my name for vehicular cycling: Helmet Head's mom

I always liked the term, "Fred" when referring to quaint, slow-moving, street clothes wearing cyclists. "Fredcycling" brings to mind images of friendly, happy neighborhoods where motorists wave when they honk.

:)

These are your universally accepted vehicular rules of the road?
No. They are not definitively documented anywhere. Nor is it definitively documented anywhere how to learn ride a bike, or how to do the butterfly stroke, or what is porn. So what?


I don't think I even need to comment further, your cite proves my point - there are no universally accepted vehicular rules of the road outside the imaginations of Forrester minions.
Once again, you ignore the bulk of my post, this time addressing only a "by the way" portion, yet stick to your guns.

Simply repeating "there are no universally accepted vehicular rules of the road outside the imaginations of Forrester minions" and the like a thousand times does not address any of the points I have made in response to this, and certainly does not make it true.

It seems to me you're not behaving very rationally in this discussion, and I will not continue to participate until you address at least some of the points I have made in the last 4-5 posts.

And one more...



How about just, 'cycling?' I have gotten along well with that term for the last 30 years, to describe riding which is at times defensive, assertive, or just cruisin' along takin in the scenery.

roughstuff

These are your universally accepted vehicular rules of the road? I don't think I even need to comment further, your cite proves my point - there are no universally accepted vehicular rules of the road outside the imaginations of Forrester minions.

Ha ha ...... Yeah next time a cop pulls you over, just whip out your UROTR and tell that officer that Ole' John Forrester said ...........

Cop'll say uh ... who the h--- is John Forrester ....... cha-ching, Your court date is ...........

I think ole' HH'd be money ahead to get himself a driver's license manual. :)

No. They are not definitively documented anywhere. Nor is it definitively documented anywhere how to learn ride a bike, or how to do the butterfly stroke, or what is porn. So what?

Once again, you ignore the bulk of my post, this time addressing only a "by the way" portion, yet stick to your guns.

Simply repeating "there are no universally accepted vehicular rules of the road outside the imaginations of Forrester minions" and the like a thousand times does not address any of the points I have made in response to this, and certainly does not make it true.

It seems to me you're not behaving very rationally in this discussion, and I will not continue to participate until you address at least some of the points I have made in the last 4-5 posts.

Yes I am sticking to my guns because you keep trying to cloud the issue: Are there or are there not universally accepted vehicular rules of the road? If there are, provide them for all to see, if there are not, admit it and move on. You like answering questions with questions, I ain't playing that game, put up or shut up. If you can't put up, then your additional 'points' are meaningless and a response is moot.

Defining a precise term like "vehicular cycling" is needed only if the term includes other practices not covered by traffic laws. For example, riding in a door zone might be legal, but not part of "vehicular cycling" as you define it. So if "riding outside the door zone" is part of the definition of "vehicular cycling," then it means more than following basic traffic rules.

In the end, the important thing is that once you use a term like "vehicular cycling" to mean a specific set of cycling practices which apply beyond the basic traffic laws, you should always use that same term in exactly the same way, or the meaning will be confused. Also, using multiple phrases to mean the same thing, or similar things, might add to the confusion.

Like I said, "cycling in traffic"
Very good points. You have captured the essence of the problem.

But "cycling in traffic" is problematic too. To use one of your examples, "cycling in traffic" does not preclude riding in door zones either.

To describe a particular set of practices, largely based on following the nebulous but never-the-less existent though conceptual "universal" ROTR, but also comprised of particular techniques, methods and practices beyond this, in one phrase, is impossible, much less to capture it in one term. I believe this is why Forester chose the term Effective Cycling, and trademarked it. Unfortunately, that term includes stuff beyond the traffic cycling techniques, and also some advice that is outdated (like not using a mirror).

I might have to go with something like Helmet Head Cycling. Ugh.

Anyway, despite all the pinhead dancing angel counters out there, I'm glad there are some of you, including you, JRA, Gene, Pat and others, who appreciate the problem.

I think we could concur on the most effective way to do the butterfly! Biking with vehicles - more ill defined.

I think we could concur on the most effective way to do the butterfly! Biking with vehicles - more ill defined.

Is that the butterfly as accepted in USA (http://www.usaswimming.org/USASWeb/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabId=95&Alias=Rainbow&Lang=en) Swimming rules, Olympic swimming rules, the local pool, or what works in the ocean when swimming with the swell...

Kinda complicates the picture if you really want to get into the details, eh?

But "cycling in traffic" is problematic too. To use one of your examples, "cycling in traffic" does not preclude riding in door zones either.
Oops! That "cycling in traffic" thingie was a partial sentence left undeleted, I didn't know I posted it! :eek:

I might have to go with something like Helmet Head Cycling. Ugh.
:D

(Everyone does helmet-head cycling once in a while! :p)

Is that the butterfly as accepted in USA (http://www.usaswimming.org/USASWeb/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabId=95&Alias=Rainbow&Lang=en) Swimming rules, Olympic swimming rules, the local pool, or what works in the ocean when swimming with the swell...

Kinda complicates the picture if you really want to get into the details, eh?
Exactly.

We could stand at the edge of a pool and watch a swimmer swim what appears to be "the" butterfly stroke. But, for the reasons you point out, we couldn't say for sure unless we defined exactly what is by "the butterfly stroke", which is easier said than done. My wife was a competitive swimmer in her day, but "the" butterly she learned is not the butterfly that our 10 year old nephew is learning today.

It's interesting that the quote about porn is so famous - "you know it when you see it" - yet it applies to so many other concepts too, including the butterfly stroke and vehicular cycling, yet is difficult to precisely define. But the difficulty or even inability to define a concept precisely does not mean it does not exist, and is not a meaningful argument against its existence. But some people (not to mention any names, like Chipcom) have a hard time accepting this.

I'm glad there are some of you, including you, JRA, Gene, Pat and others, who appreciate the problem.

While I understand the difficulty of finding appropriate/acceptable terminology (GLBTT2IQQ anyone?) in this case I don't think there is any need for a "golden term", in large part because I don't believe in the validity of strict cycling systems, the need for any such systems, or that they have anything positive to contribute to cycling advocacyy.

How about just, 'cycling?' I have gotten along well with that term for the last 30 years, to describe riding which is at times defensive, assertive, or just cruisin' along takin in the scenery.

roughstuff
I've got 41 years on the saddle.
30 years ago, riding in traffic wasn't the bullfighting it is now. There weren't any cellphones, the cops would quickly get bad drivers off the road, nobody did 20+ over the speed limit as par for the course, ppl payed attention, SUVs were unheard of, there wasn't open antibike campagns on the radio or in the papers, nobody leaned on the horn, screamed, or threw garbage at your head, and roadrage was an alien concept. The worse there was would be the occasional drunk, or dumb ditz.
Aah, them were the days...
Sad to say it, but just cycling ain't 'just' cycling anymore. :(

I've got 41 years on the saddle.
30 years ago, riding in traffic wasn't the bullfighting it is now. There weren't any cellphones, the cops would quickly get bad drivers off the road, nobody did 20+ over the speed limit as par for the course, ppl payed attention, SUVs were unheard of, there wasn't open antibike campagns on the radio or in the papers, nobody leaned on the horn, screamed, or threw garbage at your head, and roadrage was an alien concept. The worse there was would be the occasional drunk, or dumb ditz.
Aah, them were the days...
Sad to say it, but just cycling ain't 'just' cycling anymore. :(


+1

Thanks. That is helpful.
You are welcome; glad to answer YOUR question with a concise, accurate and to the point response.

Ha ha ...... Yeah next time a cop pulls you over, just whip out your UROTR and tell that officer that Ole' John Forrester said ...........

Cop'll say uh ... who the h--- is John Forrester ....... cha-ching, Your court date is ...........

I think ole' HH'd be money ahead to get himself a driver's license manual. :)
A driver's manual is a summary of the particular jurisdiction's vehicular law written in layman's language.
The vehicular law in a given jurisdiction is based on the UROTR.
If you follow the UROTR, you won't get pulled over.
If you do get pulled over, it would be silly to cite Forester or the unwritten UROTR.
At that point you do have to dig around the actual code, just like I just did in the freeway thread regarding pedestrian right-of-way on unmarked crosswalks. I didn't cite Forester, or the UROTR. I cited the particular relevant AZ law. But the point is that I knew to look for the law because of my understanding of, and appreciation for, the UROTR.

While I understand the difficulty of finding appropriate/acceptable terminology (GLBTT2IQQ anyone?) in this case I don't think there is any need for a "golden term", in large part because I don't believe in the validity of strict cycling systems, the need for any such systems, or that they have anything positive to contribute to cycling advocacy.
I agree there is no validity in, nor need for, a strict cycling system, much less a "golden term" for it.

I hope you don't see EC or VC or "dancing with cars" or "traffic cycling legally, visibly and predictably" to be strict cycling systems. If so, what's so strict about them? So far as I can tell, all of these systems, such as they are, are comprised of guidelines, not strict edicts or anything like that. Not sure where that impression comes from.

Who is your audience for any of these terms?

Do you suppose the average Joe Blow driver of a car cares a hoot what you might call yourselves?

Is the audience the other members of this forum - if so - big deal!

Newspaper reporters writing about bicycle crashes? I can read it now:

"Hank Smith was hit by a car today, even though he was "vehicular cycling" (or whatever you call it)." Yeah, right!

So, why do you care? Some sort of a status attempt? Most folks just call it bicycling.
Most folks don't call what we're talking about here merely "bicycling".
John Forester and others call it vehicular cycling.
John Franklin calls it "Cyclecraft".
John S. Allen calls it "Streetsmarts"
Dan Gutierrez calls it "Integrated Traffic Cycling".
David Smith calls it "bicycle driving".
The League of American Bicyclists calls it "Bike Ed".
In Canada they call it "Can-Bike".
Lauren Cooper calls it "dancing with cars".

Shall I go on? Those are off the top of my head. But what all these people are talking about in their books, videos and websites with their various terms is more or less the same thing, and it's a far cry from mere "bicycling".

All of these folks advocate very much the same methodology and practices. There are some that are similar, but sufficiently different that I would not group them with the above. This includes Robert Hurst and his "Art of Urban Cycling", Michael Bluejay's "bicyclesafe.com", and Dave Glowacz'z "urban cyclist's tip and tricks".

The audience for all of these people is cyclists. The goal for all of these people is to make cycling in traffic safer and more enjoyable. They want to save cyclist lives, and reduce injuries, and they all understand much progress can be made with respect to this goal by cyclists choosing to examine and alter their own behavior.

That may or may not include you. It's up to you.

Most folks don't call what we're talking about here merely "bicycling".
John Forester and others call it vehicular cycling.
John Franklin calls it "Cyclecraft".
John S. Allen calls it "Streetsmarts"
Dan Gutierrez calls it "Integrated Traffic Cycling".
David Smith calls it "bicycle driving".
The League of American Bicyclists calls it "Bike Ed".
In Canada they call it "Can-Bike".
Lauren Cooper calls it "dancing with cars".


Actually most folks DO just call it bicycling. A duck by any other name is still a duck.
The entire basis of your categorizations rely on the premise that they are based on 'UROTR', yet you cannot provide any documentation that such a thing even exists. You stated yourself that they are concepts, - "Concepts exists whether they are written down or not." were your words. Now if you wish to call them 'somewhat accepted concepts' you'd be fine, but if you want to call them universally accepted rules, cite the actual rules and who has accepted them as universal rules. Otherwise you are just using smoke and mirrors to pass off 'concepts' as universally accepted rules. For what purpose do you try to pass these off as rules and tie them to some category of cycling...the only two I can think of are politics and money.

Chipcom is still being irrational, and the tireless repetition is Rainmanesque. If he were rational, he would realize there is no political or financial motive in any of this.



rule |roōl|
noun
one of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct within a particular activity or sphere : the rules of the game were understood.


Explicit or understood regulations or principles...

Again, I submit that the fact that it is possible for any competent driver to drive in just about any jurisdiction in the world safely and legally without consulting the particular laws governing vehicular use there is ample proof that the universal rules of the road upon which most vehicular laws in the world are based exist and are widely understood, which is all it takes for them to be a rule. Explicit documentation is only required in chipcom's irrational imagination.

Again, I submit that the fact that it is possible for any competent driver to drive in just about any jurisdiction in the world safely and legally without consulting the particular laws governing vehicular use there is ample proof that the universal rules of the road upon which most vehicular laws in the world are based exist and are widely understood, which is all it takes for them to be a rule. Explicit documentation is only required in chipcom's irrational imagination.

And I submit that, based on actual experience driving, cycling and using other means of transportation in many countries, your fact is nothing but opinion. There are no universal rules of the road, other than the goal of getting from one place to another safely, anything else are only concepts that you have either read in books or concocted in your own head. I again invite you to prove otherwise by citing some factual data that supports your theory...but you can't, all you can do is claim I am irrational, the last resort of those who cannot support their pet theories. Your UROTR are not even universally accepted in BF, let alone worldwide, why do you perist with this fantasy? Perhaps you'd like to cite a definition of 'universal' while you are at it?

Okay, Chipcom, let's see if you can answer one question. No games. No bullpoop. No diversions. No non-sequitors. Just a clean honest answer. Here it is:

How is it possible, if not for the existence of a universally understood (though not documented) rules (principles) of the road, for a competent driver to travel to just about any city in the world, and operate safely and legally on their roads there, without ever looking at one word of the local particular implementation of the laws governing vehicle drivers?

Okay, Chipcom, let's see if you can answer one question. No games. No bullpoop. No diversions. No non-sequitors. Just a clean honest answer. Here it is:

How is it possible, if not for the existence of a universally understood (though not documented) rules (principles) of the road, for a competent driver to travel to just about any city in the world, and operate safely and legally on their roads there, without ever looking at one word of the local particular implementation of the laws governing vehicle drivers?
Neither Chipcom nor anyone else is required to agree with your premise or vague definitions. After you substantiate your premise, ask again. NONE of your chimerical premises are TRUE just because HH thinks so, and posits questions/polls as if his premises were written in stone.

Anything is "possible". Who agreed that your premise is true in fact? Only HH assumes that there is some UNIVERSAL understanding (and acceptance) of some unnamed set of rules or principles known only to him. Only HH thinks there is some UNIVERSAL agreement with his premises and conclusions.

Even the the Golden Rule about doing unto others is neither Universally practiced nor Universally understood just because a lot of people would like it to be Universally accepted

Okay, Chipcom, let's see if you can answer one question. No games. No bullpoop. No diversions. No non-sequitors. Just a clean honest answer. Here it is:

How is it possible, if not for the existence of a universally understood (though not documented) rules (principles) of the road, for a competent driver to travel to just about any city in the world, and operate safely and legally on their roads there, without ever looking at one word of the local particular implementation of the laws governing vehicle drivers?

That is not possible - that is my contention. I have driven in many cities around the world...how many have you tried? Plus, now you are getting car specific, there are other vehicles to consider in your universal holy grail. Once again, where are these universal rules so that we can scrutinize and debate them directly rather than continuing to take your word for their existence based on nonsense like you just stated? Nevermind, you have already admitted they do not exist anywhere but in your own opinion, so the point is moot. Instead of renaming your brand, I would concentrate on renaming the basis of VC with something that can be verified as factual...otherwise the entire premise of VC falls flat on it's face because it has no base.

I'm sorry but I went to Mexico City and I didn't feel I could drive in a capable manner there. For one thing, driving is quite insane in Mexico City. But more than that, I couldn't understand the road signs as I do not speak Spanish well enough.

There's NO way I'd ever attempt driving in an Asian city. I only know the Latin alphabet.

Funny, though, I think I could ride a bike an any city, no matter whether I could read the signs or understood the rules of the road or not. (And no, the rules of the road are not universal. Probably the only universal one is don't hit anybody.)

How is it possible, ... for a competent driver to travel to just about any city in the world, and operate safely and legally on their roads there, ...

That is not possible - that is my contention. I have driven in many cities around the world...

So you've done it, yet you contend it's not possible. Got it.

Neither Chipcom nor anyone else is required to agree with your premise or vague definitions.
Of course not. But we have to start somewhere. I threw out a premise, and no one challenged it. You want to challenge the premise? Fine.

Are you willing to accept this premise?

Most any competent driver from any state in the U.S. can travel to any other state in the U.S. and operate safely and legally there without referring to the particular vehicle code/law of that state.

If you cannot accept this premise, why?

...and all this means squat when I'm 'riding Frogger,' I'm not going to trust a person airdropped in with an out of state license to drive any more safely than the natives.

So you've done it, yet you contend it's not possible. Got it.

Cute - I didn't just get off the boat/plane and start driving, I had to do my homework to determine what was legal and what customs were. But I see you are going to continue dodging, so you have in essence conceeded that your UROTR do not exist. Thanks for playing...next?

Of course not. But we have to start somewhere. I threw out a premise, and no one challenged it. You want to challenge the premise? Fine.

Are you willing to accept this premise?

Most any competent driver from any state in the U.S. can travel to any other state in the U.S. and operate safely and legally there without referring to the particular vehicle code/law of that state.

If you cannot accept this premise, why?

Ahh, so now we've changed the rules from anywhere in the world to the just the US have we? It seems I was not so 'irrational' after all because you keep dodging and modifying your stance. Simply stating that your UROTR were fiction in the beginning would have been much easier.

Dude, I'm just trying to find some common ground. You're obviously more interested in sticking to your guns than finding common ground.

I've driven in Mexico, France, Germany and Austria. I've cycled in France and Germany. I was able to do so safely and legally without looking up or researching one law. If you were unable to do so, then that's more of a reflection on you than an indication that the laws in these countries are not based on the same principles (the UROTR). What else would explain that I could do it, and you couldn't? By the way, what exactly did you need to look up that enabled you to drive in a foreign country, that would have made it not possible to do so legally and safely without looking it up? My only issue was right on red, which I figured out by observing others.

I can't speak for what it takes to drive in the Orient, because I haven't done it. But if the "URTOR" on which VC is based only apply in north america and Europe, so it is. I don't believe that limitation is there, but even if it is, so what? Worst case, then VC has to be slightly modified to apply in the other place. It's not strict in the first place. VC is adjusting to the current factors, conditions and circumstances anyway.

As to Diane's unwillingness to drive in Mexico City, I think her similar unwillingness to ride a bike in Atlanta is a better explanation for that than a lack of understanding of the rules.

Dude, I'm just trying to find some common ground. You're obviously more interested in sticking to your guns than finding common ground.

I've driven in Mexico, France, Germany and Austria. I've cycled in France and Germany. I was able to do so safely and legally without looking up or researching one law. If you were unable to do so, then that's more of a reflection on you than an indication that the laws in these countries are not based on the same principles (the UROTR). What else would explain that I could do it, and you couldn't? By the way, what exactly did you need to look up that enabled you to drive in a foreign country, that would have made it not possible to do so legally and safely without looking it up? My only issue was right on red, which I figured out by observing others.

I can't speak for what it takes to drive in the Orient, because I haven't done it. But if the "URTOR" on which VC is based only apply in north america and Europe, so it is. I don't believe that limitation is there, but even if it is, so what? Worst case, then VC has to be slightly modified to apply in the other place. It's not strict in the first place. VC is adjusting to the current factors, conditions and circumstances anyway.

As to Diane's unwillingness to drive in Mexico City, I think her similar unwillingness to ride a bike in Atlanta is a better explanation for that than a lack of understanding of the rules.

How can VC be 'slightly modified' unless you admit that it is a proprietary brand of cycling that has an owner? You see that is the problem with VC and depending upon VC proponents as advocates for cyclists...because it is so easy to shoot holes in it and, instead of providing factual evidence to the contrary when the shooting starts, VC advocates merely change their story and modify the message and doctrine...like some political spin group.

How about getting rid of the branding and false base premises of VC and subscribing to advancing the needs of the majority of cyclists, rather than those of just a small subset? Promote and advocate cycling - no brands or categories required.

You also have a terrible habit of trying to tell other people what they are 'really' thinking, as in your comment about Diane. Adults are perfectly capable of thinking for themselves without someone to interpret their thoughts and tell them what they really mean...and for those that are not...that's what we pay shrinks for.

How can VC be 'slightly modified' unless you admit that it is a proprietary brand of cycling that has an owner?
VC applies in all countries and can be "slightly modified" and is not a proprietary brand of cycling just like "defensive driving" applies in all countries and can be "slightly modified" and is not a proprietary brand of driving.

Does that answer your question?

Here is a question for you. Are you willing to honestly work with me to find common ground, or not?

That is not possible - that is my contention. I have driven in many cities around the world...how many have you tried?

I can't even cycle legally in the next province over! I keep forgetting not to do right-on-red turns.

How is it possible, if not for the existence of a universally understood (though not documented) rules (principles) of the road, for a competent driver to travel to just about any city in the world, and operate safely and legally on their roads there, without ever looking at one word of the local particular implementation of the laws governing vehicle drivers?

I think Chipcom's point has been clear all along - he (and I, and others) reject your assertion that a competent driver could do any such thing. Can you prove that assertion? If not we have a difference of opinion, no point continuing to beat it into the ground.

VC applies in all countries and can be "slightly modified" and is not a proprietary brand of cycling just like "defensive driving" applies in all countries and can be "slightly modified" and is not a proprietary brand of driving.

Does that answer your question?

Here is a question for you. Are you willing to honestly work with me to find common ground, or not?

I don't see the point of finding common ground on a false premise. Don't you get it? Many of us simply disagree with your premise of universal rules of the road, that you use as the basis of VC. VC is simply not credible until you can prove that the foundation it is built on is more than smoke and mirrors.

In Canada they call it "Can-Bike".

Can-Bike is a government-funded cycling education program, usually delivered either by government agencies or local cycling groups. Can-Bike does address many cycling skills and local laws, but I have never met a Cab-Bike instructor who claimed that they taught anything beyond common skills an local law. I doubt most Can-Bike graduates have ever heard the term "Vehicular Cycling". The Can-Bike programs, in my experience, carry none of the political and religious tones of VC.

I will note that I have never taken a Can-Bike course, for a variety of reasons, but that I am familiar with the content of the courses and have spoken to local instructors and students.

It is quite possible to teach basic cycling (e.g. stay on the bike, break, shift, etc.) and teach basic rules of the road without preaching any "system" or anything at all beyond common sense.

I agree there is no validity in, nor need for, a strict cycling system, much less a "golden term" for it.

I hope you don't see EC or VC or "dancing with cars" or "traffic cycling legally, visibly and predictably" to be strict cycling systems. If so, what's so strict about them? So far as I can tell, all of these systems, such as they are, are comprised of guidelines, not strict edicts or anything like that. Not sure where that impression comes from.

That impression comes from people like you, who repeatedly tell others they have done something "wrong", that the right way to cycle in X situation is method Y, etc. While 'strict' may not be the best term to use, the way VC is presented by you and just about every other VCer I have ever met has been very inflexible.

When you get right down to it, there are only a few gross mistakes that are actively dangerous in cycling - for example riding against on-coming traffic. Even then, a person may well ride against traffic his whole life and never have a close call! The only reason I object is that he puts me in danger when he gets in my way. The rest of this is all over-intellectualizing, and soap-box preaching.

I'm not saying that asking for advice on a specific cycling situation is a bad thing, and the 'VC Puzzlers' we have here could be very useful discussions. However even the best of these discussions can only result in a list of suggestions which the cyclist can then keep in mind for potential use, depending on what he/she feels may work.

Once you think of suggestions as "rules", or even just "guidelines", and wrap it all up in a system which you come up with a creative name for, "Vehicular Cycling", then you are no longer helping people solve potential problems, you are telling people how to ride. Add political bias to it - as Forester did - and you are now in the business of trying to convert people to your golden rule.

How about Legal cycling, and Illegal cycling? Isn't that how it is divided among car drivers who follow the laws and those who don't follow all the laws?

VC is more than just legal cycling. It involves skills, practices and methodology to increase cyclist visibility and predictability, as well as legality.

I believe with car driving, the term might be "defensive driving?"

I believe with car driving, the term might be "defensive driving?"


I like the sound of defensive cycling.

VC is more than just legal cycling. It involves skills, practices and methodology to increase cyclist visibility and predictability, as well as legality.

Splitting VC from the legal rules of the road cycling makes sense to me personally. To me VC is a system that some people use in addition to following the laws on the books in your jurisdiction.

Just like I can drive my car and not get a ticket by following the laws, but I can also supplement that with a system like the Smith system defensive driving course (my work requires I take Smith system once a year). Does that mean the Smith system is the only way to drive defensively? Nope there are other equally good or better systems out there. In fact there are some things in the Smith system that I don't agree with and don't use.

For bikes there is the Forrester system of defensive bike driving. I use the pieces of it that make sense for me and use it in addition to following all applicable traffic laws in my jurisdiction.

So my vote would be calling it defensive cycling with the understanding it really has nothing to do with the laws but is a system that some people use on top of the law, and other people may have other systems.

--
Mike

I like "defensive cycling", but I suspect it could be misconstrued.
How about "defensive traffic cycling" or "defensive bicycling driving"?
Or does the simplicity of "defensive cycling" make it better?

I think Chipcom's point has been clear all along - he (and I, and others) reject your assertion that a competent driver could do any such thing. Can you prove that assertion? If not we have a difference of opinion, no point continuing to beat it into the ground.

Uh, from a traveler's perspective... HH is basically right.

I have rented cars in places like the Cayman Islands (driving on the left), Spain, Mexico, France, Okinawa, Iceland and the Azores... and pretty much found that the skills I have as an American driver worked fine (although left hand road driving felt strange, being on the other side of the car seemed to mirror my thinking well enough).

I just got through spending 10 days driving across France and with the exception of the language on the signs (high school french did come in handy) there were few, if any, surprises.

Now some minor habits may be different in different areas... but heck that can be found just in different cities in the US.

But the big picture of keeping to the proper side of the road, when to give way, and right of way issues were fairly standard.

I don't recall being given a set of "rules" in any of those countries.

Now China, is another story... I have a hard time crossing the road on foot there... They have a more "organic" set of rules that seems to favor the biggest and boldest... and lines on the road are for suggestions only... Actually traffic there also adheres to the rule of "slowest to the right," but the rest becomes a bit hazy.

Look, I am not so much defending HH as simply pointing out that you are going down the path of semantic battles or battles about crossing "Ts" and dotting "Is;" details that frankly don't matter.

Have you folks ever heard of an international driver's license? They exist and are quite handy if you travel from country to country quite a bit.

I voted for "Other." I almost always refer to the named activity as "Riding my bike;" as in, "Honey, I'm gonna go ride my bike." :)

Have you folks ever heard of an international driver's license? They exist and are quite handy if you travel from country to country quite a bit.
And what do you need to do to get an international driver's license? Learn the driving laws of foreign countries? Nope. All you have to do is have a valid license in your jurisdiction, and passport photo, signature, and a few bucks. Not only that, but in most foreign countries your U.S. state driver's license is perfectly valid - no need for the "international" at all.

Now, what do you need to do to get a state driver's license.
You need to learn a summary of your state's laws (content of driver's manual), and pass a test. What do you need to learn about the laws in other states and in other countries? NOTHING.

Yet those states allow you to drive there. With a CA licence you can drive in AZ, TX and NY, not to mention Canada, Mexico, England, France, Germany, Australia, Japan, etc. etc. And you're not required to learn anything other than what you learned to get your CA license, which is material based entirely on CA law, which has no applicability or jurisdiction outside of CA.

How can this be?

Could all the driving laws in all these states and countries be based on the same basic well-known but not explicitly documented rules and principles? If not, what's the explanation?

Now touching on what was just said about driving, one might think that cycling would be just as easy to do as driving either here or abroad...

However... right here in "River City" we find cyclists riding against traffic, ignoring signs, riding on sidewalks and in crosswalks, making left hand turns from the far right lanes and so on...

So obviously, there must be something about cycling (at least in the case of some) that makes forgetting about any rules of the road (explicit or otherwise) par for the course.

I like "defensive cycling", but I suspect it could be misconstrued.
How about "defensive traffic cycling" or "defensive bicycling driving"?
Or does the simplicity of "defensive cycling" make it better?
I still think "High Performance Cycling" sounds best. It embodies the idea of something above and beyond normal, lawful cycling. And also, most people think they are defensive cyclist, with the sidewalk cyclists probably feeling most defensive of all.

But the problem with "High Perf Cycling" is, well, tri-athletes. High-perf, most of them, but most don't have a clue about staying upright, much less navigating traffic.

But I agree defensive cycling might be construed, even to mean sidewalk cycling.

There is an assertive aspect to VC that would ideally be incorporated in the name.

Asserto-defensive cycling.
Integrated defensive cycling .
Integrated defensive bicycle driving in traffic.
Assertive defensive bicycle driving in traffic.
Traffic cycling, assertively, yet defensively.
Defensive cycling assertively.

???