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

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 VC can be fairly cleanly divided in AVC and BVC - Advanced VC and Basic VC.

Basic VC is the collection of VC techniques and practices most experienced cyclists already use, but most novices need to learn, such as:
Right on the right half of the road, with vehicular traffic.
Obey traffic control.
Use hand signals before turning.
Use lights/reflectors at night.
Use speed positioning, including riding in the margins.
Turning left by waiting for a gap before merging left.
Etc.Advanced VC is the collection of VC techniques and practices few experienced cyclists already utilize, at least not consistently, and almost all novices need to learn, such as:
Using negotiation to create gaps.
Merging left one lane a time.
Signaling using look backs.
Being able to look back for more than a fraction of a second without riding off course.
Using assertive "centerish" lane positioning to discourage lane sharing/squeezing when the lane is too narrow to be safely shared.
Using assertive "centerish" lane positioning to improve sight lines and conspicuity when safe and reasonable to do so.
Recognizing when traffic behind needs a hint about what to do, and providing it appropriately and effectively.
Recognizing when and where bike lanes are okay to use, and when they should be avoided.
Etc.

I think VC can be fairly cleanly divided in AVC and BVC - Advanced VC and Basic VC.

Basic VC is the collection of VC techniques and practices most experienced cyclists already use, but most novices need to learn, such as:
Right on the right half of the road, with vehicular traffic.
Obey traffic control.
Use hand signals before turning.
Use lights/reflectors at night.
Use speed positioning, including riding in the margins.
Turning left by waiting for a gap before merging left.
Etc.
Advanced VC is the collection of VC techniques and practices few experienced cyclists already utilize, at least not consistently, and almost all novices need to learn, such as:

Using negotiation to create gaps.
Merging left one lane a time.
Signaling using look backs.
Using assertive "centerish" lane positioning to discourage lane sharing/squeezing when the lane is too narrow to be safely shared.
Using assertive "centerish" lane positioning to improve sight lines and conspicuity when safe and reasonable to do so.
Recognizing when traffic behind needs a hint about what to do, and providing it appropriately and effectively.
Recognizing when and where bike lanes are okay to use, and when they should be avoided.
Etc.

Why not call it: "basic traffic cycling practices", and "vehicular cycling techniques"? Appending "VC" to both of these is redundent and would be done only for political reasons. You are still trying to include the world with your definition of "VC".

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.
Gotta nip this one in the bud.

Claiming that defining "vehicular cycling" as "cycling per the vehicular rules of the road" is self-referential is like claiming that defining "truck driver" as "one who drives a truck" is self-referential. It's not. Neither is.

Why? Because we're defining vehicular cycling and truck driver, not vehicular or truck.

The definitions are based on the pre-existing definitions of the base terms vehicular and truck respectively.
Neither defines or redefines those base terms, they refer to them.

Why not call it: "basic traffic cycling practices", and "vehicular cycling techniques"? Appending "VC" to both of these is redundent and would be done only for political reasons. You are still trying to include the world with your definition of "VC". Steve answered this at length, but the short answer is they should be called basic vehicular cycling techniques to differentiate them from non-vehicular cycling techniques, like most if not all of the "sly cyclist" tips and tricks in Dave Glowacz' book, for one (like jumping up onto the sidewalk to for whatever reason, as one example).

Please reread Steve's last couple of posts.

I think you're the one who can't get out of a box - you can't seem to recognize the reasoning as being technical and practical - all you see is political motivations.

So give me a sentence which describes "vehicular", as in "vehicular rules of the road", without resorting to situational examples.

Truck driver = person who drives a truck. Truck = largest vehicle on the road, used to carry cargo.

Vehicular cycling = cycling by vehicular rules of the road. Vehicular rules of the road = ?????.

Fill in the question mark blank. One sentence. If you can do this, you'd convince me of your point. It is still self referential, but it is acceptable as a definition.

FWIW, defining a "truck driver" as "a person who drives a truck" is also self-referential. It is accepted as a definition because it is easy to define "truck."

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.
Why have any term that means "ride a bike like a car"?

No one rides a bike like it's a car. No one can. No one wants to. A bike is not a car. What would be the point to define something that no one does, can do, or even wants to do?

Steve answered this at length, but the short answer is they should be called basic vehicular cycling techniques to differentiate them from non-vehicular cycling techniques, like most if not all of the "sly cyclist" tips and tricks in Dave Glowacz' book, for one (like jumping up onto the sidewalk to for whatever reason, as one example).

Please reread Steve's last couple of posts.

I think you're the one who can't get out of a box - you can't seem to recognize the reasoning as being technical and practical - all you see is political motivations.

Shouldn't your "basic VC" be the norm? Isn't this what everyone wants?

I'm beginning to see why John Forester never used the term "vehicular cycling" in Effective Cycling. If "vehicular" is the norm, then it doesn't have to have a label other than "basic traffic cycling", which is, in fact, what he uses to describe the techniques presented in his chapter on traffic cycling. In fact, to back this up more, all your "basic VC" items are in the Oregon DMV driver and bicyclist manuals, so they really do deserve the moniker "basic traffic cycling".

In other words, your "basic VC" is already the norm. No need to append "VC" to it. Let the non-normal methods of cycling get the special names.

You guys are fighting ghosts. There is no battle between "VC" and "sly cycling" or any other varient of non-normal traffic cycling. There is, however, a battle to educate cyclists on basic traffic cycling principles. Lumping everything under the sun into an ideologically driven version of "vehicular cycling" which is promoted only by "vehicular cyclists" who believe very special things about bike lanes and such doesn't exactly help in the quest to reach out and educate cyclists about basic traffic cycling principles.

This is the "branding" that chipcom has a problem with.

Why have any term that means "ride a bike like a car"?

No one rides a bike like it's a car. No one can. No one wants to. A bike is not a car. What would be the point to define something that no one does, can do, or even wants to do?

Perhaps you can come up with something better. Answer the fill in the blank question in post 155. Be a sport.

Remember: One sentence that embodies what "vehicular" means in non-self-referential terms.

And of course one can ride a bike like a car. It'd just be a slow car. But as you always say, speed is a non-issue here. We ride like a car every time we change lanes to make a vehicular left turn. The NC contingent even emphasises this by terming their brand of VC as "Bicycle Driving."

If you told someone to make a left turn like a car, she'd immediately get the basic concept. The rest, those techniques for changing lanes and merging into faster traffic streams and such, are just details.

So give me a sentence which describes "vehicular", as in "vehicular rules of the road", without resorting to situational examples.

Truck driver = person who drives a truck. Truck = largest vehicle on the road, used to carry cargo.

Vehicular cycling = cycling by vehicular rules of the road. Vehicular rules of the road = ?????.

Fill in the question mark blank. One sentence. If you can do this, you'd convince me of your point. It is still self referential, but it is acceptable as a definition.

FWIW, defining a "truck driver" as "a person who drives a truck" is also self-referential. It is accepted as a definition because it is easy to define "truck." First, how "easy" it is to define something has nothing to do with whether a given definition is self-referential or not. A self-referential definition is one that refers to the term it is defining in the definition of that term.

The definition of truck driver, one who drives a truck, is not self-referential, since it defines truck driver without referring to truck driver. For it to be self-referential it would have to refer to truck driver in the definition; it doesn't.

The fact that the term and its definition both utilize the term truck is as irrelevant as the fact that the term and its definition both utilize the letter T.

With respect to your challenge...

vehicle: a mechanized means for transporting people (or use whatever definition of vehicle you are happy with)

Edit: For completeness I'll add:
vehicular: adj., pertaining to vehicles.

Vehicular rules of the road = rules of the road pertaining to the operation of vehicles

Vehicular cycling = cycling by the vehicular rules of the road

In other words, your "basic VC" is already the norm. Steve's post, which you continue to not address, explained how this is not so.

And why is whether it's the norm or not relevant to whether it should be called "basic VC".

Are you assuming that something must be "out of the norm" in order to be called "basic VC"? Why?

^^^^
So, riding like you are driving a car. That's what I said. A car is a vehicle. Fits like a glove and easier to understand.

If it is not like driving a car, if there is more to it, then you've got more work to do to define exactly what "vehicle" is and how the rules pertain to various types of vehicles. And don't say a "slow moving vehicle." Most people don't know how these operate either, and they are rarely seen in urban and suburban areas.

The "vehicular cycling" moniker indicates there is something special about it. "Traffic cycling" is a neutral moniker. Even Forester got this.

And the DMV drivers and cyclists manuals don't use the term "vehicular cycling." They use a term like "traffic cycling"; something with a neutral connotation and purely descriptive. Nobody knows what "vehicular cycling" is (we have spent 7 pages talking about it). Everyone can conjure what "traffic cycling" or "cycling in traffic" involves.

^^^^
So, riding like you are driving a car. That's what I said. A car is a vehicle. Fits like a glove and easier to understand.

If it is not like driving a car, if there is more to it, then you've got more work to do to define exactly what "vehicle" is and how the rules pertain to various types of vehicles. And don't say a "slow moving vehicle." Most people don't know how these operate either, and they are rarely seen in urban and suburban areas.

A tractor trailer, a motorcycle, and a streetsweeper are all vehicles too. You don't drive them like a normal car. You don't drive a bike like you drive a car. You do operate any vehicle according to the vehicular rules of the road though.

^^^^^
Yea, but I don't know how a tractor trailer, a motorcycle, or a streetsweeper driver drives. I suspect that this is the general case throughout most of the population, including the population of cyclists. So now you have to describe, as part of your definition, how these three vehicles drive.

We're getting to be over one sentence here. Just say'n...

PS. Remember you are trying to describe the term "vehicular" in non-self-referential terms, i.e. in terms which most people have reasonable experience with. Driving a streetsweeper is not something that normal, everyday people do a lot of. If you cannot do that, you have to drop the term "vehicular rules of the road" from your definition of "vehicular cycling." Otherwise you have, to borrow from natural sciences:

entomologist = person who engages in the study of entomology

entomology = the work done by an entomologist

similarly...

vehicular cycling = following the vehicular rules of the road

vehicular rules of the road = how a vehicular cycling cyclist rides

Yea, but I don't know how a tractor trailer, a motorcycle, or a streetsweeper driver drives. I suspect that this is the general case throughout most of the population, including the population of cyclists. So now you have to describe, as part of your definition, how these three vehicles drive.

We're getting to be over one sentence here. Just say'n...

Well you know that they stay on the right side of the road like everyone else. They make lefts from the left side of the road and rights from right and follow the arrows painted on the roadway. They stop at stop signs and red lights and use lights at night. They use the right lane when they are going slower than the rest of traffic. I could make that a run of sentence but "operating according to the vehicular rules of the road" sums it up pretty nicely. I don't see why you are fighting this so much.

^^^^
So, riding like you are driving a car. That's what I said. A car is a vehicle. Fits like a glove and easier to understand.
Saying "Riding per vehicular rules" means the same as "Riding per car rules" is like saying, "behaving like a human" means "behaving like a girl" (since girl is a type of human, and car is a type of vehicle), or "picking fruit" means "picking apples". Whether it is easier to understand is irrelevant since it doesn't mean the same thing.


If it is not like driving a car, if there is more to it, then you've got more work to do to define exactly what "vehicle" is and how the rules pertain to various types of vehicles.
Huh? A definition of a set of practices is not supposed to be a comprehensive explanation of those practices.


And don't say a "slow moving vehicle." Most people don't know how these operate either, and they are rarely seen in urban and suburban areas.
Yes, that is the point I made several dozen posts back. That explains why vehicular is difficult to understand. Never-the-less, it is technically and practically accurate, and I don't know of a better term.

It's unfortunate that people assume "vehicular" means "like a car", but I can't think of a good alternative to use to mean "in accordance with the vehicular rules of the road (as opposed to the ped rules of the road)".

But the difficulty shouldn't lead us to change the meaning of the term so that it refers to something that nobody does, nobody can do, and nobody wants to do. The term is not what is important, it's the concept.

Well you know that they stay on the right side of the road like everyone else. They make lefts from the left side of the road and rights from right and follow the arrows painted on the roadway. They stop at stop signs and red lights and use lights at night. They use the right lane when they are going slower than the rest of traffic. I could make that a run of sentence but "operating according to the vehicular rules of the road" sums it up pretty nicely. I don't see why you are fighting this so much.

Cars do all of these. Most people in the US drive cars.

Cars do all of these. Most people in the US drive cars.

Ok, great. So while driving a car, you operate according to the vehicular rules of the road. A bicycle is a vehicle too so you also operate it according to the vehicular rules of the road. Can we be done with this thread now?

Saying "Riding per vehicular rules" means the same as "Riding per car rules" is like saying, "behaving like a human" means "behaving like a girl" (since girl is a type of human, and car is a type of vehicle), or "picking fruit" means "picking apples". Whether it is easier to understand is irrelevant since it doesn't mean the same thing.


If I were an alien of non-obvious sex (like 3rd rock from the sun type alien), and this alien had experience watching women in an all woman college and wanted to interact amonst the general population. If this alien asked, "how do I act", I'd probably advise "like those women subjects you were watching".

If I were a former apple picker, and I was sent to the field to pick oranges and wanted guidance, One would suggest that I pick oranges like I picked apples.

The minor differences between male behavior (vs. female) and picking oranges (vs. picking apples) are minor details that can be spelled out later.

Similarly, if a person wanted to learn how to approach a vehicular left turn, I'd start with: "generally, it's like turning through an intersection like you would in your car." That starts things off on the right foot, and the details of how to change lanes and proceed with this are mere details.

The "vehicular cycling" moniker indicates there is something special about it. "Traffic cycling" is a neutral moniker. Even Forester got this. Even Forester? :rolleyes:

Yes, vehicular cycling is special. It's a special type of "traffic cycling": the type that is done acording to the vehicular rules of the road, as opposed to the kind that is not.


And the DMV drivers and cyclists manuals don't use the term "vehicular cycling." They use a term like "traffic cycling"; The term "traffic cycling" does not refer to the set of road cycling practices per the vehicular rules of the road.


something with a neutral connotation and purely descriptive. And very different meaning! The term traffic cycling does not preclude cycling in traffic on the wrong side of the road (as I someone doing on the way to work today - I'm sure they consider themselves to be engaged in traffic cycling); the term vehicular cycling does. I find that that's a useful distinction. Don't you?


Nobody knows what "vehicular cycling" is (we have spent 7 pages talking about it). Well, hopefully you're catching on now.
If few know what some term means, that's not a reason to stop using it altogether, if you have a concept that you're trying to convey, and no better alternative to mean the same thing.



Everyone can conjure what "traffic cycling" or "cycling in traffic" involves. Yes, and it does not preclude riding on the wrong side or riding at night without lights, etc.

Ok, great. So while driving a car, you operate according to the vehicular rules of the road. A bicycle is a vehicle too so you also operate it according to the vehicular rules of the road. Can we be done with this thread now?

I'm done when you're done. The point is that "vehicular rules of the road" is an umpteen page legal document, most of which people are not familiar with. But most people know how to drive a car.

entomologist = person who engages in the study of entomology

entomology = the work done by an entomologist

similarly...

vehicular cycling = following the vehicular rules of the road

vehicular rules of the road = how a vehicular cycling cyclist rides
Those are both circular. These are not:

entomology = the study of insects
entomologist = person who engages in entomology


vehicular rules of the road = rules of the road that pertain to the operation of vehicles.
vehicular cycling = cycling per the vehicular rules of the road

Do you see and appreciate the difference?

I'm done when you're done. The point is that "vehicular rules of the road" is a umpteen page legal document, most of which people are not familiar with. But most people know how to drive a car.
But driving like a car has operational characteristics that make it substantially different from operating other vehicles on the road, so "like a car" causes problems too.

In fact, I've seen many criticisms of vehicular cycling based on the assumption that vehicular cycling means "riding a bike in traffic as if it's a car", and then pointing out how a bike is different from a car and how absurd that is.


"like a motorcycle" is better, but still problematic.

Forester labels your "basic VC" as "basic traffic cycling." He does understand the value of naming something for the mainstream. He doesn't mention the term "vehicular cycling" anywhere in the book. "Effective cycling" is meant explicitly as a brand of traffic cycling course.

Vehicular cycling is special, but the listing under your "basic VC" bears no distinction to basic traffic cycling. Your "advanced VC" is really the central core of vehicular cycling.

Similarly, if a person wanted to learn how to approach a vehicular left turn, I'd start with: "generally, it's like turning through an intersection like you would in your car." That starts things off on the right foot, and the details of how to change lanes and proceed with this are mere details.

One of the main obstacles of getting people to cycle according to the vehicular rules of the road is the fact that the details are very different when you go from operating a vehicle moving at the normal speed of traffic to operating one at half or one third the speed of traffic. Driving in a car on a multilane road, if you have traffic next to you, you may just speed up to pass them and change lanes into the left lane to make your turn. Or you'd put on a turn signal and slow down a bit to squeeze into a gap. On a bike, you really can't do either of those unless you get a significant gap in traffic. You need to negotiate the lane change and use the width of the lane and your position in it to indicate what you are trying to do (as opposed to in a car where you fill up the lane for the most part and thus really can't communicate by shifting left and right).

Those are both circular. These are not:

entomology = the study of insects
entomologist = person who engages in entomology

Ah, but the entomologist will disagree with a definition so spare, just as you do.


vehicular rules of the road = rules of the road that pertain to the operation of vehicles.
vehicular cycling = cycling per the vehicular rules of the road

Do you see and appreciate the difference?

But while "insects" is a common thing that everyone in the world has experience with, the "rules of the road that pertain to the operation of vehicles" is defined by a thick legal document of which almost nobody has read. Don't think I didn't think of this when I presented the example.

Do you see and appreciate the difference here? I think you are too close to this. You have studied vehicular cycling, or some version of it; but most people haven't. Most people don't know the "rules of the road that pertain to the operation of vehicles," and if they were to describe some of them to you, they'd invariably be imagining themselves behind the wheel of their car.

Brian, in case you haven't conceded the self-referential/circular argument yet, consider these definitions:

road cycling: cycling on the road
bicycle racing: the sport of racing bicycles.
bicycle mechanic: a mechanic of bicycles.
bike racer: one who races bikes
road rage: rage on the road
defensive driving: set of practices for driving defensively

They may appear to be self-referential, but they are not, for each term is not defined in terms of the term that is being defined.

Note that the following is self-referential:
apple: a fruit that grows on an apple tree.

Note that this is not self-referential:
apple tree: a tree that produces apples

The first is self-referential, because we use the definition of apple to define apple.
The second is not self-referential because we are using apple and tree, not apple tree, to define apple tree.

Make sense?

Forester labels your "basic VC" as "basic traffic cycling." He does understand the value of naming something for the mainstream. He doesn't mention the term "vehicular cycling" anywhere in the book. "Effective cycling" is meant explicitly as a brand of traffic cycling course.
Beware that the index in EC is horrible. Do not think that the lack of references to a term in the index is an indication of the absence of its usage in the text! Give me a chance to check it out before you get too deep assuming he doesn't mention the term "vehicular cycling" anywhere in the book.


Vehicular cycling is special, but the listing under your "basic VC" bears no distinction to basic traffic cycling. Your "advanced VC" is really the central core of vehicular cycling.
Again, Stephen addresses this thoroughly, a point you fail to acknowledge.

And, again, "basic traffic cycling" does not preclude, for example, riding at night without lights, or riding on the wrong side of the road. BVC does. That's a major distinction, and, in fact, forms the basis for LAB's Road 1 course.

:mad: Bloody Nora! Let's just call it road riding and be done with the definitions


Love,

Ed

One of the main obstacles of getting people to cycle according to the vehicular rules of the road is the fact that the details are very different when you go from operating a vehicle moving at the normal speed of traffic to operating one at half or one third the speed of traffic. Driving in a car on a multilane road, if you have traffic next to you, you may just speed up to pass them and change lanes into the left lane to make your turn. Or you'd put on a turn signal and slow down a bit to squeeze into a gap. On a bike, you really can't do either of those unless you get a significant gap in traffic. You need to negotiate the lane change and use the width of the lane and your position in it to indicate what you are trying to do (as opposed to in a car where you fill up the lane for the most part and thus really can't communicate by shifting left and right).

You really do need to do all this stuff when driving a car as well. Ever try to change lanes on the freeway with bumper to bumper (okay, fine, a whopping 20' spacing between cars) traffic going 70 mph (through Seattle at rushhour, between choke points)? You have to do all this stuff.

Anyway, my point is that nothing really changes regarding the cyclist's goal. All that changes are the techniques used to attain that goal. Forester's Effective Cycling is all about convincing people that the techniques to attain the goal of destination lane positioning are not all that counterintuitive or difficult. There are differences, but they are differences in magnitude, not in kind. I have nothing against his Effective Cycling program, only against his advocacy efforts.

FWIW, I can create my own gap in traffic when I am changing lanes (on my bike, of course) for a left turn, for instance. It is not about power or acceleration, it is all about timing (though having power and acceleration to spare makes the timing windows open up a bit).

:mad: Bloody Nora! Let's just call it road riding and be done with the definitions


Love,

Ed

By this point, I don't really expect people to be listening in. :D I'm here for my own benefit only now.

Ah, but the entomologist will disagree with a definition so spare, just as you do. Now you're nitpicking. The point is you can define entomologist in terms of entomology, and entomology without referring to entomologist.

entomology: a branch of zoology that deals with insects



But while "insects" is a common thing that everyone in the world has experience with, the "rules of the road that pertain to the operation of vehicles" is defined by a thick legal document of which almost nobody has read. Don't think I didn't think of this when I presented the example. Actually, the "rules of the road" according to which almost all drivers drive their vehicles is not defined by a thick legal document. It is defined by the cultural understanding of a few basic principles. Evidence: what percent of drivers do you think have ever even cracked open the vehicle code (paper or pdf)? I bet less than 1%. So, the "rules of the road" are those that people learn in driving school and from skimming through the driver's manual. The ones pertaining to the operation of bicycles are those reviewed in a section of Forester's book. More importantly, regardless of where they learn what those rules are, everyone who drives a car, the vast majority of all adults, has a concept of what they are, enough to drive a car according to them.

Edit: the main piece they're missing, is experience with those rules that pertain to drivers of slow moving vehicles. But it's not that hard to learn and apply, but it's also not necessarily intutive if all you know is the subset that applies to driving a car, and using a bike according to ped rules or no rules.


Do you see and appreciate the difference here? I think you are too close to this. You have studied vehicular cycling, or some version of it; but most people haven't. Most people don't know the "rules of the road that pertain to the operation of vehicles," and if they were to describe some of them to you, they'd invariably be imagining themselves behind the wheel of their car. We're going in circles. Stephen already addressed this at length, in #148 (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=3988275&postcount=148), from practical experience no less.



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.


If you're rejecting what he's saying, then please address it, and explain the basis for your rejection.

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...
You can ride a bike without stopping at stop signs or red lights but then it wouldn't be very vehicular.
Maybe you should make like Diogenes and refine your search to ten vehicular cyclists who claim to stop at every stop sign and wait for the green at every traffic light and are vehicular at all other times too. You might need a magic lantern though, especially if you are searching for those who can make that claim honestly.

I'm outta here.

By this point, I don't really expect people to be listening in. :D I'm here for my own benefit only now.

I feel rather sorry for you. You began this thread in a valient effort to stimulate a valuable discussion :) VC debate is doomed.

Cheers,

Ed

I'm outta here.
Musta been the light from Diogenes' lantern.

Maybe you should make like Diogenes and refine your search to ten vehicular cyclists who claim to stop at every stop sign and wait for the green at every traffic light and are vehicular at all other times too. You might need a magic lantern though, especially if you are searching for those who can make that claim honestly.

So what if someone who claims to be a vehicular cyclist doesn't stop at every stop or always wait for the red. Neither does every motorist yet motorists drive like they are operating a vehicle and at least in most situations, act like the traffic controls on the roads apply to them. I don't observe many cyclists who act the same way and a lot of Bikeforums threads show the same attitude.

You really do need to do all this stuff when driving a car as well. Ever try to change lanes on the freeway with bumper to bumper (okay, fine, a whopping 20' spacing between cars) traffic going 70 mph (through Seattle at rushhour, between choke points)? You have to do all this stuff.

I do this plenty driving into Philly. It's completely different negotiating with traffic while going the same speed and while having the ability to change speeds up or down quickly than it is trying to do the same negotiation while moving at 10mph on a bike.


Anyway, my point is that nothing really changes regarding the cyclist's goal. All that changes are the techniques used to attain that goal. Forester's Effective Cycling is all about convincing people that the techniques to attain the goal of destination lane positioning are not all that counterintuitive or difficult. There are differences, but they are differences in magnitude, not in kind. I have nothing against his Effective Cycling program, only against his advocacy efforts.

Destination lane positioning is not counterintuitive unless, like most people in the US, you believe that cyclists should always stay out of the way of motorists. Then it becomes counterintuitive to ever want to put yourself in front of a motorist. Forester's goal, much like HH's, is to convince the average cyclist that they do not always need to stay out of the way of motorists. Most people also are not experienced with operating slow moving vehicles and the combination of inexperience and mistaken notions can be tough to break through. I agree that once those obstacles are overcome, the rest is easy.


FWIW, I can create my own gap in traffic when I am changing lanes (on my bike, of course) for a left turn, for instance. It is not about power or acceleration, it is all about timing (though having power and acceleration to spare makes the timing windows open up a bit).

Please explain. I would love a magic wand that would remove 5 cars from the left lane so that I could easily change lanes :)

So what if someone who claims to be a vehicular cyclist doesn't stop at every stop or always wait for the red. Neither does every motorist yet motorists drive like they are operating a vehicle and at least in most situations, act like the traffic controls on the roads apply to them. I don't observe many cyclists who act the same way and a lot of Bikeforums threads show the same attitude.

So much for riding according to the rules of the road for vehicles, which one would think would include simple little things like obeying the law. So what makes a so-called vehicular cyclist running a stop any different from a cyclist riding on the wrong side of the road? Neither are riding according to the rules of the road for vehicles...or does the vc manifesto include passages that tell us it's ok to break the law or violate the rules if it's convenient or necessary? Perhaps many of the vehicular cyclists are more accurately 'adaptive cyclists', since they don't always follow the rules of the road for vehicles? :lol:

So what if someone who claims to be a vehicular cyclist doesn't stop at every stop or always wait for the red. Neither does every motorist yet motorists drive like they are operating a vehicle and at least in most situations, act like the traffic controls on the roads apply to them. I don't observe many cyclists who act the same way and a lot of Bikeforums threads show the same attitude.
So how many stop signs can a genuine VC run, before he doesn't fit your description? If your definition is like Forester's - as many as he likes until he has an accident. Then he becomes an incompetent non vehicular cyclist for data gathering purposes.

So much for riding according to the rules of the road for vehicles, which one would think would include simple little things like obeying the law. So what makes a so-called vehicular cyclist running a stop any different from a cyclist riding on the wrong side of the road? Neither are riding according to the rules of the road for vehicles...or does the vc manifesto include passages that tell us it's ok to break the law or violate the rules if it's convenient or necessary? Perhaps many of the vehicular cyclists are more accurately 'adpative cyclists', since they don't always follow the rules of the road for vehicles? :lol:

The vehicular cyclist would stop (or slow to the point where it's obvious they are yielding to those with the right of way) if the intersection had other vehicles with the right of way. The non-vehicular cyclist would try to sneak through the intersection at it's right edge with no intentions of yielding right of way. When driving, most people don't come to a complete zero-momentum stop yet they still yield right of way to whoever should have it. Are they "adaptive" motorists? Why must you nitpick pointless details like this?

Why must you nitpick pointless details like this?
Nitpick? Is a vehicular cycling "lawful," (one of Forester's favorite descriptive buzz words for vehicular cyclists) or not?

So how many stop signs can a genuine VC run, before he doesn't fit your description? If your definition is like Forester's - as many as he likes until he has an accident. Then he becomes an incompetent non vehicular cyclist for data gathering purposes.

Are they yielding right of way before proceeding without coming to a complete stop?

Nitpick? Is a vehicular cycling "lawful," (one of Forester's favorite descriptive buzz words for vehicular cyclists) or not?

Letter or spirit?

The vehicular cyclist would stop (or slow to the point where it's obvious they are yielding to those with the right of way) if the intersection had other vehicles with the right of way. The non-vehicular cyclist would try to sneak through the intersection at it's right edge with no intentions of yielding right of way. When driving, most people don't come to a complete zero-momentum stop yet they still yield right of way to whoever should have it. Are they "adaptive" motorists? Why must you nitpick pointless details like this?

Nitpick? You follow the rules or you don't, where is there some grey area that allows 'vehicular cyclists' to only follow the rules they deem worthy or to interpret them at will? Your argument is 'because drivers don't follow the rules, we don't have to either' - my momma used to say something like, 'if someone else jumps off a bridge are you going to follow?' So which is it JJ - do vehicular cyclists follow the rules (and laws) of the road or don't they?

Are they yielding right of way before proceeding without coming to a complete stop?

Show me the definition of STOP where it says 'unless you feel like yielding'.

Are they yielding right of way before proceeding without coming to a complete stop?
Who is they? Lawful, competent, vehicular cyclists not stopping at stop signs, or lawless incompetent cyclists not stopping at stop signs?

Nitpick? You follow the rules or you don't, where is there some grey area that allows 'vehicular cyclists' to only follow the rules they deem worthy or to interpret them at will? Your argument is 'because drivers don't follow the rules, we don't have to either' - my momma used to say something like, 'if someone else jumps off a bridge are you going to follow?' So which is it JJ - do vehicular cyclists follow the rules of the road or don't they?

I'm sure that even the safest, law-abiding accident free driver has broken the latter of the law at some point in time. So what? The rules of the road are there to make sure you yield to whoever has the right of way to avoid collisions (if collisions weren't a problem we could all just do what we want). I'm not using drivers as an excuse for breaking the letter of the law just pointing out that it can be done safely (and is done safely ALL the time) so long as you still yield right of way. To yield right of way often does require following the letter of the law which is what a vehicular cyclist would do in that situation.

Who is they? Lawful, competent, vehicular cyclists not stopping at stop signs, or lawless incompetent cyclists not stopping at stop signs?

A lawless, incompetent cyclist wouldn't care if they were yielding right of way or not so the former.

I'm sure that even the safest, law-abiding accident free driver has broken the latter of the law at some point in time. So what? The rules of the road are there to make sure you yield to whoever has the right of way to avoid collisions (if collisions weren't a problem we could all just do what we want). I'm not using drivers as an excuse for breaking the letter of the law just pointing out that it can be done safely (and is done safely ALL the time) so long as you still yield right of way. To yield right of way often does require following the letter of the law which is what a vehicular cyclist would do in that situation.

Again, you either follow the rules or you don't - what other people do has no bearing and I've yet to see a law that says 'the spirit of the law is as follows, just doing this is fine'.

Vehicular cycling, as per the definition you, HH and other seem to agree is 'riding according to the rules of the road for vehicles'. The law is part of those rules, yet you don't seem to think that obeying them is important. So are you saying a more accurate definition is 'riding according the the rules of the road for vehicles unless it's safe to break them'? Or are you saying that following the rules of the road for vehicles doesn't include obeying the same laws that apply to other vehicles?

I asked before, both long ago and again in this thread - where are the 'rules of the road for vehicles' documented? I mean if you are gonna follow rules, don't you think they should be published and approved by some authorative source? In the context of Brian's OP, where specifically is the rule that says some vehicles can share lanes, while others cannot, along with an outline of which vehicles the rule is applicable to? Where's the rule that says 'it's ok to yield rather than stop for a red light or stop sign'?