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

Brian, I've been thinking about your original definition. You say that lane sharing is something that other vehicles don't do. But that's not really true. Motorcycles are allowed to lane share.

When they lane share with other motorcycles they ride side-by-side in staggered formation. They are too close together and positioned on the edges of each lane in such a way that you can't call what they are doing "controlling the lane."

Motorcycles can lane share with other vehicles, too. You can ride down between the cars, between the lanes. You can do this while traffic is moving or stopped. In reality it's a lot of tiny little lane changes, but it's still not what you would call one-lane per vehicle, or one vehicle controlling one lane.

So perhaps your original definition should include lane sharing as one of the things vehicular cyclists do.

So VC is riding on the road like you belong there and have every right to use the road.

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?

HH, quit crying because I had a joke at your expense. There's a big difference between presenting a no-win poll, in traditional HH fashion, and the subject of obeying the law in your wacky definition of vc, which I call the 'monkey see - monkey do' clause.

The fact that you don't understand that YOU (nor I or anyone else unilaterally) don't define what constitutes an exception to the law I write off to your own arrogance, as I do your diss against people in the military.

I'll put my position in a context that a programmer with no experience writing, enforcing or interpreting the law can understand. C# is case sensitive, so not matter how hard you wish it isn't, a variable named jerkOff is still not the same as another named Jerkoff.

In Ontario, Canada passing on the right is legal if save to do so. This I interpret as it's is legal and therefore right for a cyclist to go to the head of the line in traffic at lights. Many rural paved roads have gravel shoulders that enable a car to use when passing another car making a left turn when the road is not equipped with turn lanes or multiple lanes. If it's legal for cars to pass on the right in certain situations and is safe to do so, so will I. Just as if I was driving a vehicle. A bicycle does fall under the Highway Traffic Act as a vehicle.

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?

Look, this whole debate started because of a reluctance to include obeying the law as part of the definition of vc. Well, despite HH's personal definitions, which seem to change daily, here is the wiki (which also changes a lot, but it is what it is at the moment)

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

The rules of the road for operating a vehicle, unlike HH's own goofy language, includes obeying laws applicable to vehicles...because if you don't you can lose your license to operate that vehicle. Despite the fact that you don't need a license to operate a bicycle, if you want to follow the rules for operating a vehicle, you gotta also obey the law. It's just that simple. If you feel you are justified not following the letter of the law, that's your personal decision, but do so with the understanding that you ARE breaking the law, and therefore not vc.

In Ontario, Canada passing on the right is legal if save to do so. This I interpret as it's is legal and therefore right for a cyclist to go to the head of the line in traffic at lights. Many rural paved roads have gravel shoulders that enable a car to use when passing another car making a left turn when the road is not equipped with turn lanes or multiple lanes. If it's legal for cars to pass on the right in certain situations and is safe to do so, so will I. Just as if I was driving a vehicle. A bicycle does fall under the Highway Traffic Act as a vehicle.

Sounds vc to me...but of course HH will contend that passing on the right is not vc, despite what the law says and despite the fact that vehicles do it all the time. You know, the religion trumps mere secular laws. :rolleyes:

There is a difference.

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

But I'm a wacko making an a$$ of myself. We don't need no stinkin laws, vc is the only law. :rolleyes:

and it all gets diluted into a semantic charade where all the intent of the original thread is lost.

but one vehicular point is obey all traffic laws. you're being an adaptive cyclist when you don't.

... 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?When I'm approaching the intersection from another direction, I find that predicting what a rider/driver who fails to stop at a sign will do next to be problematic. They've already busted a rule of the road by not stopping. What are the odds that they'll also bust another, like the one about yielding to the right of way of others?

Sounds vc to me...but of course HH will contend that passing on the right is not vc, despite what the law says and despite the fact that vehicles do it all the time. You know, the religion trumps mere secular laws. :rolleyes:

But natural law trumps divine law.

But natural law trumps divine law.


well, some religious ture belivers (myself not included) would argue that natural IS devine law

and it all gets diluted into a semantic charade where all the intent of the original thread is lost.

but one vehicular point is obey all traffic laws. you're being an adaptive cyclist when you don't.

Bingo! But of course this is what always happens, someone states something along the lines of what you said above and someone else wants to define and redefine the definition of 'obey'. In the legal sense, one obeys the letter of the law, even if such obedience is something different in practical application. Obeying the law isn't 'doing what the majority of others are doing' (the monkey-see, monkey-do clause). Stop means stop and yield means yield - if the law allowed a yield rather than at stop it would outline the accepted exceptions or simply wouldn't say STOP!

I'm guilty of letting HH and others bait me into these silly semantic debates. In the future I'll simply make my statement and trust in the good sense of normal folks to understand it and see the silliness of the obvious semantic-baiting replies that attempt to turn simple things into incomprehensible bulltwinkle.

When I'm approaching the intersection from another direction, I find that predicting what a rider/driver who fails to stop at a sign will do next to be problematic. They've already busted a rule of the road by not stopping. What are the odds that they'll also bust another, like the one about yielding to the right of way of others?

:beer:

When I'm approaching the intersection from another direction, I find that predicting what a rider/driver who fails to stop at a sign will do next to be problematic. They've already busted a rule of the road by not stopping. What are the odds that they'll also bust another, like the one about yielding to the right of way of others?

If someone was approaching the stop sign from a close enough distance that they could see me approach the stop sign and not fully stop before proceeding, I would deem that a situation where the rider should stop. Right of way has not been established as how do I know you are stopping and yielding to me?

If I see someone run a stop sign in front of me, I'm much happier that they are in front of me and no longer as issue for me as long as I don't catch up to them.

chipcom, I'm not accusing YOU of diluting these threads; yours is usually the voice of brevity, reason, and sometimes mirth.

There are laws on the books stating how to use bike lanes. If I follow these laws am I a vehicular cyclist, too?

This is getting very confusing.

Motorcycles can lane share with other vehicles, too. You can ride down between the cars, between the lanes. You can do this while traffic is moving or stopped. In reality it's a lot of tiny little lane changes, but it's still not what you would call one-lane per vehicle, or one vehicle controlling one lane.

Splitting moving traffic is a very bad idea. Seriously, I'm surprised no one in this forum has pointed it out yet.

Okay, no more war of words. Critique if this definition is self consistent and can be used as a [/i]precise definition[/i]. I really don't care if any one person agrees with its "correctness" or not. I have some good indications, so I will start refering people to this definition when the term comes up in my own posts.

so, because you agree with the 'correctness' of what you have written, you will use it as a reference tool for others -- boy, i wish i was as omniscient as you!

Splitting moving traffic is a very bad idea.And apparently not just for pedal cycles. According to All the info you need on lanesharing (lanesplitting) (http://www.whybike.com/motorcycle274.htm) web page:

Many states have laws specifically outlawing the practice...

well, some religious ture belivers (myself not included) would argue that natural IS devine law

is that DAN DEVINE, former & short-term coach of the Packers?