What is VC?

[sbhikes]

Somebody posted this:
What is VC?

VC stands for Vehicular Cycling and can be summed up as:
Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles

There is much debate around here about what "act as drivers of vehicles" means and whether or not being "treated as drivers of vehicles" is something worth enforcing by law or leaving to cyclists to try and elicit from drivers with various behaviors.

Many here believe that "acting as drivers of vehicles" means eschewing bike lanes, even good bike lanes. Many others here believe that bike lanes are just traffic lanes like any other, and that the use of bike lanes is included in those practices that make someone a vehicular cyclist. But being pro- or anti-bike lane is not vehicular cycling.

I think most of us would agree that "vehicular cyclist" means we follow the rules of the road. It includes at the minimum that we ride in the street, not the sidewalk, travel in the same direction as other traffic, use destination positioning, use hand signals and use whatever other equipment (lights, bells or whatever) are required by law.

I think most of the arguing comes down to this: We disagree on what it means to act as drivers of vehicles and we disagree on how much responsibility drivers of motor vehicles have to treat us as drivers of vehicles. Secondarily we disagree on what constitutes "the street" or "the roadway" and what consitutes "defensive" driving. Otherwise, among those of us who argue the most, we are all vehicular cyclists.

[R-Wells]

Thanks Diane.
I posted that question.
I searched the forums for the past two days trying to figure it out.
I started to ask again, but I didnt want to seem any dumber than I aready am.

By the way, I am really impressed with your Beach chair.

[rando]

well put, Diane. although I DO ride on the sidewalk occasionally and still call myself a vehicular cyclist.:p

I think your beach chair is cool, too.

[R-Wells]

Around my neighbor hood about every other house the kids have ramps set up on the sidwalks for skate boards and bikes.
I have to admit I have been tempted by those ramps a time or two.

[rando]

me too!

and just to add, I think it's time that cycling "moderates" take back the VC label from the "radical VCers" who preach different "Brands" of VC that hate certain types of road stripes or have certain political ideals that some on this forum represent, promote and sympathize with. to me, vehicular cycling means that you follow the rules of the road when you are on the road. and that's about it.

[tomcryar]

To me VC simply means cycling as a vehicle. In this case, vehicle, meaning motorized. When we cycle on the road (that is: the road where motor vehicles travel) we are simply a two, or three-wheeled vehicle with no "motor".

[Helmet Head]

See the link in my signature for a more indepth description of VC.

By the way, VC is not "cyclists fare best when they act and are treated like vehicle drivers".

VC is acting in accordance to the rules of the road for vehicle drivers when riding on roadways.

The VC principle is a qualitative statement about why one should adopt VC when cycling on roadways.

[Blue Order]

well put, Diane. although I DO ride on the sidewalk occasionally and still call myself a vehicular cyclist.:pSame here. The Vehicle Code does allow for it, after all...

[Blue Order]

See the link in my signature for a more indepth description of VC.

By the way, VC is not "cyclists fare best when they act and are treated like vehicle drivers".

VC is acting like a vehicle driver when riding on roadways.

The VC principle is a qualitative statement about why one should adopt VC when cycling on roadways.I really should know better than this....

But....

If your statement is true, that VC is acting like a vehicle driver when riding on roadways, then you'd have to admit that POWERWEAVING out in front of vehicles so they can see you before you POWERWEAVE back into your lane really ain't VC.

[Helmet Head]

If your statement is true, that VC is acting like a vehicle driver when riding on roadways, then you'd have to admit that POWERWEAVING out in front of vehicles so they can see you before you POWERWEAVE back into your lane really ain't VC.
DLP is standard vehicular behavior - for drivers of slow vehicles. From farmers who temporarily pull partially in the shoulder to allow faster traffic to pass (and then move back to the left when they pass), to the bull dozer drivers who (technically illegally) temporarily merge right into the bike lane to allow "platoons" of cars to pass sometimes during my commute (yes, I merge out of the bike lane to pass the bulldozer on the left too, then watch him move left back into the travel lane after we all pass).

Heck, Bek likes to tease me about pointing this out, but when driving on 2 lane rural roads I have temporarily pulled into the shoulder to allow motorcycles to pass me on the left when the oncoming lane is unavailable for safe passing.

The reason DLP (a.k.a "POWERWEAVE" by those with an anti-HH vendetta) does not seem vehicular is because it's easy confuse "vehicular" with "normal speed" vehicular driver behavior. But "vehicular" encompasses the whole range of vehicle driver behavior, including the behavior of drivers of slower vehicles, which, of course, is more comparable to bicyclists much of the time.

Make sense?

[Blue Order]

DLP is standard vehicular behavior - for drivers of slow vehicles. From farmers who temporarily pull partially in the shoulder to allow faster traffic to pass (and then move back to the left when they pass), to the bull dozer drivers who (technically illegally) temporarily merge right into the bike lane to allow "platoons" of cars to pass sometimes during my commute (yes, I merge out of the bike lane to pass the bulldozer on the left too, then watch him move left back into the travel lane after we all pass).That's the opposite of POWERWEAVE, though, and is required by law. In POWERWEAVE, the slow-moving cyclist intentionally pulls in front of faster vehicles before returning to its own lane.

Heck, Bek likes to tease me about pointing this out, but when driving on 2 lane rural roads I have temporarily pulled into the shoulder to allow motorcycles to pass me on the left when the oncoming lane is unavailable for safe passing.

The reason DLP (a.k.a "POWERWEAVE" by those with an anti-HH vendetta)Come on, you know it's catchy.... :lol:

does not seem vehicular is because it's easy confuse "vehicular" with "normal speed" vehicular driver behavior. But "vehicular" encompasses the whole range of vehicle driver behavior, including the behavior of drivers of slower vehicles, which, of course, is more comparable to bicyclists much of the time.

Make sense?Well, as a slower vehicle with its own lane, it makes no sense, in that slower vehicle context, for the slower vehicle to deliberately pull out in front of approaching faster vehicles.

[Helmet Head]

VC stands for Vehicular Cycling and can be summed up as:


There is much debate around here about what "act as drivers of vehicles" means and whether or not being "treated as drivers of vehicles" is something worth enforcing by law or leaving to cyclists to try and elicit from drivers with various behaviors.
It should be noted that Diane does not even understand what the debate (at least with me) is about here.

Yes, much debate here is about what "act as drivers of vehicles" means. However, no one, as far as I know, certainly not me, has argued that cyclists being "treated as drivers of vehicles" is something that is not worth enforcing by law, or should be left "to cyclists to try and elicit from drivers with various behaviors.". I have argued that cyclists should act like vehicle drivers in order to be treated like vehicle drivers (in fact, if they don't act like vehicle drivers they can expect to not be treated like vehicle drivers), but that's different (though Diane obviously does not understand the difference, no matter how many times one tries to explain it).

Many here believe that "acting as drivers of vehicles" means eschewing bike lanes, even good bike lanes.
False.

Many others here believe that bike lanes are just traffic lanes like any other, and that the use of bike lanes is included in those practices that make someone a vehicular cyclist.
There is debate about whether riding in a bike lane necessarily constitutes "using" a bike lane.

But being pro- or anti-bike lane is not vehicular cycling.
True. And no one disputes this, for the alternative is nonsensical.

I think most of us would agree that "vehicular cyclist" means we follow the rules of the road.
True.

It includes at the minimum that we ride in the street, not the sidewalk, travel in the same direction as other traffic, use destination positioning, use hand signals and use whatever other equipment (lights, bells or whatever) are required by law.
Sort of. VC only applies when riding in the street.

I think most of the arguing comes down to this: We disagree on what it means to act as drivers of vehicles
OK.

and we disagree on how much responsibility drivers of motor vehicles have to treat us as drivers of vehicles.
I know of no disagreements on this point.

Secondarily we disagree on what constitutes "the street" or "the roadway" and what consitutes "defensive" driving.
I know of no disagreements on any of these points.

Otherwise, among those of us who argue the most, we are all vehicular cyclists.
A meaningless statement from someone who does not know what it means.

[Helmet Head]

Blue Order - the difference in our views is where is the slow vehicle driver's own lane? Is it the slow lane on the road? Or is it the shoulder or bike lane?

The vehiclar cyclist treats the bike lane the same as a slow vehicle driver treats the shoulder - space to use to allow faster traffic to pass. Now, just like a farmer may choose to driver for longer periods in the shoulder, so may the vehicular cyclist.

[Blue Order]

Blue Order - the difference in our views is where is the slow vehicle driver's own lane? Is it the slow lane on the road? Or is it the shoulder or bike lane?This is driving 101. Many, perhaps even most states require all motor vehicles to use the right lane, and to use the left lane for passing slower vehicles. This is interpreted as "fast lane, slow lane." The bike lane is a separate lane, for bicycle use only. Generally, motorists are not allowed to use the bike lane, and cyclists are required to use it, except under specific circumstances.

The vehiclar cyclist treats the bike lane the same as a slow vehicle driver treats the shoulder - space to use to allow faster traffic to pass. Now, just like a farmer may choose to driver for longer periods in the shoulder, so may the vehicular cyclist.Nonsense. That's how you ride. The Vehicular Cyclist rides in accordance with the law.

[Helmet Head]

The Vehicular Cyclist rides in accordance with the law.
A common misconception of vehicular cycling is that the vehicular cyclists follows the letter of the law.
In particular, when the law requires the cyclist to violate the vehicular rules of the road (which is not the same as the law), then he often does not follow them.

See the VC article in Wikipedia. I'm not going to repeat all that here.

[Blue Order]

A common misconception of vehicular cycling is that the vehicular cyclists follows the letter of the law.
In particular, when the law requires the cyclist to violate the vehicular rules of the road (which is not the same as the law), then he often does not follow them.

See the VC article in Wikipedia. I'm not going to repeat all that here.And which vehicular rule of the road calls for the slower moving vehicles to pull out in front of the faster moving vehicles?

[tomcryar]

And which vehicular rule of the road calls for the slower moving vehicles to pull out in front of the faster moving vehicles?


None. The same as ALL vehicle laws apply to all cyclists. Period.

[Helmet Head]

And which vehicular rule of the road calls for the slower moving vehicles to pull out in front of the faster moving vehicles?
No rule. But that's not DLP anyway.

DLP is moving out into the traffic lane when there is no faster same-direction traffic present, recognizing that reasonable people can disagree on how close approaching same-direction traffic has to be to be considered "present".

Plus no rule says so explicitly. However, that it's normal to operate in the main traffic lane when faster traffic is not "present" (subject to the above subjective definition) is implied by:


The rule that says that all vehicles, including slow vehicles, should normally be driven in the traffic lanes (for visibility and predictability).
Pulling out of the traffic lanes is an exception for drivers of slow vehicles, particular when safe and reasonable, to allow faster traffic to pass.

[Helmet Head]

Finally, I should add that due to the narrow nature of bicyclist/bike, the bicyclist has more reason to move left to increase cognitive conspicuity than does the typical driver of a normal-width slow vehicle.

[Blue Order]

No rule. But that's not DLP anyway.

DLP is moving out into the traffic lane when there is no faster same-direction traffic present, recognizing that reasonable people can disagree on how close approaching same-direction traffic has to be to be considered "present".I think that people who disagree with POWERWEAVE don't consider pulling out in front of faster moving vehicles to be a reasonable proposition.

Plus no rule says so explicitly. However, that it's normal to operate in the main traffic lane when faster traffic is not "present" (subject to the above subjective definition) is implied by:


The rule that says that all vehicles, including slow vehicles, should normally be driven in the traffic lanes (for visibility and predictability).
Pulling out of the traffic lanes is an exception for drivers of slow vehicles, particular when safe and reasonable, to allow faster traffic to pass.
Except that bicycles often have their own designated lane, which your slow-moving vehicles analogy above conveniently ignores.

And those slow-moving vehicles NEVER pull out in front of faster moving vehilces, before returning to their lane, which, again, your bicycle analogy ignores.

[Blue Order]

Finally, I should add that due to the narrow nature of bicyclist/bike, the bicyclist has more reason to move left to increase cognitive conspicuity than does the typical driver of a normal-width slow vehicle.While I would argue that due to the slower nature and smaller size of the bicycle, the bicyclist almost always has more reason to stay out of the faster traffic lanes.

[Blue Order]

A common misconception of vehicular cycling is that the vehicular cyclists follows the letter of the law.
In particular, when the law requires the cyclist to violate the vehicular rules of the road (which is not the same as the law), then he often does not follow them.I disagree.



And this is interesting:

See the VC article in Wikipedia. I'm not going to repeat all that here.

See the link in my signature for a more indepth description of VC.

By the way, VC is not "cyclists fare best when they act and are treated like vehicle drivers".

VC is acting like a vehicle driver when riding on roadways....Because the definition that SBHikes used-- and with which you disagree-- is the definition used in the Wikipedia article you referred me to.

[tomcryar]

I disagree too---the vehicular rules of the road are exactly the same as the law.

[Helmet Head]

I think that people who disagree with POWERWEAVE don't consider pulling out in front of faster moving vehicles to be a reasonable proposition.
No one advocates pulling out in front of faster moving vehicles.
The debate is about whether pulling out when there are no faster moving vehicles present is moving out in front of faster moving vehicles.

Except that bicycles often have their own designated lane, which your slow-moving vehicles analogy above conveniently ignores.
That fact that almost everyone (motorists and cyclists) treats a bike lane virtually identically with how they treat a shoulder, and that the legal distinction for all intents and purposes has little practical consequences, is not a convenience, but a recognition of reality.

[Helmet Head]

...Because the definition that SBHikes used-- and with which you disagree-- is the definition used in the Wikipedia article you referred me to.
Huh? The Wikipedia article says:

"Vehicular cycling (VC) is the practice of driving bicycles on public roads in a manner which is visible, predictable, and in accordance with the rules of the road for operating a vehicle. "

It also states that the VC principle is: "Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles".

Diane (and you?) are confusing the definition of VC with the VC principle.

In other words, the definition of VC is acting like a vehicle driver.
Whether acting like a vehicle driver, and being treated like one, causes a cyclist to "fare best", is a separate but related issue.

[Helmet Head]

I disagree too---the vehicular rules of the road are exactly the same as the law.
But there are rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, and there are rules of the road that are exclusive to cyclists.

Vehicular cycling is acting in accordance to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles.
That's the difference between VC and "letter of the law cycling". Otherwise, you could just call VC "cycling according to the law", or "Legal Cycling". In that case, why call it vehicular cycling? Makes no sense.

If the cyclist-specific law happens to be consistent with vehicular law - then it's vehicular cycling to follow it. But if the cyclist-specific law contradicts the "rules of the road for drivers of vehicles", then its not a law that VCs necessarily follow. In particular, this applies to mandatory bike lane and sidepath laws.

Otherwise, you're saying that it's VC to get off the road and ride on the sidepath if the law says cyclists must do that. That's absurd, because the vehicular rules of the road don't even apply on the sidepath.

[Blue Order]

Huh? The Wikipedia article says:

"Vehicular cycling (VC) is the practice of driving bicycles on public roads in a manner which is visible, predictable, and in accordance with the rules of the road for operating a vehicle. "OK, and I have maintained here that there is NOTHING predictable about a cyclist riding into traffic lanes and then riding back out of the lane-- aka POWERWEAVE. nor is it in accordance with the rules of the road.

It also states that the VC principle is: "Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles".

Diane (and you?) are confusing the definition of VC with the VC principle.OK, fair enough, it's the VC principle. I'm not sure Diane will agree that she's misrepresented VC, though.

[Blue Order]

That fact that almost everyone (motorists and cyclists) treats a bike lane virtually identically with how they treat a shoulder, and that the legal distinction for all intents and purposes has little practical consequences, is not a convenience, but a recognition of reality.What?????

I said your anaolgy of treating bicycles as slow-moving vehicles (i.e., slow-moving vehicles use a lane) conveniently ignores that bicycles have their own designated lane. So what are you rambling about here?

[Blue Order]

But there are rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, and there are rules of the road that are exclusive to cyclists.

Vehicular cycling is acting in accordance to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles.
That's the difference between VC and "letter of the law cycling". Otherwise, you could just call VC "cycling according to the law", or "Legal Cycling". In that case, why call it vehicular cycling? Makes no sense.

If the cyclist-specific law happens to be consistent with vehicular law - then it's vehicular cycling to follow it. But if the cyclist-specific law contradicts the "rules of the road for drivers of vehicles", then its not a law that VCs necessarily follow. In particular, this applies to mandatory bike lane and sidepath laws.

Otherwise, you're saying that it's VC to get off the road and ride on the sidepath if the law says cyclists must do that. That's absurd, because the vehicular rules of the road don't even apply on the sidepath.Well, if that's truly VC, you've convinced me-- it's as big a crock as POWERWEAVE.

[Helmet Head]

Diane made an admittedly common mistake - confusing the definition of VC with the VC principle. That doing so misrepresents VC I'm not going to say. That doing so doesn't define VC is all I'm saying.

OK, and I have maintained here that there is NOTHING predictable about a cyclist riding into traffic lanes and then riding back out of the lane-- aka POWERWEAVE. nor is it in accordance with the rules of the road.
Whether you recognize it or not, the purpose of operating a vehicle in the traffic lanes is to be visible and predictable.

As far as the in and out thing goes, I assure that how often that actually happens is much more often in your mind than in reality, or in anything I intend to convey. Ask someone who has seen me ride, like Gene, if your impression even comes close to reality.

And to the extent that your impression does not match reality, the bulk of the fault is mind, for not explaining it sufficiently clearly. But no one can claim it's due to not trying!

[tomcryar]

Well, if that's truly VC, you've convinced me-- it's as big a crock as POWERWEAVE.


Double amen....! It's a garbage concept.

[Helmet Head]

Another example, if some state doesn't require lights at night for cyclists (just reflectors), since they do require lights on vehicles, riding at night without lights is not vehicular cycling, even though it may be legal.

Vehicular cycling is riding on roads in according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles (including the rules of the road for drivers of slow moving vehicles, but not including rules of the road that are exclusive to cyclists and contradict the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles).

[Blue Order]

Diane made an admittedly common mistake - confusing the definition of VC with the VC principle. That doing so misrepresents VC I'm not going to say. That doing so doesn't define VC is all I'm saying.


Whether you recognize it or not, the purpose of operating a vehicle in the traffic lanes is to be visible and predictable.The purpose of operating a vehicle in a lane is to avoid hitting anything else on the road. And weaving in and out of lanes is illegal, regardless of what type of vehicle you're operating. And if the goal is predictability, then POWERWEAVE should never be practiced, because it's unpredictable and confusing behavior to the other vehicle operators on the road.

As far as the in and out thing goes, I assure that how often that actually happens is much more often in your mind than in realitySorry to hear that. :D

[Helmet Head]

Double amen....! It's a garbage concept.
Garbage or not, like it or not, that's what it is.

[tomcryar]

It should illegal to teach crap like that---it's no wonder people are confused about cycling!

[Helmet Head]

Most LCIs that I know openly ignore mandatory sidepath laws, and treat bike lanes as if the stripe is not there, regardless of what the law says. And that's what they teach, implicitly if not explicitly.

That's consistent with what other cycling experts teach too, including Robert Hurst, who is not exactly a "VC/Forester advocate". In fact, Hurst and others imply cyclists can violate the law much more than simply ignoring the anti-cyclist garbage (which is basically as far as VC goes). For example, see Dave Glowacz' Urban Bikers' Tricks & Tips: Low-Tech & No-Tech Ways to Find, Ride, & Keep a Bicycle for some truly whacky stuff.

[Helmet Head]

And if the goal is predictability, then POWERWEAVE should never be practiced, because it's unpredictable and confusing behavior to the other vehicle operators on the road.
Again, anything unpredicatable and confusing is something other than what I practice and attempt to convey with the flawed tool known as the written English language, a very poor means for conveying concepts such as this one. Much better would be video, which, unfortunately, I don't have. For now.

[Helmet Head]

I've recently seen some video of cyclists using DLP on a downhill, where they are controlling the lane at one point, and then moving aside to allow faster traffic to pass at another, then moving back into the center, etc. It looks much more predictable than it may present itself in words.

[CommuterRun]

I think most of us would agree that "vehicular cyclist" means we follow the rules of the road. It includes at the minimum that we ride in the street, not the sidewalk, travel in the same direction as other traffic, use destination positioning, use hand signals and use whatever other equipment (lights, bells or whatever) are required by law.

I think most of the arguing comes down to this: We disagree on what it means to act as drivers of vehicles and we disagree on how much responsibility drivers of motor vehicles have to treat us as drivers of vehicles. Secondarily we disagree on what constitutes "the street" or "the roadway" and what consitutes "defensive" driving. Otherwise, among those of us who argue the most, we are all vehicular cyclists.
I think that's a pretty good description. I also think most of the disagreement comes down to how much of a responsibility cyclists have to "stay out of the way".

Personally, I ride in the roadway, but will move to the right to allow expedient passing by faster vehicles if I feel it is safe for me to do so.

STATE UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL
Title XXIII
Chapter 316
MOTOR VEHICLES
(42) ROADWAY.--That portion of a highway improved, designed, or ordinarily used for vehicular travel, exclusive of the berm or shoulder. In the event a highway includes two or more separate roadways, the term "roadway" as used herein refers to any such roadway separately, but not to all such roadways collectively.

The roadway is what's between the white lines. No other pavement is included.

[sbhikes]

I think you are all proving my point. The arguments all boil down to disagreements on what it means to act as drivers of vehicles and disagreements on how much responsibility drivers of motor vehicles have to treat us as drivers of vehicles. Secondarily we disagree on what constitutes "the street" or "the roadway" and what consitutes "defensive" driving.

Nothing anyone has said refutes this.

[genec]

That's the opposite of POWERWEAVE, though, and is required by law. In POWERWEAVE, the slow-moving cyclist intentionally pulls in front of faster vehicles before returning to its own lane.



Well, as a slower vehicle with its own lane, it makes no sense, in that slower vehicle context, for the slower vehicle to deliberately pull out in front of approaching faster vehicles.

This is where you have mis understood DLP or POWERWEAVE. There is no "intentional pulling in front of vehicles" in DLP. The idea is to ride more in the center when there is no other same direction traffic present. When same direction traffic is present, one pulls to the side... just like the tractor.

One does NOT pull out in front of traffic... that makes no sense at all.

But riding in a manner more left then at the far right of a road (where one could easily be mistaken for a shadow, or a sign post) simply makes you somewhat more visible.

[sggoodri]

I think you are all proving my point. The arguments all boil down to disagreements on what it means to act as drivers of vehicles and disagreements on how much responsibility drivers of motor vehicles have to treat us as drivers of vehicles. .


Where is there disagreement among vehicular cyclists as to how much responsibility drivers of motor vehicles have to treat us as drivers of vehicles? Has anyone argued that a motorist need not respect the right of way of a cyclist who is operating according to vehicular rules under some scenario?

[Bekologist]

vehicular cyclists will follow the rules of the road, traffic laws, signs, striping. vehicular cyclist take advantage of roadway striping when appropriate including proper use of left turn/center turn lanes, right hand only turn lanes. vehicular cyclists take advantage of roadway striping that is bicyclist specific or otherwise accomodating. this is all in accordance with the rules of law and general traffic codes of conduct.

i'm a pro facilities VC myself. I believe communities that vigorously support bicycling in the transportation networks facilitate more vehicular cycling on the majority of the roads in the community that don't have any bike specific accomodations.

vehicular cyclists follow the rules of the road and uses bike lanes when safe and acceptable for use. this is in accordance to VC rules and the rules of the road.

[genec]

Double amen....! It's a garbage concept.

Ever do a long tour? Ever ride in the country... ever ride where there is no shoulder... or Bike Lane.... I assure you it is not a garbage concept. I don't know how much more visible it may make you, but I can assure you that trying to ride far to the right in certain conditions just ain't gonna happen.

All HH is saying is don't hug the right (or hide in a bike lane) if there is no other same direction traffic... riding more to the left will make you more visible to motorists on cross streets, and may make you more visible to same direction approaching traffic... but the whole concept requires moving out of the way before you are a burden to any approaching traffic.

Of course there is no way to do this on some urban roads, where the motorists don't even give themselves a 2 second gap between cars (quite often around here). You have to have room to move left... and that room means gaps... good decent gaps.

I find that during my commute hours, there are few gaps... although I do (and this is NOT DLP) ride left in some areas and take the lane simply because there is no other safe way to ride some roads. But that is not DLP.

During recreational rides, I find less traffic... and in times, I ride out of the BL toward the right tire track. And I watch for approaching traffic and move left before it arrives. It is that simple.

BTW I should never look like I am "weaving" to anyone... because I would be riding to the left long before any traffic approaches me or saw me... to that approaching traffic, I would only appear to be already out in the lane and moving right, for them.

[genec]

vehicular cyclists will follow the rules of the road, traffic laws, signs, striping. vehicular cyclist take advantage of roadway striping when appropriate including proper use of left turn/center turn lanes, right hand only turn lanes. vehicular cyclists take advantage of roadway striping that is bicyclist specific or otherwise accomodating. this is all in accordance with the rules of law and general traffic codes of conduct.

i'm a pro facilities VC myself. I believe communities that vigorously support bicycling in the transportation networks facilitate more vehicular cycling on the majority of the roads in the community that don't have any bike specific accomodations.

vehicular cyclists follow the rules of the road and uses bike lanes when safe and acceptable for use. this is in accordance to VC rules and the rules of the road.


Exactly. The key words are "safe and acceptable." Not all communities are quite as diligent in their implementation of cycling facilities... and that in of itself is a big issue.

[Geraldo]

cognitive conspicuity

I don't know if HH knows much about cycling, but I'll give him point for grammar, vocabulary, and alliteration. ;)

Another example, if some state doesn't require lights at night for cyclists (just reflectors), since they do require lights on vehicles, riding at night without lights is not vehicular cycling, even though it may be legal.

Vehicular cycling is riding on roads in according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles (including the rules of the road for drivers of slow moving vehicles, but not including rules of the road that are exclusive to cyclists and contradict the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles).


Where do these "rules of the road" come from? Initially there may have been rules of the road, but they have long since been codified. Trying to create some other set of rules governing driving/riding is pointless, as well as being potentially deadly since these "rules" are unpublished in any form and therefore unavailable to the masses.

I have riden as VC riders suggest for years (although I don't know or care what DLP and powerweave are or mean, and only recently learned about VC) not because I consider myself an activist or practitioner, but because it is the safe and statutorially mandated means of riding whether it has a "principle" or not.

[Helmet Head]

Where do these "rules of the road" come from?
For the most part (with few if any exceptions, none that I can't think of right now), they are the laws that govern the operation of vehicles on the roads, minus those laws that apply only to cyclists and contradict the laws that govern the operation of vehicles.

[tomcryar]

A common misconception of vehicular cycling is that the vehicular cyclists follows the letter of the law.
In particular, when the law requires the cyclist to violate the vehicular rules of the road (which is not the same as the law), then he often does not follow them.

See the VC article in Wikipedia. I'm not going to repeat all that here.


Two ssets of rules? This is what I was refering to when calling it a garbage concept.

[genec]

Two ssets of rules? This is what I was refering to when calling it a garbage concept.

Well as an example... the rules in some locations tell a cyclist that they must stay in the bike lane... yet there are no similar rules mandating that motorists must stay in some particular lane... on the other hand, there are rules telling motorists to not use lanes unless they have the required number of people aboard (car pool lanes) but even then, a motorist with a full car may choose to use some other lane.

So there are some "alternate rules" for cyclists.

[Helmet Head]

I think you are all proving my point. The arguments all boil down to disagreements on what it means to act as drivers of vehicles and disagreements on how much responsibility drivers of motor vehicles have to treat us as drivers of vehicles. Secondarily we disagree on what constitutes "the street" or "the roadway" and what consitutes "defensive" driving.

Nothing anyone has said refutes this.
Diane, what thread are you reading???