Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Some VC definitions

Brian's "working definition" thread has helped me come up with a slightly different presentation of what vehicular cycling means to me. I'm open to comments, questions and suggestions...

The vehicular rules of the road, or the vrotr, are the rules of the road according to which drivers operate their vehicles on roadways, as opposed to the pedestrian rules of the road, which pedestrians follow. These rules encompass the rules of the road that govern drivers of slow moving vehicles as well, when applicable. They also include the lane positioning rules that apply to motorcyclists, which are typically taught in motorcycle safety courses, as well as the rules of defensive driving.

Vehicular Cycling (VC) is primarily a set of practices, techniques and skills used to ride a bicycle on roadways in accordance to the vehicular rules of the road. VC is distinguished from traffic cycling practices that are blatantly in conflict with the vrotr.

VC and Vehicular Cycling in some contexts refer to VC advocacy or the VC philosophy (see below).

The Road Margin is roadway space near the edge of the roadway, often demarcated by a shoulder, bike lane, or fog line stripe, normally not used by through vehicular traffic. Road Margin space is often used by cyclists to allow faster traffic to pass. Many VC advocates believe that, in general, cyclists riding in the road margin are less likely to be noticed than are cyclists riding in space normally used by traffic, because drivers generally pay more attention to space normally used by traffic.

FSDT stands for "Faster Same Direction Traffic". The concept is used in traffic laws that define rules specific to drivers of slow moving vehicles, including some that are specific to cyclists. For example, laws restricting drivers of slow moving vehicles to keep right often only apply in the presence of FSDT[1] (http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21654.htm). The presence or absence of FSDT (or approaching-from-behind FSDT) is an important lane positioning factor for many vehicular cyclists. In particular, in the absence of FSDT there is no reason for a vehicular cyclist to ride in the road margin.


Basic VC (BVC) is the collection of VC techniques, skills and practices most experienced cyclists already use, but most novices need to learn, such as:
Ride on the right half of the road, with vehicular traffic.
Obey traffic control.
Use hand signals before turning.
Use lights/reflectors at night.
Use speed positioning between intersections, including riding in the road margins, especially when FSDT is present or approaching and it is safe and reasonable to do so (yes, this means vehicular cyclists do sometimes ride in bike lanes).
Use destination positioning at intersections and their approaches.
Turn left by waiting for a gap before merging left.
Recognize that door zones should be avoided.
Etc.Advanced VC (AVC) is the collection of VC techniques, skills and practices few experienced cyclists already utilize, at least not consistently, and almost all novices have not learned, such as:
Thinking of yourself, inwardly, as being a driver with the same rights and responsibilites as drivers of vehicles.
Using negotiation to create gaps.
Merging left one lane at a time.
Signaling using look backs.
Being able to look back for more than a fraction of a second without riding off course.
Using assertive "centerish" lane positioning to discourage lane sharing/squeezing when the lane is too narrow to be safely shared.
Using assertive "centerish" lane positioning to improve sight lines and conspicuity when safe and reasonable to do so.
Recognizing when traffic behind needs a hint about what to do, and providing it appropriately and effectively.
Recognizing when and where bike lanes are okay to use, and when they should be avoided (learning to ignore the bike lane stripe when deciding where to ride).
Avoiding door zones by habitually riding at least five feet from the edge of parked vehicles.
Etc.Strict VC is strict adherence to VC while riding a bicycle. It means never riding on sidewalks, never doing a 2-step left turn, always taking the lane, never taking a short cut through a parking lot, never mountain biking, never rolling a stop (a.k.a California Stop), never riding on bike paths, etc. There are no known adherents or proponents of Strict VC, though some VC contrarians have been known to mischaracterize VC advocates as such.

Sometimes VC refers to the VC philosophy which is based on the vehicular-cycling principle coined by John Forester: Cyclists fare best when they act and treated as drivers of vehicles. A central tenet of the philosophy is that about half of bike-car crashes are caused by blatant cyclist error (not adhering to even Basic VC rules), and that most others could have been avoided had the cyclist also been utilizing the more advanced skills. In other words, it's basically defensive driving for cyclists. (to be continued)

VC may also refer to the Art of VC, which, like any art, requires knowing the rules, what the purpose of each rule is, when to apply each one, when not to, and understanding why. (to be continued)

VC advocacy is the advocacy of VC philosophy: the right of cyclists to use surface street roadways (where drivers of slow moving vehicles are not prohibited) in accordance with the vehicular rules of the road, and advocacy for the general acceptance of this right within society. This can include opposing the creation of facilities that are based on the notion that cyclists do not have this right. Sometimes the term VC is used to mean VC Advocacy.

A Zealous VC advocate is someone who advocates Vehicular Cycling with eagerness and ardent interest. Given the absence of actual advocates of Strict VC, the term zealous VC advocate rarely if ever is used to refer to an actual advocate of Strict VC, though certain VC contrarians have been known to try to use this term to imply that certain VC advocates are advocates of Strict VC.

A VC contrarian is one who opposes VC for no apparent rational reason. Tactics typically used by VC contrarians to oppose the advocacy, philosophy and sometimes even the practices of VC include:
Portraying a practioner or advocate of VC as a practioner or advocate of Strict VC.
Misrepresenting the smooth and orderly lateral movements of VC as swerving.

Mischaracterizing VC as relying entirely on obeying the rules and ignoring the importance of paying attention, being vigilant and knowing the rules in order to be able to consistently follow the rules, and more efficiently recognize when others are not and pose potential danger.
Exaggerating the position of a VC advocate in order to ridicule him because he can't address the substance of what the advocate is saying (this tactic is sometimes defended as satire).
Comments? Questions? Suggestions?

too much open to interpretation in this "definition"

ONE COMMENT:

THIS IS HELMET HEAD DEFINING HIS OWN ADAPTIVE CYCLING TECHNIQUES and political platform regarding riding bicycles,

and does not reflect vehicular cycling as a style of riding. all vehicular cyclists choose to ride adaptively sometimes as well, so this semantics exercise is strictly attempts to define cycling for helmet heads terms.

... a ... presentation of what vehicular cycling means to me...
The vehicular rules of the road, ... according to which drivers actually operate should not be confused with the documented legal vehicle code ... Redefining (or finding redefinitions of) formally defined names or labels creates a kind of informal and personal Newspeak (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak) language. That's deceptively confusing for those of us who use conventional English (which in George Orwell's Newspeak was termed Oldspeak). If someone wants to describe a new or different concept, they should use a new name or label (rather than modifying or overriding one that's already formally defined).

For example: in the USA, the applicable state laws already formally define the Rules of the Road. Three instances:

From the California Vehicle Code: Division 11 - Rules of the Road (http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/vc/tocd11c3a1.htm) (BTW, the Vehicle Code isn't just the RotR)
From Chapter 20 of the NC General Statues: Part 10. Operation of Vehicles and Rules of the Road (http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_20/GS_20-138.html)
From the New York Vehicle & Traffic laws: TITLE VII RULES OF THE ROAD (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/nycodes/c128/a46.html)I'd like to suggest that we just say no to personal languages.

Redefining established words, phrases, labels, etc., effectively creates a personal Newspeak (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak) language. That's deceptively confusing for those of us who use conventional English (which in George Orwell's Newspeak was termed Oldspeak). If someone wants to describe a new concept, they should use a new name or label (rather than attempting to modify or override an established one).

For example: in US law (i.e., case law, statutes and other legal authority), the applicable state law already defines the Rules of the Road. Two instances:
From the California Vehicle Code: Division 11 - Rules of the Road (http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/vc/tocd11c3a1.htm) (there's much more in the CVC than just the RotR)
From Chapter 20 of the NC General Statues: Part 10. Operation of Vehicles and Rules of the Road (http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_20/GS_20-138.html)I'd like to suggest that we just say no to personal languages.
No one is redefining anything.
Do people drive according to the "rules of the road" or not? I say yes, and those "rules of the road" cannot have much to do with the sources you cite since the vast majority of drivers have never even glance at them. So, then, what does "rules of the road" refer to when we talk about the "rules of the road" that drivers actually use? Again, I'm not defining or redefining anything... I'm asking what do people mean when they use the term "rules of the road" with respect to what drivers follow?

Yes, the vehicle code is a specific type of manifestation of "rules of the road", but it's not the only kind.

For example, here is an informal summary of the "Rules of the Road" courtesy of state of NY:

http://www.nysgtsc.state.ny.us/roadrule.htm

But the rules of the road by which drivers actually operate are far more informal than that, because most have no knowledge of these formal and semi-formal manifestations. That is, drivers may be aware of their existence, but most have little to no direct/specific knowledge of their content. Only vague personal interpretations. Those are the "rules of the road" by which most drivers actually operate, for better or for worse. Such is life.

Nothing personal about it. I didn't invent that definition, that's the reality, whether you like it or not.

The good news is because of this, the "rules of the road" that cyclists need to know are already known by anyone who is a driver. Note that specific knowledge about the "rules of the road" that are in the vehicle code is NOT required.

Edit: Also, remember that the main reason drivers follow the "rules of the road" is to get from A to B without crashing into anyone else. Avoiding tickets is a secondary priority, and any knowledge of the technical/legal/documented "rules of the road" is only needed for this second priority, and it's mostly not even needed for that.

how does all this jive with

a) following the laws in your local jurisdiction?
b) using lanes classed for specific types of traffic?

I like Brian's attempt to define vehicular cycling as a strict definition, versus spelling out broad, generalized concepts of safe cycling practices.

too much open to interpretation in this "definition"
Except that Brian's definition was much too narrow to be accurate.

HH,

I don't know if you posted this because I asked there be a clear definition of what a VC thread os or not. But if you did I asked for a clear definition of a VC thread, NOT for a definition of what VC is. There is a differance. And you said yourself this is what is means to you in the OP. The questions I asked are directed ato the admin./mods, us regular members should not be answering them. We don't make the rules or policy here, they do. And if they want us to follow them they need to be spelled out for us.

HH,

I don't know if you posted this because I asked there be a clear definition of what a VC thread os or not. But if you did I asked for a clear definition of a VC thread, NOT for a definition of what VC is. There is a differance. And you said yourself this is what is means to you in the OP. The questions I asked are directed ato the admin./mods, us regular members should not be answering them. We don't make the rules or policy here, they do. And if they want us to follow them they need to be spelled out for us.
I have no idea what you're talking about. Note that this thread was started two weeks ago, if that helps.

The undocumented vrotr according to which drivers actually operate should not be confused with the documented legal vehicle code to which drivers must technically adhere in order to avoid getting a citation. There is a lot of overlap, of course, but they are not one and the same.


That renders this definition worthless. does a vehicular cyclist follow the laws? or do they adaptively ride according to the laws THEY think they should follow, and ignore the others?

this is a loose grouping, not a definition.

And, what about lanes classed for specific types of locomotion? I was riding on a road a couple of weeks ago that had a lane ONLY for right turning traffic, buses, and bikes. I was riding straight ahead.

Was I being vehicular? only right turning traffic was allowed.

these 'advanced' definitions seem to be a bit loose and contrary to the basic rules.

* Using negotiation to create gaps. okay.

* Merging left one lane at a time.okay.

* Signaling using look backs. VERY QUESTIONABLE. it works because it creates a vision of cyclist uncertainity, NOT A clear signal. a clear signal is the "POINT AND SHOOT" or the "I'm going THERE" finger.

* Being able to look back for more than a fraction of a second without riding off course. questionable. that's a definition????

* Using assertive "centerish" lane positioning to discourage lane sharing/squeezing when the lane is too narrow to be safely shared.agreed- technique.

* Using assertive "centerish" lane positioning to improve sight lines and conspicuity when safe and reasonable to do so. DISAGREE. an advanced vehicular cyclist only needs to use a centerish position when necessaary, and it is NOT the default position. contrary to 'rotr.'

* Recognizing when traffic behind needs a hint about what to do, and providing it appropriately and effectively. technique.

* Recognizing when and where bike lanes are okay to use, and when they should be avoided.agree.

* Etc. that's loose.

The undocumented vrotr according to which drivers actually operate should not be confused with the documented legal vehicle code to which drivers must technically adhere in order to avoid getting a citation. There is a lot of overlap, of course, but they are not one and the same........
For the record, this where our paths part.
If a cyclist is not following the law, he or she is not riding using vehicular cycling techniques. Call it Adaptive Cycling or whatever the latest buzz word du'jour is, because it's not VC.

For the record, this where our paths part.
If a cyclist is not following the law, he or she is not riding using vehicular cycling techniques. Call it Adaptive Cycling or whatever the latest buzz word du'jour is, because it's not VC.

Disclaimer: The statement above, that I agree with 100%, was not coerced by Chipcom Man telepathy, threats of bodily harm, kidnapping of family members, offers of free pie or sexual favors by me or any other member. ;)

I like free pie and sexual favors.

:beer:

The undocumented vrotr according to which drivers actually operate should not be confused with the documented legal vehicle code...

I don't think this is useful, HH.

Effective communication depends upon shared understandings of the meanings of the terms we use. Especially when those meanings are formally and/or legally defined, I think it makes sense to adhere to them. That is the case with the ROTR.

Perhaps it would make more sense to talk about "typical" or "usual" behavior. Or something like that...

this thread should be titled;

"Some of helmet head's adaptive cycling techniques" it's NOT a compendium of VC definitions.

Maybe the mods would be better off deleting this thread entirely.

The undocumented vrotr according to which drivers actually operate should not be confused with the documented legal vehicle code...
I don't think this is useful, HH.
Whether you think it's useful or not, do you agree it's true that the rules drivers actually drive by are not the same as the documented legal vehicle code?


Effective communication depends upon shared understandings of the meanings of the terms we use. Especially when those meanings are formally and/or legally defined, I think it makes sense to adhere to them. That is the case with the ROTR. The vast majority of drivers have never looked at the vehicle code. As far as shared understandings of the meanings of terms, the vehicle code refers to residential streets as highways; the vast majority of drivers do not.


Perhaps it would make more sense to talk about "typical" or "usual" behavior. Or something like that... Perhaps. The point is, what it is that they follow, it ain't the letter of the vehicle code. It can't be, because they only have a vague idea of what the vehicle code says.

HH,

... because I asked there be a clear definition of what a VC thread os ...

How can the answer to this question be anything other than "a VC thread is a thread that pertains to VC." That pretty much has to be true regardless of what "VC" represents. If you want somethign better isn't it necessary to state what VC is?

I like free pie and sexual favors.

:beer:

If this is what VC is all about, I'm all for it! Are we doin' in in the road?

this thread should be titled;

"Some of helmet head's adaptive cycling techniques" it's NOT a compodium of VC definitions.

Maybe the mods would be better off deleting this thread entirely.

+1.

I see it more as HH attempting to frame the debate to suit his purposes (something that many of his posts and "polls" attempt to do).

Whether you think it's useful or not, do you agree it's true that the rules drivers actually drive by are not the same as the documented legal vehicle code?

Why wouldn't they be the same rules? The fact that people ignore or break rules does not mean they are making/following new ones, it just means that they are chosing to not follow the current ones. What a silly thing... do you really believe that people have their own "rules" when driving??



The vast majority of drivers have never looked at the vehicle code. As far as shared understandings of the meanings of terms, the vehicle code refers to residential streets as highways; the vast majority of drivers do not.

I'm sure they have, a vast majority that is. It is a prerequisite of obtaining an operators permit in most states, thus "vast majority". Maybe they do not look in depthly as some others, especially those of us (those of you) who chose to use these rules as a shield when it suits and chose to ignore them when it suits as well, but they have looked at them.



Perhaps. The point is, what it is that they follow, it ain't the letter of the vehicle code. It can't be, because they only have a vague idea of what the vehicle code says.
And I doubt that any cyclist follows the letter of the law when riding a bike as well. I know that I for one do not have a bell on my bike, which is required by law, and sometimes I break the 15mph speed limit on the MUP. Do you think I am the only one? Do you expect us to believe that you follow the letter of the law. Barney Fife??? Is that you?? And if you did not have easy access to "the letter of the code" via internet, could you tell us "word for word" what each and every law is? I don't think so Mr. Fife.

Whether you think it's useful or not, do you agree it's true that the rules drivers actually drive by are not the same as the documented legal vehicle code?

I think I understand your point, but I would say it somewhat differently. For the sake of clarity, I think it is better to speak of variations in understanding of, and compliance with, the ROTR, rather than attempt to define an alternative ROTR to describe actual behavior.


The vast majority of drivers have never looked at the vehicle code. As far as shared understandings of the meanings of terms, the vehicle code refers to residential streets as highways; the vast majority of drivers do not.

Perhaps. The point is, what it is that they follow, it ain't the letter of the vehicle code. It can't be, because they only have a vague idea of what the vehicle code says.

Generally, they have read interpretations and distillations of the provisions of the vehicle code(s) that appear in manuals and booklets provided by DMV, driver education courses, etc. They also learn about it through public service advertising, contact with law enforcement, media stories, discussion with family members and others in our society and, importantly, observing the actions of other road users. It's not that they are following an alternate version of the ROTR, it's that their understanding(s) of the ROTR are indirect, imperfect, filtered, etc.

It's not that they are following an alternate version of the ROTR, it's that their understanding(s) of the ROTR are indirect, imperfect, filtered, etc.On the one hand, the closer a road user's behavior is to that called out for in the ROTR, the better their behavior can be predicted by other road users.

On the other hand, some of the ROTR (which vary by jurisdiction) are so flawed and/or unfair that a road user who behaves differently can be better off while not increasing the danger.

Wasn't there a Seinfeld episode where it was determined that sex is an act between two people, not between a man and a sandwich? I think pie would be included in this observation.

On the one hand, the closer a road user's behavior is to that called out for in the ROTR, the better their behavior can be predicted by other road users.

On the other hand, some of the ROTR (which vary by jurisdiction) are so flawed and/or unfair that a road user who behaves differently can be better off while not increasing the danger.


Agreed.

does that mean NOT riding according to the rules of the road? how can ROTR be flawed and unfair? don't the ROTR codify rules of the road? do you mean like not exceeding speed limits, stopping at stop signs,

or is this more poppycock about how bikes are discriminated against by 'slow vehicles as far right as practicable except exclusions' language?

ADAPTIVE cycling technique?

Agreed.

Brian's "working definition" thread has helped me come up with a slightly different presentation of what vehicular cycling means to me. I'm open to comments, questions and suggestions...

The vehicular rules of the road, or the vrotr, are the rules of the road according to which drivers operate their vehicles on roadways, as opposed to the pedestrian rules of the road, which pedestrians follow.

The undocumented vrotr according to which drivers actually operate should not be confused with the documented legal vehicle code to which drivers must technically adhere in order to avoid getting a citation. There is a lot of overlap, of course, but they are not one and the same. Few drivers have ever even glanced at a vehicle code, much less studied every vehicle code for every jurisdiction in which they have driven. Instead, the vrotr that each driver follows are learned by most drivers through a combination of experience, common sense, driver training, and reviewing (skimming) the driver's manual every 4-8 years. Therefore each driver has his own personal undocumented informal idea of what the vrotr are, but the main principles are understood by all (keep to the right, obey the speed limit, obey traffic controls, slower traffic keeps right, etc., etc.).

The vehicular rules of the road encompass the rules of the road that govern drivers of slow moving vehicles as well.

Vehicular Cycling (VC) is a set of practices, techniques and skills used to ride a bicycle on roadways in accordance to the vehicular rules of the road, including the vehicular rules of the road that govern drivers of slow moving vehicles. It is distinguished from traffic cycling practices that are blatantly in conflict with the vrotr.

Basic VC (BVC) is the collection of VC techniques, skills and practices most experienced cyclists already use, but most novices need to learn, such as:

* Ride on the right half of the road, with vehicular traffic.
* Obey traffic control.
* Use hand signals before turning.
* Use lights/reflectors at night.
* Use speed positioning between intersections, including riding in the margins.
* Use destination positioning at intersections and their approaches.
* Turning left by waiting for a gap before merging left.
* Etc.

Advanced VC (AVC) is the collection of VC techniques, skills and practices few experienced cyclists already utilize, at least not consistently, and almost all novices have not learned, such as:

* Using negotiation to create gaps.
* Merging left one lane at a time.
* Signaling using look backs.
* Being able to look back for more than a fraction of a second without riding off course.
* Using assertive "centerish" lane positioning to discourage lane sharing/squeezing when the lane is too narrow to be safely shared.
* Using assertive "centerish" lane positioning to improve sight lines and conspicuity when safe and reasonable to do so.
* Recognizing when traffic behind needs a hint about what to do, and providing it appropriately and effectively.
* Recognizing when and where bike lanes are okay to use, and when they should be avoided.
* Etc.

Is this useful or helpful? Confusing?

Comments? Questions? Suggestions? I'm going to revise the definitions provided in the OP by incorporating some of the suggestions in this thread.
In particular, i think I need to move away from the "in accordance with the vehicular rules of the road" because so many people seem to insist on interpreting that as "following the letter of the law".

This post will serve to preserve "Revision 1.0".

What's the point of this thread (other than for HH to control the debate and pontificate)?

There's already a perfectly adequate definition of Vehicular Cycling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicular_cycling) on Wikipedia (including references, footnotes, and a bibliography...and, lacking an "axe to grind" :rolleyes:).

This thread might make sense if HH had some professional bona fides in the subject area (e.g., a PhD in traffic management, experience as a state or regional cycling coordinator, board member of LAB, etc.)...but, clearly he doesn't.

In the absence of qualifications, and with a perfectly acceptable definition already available, I recommend locking this thread, or changing the title to "Helmet Head's VC Definitions".

Published Definitions of Vehicular Cycling

http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/bikebooks.htm
Traffic operates according to rational principles (five being most important), and the traffic laws for drivers of vehicles follow these principles. Cyclists who operate in accordance with the traffic laws for drivers of vehicles (which is what the law requires) encounter few problems and have a low accident rate. This is the vehicular-cycling principle: "Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles."

http://www.johnforester.com/
Vehicular cycling, so named because you are acting as the driver of a vehicle, just as the traffic laws require, is faster and more enjoyable....

http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/vehicular.pdf
The term 'Vehicular Cycling' comes from America, but the phenomenon that it describes is intrinsically British. It describes the style of cycling whereby cyclists ride as part of the general traffic mix, enjoying the same rights as the drivers of other vehicles and accepting the same responsibilities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicular_cycling
Vehicular cycling, or VC, is the practice of driving bicycles on roads in a manner which is visible, predictable, and in accordance with the principles for driving a vehicle in traffic.

http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/sciencepolitics1/page6.html
Bicycle Driving, A.K.A. Vehicular Cycling - A bicycle driver follows the vehicular Rules of the Road in order to safely and efficiently take advantage of the convenience of facilities designed for vehicular travel. The bicycle driver knows that she is an equal user of the roadway, and acts like it, cooperating with other drivers and asserting herself where necessary. Cycling down a street with wide lanes, she uses the right side of the lane to allow overtaking vehicles to pass easily, then looks behind to merge with traffic when approaching an intersection, and smoothly moves into the middle of the left turn lane in preparation for a left turn. She patiently awaits a green light before proceeding, looking carefully for other road users whose paths may conflict with hers as she turns. The bicycle driver cycles down a side street taking care to stay four feet away from parked cars in order to avoid being doored. On a street with lanes that are too narrow to safely share side-by side with a motorist, she drives in the middle of the lane to provide herself room to maneuver and to avoid being squeezed off the road. When traveling straight through an intersection, she uses the through lane, never the right-turn lane, and does not pass on the right side of other drivers who might turn right. On narrow two-lane roads with heavy traffic in each direction, she occasionally pulls off the road to disperse traffic if and when it backs up behind her. When cycling at night, she equips her bicycle with a white headlight in front and a bright red reflector, and perhaps a red light, on the back.

and a vehicular cyclist will use a bike lane when safe and reasonable to do so!

...funny that the definition provided by bicycle transport about 'bicycle driving' DOESN'T describe bicycling on a road with a bike lane stripe....

and on roads with lanes classed for specific types of vehicles, a bike follows the rules of the road for that stretch of roadway. sometimes using a right turn only lane for proceeding straight thru an intersection, IF the lane is classed for "Right turns only, except buses and bicycles"

...very interesting.....

Steve Goodridge and Bruce Rosar are both 'founding members' of the north carolina 'bicycle driving' coalition that is responsible for the bicycle transport.org clabberworks. interesting. public knowledge, not often mentioned in bike forums....

...very interesting.....

Steve Goodridge and Bruce Rosar are both 'founding members' of the north carolina 'bicycle driving' coalition that is responsible for the bicycle transport.org clabberworks. interesting. public knowledge, not often mentioned in bike forums....

What's more, I took Bruce Rosar's LAB Road 1 course several years ago (he's an LCI) and at the end of this week I'm taking a seminar to become an LCI myself. Bruce and I are members and officers of the same bike club, and we both like to participate with one another in casual rides with family and beginning cyclists as well as century rides.

steve, your definitions of vehicular cycling on your bicycle driving website are incomplete and innaccurate. see my post #29.

What's more, I took Bruce Rosar's LAB Road 1 course several years ago (he's an LCI) and at the end of this week I'm taking a seminar to become an LCI myself. Bruce and I are members and officers of the same bike club, and we both like to participate with one another in casual rides with family and beginning cyclists as well as century rides.
Bruce may be the greatest guy on Earth; and may be the smartest, bestest bicycling instructor anywhere. In fact I'm sure he's a good guy. But, some of the stuff he writes though, especially his unique interpretations and applications of Constitutional Law IRT to bike lanes; wheh, something else!

I added this Strict VC section to the OP:


Strict VC is strict adherence to VC while riding a bicycle. It means never riding on sidewalks, never doing a 2-step left turn, never taking a short cut through a parking lot, never mountain biking, never rolling a stop (a.k.a California Stop), never riding on bike paths, etc. There are no known adherents or proponents of Strict VC, though some VC contrarians have been known to mischaracterize VC advocates as such.

Comments? Suggestions?

I removed the following paragraph from the OP, because it seemed to cause more confusion than anything else:




The undocumented vrotr according to which drivers actually operate should not be confused with the documented legal vehicle code to which drivers must technically adhere in order to avoid getting a citation. There is a lot of overlap, of course, but they are not one and the same. Few drivers have ever even glanced at a vehicle code, much less studied every vehicle code for every jurisdiction in which they have driven. Instead, the vrotr that each driver follows are learned by most drivers through a combination of experience, common sense, driver training, and reviewing (skimming) the driver's manual every 4-8 years. Therefore each driver has his own personal undocumented informal idea of what the vrotr are, but the main principles are understood by all (keep to the right, obey the speed limit, obey traffic controls, slower traffic keeps right, etc., etc.).

There are no known adherents or proponents of Strict VC, though some VC contrarians have been known to mischaracterize VC advocates as such.

Comments? Suggestions?
I'm offering a $100 reward to anyone who can identify a Strict VC adherent, to the satisfaction of a consensus of participants in this thread.:)

Bruce may be the greatest guy on Earth; and may be the smartest, bestest bicycling instructor anywhere. In fact I'm sure he's a good guy. But, some of the stuff he writes though, especially his unique interpretations and applications of Constitutional Law IRT to bike lanes; wheh, something else!

Honestly, I don't follow everything he writes, but Bruce is the one who introduced me to the comparison of the "vehicular cycling" paradigm to the "pedestrian on wheels" paradigm. The explicit identification of these paradigms, and the resulting analysis of how people (cyclists, police, transportation engineers, lawmakers) act depending on which one they are using, was a great revelation to me. All my prior experiences with cycling on roads versus sidewalks, and my observations of others behavior, suddenly made a lot more sense. This is why I think these models are useful for discussion about cycling.

I added this Strict VC section to the OP:


Strict VC is strict adherence to VC while riding a bicycle. It means never riding on sidewalks, never doing a 2-step left turn, never taking a short cut through a parking lot, never mountain biking, never rolling a stop (a.k.a California Stop), never riding on bike paths, etc. There are no known adherents or proponents of Strict VC, though some VC contrarians have been known to mischaracterize VC advocates as such.

Comments? Suggestions?

Why bother? As has been pointed out above, there are already a number of other, generally accepted definitions of VC available on the internet. The one on Wikipedia has been vetted by its community of editors, and the others are by generally acknowledged authorities on the subject.

Why should we care about your definition when those other definitions are readily available and much more authoritative than yours?

This is why I think these models are useful for discussion about cycling.
Models are useful for discussion, sure, I agree. But Bruce's constant repetition of his unique interpretations of law IRT to bicycling as if his interpretations were derived from sacred tablets of stone are not discussion. IMO, more like chanting mantra.

steve, your definitions of vehicular cycling on your bicycle driving website are incomplete and innaccurate. see my post #29.

There aren't enough well-designed bike lanes in all of North Carolina to bother mentioning them in a single page devoted to explaining safer and more efficient cycling on the roads we have. Other issues like staying out of the door zone, using the proper part of the roadway at junctions, and using lights at night are more important to highlight.

Using a striped bike lane when it is free of debris and routed reasonably belongs somewhere between paying for ferry rides and being careful not to get chain grease on other patrons when bringing a folding bike on a bus.

Models are useful for discussion, sure, I agree. But Bruce's constant repetition of his unique interpretations of law IRT to bicycling as if his interpretations were derived from sacred tablets of stone are not discussion. IMO, more like chanting mantra.

Well, at least you aren't accusing us of all thinking and talking the same way....

Why bother? As has been pointed out above, there are already a number of other, generally accepted definitions of VC available on the internet. The one on Wikipedia has been vetted by its community of editors, and the others are by generally acknowledged authorities on the subject.

Why should we care about your definition when those other definitions are readily available and much more authoritative than yours?
I can't even begin to tell you why this cracks me up so much. Maybe I will in a PM.

I think it's helpful to differentiate between "basic" and "advanced" VC. The other definitions tend to mix them all up. More importantly, when people write about VC, sometimes them mean basic VC, sometimes they mean basic+advance, sometimes they mean just advanced. If we achieve acceptance for these clarified terms, perhaps they will be adopted in wider circles.

Besides that, the term "strict VC", has been bandied about here lately, and I think it's useful to use it to differentiate between real and imagined VC advocates.

I can't even begin to tell you why this cracks me up so much. Maybe I will in a PM.

I think it's helpful to differentiate between "basic" and "advanced" VC. The other definitions tend to mix them all up. More importantly, when people write about VC, sometimes them mean basic VC, sometimes they mean basic+advance, sometimes they mean just advanced. If we achieve acceptance for these clarified terms, perhaps they will be adopted in wider circles.

Besides that, the term "strict VC", has been bandied about here lately, and I think it's useful to use it to differentiate between real and imagined VC advocates.

Oh...I get it. You want to split hairs and pontificate on a subject in which you have no acknowledged qualifications. OK, then. :rolleyes:

Oh...I get it. You want to split hairs and pontificate on a subject in which you have no acknowledged qualifications. OK, then. :rolleyes:
Most terms are created by folks who have no acknowledged qualifications. Those that catch on, catch on. Those that don't, don't.

I happen to believe that people use the term VC rather loosely in various contexts, meaning different things with the same term depending on the context. Because the same term is used, there is often confusion. I believe some of this might be alleviated if we adopted more specific terms (basic vc, advanced vc, strict vc) with more specific meanings. We'll see. For now, I'm going to use these new terms (and I didn't even come up with "strict vc"), and will refer anyone who asks about what I mean to the OP of this thread.

Basic VC (BVC) is the collection of VC techniques, skills and practices most experienced cyclists already use, but
...
* Recognize that door zones should be avoided.


Advanced VC (AVC) is the collection of VC techniques, skills and practices few experienced cyclists already utilize, at least not consistently, and almost all novices have not learned, such as:
...
* Avoiding door zones by habitually riding at least five feet from the edge of parked vehicles.

I forgot to mention that I added these two points about door zones under BVC and AVC.

Without mentioning any specific members, I've seen some who describe their riding as vc, and acknowledge the door zone, but don't seem to fully appreciate it. That difference is what I tried to capture above.

Comments? Questions?

I can't even begin to tell you why this cracks me up so much. Maybe I will in a PM.


I can see why, since you contributed to the wiki definitions, as just about anyone else can. Indeed, why are you so concerned with drafing a definition here...don't they let you contribute to the wiki anymore?

Again, what I'm defining here are new terms with specific meaning that are not widely accepted. Such cutting edge terms and definitions would belong in Wikipedia only if they gained wide acceptance. Whether they have the utility to achieve wide acceptance is still to be determined.

The reason I believe they have utility is because of ambiguity in meaning of "vehicular cycling", and how often it is interpreted, for example, to mean what I define in the OP as "advanced vc" when what is really intended is "basic vc", vice versa, and etc.

I forgot to mention that I added these two points about door zones under BVC and AVC.

Without mentioning any specific members, I've seen some who describe their riding as vc, and acknowledge the door zone, but don't seem to fully appreciate it. That difference is what I tried to capture above.

Comments? Questions?

I think it's as important as acknowledging the difference between 1. riding the same direction as traffic and 2. riding in a lane controlling position in the same direction as traffic. It's "advanced" because even a new cyclist should be easily convinced that it's better to ride with traffic and similarly easily convinced that car doors opening in your path are a hazard to be concerned about, but it will be more difficult, and sometimes impossible without actual on-road experience, to get them to see the benefit of the advanced techniques.

I think it's as important as acknowledging the difference between 1. riding the same direction as traffic and 2. riding in a lane controlling position in the same direction as traffic. It's "advanced" because even a new cyclist should be easily convinced that it's better to ride with traffic and similarly easily convinced that car doors opening in your path are a hazard to be concerned about, but it will be more difficult, and sometimes impossible without actual on-road experience, to get them to see the benefit of the advanced techniques. Scary. Sometimes your posts make ME wonder if we're socketpuppets of the same person. :eek:

Seriously, my tendency is to fault the way I write for others' inability to get what I mean, but that flies in the face of your ability to almost always understand anything I write so quickly and accurately.

How are you at grokking (http://m-w.com/dictionary/grokking) Unix man pages?

How are you at grokking (http://grokking) Unix man pages?

Not sure where your link was supposed to point to but I learned a new word looking at the Wikipedia article. I'd say I'm about as good at grokking Unix man pages as you are at 3D modelling (unless you have another mechanical engineering job).