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

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

I'm glad you got a chuckle out of it. It is a bit of an "in" joke for the regulars here (welcome to our world :)).

In a nutshell, sometimes the legal rules of the road as they pertain to cyclists are not in the cyclist's best interest. Here, we discuss exactly what it is that makes cyclists safe when mixing with motorized traffic. Vehicular cycling defined broadly is for a cyclist to use the full roadway width (even the "car" parts of the roadway) and operate like other traffic.

I'm glad you got a chuckle out of it. It is a bit of an "in" joke for the regulars here (welcome to our world :)).

In a nutshell, sometimes the legal rules of the road as they pertain to cyclists are not in the cyclist's best interest. Here, we discuss exactly what it is that makes cyclists safe when mixing with motorized traffic. Vehicular cycling defined broadly is for a cyclist to use the full roadway width (even the "car" parts of the roadway) and operate like other traffic.

Two things about that ....

According to the law in Manitoba and Alberta, cyclists are supposed to ride as far to the right as is practicable ... meaning that if we deem that there is some sort of obstacle in the road which forces us to take the lane, that's within the law, but otherwise we are supposed to keep to the right side of the road.

I'm perfectly happy complying with that because cyclists are safer when they do so. Motorized vehicles can pass them ... so drivers don't become angry and frustrated with the cyclist and consequently do things to put the cyclist in danger (or try to harm the cyclist). And the cyclists are predictable so that motorists don't have to guess what the cyclist might do next. As a driver, I get annoyed when cyclists are pedalling slowly down the middle of the road, but as a cyclist, I really try to be sympathetic to them ... yet I nearly yelled at one to get off the road a few weeks ago!! I can just imagine what drivers who are not cyclists must be feeling ... it's no wonder cyclists get hit, run over, yelled at, etc. etc.

I'd much rather ride safely than break the law in order to make some sort of point.

Two things about that ....

According to the law in Manitoba and Alberta, cyclists are supposed to ride as far to the right as is practicable ... meaning that if we deem that there is some sort of obstacle in the road which forces us to take the lane, that's within the law, but otherwise we are supposed to keep to the right side of the road.

Look that up. Most jurisdictions have some version of such a "keep to the right" law, but in almost all cases, it seems to apply only when faster same direction traffic is present and allows for many more exceptions than just an obstacle in the road (like approaching an intersection, preparing for a left turn, etc.).

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.

It's only confusing for someone who tries to pigeon hole "vehicular cycling" into being something other than "riding a bicycle on roads in accordance to the vehicular rules of the road".


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.
You're misreading.

Vehicular cycling is a set of practices.

Vehicular cycling policy is the policy to which Forester refers to on p. 557, a policy that supports the right of cyclists to ride vehicularly.

Okay, I am misreading. Who coined the term then? This is the only context it comes up in in Forester's book.

[QUOTE=Brian Ratliff]One cannot talk about lanes independently of their lane markings. The space... and the designations... create the symbolic construct known as a traffic lane.
...
QUOTE]

The elegance of the basic vehicular rules that form the basis of vehicular cycling is that you don't need "lanes" of traffic for them to work; you can instead merely have "lines" of traffic. This is how traffic works on roads without lane striping - and after all, the vehicular rules of the road were created before most roads had any lane markings. Right turning traffic takes the line of traffic on the far right, left-turning traffic takes the line to the left (but still on the right half of the road) and through traffic follows between these extremes. Between intersections, slower traffic operates to the right, and faster traffic passes on the left.

Once we understand how the vehicular rules apply to roads without lane striping, then it's easy to figure out how to deal with lanes that are much wider than one's vehicle. When turning right, get in line with the right-turing traffic, or at least far enough to the right to discourage straight-travelers from passing on your right. When turning left, get in line with the left-turning traffic, or at least far enough left to discourage through-traffic from passing to your left. These rules of vehicular cycling are especially useful for safety when operating near other cyclists, who, as drivers of narrow vehicles, may be inclined to try to pass you in the same lane. I've experienced a number of near-collisions cycling in groups where cyclists tried to turn right from the center of the rightmost lane, or tried to pass me on the right when I was preparing to turn right. Thus, it's the actual position of the vehicles that matters most in vehicular cycling, rather than the route of the center of the lane. Lane sharing is a reality for operators of narrow vehicles; vehicular cycling teaches cyclists not only how to use wide lanes lawfully, but also how to use them most effectively for their own safety.

Machka brings up a good point; some state laws preclude practicing the strict definition of 'vehicular cycling.' However, 'vehicular cyclists" live in these places, surely.


This contradiction and other contradictions are what causes the vc club to form looser definitions of 'vehicular cyling' to include 'safe legal cycling' as part of their branded attempts to make their brand the only way to ride.

I think the peanut gallery just can't accept a definition of vehicular cycling that makes it vehicular to ride in a bike lane but not vehicular to share a lane. They will only accept lane controlling if the lane is full width. And since control and release of the lane is central to their definition, they aren't going to accept a new definition that puts "release" on the non-vehicular side of the spectrum.

Their definition is ideological. It's about the control and the identity formed around having that control. Your definition is about measurable actions that people may or may not take in the course of riding their bicycles. None of us can claim to BE vehicular cyclists with your definition. While this is perfectly ok to me, it's not ok to them, so they will never accept your definition.

I think the peanut gallery just can't accept a definition of vehicular cycling that makes it vehicular to ride in a bike lane but not vehicular to share a lane.
I, for one, have no trouble accepting it. Brian has already said he's going to use it, and that's fine with me.

My only point is that I believe it will cause further confusion, because it is distinctly differerent from the meaning used by those of us who advocate vehicular cycling.

But I have no problem accepting it.

Okay, I am misreading. Who coined the term then? This is the only context it comes up in in Forester's book. I can't find it right now, but I'm almost certain he defines it somewhere in the book.
I always thought he coined it, but maybe not.
It's also possible that he never clearly defined it in the book.

This thread should be retitled 'misinformation in the name of confusion'.

i think the broad definitions of 'safe, rider determined bike positioning' called 'vehicular cycling' is ALREADY confusing enough and a brand concious attempt to cover ALL contingencies.

Come on! two step left turns are 'vehicular?' VC the brand IS bunk science. broad, sweeping generalizations for safe cycling.

I think the peanut gallery just can't accept a definition of vehicular cycling that makes it vehicular to ride in a bike lane but not vehicular to share a lane. They will only accept lane controlling if the lane is full width. And since control and release of the lane is central to their definition, they aren't going to accept a new definition that puts "release" on the non-vehicular side of the spectrum.

Their definition is ideological. It's about the control and the identity formed around having that control. Your definition is about measurable actions that people may or may not take in the course of riding their bicycles. None of us can claim to BE vehicular cyclists with your definition. While this is perfectly ok to me, it's not ok to them, so they will never accept your definition.

I don't have any ideological objections to the misdefinition of vehicular cycling. I'm simply explaining the practical inconsistency between the misdefinition and the basic concepts of vehicular cycling as they are traditionally taught.

As a practical matter, striped lanes are often much wider than a bicyclist, and other vehicle operators including cyclists will often attempt to overtake in the extra space. Vehicular cycling education materials teach cyclists which portion of the lane to use in context by generalizing from the vehicular rules of the road as they apply where lane striping doesn't separate users.

Since the safest prescribed positioning for inevitable lane sharing is derived from basic vehicular rules, it is popularly considered a basic part of vehicular cycling. Thus, attempting to define vehicular cycling as prohibiting lane sharing is fundamentally incompatible with the basics of vehicular cycling education and practice.

-Steven Goodridge

I can't find it right now, but I'm almost certain he defines it somewhere in the book.
I always thought he coined it, but maybe not.
It's also possible that he never clearly defined it in the book.

I don't think I ever saw the word in his book Effective Cycling. Looking in the index only brings up the "vehicular-cycling policy" reference I stated before. Anyone else know?

"misdefinition". Good one sggoodri. You certainly have a way with words and using them to bend a conversation to your will. Is what I am doing any different than your use (misuse) of the term "segregation"? Here, as well as there, the term is certainly descriptive. Here as well as there, the use of the word is an attempt (or alleged attempt, I am still not sure of your motives in this respect) to strip the word of its load and move toward a more descriptive definition.

Well, you've got your "segregation lanes". I'll take my "vehicular cycling". Every argument I have seen from you can be turned right back around to your own use of language. Language is language and free for all to use. We cannot even find the person who first coined the term to be associated with Forester's "vehicular-cycling policy."

Let's change the names of things! Everything you have known heretofore as being the color blue, will henceforth be called yellow. That will help folks understand. From now on when you describe the sea it will be 'the great yellow sea'. And the sky is now yellow too...

Thats MY color definition....

"misdefinition". Good one sggoodri. You certainly have a way with words and using them to bend a conversation to your will. Is what I am doing any different than your use (misuse) of the term "segregation"? Here, as well as there, the term is certainly descriptive. Here as well as there, the use of the word is an attempt (or alleged attempt, I am still not sure of your motives in this respect) to strip the word of its load and move toward a more descriptive definition.

Well, you've got your "segregation lanes". I'll take my "vehicular cycling". Every argument I have seen from you can be turned right back around to your own use of language. Language is language and free for all to use. We cannot even find the person who first coined the term to be associated with Forester's "vehicular-cycling policy."

If I have used the term "segregation lanes", I was in error. I use the term "segregation striping," to specifically mean the use of striping and stencils to spatially separate road users by class, and "segregated facilities" to generally mean any engineering for explicit separation of travelers by type. Most people know eactly what I mean, so there is no concern about confusion; the only concern is that some people who like user class separation in the context of road engineering may become emotional because they experience segregation as a negative term rather than a neutral descriptive one. Because their emotional reactions to having their sacred cow cast in this light detract from meaningful discussion, I have reduced my use of the term as of late.

In the case of vehicular cycling, it is clear that vehicular cycling education has always included advice on how to use vehicular rules as a guide to best position oneself in the lane in preparation for the inevitable attempts of faster travelers to overtake. Whether one emotionally disagrees or not with the concept of always blocking traffic from overtaking in the same lane, it is factually incorrect to attribute this to vehicular cycling, both because the best recognized vehicular cycling education programs teach how to vary lateral lane positioning based on context, and because if the lane is wide enough and overtaking vehicle small enough, it is physically impossible to prevent same-lane overtaking.

-Steven Goodridge

I think that's "Preferential" striping, actually, Steve :D

Lateral lane position to allow overtaking traffic to pass - photos from http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=3963433&postcount=468 post

http://www.flickr.com/photos/wabeck/409452593/in/set-72157594568275462/

I would call this 'riding in the margin' and would venture to guess that the group moved right to allow faster same-direction traffic to pass.

In the second photo the riders are further left but barely in the right tire track - 'semi margin' if you will.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wabeck/409453524/in/set-72157594568275462

Note that the speed limit is 45 MPH. Personally, I would ride further left in the lane and move right to allow same direction traffic to pass when safe to do so.

In the second photo the riders are further left but barely in the right tire track - 'semi margin' if you will.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wabeck/409453524/in/set-72157594568275462

Note that the speed limit is 45 MPH. Personally, I would ride further left in the lane and move right to allow same direction traffic to pass when safe to do so. This photo,

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/159/409453524_7a133f75ea.jpg?v=0

sent shivers down my back. Here's why:

A couple of years ago a cyclist in his mid 40s, Hans Wichary was killed riding just like this in rural San Diego County. He was 3rd in a paceline of 4 cyclists, just like this one, on a rural road with 11' lanes (can't see how wide this lane is, but 11' is probably close), a fog line, and a paved shoulder that can be measured by a handful of centimeters, just like this one. They were not adjusting for the presence of fsdt (faster same direction traffic).

When he was killed, fsdt was not present, and the cyclists were riding as far right as possible. Because they were leaving the lane wide open, just like these cyclists are, a driver of an oncoming pickup who wanted to pass a slower vehicle pulling a trailer, and the vehicle behind it, decided to pass. He either did not notice the oncoming cyclists because they were so far out of the way, or decided to pass because he thought he had enough room despite their presence, or probably both (didn't notice them at first, decided he had enough room once he moved left and did notice them); in any case, he decided to pass. Technically, he was right - there was enough room, because he got by 3 of the 4 cyclist without hitting them. The problem is that the first two cyclists saw him coming, and suddenly slowed and moved slightly right (the inch or so more that they could). The 3rd cyclist, Hans, apparently did not notice the pickup coming, was startled by the sudden slowing of the cyclist in front of him, and swerved left, into the path of the pickup, to avoid hitting the cyclist in front of him.

This is yet another reason why I believe the presence or absence of fsdt is such a critical factor in determining where I am positioned. When fsdt is present, it acts as a "cover". In cases like this (rural 2 lane highway with dashed center stripe) it prevents oncoming traffic from passing. When fsdt is absent, you have to take an assertive/conspicuous position to create your own cover not only to hinder oncoming traffic from using your lane to pass slower traffic moving in their direction, but also to inhibit cross traffic from crossing in your path.

Edit: changed "prevent" to inhibit above, per note from Bruce.

Edit 2: changed first instance back to prevents, since I think that's reasonably accurate, and changed second reference to "hinders", just to mix it up.

^^^^
Why is this in my thread?

^^^^
Why is this in my thread?
Seeing that image reminded me of the incident that is probably most responsible for firming up my belief in the importance of taking the presence/absence of fsdt into account when deciding whether to ride in the margin or not, and I decided to share it. It is about an issue that defines (slow moving) vehicular behavior, and thus is arguably relevant to the thread topic of defining "vehicular cycling", I think.

^^^^
Why is this in my thread?
To remind us that pace line techniques are neither vehicular cycling, nor necessarily safe? Especially if encourages not looking any farther ahead than the rear wheel of the cyclist 2 feet in front.

I would hardly describe the riders in the photo as riding in a paceline. If you will note in the first photo, there is quite a bit of distance between riders, not that really makes a difference. Because, to have a paceline, first you need some 'pace'.

However, in order to facilitate passing by fsdt cyclists will often ride in a line formation to allow fsdt to make one pass and get by everybody.

Seeing that image reminded me of the incident that is probably most responsible for firming up my belief in the importance of taking the presence/absence of fsdt into account when deciding whether to ride in the margin or not, and I decided to share it. It is about an issue that defines (slow moving) vehicular behavior, and thus is arguably relevant to the thread topic of defining "vehicular cycling", I think.

Actually, the way that vehicular cycling is defined in the OP (which is what this thread is about), it doesn't matter what the road conditions are, beyond that those cyclists are in "lane sharing mode" and what you are advising is for them to be in vehicular mode.

Faster, same direction traffic is irrelevent in defining "vehicular cycling". Vehicular cycling is a tool in the tool box that you might pull out in the presence or absence of faster same direction traffic. But application of that tool to specific road environments is best done in a different thread.

So, please move this little conversation to a different thread.

... fsdt (faster same direction traffic)... In cases like this ... it prevents oncoming traffic from passing. IMHO, using prevents in this context overstates your case somewhat. While a wide vehicle (such as a car) is easier for other road users to see than a narrow vehicle (such as a bicycle), approaching traffic (from any direction) can't actually stop a someone from attempting a pass (although it would be less likely that they'd try).

IMHO, using prevents in this context overstates your case somewhat. While a wide vehicle (such as a car) is easier for other road users to see than a narrow vehicle (such as a bicycle), approaching traffic (from any direction) can't actually stop a someone from attempting a pass (although it would be less likely that they'd try).
Bruce! You surprise me! +1

One can not make any judgement about that photo due to the presence of the vehicle (bike or car) that it was taken from. That changes the situation completely. Maybe they always ride in the so called 'margin' but that can only be a guess.

Al

Yea. People. To another room with you all if you want to keep on your "fsdt" topic.

Actually, the way that vehicular cycling is defined in the OP (which is what this thread is about), it doesn't matter what the road conditions are, beyond that those cyclists are in "lane sharing mode" and what you are advising is for them to be in vehicular mode.

Faster, same direction traffic is irrelevent in defining "vehicular cycling". Vehicular cycling is a tool in the tool box that you might pull out in the presence or absence of faster same direction traffic. But application of that tool to specific road environments is best done in a different thread.
I think the problem with the term "vehicular" is that the only (non cycling ) "vehicular" experience the vast majority of the public has had does not include operating a slow moving vehicle. Therefore, to them, the legitimate behavior of drivers of slow moving vehicles, including moving aside, using shoulders and sharing lanes in order to allow faster same direction traffic to pass easier, when safe and reasonable to do so, does not seem "vehicular". But such behavior for drivers of slow moving vehicles is most certainly vehicular, and most if not all legal manifestations of the vehicular rules of the road mandate it. To eliminate it from the "definition" of "vehicular cycling" does reflect the common sense interpretation of the term vehicular, but ignores the operational and physical characteristics of the bicycle that make the vehicular rules of the road that apply to drivers of slow moving vehicles so relevant to bicyclists operating in traffic on roads in accordance to the vehicular rules of the road.

This is yet another reason why I believe the presence or absence of fsdt is such a critical factor in determining where I am positioned. When fsdt is present, it acts as a "cover". In cases like this (rural 2 lane highway with dashed center stripe) it prevents oncoming traffic from passing. When fsdt is absent, you have to take an assertive/conspicuous position to create your own cover not only to prevent oncoming traffic from using your lane to pass slower traffic moving in their direction, but also to inhibit cross traffic from crossing in your path.
IMHO, using prevents in this context overstates your case somewhat. While a wide vehicle (such as a car) is easier for other road users to see than a narrow vehicle (such as a bicycle), approaching traffic (from any direction) can't actually stop a someone from attempting a pass (although it would be less likely that they'd try). Good catch, I used the word "prevent" twice, and "inhibit" the 3rd time, which is more accurate. I've edited the post so that it says "inhibit" in all 3 cases. Thanks.

Edit: in my defense, technically, "hinder" is supposed to be a synonym for prevent, and "hinder" would be an appropriate word to use here, but prevent does imply "not allow" to a greater degree than I intended to convey.

Edit 2: I changed the first one back to prevents, since that's reasonably accurate, and changed the second one to hinder.

One can not make any judgement about that photo due to the presence of the vehicle (bike or car) that it was taken from. That changes the situation completely. Maybe they always ride in the so called 'margin' but that can only be a guess.

Al
Note that I did not make any judgment about the behavior of those in the photo.

However, IF that exemplifies how they are positioned when fsdt is absent, then my comments apply.

I think the problem with the term "vehicular" is that the only (non cycling ) "vehicular" experience the vast majority of the public has had does not include operating a slow moving vehicle. Another point of view is that the vast majority has had experience traveling by human powered vehicle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle), but that they just don't recognize their bike or trike usage for what it is (even though the concept has been around for a long time, as shown by the 1950s educational film Drive Your Bike, 10:47 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvemsrxpSow)).

I think the problem with the term "vehicular" is that the only (non cycling ) "vehicular" experience the vast majority of the public has had does not include operating a slow moving vehicle.
Another point of view is that the vast majority has had experience traveling by human powered vehicle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle), but that they just don't recognize their bike or trike usage for what it is (even though the concept has been around for a long time, as shown by the 1950s educational film Drive Your Bike, 10:47 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvemsrxpSow)). I think we're both right, but my explanation is really at the root of it: because of their personal experiences, the concept most people associate with the term "vehicle" in their minds is the car. Evidence of this is the shorthand commonly used by folks, even folks with years of exposure to the term, to describe vehicular cycling as "riding a bike as if it's a car".

Again, this is all very understandable because most people's exposure to anything they associate with the term "vehicle" is almost thoroughly dominated by cars. So when they hear or read "vehicular", they think "like a car" or "pertaining to a car".

Edit: Anecdotally, the occasional commercial truck driver who posts here seems to have less of a problem with associating the behavior of drivers of slow moving vehicles with the term "vehicular" than does the average person.

It's hopeless, Brian.

Let's just adopt your definition of vehicular cycling as part of adaptive cycling and be done with these jokers.

I think the problem with the term "vehicular" is that the only (non cycling ) "vehicular" experience the vast majority of the public has had does not include operating a slow moving vehicle. Therefore, to them, the legitimate behavior of drivers of slow moving vehicles, including moving aside, using shoulders and sharing lanes in order to allow faster same direction traffic to pass easier, when safe and reasonable to do so, does not seem "vehicular". But such behavior for drivers of slow moving vehicles is most certainly vehicular, and most if not all legal manifestations of the vehicular rules of the road mandate it. To eliminate it from the "definition" of "vehicular cycling" does reflect the common sense interpretation of the term vehicular, but ignores the operational and physical characteristics of the bicycle that make the vehicular rules of the road that apply to drivers of slow moving vehicles so relevant to bicyclists operating in traffic on roads in accordance to the vehicular rules of the road.

I'm glad that someone is still on topic here. Anyway...

The problems you speak of are largely political. I sympathize because most of the battles cyclists have fought with governments have been political. The terminology from these battles have political meanings which conflict with technical meanings, and this is part of the problem.

The fact that the term "vehicular" has an understanding in common vernacular that is somewhat separate from how some of us use the term is what is at the center of all this. The OP definition takes this common vernacular definition and codifies it into the technical language. The issue I disagree with is that the term "vehicular cycling" need take into account any operational characteristics of bicycles. I guess I am taking up your position in this matter, that speed and size of the vehicle don't matter, in the context of vehicular cycling (in the OP definition sense).

The very point of redefining "VC" is to get away from this battle of words between "pro-facilities" people and "anti-facilities" people. Look at the heckling from galen, for example, I get for a simple tightening up of the definition. I want a true discussion of the effects of how cyclists ride on the road. The effects on safety, the effects on the traffic system as a whole, and the effects on cyclist and driver's perception of cycling. It might be expedient for vehicular cyclists to lay claim to the term "vehicular cycling," but realize that by doing this, and combining generalized safe cycling practices in with ideology, you are essentially politicizing a very valuable cycling technique.

The whole goal here is to separate these valuable cycling techniques from the politics. A cyclist who takes the lane through an intersection should not be labeled a "vehicular cyclist." This hypothetical cyclist might take issue with the politics of vehicular cyclists, and get the idea that he shouldn't use any of the techniques that John Forester popularized, because then he'd be a member of a group against his will and opinion.

To separate these cycling techniques from politics, the definition has to be tightened up to the point where it only includes the basic hallmarks of the technique, namely, taking the lane and destination lane positioning. All the other stuff, like lane sharing or stopping at stop signs, is simply stuff that any cyclist has to do to get anywhere on a bike. I want to separate all this extraneous stuff from the term, so that these uniquely vehicular techniques can be evaluated given specific situations. Why have a war over a word which already has a common vernacular meaning which most of the population will recognize? Why not make the common vernacular meaning the formal meaning. It seems like it'd save a lot of confusion.

It's hopeless, Brian.

Let's just adopt your definition of vehicular cycling as part of adaptive cycling and be done with these jokers.

Aw, don't worry about the hecklers. Just don't make this a shooting war. Retoric is unique in that one has to shoot back to be hit by it. Retoric which is unanswered is well and truly irrelevent. And we've got the moderators if it gets too out of hand.

HH and I are actually having a pretty good discussion here. Even if the terminology cannot be adopted, it drags a whole bunch of stuff out into the open. Including the heckling, which just goes to show how politicized this term is, and how much need there is for a change of definitions on a broad scale.

Look at the heckling from galen, for example, I get for a simple tightening up of the definition.

I'm sorry Brian, but in your tightened definition you being by stating:
"Examples of what is not within the working definition of vehicular cycling:
1) riding to the right hand side of the road and sharing the lane. A cyclist traveling in vehicular mode will not share lanes in any way, shape, or sense of the word. "
When you know very well that most folks who consider themselves vehicular in their cycling style do do this? Given this did you expect there would be no friction in your revised definition?



The whole goal here is to separate these valuable cycling techniques from the politics. A cyclist who takes the lane through an intersection should not be labeled a "vehicular cyclist." This hypothetical cyclist might take issue with the politics of vehicular cyclists, and get the idea that he shouldn't use any of the techniques that John Forester popularized, because then he'd be a member of a group against his will and opinion.

Somehow I am able to separate the politics of VC with the practical, why can't others? Are folks here that concerned with labels and what other think of them?

Al

^^^^
Again, a "vehicular cyclist" is not what I am defining here. I am defining a word to describe a set of techniques which vehicular cyclists and other types of cyclists sometimes use.

Self described "vehicular cyclists" or "folks who consider themselves vehicular in their cycling style" can describe their cycling style as anything they want.

To get what I am saying, ask yourself: what is the hallmark of a "vehicular cyclist"? It is not riding in the margin and letting a car share their lane (using HH's definition for a "margin"). It is taking the lane and not allowing passing, coupled with destination lane positioning.

Lastly, if "vehicular cycling" already has a meaning in common vernacular, why complicate the definition to make it some sort of intimidating "school" of cycling?

I'm glad that someone is still on topic here. Anyway...

The problems you speak of are largely political. I sympathize because most of the battles cyclists have fought with governments have been political. The terminology from these battles have political meanings which conflict with technical meanings, and this is part of the problem.

The fact that the term "vehicular" has an understanding in common vernacular that is somewhat separate from how some of us use the term is what is at the center of all this. The OP definition takes this common vernacular definition and codifies it into the technical language. The issue I disagree with is that the term "vehicular cycling" need take into account any operational characteristics of bicycles. I guess I am taking up your position in this matter, that speed and size of the vehicle don't matter, in the context of vehicular cycling (in the OP definition sense).

The very point of redefining "VC" is to get away from this battle of words between "pro-facilities" people and "anti-facilities" people. Look at the heckling from galen, for example, I get for a simple tightening up of the definition. I want a true discussion of the effects of how cyclists ride on the road. The effects on safety, the effects on the traffic system as a whole, and the effects on cyclist and driver's perception of cycling. It might be expedient for vehicular cyclists to lay claim to the term "vehicular cycling," but realize that by doing this, and combining generalized safe cycling practices in with ideology, you are essentially politicizing a very valuable cycling technique.

The whole goal here is to separate these valuable cycling techniques from the politics. A cyclist who takes the lane through an intersection should not be labeled a "vehicular cyclist." This hypothetical cyclist might take issue with the politics of vehicular cyclists, and get the idea that he shouldn't use any of the techniques that John Forester popularized, because then he'd be a member of a group against his will and opinion.

To separate these cycling techniques from politics, the definition has to be tightened up to the point where it only includes the basic hallmarks of the technique, namely, taking the lane and destination lane positioning. All the other stuff, like lane sharing or stopping at stop signs, is simply stuff that any cyclist has to do to get anywhere on a bike. I want to separate all this extraneous stuff from the term, so that these uniquely vehicular techniques can be evaluated given specific situations. Why have a war over a word which already has a common vernacular meaning which most of the population will recognize? Why not make the common vernacular meaning the formal meaning. It seems like it'd save a lot of confusion.
Now that I'm finally starting to understand what you're trying to do, here's an idea off the top of my head, it's so raw I can't even say for sure that I like it.

But what if we referred to your description in the OP as "Advanced Vehicular Cycling"? OR AVC, to differentiate the subset of VC practices that are not as commonly used by the typical cyclist as are other VC practices.

That way we can say lane sharing, for example, is a VC practice, but it is not an AVC practice (which is not to imply that someone advanced in VC would not use it, just that lane sharing is not an AVC practice), and that using an assertive lane-controlling position (when safe and reasonable to do so), is both a VC practice and an AVC practice.

If we achieve consensus on this, perhaps you can modify the OP accordingly, and coax a moderator to change the title of this thread, and we can stop the arguing over terminology, politics and semantics?

The whole goal here is to separate these valuable cycling techniques from the politics. A cyclist who takes the lane through an intersection should not be labeled a "vehicular cyclist." This hypothetical cyclist might take issue with the politics of vehicular cyclists, and get the idea that he shouldn't use any of the techniques that John Forester popularized, because then he'd be a member of a group against his will and opinion.

To separate these cycling techniques from politics, the definition has to be tightened up to the point where it only includes the basic hallmarks of the technique, namely, taking the lane and destination lane positioning. All the other stuff, like lane sharing or stopping at stop signs, is simply stuff that any cyclist has to do to get anywhere on a bike. I want to separate all this extraneous stuff from the term, so that these uniquely vehicular techniques can be evaluated given specific situations. Why have a war over a word which already has a common vernacular meaning which most of the population will recognize? Why not make the common vernacular meaning the formal meaning. It seems like it'd save a lot of confusion.

Brian,

After re-reading your words, I agree with your motivations, and believe them to be honorable. I agree that there are problems with calling a cyclist a "vehicular cyclist" just because he does something that overlaps with the practices encouraged by vehicular cycling education programs. ILTB often makes legitimate complaints about John Forester classifying all cyclists who make traffic errors as not being vehicular-cyclists, as though cyclists who attempt to operate according to vehicular principles never make errors.

However, I disagree with your assertion that sharing the lane is outside the fundamental concepts of vehicular cycling. I observe it to be a very important part of vehicular cycling technique; specifically, I believe that proper lane sharing technique must be explained in terms of vehicular rules, so that cyclists will best understand what side of the lane they do and don't want other traffic trying to use to overtake them depending on their destinations. I view sharing of wide lanes to be a specialized case of the more general rule of sharing a substantial width of unstriped pavement, whether this pavement is a residential street or a wide multi-use path. I view overtaking without a stripe between users as an ordinary part of cycling and thus an essential subject for vehicular cycling to address according to basic vehicular rules.

I also disagree with your assertion that stopping for stop signs and such is obviously something that any cyclist must do to get somewhere on a bike. There are some people who feel strongly that cyclists should not have to follow many of the basic vehicular rules that other drivers follow. For instance, some believe that cyclists should have the right of way over other drivers at intersections, or that cyclists should be able to ride across mid-block crosswalks and that drivers on the main road should yield to them like they ought to yield to pedestrians at mid-block crosswalks. Vehicular cycling as a model of traffic negotiation offers explanations of why these alternate rules are problematic due to the kinematic and dynamic limitations of the bicycle as a vehicle, as well as the limited perceptual and reactive abilities of drivers of cars and bikes. Put more simply, if one enters junctions fast enough to have limited time to see and be seen by other drivers, and one has limited ability to stop instantly and/or back up when things happen unexpectedly, then the normal vehicular rules are safer at junctions than other rules such as pedestrian rules.

These are some of the useful features that I see in the vehicular cycling paradigm and the cycling education programs and traffic laws applicable to cyclists that are based on it. This is why I encourage you to not throw out the baby with the bath water by attempting to define vehicular cycling otherwise.

-Steve Goodridge

To separate these cycling techniques from politics, the definition has to be tightened up to the point where it only includes the basic hallmarks of the technique, namely, taking the lane and destination lane positioning. All the other stuff, like lane sharing or stopping at stop signs, is simply stuff that any cyclist has to do to get anywhere on a bike.

If you want to tighten up a definition, the term "taking the lane" certainly is not going to cut it. I've seen "taking the lane" defined as:

1. riding in any part of the lane
2. riding in the right tire track
3. riding in between the tire tracks
4. riding down the centerline of the road
5. swerving in front of passing vehicles to physically "take" the lane (this last definition is also often confused with what HH refers to as dynamic lateral lane positioning)

No one here will argue that destination lane positioning is not part of vehicular cycling.

Go searching for some threads about stop signs or just observe cyclists anywhere on the roads and see how many actually stop for stop signs when they should. Most don't think they apply because they do not see themselves as vehicles. Most sidewalk cyclists don't give a crap about redlights either and neither do most cyclists who I see sticking to the margins of the road at all times.

You can ride a bike without stopping at stop signs or red lights but then it wouldn't be very vehicular. Rarely do you see anyone driving their car with the same disregard for traffic control devices as you see coming from non-vehicular cyclists (except in the case of speed limits but that's another topic).

Brian,

After re-reading your words, I agree with your motivations, and believe them to be honorable. I agree that there are problems with calling a cyclist a "vehicular cyclist" just because he does something that overlaps with the practices encouraged by vehicular cycling education programs. ILTB often makes legitimate complaints about John Forester classifying all cyclists who make traffic errors as not being vehicular-cyclists, as though cyclists who attempt to operate according to vehicular principles never make errors.

However, I disagree with your assertion that sharing the lane is outside the fundamental concepts of vehicular cycling. I observe it to be a very important part of vehicular cycling technique; specifically, I believe that proper lane sharing technique must be explained in terms of vehicular rules, so that cyclists will best understand what side of the lane they do and don't want other traffic trying to use to overtake them depending on their destinations. I view sharing of wide lanes to be a specialized case of the more general rule of sharing a substantial width of unstriped pavement, whether this pavement is a residential street or a wide multi-use path. I view overtaking without a stripe between users as an ordinary part of cycling and thus an essential subject for vehicular cycling to address according to basic vehicular rules.

I also disagree with your assertion that stopping for stop signs and such is obviously something that any cyclist must do to get somewhere on a bike. There are some people who feel strongly that cyclists should not have to follow many of the basic vehicular rules that other drivers follow. For instance, some believe that cyclists should have the right of way over other drivers at intersections, or that cyclists should be able to ride across mid-block crosswalks and that drivers on the main road should yield to them like they ought to yield to pedestrians at mid-block crosswalks. Vehicular cycling as a model of traffic negotiation offers explanations of why these alternate rules are problematic due to the kinematic and dynamic limitations of the bicycle as a vehicle, as well as the limited perceptual and reactive abilities of drivers of cars and bikes. Put more simply, if one enters junctions fast enough to have limited time to see and be seen by other drivers, and one has limited ability to stop instantly and/or back up when things happen unexpectedly, then the normal vehicular rules are safer at junctions than other rules such as pedestrian rules.

These are some of the useful features that I see in the vehicular cycling paradigm and the cycling education programs and traffic laws applicable to cyclists that are based on it. This is why I encourage you to not throw out the baby with the bath water by attempting to define vehicular cycling otherwise.

-Steve Goodridge
Seems like more reasons to go with "Advanced Vehicular Cycling" or "Advanced Vehicular Cycling Practices".

Or, now that we've hashed out whatever we accomplished in this thread, let's leave it as is, and you (Brian) start a new thread entitled "Working definition of 'Advanced Vehicular Cycling'", copy/paste/update your OP, and start from there?

Seems like more reasons to go with "Advanced Vehicular Cycling" or "Advanced Vehicular Cycling Practices".

I don't really care for your "Advanced" modifier as I don't see what borders on pathological lane dominance as a virtue or desirable progression from normal vehicular cycling.

I suggest we call it something more descriptive and clear, such as "Lane Dominance Cycling". The basic rules of the road, and why it's useful to follow them on a bike, would be outside the scope of a discussion about how to most effectively control a travel lane.

Here's what I propose as a compromise.
------------------

Vehicular Cycling (VC) is defined as cycling on roads in accordance with the vehicular rules of the road (as opposed to cycling in accordance to the rules of the road to be followed by pedestrians, or not in accordance to any specific set of rules), including the rules of the road that drivers of slow moving vehicles are supposed to follow.


In order to differentiate the VC practices used by most cyclists from those used by those who describe themselves as vehicular cyclists, the term "advanced vehicular cycling" will be used to describe those practices.


Advanced Vehicular Cycling (AVC) is a group of VC techniques and practices surrounding the adoption by a cyclist of destination positioning utilizing the full width of the roadway.


Examples of what is not within the working definition of Advanced Vehicular Cycling:

1) riding to the right hand side of the road and sharing the lane. A cyclist traveling in advanced vehicular mode is not sharing lanes in any way, shape, or sense of the word.

2) sidewalk or bike path/MUP riding. (AVC only applies on roads used by motor vehicles).

3) two step left turns.

4) simply following the local laws that are contrary to destination positioning utilizing the whole roadway. For example, if the local law tells cyclists to use the sidepath, using the sidepath is still not cycling vehicularly. If the local law demands lane sharing; this is still not cycling vehicularly to remain in compliance with this law.

5) the equipment for traffic cycling

6) the head flicks, hand flicks, winks, nods, pedal cadence, steely eyed alpha dog stares (:)), etc. utilized to gain a motorist's attention. These will vary according to environment, cyclist, cyclist's mood, etc. [NOTE FROM HH: However, effective communication with other drivers should be recognized as an AVC technique, since most cyclists do this much less than do those advanced in VC).

7) riding to the right in a WOL and sharing this lane with car traffic. This is a working definition, and for reasons of consistency, I have to exclude this from the working definition. WOLs are a special case where lane sharing is explicitly encouraged. This is not an advanced vehicular practice. This is not to say that WOLs are somehow inferior cycling facilities. It is just to say that lane sharing while using WOLs is not an example of advanced vehicular cycling.

8) the basics of cycling, such as riding on the right side of the road and stopping at stop signs. This is to keep the definition precise. What are within the working definition of Advanced Vehicular Cycling:

1) destination positioning at intersections

2) vehicular left turns

3) controlling the lane. (or "taking the lane") when safe and reasonable to do so i.e. not sharing a lane with another vehicle driver by using an assertive "centerish" lane position when faster same direction traffic is not present, the lane is not wide enough to be safely shared, etc.

4) riding in the bike lane.[NOTE from HH: this does not seem to fit the "advanced" notion), I think we should take this one out] This is vehicular because a bike lane, as defined as a traffic lane dedicated to bicycle use (this definition doesn't include those "bike lanes in name only" lanes that DOTs sometimes force on us) meets the requirements of non-lane sharing, and to leave a bike lane means to go through all the procedures used to change lanes in traffic. One cannot, by design move arbitrarily from the bike lane to the adjacent traffic lane because the cyclist does not have right of way to do this. As with the WOL lane sharing designation, this is not to imply that bike lanes are somehow "better" than WOLs.

I don't really care for your "Advanced" modifier as I don't see what borders on pathological lane dominance as a virtue or desirable progression from normal vehicular cycling.

I suggest we call it something more descriptive and clear, such as "Lane Dominance Cycling". The basic rules of the road, and why it's useful to follow them on a bike, would be outside the scope of a discussion about how to most effectively control a travel lane.
I agree that "what borders on pathological lane dominance" is not a "virtue or desirable progression from normal vehicular cycling". That's why I think the definition should be refined so that it does not border on pathological lane dominance. Does my proposed compromise version above seem that way to you?

Go searching for some threads about stop signs or just observe cyclists anywhere on the roads and see how many actually stop for stop signs when they should. Most don't think they apply because they do not see themselves as vehicles. Most sidewalk cyclists don't give a crap about redlights either and neither do most cyclists who I see sticking to the margins of the road at all times.

You can ride a bike without stopping at stop signs or red lights but then it wouldn't be very vehicular. Rarely do you see anyone driving their car with the same disregard for traffic control devices as you see coming from non-vehicular cyclists (except in the case of speed limits but that's another topic).

Precisely. Stopping for red lights, riding in the same direction as other traffic, and using lights at night may be obvious to all of us reading this forum, but for many of the beginning and "casual" cyclists I've taken out for rides, these represent significant changes in their behavior as part of their conceptual introduction to vehicular cycling. It's a challenge to gently influence new cyclists into following the basic vehicular rules - but the number of near-collisions I've seen convince me of the importance of doing so. These novice cyclists aren't stupid, they just didn't equate bicycle operation with driving a vehicle. Once they understood the paradigm, and why it works, their cycling was immediately safer, because they quickly were able to get the basics right. And best of all, I was no longer worried that I would have to tell their loved ones that they got killed on their bike ride with me.

I think you both are still in the box, so to speak. I'm not defining an ideology or worldview here. Within the OP definition, no cyclist is vehicular all the time. It is a name for a grouping of techniques, which center around taking the lane and desination lane positioning.

I am trying to rid the word of ideology. You both are slipping back into redefining this into an ideology which is separate from the vehicular cyclist ideology. This is not an attempt, like the AC attempt, to define a separate ideology to compete or even coexist with the vehicular cyclist ideology.

To put it in bare terms, the term "vehicular cycling" should be formalized to mean (and will be when I speak of the term from now on) "ride a bike like a car", since this is what it means to most people anyway.

#1. A cyclist who stops at red lights and stop signs and who uses lights at night is not necessarily cycling vehicularly.

#2. A cyclist who takes the lane and does vehicular left turns and other examples of destination lane positioning is definitely and without question riding vehicularly.



#1 is a necessary but not sufficient condition of the broad definition of vehicular cycling. #2 is singularly sufficient in the OP definition. A necessary but not sufficient condition is just fluff.

The broad definition of vehicular cycling is overbroad and includes lots of conditional statements. The OP definition contains none. Moreover, the broad definition of vehicular cycling has a self reference, namely, that a cyclist follows vehicular rules of the road. (now, define vehicular) The OP definition is not self referential.