerous practices including wrong-way, sudden erratic turns and swerves, a total reliance on other road users to avoid them, rather than any attempt to ride defensively. This "style" obviously puts the riders at greater risk, along with anybody else, including other cyclists, who is unlucky enough to be on the road with them.

I don't see how anybody can condone this kind of riding, or rightly describe it as a "system." People obviously do not have an innate or instinctive ability to handle a vehicle in traffic. We require training, education and experience. Cagers get some training, and they still screw up from time to time. Cyclists get no training, and the only reason they do not get hit more often, in my opinion, is because cagers have learned (through education and experience) to give us a wide berth.

Messengers and other experienced or intelligent cyclists may eventually develop a "system" that works for them so far. Does it also work for other road users? Do these nonvehicular tricks sometimes (or often) annoy and aggravate motorists? Other cyclists? Pedestrians? Is there any possibility that the main reason that cagers are hostile to us is because so many of us are just poor cyclists who never bothered to learn the rudiments of our craft, and show no consideration for other users. How long will it be before they crack down on this behavior with restrictions that will affect us all? Why is this not the primary area of concern for cycling advocates?

How about joggers who jog in the road ?
Am I a bad guy for riding up on the sidewalk to avoid them or
should I swing way out into the road and slow up cars at the risk
of adding to the potentiality of an undesirable situation ??
I cant worry about what cars think of me. Im only bound by my
own rules of staying out of everyones way and my own safety.
The only rule I abide by is Never impede a car or a ped.
If I blow stop signs but havent impeded a cars forward motion in any
way, so what. It's a 'them' problem if they dont like it, not mine.
Each mode of transportation has benefts inherent to them. Cars keep
thier occupants out of the weather but at the risk of being inefficient in
a congested situation whereas bycycles allow thier occupants to
traverse from point "A" to "B" in a hightly efficient manner but at the risk
of the riders exposure to the elements for two minimal examples.....
How silly is to think that I should have to sit in a traffic jam or 5-car-deep
stop sign mess created by cars.......??
We live in a society that increasingly has no regard for other peoples/cyclists
wellbeing or consideration. As the weaker element, cyclists suffer worse for it.
There will be peace in the Middle East before the average car driver is going to
say "gee....I dont mind being held up for someone higher societal concience than
I do" Let Lance be an ambassador, Im not going to flatter myself or waste time
worrying or thinking about if I just changed a car drivers perception of cyclists by
my freindly, VC riding style or by rolling a stop sign when there are no other cars
crossing me.
I support joggers running in road facing traffic and traffic is light to moderate.
Just go around them staying on the pavement like everyone else does. Frankly its the least of my concerns.
Cyclist who blow stop signs bug me, not when they do it in front of me, but across my path. About once every 6mo I need to pull a rapid evasive maneuver to avoid hitting a cyclist runing a red or blowing a stop.
As to impeding traffic, if I didn't I couldn't even get more than 1/2block from my house. Its a neccessity.
Al

I just want to complement Roody and Brian for this particular discussion. I hope you continue...

Because what you consider to be among the "most basic mistakes" are quite often not really mistakes at all.
Ok, Diane, please explain this.

You assert that what I see as basic mistakes are not really mistakes at all.

Can you give any examples of cycling behavior that I would call a "basic mistake" and you would say is not really a mistake at all?

Ok, Diane, please explain this.

You assert that what I see as basic mistakes are not really mistakes at all.

Can you give any examples of cycling behavior that I would call a "basic mistake" and you would say is not really a mistake at all?

From http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=2001761&postcount=80


I saw a cyclist in a bike lane on a downhill 25 mph road in a residential area crossing driveways, instead of merging left and using the full lane. She was traveling over 20 mph.

I saw a cyclist in a bike lane stop and wait to cross with pedestrians (rather than merge left and make a vehicular left turn). This was in the crowded very slow moving traffic on a simple 2-lane road in the touristy business section just east of 101.

The first cyclist was in the bike lane. It is not a mistake to ride a bike in the bike lane even at 20 miles an hour.

The second cyclist crossed the street safely. It is not a mistake to cross the street with pedestrians.

You call the way people ride "mistakes" when it doesn't fit your model even when what they have done is safe and legal. You believe everyone who didn't take your precious class or study your precious books is in error, virtual ticking timebombs of cycling ineptitude. You are too judgmental.

I think some of what you say you do is a little crazy, but I don't think you make mistakes the way you ride.

In regard to mistakes. I, over time from my own experience and from advice from the forum, find ways to improve my safety. But I wouldn't call the past ways mistakes.
I also find that I may make an error (perhaps due to judgement or perhaps due too paying attention to something else) that creates a situation. For example when riding in a narrow lane I may drift a bit too right of center, which encourages an unsafe pass. The driver made the mistakes, but more thought/care on my part could have helped prevent it.
Another change in riding I made was I used to have this problem right turn from a RTOL where other cars making a right didn't fully use the lane if I was in it making a right from its center and instead turned right from overlaping the right and thru lane line. Now I make a right turn from the left side of the RTOL and never have this problem any more. The previous was not a mistake (in fact its the vehicular way to do the turn) but I've learned a better postion.
Al

I have to agree with Brians assessments.
I have been riding for 41 years. I am my own expert.
I appreciate other peoples opinions but they dont know whats
better for me than I do.
If you go to jogging forums, you see the same concerns, not only
about cars, but how bicycles are the 'bad guys' too.....Im sure if you
went to an OTR Truckers forum you'd read about cars hogging the left
lane on the expressway as being 'bad guys'. We are in an angry society that
is in hurry-up mode all the time. It is only getting worse. If you are smaller
and slower and have the audacity to hold someone up for 3 seconds or irritate
them in any way by the way you dress or whatever, you are an enemy of
forward motion. Bicyclists are enemies of forward motion quite often for
various reasons. Of course 98% of these reasons are selfish and unreasonable
but thats just the way it is. Its not going to change except to get worse.
You can expend lots of energy and spend hours pondering / theorising and
formulating ways to try to get in the good graces of people who just dont like
you and never will, or you can ...just ride ! Im going to do the latter.
As long as I am comfortable in the fact that I am not bothering or impeding
anyone, car or ped, Im going to keep using the same non-expert, flawed system
that has worked for me and made my 41 years of cycling safe and enjoyable
overall.

All experts are "self-described" to some extent. Newton did not have a degree in physics, nor did Einstein. Both were "self-described" experts. They became full-fledged experts when others read their books and agreed with their ideas. The books published by experts in cyling safety, agreed to by the many people who read these books, basically agree that bicycles should be driven on the roadway in a vehicular manner. Do you know of anybody who has thought this matter through, who is an expert, who believes that there is any other way to ride? While there are many disagreements on details, the basic assumptions of all experts support a vehicular cycling style.

An expert, as I think you agree, is a person who is recognized in their field of study. A person such as John Forester or John Allen, may be an expert at "vehicular cycling," but this is not the only way to get around on a bicycle. Most messengers use a different sort of technique than is commonly advocated by vehicular cyclists, relying more on space, intrinsic physics and sociology to make their movements on the road than the standard vehicular rules of the road. That they all ride in similar fashion (similar enough for a stereotype anyway) and they survive (their safety is probably at least equal to any other cyclist when taking into account "bike hours" rather than simple trips or calender time).

You might even say there are experts on "invisible" cycling and "pedestrian mode" cycling (for lack of better terminology). Whether one style is more dangerous than another is still up for debate and probably varies depending on the cyclist's goals, their environment, and their skill at evaluating traffic and at controlling their bikes. It is probably the case that a pedestrian mode is simply the best style of cycling for one not skilled at bicycle control. Vehicular cycling is probably safest when practiced by a skilled cyclist on suburban and faster urban streets. Messenger style cycling might well be safer for urban city centers and is definitely more efficient. "Invisible cycling" might well be safer at night when caught out without lights.



The "style" I see most cyclists use around here is definitely not vehicular. It is a mish-mash of dangerous practices including wrong-way, sudden erratic turns and swerves, a total reliance on other road users to avoid them, rather than any attempt to ride defensively. This "style" obviously puts the riders at greater risk, along with anybody else, including other cyclists, who is unlucky enough to be on the road with them.

I don't see how anybody can condone this kind of riding, or rightly describe it as a "system." People obviously do not have an innate or instinctive ability to handle a vehicle in traffic. We require training, education and experience. Cagers get some training, and they still screw up from time to time. Cyclists get no training, and the only reason they do not get hit more often, in my opinion, is because cagers have learned (through education and experience) to give us a wide berth.

Yet, they survive. Part of the problem with the vehicular cycling advocacy is that the vehicular cyclists continually assert that certain types of riding styles are "dangerous" and those people who practice said riding styles should change and practice vehicular cycling. More than once I have heard the term "deadly" bandied about these forums. Yet they survive. Why would they listen to "some guy" when he tells them that their riding style, which they have been practicing for years, is mortally dangerous and should be changed. The truth is that the difference in the risk of "safe" styles of riding and "dangerous" styles of riding is not that much. Even if it there results a 50% or 75% decrease in risk by changing practices, it is a 50 or 75% decrease of a very small number, which equals a small number. Cycling can be dangerous, but not as dangerous as we sometimes make it out to be, regardless of the style of riding.


Messengers and other experienced or intelligent cyclists may eventually develop a "system" that works for them so far. Does it also work for other road users? Do these nonvehicular tricks sometimes (or often) annoy and aggravate motorists? Other cyclists? Pedestrians? Is there any possibility that the main reason that cagers are hostile to us is because so many of us are just poor cyclists who never bothered to learn the rudiments of our craft, and show no consideration for other users. How long will it be before they crack down on this behavior with restrictions that will affect us all? Why is this not the primary area of concern for cycling advocates?

There is a fine line between when we should be cleaning up our own house and when we should be showing a united front. I would argue for a united front, but others can just as easily argue we should clean our own house first. I suspect that there should be a good balance between the two - we shouldn't sit by and only make efforts to change the behaviors of cyclists, and we shouldn't be completely uncritical of the image that irresponsible cyclists give cyclists as a whole.

Off Topic: Crazybikerchick disagreed with you in a respectful manner. You saw fit to respond rudely. Is it your belief that centaurs and other mythological creatures don't have to follow the rules of civilization, whether cycling on the streets or surfing on the internet?


First of all, Lem~in~Pa, excellent, eloquent post. As always.

Off Topic: Roody, your response to my debate with crazybikerchick, in which you display your uncanny supernatural ability to determine the etiquette of pixels is astounding. Reminds me of another mythological figure, I believe his name was Zeus. :D

It never fails to underwhelm me when a person attacks me, instead of my argument. What part of my argument did you disagree with Roody? As far as being 'rude', I did not curse, call her out of her name, or use any ammunition against her argument besides her own words. It is a part of civilized society called effective debating skills. I didn't exactly tie her up, and brand her with a scarlet letter, did I? It isn't pretty to see someone have their ass* handed to them, but it is sometimes neccesary, when the debate heats up and talking points are directed to the OP, rather than the bike-riding populace in general. Now, that is rude. ;)

I would choose which battles to fight and who to defend, if I were you. Otherwise, you appear to be a reasonably intelligent, mild-mannered fellow. No offence taken, none given. :)

*ass is not used as a vulgarity or curseword in this context, but merely a symbol of levity, and part of an everyday, useful idiomatic phrase as commonly used in the U.S.

Ok, Diane, please explain this.

You assert that what I see as basic mistakes are not really mistakes at all.

Can you give any examples of cycling behavior that I would call a "basic mistake" and you would say is not really a mistake at all?
From http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=2001761&postcount=80




I saw a cyclist in a bike lane on a downhill 25 mph road in a residential area crossing driveways, instead of merging left and using the full lane. She was traveling over 20 mph.

I saw a cyclist in a bike lane stop and wait to cross with pedestrians (rather than merge left and make a vehicular left turn). This was in the crowded very slow moving traffic on a simple 2-lane road in the touristy business section just east of 101.

The first cyclist was in the bike lane. It is not a mistake to ride a bike in the bike lane even at 20 miles an hour.

The second cyclist crossed the street safely. It is not a mistake to cross the street with pedestrians.

You call the way people ride "mistakes" when it doesn't fit your model even when what they have done is safe and legal. You believe everyone who didn't take your precious class or study your precious books is in error, virtual ticking timebombs of cycling ineptitude. You are too judgmental.

I think some of what you say you do is a little crazy, but I don't think you make mistakes the way you ride.
I never stated nor even implied that either of those behaviors was a mistake. They were both provided in the context of a discussion abou how, to me, communication/treatment between cyclists/motorists seemed different to me in SB than in SD.

Another change in riding I made was I used to have this problem right turn from a RTOL where other cars making a right didn't fully use the lane if I was in it making a right from its center and instead turned right from overlaping the right and thru lane line. Now I make a right turn from the left side of the RTOL and never have this problem any more. The previous was not a mistake (in fact its the vehicular way to do the turn) but I've learned a better postion.
Al
Yes, finding the most appropriate/effective lane position in various situations transcends the topic of "vehicular" cycling. Motorcyclists have similar issues. In a way, the problem is more comlex for cyclists, because we have the "slow vehicle" issue to contend with, on top of the "narrow" characteristic that makes lane positioning be an issue in the first place.

This is the concept I tried to convey with Dynamic Lateral Lane Positioning.

But the first step is still to lose the "primarily, keep out of the way of cars" albatross that is hindering most cyclists from even experimenting with creative lane positioning.

Creative Lane Positioning. Hmm. Maybe that's a better name? CLP...