Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Working definition of "Vehicular Cycling"

The first thing that needs to happen to get a correct definition of the term "vehicular cycling," is that the word "vehicular" must be defined.

The word "vehicular" in the term "vehicular cycling" means to use a bicycle as a vehicle for transportation.

The word "vehicular" in the term "vehicular cycling" does not, in any way, shape or form, mean operating a bicycle as a motor vehicle. Athough, this may be done when utilizing a bicycle as transportation.

I think this is what causes the confusion and why the definition of "vehicular cycling," as defined by the OP, is in error.

Here are the concise, well-defined vehiclar traffic negotiation principles that I've had posted on the humantransport.org web site for the last half dozen years or so, and are based on the LAB Road 1 Course, which in turn originated mostly as John Forester's work:

http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/page4.html


Traffic Negotiation Principles

The basic principles that all drivers of vehicles follow in order to prevent collisions are listed below *:

1. First come, first served. Each driver on the road is entitled to a "safety zone", i.e. the space their vehicle occupies, plus reasonable clearance behind and to each side, and reasonable stopping distance in front of them. Other drivers who want to use this space must first yield to the driver already entitled to it. This principle applies both between intersections and at intersections. Yielding to traffic already on the road ahead requires driving slowly enough to stop if traffic just beyond view is slow or stopped, and not following too closely in case traffic ahead stops suddenly.

Cyclists operating on roadways usually travel slower than motorists, but motorists are expected to drive within their sight distance and not collide with slower traffic. Sober, competent motorists have no trouble avoiding such collisions. Cyclists are not expected to get out of the way of motorists; cyclists are only expected to stay visible and behave predictably. Motorists should pass cyclists at safe distance: at least three feet at slow speeds; farther at higher speeds.

2. Drive on the right-hand side of the roadway.

Wrong-way cycling is a leading cause of car-bike crashes.

3. Yielding to crossing traffic. Drivers on less important roads, and that includes driveways and alleys, yield to traffic on more important roads. Yielding means looking and waiting until the movement can be made without violating the right of way of other highway users. Drivers turning left must also yield to thru traffic traveling in the opposite direction on the road. Traffic signals or signs often indicate which road has priority.

Most car-bike collisions occur at intersections, where either cyclists or motorists fail to yield when required to traffic crossing their path.

4. Yielding when moving laterally. Drivers who want to move laterally on the roadway must yield to traffic in their new line of travel. Yielding means looking behind, to the side, and in front and waiting until the movement can be made without violating the right of way of other highway users.

Cyclists should travel reasonably straight in order to allow other road users to pass safely. Yielding prior to lateral movement requires that a cyclist turn her head and look behind without swerving into other traffic.

5. Destination positioning at intersections. Drivers must approach intersections (including driveways) in the proper position based on their destination. Right turning-drivers make their turns from next to the curb, left turning drivers do so from near the center line, straight traffic goes between these positions.

Bicycle drivers communicate their intended destination through appropriate positioning; hand signals are not enough. Turning left without first approaching the center of the road invites conflicts with straight-traveling drivers who may attempt to pass on the left. Straight-traveling cyclists should avoid right-turn lanes and use the thru-lane instead.

6. Speed positioning between intersections. Drivers park on the rightmost edge of the highway. Drivers travel in a portion of the right side of the roadway that is wide enough for them to maneuver safely and is available for thru-traffic. Where safe and practical, slower drivers operate far enough to the right to allow faster drivers to see past them and perhaps pass when it is safe to do so. Drivers should overtake slower traffic on the left, not on the right. (There are exceptions when vehicles are turning left, on multi-lane roads, and on one-way roads).

In narrow lanes, drivers of wide vehicles must move into the adjacent lane to pass cyclists. In wide lanes, a motorist and a cyclist may have enough room to share a lane as the motorist passes. Cyclists should not ride too far right to operate safely for their speed.

* These rules have been adapted from the Effective Cycling Road 1 Student Notebook published by the League of American Bicyclists.

The first thing that needs to happen to get a correct definition of vehicular cycling is that the word "vehicular" must be defined.

The word "vehicular" in the term "vehicular cycling" means to use a bicycle as a vehicle for transportation.

The word "vehicular" in the term "vehicular cycling" does not, in any way, shape or form, mean operating a bicycle as a motor vehicle. Athough, this may be done when utilizing a bicycle as transportation.

I think this is what causes the confusion and why the definition of "vehicular cycling," as defined by the OP, is in error.

Good point. A road vehicle has certain kinematic and dynamic constraints based on its wheel arrangement and location of mass. These are fairly similar between vehicles.

Motor vehicles are simply vehicles with motor power. The motor doesn't change the kinematic constraints, and generally exacerbates the dynamic constraints.

Non-motorized vehicles may have a better or worse power-to-weight ratio than motor vehicles, and may have better or worse maneuverability, depending on whether one includes horse-drawn carriages. However, it's interesting to observe that when most of the basic vehicular rules of the road were developed, the most dangerous things on the road were bicycles and horsedrawn carriages.

-Steven Goodridge

I actually do enjoy these threads/conversations. They really have no impact on my cycling from ride to ride though. I go out, use the roads or, when convenient and legal, other facilities. I try to ride for a specific minimum amount of time at a certain level of exertion and arrive back at my starting point safely. I think of my method as "bicycular cycling." Sometimes my bicycular cycling is done with and among other vehicles, including occasionally other bicycles. Sometimes it ain't. Sometimes it's transportation. Sometimes it ain't. Sometimes there's a destination. Sometimes not. Sometimes it's strenuouous exercise. At other times it is pure leisure.

Brian, do you know of anyone anywhere who has ever used a definition of vehicular cycling that comes close to what you have defined here? If so, who, where?

If not, why not come up with some other name for whatever it is that you're trying to define, rather than use a term for which there are already meanings quite different from what you're trying to define here?


Indeed. What Brian describes is clearly *not* vehicular cycling as the term is generally understood by the proponents and practitioners of VC. Consequently, this attempt to force the term to mean what he wants it to mean, and nothing else, is destined for failure and irrelevancy.

If one wants one's own definition, one should consider adopting a unique name. Perhaps, in this case, "Brian Cycling."

steve, if vehicular cycling encompasses speed positioning between intersections, and there is a bike lane dedicated to bikes on the road, then use of the bike lane WOULD be speed postioning specific vehicular cycling.

and same case applies to bike lanes striped to the left of right turn only lanes.

steve, if vehicular cycling encompasses speed positioning between intersections, and there is a bike lane dedicated to bikes on the road, then use of the bike lane WOULD be speed postioning specific vehicular cycling.

and same case applies to bike lanes striped to the left of right turn only lanes. Yes, Bek. No one disputes this except the Ratliffs.
The elder just described in another thread a lunch time ride where he rode "VC" which included staying out of the bike lane even with faster same direction traffic present and honking. :rolleyes:

The word "vehicular" in the term "vehicular cycling" means to use a bicycle as a vehicle for transportation.


So, if I ride on the sidewalk, stopping at each driveway to clear for cars, riding at 10 mph average speed (still a 5x greater speed than walking, and thus, a transportational advantage), am I riding "vehicularly"?

If I ride in a great, big, 50 mile loop for recreational purposes, is this riding vehicularly? If so, what if I wasn't using the road? What if it weren't for recreational purposes?

Again, people are missing the point of having a precise definition. I am not trying to prove some sort of ideological bona fides.

And, guys. I love the mocking. Keep it coming. (though, if you grow up a bit...)

Seriously, you guys tie yourselves in knots to preserve the notion that vehicular cycling encompasses lane sharing. Does it really matter? Call lane sharing what it is: lane sharing. There are absolutely no vehicular principle which allows for two vehicles to share a lane. And yes, folks, if you look at an road with a speed limit over 25mph in the US, there are lane lines, and those lane lines have distinct engineering and legal meanings.

Do you see the problem of including lane sharing within the purview of vehicular cycling? Now you have to explain the manner in which you lane share to distinguish "vehicular lane sharing" with "non-vehicular lane sharing". Since you already have to make the distinction, why include it in the definition?

And, folks, I seriously don't care how "popular" or "unpopular" vehicular cycling is or how defining the term more tightly than "everything under the sun" will affect popularity of the "VC movement". This isn't a popularity contest. People either get on their bikes and ride, or they don't. If they choose to get on, then there isn't a reason in the world to not have a precise language to talk about how to avoid getting into trouble.

Face it. The hallmark of vehicular cycling; that thing that makes it distinct from other schools of cycling, is the act of taking the lane for destination lane positioning. This is what I want to emphasis. Everything else, from signaling, stopping at stop signs, and riding on the right hand side of the road, to situational awareness and experience, fall under more generalized categories.

steve, if vehicular cycling encompasses speed positioning between intersections, and there is a bike lane dedicated to bikes on the road, then use of the bike lane WOULD be speed postioning specific vehicular cycling.
Indeed. A properly designed bike lane violates none of the Traffic Negotiation Principles which sggoodri posted above. Vehicular cyclists' opposition to the principle of bike lanes (and their preference for WOLs) is based on ideology, not basic traffic principles.

Yes, Bek. No one disputes this except the Ratliffs.
The elder just described in another thread a lunch time ride where he rode "VC" which included staying out of the bike lane even with faster same direction traffic present and honking. :rolleyes:

Since when did I have a mind meld with my father (John C. Ratliff)? Shouldn't you confine your comments about what he said to that other thread?

EDIT: I haven't really been following that thread. For the record, nothing of what Bek mentioned conflicts with the definition in the OP, so I don't know why you are lumping me in with my dad and in opposition to Beks comment.

The word "vehicular" in the term "vehicular cycling" means to use a bicycle as a vehicle for transportation.

I disagree. You can use a mountain bike on trails for transportation. That is not the intent of the meaning of vehicular in vehicular cycling.

It means Riding on roadways in accordance to the vehicular rules of the road (or the rules of the road for vehicles, if you prefer, as opposed to the rules of the road for pedestrians).

I disagree. You can use a mountain bike on trails for transportation. That is not the intent of the meaning of vehicular in vehicular cycling.

It means Riding on roadways in accordance to the vehicular rules of the road (or the rules of the road for vehicles, if you prefer, as opposed to the rules of the road for pedestrians).

So, what are the "vehicular rules of the road" when it comes to a lane meant to be shared? I have yet to see it specifically for car traffic, and when I have seen a lane which is wide enough for two cars, generally those cars are prohibited from sharing the lane. I have yet to see it defined in any official documentation.

Remember, per your own words, speed should not enter into the equation, so simply saying that lane sharing is vehicular because of the slower to the right rule is misleading and unhelpful as a cycling technique. The whole point of vehicular cycling is to point out that, even though bicycles are generally slower than cars, the correct place for a bicycle is not always to the right.

Indeed, a major souce of confusion regarding the term "vehicular cycling" is that it is not based on the common English language definition of "vehicular". It is based on a special legal definition which, to further confuse the issue, is found, in many states, in the motor vehicle code (which may apply to human powered vehicles). Further confusing the issue is that some states define bicycles as vehicles while others do not. Add to that, the political baggage associated with the term VC, and strong feeling on both sides about it, and you've got a term which means different things to different people.

Hence Brian's attempt to find a useful working definition.

Lot's of luck!

So, what are the "vehicular rules of the road" when it comes to a lane meant to be shared? I have yet to see it specifically for car traffic, and when I have seen a lane which is wide enough for two cars, generally those cars are prohibited from sharing the lane. I have yet to see it defined in any official documentation. I don't know of any law anywhere that prohibits two cars from sharing a single lane side by side, provided they can safely fit. Do you?

Many roads, including the street I live on, have no marked lanes at all. Sometimes even multi-lane roads have no marked lanes (particularly when freshly paved, open, but lane stripes not painted yet).

With all lanes, the space makes the lane, not the stripe.

The general rule is: if the space is there, you can use it. This is why two motorcycles can share the same lane, legally. It's very vehicular - that is, it is in accordance to the vehicular rules of the road.

The stripes are just there to facilitate road sharing laterally by standard width vehicles.

Indeed, a major souce of confusion regarding the term "vehicular cycling" is that it is not based on the common English language definition of "vehicular". It is based on a special legal definition which, to further confuse the issue, is found, in many states, in the motor vehicle code (which may apply to human powered vehicles). Further confusing the issue is that some states define bicycles as vehicles while others do not. Add to that, the political baggage associated with the term VC, and strong feeling on both sides about it, and you've got a term which means different things to different people.

Hence Brian's attempt to find a useful working definition.

Lot's of luck!

That's right...

I am trying to reduce the term to its defining essence, so all us can talk about it on a common level.

Indeed, a major souce of confusion regarding the term "vehicular cycling" is that it is not based on the common English language definition of "vehicular". It is based on a special legal definition which, to further confuse the issue, is found, in many states, in the motor vehicle code (which may apply to human powered vehicles). Further confusing the issue is that some states define bicycles as vehicles while others do not. Add to that, the political baggage associated with the term VC, and strong feeling on both sides about it, and you've got a term which means different things to different people.

Hence Brian's attempt to find a useful working definition.

Lot's of luck!
Folks, it's not that hard!

The rules of the road can be divided into two sets:

1) the rules of the road for operating vehicles
2) the rules of the road for pedestrians.

Vehicular cycling simply means riding a bicycle on roads in accordance to (1) rather than (2).

I don't know of any law anywhere that prohibits two cars from sharing a single lane side by side, provided they can safely fit. Do you?

You didn't answer me. What does the law say? And if there were not concerns about two cars sharing a lane, then why are WOL widths restricted on the basis of exactly that concern.


Many roads, including the street I live on, have no marked lanes at all. Sometimes even multi-lane roads have no marked lanes (particularly when freshly paved, open, but lane stripes not painted yet).

With all lanes, the space makes the lane, not the stripe.

The general rule is: if the space is there, you can use it. This is why two motorcycles can share the same lane, legally. It's very vehicular - that is, it is in accordance to the vehicular rules of the road.

I respectfully disagree. One cannot talk about lanes independently of their lane markings. The space... and the designations... create the symbolic construct known as a traffic lane. Go to Cambodia or India where there are roads with no lane markings, and see what I mean. For example, if I draw a star on my whiteboard, I can point to it and say "it's a star." If I erase the markings making up the star, I don't have a star anymore even though the space making up the star is still there. If I point to any old random marking, that's not a star either. The star is made up of both the space and the boundary.

The two motorcycles are a special case; an exception. Only in CA and a few select other states, can motorcyclists share a lane legally with a car, and then only when in a traffic jam.

For instance, just because it is 2am and there are no people out on the road doesn't mean I can legally drive on the left side of the road, down the center lane, or even straddling two lanes. "But there is space..." doesn't matter, I am still prohibited from using it by the way the road is painted.

And lastly, 25mph residential streets are sometimes unmarked. But then again, I wouldn't describe a car traveling on an unmarked residential street as driving in the same way as a car out on the arterial. Unmarked residential streets indicate that drivers are not restricted to a lane because they have to worry about other dangers, such as on-street parking in the extreme, driveway pullouts, and small kids running around. Alternatively, one could describe an unmarked residential street as a single lane, two way road.

Folks, it's not that hard!

The rules of the road can be divided into two sets:

1) the rules of the road for operating vehicles
2) the rules of the road for pedestrians.

Vehicular cycling simply means riding a bicycle on roads in accordance to (1) rather than (2).

So, the gutter hugger who follows the rules of the road is cycling vehicularly? He's not on the sidewalk, so it cannot be pedestrian. According to the law books, he might even be more legal than the vehicular cyclist we all have in our mind's eye.

There are absolutely no vehicular principle which allows for two vehicles to share a lane.
Lets look at AZ law:
"28-723. Overtaking a vehicle on the left
The following rules govern the overtaking and passing of vehicles proceeding in the same direction:
1. The driver of a vehicle overtaking another vehicle proceeding in the same direction shall pass to the left of the vehicle at a safe distance and shall not again drive to the right side of the roadway until safely clear of the overtaken vehicle.
2. Except when overtaking and passing on the right is permitted, the driver of an overtaken vehicle shall give way to the right in favor of the overtaking vehicle on audible signal or blinking of head lamps at nighttime and shall not increase the speed of the overtaken vehicle until completely passed by the overtaking vehicle."

No where does it state that the overtaking vehicle must merge fully into an adjacent lane.

And... this well known law (or its local variations)
"28-815. Riding on roadway and bicycle path; bicycle path usage
A. A person riding a bicycle on a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, except under any of the following situations:
1. If overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction.
2. If preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.
3. If reasonably necessary to avoid conditions, including fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals or surface hazards.
4. If the lane in which the person is operating the bicycle is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane."
#1 and #4 suggest the principle of lane sharing - granted with a bicycle and a vehicle, not two vehicles.

and perhaps most to the point:
"28-903. Operation of motorcycle on laned roadway; exceptions
A. All motorcycles are entitled to the full use of a lane. A person shall not drive a motor vehicle in such a manner as to deprive any motorcycle of the full use of a lane. This subsection does not apply to motorcycles operated two abreast in a single lane.
B. The operator of a motorcycle shall not overtake and pass in the same lane occupied by the vehicle being overtaken.
C. A person shall not operate a motorcycle between the lanes of traffic or between adjacent rows of vehicles.
D. A person shall not operate a motorcycle more than two abreast in a single lane.
E. Subsections B and C do not apply to peace officers in the performance of their official duties."

(A) suggest that it is the wider vehicle operator who must not deprive full use of lane. I would interpret this to mean that if a narrow vehicle moves right in the presence of fsdt that passing within same lane is not depriving narrow vehicle of full use of lane as the narrow vehicle operator is requesting the sharing. One can not deprive someone of something they are willingly giving.
(B) is requiring that a faster/overtaking narrow vehicle not share a lane with another vehicle. If the opposite was required, wouldn't it be explictly noted vs. the language in (A)
(C) is two vehicle sharing a lane. Granted they are both narrow, but this directy contradits your statement.

Al

The above definition also separates the concept from the concept of vehicular cycling that I, Forester, Stephen, and many others advocate.

Not the concept - the brand. :rolleyes:

I understand what Brian is trying to do here and I think it's a good approach. IMO the only reason anyone should have a problem with this approach is:

a. they do not have the capacity to think outside the box to better define the box
b. they feel their 'ownership' of a dogma, methodology or core belief is threatened.

Okay,
The word "vehicular" in the term "vehicular cycling" means to use a bicycle as a vehicle for transportation. While
Riding on roadways in accordance to the vehicular rules of the road (or the rules of the road for vehicles, if you prefer, as opposed to the rules of the road for pedestrians).
All better?

But it still

does not, in any way, shape or form, mean operating a bicycle as a motor vehicle. Athough, this may be done when utilizing a bicycle as transportation.


You can use a mountain bike on trails for transportation. That is not the intent of the meaning of vehicular in vehicular cycling.
I was under the understanding that most of us were talking strictly about road and urban cycling on this thread. My bad, I didn't realize you were talking about something different.

At any rate, I don't know what the definition in the OP defines, but it ain't VC. No doubt about that.

You didn't answer me. What does the law say?
Brian, the law says nothing about lane sharing. If it's not prohibited, it's legal.


And if there were not concerns about two cars sharing a lane, then why are WOL widths restricted on the basis of exactly that concern.
We have WOLs that are not so restricted, particularly at approaches to intersections.



I respectfully disagree. One cannot talk about lanes independently of their lane markings.
Well, one can talk about lanes on a road with no lane markings, so why not?

How do you talk about two motorcyclists sharing a lane?


The space... and the designations... create the symbolic construct known as a traffic lane.
When the lanes are marked, yes the markings make it clear where the lanes are.
When the lanes are not marked, usage determines where the lanes are.

Don't forget that there are ship lanes in the ocean, which are not marked at all.

The terminology does get confusing when you are sharing lanes on a road with marked lanes.

But if two motorcyclists are sharing a marked lane, and one is moving too close to the other, you could say that one is moving into the other's (unmarked) lane.


Go to Cambodia or India where there are roads with no lane markings, and see what I mean.
I can imagine.


For example, if I draw a star on my whiteboard, I can point to it and say "it's a star." If I erase the markings making up the star, I don't have a star anymore even though the space making up the star is still there. If I point to any old random marking, that's not a star either. The star is made up of both the space and the boundary.
You are stuck on like Definition 2 or so of probably half a dozen definitions for lane in the average dictionary, the one that means a marked lane. For that definition of lane, the analogy is valid.

Try this: Forget the chalkboard analogy and go into Excel and create a table with 4 columns. Fill it with data and print to screen. Do it with and without telling it to print the borders/separators. When there are borders, the borders define the columns. When you print the table without borders, the data defines the columns, but the columns are still there!. Just because the columns are defined by the lines when the lines are there, does not mean the columns are not there when the lines are not there. Note that you can also split a cell so that one column is shared - if the column is wide enough for the data that you are trying to fit in there.

Similarly, on a road with no lane markings and no traffic, there are no lanes.
When traffic shows up, usage defines the lanes.
On a road with lane markings, the markings define the lanes, whether traffic is there or not.
But you can also "split" a lane and share it, if the the lane is wide enough for the vehicles that are trying to fit in there.


The two motorcycles are a special case; an exception. Only in CA and a few select other states, can motorcyclists share a lane legally with a car, and then only when in a traffic jam.
How is two motorcyclists a special case? It's two vehicles that can fit in a lane side-by-side. What's special case about that?


For instance, just because it is 2am and there are no people out on the road doesn't mean I can legally drive on the left side of the road, down the center lane, or even straddling two lanes. "But there is space..." doesn't matter, I am still prohibited from using it by the way the road is painted.
Again, my street is not painted. No center stripe even. But the law still requires me to stay in my (unmarked) lane - the right side of the road.


And lastly, 25mph residential streets are sometimes unmarked. But then again, I wouldn't describe a car traveling on an unmarked residential street as driving in the same way as a car out on the arterial. Unmarked residential streets indicate that drivers are not restricted to a lane because they have to worry about other dangers, such as on-street parking in the extreme, driveway pullouts, and small kids running around. Alternatively, one could describe an unmarked residential street as a single lane, two way road.
Fine, 25 mph unmarked streets are special cases, WOLs where 2 cars can fit are special cases, motorcyclists sharing with cars are special cases, two motorcyclists sharing a lane is a special case, and, guess what, a cyclist sharing lane with another car is just another special case too.

Not the concept - the brand. :rolleyes:

I understand what Brian is trying to do here and I think it's a good approach. IMO the only reason anyone should have a problem with this approach is:

a. they do not have the capacity to think outside the box to better define the box
b. they feel their 'ownership' of a dogma, methodology or core belief is threatened.
This is just another thread where someone is trying to redefine terminology for their own self-validation.

So, if I ride on the sidewalk, stopping at each driveway to clear for cars, riding at 10 mph average speed (still a 5x greater speed than walking, and thus, a transportational advantage), am I riding "vehicularly"? .
Not in AZ:
"28-904. Driving on sidewalk
A. A person shall not drive a vehicle on a sidewalk area except on a permanent or duly authorized temporary driveway."

Of course bicyclists can ride on sidewalk as in AZ they are not classified as vehicles, instead devices.

Al

Then I strongly suggest you come up with a less loaded term to mean what it is that you want it to mean. Call it "Ratliff Cycling" and define it any way you want.

But to take a term for which there are already well recognized meanings, and defining it as something similar but different, is very confusing, to say the least.

It's a bit like defining abortion as the killing of any human less than 6 months old, and then suggesting we stick to that definition when debating whether abortion is moral or should be legal. Good luck.

The term is not well-recognized and your worries about terminology indicate that you feel you have some ownership of the term and feel threatened by any discussion that is not under your control. Why don't you try working with Brian here in an honest way, as you always claim that you wish, rather than fighting tooth and nail anything that you might not understand?

Not the concept - the brand. :rolleyes:

I understand what Brian is trying to do here and I think it's a good approach. IMO the only reason anyone should have a problem with this approach is:

a. they do not have the capacity to think outside the box to better define the box
b. they feel their 'ownership' of a dogma, methodology or core belief is threatened.
Chipcom, do you agree or disagree that riding a bicycle on roadways in accordance to the rules of the road for vehicles (as opposed to rules of the road for pedestrians) is a concept?

This is just another thread where someone is trying to redefine terminology for their own self-validation.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I think Brian has laid down a challenge to those who can engage in independent thinking and debate, rather than being threatened by anything that is not status-quo or hard to understand.

I think Brian has done a pretty good job of it actually.

"Lane Sharing" IS a non vehicular concept. a vehicular cyclist may choose to share lanes, but it is NOT vehicular cycling. and two step lefts? Definelty not 'vehicular' in the strictest sense.

and yet the vc drum thumpers persist. I think vehicular cycling as defined by all the supporters of vehicular cycling the brand are using the term VC to loosely define "safe cycling."

There are a lot of "sometimes" in the traditional vc ideology, and it is not at all clearly defined by forester or the lot of the rest of you.

I think Brian has got a great idea to define vehicular cycling seperate from the VC branded 'foresterite' ideas of how to ride safer, and calling his idealogy "vehicular cycling."

The term is not well-recognized and your worries about terminology indicate that you feel you have some ownership of the term and feel threatened by any discussion that is not under your control. Why don't you try working with Brian here in an honest way, as you always claim that you wish, rather than fighting tooth and nail anything that you might not understand?
Chip, I've already said that I think the definition in the OP is fine. My only comment is that associating the term "vehicular cycling" with the very specific definition in the OP is likely to cause confusion because it means something other than what "vehicular cycling" is most often used to mean, the general concept of riding a bicycle on roadways in accordance to the rules of the road for vehicles.

At any rate, I don't know what the definition in the OP defines, but it ain't VC. No doubt about that.

No offence intended here, but you don't seem to have a good handle on what you think "VC" is either.

Does anyone disagree that the main differentiating point between vehicular cycling and other cycling techniques is that vehicular cycling encourages and advises cyclists to use the full roadway and "take the lane" for a measure of safety?

What is the main difference between "vehicular cycling" and the so-called "gutter cycling"?

The hallmark of vehicular cycling is the act of "taking the lane." Barring real or imagined PR issues (which can be handled later and doesn't even really apply here on these forums), is there any reason not to focus primarily on this one very real difference between vehicular cycling and everything else?

Put it this way: If you see a cyclist controlling the lane, in the process of making a vehicular left turn, you would say: ah ha!... that's vehicular cycling.

If you see a cyclist who is timidly hugging the gutter, slowing at every minor intersection to avoid some right hook, sharing lanes all the time, you would say: no... that cyclist is not riding vehicularly.

A cyclist is not operating vehicularly simply because they ride on the road, on the right hand side, and stop at stop signs. All cyclists, to get anywhere using the road system, have to do this. A cyclist who is out there, taking the lane to avoid a danger, who positions him/herself in the middle of the rightmost through lane at an intersection: that's operating vehicularly.

Now, how do you encode this into a working definition? This is precisely what I did in the OP.

now it is distilled into a 'general concept'. not very specific, is that?

I'm curious as to a specific scenario I encounter last week on a 60 mile ride out of the city. 8 lane arterial, 45 MPH traffic, center turn lane, marginal or nonexistant shoulder. I was line weaving for expediency and taking the lane when needed for safety.

Continuous stream of traffic in the thru lanes. I was tootling along, and got to the county line. All of a sudden, there were signs designating the right most lane "right turn only, except Buses and bicycles."

NOW, what is vehicular in that instance? is it following the signage, designating a lane as specific for class of vehicles, or would I be NON-vehicular because I was in a right turn only lane?

Should I have ignored the designation, and instead have fought it out with the continuous stream of fast traffic in the first thru lane?

AGAIN, i think all this talk of VC in this forum is largely political and branding of more generalized 'safe cycling' practices.

Brian has it quite well thought out in the original post.

Does anyone disagree that the main differentiating point between vehicular cycling and other cycling techniques is that vehicular cycling encourages and advises cyclists to use the full roadway and "take the lane" for a measure of safety?
Yes, I do.


What is the main difference between "vehicular cycling" and the so-called "gutter cycling"? Vehicular cycling is about being integrated with traffic; "gutter cycling" and other techniques are about riding outside of traffic.


The hallmark of vehicular cycling is the act of "taking the lane." When reasonable, safe and not inappropriate to do so, yes. I have to make this qualification because it is so often misunderstood (as it was earlier today by your dad who thought VC means never riding in bike lanes).


Barring real or imagined PR issues (which can be handled later and doesn't even really apply here on these forums), is there any reason not to focus primarily on this one very real difference between vehicular cycling and everything else? I have no problem with focusing on that aspect of it. I do recommend not referring to that alone as "vehicular cycling", for the "causes confusion" reasons specified earlier.


Put it this way: If you see a cyclist controlling the lane, in the process of making a vehicular left turn, you would say: ah ha!... that's vehicular cycling. Not necessarily... I wouldn't.


If you see a cyclist who is timidly hugging the gutter, slowing at every minor intersection to avoid some right hook, sharing lanes all the time, you would say: no... that cyclist is not riding vehicularly. That I agree with.


A cyclist is not operating vehicularly simply because they ride on the road, on the right hand side, and stop at stop signs. All cyclists, to get anywhere using the road system, have to do this. A cyclist who is out there, taking the lane to avoid a danger, who positions him/herself in the middle of the rightmost through lane at an intersection: that's operating vehicularly. That's an example of operating vehicularly.


Now, how do you encode this into a working definition? This is precisely what I did in the OP.
Well, yeah, you defined a subset of vehicular cycling and called the subset vehicular cycling.

Chip, I've already said that I think the definition in the OP is fine. My only comment is that associating the term "vehicular cycling" with the very specific definition in the OP is likely to cause confusion because it means something other than what "vehicular cycling" is most often used to mean, the general concept of riding a bicycle on roadways in accordance to the rules of the road for vehicles.

I'm glad that you are okay with the OP definition. Realize that, within your own circles, your concept of what "vehicular cycling" is is fine, because you are dealing with like minded people. In real life, outside of the VC circles, people see person controlling lane = cycling vehicularly/person hugging curb != cycling vehicularly.

Simply defining "vehicular cycling" as "following vehicular rules of the road" is overbroad for discussion amongst many different people with differing viewpoints.

now it is distilled into a 'general concept'. not very specific, is that?

NOW? Where have you been? VC has always been defined as a general concept, like defensive driving.

Common misconceptions about vehicular cycling

...

"VC is needlessly blocking cars"

Cyclists who ride in the center of a lane needlessly impeding faster traffic are sometimes mistakenly referred to as vehicular cyclists; yet by definition a cyclist who needlessly impedes faster traffic is violating the vehicular rules of the road and is hence not riding vehicularly.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicular_cycling#.22VC_is_needlessly_blocking_cars.22

NOW? Where have you been?

sorry to come in to this little 'debate' all truncated. I was out putting down 60 miles on my bike, like an adaptive vehicular cyclist, but definelty NOT always vehicular. although I was 'generally' following the rules.

THAT'S the type of generalization that is exemplary of the vagaries of VC 'best practices' versus Brian's attempts to formally define vehicular cycling.

Does anyone disagree that the main differentiating point between vehicular cycling and other cycling techniques is that vehicular cycling encourages and advises cyclists to use the full roadway and "take the lane" for a measure of safety?
I will disagree with this blanket statement. Under certain conditions yes, the cyclist should take the lane for safety reasons, but not under all conditions all the time.


The hallmark of vehicular cycling is the act of "taking the lane."
Not taking the lane, but when to take the lane. Understanding the "when" and "why," (under what circumstances?) is very important.

VAGUE. sometimes you take the lane, sometimes you don't. That's what a vehicular cyclist determines, and that is NOT a strict definition of 'vehicular' cycling is.

Oh, the brand. can't dilute the magic of the brand.:rolleyes:

Chipcom, do you agree or disagree that riding a bicycle on roadways in accordance to the rules of the road for vehicles (as opposed to rules of the road for pedestrians) is a concept?

Yes, as a concept that has been stretched and complicated well beyond anything it was intended to be. The point, I believe, of this thread is to define the bare-bones base of the term, not the concept.

Let's use economics as an example:

The term, as defined in wiki: Economics (deriving from the Greek words οίκω [okos], 'house', and νέμω [nemo], 'rules' hence household management) is the social science that studies the allocation of scarce resources to satisfy unlimited wants. This involves analyzing the production, distribution, trade and consumption of goods and services.

Easy eh? Now try to define all of the different economic 'concepts'. Not so easy. ;)

You, Steve, Al, John Forrester, Bek, Robert Hurst, Brian, JRA, ILTB, et al, have lots of varying concepts concerning what vehicular cycling is...but what is the root definition of the term? I think this is where Brian is trying to go, but might have confused things by trying to define the entire term 'vehicular cycling'. I think to get to that, we first need to define 'vehicle', 'vehicular', the 'rules of the road for vehicles' (which we've gone round and round about before...there is no clear cut, accepted definition). Only when these terms are defined can we try to apply 'cycling' to the term and come up with the root definition. It may well be riding a bicycle on roadways in accordance to the rules of the road for vehicles - but without understanding and agreeing upon the vehicle-related definitions, vc is indeed nothing but a concept, not a term.

So I guess that's my thread hijack challenge - define a vehicle and the rules of the road for vehicles. I THINK that was what Brian was attempting to do.

Chip's got things pretty much right in his assessment of my goal here. But also, I want to define the term in a precise way, in the cycling context. Because there are competing techniques for cycling, and to have a conversation, one needs concrete language to talk about it in.

Let me postulate this in a different way. Say, you have a road and you are making a decision on lane position. "Ride vehicularly" some would say. Well, what does that mean? How do you define the opposite of "vehicularly" without resorting to terms like "pedestrian" or "ghost cycling" or similar, emotionally ladden and ill defined terms? And once you determine you want to be "vehicular" you still don't have guidance on lane positioning.

Now, with the narrow definition, there are several precise options without resorting to cycling on the sidewalk:


1) ride vehicularly (you should know what this means by now, if not, read the OP)
2) share the lane
3) ride in the far margin/gutter

Now, using the OP definition, 3 options, no additional words, and all terms are descriptive of the techniques used to impliment these options. See how nice that is? Moreover, each entails a set of techniques all unto itself. Riding vehicularly entails a different riding style than sharing the lane. Riding in the margin/gutter involves techniques different from both.

Some will complain that the first option can be adequately described by using the phrase "taking the lane" and all three encompassed (or maybe just the first two, depending on who you ask) by the term "vehicularly." I'd argue that this is imprecise because the invariable next question will be "what do I do at the intersection ahead." The two options:


1) travel vehicularly through the intersection
2) use a two part turn if turning left

In all cases, the term "vehicularly" is clearly analogous to "as a car would do." This is the intent. Everyone sees cars, and most people who come across the term "vehicular cycling" make the reduction down to "as a car would do." Why fight this? It is a rather good descriptor.

I am not trying to define a paradigm here. I am trying to put a rope around a bunch of techniques centered around taking the lane and destination lane positioning. These both are specific hallmarks of what everybody would describe as cycling "vehicularly."

Not the concept - the brand. :rolleyes:

I understand what Brian is trying to do here and I think it's a good approach. IMO the only reason anyone should have a problem with this approach is:

a. they do not have the capacity to think outside the box to better define the box
b. they feel their 'ownership' of a dogma, methodology or core belief is threatened.

Or c. they would like to believe they are vehicular cyclists (as an identity) not cyclists who sometimes ride vehicularly (which makes them no better than all those "paint-n-path" people they so want to be better than.)

Brian, I think the peanut gallery would accept your definition of vc if you simply exclude the bike lanes.

Personally, I don't care if I qualify as a vehicular cyclist or if I can proudly say "I rode vehicularly today." It makes absolutely no difference to my identity, my self-worth, my personal safety, my enjoyment of bicycling, or my qualifications to participate in bicycle advocacy.

Brian, I think the peanut gallery would accept your definition of vc if you simply exclude the bike lanes.

Personally, I don't care if I qualify as a vehicular cyclist or if I can proudly say "I rode vehicularly today." It makes absolutely no difference to my identity, my self-worth, my personal safety, my enjoyment of bicycling, or my qualifications to participate in bicycle advocacy.
Agreed, any day I made it home without getting smoked by a car, regardless of paradigm, is a good day ;).

Brian has offered here something that is quite useful as a reference point in these many, long debated discussions of vehicular cycling that is easily attacked due to its ambitious length and breadth. Instead of attacking him and his definition why not submit your own as a alternative?

^^^^
There's nothing in this definition about bike lanes. I just listed one consequence of definition which is forced by way of self-consistency. I think behind most of the static though, is about keeping WOLs the prefered cycling facility.

If it makes everyone feel better, I can adopt HH's concept of an "implicit bike lane" in a WOL to make WOLs consistent with this definition. I still believe it is more akin to lane sharing; as many people pointed out, cars swing out wider when passing a cyclist riding on the right side of a WOL. This is car behavior which is characteristic of a shared lane situation. But on the other hand, we don't have WOLs here in Oregon beyond a couple streets I haven't had the pleasure of riding. So, I can give the guys from San Diego, Pheonix, and South Carolina the benefit of the doubt.

I don't want to start a facilities debate of all things here. I want to repeat: there is nothing regarding bike lanes or lack thereof in the definition of "vehicular cycling."

I still think Brian's definitions are spot on the money.

'Vehicular cycling' is more limited than what the so-called 'vehicular cyclists' use for safe cycling. the vehicular cyclist uses a fair amount of discretionary judgements about riding position that will not correspond to strict definitions of 'vehicular' operation of a bike.

Two part left turns? plueaze, NOT vehicular, but vehicular cyclists seem to think they are. lane sharing? how to determine which lane is safe to share ands which are not? much too situational. and generally cars do not share lanes, striped lanes are not designed to be shared by vehicles.

lane sharing is not vehicular. although 'vehicular cyclists' can share lanes when they think it is safe, its not 'vehicular'.

I wonder about the road I rode on last week, when i rode across the county line into a
"right lane right turn only except buses and bicycles"- vehicular to ignore the thru lanes and ride in the preferential lane? or ride only in the thru lane, because riding in a right turn only lane is not vehicular? I think the former, preferential lanes ARE vehicular, also extends to bike lanes for thru traffic. preferential lanes ARE vehicular.

Interesting - according to this definition, there are no bike lanes in my town.

First point: Your comment may explain a good deal about your position in the bike lane debate. It is very difficult to debate a point about a cycling facility you have never experienced.

Second point: I was looking at bike lanes on my way home tonight (on my bike - through the neighborhoods from Wilsonville to the corner of Scholls Ferry Rd and Murry Rd, for those of you who know the area). 2/3'rds of the 12-15 mile (I haven't measured it but roughly using a map) ride have bike lanes by my definition. The other third has bike lanes in name only. The bike lanes in name only are roughly four feet wide and I don't ride in them. About half of the real bike lanes are 6-7' wide, the rest are 5'. The section of road with the newest bike lane (Scholls Ferry Rd, resurfaced about a year ago) has a six foot bike lane. The 5' bike lanes are mostly in the industrial/commercial zone of my commute near my work and then scattered throughout.

So, 5' is on the narrow side of what I'd consider a bike lane. Adequate bike lanes are 6' wide. Good bike lanes are 7' wide.

Anyway, this was a side diversion. Back to the definition of "vehicular cycling" and off the subject of bike lanes.

Second point: I was looking at bike lanes on my way home tonight (on my bike - through the neighborhoods from Wilsonville to the corner of Scholls Ferry Rd and Murry Rd, for those of you who know the area). 2/3'rds of the 12-15 mile (I haven't measured it but roughly using a map) ride have bike lanes by my definition. The other third has bike lanes in name only. The bike lanes in name only are roughly four feet wide and I don't ride in them. About half of the real bike lanes are 6-7' wide, the rest are 5'. The section of road with the newest bike lane (Scholls Ferry Rd, resurfaced about a year ago) has a six foot bike lane. The 5' bike lanes are mostly in the industrial/commercial zone of my commute near my work and then scattered throughout.

So, 5' is on the narrow side of what I'd consider a bike lane. Adequate bike lanes are 6' wide. Good bike lanes are 7' wide.
Just curious, how do motor vehicle drivers treat these "real" bike lanes? Like shoulders or gores, or do they merge into them when approaching a place where they are turning right?

How are these bike lanes striped at approaches to midblock intersections with driveways, and at the intersections themselves? Solid, dashed, no stripe?


I just listed one consequence of definition which is forced by way of self-consistency.
If the treatment of the bike lane by drivers and traffic engineers is not like the treatment of a vehicular lane (including an express or slow moving traffic lane), then the definition is not self-consistent.

Just curious, how do motor vehicle drivers treat these "real" bike lanes? Like shoulders or gores, or do they merge into them when approaching a place where they are turning right?

All major, light controlled intersections are RTOLs, which in effect, means that the lane markings has right turning traffic merging into the bike lane, which widens to full width to accomodate a car. The bike lane then reemerges after the merging zone to keep cyclists to the left of right turning cars.


How are these bike lanes striped at approaches to midblock intersections with driveways, and at the intersections themselves? Solid, dashed, no stripe?

Stripping is discontinued across intersections - many times dashed in the immediate approach. In practice, I've had very little problems with right hooks. I've never been right hooked, nor have been put in a situation to have to slow to avoid a right hook.



If the treatment of the bike lane by drivers and traffic engineers is not like the treatment of a vehicular lane (including an express or slow moving traffic lane), then the definition is not self-consistent.

It is self consistent. There are imperfections at minor intersections, but it is self consistent at major intersections, where stuff like this matters more. Moreover, roads in new developments are designed here to group minor intersections together on sidestreets, so there are few new developments where there are minor intersections every few yards like with the old style of commercial zoning. Commercial properties are usually in strip malls (uncommon now) or in "squares" of properties grouped around a common, shared parking lot.

What's wrong with simply following the rules of the road as they pertain to cyclists? Motorized vehicle drivers are supposed to follow the rules of the road as they pertain to motorized vehicles .... and as both a cyclist and a driver, I greatly appreciate it when they do. It's only courteous for cyclists to also follow the rules of the road too ... cyclists and drivers will appreciate it when we do.


I'm afraid I don't get this whole Vehicular Cycling thing ....... or is it a bit of an "in" joke among the regulars here. The first post (the only one I read here) was amusing! I had a chuckle over several parts of it!! :D

Well, yeah, you defined a subset of vehicular cycling and called the subset vehicular cycling.

You missed my point. I defined a subset of safe, lawful cycling and called that "vehicular cycling." Most of what you refer to as "vehicular cycling" is, in fact, simply what any safe, lawful bicyclist would do. Yours is a retorical tact to seed confusion. A cyclist who is not a "vehicular cyclist" is forced to concede he is "vehicular cycling" in your sense of the definition. How is this not confusing? You have simply rebranded the hallmarks of safe, lawful cycling for retorical purposes. In fact, those tenets that sggoodrie convenently posted above are simply labeled "principles of traffic cycling" and are quoted verbatum from Effective Cycling.

Most of what you call "vehicular cycling" is just safe, lawful cycling. What is left over is the techniques for taking a lane and destination lane positioning.

Just out of curiosity, who, exactly, coined the term "vehicular cycling"? If it was Forester, then it was coined to describe an advocacy policy, not a set of techniques, see page 557, Effective Cycling.