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

By that strict definition of a two part left turn, no, it's not vehicular. What would you call the examples I provided of non-standard left turns then?

A U-turn is a lawful vehicular movement if it is performed starting from the center of the roadway and there are no local laws or signs prohibiting it. Interestingly, as cyclists we can often perform a lawful vehicular U-turn more easily and in less space than a motor vehicle driver.

There is nobody here of any importance (including the drivers) who believe that cyclists belong off the road or should ride somehow contrary to basic traffic cycling principles.
Are you saying that you have never been honked at while 'taking a narrow lane', have never been told to 'get on the sidewalk' or 'off the road' or 'in the bike lane' and that no one in the Portland area has ever been told these things? Wow.

Al

I'm done here.

You were done long ago when you hijacked the definition of VC, cooked up your own definition of VC to suit your own misguided purposes and tried to pawn it off on the BF community. Can't speak for Steve but Maryland is one of the most beautiful states in the union with great cycling and thankfully, very few bicycle 'accomodations'.

At least your definition is more honest than the oversimplified, strict one that has been advanced till now, which means we may be making some progress in this thread. I agree that a model is useful, but to be useful the parameters and boundries have to be well defined.

Agreed. And with a well-defined model, I think we will find it has limits. I sometimes refer to "freeway-like roads" with high speeds and minimal junctions, primarily high-speed entrance/exit merges, as an example where the risk/benefit comparison may cross a threshold, whereas normal residential and urban streets make the model look much more attractive. I sometimes compare this to Newton's laws of motion, which work great for most everyday use, but turn out to be inaccurate under truly extreme speed conditions.

A U-turn is a lawful vehicular movement if it is performed starting from the center of the roadway and there are no local laws or signs prohibiting it. Interestingly, as cyclists we can often perform a lawful vehicular U-turn more easily and in less space than a motor vehicle driver.

Just to muck up the works...motorists often go up the curb and onto the sidewalk or even off the road when making a U-turn, not to mention the fact that they often ignore No U-Turn laws and signage...so using the law or the fact the a bike may have to use the sidewalk are not criterias for defining what is 'vehicular' as per your own definitions concerning behavior and the will of the majority versus any rule of law.

Yea, see, this is exactly why the definition needs to be tightened. In what sense of any word did you honestly get the impression that sbhikes would teach people not to follow basic traffic cycling principles.

Tell me, sggoodri, what exactly does sbhikes have a problem with? In your own words. Hint: I don't think it has anything at all to do with basic traffic cycling principles.

Well at least you're trying... this is the basic problem I've with VC. What is the basic difference in cycling vs VC? there must be something to differentiate between them.

Is it like driving vs defensive driving?

Like this? the general notion I get is that VC is like defensive driving for driving but the style is direct opposite. throw in some anti-facilities for safety reasons and you have a mingling of safety course with advocacy.

Defensive driving teaches you to avoid confrontation, yield to aggressive drivers and avoid being alpha dog at all cost especially avoid eye contact ,some traffic rules and handling technique.... while VC you're supposed to be assertive, alpha dog, using steely eyed stare to make eye contact and by all means be confrontational in this case assertive, some traffic rules and technique like where in the road to ride behind right wheel, left wheel, centerish or power weaving.

Are you saying that you have never been honked at while 'taking a narrow lane', have never been told to 'get on the sidewalk' or 'off the road' or 'in the bike lane and that no one in the Portland area has ever been told these things? Wow.

Al

Actually, not really. I used to, back around 5 or 6 years ago. I really don't anymore. Mostly what has changed is a new generation of drivers raised on a DMV which is more sympathetic to cyclists, and more bike lanes on roads (bike lanes by my standards, not bike lanes in name only). The bike lanes help a lot to decrease driver/cyclist frictions. Even when I change lanes out of the bike lane, I don't get yelled at, because the drivers can be rest assured that my manuever is temporary and deliberate.

A single driver doing these things isn't of importance anyhow. It is when this happens regularly to a cyclist that this "force of driver opinion" is important. I haven't had this happen regularly for a while, at least for me. This is a marked change from 5 or 6 years ago when I first started cycling in the Portland area. Now then, remember that I ride in the west side suburbs of Beaverton, Tigard, Tualitin, and Wilsonville. Things might be different in Portland proper, but I don't think so. Ask donnamb or randya.

Just to muck up the works...motorists often go up the curb and onto the sidewalk or even off the road when making a U-turn, not to mention the fact that they often ignore No U-Turn laws and signage...so using the law or the fact the a bike may have to use the sidewalk are not criterias for defining what is 'vehicular' as per your own definitions concerning behavior and the will of the majority versus any rule of law.

Note that I use the term "majority" and popular acceptance to describe rules and laws.

I do not include what people popularly do against the rules. I point to those basic rules that they have identified as the best model for their own behavior. Assuming they have the political power to influence the rules, the rules they have allowed to pass into law thus form the most convenient model that we can use as a starting point. Conversely, laws passed to control those who do not have adequate political power to affect the laws do not represent a good model for an optimal rule system.

You were done long ago when you hijacked the definition of VC, cooked up your own definition of VC to suit your own misguided purposes and tried to pawn it off on the BF community. Can't speak for Steve but Maryland is one of the most beautiful states in the union with great cycling and thankfully, very few bicycle 'accomodations'.

Sorry galen. It's already been done. I'm sad to see you are so resentful. Have a nice day.

...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.

Interesting. For bike messengers disregarding the traffic code is part of the job. And yet, the best messengers almost never seize the right-of-way from any other road user who rightfully owns it. Are these messengers vehicular cyclists? This just to point out that one can indeed savagely violate the Basic Principles of Traffic Cycling -- by riding wrong side of the street, jumping on and off the curb in the middle of the block, etc. -- without actually violating another citizen's ROW.

Robert

A U-turn is a lawful vehicular movement if it is performed starting from the center of the roadway and there are no local laws or signs prohibiting it. Interestingly, as cyclists we can often perform a lawful vehicular U-turn more easily and in less space than a motor vehicle driver.

It depends upon the municipality that you want to do this. I got a ticket in Independence, Missouri for making a U-turn. I was perplexed because there was no sign at the intersection specifically prohibiting it. Of course, there is a citywide ordinance banning u-turns. I should have known this, being from Maine, and this being the first time in Independence, off the interstate looking for a gas station!

Brian, you might want to add to your definition that Vehicular Cycling does not mean obeying laws or rules , rather it means behaving like the majority of operators of other vehicles behave.

Sorry galen. It's already been done. I'm sad to see you are so resentful. Have a nice day.

Dang, I thought you were done.... I guess 'done' does not really mean 'done' as in 'finished' or 'complete' or...?

Now I see why you got so confused over the meaning of 'VC'...

^^^^^
:rolleyes: Have a nice day galen.

Note that I use the term "majority" and popular acceptance to describe rules and laws.

I do not include what people popularly do against the rules. I point to those basic rules that they have identified as the best model for their own behavior. Assuming they have the political power to influence the rules, the rules they have allowed to pass into law thus form the most convenient model that we can use as a starting point. Conversely, laws passed to control those who do not have adequate political power to affect the laws do not represent a good model for an optimal rule system.

OK, then you agree, that the vehicular cycling model includes obeying the rules AND laws of the road for vehicles? That isn't what I am getting from others in this thread, who seem to think mimicing the behavior of others is more important than the rule of law - which if that is the case, I want nothing to do with vehicular cycling because it advocates that breaking the law is OK. Yes, we all break or bend the law, but just because we do it, does not mean it's 'OK'.

I can appreciate the difference, but the fact remains that you are breaking the law, which means you are NOT following the rules of the road for vehicles, which, according to the link YOU posted, is part of the law (at least in NY) and only provides two very narrow exceptions to disobeying a stop sign or signal.

Look at it this way. Does it matter in a court of law if you paid attention to other traffic when running a stop sign? Is 'I looked both ways and respected the right of way of others' an affirmative defense?

Actually, I didn't post the link but I'll let that slide :) I'll admit that it's breaking the letter of the law but it's following the spirit of the univeral laws for vehicle drivers which are based upon yielding right of way. You can yield right of way without following the letter of the law but sometimes it does require following the letter of the law. A vehicular cyclist knows this and acts appropriately. A cyclist who feels they are above/below the law, would not act in this manner.

The risk you run when not coming to a complete stop at a stop sign even after yielding right of way is that you might get a ticket for not obeying the letter of the law. That's a small risk that I'm (and most other vehicle drivers) are willing to take. Non-vehicular cyclists seem to want to not yield right of way and expect others to be looking out for them even when they make no attempt to follow the letter/spirit of the law.

Brian, you might want to add to your definition that Vehicular Cycling does not mean obeying laws or rules , rather it means behaving like the majority of operators of other vehicles behave.

I already made it clear that vehicular cycling is not always going to be legal. It is of no use to include legalities in with a definition of a technique, since laws change from place to place. For instance, I don't think it is generally legal in Oregon to do a U-turn unless permission is explicitly given.

On the other hand, mob rule is not exactly what I had in mind either. Taking the lane and destination lane position is what I had in mind as really the only two hallmarks for the OP definition of vehicular cycling.

Brian, you might want to add to your definition that Vehicular Cycling does not mean obeying laws or rules , rather it means behaving like the majority of operators of other vehicles behave. That is illogical.

Since the majority of operators of other vehicles obey laws and rules most of the time, if Vehicular Cycling means "behaving like the majority of operators of other vehicles behave", it cannot be true that "Vehicular Cycling does not mean obeying laws or rules".

Actually, I didn't post the link but I'll let that slide :) I'll admit that it's breaking the letter of the law but it's following the spirit of the univeral laws for vehicle drivers which are based upon yielding right of way. You can yield right of way without following the letter of the law but sometimes it does require following the letter of the law. A vehicular cyclist knows this and acts appropriately. A cyclist who feels they are above/below the law, would not act in this manner.

The risk you run when not coming to a complete stop at a stop sign even after yielding right of way is that you might get a ticket for not obeying the letter of the law. That's a small risk that I'm (and most other vehicle drivers) are willing to take. Non-vehicular cyclists seem to want to not yield right of way and expect others to be looking out for them even when they make no attempt to follow the letter/spirit of the law.

So what you are saying is, that the unpublished, undocumented, unauthorative 'universal rules of the road' trump the rule of law? Sorry dude I don't agree. One of those 'universal rules of the road' is 'obey the law' is it not?

Interesting. For bike messengers disregarding the traffic code is part of the job. And yet, the best messengers almost never seize the right-of-way from any other road user who rightfully owns it. Are these messengers vehicular cyclists? This just to point out that one can indeed savagely violate the Basic Principles of Traffic Cycling -- by riding wrong side of the street, jumping on and off the curb in the middle of the block, etc. -- without actually violating another citizen's ROW.

Robert

I would call messengers a special case. They yield right of way to protect themselves from harm but take whatever path offers the least resistance even if it means "savagely violating the Basic Principles of Traffic Cycling."

Here in the UK there are cyclists who think they're above/ beund the law/ rules of governance
of the Highway Code etc.

In Oxford, where I live, so many cyclists ride through red lights, and the pedestrians HATE the
cyclists because of it. And the motorists HATE the cyclists because of it.

On Critical Mass nights, I am expecting some cyclists to get killed, because those few
brainless inconsiderate and downright dangerous cyclists (or unfortunately many
bad cyclists) are giving us ( the legally responsible riders) a REALLY BAD NAME and reputation.

I stop at lights etc, but I can see that motorists don't have respect/ patience with cyclists anymore,
because of the brain dead morons who don't stop at lights.

What can we do?

:rolleyes:

So what you are saying is, that the unpublished, undocumented, unauthorative 'universal rules of the road' trump the rule of law? Sorry dude I don't agree. One of those 'universal rules of the road' is 'obey the law' is it not?

Well, in most cases, they do trump the law because in most (actually, more like 99.999%) cases, the letter of the law is not being enforced. If everybody arrives safely and nobody violates anyone else's right of way, is there really a problem?

That is illogical.

Since the majority of operators of other vehicles obey laws and rules most of the time, if Vehicular Cyclin means "behaving like the majority of operators of other vehicles behave", it cannot be true that "Vehicular Cycling does not mean obeying laws or rules".

Then why are you and others arguing so hard to defend your right to run stop signs/lights yet still be vehicular, because so many other drivers do it?

I think it's real simple...and correct me if I am wrong. One of your 'universal rules of the road for vehicles' is 'OBEY THE LAW', correct? If that's the case, please show me where, in the law, it is acceptable to break the law as long as you respect ROW or whatever other excuses you want to use?

A U-turn is a lawful vehicular movement if it is performed starting from the center of the roadway and there are no local laws or signs prohibiting it. Interestingly, as cyclists we can often perform a lawful vehicular U-turn more easily and in less space than a motor vehicle driver.

Ok, so you agree with me that a two part left turn (or whatever you want to call it) that comprises of a right turn then a u-turn is vehicular? That's al I was trying to say. I agree that by your definition of a two part left turn the manuever is not vehicular because it uses sidewalks and crosswalks.

Well, in most cases, they do trump the law because in most (actually, more like 99.999%) cases, the letter of the law is not being enforced. If everybody arrives safely and nobody violates anyone else's right of way, is there really a problem?

WTF, let's just scrap the laws, we don't need them, everybody arrives safely, don't they? Well except for those thousands of motorists killed each year, the thousands of pedestrians killed each year and the hundreds of cyclists killed each year. Somehow they didn't arrive safely.

Tell me JJ, is 'obey the law' one of the 'universal rules of the road for vehicles' or isn't it?

Then why are you and others arguing so hard to defend your right to run stop signs/lights yet still be vehicular, because so many other drivers do it?


Who is 'defending' the 'right' to run traffic control devices?????

We all know it's against the law. I don't defend it. I have done it, but I don't defend it. It's contrary to the letter of the law.

But there are huge differences in the severity of the action and the severity of the consequences. If one rolls up to a stop sign, slows down and does a track stand (which is not actually coming to a complete stop as one is going back and forth ever so slightly) and then proceeds through the intersection when no cross traffic is present, is that the same as failing to even use the brakes and riding full speed across the same intersection?

WTF, let's just scrap the laws, we don't need them, everybody arrives safely, don't they? Well except for those thousands of motorists killed each year, the thousands of pedestrians killed each year and the hundreds of cyclists killed each year. Somehow they didn't arrive safely.

Tell me JJ, is 'obey the law' one of the 'universal rules of the road for vehicles' or isn't it?

In my example of normal every day breaking of the letter of the law without violating right of way, everyone arrives safely. In the real world where people violate right of way, breaking the letter and spirit of the law in addition to breaking the letter of the law in other ways (speeding, aggressive driving), not everyone arrives safely. I won't dispute this. I never said anything even implying that.

Since the letter of the law changes from state to state and country to country, a blanket statement like "obey the law" cannot be considered a universal rule.

Since the letter of the law changes from state to state and country to country, a blanket statement like "obey the law" cannot be considered a universal rule.How about "obey the law that applies where you are"?

How about "obey the law that applies where you are"?

As has been stated plenty of times before, sometimes the letter of the law that applies where you are is in conflict with the univeral rules of the road (laws like mandatory sidepath and bikelane use). How is the average person to know what the letter of the law says for each and every place they visit?

With that said, laws governing right turns on red are a special case. It's almost univeral in the US, but not completely, to be able to make a right on red (unless signed otherwise) yet in the rest of the world it's almost universally illegal. In that case, when in doubt, wait for green.

OK, then you agree, that the vehicular cycling model includes obeying the rules AND laws of the road for vehicles? That isn't what I am getting from others in this thread, who seem to think mimicing the behavior of others is more important than the rule of law - which if that is the case, I want nothing to do with vehicular cycling because it advocates that breaking the law is OK. Yes, we all break or bend the law, but just because we do it, does not mean it's 'OK'.

Yes, I believe the model includes the laws for general vehicles applicable to the majority, with the assumption that these are good laws that the people who are expected to obey them generally supported as being in their own interest, even if they sometimes violate them.

Stop signs are a good example. The law says all drivers must stop, so that should include bicycles in the vehicular cycling model. The vehicular cycling model includes basic rules that require yielding before entering the more important road, but stop signs are popularly used to encourage a more reliable and effective yield by fully stopping regardless of traffic conditions. Stopping before proceeding is just the specific type of yield required where the signs are posted. Cyclists who roll through stops might claim to be yielding, but they are missing the letter of the law; being on a bicycle does not prevent them from obeying the letter of the law. I find that other road users including pedestrians to whom I must yield are made more comfortable and confident by the complete stops I make on a bicycle; this demonstrates some merit to the model of obeying the letter of this particular law.

There are occasionally laws that are physically impossible to follow to the letter when cycling, such as continuously signaling when approaching a turn when one must also brake and maintain control. In such conditions the cyclist must simply do the best he or she practicably can to meet the spirit of the law, i.e. to make sure affected drivers know what he or she intends to do.

-Steve Goodridge

Then why are you and others arguing so hard to defend your right to run stop signs/lights yet still be vehicular, because so many other drivers do it?
I was simply pointing out (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=3992855&postcount=269) that the assertion you made was internally illogical. The fact that it was illogical had nothing to do with anything anyone else was saying.


I think it's real simple...and correct me if I am wrong. One of your 'universal rules of the road for vehicles' is 'OBEY THE LAW', correct? If that's the case, please show me where, in the law, it is acceptable to break the law as long as you respect ROW or whatever other excuses you want to use?
It's not quite so simple. Again, you're imagining a dichotomy where none exists.

Whether the statement, one of the 'universal rules of the road for vehicles' is 'OBEY THE LAW' is correct depends on how you interpret OBEY THE LAW.

If OBEY THE LAW is interpreted in a theoretical and unrealistic manner to mean obey the letter of the law no matter what no exceptions, then, no, the statement is not correct.

If OBEY THE LAW is interpreted in a practical and realistic manner to mean obey the law with the same adherence that drivers of vehicles generally obey the law, then, yes, the statement is correct.

To put things in perspective, remember the reason to follow the rules is not to adhere to some law - it's much more practical than that: the reason to follow the rules is to integrate effectively with others on the road and to reduce conflicts.


We're going around in circles. I refer you back to post #201:



Vehicular cyclists follow the rules of the road, just like drivers of other vehicles follow the rules of the road.

Sorry, it cannot be stated with any more clarity than that.

However you want to specify the adherence with which drivers of cars and trucks follow the rules of the road, is fine with me. Whatever it is, that is the same adherence with which vehicular cyclists follow the rules of the road.

Why is this so hard for you to understand?

As has been stated plenty of times before, sometimes the letter of the law that applies where you are is in conflict with the univeral rules of the road (laws like mandatory sidepath and bikelane use). How is the average person to know what the letter of the law says for each and every place they visit?

With that said, laws governing right turns on red are a special case. It's almost univeral in the US, but not completely, to be able to make a right on red (unless signed otherwise) yet in the rest of the world it's almost universally illegal. In that case, when in doubt, wait for green.

I tend to be more concerned about special local restrictions on cyclists than I am about local traffic laws that affect all drivers differently than in other localities.

Local laws that affect all drivers tend to get thrown out if they are unreasonable. Local laws that affect only a minority group like cyclists often exist even when they are unreasonable.

This is why I qualify vehicular cycling as being based on the laws affecting the majority driver population, because their majority status makes it more likely that the laws are reasonable.

At the intersection 1/2 block from my house, an informal study indicates that approximately 75% of the drivers turn right (left and straight are dead ends), and about 80% of those do not come to a complete stop. When no other traffic (including pedestrian) is present (most of the time there is no other traffic), the percentage is higher, since most of the time when they do stop is when other traffic is present.

This drives some of the neighbors absolutely nuts. I just roll my eyes and think, "get a life". And I'm the only one on my block with a kid who walks to school.

Remember the reason to follow the rules is not to adhere to some law - it's much more practical than that: the reason to follow the rules is to integrate effectively with others on the road and to reduce conflicts.

Running a stop sign ignoring right of way laws is vastly different than not coming to a complete stop each and every time.
Who recommends or advocates or poo-poos "Running a stop sign ignoring right of way laws?" Even better, how many adult cyclists have you ever seen who regularly IGNORE other vehicles with the right of way; I imagine few because they wouldn't last long if they really IGNORED traffic with the right of way.

How about "obey the law that applies where you are"?

HH and I have been over this ground before and agreed to the same term.

I was simply pointing out (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=3992855&postcount=269) that the assertion you made was internally illogical. The fact that it was illogical had nothing to do with anything anyone else was saying.


It's not quite so simple. Again, you're imagining a dichotomy where none exists.

Whether the statement, one of the 'universal rules of the road for vehicles' is 'OBEY THE LAW' is correct depends on how you interpret OBEY THE LAW.

If OBEY THE LAW is interpreted in a theoretical and unrealistic manner to mean obey the letter of the law no matter what no exceptions, then, no, the statement is not correct.

If OBEY THE LAW is interpreted in a practical and realistic manner to mean obey the law with the same adherence that drivers of vehicles generally obey the law, then, yes, the statement is correct.

To put things in perspective, remember the reason to follow the rules is not to adhere to some law - it's much more practical than that: the reason to follow the rules is to integrate effectively with others on the road and to reduce conflicts.


We're going around in circles. I refer you back to post #201:

Why is this so hard for you to understand?

I don't believe you are this dense - it's real simple, you obey the law or you don't. The law states that you stop at a stop sign/signal and outlines specific exceptions - none of which include any of the mumbo jumbo BS quoted above. Again, a simple yes or no will do - is following the law in your jurisdiction one of the so-called universal rules of the road, or isn't it? JJ already weighed in that they are not, I believe Bruce, Steve and Galen agree that they are. Yes or no, please, no more mumbo jumbo dodges.

I don't believe you are this dense - it's real simple, you obey the law or you don't. The law states that you stop at a stop sign/signal and outlines specific exceptions - none of which include any of the mumbo jumbo BS quoted above. Again, a simple yes or no will do - is following the law in your jurisdiction one of the so-called universal rules of the road, or isn't it? JJ already weighed in that they are not, I believe Bruce, Steve and Galen agree that they are. Yes or no, please, no more mumbo jumbo dodges. I cannot answer a question that uses terms whose meanings are not clarified. Without clarity in meaning, it's not clear what question I'm answering.

Define what you mean by "following the law", in particular, whether you mean "following the letter of the law, without exception", or whether you mean "generally following the law, with an occasional exception here or there", and then I'll be happy to answer you question, again.

Be clear about what you're asking, and I'll answer.

Also, here's a question for you:

As a driver, why do you follow the law? Because you might get caught? Or because doing so habitually helps you get to where you're going with lower chance of conflict with other drivers?

If you need clarification on this question before you can answer it, let me know, and, unlike you, I'll be happy to provide whatever clarification you seek.

Do you always answer a question with a question? I made a simple yes/no poll with a simple question just for you...but you can't even provide an answer there. I will assume that you advocate disobedience of the law from here on in unless you clarify otherwise. There is no middle ground - you either obey the law or you don't HH...you don't have to power to change the law and its exceptions based upon your own preferences or wacky theories. Stop means stop, it does not mean 'yield if you feel like it'. Just because everybody doesn't stop, doesn't make their actions legal or justify you following along. Yet you try to come up with tons of horsepucky to somehow claim that vc entitles one to break the law, in direct contradiction to your beloved 'ride according to the rules of the road for vehicles', which include, whether you like it or not, obeying the laws of your jurisdiction.

Why do I follow the law? Because it is what good citizens who want to live in an orderly society do. It's part of our social contract with government - we elect our representatives to create and modify the laws and in turn we agree to obey them and to work within the agreed upon system to change them if they do not suit our needs. You seem to think the law can be unilaterally obeyed or ignored at our whim, or because the Jones' are doing it - which is anarchy.

So why DON'T you follow the law?

You're being amazingly obtuse, Chip, more than usual. By the way, i answered your pointless poll. :rolleyes:

Why do I follow the law? Because it is what good citizens who want to live in an orderly society do.
I also do try (and hope I am successful) at following all traffic laws whether on bike, aas pedestian, or in car.

I do so partly for the reason you state.
I do believe there is a very strong correlation between rules of the road and traffic law, but there are differences.
Laws came from rules of the road, but rules of the road have also been expanded or modified based on new laws.

Other reasons I follow traffic laws:
-If one is following the laws one will be following the rules of the road (perhaps more strictly than generally followed) This means I won't ever make a mistake in following the rules of the road. When following the rules, one can too easily fall into the trap of pushing the boundaries of those rules as they are not firmly defined.
-Following the laws sets example, postive role model.
-There are others, but I forgot them in writing these first two. :) I may come back and edit this post.

Anyway, even though I personally follow the laws, I do not believe that following the rules vs. the law is non-vehicular when cycling (or motoring). Its just much easier to be more certain one is vehicular when cycling if one follows the laws. I like easy.

Al

You're being amazingly obtuse, Chip, more than usual. By the way, i answered your pointless poll. :rolleyes:
HH is really showin' his stuff here.
BTW:
Wharz dat sig line about repecting others and all dat other good stuff youse always spouting about your noble intentions?

Splendid! After following this thread for a while* I feel that a comprehensive definition of VC is really coming together :)

Ed

*I also feel justified in making the odd sarcastic comment here and there. Please forgive me.

Who recommends or advocates or poo-poos "Running a stop sign ignoring right of way laws?" Even better, how many adult cyclists have you ever seen who regularly IGNORE other vehicles with the right of way; I imagine few because they wouldn't last long if they really IGNORED traffic with the right of way.

I stated that because of the way Chip was asking his question. He made it sound like there was no difference between rolling a stop sign after yielding and blatantly running right through it. I was simply trying to clarify.

All this talk about VC is making me sick of VC. I think I will never advise VC-style bike riding tips to anyone ever again.
Let me clarify.

I will never suggest to anyone that they adopt "vehicular cycling" practices, or say to anyone "maybe we should ride more vehicularly" ever again.

I might suggest we could be safer riding in the street than on the sidewalk.

I might suggest we could be safer stopping at stop signs or riding the right way on the road.

I might suggest that it's safer to ride on the street than on the sidewalk or make a left turn from the left turn lane.

But I will never call that "Vehicular Cycing".

Let me clarify.

I will never suggest to anyone that they adopt "vehicular cycling" practices, or say to anyone "maybe we should ride more vehicularly" ever again.

I might suggest we could be safer riding in the street than on the sidewalk.

I might suggest we could be safer stopping at stop signs or riding the right way on the road.

I might suggest that it's safer to ride on the street than on the sidewalk or make a left turn from the left turn lane.

But I will never call that "Vehicular Cycing". Thank you.

huh? i'm with Ed Holland on this one


Splendid! After following this thread for a while* I feel that a comprehensive definition of VC is really coming together

I stated that because of the way Chip was asking his question. He made it sound like there was no difference between rolling a stop sign after yielding and blatantly running right through it. I was simply trying to clarify.

The point I was trying to make JJ, is that according the the LAW, there is no difference. Now you and I both know that we DO roll through stops and we feel justified in our own minds doing so....great, I don't think anyone but a Dudley Dooright would have a problem with that. BUT, now we have this methodology that is used to teach cyclists, including kids, to ride a bicycle, that on the one hand says to obey the rules of the road, but on the other hand justifies and even encourages breaking the law as long as it's safe to do so - even though there is no exception in the law, for stops for instance, that says you don't have to stop if it's safe not to. You don't see the disconnect here? To me, the obeying the law is one of those basics, like reading, writing and arithmetic, that need to be learned before moving on to more advanced studies....yet here we are, teaching newbies and kids that it's ok to disobey the law if they feel like it. And we wonder why the roadways, and indeed society have to gotten to the sad state they are in?

So to me it's simple - if vc means riding according to the rules of the road for vehicles and is supposedly a set of 'best practices', teaching vc should include advocating obeying the traffic and vehicular laws of your jurisdiction, not advocating reasons not to. I mean, do we teach how to cook the books as part of Accounting 101?

The point I was trying to make JJ, is that according the the LAW, there is no difference. Now you and I both know that we DO roll through stops and we feel justified in our own minds doing so....great, I don't think anyone but a Dudley Dooright would have a problem with that. BUT, now we have this methodology that is used to teach cyclists, including kids, to ride a bicycle, that on the one hand says to obey the rules of the road, but on the other hand justifies and even encourages breaking the law as long as it's safe to do so - even though there is no exception in the law, for stops for instance, that says you don't have to stop if it's safe not to. You don't see the disconnect here? To me, the obeying the law is one of those basics, like reading, writing and arithmetic, that need to be learned before moving on to more advanced studies....yet here we are, teaching newbies and kids that it's ok to disobey the law if they feel like it. And we wonder why the roadways, and indeed society have to gotten to the sad state they are in?

So to me it's simple - if vc means riding according to the rules of the road for vehicles and is supposedly a set of 'best practices', teaching vc should include advocating obeying the traffic and vehicular laws of your jurisdiction, not advocating reasons not to. I mean, do we teach how to cook the books as part of Accounting 101?

What's more important to teach a child about crossing through an intersection with a stop sign:

a. completely stop at the stop sign before proceeding
b. verify that the intersection will be clear for the time you'll be in it and/or that all other drivers have yielded to you before proceeding

If to achieve "b" one must do "a", that's fine; that's how I ride. But just doing "a" (or putting more stress on "a" than on "b") is missing the point, don't you think?

Do you see the difference between 1. advocating for rolling stop signs or saying it's ok to roll stop signs when you feel like it and 2. not worrying about whether one puts a foot down at every sign if they are able to verify that it's safe to proceed without putting a foot down?

The point I was trying to make JJ, is that according the the LAW, there is no difference. Now you and I both know that we DO roll through stops and we feel justified in our own minds doing so....great, I don't think anyone but a Dudley Dooright would have a problem with that.
I'm sorry, but you continue to be extraordinarily obtuse on this issue. When a significant number of folks made fun of your false dichotomy so much in the other thread, you tried to hide behind the "just kidding" excuse, but here you go again espousing it again. So, are you serious, or just kidding?

Your point is that according the the LAW, there is no difference? Do you seriously think anyone here doesn't get that point? Do you seriously believe that anyone here needs you to point this out? I don't believe that you're that stupid, which suggests you aren't being serious. But if you're not being serious, then why are you wasting so much of everyone's time on this, not to mention your own? This is all very baffling.



BUT, now we have this methodology that is used to teach cyclists, including kids, to ride a bicycle, that on the one hand says to obey the rules of the road, but on the other hand justifies and even encourages breaking the law as long as it's safe to do so - even though there is no exception in the law, for stops for instance, that says you don't have to stop if it's safe not to. You don't see the disconnect here?
Once again, you seem to be unable to grasp the real world practical meaning of the word "obey", and, in particular, that it does not mean "obey without exception".

"The methodology" (your term) teaches that you should obey the rules of the road and that you should obey the law.

The methodology does not teach that you should obey the rules of the road without exception and that you should obey the law without exception.

Again, I can't believe you seriously can't understand the difference.
On the other hand, I'm baffled as to why you continue making such an a$$ out of yourself on this issue.



To me, the obeying the law is one of those basics, like reading, writing and arithmetic, that need to be learned before moving on to more advanced studies....yet here we are, teaching newbies and kids that it's ok to disobey the law if they feel like it. And we wonder why the roadways, and indeed society have to gotten to the sad state they are in?

Do you seriously not understand that allowing for reasonable exceptions to obeying is not teaching disobedience? Again, I cannot believe that you cannot understand and appreciate the difference. Yet, I'm unable... wait... I just thought of something that might explain this hangup you're stuck on... Are you retired military by any chance?



So to me it's simple - if vc means riding according to the rules of the road for vehicles and is supposedly a set of 'best practices', teaching vc should include advocating obeying the traffic and vehicular laws of your jurisdiction, not advocating reasons not to. I mean, do we teach how to cook the books as part of Accounting 101?

Teaching VC does include advocating obeying the traffic and vehicular laws of your jurisdiction.
I don't know of anyone teaching VC who advocates reasons not to obey the law.

I stated that because of the way Chip was asking his question. He made it sound like there was no difference between rolling a stop sign after yielding and blatantly running right through it. I was simply trying to clarify.

There is a difference.

One is breaking the law slowly, the other is breaking the law speedily.