Better name for vehicular cycling?

[budster]

I've always liked "best practices cycling." That's how I try to cycle, in line with what's been shown to make me safer.

But the term is clunky. As is Vehicular Cycling, in my opinion. Most of the other possible terms are also kind of awkward. I think bicycle driving has a nice ring, and still accurately describes the thing.

Back to best practices, it seems that most people would argue that we don't really know what the best practices are for cycling safely. As Pat pointed out, even the least controversial rules (ride with, not against, traffic flow) can be broken without consequence. But I'll bet someone who does ride against traffic long term, without incident, is paying very close attention to what's going on around them.

Maybe that could be universal rule #1: pay attention!

[sbhikes]

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.

???
High performace defensive cycling?

[budster]

Hmmm... Attentive Cycling?

Yes, that is precisely what I practice. I think I'll go and practice it right now. :)

[patc]

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


Why re-name it? Those (few) cyclists who have reason to care already know what VC is. If all you want to do is re-package the existing concepts, it seems at best pointless and perhaps dishonest.

[Helmet Head]

I don't want to repackage the existing concepts.
I'd be happy continuing to use VC, except for all the complaints I get for using it. See the OP. Complaints that come from the "vehicular" in VC not meaning the same as the common dictionary definition, etc.
I just want a term that effectively conveys, or at least does not contradict, "a methodology of defensive bicycle driving on roads visibly, predictably and in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles"

Diane, another problem with "high perf" is it implies that these techniques require above average speed, power or acceleration, which they don't.

[genec]

I don't want to repackage the existing concepts.
I'd be happy continuing to use VC, except for all the complaints I get for using it. See the OP. Complaints that come from the "vehicular" in VC not meaning the same as the common dictionary definition, etc.
I just want a term that effectively conveys, or at least does not contradict, "a methodology of defensive bicycle driving on roads visibly, predictably and in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles"

Diane, another problem with "high perf" is it implies that these techniques require above average speed, power or acceleration, which they don't.


Uh, how about "Defensive Bicycle Driving." Pretty well put it in a nutshell there!

DBD sorta rolls off the tongue too.

[Bekologist]

I think it really depends on the audience-

for automobile drivers, 'integrated cycling' would have the strongest sound bite impact to explain bikes will be in the roadways.

for people that actually bike, I think 'bicycle driving' is a good one, because it sounds so idiotic and unrealistic, any bicyclist with some miles under their belt would easily recognize it as a joke.

for bike forums sake, best to not change the brand many of us have already identified as an unrealistic approach to an arena that has a lot of variance in the system.

'Riding a bike like a driver of a vehicle' just doesn't wash when there's a perfectly good bike lane, shoulder, or wide whatever. And riding in the door zone is a skill bicyclists should learn how to do.

for city cyclists, 'riding frogger' is an apt description of what it feels like when you're in the pack on a four lane or dicing the line in a traffic jam, other ways to describe riding in traffic fail to describe the intensity of the experience...so I'm still going with 'riding frogger.'

[2wheeledsoul]

I think it really depends on the audience-

for automobile drivers, 'integrated cycling' would have the strongest sound bite impact to explain bikes will be in the roadways.

for people that actually bike, I think 'bicycle driving' is a good one, because it sounds so idiotic and unrealistic, any bicyclist with some miles under their belt would easily recognize it as a joke.

for bike forums sake, best to not change the brand many of us have already identified as an unrealistic approach to an arena that has a lot of variance in the system.

'Riding a bike like a driver of a vehicle' just doesn't wash when there's a perfectly good bike lane, shoulder, or wide whatever. And riding in the door zone is a skill bicyclists should learn how to do.

for city cyclists, 'riding frogger' is an apt description of what it feels like when you're in the pack on a four lane or dicing the line in a traffic jam, other ways to describe riding in traffic fail to describe the intensity of the experience...so I'm still going with 'riding frogger.'

+1

[sbhikes]

Diane, another problem with "high perf" is it implies that these techniques require above average speed, power or acceleration, which they don't.
I guess I saw it more like high performance tires or whatever. You know, you can put them on your car but that doesn't mean you should go any faster in a school zone. In other words, not high speed, but with the potential for high performace at high speed.

Perhaps high compentency defensive cycling?

Maybe just VC is best. After all, even if you rename it we're still going to keep disagreeing with the same old aspects of it.

I'm still going to call what I do standard lawful cycling.

[Helmet Head]

I'm still going to call what I do standard lawful cycling.
Which may or may not be VC, just like standard lawful driving may or may not be "defensive driving".

Lawfullness is a necessary but not sufficient condition for VC.

[budster]

Which may or may not be VC, just like standard lawful driving may or may not be "defensive driving".

Lawfullness is a necessary but not sufficient condition for VC.
I would argue that VC is a necessary but not sufficient set of techniques for safe cycling.

[budster]

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.
No compelling argument against universal rules of the road has been made.

There's a similar concept in linguistics -- universal grammar: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_grammar

I think with both concepts, the question isn't so much whether all road rules or languages share some common denominators, but which came first: the road rules/languages or the UROTR/Universal Grammar? These seem pointless questions if what we're concerned about are practical applications. All languages share things in common. All road rules share things in common. In both cases, there are exceptions. It's still useful to learn what all road rules have in common, and to derive some guidelines for best practices based on what all rules have in common.

Where I think a lot of VC advocacy goes wrong is in denying the exceptions to the guidelines, and failing to be flexible enough to adapt to local situations. Each language is unique, and each local traffic situation is unique. In my experience, the similarities are greater than the differences. Your experience may vary.

I'll repeat my "universal rules."

When practicable, or unless otherwise posted:
Slower traffic is on the outside of the roadway
Traffic on smaller roads yields to traffic on larger roads
Drivers changing lanes/road position must yield
At intersections, right-turning traffic is on the right, left-turning traffic on the left, through traffic in the center
Vehicles may only go as fast as road conditions and other traffic permit
I'm sure they're not 100% true in all times and in all places. But would anyone argue that they're not generally true?

[chipcom]

I'll repeat my "universal rules."

When practicable, or unless otherwise posted:
Slower traffic is on the outside of the roadway
Traffic on smaller roads yields to traffic on larger roads
Drivers changing lanes/road position must yield
At intersections, right-turning traffic is on the right, left-turning traffic on the left, through traffic in the center
Vehicles may only go as fast as road conditions and other traffic permit
I'm sure they're not 100% true in all times and in all places. But would anyone argue that they're not generally true?

Then call them general rules, not universal rules, and put emphasis on the 'my' since there is no evidence of universal acceptance. Calling something universal when it isn't just opens that something up to criticism and attacks on its credibility. For example: 'John Forrester's rules for vechicular behavior' would be accurate, 'Universal rules of the road' is not.

[budster]

Then call them general rules, not universal rules, and put emphasis on the 'my' since there is no evidence of universal acceptance. Calling something universal when it isn't just opens that something up to criticism and attacks on its credibility. For example: 'John Forrester's rules for vechicular behavior' would be accurate, 'Universal rules of the road' is not.
Universal refers not to acceptance, but to their scope, to the assertion that these are common features of pretty much every system of traffic rules in existence. The assertion can be challenged. It's fully open to criticism. I'm not married to it or anything. :)

But I do believe these are universal rules. Do you have any evidence to the contrary for any of them, aside from an exception here and there? Or perhaps I left something out?

[sbhikes]

Which may or may not be VC, just like standard lawful driving may or may not be "defensive driving".

Lawfullness is a necessary but not sufficient condition for VC.
Exactly!

Standard, lawful, but not in any way extraordinary.

[Bekologist]

and all those rules, they're just made to be broken! :)

I think bicycling in accordance with the general edicts laid down by budster make sense. But on every ride, and I mean every ride, one or more are going to get broken, either by you as a bicyclist, or a driver for sure.

[Helmet Head]

Budster, chipcom's latest tactic is to object to the term "universal" itself. You'll note he never did that in his earlier objections. He just objects emotionally, and makes up reasons as he goes along.

[patc]

I don't want to repackage the existing concepts.
I'd be happy continuing to use VC, except for all the complaints I get for using it. See the OP. Complaints that come from the "vehicular" in VC not meaning the same as the common dictionary definition, etc.
I just want a term that effectively conveys, or at least does not contradict, "a methodology of defensive bicycle driving on roads visibly, predictably and in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles"

Make up your mind, in post #1 you say:

So, what would be a better term to mean, "Cycling on roads in accordance with the universal/common rules of the road for drivers of vehicles recognized in every significant city and most jurisdictions throughout the world"?

In post 57 you stated about a new term that would:

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

In post 90:
VC is more than just legal cycling. It involves skills, practices and methodology to increase cyclist visibility and predictability, as well as legality.


So do you want a term for just cycling according to the ROTR, or that and "techniques, methods, and practises beyond this", etc? It sounds to me like you are very much just looking for a new term for "VC", which is pretty much what you say in post 100. Slapping a new name on the same concept IS repackaging. Stick to VC, or EC is speaking specifically of Forester's version. Its more honest.

The reason I suggested "ROTR Cycling" is because I am a proponet of just that: following the rules of the road, and not preaching anything else as part of some named "system".

[Helmet Head]

Pat - it is during the course of this thread that I realized what I mean by VC is more than just following the law. I've updated my signature accordingly, and the evolution of my thought can be followed in the posts in this thread, as you've pointed out.

[Roody]

It's confusing when the definition changes several times in one thread.

Oh well. In my opinion VC should be defined simply as cycling on the road or roadway in accordance with applicqble codes and rules. That definition puts almost every published work about cycling in basic agreement.

[chipcom]

Budster, chipcom's latest tactic is to object to the term "universal" itself. You'll note he never did that in his earlier objections. He just objects emotionally, and makes up reasons as he goes along.

There you go again, trying to spin what other people say and what you suppose they are thinking. Since Budster and I were have a fairly reasoned exchanged I the issue I can only assume that you are once again trying to torpedo any possible agreement or compromise. Fact is, I give Budster credit for coming up with something to define some ROTR, it's more than you have done.

Also, I like Patc's simple ROTR - no assumptions of being universal, easily based on one's local interpretations and customs. So tell me, do you have a problem with it?

Edit: just to settle the issue of when I objected to your use of universal, from Post 36:

You don't get it - the 'universal rules of the road' are a figment of your imagination. Insisting that there are some universally accepted rules that everyone accepts just indicates that you haven't spent a lot of time in other parts of the world. There is only one universal rule of the road - to get from point A to point B in one piece. Everybody has different ways of accomplishing that and trying to claim that VC is the one true way using some mythical rules that you can't document is just plain silly.

[chipcom]

It's confusing when the definition changes several times in one thread.

Oh well. In my opinion VC should be defined simply as cycling on the road or roadway in accordance with applicqble codes and rules. That definition puts almost every published work about cycling in basic agreement.

I agree with this as well...well except for the spelling. ;) "Applicable codes and rules" is accurate and flexible.

[Helmet Head]

It's confusing when the definition changes several times in one thread.

Oh well. In my opinion VC should be defined simply as cycling on the road or roadway in accordance with applicqble codes and rules. That definition puts almost every published work about cycling in basic agreement.
ALL: if you only read some of my posts, this is one not to skip.

I apologize. What I've been writing about here on this forum has not been "simply cycling in accordance to the law". Yes, I have defined VC as simply that too many times. That was misleading. I can't believe I did that. No wonder I caused so much confusion. I don't know what I was thinking. Or not thinking I should say. In my defense, I have always said that VC cannot be defined in a few words (like "obey the law"), and that realization was the impetus for the Wikipedia article which I have referenced in my signature for months now. If VC was simply "obey the law", then we'd have very, very little to discuss, and no need for Forester's book, or Cyclecraft, or the many websites, or the Wiki entry, etc. My mistake was to simplify the definition to something that did not encapsulate, at least in general terms, everything that VC is. I believe my latest definition, which has been in my signature for a day or two now, does that: defensive bicycle driving on roads visibly, predictably and assertively in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. I reserve the right to refine it again, of course, but I think at least it now captures the concepts of VC being less than what is legal (by limiting our behavior to that which is defensive), and sometimes more than what is legal, by putting defensive, visible, predictable and assertive ahead of "in accordance", implying their priority when there is a conflict (the cyclist's safety is never compromised in the name of legality).

To clarify further, here are ten examples off the top of my head where VC and "simply cycling on the road in accordance with applicable codes and rules" is significantly different. The first five are where the given behavior is legal, but is not VC. The middle five are the opposite: where the given behavior is not legal, but is VC. The last five are VC techniques that are consistent with the law, but are not mandated by the law.


It's legal to ride in door zones, but it's not VC.
It's legal to cut across two lanes of traffic during a gap in motor traffic from a bike lane on the right to get to a left turn lane, but it's not VC.
It's legal to go straight across an intersection in a bike lane that is to the right of the rightmost lane that serves right or straight, but it's not VC.
It's legal to enter an intersection on a green without looking left and right first to make sure no one is running the red, but it's not VC.
It's legal to pass stopped cars on your left while traveling 20 mph in a bike lane, crossing driveways, etc., but it's not VC.



It's not legal to use a look back alone to signal a turn (a hand signal is legally required), but if other drivers yield to you as a result of your look back, the look back alone is sufficient per VC.
It's not legal to slow down as you approach a stop sign, make sure it's clear, and roll through the stop sign without first coming to a complete stop, but it's VC.
It's not legal in some states to leave the right side of the road even when the lane is too narrow to be safely shared, but it is VC.
It's not legal in most states to ride at night without side reflectors, but it is VC.
It's not legal in many states to leave the right side of the road simply because you're approaching a place where a right turn is authorized, but is often VC.


Techniques and practices that are part of VC education, but are not mandated by law:

negotiation for the right-of-way,
using a centerish position as one's primary/default position (or at least much more often than the law mandates).
using the slow/stop arm signal to get tailgaters to back off.
instant turn
using destination positioning at intersections and their approaches.


Again, these are off the top of my head, and are meant to be a random illustrative sample, not an exhaustive list by any stretch. Some might be arguable one way or other. I'm not going to defend each one - the point I'm trying to make here is made if even only a couple of these differences are accepted as valid and significant. Yet I believe all of these to be valid and significant differences.

Cycling lawfully is, well, cycling lawfully.
Vehicular cycling is more, and less, than simply cycling lawfully.
I think equating the two is missing a lot, and, arguably, the whole point of VC.

Edit: I decided this was important enough to warrant a separate thread, and I used a modified version of this post as the OP for a new thread, "Vehicular cycling vs. cycling lawfully - what's the diff?".

[DnvrFox]

Edit: I decided this was important enough to warrant a separate thread, and I used a modified version of this post as the OP for a new thread, "Vehicular cycling vs. cycling lawfully - what's the diff?".

So now we get to read it twice!

Clever move.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

So now we get to read it twice!

Clever move.

Another VC™ manifesto, so "important", that I'll reply twice:


http://deephousepage.com/smilies/yawn.gifhttp://deephousepage.com/smilies/yawn.gif

[chipcom]

Well at least we've settled that UROTR garbage, since much of this is obviously not universally accepted even among cyclists, let alone operators of vehicles worldwide. Note the term was not even used once in that entire manifesto. Of course he reserves the right to modify it again, which proves beyond a doubt that this is HH's BRAND of VC. Thus, as this thread hopefully fades into the sunset in favor of yet another new thread, perhaps we can all agree for that the proper name is indeed not VC, but more accurately SC - Serge's Cycling.

[Bekologist]

.... perhaps we can all agree for that the proper name is indeed not VC, but more accurately SC - Serge's Cycling.

Second the motion for Serge's Cycling....

[budster]

So "Serge Cycling" seems to be defensive driving for bicycles. "Assertiveness" is fully compatible with "defensive bicycle driving" (or whatever you want to call it) when it involves communticating/negotiating with faster traffic for the right of way.

Here are some the core principles of defensive driving:
Avoid driving errors by always driving carefully and attentively.
Make allowances for the lack of skill and improper attitude of other drivers.
Avoid accidents and close calls by paying proper attention to weather, road conditions, traffic and the actions of pedestrians and other drivers.
Anticipate potentially accident-producing situations far enough in advance to take defensive action.
Concede the right of way when necessary to avoid an accident.

All of those apply equally well to driving a bicycle. And they are more than just obeying the law.

As for "VC" but illegal tactics, eg

1. It's not legal to use a look back alone to signal a turn (a hand signal is legally required), but if other drivers yield to you as a result of your look back, the look back alone is sufficient per VC.
2. It's not legal to slow down as you approach a stop sign, make sure it's clear, and roll through the stop sign without first coming to a complete stop, but it's VC.
3. It's not legal in some states to leave the right side of the road even when the lane is too narrow to be safely shared, but it is VC.
4. It's not legal in most states to ride at night without side reflectors, but it is VC.
5. It's not legal in many states to leave the right side of the road simply because you're approaching a place where a right turn is authorized, but is often VC.
A prime focus of advocacy would in my opinion have to be changing those laws to make it legal to cycle safely. The laws here are good: in NC, I don't have to give a hand signal if I need to keep both hands on the bars for safety (#1); I'm allowed the full lane when it's not wide enough to share (#3); I don't have to use side reflectors (#4)*; I'm explicitly allowed to move left before an intersection (#5). (I hope we can change the stop sign one (#2), but that's not really a big deal to me).

My point is that it should always be legal to cycle safely, and if it's not, that's a prime focus for advocacy.

*I don't really get the non-VCness of side reflectors. I removed mine because "all the kool kids were doing it" but recently I've added some reflective tape to my pedal cranks. Isn't visibility a good thing?

Finally, I don't want to be part of personal arguments, to take sides with anyone or bicker with anyone. I'm here to learn, and when possible, to share useful information and opinions. I usually agree with at least part of any well-reasoned position. If you guys want to slug it out, have fun -- it's entertaining -- but in the immortal words of Samuel Goldwyn: "Include me out." :p

[patc]

Pat - it is during the course of this thread that I realized what I mean by VC is more than just following the law. I've updated my signature accordingly, and the evolution of my thought can be followed in the posts in this thread, as you've pointed out.

You've just now realised this? After all that "dynamic lane positioning stuff" and anti-bike lane stuff? I think you need to spend less time typing, and more time reading your own messages.

[Helmet Head]

Pat, of course I realized that. What I should have said is that I realized that saying "cycling in accordance with the ROTR" might be taken to mean "cycling legally, period", that there is nothing more to VC other than following the letter of the law.

The activity in the thread I started on this topic illustrates the amount of confusion on this point. While I realized there was some confusion on this - it was months ago that I added the "VC is following the letter of the law" misconception about VC to the Wiki article - I did not realize how much confusion there was on that point here in this forum, and, in particular, how much of it was caused by defining VC simply as "cycling in accordance to the ROTR".