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

I've seen vehicular cycling (VC) being defined as encompassing all forms of legal cycling, up to and including cycling on sidepaths and sidewalks, and I've seen it being defined narrowly to include only those techniques which put the cyclist in the relm of car traffic. Every description of VC has the "To me..." qualifier attached to it, either implicitly or explicitly.

I am not really interested in a definition of vehicular cycling which basically includes all forms of legal cycling. Not because I am against the definition per se, but because such a definition is not useful. It's like an entomologist who insists on doing his research by calling everything with three legs and three body segments a "bug".

Let me put this out: Vehicular cycling is a group of techniques surrounding the adoption by a cyclist of destination positioning utilizing the full width of the roadway. This is not an ideological definition; the ideologues can define whatever they want, to their heart's content. This is a working definition.

Examples of what is not within the working definition of vehicular cycling:


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

2) sidewalk or bike path/MUP riding.

3) two step left turns.

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

5) the equipment for traffic cycling

6) the head flicks, hand flicks, winks, nods, pedal cadence, steely eyed alpha dog stares (:)), etc. utilized to gain a motorist's attention. These will vary according to environment, cyclist, cyclist's mood, etc.

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

8) the basics of cycling, such as riding on the right side of the road and stopping at stop signs. This is to keep the definition precise.

What are within the working definition of vehicular cycling:


1) destination positioning at intersections

2) vehicular left turns

3) taking the lane. i.e. not sharing a lane with another vehicule.

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

What I am trying to do is break the working definition of "vehicular cycling" away from the notion of safety. Safety will always be relative to the specific environment and transient. To evaluate whether "vehicular cycling" is "safer" than an alternative, one cannot have a definition of "vehicular cycling" which is linked to safety.

I am also trying to separate the working definition of "vehicular cycling" from the specific notion of "cycling facilities." For instance, one aspect of this working definition of vehicular cycling is that lane sharing is not allowed. Certain facilities, i.e. bike lanes, follow this principle provided that the bike lanes are true lanes and not "bike lanes in name only", which in practice, basically results in bike lanes which are 5-6' wide, flow into intersections logically and vehicularly (either the RTOL merges into the bike lane, which sometimes results in a "bike lane to the left of the right turn only lane", or the bike lane merges into the next adjacent traffic lane at the intersection), are swept regularly and signed "for bikes only".

Other facilities, i.e. WOLs, are certainly useful for traffic cycling, but encourage lane sharing and thus if used as such, do not fall under the working definition of vehicular cycling. Again, this is not for ideological reasons. It is for reasons of consistency in the definition. Consistency means that there are no exceptions to the rule. WOLs certainly can be ridden vehicularly, but this involves a lane position which does not allow for lane sharing.

I want a critique of this definition, but not a critique coming from how "right" it is (this is a working definition of my own design, so that we have a language for which to talk on this forum about vehicular cycling), but I want critiques regarding how self-consistent this definition is. This means no ideological battles on this thread, and most importantly this has nothing to do with bike lanes or any other cycling facility.

Some of you are going to be agitating to use Helmet Head's Wiki link as a definition instead. Realize that I don't really care; it's okay to have two different definitions of the same word, as long as we realize there are two different definitions, and we differentiate between the two. The problem I see with the wiki link is that it defines the term too broadly. The definition given in wiki is kind of like using "bug" to describe all insects. This is my opinion only though. Just differentiate by appending the "wiki definition", or "Brian's working definition" somewhere when posting. Or use "broad" or "narrow" to describe the way you are using the term. The point is: I am not trying to make an ideological point here. I am trying to define a well used but ill defined term in more specific language so we don't keep going 'round in circles and misunderstanding each other.

I'm kind of preening here for a sticky so we don't get all these newbies coming in asking, in the midst of a thread, what "VC" is.

kudos to attempt to define VC for the benefit of the forum, Brian. seems pretty spot on the money.

Let me put this out: Vehicular cycling is a group of techniques surrounding the adoption by a cyclist of destination positioning utilizing the full width of the roadway. This is not an ideological definition; the ideologues can define whatever they want, to their heart's content. This is a working definition.

Examples of what is not within the working definition of vehicular cycling:
...
8) the basics of cycling, such as riding on the right side of the road and stopping at stopsigns. This is to keep the definition precise...

What I am trying to do is break the working definition of "vehicular cycling" away from the notion of safety. Safety will always be relative to the specific environment and transient. To evaluate whether "vehicular cycling" is "safer" than an alternative, one cannot have a definition of "vehicular cycling" which is linked to safety.

Brian, You are on the right path.:)

Especially with excluding item 8 if anyone wants a useful definition. It is from the false claim of "ownership" by VC salesmen of every single basic and proper operation of bicycling (from use of lights at night to staying upright) that opinions are generated that the safety of cyclists depends on their knowledge of "vehicular cycling."

Because I had to look them up I will add the definitions I found to some of terms and abbreviations used in your definition for the n00bs like me. The definitions are from wikipedia and if they do not match your own or what you are trying to describe I (or a mod) can change them.


WOL: Wide Outside Lane (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wide_outside_lane)
A wide outside lane (WOL), sometimes known as a wide curb lane (WCL), is a term used by cyclists and bicycle transportation planners to refer to an outside lane of a roadway that is wide enough to be safely shared side by side by a bicycle and a wider motor vehicle at the same time. Generally, the minimum width standard for a WOL is 14 feet (4.3 m). A WOL may also be known as a wide outside through lane (WOTL) to differentiate it from a right turn only lane (an outermost lane for traffic that will turn right, not intended for use by through traffic).




Destination Positioning: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destination_positioning#Destination_and_speed_positioning)
As drivers approach a junction of ways, destination positioning comes into play and they position themselves laterally according to their destination (left, straight or right):

Where lanes are marked, slower drivers approaching a junction should choose the outermost lane that serves (i.e., corresponds to) their destination. For example, if the outermost lane is turn-only lane, drivers in that lane who do not intend to turn outward should merge inward into the adjacent lane. Drivers of narrower vehicles should be careful about moving to the side of marked lanes when turning, as drivers of overtaking wider vehicles may be tempted to share the lane during the turn.
When lanes are not marked, drivers approaching a junction will travel along the inside of their side of the road if turning toward the inside, along the outer side if turning to the outside, and in between if going straight.

^^^
Thanks. I get in this habit... well you know ;). The above definitions of "wide outside lane" (WOL) and "destination positioning" will do nicely. Thanks for encoding them into this thread.

I want to add this to the list of definitions, since I use it in a bit of a special sense which is somewhat not intuitive. Again, I do this for consistency in the definition of "vehicular cycling."

Bike Lane:

Is defined as a traffic lane dedicated to bicycle use provided that the bike lanes are true lanes and not "bike lanes in name only".

In practice, this basically results in bike lanes which are 5-6' wide, flow into intersections logically and vehicularly (either the RTOL merges into the bike lane, which sometimes results in a "bike lane to the left of the right turn only lane", or the bike lane merges into the next adjacent traffic lane at the intersection), are swept regularly and signed "for bikes only".

It's a fine definition, Brian, I guess, though I'm lost as to its applicability in theory or in practice.

According to this definition (particularly, "A cyclist traveling in vehicular mode will not share lanes in any way, shape, or sense of the word. "), I, for one, am certainly not a vehicular cyclist.

Examples of what is not within the working definition of vehicular cycling:
[indent]
1) riding to the right hand side of the road and sharing the lane. A cyclist traveling in vehicular mode will not share lanes in any way, shape, or sense of the word.

I would disagree strongly with this. Most cyclists who believe themselves to be cycling vehicularly share lanes all the time. I share narrow lanes with other cyclists side by side (like motorcyclists often do), and share wide lanes side by side with drivers of wider vehicles.

My favorite roads tend to be two-lane collector roads with 16' lanes, or 32' of pavement width and no striping at all. Why should I refuse to allow a driver to pass in the same lane or on the same side of the road if I can operate near the right side safely and efficiently?

-Steve Goodridge

I would have to add that since every state's vehicle code requires lane sharing when the lane width allows it (the as far right as practicable clause) that lane sharing is most definitely vehicular cycling.

^^^^
Again, this is a working definition for a set of techniques encompassed by the term "vehicular cycling."

HH: "Vehicular cycling" is not something you are, it is something you do. I do not define the term "vehicular cyclist." I define the term "vehicular cycling."

sggoodri: The road system is set up explicity such that no vehicle shares a lane with another. This is why, in the "narrow" definition of VC I've set up here, lane sharing is not allowed; it is not vehicular.

For instance, my favorite roads tend to be two lane (one each direction) rural highways with 18 feet of pavement (9' for each lane) and no shoulder. When I ride, I usually ride in, what HH describes as, the margin. (FWIW, HH also rides in the margin when cars are present and passing, which is the important part.) I would refer to this as riding in "lane sharing" mode, as opposed to "vehicular mode".

I've gained an array of specific skills for riding in "lane sharing mode" which are different from "vehicular mode" riding. In many places on these roads, I do have to take the lane and bicycle in a vehicular mode, with the assortment of skills and techniques that this requires. After these choke points pass, I revert back to lane sharing mode.

Again, I am trying for a self-consistent definition. The techniques for lane sharing and vehicular modes of cycling differ, as do the behaviors' of other vehicles around the cyclist. This alone justifies making a distinction.

I would have to add that since every state's vehicle code requires lane sharing when the lane width allows it (the as far right as practicable clause) that lane sharing is most definitely vehicular cycling.

No, actually, my definition explicity rules out following a law being the only reason for a cycling mode's inclusion into "vehicular cycling." Just because there is a law that requires "stay to the right" (in this or other words), doesn't mean that to simply follow this law is to be cycling "vehicularly".

In other words, "vehicular cycling" is not always legal.

Let me put this out: Vehicular cycling is a group of techniques surrounding the adoption by a cyclist of destination positioning utilizing the full width of the roadway. This is not an ideological definition; the ideologues can define whatever they want, to their heart's content. This is a working definition.


Vehicular cycling concerns the negotiation of vehicular traffic on roadways according to the same basic vehicular rules. This includes traveling on the right half of the roadway, destination positioning at intersections, speed positioning between intersections, yielding before moving laterally, and yielding before crossing or entering a more important road.

Vehicular cyclists only occasionally need to use more than a small part of the roadway. It is important that their legal right to use the roadway be protected for those occasions, and cyclists fshould be treated as fully entitled users of the roadway. But most practicing vehicular cyclists have little interest in creating the impression of using more of the roadway than they need for safety, efficiency, and comfort.

-Steve Goodridge

Vehicular cycling concerns the negotiation of vehicular traffic on roadways according to the same basic vehicular rules. This includes traveling on the right half of the roadway, destination positioning at intersections, speed positioning between intersections, yielding before moving laterally, and yielding before crossing or entering a more important road.

Vehicular cyclists only occasionally need to use more than a small part of the roadway. It is important that their legal right to use the roadway be protected for those occasions, and cyclists fshould be treated as fully entitled users of the roadway. But most practicing vehicular cyclists have little interest in creating the impression of using more of the roadway than they need for safety, efficiency, and comfort.

-Steve Goodridge

Again, I am not trying out for an ideological definition. What you just stated above is kind of like the scientist refering to all three legged creatures as "bugs." A working definition cannot include all forms of cycling under the sun. Here, I've pared the definition down to include only the essentials, with no caveats, no exceptions, and no overlap between it and other definitions.

I honestly don't care if you accept this working definition. Words can have different meanings in different contexts. You have encompassed all "best practice" skills under the heading of "vehicular cycling." This is all well and good, but not very useful as a precise definition.

Hey! Glad someone else started the thread. I will have to check in later though.

Vehicular cycling concerns the negotiation of vehicular traffic on roadways according to the same basic vehicular rules.

I want to emphasis that lane sharing does not come under the heading of "same basic vehicular rules." To make it do so is to posit imaginary "implicit bike lane lines" as Helmet Head does, or to create an exception in the definion of vehicular cycling.

I want to add this to the list of definitions, since I use it in a bit of a special sense which is somewhat not intuitive. Again, I do this for consistency in the definition of "vehicular cycling."

Bike Lane:

Is defined as a traffic lane dedicated to bicycle use provided that the bike lanes are true lanes and not "bike lanes in name only".

In practice, this basically results in bike lanes which are 5-6' wide, flow into intersections logically and vehicularly (either the RTOL merges into the bike lane, which sometimes results in a "bike lane to the left of the right turn only lane", or the bike lane merges into the next adjacent traffic lane at the intersection), are swept regularly and signed "for bikes only".
Regardless of how you define or built it, whether it is a "true lane" or a "bike lane in name only" is determined by how others use it and treat those who do use it, not by the definition.

sggoodri: The road system is set up explicity such that no vehicle shares a lane with another. This is why, in the "narrow" definition of VC I've set up here, lane sharing is not allowed; it is not vehicular.



Vehicles come in very different widths. Lanes don't vary as much. Lane striping practice is an imperfect oversimplification in that it sometimes differs from best driving practices for the widest and the narrowest vehicles.

I suggest that if a vehicular cyclist is lane-sharing as a courtesy, the inconsistency with your invented paradigm is how the road was striped, not the cyclist's actions.

Vehicular cycling means riding to the right to allow faster traffic to pass when safe and appropriate, and riding to the left when not.

Sometimes the lane line striping means that the right-riding vehicular cyclist is in his own right hand lane, other times the lane striping means he is sharing a wide lane. It is vehicular cycling either way.

Regardless of how you define or built it, whether it is a "true lane" or a "bike lane in name only" is determined by how others use it and treat those who do use it, not by the definition.

You are correct. In this case, a cyclist should not treat a "bike lane in name only" as a bike lane. I suggest not worrying so much about what other driver's think. I ride where I ride where I ride.

I want to emphasis that lane sharing does not come under the heading of "same basic vehicular rules." To make it do so is to posit imaginary "implicit bike lane lines" as Helmet Head does, or to create an exception in the definion of vehicular cycling.

Lane striping is a very specific construct. Vehicular cycling is very general. The most important, basic rules for vehicular cycling are fully defined for roads with no lane lines. Understand vehicular cycling on a road with no lane lines first, and then deal with lane striping as it appears by following the basic positional rules of vehicular cycling rather than being confused by suboptimal striping.

sggoodrie:

Okay, I register your complaint. I am not interested if my working definition is "correct," or even if it is the way you see the term. I am not interested in debating the pros and cons of bike lanes or lack thereof. I am interested in if my definition is self-consistent, meaning there are no exceptions or caveats, and that it is narrow, i.e. doesn't cover the world.

I know, it hurts to have an ideological term upsurped and made more precise for the sake of those who don't agree with the ideology. But it is, for better or for worse, the term we use around here, and I am tired of it's lack of precision. It has previously been used in the sense of "what VC means for me...". It has formerly meant everything and nothing.

I am simply trying to tighten the meaning up so that it is not an all encompassing descriptor of safe, legal cycling. You want to keep it broad to suit your ideological goals. I'll keep that in mind when we have discussions together.

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

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

You are correct. In this case, a cyclist should not treat a "bike lane in name only" as a bike lane. I suggest not worrying so much about what other driver's think. I ride where I ride where I ride. Again, what they think only matters to the cyclist in terms of how it affects their behavior, and, in particular, their behavior with respect to the space demarcated as a "bike lane".

That was the point of my thread the other day describing the incident I was in. If I had treated the bike lane I was in as a regular traffic lane, I would not have slowed, and would have kept going, leaving myself open to a right hook.

Edit: When I'm traveling in a regular traffic lane that is open in front of me, I normally do not slow to simply to avoid passing someone in an adjacent lane, unless they are negotiating for the right of way to do so, and I have decided to yield to them. Treating road margin space as if it is a real traffic lane, whether that space is unmarked, marked as a shoulder, or marked as a bike lane, is often not a good idea.

Most people here, mostly the people who you deride as "not knowing what the definition of VC is" has the above concept of a definition in mind. The agreements in this thread are reflective of that.

The above definition also separates the distinctive characteristics of vehicular cycling from those characteristics which are simply under the perview of "safe, legal cycling." There is no need to encompass all aspects of "safe, legal cycling" in with vehicular cycling; this would make everyone claim to be a "vehicular cycling" (which I did not define), which is what happens here, and then endless fights over what "vehicular cycling" really means "to me...".

I honestly don't care if you accept this working definition. Words can have different meanings in different contexts. You have encompassed all "best practice" skills under the heading of "vehicular cycling." This is all well and good, but not very useful as a precise definition.
Again this is elated to the OP exclusion #8. The all encompassing definition of vehicular cycling prefered by Steve and HH calls for the reciprocal, an all encompassing definition of safety: all cyclists are safe cyclists, unless they are not, as evidenced by their having an accident. Hence: safe cyclists are vehicular cyclists; unsafe cyclists are not. Works for HH and Steve G. I'm sure.

Again, what they think only matters to the cyclist in terms of how it affects their behavior, and, in particular, their behavior with respect to the space demarcated as a "bike lane".

That was the point of my thread the other day describing the incident I was in. If I had treated the bike lane I was in as a regular traffic lane, I would not have slowed, and would have kept going, leaving myself open to a right hook.

With all due respect, I really don't care how motorists see bike lanes. If motorists see enough cyclists using certain versions of bike lanes in certain ways, it will become the norm, as it is where I live. And even when driving cars, one doesn't always avoid being cut off. One still needs to remain aware of your surroundings. If you are implying that riding in the bike lane means one doesn't have to be aware, I am not in agreement with that.

In the end, they are just lines in the road which are used in standard ways. Some motorists still violate these standards. It doesn't just apply to bike lanes.

In any case, I didn't make a value judgement of bike lanes in the definition. I simply defined what they were. What they are is the physical paint on the ground. I also did not make a value judgement of bike lanes in relation to anything else.

Most people here, mostly the people who you deride as "not knowing what the definition of VC is" has the above concept of a definition in mind. The agreements in this thread are reflective of that.
Well, that explains much of the disagreement, then. We're ultimately arguing about definitions then, not the pros and cons of a particular concept.


The above definition also separates the distinctive characteristics of vehicular cycling from those characteristics which are simply under the perview of "safe, legal cycling." There is no need to encompass all aspects of "safe, legal cycling" in with vehicular cycling; this would make everyone claim to be a "vehicular cycling" (which I did not define), which is what happens here, and then endless fights over what "vehicular cycling" really means "to me...".
The above definition also separates the concept from the concept of vehicular cycling that I, Forester, Stephen, and many others advocate.

sggoodrie:

Okay, I register your complaint. I am not interested if my working definition is "correct," or even if it is the way you see the term. I am not interested in debating the pros and cons of bike lanes or lack thereof. I am interested in if my definition is self-consistent, meaning there are no exceptions or caveats, and that it is narrow, i.e. doesn't cover the world.

I know, it hurts to have an ideological term upsurped and made more precise for the sake of those who don't agree with the ideology. But it is, for better or for worse, the term we use around here, and I am tired of it's lack of precision. It has previously been used in the sense of "what VC means for me...". It has formerly meant everything and nothing.

I am simply trying to tighten the meaning up so that it is not an all encompassing descriptor of safe, legal cycling. You want to keep it broad to suit your ideological goals. I'll keep that in mind when we have discussions together.

I find the most useful definition of vehicular cycling to be one that can be used to teach novice cyclists to ride with greater enjoyment, convenience, and safety. This requires that the definition be simple yet elegant enough to handle the widest possible array of real-world situations. "Destination positioning at intersections, speed positioning between intersections" is a much more elegant and useful description of effectively cycling within the vehicular rules of the road than what you propose.

My "ideology" as you put it, is to have useful descriptive tools for helping cyclists understand and enjoy cycling. I don't think it helps beginners for anyone to confuse the public by implying that vehicular cyclists, as a matter of principle, don't let drivers pass them in the same lane. Since novices don't want a lot of social friction with drivers, such an inference will likely cause them to be less interested in vehicular cycling and thus miss out on the advantages of driving a bike according to basic vehicular rules.

Examples of what is not within the working definition of vehicular cycling:


3) two step left turns.


If this is part of the definition you and others have in mind when discussion "vehicular cycling", it's no wonder we have so many disagreements!



If no gap shows, go to the corner and use the crosswalk.

Effective Cycling, 6th Edition, p 312.

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

One cannot advocate for terminology. I am not arguing about what your "concept" is or isn't. That is kind of for you to decide. I am simply trying to frame some language around a term, so that various points of view can have a conversation. So far, the "vehicular cyclists" have defined the term in various different ways (which tend to be all encompassing) to avoid conversation about broader cycling practices. The "this is what VC is to me..." tendency of this forum is reflective of that.

I am trying to remove the war over words from the discussion of ideas.

The League of American Bicyclists operates more classes on vehicular cycling than any other organization in North America. Let's see how they define the basic vehicular traffic principles for cyclists:

From http://www.bikeleague.org/resources/better/roadrules.php


Traffic Principles
Ride on the right
Always ride with the flow of traffic
Do not ride on the sidewalk
Allow yourself room to maneuver around roadway hazards
Yield to traffic in busier lanes
Roads with higher traffic volumes should be given right-of-way
Always use signals to indicate your intentions to switch lanes
Look behind you to indicate your desire to move and to make sure that you can
Yield to traffic in destination lane
Traffic in your destination lane has the right-of-way
Making eye contact with drivers lets them know that you see them
Signal and make your lane change early, before you need to
Directional Positioning
Position yourself in the right-most lane that goes in the direction of your destination
Ride in the right third of the lane
Avoid being overtaken in narrow-lane situations by riding in the right third of the lane
Speed Positioning
Position yourself relative to the speed of other traffic
Left-most lane is for fastest moving traffic, right-most for slower traffic
Yield to faster moving vehicles by staying to the right in the lane

I think their "right third of the lane" rule is possibly a useful simplification for beginners because it provides enough room for same-lane passing in a wide lane but discourages same-lane passing in a narrow lane.

I find the most useful definition of vehicular cycling to be one that can be used to teach novice cyclists to ride with greater enjoyment, convenience, and safety. This requires that the definition be simple yet elegant enough to handle the widest possible array of real-world situations. "Destination positioning at intersections, speed positioning between intersections" is a much more elegant and useful description of effectively cycling within the vehicular rules of the road than what you propose.

My "ideology" as you put it, is to have useful descriptive tools for helping cyclists understand and enjoy cycling. I don't think it helps beginners for anyone to confuse the public by implying that vehicular cyclists, as a matter of principle, don't let drivers pass them in the same lane. Since novices don't want a lot of social friction with drivers, such an inference will likely cause them to be less interested in vehicular cycling and thus miss out on the advantages of driving a bike according to basic vehicular rules.

I am not describing a "vehicular cyclist". I am describing "vehicular cycl[/i]ing[/i]".

We are not in disagreement. You are describing a program. I am describing a word. I'm sure your program is well put together; but if you are restricting the term "vehicular cycling" to only that of the title of your program, then it should probably never enter into the conversation on these forums. You see, it is too broad to be used in a conversation between self described "vehicular cyclists" and other cyclists on this forum.

More from the LAB web site:



Lane Positioning

1. Ride on the right
Ride in the same direction as traffic; stay far enough away from curb to avoid hazards
Ride in the right third of the right-most lane that goes in the direction you are going
Take the entire lane if traveling the same speed as traffic or in a narrow lane

2. Visibility
Always ride in or near a travel lane; stay visible by riding where drivers are looking
Wear bright clothing at night as well as during the day
Do not pass on the right; motorists are not looking for other vehicles there

3. Parked cars
Ride in a straight line, not in and out of parked cars on the side of the road
Beware of cars merging into the roadway from a parallel parking position
Always ride far enough away from parked cars to avoid hitting a surprise open door

4. Take the lane
If there is insufficient road width for cyclists and cars
If traveling the same speed as other traffic or if hazards narrow the usable width
Before intersections and turns to assert your position on the roadway

5. Extra wide lanes
Do not ride completely to the right; you will be more visible 3-4 feet away from traffic
Right turning cars and cars entering will be more likely to see you before they turn
Be careful of motorists passing on the right around left-turning vehicles

^^^^
We are not beginners here. I am uninterested in talking about beginner's curriculum for a LAB course. What we tend to talk about here when we use the term is more akin to college level biology ("insect" = lots of stuff and categories with narrow definitions), not second grade natural science ("insect" = "bug").

I'd include all that stuff under the heading "safe, legal cycling."

I am not describing a "vehicular cyclist". I am describing "vehicular cycl[/i]ing[/i]".

We are not in disagreement. You are describing a program. I am describing a word. I'm sure your program is well put together; but if you are restricting the term "vehicular cycling" to only that of the title of your program, then it should probably never enter into the conversation on these forums. You see, it is too broad to be used in a conversation between self described "vehicular cyclists" and other cyclists on this forum.

If you are attempting to assign vehicular cycling to a practice of never allowing another driver to pass within the same lane, then you are in disagreement with the common use of the term. This will only generate more confusion and resentment. Vehicular cycling is operating a bicycle according to the general rules of the road that apply to drivers of vehicles concerning positioning and yielding. There is room for debate within this definition on specific techniques, and for debate with individuals regarding their application of the term. There is no need to sabatoge the definition, unless someone has an ideological disagreement with the concept as it generally understood.

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.

One cannot advocate for terminology. I am not arguing about what your "concept" is or isn't. That is kind of for you to decide. I am simply trying to frame some language around a term, so that various points of view can have a conversation. So far, the "vehicular cyclists" have defined the term in various different ways (which tend to be all encompassing) to avoid conversation about broader cycling practices. The "this is what VC is to me..." tendency of this forum is reflective of that.

I am trying to remove the war over words from the discussion of ideas. Then I strongly suggest you come up with a less loaded term to mean what it is that you want it to mean. Call it "Ratliff Cycling" and define it any way you want.

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

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

If you are attempting to assign vehicular cycling to a practice of never allowing another driver to pass within the same lane, then you are in disagreement with the common use of the term. This will only generate more confusion and resentment. Vehicular cycling is operating a bicycle according to the general rules of the road that apply to drivers of vehicles concerning positioning and yielding. There is room for debate within this definition on specific techniques, and for debate with individuals regarding their application of the term. There is no need to sabatoge the definition, unless someone has an ideological disagreement with the concept as it generally understood.

You are acting as if "vehicular cycling" is the only term which can be used to describe cycling techniques. I'd refer your situation of the need to share lanes as "lane sharing." I have no need to satisfy an ideological goal here. There is no "vehicular cyclist" in my worldview, except as applies to a school of ideology.

You are acting as if "vehicular cycling" is the only term which can be used to describe cycling techniques. I'd refer your situation of the need to share lanes as "lane sharing." I have no need to satisfy an ideological goal here. There is no "vehicular cyclist" in my worldview, except as applies to a school of ideology. LOL!

I was about to ask you why you chose to name the concept you defined in the OP to be "vehicular cycling". Apparently, you think "vehicular cycling" is the only term which can be used to describe cycling techniques.

Seriously, why not use something else?

LOL!

I was about to ask you why you chose to name the concept you defined in the OP to be "vehicular cycling". Apparently, you think "vehicular cycling" is the only term which can be used to describe cycling techniques.

Seriously, why not use something else?

It's descriptive. I am trying to strip the term of its load. The alternative is to ban it from use as it is too broadly defined and, as you are indicating here, "already taken" by an ideological group who polices the definition.

In any case, I'll put you on notice, when I use the term, the sense I use it in is in the OP. I am not a "vehicular cyclist" so I am not bound by your language.

When I say I "I take the lane vehicularly" you'll know what I mean.

Or when I say "I approach the intersection vehicularly to turn right" the definition is precise.

When I say "When preparing for a left turn, change lanes but remain in lane sharing mode," people can be clear on what I am talking about.

See how much better that is... If you don't like what I am doing, treat the OP like a #define term at the top of each of my posts.

You are acting as if "vehicular cycling" is the only term which can be used to describe cycling techniques. I'd refer your situation of the need to share lanes as "lane sharing." I have no need to satisfy an ideological goal here. There is no "vehicular cyclist" in my worldview, except as applies to a school of ideology.

I don't understand your point. Of course there are other useful terms for describing cycling - there is pedestrianized cycling, where the cyclist attempts to follow pedestrian rules. There is "road sneak" cycling, where cyclists attempt to operate only in those portions of the roadway that motorists aren't using and aren't likely to use.

Vehicular cycling is operating according to the basic vehicular principles that apply to drivers, including speed positioning between intersections and destination positioning at intersections. Debates over preferred technique within the scope of these generalized rules for drivers don't alter the basic definition.

-Steven Goodridge

When I say I "I take the lane vehicularly" you'll know what I mean.



How does one take the lane non-vehicularly? With my definition, taking the lane non-vehicularly means not looking and yielding to other traffic before moving laterally into the center of the lane. With your definition, there is no such thing as taking the lane non-vehicularly, because you equate vehicular cycling with taking the lane.

By contrast, I can share a lane vehicularly. I operate in a straight line on the right edge, and don't move left without first looking and yielding to other traffic. That's the part that makes it comply with the basic vehicular rules. And, it's the part that makes it safer than non-vehicular cycling all over the road willy-nilly.

I don't understand your point. Of course there are other useful terms for describing cycling - there is pedestrianized cycling, where the cyclist attempts to follow pedestrian rules. There is "road sneak" cycling, where cyclists attempt to operate only in those portions of the roadway that motorists aren't using and aren't likely to use.

Vehicular cycling is operating according to the basic vehicular principles that apply to drivers, including speed positioning between intersections and destination positioning at intersections. Debates over preferred technique within the scope of these generalized rules for drivers don't alter the basic definition.

-Steven Goodridge

I've never heard those terms defined precisely before as well. Besides, they are all ideological terms. Not descriptive of a set of techniques. Not to mention that they are derogatory as well.

Actually, LOL, I've never heard anyone utter those two terms in such a serious way before and try to formalize their definitions.

By jove, sggoodrie, finally a critique worthy of something.

Yes, I am in error. "Taking the lane" is already defined as "vehicular". Now then, it is entirely possible to "change lanes non-vehicularly." I do this regularly, where I change lanes out of the bike lane, but lane share in the adjacent lane. Or, one can change lanes vehicularly, which is called, "taking the lane."

It's descriptive. I am trying to strip the term of its load. The alternative is to ban it from use as it is too broadly defined and, as you are indicating here, "already taken" by an ideological group who polices the definition.

In any case, I'll put you on notice, when I use the term, the sense I use it in is in the OP. I am not a "vehicular cyclist" so I am not bound by your language.

When I say I "I take the lane vehicularly" you'll know what I mean.

Or when I say "I approach the intersection vehicularly to turn right" the definition is precise.

When I say "When preparing for a left turn, change lanes but remain in lane sharing mode," people can be clear on what I am talking about.

See how much better that is... If you don't like what I am doing, treat the OP like a #define term at the top of each of my posts. Fine Brian.

By the way, I'm putting you on notice, from now on, I'm using these definitions.

I = you
you = I
I'm = you are
hate = understand
failing = trying
good = bad
bad = good
misinterpreting = accepting
imagine = hope
muddy = clear

-------------

You hate what I'm failing to do. Normally you are pretty bad at misinterpreting whatever meaning anyone intends for whatever term they use.

You imagine that's muddy.

Glad you understand, HH... :)

But to take a term for which there are already well recognized meanings, and defining it as something similar but different, is very confusing, to say the least.
"well recognized meanings"? Yeah sure. Your meaning - which means whatever you want it to mean today. Tomorrow is another day, eh?

I think your definition sounds good. The definition surprised me, which is good. Expands my thinking. Thanks for the effort, although it looks like the usual suspects aren't going to let it fly.

I've never heard those terms defined precisely before as well. Besides, they are all ideological terms. Not descriptive of a set of techniques. Not to mention that they are derogatory as well.

Actually, LOL, I've never heard anyone utter those two terms in such a serious way before and try to formalize their definitions.

You are confusing ideology with paradigm. Vehicular cycling is a paradigm - a model of traffic negotiation based on vehicular driving rules. Likewise, pedestrianized cycling is a paradigm - a model of traffic negotiation based on pedestrian rules. I submit that one could also consider a type of "adaptive cycling" as a paradigm that allows switching between vehicular and pedestrian paradigms as conditions change. One need not have an ideology that promotes one paradigm over the others; a skeptical thinker can objectively recognize the operational advantages and disadvantages of one paradigm compared to another in context.

Vehicular cycling is the operation of a bicycle according to the basic vehicular rules; the vehicular rules establish a traffic choreography that provides the tradeoff of convenience and safety that most reasonable, sober drivers find optimal. Vehicular cycling recognizes that the kinematic, dynamic, perceptual, and logistical challenges faced by bicyclists are similar to those of other drivers.

Vehicular cycling isn't about following the law whatever it states, because localities may have special bike laws that conflict with normal vehicular traffic negotiation. Vehicular cycling isn't about trying to apply all motor traffic regulations to bicycles, because some of these motor-specific regulations are more appropriate for only those vehicles that have extraordinary potential danger and require additional constraints. Lastly, vehicular cycling isn't about taking the lane. That is a technique available to the cyclist who chooses to cycle within the vehicular rules, but is often not necessary, and is not sufficient as a description of vehicular cycling.

provided that the bike lanes are true lanes and not "bike lanes in name only", which in practice, basically results in bike lanes which are 5-6' wide, flow into intersections logically and vehicularly (either the RTOL merges into the bike lane, which sometimes results in a "bike lane to the left of the right turn only lane", or the bike lane merges into the next adjacent traffic lane at the intersection), are swept regularly

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

Vehicular cycling is a group of techniques surrounding the adoption by a cyclist of destination positioning utilizing the full width of the roadway.
Brian, you've certainly defined something. However, it conflicts with the way the term "vehicular cycling" is generally used. Perhaps what you've defined would better be called 'destination cycling."

My understanding of what 'vehicular cycling' means is closer to what sggoodri describes:

"destination positioning at intersections, speed positioning between intersections, yielding before moving laterally, and yielding before crossing or entering a more important road.I don't know about the last part (I'm not sure which roads are more important). I might change "yielding before crossing or entering a more important road" to "obeying traffic controls at intersections".

I understand the desire to create a simple working definition. It's an interesting exercise.

And I understand the problem of equating "vehicular cycling" with "safe legal cycling" (because one could indeed ride safely and legally without rinding vehicularly or, conversely, ride vehicularly without riding legally or safely).

But the biggest issue seems to involve pavement marking. Sggoodri's definition deals with lane lines by discounting their importance in some circumstances (this is my understanding of "vehicular cycling"). To be consistent, Brian's definition uses lane lines to define a rule that cannot be violated. While that's more consistent, I don't think it can properly be called "vehicular cycling".