I believe if you go back and read his responses you'll see that Mr. Forester is saying something completely different. He interprets both the UVC and the local statute to mean the lane line is essentially irrelevant. Since the lane-splitter doesn't take up two lanes at once--doesn't even take up one lane--he/she satisfies the local statute and all that is required is 'sufficient width.' What Mr. Forester is saying in his posts here is the same thing he's been saying for 30 years: the lack of a lane line within a marked lane between two lines of traffic that can safely share that lane side-by-side is irrelevant. But he's never said or implied anything anywhere meaning that the stripe separating two marked lanes is irrelevant (EDIT: ignoring the special case of the bike "lane" stripe which is not considered by Forester or vehicular-cycling to be a real "lane", but treated like a shoulder stripe which cyclists but not motorists are generally allowed to travel on and cross). I continue to be astonished by how much someone who wrote a book criticizing what Mr. Forester has written as much as your book does has such a difficult time understanding what he says.

That’s what he’s saying, now think about what you are saying. You are saying that a position where you are just barely within the lane is as properly VC as any other VC position, but one inch to the left of that and suddenly you’re non-vc. Then a few inches further left and you’re back to vc again. That seems pretty silly. The whole thing is massively silly. Silly? First, it's the law. "A vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practical entirely within a single lane".
http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21658.htm

I think the reasons are obvious. If you think it's silly, I can't help you.

Second, it's not a matter of a few inches. To be entirely within a lane, your tire must be one foot to the left or right of the lane stripe. To be vehicular, if you're 2' wide, the only time your wheels should be within one foot of the lane stripe is when you're changing lanes. That's not a difference of a few inches, that's a difference of two feet.

Back to Reality. If anybody happens to be riding this way—probably shouldn’t—through a narrow, say 3’-4’ range gap between lines of moving vehicles, please don’t think about staying entirely within one lane or another to remain ‘vc’. You’ll want to ride pretty much midway between those vehicles at any given point, regardless of lane lines. That’s the safest way to do it, if you were to do it, which you probably shouldn’t. Well, first, I wouldn't think of it as riding between two lines of stopped cars. I think of it in terms of sharing one lane or another with a car (that was certainly the case in the scenario I described earlier). If it's not wide enough to do that safely (and of course slowly), then, yes, don't do it. And if you do, it's definitely not vehicular-cycling.

You’ve got a strange conception of the whole dooring thing. Hitting a suddenly open door -->at speed<-- is going to be a shockingly violent and horrible experience even if you don’t get run over by passing traffic. Who said anything about at speed? I'm saying if you're passing a car stopped in traffic on the left within the same lane, if the traffic in the adjacent lane is stopped too, then it's reasonable safe to pass while in the door zone, if you do it slowly.

You’re going to hit your bike, the door, the window, then the street. Likelihood of injury is high. Broken collarbone, broken arms, broken face, laceration of legs or face, head injury. Cycling causes so few fatalities, through any mechanism, that it could be argued and has been argued convincingly that the potential deadliness of cycling is not even worth considering. But doorings—just a door and a bike—put a lot of people into ambulances and hospitals. You’ll want to avoid that if you can. Agreed.

I don’t know where you got all of that. I don’t consider any door zones a serious threat to slow-moving cyclists. Slow-moving. As I wrote in Art of [Urban] Cycling, “There are times when a little foray into the DZ can be helpful, but the DZ-cruising cyclist needs to slow enough that a collision with a door would be noncatastrophic.”
You seem to be questioning why slow riding in door zones of parked cars is dangerous when traffic in the adjacent lane is moving. Have you heard of Dana Laird? If not, you might want to google her name along with door zone bike lane.

At slow speeds hitting the door is not the problem. The door hitting the bars and causing you to lose control is the problem. Your tire could be 4' from the side of a parked car riding at 2 mph when the 3.5' door suddenly opens and clips your right bar end (which is 3' from the car), twisting your bars left and causing you to instantly fall to your left, into traffic. Think about it. The bus probably ran over Dana Laird before she had a chance to realize what happened.

But riding fast between lanes when traffic is stopped? Not helpful. Ultimately very unhelpful to one’s well-being. And not just because of the double door zones.
Agreed.

What's next? Declare that Einstein incorrectly referred to his theory as the "General Theory of Relativity"?...
?!?!?! do you have any idea what you are talking about?

Note that bike lanes don't alleviate the problems in any of these situations at all, and, arguably, make some of them worse.

While I tend to agree with this last statement, overall the sub issue at hand was how "bikable" streets are when the focus is on autos, and cyclists are left out of the picture. This also goes hand in hand with the general motoring public not being aware of our rights, and certainly road engineers et. al. not designing roads that are easily shared... such as the freeway-like examples that Diane gave.

While bike lanes do not solve this issue at all, demanding that road engineers come up with solutions that include cyclists (and not just high milage, high speed voluntary cyclists) as part of the transportation structure, is a worthy goal of cycling advocates... along with informing the public that cyclists are part of (have rights to the road) the overall picture and that a bicycle is green alternative to driving the gas guzzler down to 7-11.

As long as the average motorist hardly feels safe "driving" down the road, they will quite willingly embrace the "phobias" and refuse to bike down the road. When the average citizen understands that they can "arrive" nearly as easily by bike as by car, (and the economics of gas continue in the current trend) then there would hardly be a reason not to bike.

I continue to be astonished by how much someone who wrote a book criticizing what Mr. Forester has written as much as your book does has such a difficult time understanding what he says.

Maybe you are refering to a different book... the one I read hardly critisized Forester's writings... it mearly offered a realistic updated picture of how to ride a bike in a typical urban environment. It was a good, easy to understand read, complete with actual scenerios including what-if analysis of the author's own incidents.

Forester on the other hand wrote a ghastly ego centric "tech manual" that while containing core general truth, is about as dated and as readable as a DOS 3.0 user and installation guide.

While I tend to agree with this last statement, overall the sub issue at hand was how "bikable" streets are when the focus is on autos, and cyclists are left out of the picture. This also goes hand in hand with the general motoring public not being aware of our rights, and certainly road engineers et. al. not designing roads that are easily shared... such as the freeway-like examples that Diane gave.
There are certainly situations that are more challenging to be navigated by drivers of slow moving vehicles which such drivers are probably best served by avoiding them if possible, or, in the case of novice cyclists, reverting to pedestrian rules, if not avoidable.

Again, these are the types of situations which all bike/cycling advocates, including vc advocates like myself, work to discourage the implementation of and encourage the elimination of. If there is any common ground between bike and cycling advocates, this is it. In addition, cycling advocates like myself, but generally not bike advocates, work to encourage cyclists to learn the principles and skills required to safely and easily navigate these situations.

While bike lanes do not solve this issue at all, demanding that road engineers come up with solutions that include cyclists (and not just high milage, high speed voluntary cyclists) as part of the transportation structure, is a worthy goal of cycling advocates... along with informing the public that cyclists are part of (have rights to the road) the overall picture and that a bicycle is green alternative to driving the gas guzzler down to 7-11.

Agreed. You know I do this. You know, for example, that I recently worked to widen a certain long intersectionless stretch of bike lane on a posted 45 mph road. By the way, that worked - the repaving is done and the new bike lanes are now of standard width. Of course, the new bike lane "stripe", just like the old one did, still parallels the road edge, not the stripe of the adjacent lane, like real lanes do. Anyway, you also know this bike lane widening will not affect how I ride on this 1.5 mile stretch of road in any manner.

As long as the average motorist hardly feels safe "driving" down the road, they will quite willingly embrace the "phobias" and refuse to bike down the road. When the average citizen understands that they can "arrive" nearly as easily by bike as by car, (and the economics of gas continue in the current trend) then there would hardly be a reason not to bike.
Now you're getting into an area that can only be addressed by driver/cyclist education. Road engineering solutions are very limited in their ability to address issues of driver/cyclist poor skills and irrational fears.

......(Robert Hurst) offered a realistic updated picture of how to ride a bike in a typical urban environment. It was a good, easy to understand read, complete with actual scenerios including what-if analysis of the author's own incidents.

Forester on the other hand wrote a ghastly ego centric "tech manual" that while containing core general truth, is about as dated and as readable as a DOS 3.0 user and installation guide.

I'd agree. +1

and another thread turns into a helmet fred diatribe against bike infrastructure.

Maybe you are refering to a different book... the one I read hardly critisized Forester's writings... What I mean by Hurst criticizing Forester's writings is Hurst criticizes vehicular-cycling (a term which Forester coined and a set of principles and practices he describes in his writings).

Technically you're correct, Hurst doesn't criticize Forester's writings per se because he hardly quotes Forester at all. His approach is much more insidious, which is probably why you and so many missed it. What he does is refer to vehicular-cycling throughout the book in critical ways, without ever defining exactly what he means by it (much less by showing that he understands what Forester means by it). But close analysis shows that Hurst's criticisms are based on a consistent misunderstanding of what Forester means by vehicular-cycling. The type of misunderstanding has been exemplified in this thread, first by Hurst insisting that vehicular-cycling does not allow for lane-splitting (which Forester corrected), and most recently by Hurst's misapplying Forester's advice about ignoring bike lane stripes and recognizing the right of all drivers to safely share marked lanes to mean that Forester is saying "the [marked] lane line [even between two real traffic lanes] is essentially irrelevant". That's an absurd application of what Forester said.

Now, if you or Bek or any other ordinary member here made such a mistake, that would be one thing. But I hold Hurst to a higher standard, because he wrote a book criticizing vehicular-cycling. And if you didn't realize Hurst's book criticizes (Robert's misunderstanding of) vehicular-cycling, you make my point, and should read it again. I'm sure Robert would not disagree with me on any of this last sentence, except possibly with the parenthetic remark. But hopefully he's coming around on how much he misunderstands regarding what Forester means and has always meant by vehicular-cycling.

EDIT: It's interesting to me how some people seem to "get it" with respect to VC, and some people don't. And I don't mean the advocates get it and the critics don't. There are critics of VC who clearly get it. One such critic that comes to mind is our own JRA. Despite all his railings against Forester, me and what he refers to as VC (the advocacy and philosophy), everything he has ever written about what he refers to as "vc" (the practices and techniques) is consistent with Forester's meaning as I understand it. Another example of a Forester critic who clearly "gets is" is Jeffrey Hiles (google for his name and the title of his paper, "Listening to bike lanes").


... it mearly offered a realistic updated picture of how to ride a bike in a typical urban environment. It was a good, easy to understand read, complete with actual scenerios including what-if analysis of the author's own incidents.
I agree Hurst's book is that too.

head:
splitting lanes at a stoplight after the light has turned green for personal expediency is NOT vehicular. stop your delusions, dude.

all drivers have the 'right' to 'safely share' marked lanes? What are you talking about???? do you think this is a common vehicular operation at stoplights?

I think you've been taking advantage of your bicycle as a bicycle, dude, and riding in an adaptive manner when you split lanes at a traffic light. after the light has turned green.

what does the standard vehicular riding advice say in the situation of pulling up on a short line of stopped traffic as the light turns green? Blow thru the stopped cars, splitting lanes?

you foresterites are a bunch of jokers. you may try to use sophistry to prove your views, but the reality of splitting lanes at traffic lights is NOT 'vehicular' in the general sense. it's an advanced adaptive technique.

i thought this thread was about comparing odious, poorly written, out of print diatribes by John Forester with Robert Hursts' well written, concise, useful book about traffic cycling.

What's next? Declare that Einstein incorrectly referred to his theory as the "General Theory of Relativity"?...

?!?!?! do you have any idea what you are talking about?
Yes.

I am comparing the absuridity of disagreeing with John Forester on the meaning of vehicular-cycling (who coined the phrase and described it in his book Effective Cycling) with disagreeing with Albert Einstein on the meaning of his "General Theory of Relativity"

No, you don't. :D

Good God, these threads are like train wrecks that I am inexorably drawn to looking at, then hating myself for it afterwards.

Now, if you or Bek or any other ordinary member here made such a mistake, that would be one thing. But I hold Hurst to a higher standard, because he wrote a book criticizing vehicular-cycling. And if you didn't realize Hurst's book criticizes (Robert's misunderstanding of) vehicular-cycling, you make my point, and should read it again. I'm sure Robert would not disagree with me on any of this last sentence, except possibly with the parenthetic remark. But hopefully he's coming around on how much he misunderstands regarding what Forester means and has always meant by vehicular-cycling.



I think if anything, Hurst's book critisizes the ideal of Forester's view of Vehicular Cycling, which is exemplified here by Forester's commentary regarding the understanding of "motoring groups" (paraphrased) and thus the implication of motorists, of the rights of cyclists to use the road in a similar means as any motor vehicle driver would. Forester also choses to idealize the cyclist in the form of the voluntary professional that tends to be a high milage and relatively high speed cyclist; this group he embraces while eschewing the hordes of utility cyclists that none the less make up the majority of cyclists on the street.

Hurst merely pontificates upon the realities of cycling, lending to a general VC style, but admiting to the limitions of the real world, and in fact going so far as to embrace time honored "tricks" to ease the dichotomy between human powered vehicles and overpowered motor vehicles... such as the "false right turn" to cross a street.

Forester admits no dichomoty between vehicle types and assures the reader that his method is perfectly sensable in spite of the obvious issues of speed differential and general lack of acceptance of human powered devices by the motoring public.

The argument certainly is not worth a bit of comfort, not when the price is making cycling more complicated and difficult, and therefore more dangerous.
This might be true if cyclists operated at the speed of traffic, say 25 to 50 mph, but since most cycling is done at approximately 7 to 15 mph, in reality no practical complications or difficulties for cyclists are added, althoug there are added complications for motorists. Ironically, therefore, all of your arguments and proposals would appear to be motorist-biased. Don't you think that motorists can learn to deal with cyclist-specific infrastucture, or do you really think motorists are either too stupid or stubborn to do so?

Good God, these threads are like train wrecks that I am inexorably drawn to looking at, then hating myself for it afterwards.
It could be worse. At least you don't feel a sense of obligation to read them.

The folks who constantly attack John Forester's ideas for riding safely in urban traffic have one thing in common: not ONE of them demonstrates that they have closely read, studied, and thought about the techniques he details on pages 246 to 367 of "Effective Cycling". This 120 page section carefully looks at the causes of injuries to urban cyclists, and shows cyclists techniques that will to reduce injuries to a minimum after a cyclist have studied them and practiced them.

Several of Forester's critics have posted HUNDREDS of times in "Bike Forums" without demonstrating even a casual knowledge of those 120 pages. I guess guys who spend so much time typing simply have no time left for reading, thinking, or learning.

Mr. Hurst's book is valuable, because Mr. Hurst understands how the mentality of urban drivers in 2007 works. Twenty years ago, most motorists were unskilled, but the majority at least pretended to want to drive safely. Today, the urban motorists I see are too busy drinking coffee, talking on the phone, looking in the back seat for their CD case, or putting on make-up to bother paying attention to their driving.

Mr. Forester's philosophy seems predicated on a belief that the driver in the car behind you was actually looking at the road, and cared whether he ran over something or someone. Mr. Hurst's book reflects the 2007 reality: there may be a warm body in the vehicle behind you, but odds are that warm body is not a skilled, or attentive driver.

In 2007, I assume the worst: the guy behind me either does not see me, or he sees me and doesn't care whether he hits me, or he sees me and is very hopeful he will hit me. At least in Houston Texas, inner city roads are a war zone, and cyclists have to be mentally prepared for war when they get on their bike.

Mr. Hurst's book is valuable, because Mr. Hurst understands how the mentality of urban drivers in 2007 works. Twenty years ago, most motorists were unskilled, but the majority at least pretended to want to drive safely. Today, the urban motorists I see are too busy drinking coffee, talking on the phone, looking in the back seat for their CD case, or putting on make-up to bother paying attention to their driving.

Mr. Forester's philosophy seems predicated on a belief that the driver in the car behind you was actually looking at the road, and cared whether he ran over something or someone. Mr. Hurst's book reflects the 2007 reality: there may be a warm body in the vehicle behind you, but odds are that warm body is not a skilled, or attentive driver.

In 2007, I assume the worst: the guy behind me either does not see me, or he sees me and doesn't care whether he hits me, or he sees me and is very hopeful he will hit me. At least in Houston Texas, inner city roads are a war zone, and cyclists have to be mentally prepared for war when they get on their bike.
Thank you for helping to make my point (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=4292520&postcount=33).

I think if anything, Hurst's book critisizes the ideal of Forester's view of Vehicular Cycling, which is exemplified here by Forester's commentary regarding the understanding of "motoring groups" (paraphrased) and thus the implication of motorists, of the rights of cyclists to use the road in a similar means as any motor vehicle driver would.
Can you provide a quote or two from Hurst's book, or anything Hurst has ever written, that criticizes Forester or vehicular-cycling for not recognizing or underestimating the problem of motorists not understanding the right of cyclists to use the road?

Can you provide a quote or two from Forester's book, or anything that Forester has written, that refers to defending the rights of cyclists to use the road in a similar means as any motor vehicle driver would? The subtle but critical distinction you are missing, of course, is that in 30+ years Forester is always careful to consistently write about use of the road by cyclists in terms of vehicle drivers, and specifically not motor vehicle drivers, who have additional rights and responsibilities above and beyond those that apply to all drivers of vehicles.

Forester also choses to idealize the cyclist in the form of the voluntary professional that tends to be a high milage and relatively high speed cyclist; this group he embraces while eschewing the hordes of utility cyclists that none the less make up the majority of cyclists on the street.
This is a criticism that Hiles makes. I don't recall Hurst making this criticism. Can you cite a quote?

Hurst merely pontificates upon the realities of cycling, lending to a general VC style, but admiting to the limitions of the real world, and in fact going so far as to embrace time honored "tricks" to ease the dichotomy between human powered vehicles and overpowered motor vehicles... such as the "false right turn" to cross a street.

Forester admits no dichomoty between vehicle types and assures the reader that his method is perfectly sensable in spite of the obvious issues of speed differential and general lack of acceptance of human powered devices by the motoring public.
You really should reread Hurst and Forester, more carefully this time. Do you really not recall the passages in Effective Cycling where Forester writes about the differences between motor vehicles and bikes, and where it matters? For example where he describes when, where and why a 2-step left turn might be appropriate?

As far as the "false right turn" and similar "tricks", that's a separate issue. Dave Glowacz' book is full of those tricks too, which he presents without criticizing vc. This has nothing do with the passages where Hurst criticizes vehicular-cycling. Speaking of Glowacz, there is another example of someone who "gets it" with respect to vehicular cycling (he's an LCI, actually).

... But hopefully he's coming around on how much he misunderstands regarding what Forester means and has always meant by vehicular-cycling.

Please! What I am 'coming around on' is that you can't even sort this out for yourself, and are pretty much making it up as you go along.

R.

I think if anything, Hurst's book critisizes the ideal of Forester's view of Vehicular Cycling, which is exemplified here by Forester's commentary regarding the understanding of "motoring groups" (paraphrased) and thus the implication of motorists, of the rights of cyclists to use the road in a similar means as any motor vehicle driver would. Forester also choses to idealize the cyclist in the form of the voluntary professional that tends to be a high milage and relatively high speed cyclist; this group he embraces while eschewing the hordes of utility cyclists that none the less make up the majority of cyclists on the street.

Hurst merely pontificates upon the realities of cycling, lending to a general VC style, but admiting to the limitions of the real world, and in fact going so far as to embrace time honored "tricks" to ease the dichotomy between human powered vehicles and overpowered motor vehicles... such as the "false right turn" to cross a street.

Forester admits no dichomoty between vehicle types and assures the reader that his method is perfectly sensable in spite of the obvious issues of speed differential and general lack of acceptance of human powered devices by the motoring public.

I think that you should demonstrate the accuracy of your claim that I "idealize the cyclist in the form of the voluntary professional that tends to be a high milage and relatively high speed cyclist; this group he embraces while eschewing the hordes of utility cyclists that none the less make up the majority of cyclists on the street." You made this absurd claim; now demonstrate the illogicality by which you reached it. This will provide considerable illumination to the darkness of this discussion.

Please! What I am 'coming around on' is that you can't even sort this out for yourself, and are pretty much making it up as you go along.

R.
I'm not sorting anything out. Forester sorted it all out in the 1970s.

If I was making it up as I was going along, then what I was describing couldn't be consistent with what Forester has been writing for over 30 years. But it is (according to none other than Forester himself). How do you explain that?

When someone does not understand the underlying principles, or how to apply them in real-world situations, then I'm sure it may appear that anyone who is simply applying the principles is "sorting it out" and "making it up as he goes" along. Yet we can go back to the exact words that I posted about the scenario I was in that started all this, and I stand by every one, just as I first wrote them many pages ago. Nothing that you or anyone else has raised has changed anything in my description. Anyone who understands vc principles and how to apply them, will recognize that what I described is consistent with vehicular-cycling; someone who does not understand the principles or how to apply them may think he sees an inconsistency. This is typical. And, again, it's understandable with VC novices, but with someone who wrote a book that criticizes vehicular-cycling, I expect more.

Here is the original scenario:


I'm northbound on Regents, 4 lanes + bike lanes.
Signal up ahead is red, there are about 7 or 8 cars stopped in the right lane, 2 in the left lane. There are cars behind me, but they have to slow for the light, so I'm in the right lane, not the bike lane. It is tempting to merge into the bike lane and pass on the right. Of course, I don't...

I look back over my left shoulder and merge into the left lane. From that improved vantage point I can see that the first car at the red light in the right lane is positioned to go straight, while the next 4 or 5 cars are all either flashing right or right biased as if they plan to turn right at the light. As I approach the back of the 2nd car in line in the left lane, the light turns green. I'm still rolling, and they're about to go, so I look back over my right shoulder, merge to the right side of the left lane, look back again, and merge to the left side of the left lane, in a lane-sharing position to the left of the right turners. As I pass the 2nd car in line in the right lane (the 1st one turning right), I look back over my right shoulder and merge right, behind the first car who is now accelerating straight through the intersection.


You have unsuccessfully tried to argue all of the following about this:


It is illegal to change lanes within 100' of an intersection (it's not).
Lane-splitting is contrary to vehicular cycling (it is not necessarily, as confirmed by Mr. Forester and the law - a cyclist passing a slow motorist on the left within a wide lane is simply the reverse situation of the more common situation of a motorist passing a slow cyclist on the cyclist's left within a wide lane).
Forester thinks traffic lane stripes are irrelevant.


Dozens of posts later I stand by every word, and continue to contend that the scenario as originally described is legal and is consistent with vehicular-cycling.

By the way, for the record, can you state whether or not your book
contains a significant number of comments and passages critical of Forester and/or vehicular-cycling
describes a method/style/philosophy of cycling that you believe to be significantly different from what you believe to be vehicular-cycling

I think that you should demonstrate the accuracy of your claim that I "idealize the cyclist in the form of the voluntary professional that tends to be a high milage and relatively high speed cyclist; this group he embraces while eschewing the hordes of utility cyclists that none the less make up the majority of cyclists on the street." You made this absurd claim; now demonstrate the illogicality by which you reached it. This will provide considerable illumination to the darkness of this discussion.

Perhaps you'll recall the paper presented to the American Dream Coalition...

http://www.americandreamcoalition.org/forester.pdf

Where you state:

Those who cycle for transportation to any significant extent can be divided into the voluntary and involuntary cyclists. The involuntary cyclists are those who have little other choice for personal transportation. Such are those under driving age, those attending universities where they either do not have cars or where motoring to campus is restricted, those without sufficient money to afford motoring, those unable to obtain or retain a motoringlicence, those who live in the few American urban centers where motoring is very inconvenient.
These are all niches with little significance.

You further go on to identify other groups, one of which voluntary transportation cyclists, whom you charaterize as: voluntary transportational cyclists are more likely to be found among professors, scientists,
engineers, technicians, attorneys, doctors. Voluntary transportational cyclists are less likely than usual to be found among salesmen, preachers,
and politicians.

You go on and point out that the volunatary transportational cyclists tend to use the same primary arterial routes as motorists and that these cyclists are motivated by speed and the enjoyment of cycling. You then focus on the use of a vehicular style which is frequently used by these voluntary cyclists. This focus and the subsequent denial of curb huggers and those other cyclists who apparently “cyclist inferiority superstition” reinforces your opinion of your view that the volunatary transportation cyclists represent the ideal cyclist who "plays" well with the motoring community.

Meanwhile, you deny facilities, and indicate that involuntary cyclists will soon migrate to motor vehicles as soon as possible, while dismissing that void left by involuntary cyclists will quickly be filled with more involuntary cyclists, the best example being the college student population.

You also fail to mention that involuntary cyclists represent the greatest number of cyclists on the road, regardless of their method of road use, be it VC style, curb hugging, bike lane, sidewalk or path seeking.

What Mr. Forester is saying in his posts here is the same thing he's been saying for 30 years: the lack of a lane line within a marked lane between two lines of traffic that can safely share that lane side-by-side is irrelevant. But he's never said or implied anything anywhere meaning that the stripe separating two marked lanes is irrelevant (EDIT: ignoring the special case of the bike "lane" stripe which is not considered by Forester or vehicular-cycling to be a real "lane", but treated like a shoulder stripe which cyclists but not motorists are generally allowed to travel on and cross). I continue to be astonished by how much someone who wrote a book criticizing what Mr. Forester has written as much as your book does has such a difficult time understanding what he says.

This thread has been very enlightening for me. Both you and Forester define the parameters of 'vehicular' in different ways, and yet you both are struggling to define it, ultimately defining it arbitrarily for your own purposes, and lashing out at others whose definitions you don't like. Good stuff.


Silly? First, it's the law. "A vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practical entirely within a single lane".
http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21658.htm

I think the reasons are obvious. If you think it's silly, I can't help you.

Second, it's not a matter of a few inches. To be entirely within a lane, your tire must be one foot to the left or right of the lane stripe. To be vehicular, if you're 2' wide, the only time your wheels should be within one foot of the lane stripe is when you're changing lanes. That's not a difference of a few inches, that's a difference of two feet.

So in this case 'vehicular' is defined by the local statute. And in other cases, the statutes are 'discriminatory' and non-vehicular and should be ignored. Confusion! So ---- when is VC defined by the law? When it's convenient for your argument, that's when.

And you're still saying that one lane-splitting position, just barely in the lane, is 'to be vehicular,' but the position one centimeter to the left of that is totally non-VC. Silly. Arbitrary. Grasp reality: Riding right down the line is the safest position when riding between lanes, unless you're talking about lanes of such vast width that most of us can't even imagine them, which you may very well be. Would you rather be in the safest position or the 'vehicular' position?

This is a good example of how armchair bikeman philosophy geared at opposing bike lanes can get us in trouble in actual street situations. If you happen to be riding between two lanes, people -- and certainly HH should not -- please don't think in terms of remaining entirely within one lane or the other to remain VC or even lawful -- the cops aint gonna buy it and the drivers won't be able to distinguish the subtle, minute differences between HH's VC position and his arbitrary two-foot zone of non-VC position anyway. To them it's all going to be alarming, it's going to seem non-vehicular and illegal and stupid. Instead, maximize your space to both lines of vehicles, regardless of lane lines, if you must take advantage of your bike's unique properties in this way.

Robert

I'm not sorting anything out. Forester sorted it all out in the 1970s.

If I was making it up as I was going along, then what I was describing couldn't be consistent with what Forester has been writing for over 30 years. But it is (according to none other than Forester himself). How do you explain that?

When someone does not understand the underlying principles, or how to apply them in real-world situations, then I'm sure it may appear that anyone who is simply applying the principles is "sorting it out" and "making it up as he goes" along. Yet we can go back to the exact words that I posted about the scenario I was in that started all this, and I stand by every one, just as I first wrote them many pages ago. Nothing that you or anyone else has raised has changed anything in my description. Anyone who understands vc principles and how to apply them, will recognize that what I described is consistent with vehicular-cycling; someone who does not understand the principles or how to apply them may think he sees an inconsistency. This is typical. And, again, it's understandable with VC novices, but with someone who wrote a book that criticizes vehicular-cycling, I expect more.

Here is the original scenario:



You have unsuccessfully tried to argue all of the following about this:


It is illegal to change lanes within 100' of an intersection (it's not).
Lane-splitting is contrary to vehicular cycling (it is not necessarily, as confirmed by Mr. Forester and the law - a cyclist passing a slow motorist on the left within a wide lane is simply the reverse situation of the more common situation of a motorist passing a slow cyclist on the cyclist's left within a wide lane).
Forester thinks traffic lane stripes are irrelevant.


Dozens of posts later I stand by every word, and continue to contend that the scenario as originally described is legal and is consistent with vehicular-cycling.

By the way, for the record, can you state whether or not your book
contains a significant number of comments and passages critical of Forester and/or vehicular-cycling
describes a method/style/philosophy of cycling that you believe to be significantly different from what you believe to be vehicular-cycling


I think that anyone who does a lot of riding will laugh at the notion that splitting lanes between stopped vehicles and jumping ahead of them as the light turns green is 'vehicular.' The only way it could be seen as such is if you ride in a fantasy world of gigantic lanes that many of us can only dream about. Your interpretation is not likely to translate outside your comfort zone, where lane-splitting may mean something entirely different.

I will answer your other questions after I get back from a long weekender fred-style ride.

Robert

This thread has been very enlightening for me. Both you and Forester define the parameters of 'vehicular' in different ways, and yet you both are struggling to define it, ultimately defining it arbitrarily for your own purposes, and lashing out at others whose definitions you don't like. Good stuff.
Robert, you are conflating your own confusion with an inconsistency between Forester and myself.

There are principles, and there applications of those principles. The words used to describe an application of principles to a given scenario are certainly likely to differ depending on who is providing the description. But if the principles are applied consistently, then the meaning should be the same.

There is no struggle to define "vehicular". Mr. Forester defined it 30 years ago. The only struggle is getting you to understand it.

So in this case 'vehicular' is defined by the local statute. And in other cases, the statutes are 'discriminatory' and non-vehicular and should be ignored. Confusion! So ---- when is VC defined by the law? When it's convenient for your argument, that's when. Vehicular cycling is, and has always been, driving on roads in accordance to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. That is, those rules that are consistent with the underlying principles of vehicular behavior on roadways. Most statutes are consistent with these principles. Some are not. Those that are not, are "non-vehicular and should be ignored." There is nothing new here. This is VC 101. It should not be difficult to comprehend. There are 30+ years of Forester's quotes saying the exact same thing. It's astonishing that this is news to you.

And you're still saying that one lane-splitting position, just barely in the lane, is 'to be vehicular,' but the position one centimeter to the left of that is totally non-VC. Silly. Arbitrary. Grasp reality: Riding right down the line is the safest position when riding between lanes, unless you're talking about lanes of such vast width that most of us can't even imagine them, which you may very well be. Would you rather be in the safest position or the 'vehicular' position? What is safest is a matter of opinion, and you certainly have a right to yours. I disagree, and so, by the way, does the CHP and so do most motorcycle safety course instructors, so far as I know. Most importantly, the rules of the road are based on the assumption, and have been since the invention of lane stripes, that riding ambiguously between lanes, where you're partially in one lane and partially in another, is not safe. Again, there is nothing new here. I respect your right to disagree with it. My astonishment concerns your apparent lack of familiarity with the distinction and why it matters.

This is a good example of how armchair bikeman philosophy geared at opposing bike lanes can get us in trouble in actual street situations. Speaking of misunderstanding, another common misunderstanding about Forester and VC is confusing our promoting and defending VC, out of which logically falls out an opposition of bike lanes (or at least most bike lanes), with contorting how we define VC in order to oppose bike lanes. That's absurd. That misunderstand is based on the assumption that our prime objective is opposing bike lanes. How could that be? Why would that be? Again, this view stems from a misunderstanding of vehicular-cycling, and, in particular, not recognizing how an opposition to (at least most) bike lanes falls out logically from the underlying principles.

If you happen to be riding between two lanes, people -- and certainly HH should not -- please don't think in terms of remaining entirely within one lane or the other to remain VC or even lawful -- the cops aint gonna buy it and the drivers won't be able to distinguish the subtle, minute differences between HH's VC position and his arbitrary two-foot zone of non-VC position anyway. To them it's all going to be alarming, it's going to seem non-vehicular and illegal and stupid. Instead, maximize your space to both lines of vehicles, regardless of lane lines, if you must take advantage of your bike's unique properties in this way.

Robert For the record, I don't think or advocating thinking in terms of "to remain VC or even lawful" when deciding where to ride, though I find it helpful to think about what is consistent with VC principles and, in particular, make sure I understand why, before I choose to break the rules.

It is ironic that you write of the "Art of cycling". All arts have rules. The art of cycling in traffic, has rules. These are the vehicular rules and the ped rules, among which the cyclist-artist may choose. The true artist must learn the rules of his art, and understand when, where and why to apply them, so he knows and understands when, where and why it is appropriate to break them. That's what makes it an art.

I think that anyone who does a lot of riding will laugh at the notion that splitting lanes between stopped vehicles and jumping ahead of them as the light turns green is 'vehicular.'
That may be the case for anyone who does a lot of riding and does not have a strong grasp of vehicular-cycling.

The only way it could be seen as such is if you ride in a fantasy world of gigantic lanes that many of us can only dream about. Your interpretation is not likely to translate outside your comfort zone, where lane-splitting may mean something entirely different.
The same VC principles are used in all applications. Of course, how an applications manifests itselfs varies based on the particularities of each situation. Obviously. That too should not be a surprise.

I will answer your other questions after I get back from a long weekender fred-style ride.

Robert
Good, I need a bike ride too (tandem with trailercycle!).

Cya!

Perhaps you'll recall the paper presented to the American Dream Coalition...

http://www.americandreamcoalition.org/forester.pdf

Where you state:



You further go on to identify other groups, one of which voluntary transportation cyclists, whom you charaterize as:

You go on and point out that the volunatary transportational cyclists tend to use the same primary arterial routes as motorists and that these cyclists are motivated by speed and the enjoyment of cycling. You then focus on the use of a vehicular style which is frequently used by these voluntary cyclists. This focus and the subsequent denial of curb huggers and those other cyclists who apparently “cyclist inferiority superstition” reinforces your opinion of your view that the volunatary transportation cyclists represent the ideal cyclist who "plays" well with the motoring community.

Meanwhile, you deny facilities, and indicate that involuntary cyclists will soon migrate to motor vehicles as soon as possible, while dismissing that void left by involuntary cyclists will quickly be filled with more involuntary cyclists, the best example being the college student population.

You also fail to mention that involuntary cyclists represent the greatest number of cyclists on the road, regardless of their method of road use, be it VC style, curb hugging, bike lane, sidewalk or path seeking.

So. The difference that you think is most significant is that between the voluntary and the involuntary cyclists. You state that "involuntary cyclists represent the greatest number of cyclists on the road." That statement raises two very significant questions. The first, of lesser importance, is: On what data do you base that information, and what is the relation between number of cyclists and average distance traveled (which knowledge is a fundamental planning requirement)? The second, of considerably greater importance, is: What is the significance that you place on the difference between voluntary and involuntary cyclists?

...Dozens of posts later I stand by every word, and continue to contend that the scenario as originally described is legal and is consistent with vehicular-cycling...

Maybe the problem isn't you getting all of us to understand and agree with your viewpoint afterall, have you ever though that the bigger problem is that you won't understand other viewpoints?



Oh wait, of course that isn't the problem! Haha I'm an idiot :rolleyes:

what's really disturbing to me is that with Forester on here it's like we have two Helmet Heads. One is more than enough!:eek:

what's really disturbing to me is that with Forester on here it's like we have two Helmet Heads. One is more than enough!:eek:

Really? The fact that most of this discussion is being carried on by irrational arguments that are contrary to vehicular cycling is a far more distressing, and socially dangerous, state of affairs.

Really? The fact that most of this discussion is being carried on by irrational arguments that are contrary to vehicular cycling is a far more distressing, and socially dangerous, state of affairs.

You are starting to sound sort of like James Dobson and Jerry Fallwell here man - they would say that not being a Christian is socially dangerous too... I call that arrogance to the highest degree :(

You are starting to sound sort of like James Dobson and Jerry Fallwell here man - they would say that not being a Christian is socially dangerous too... I call that arrogance to the highest degree :(

Well, rather the opposite. Somebody raised the issue of atheism, and, in return, HH praised Dawkins's Failed God Hypothesis (or similar title). You see, James Dobson and Jerry Fallwell base their beliefs and social advocacy upon their reading of scrolls, letters, books, written long ago without the benefit of either scientific knowledge or historical understanding. Whereas, Dawkins, HH, and I base our conclusions upon scientific and engineering knowledge, which, while written down, we consider to be always subject to improvement when better knowledge is learned.

On the other hand, those who oppose vehicular cycling, or who advocate bikeways, are basing their beliefs and recommendations upon ... upon ... upon ... Well, nothing at all, as far as has been presented.

I think that anyone who does a lot of riding will laugh at (Helmet Head's) notion that splitting lanes between stopped vehicles and jumping ahead of them as the light turns green is 'vehicular.'

Robert

I'm laughing at the idiocy of helemt heads' insistence, robert. Telling riders that splitting lanes at lights to jump ahead of a queue of traffic is 'vehicular'- in particular, after its turned green, to advance on two cars... :roflmao:

Well, rather the opposite. Somebody raised the issue of atheism, and, in return, HH praised Dawkins's Failed God Hypothesis (or similar title). You see, James Dobson and Jerry Fallwell base their beliefs and social advocacy upon their reading of scrolls, letters, books, written long ago without the benefit of either scientific knowledge or historical understanding. Whereas, Dawkins, HH, and I base our conclusions upon scientific and engineering knowledge, which, while written down, we consider to be always subject to improvement when better knowledge is learned.

On the other hand, those who oppose vehicular cycling, or who advocate bikeways, are basing their beliefs and recommendations upon ... upon ... upon ... Well, nothing at all, as far as has been presented.


Yeah, I knew that would be the response... point made

Really? The fact that most of this discussion is being carried on by irrational arguments that are contrary to vehicular cycling is a far more distressing, and socially dangerous, state of affairs.

here's what's distressing:

you make up motivations and stick whole theories and world views in other people's heads and then argue that they're wrong for thinking the things that they don't think!

you say things that aren't true.

you assert things that you have no proof of and say they are fact.

you try to force people to prove things that are unproveable, and when they can't, point to that as proof of the truth of your position.

that's screwed up.

go to your room again and think about what you've done.

then you can have some ice cream.

This topic has been very enlightening. I read Robert's book. I did not read Forester's book, but I have read some of his Internet articles. I find Robert to be the most intelligent writer in this forum. I find Forester to be emotional and dishonest.

I'm glad this topic was raised so we could read, observe and decide for ourselves. And yes, having 2 HH's is more than too much.

here's what's distressing:

you make up motivations and stick whole theories and world views in other people's heads and then argue that they're wrong for thinking the things that they don't think!

you say things that aren't true.

you assert things that you have no proof of and say they are fact.

you try to force people to prove things that are unproveable, and when they can't, point to that as proof of the truth of your position.

that's screwed up.

go to your room again and think about what you've done.

then you can have some ice cream.

I agree that there is great difficulty in trying to work out from your advocacy what you hope to accomplish. What you say has little reasonable relationship with what you advocate. So, I suppose, it is reasonable for errors to be made. But I hardly see that this should raise a greater level of criticism than is warranted in the case of the irrational actions and sayings that have created the confusion.

I rather doubt that I say many things that are factually incorrect, and, when that is pointed out, I correct them.

And you claim that: "you try to force people to prove things that are unproveable, and when they can't, point to that as proof of the truth of your position." That is a most interesting example of what the lawyers call an admission against interest. What I have asked your spokesmen to demonstrate are the validity of the claims that they have made. So far as I recall, I have asked for no other proof. And you are now admitting that there is no way to demonstrate the claims that bicycle advocates have been making.

One side of my argument has always been that what is here considered to be bicycle advocacy is an irrational, illogical, undemonstrable intellectual mess. Now you have admitted just that. What's more to say? You should consider your thought patterns in the light of facts.

:roflmao: john, you sure know how to win friends and influence people.

acerbic doesn't make nice, bub.

Don't forget to wave, john, as the world passes your outdated views of bicycle transportation infrastructure by... of course your ascerbic wit and anachronistic world view will always find a welcome audience with folks like the american dream coalition....

It seems the discussion of relevant ideas, as influenced by banter aimed at lowering the discussion to a personal level, has once again disintegrated.

... I thought this thread was to compare a couple of authors' works. or was it another one of helmet heads' soapboxes?


JF- pedantic, odious, innacurate, dishonest 'logic'. Dated & out of print.

RH- well written, concise. the more readable of the two authors. much more relevant to contemporary cycling and echoes the 21st century riding environment.

nonetheless, I still can't believe heads' insistence in the vehicularity of splitting lanes at a light after its' turned green, to advance on two cars.

I'm believing more and more, the more i read john foresters insults and non anwsers & heads 'logical' sophistries, that 'vc' as envisioned by the foresterites is nothing more than an exercise in debate, to legitimize self-serving expedient adaptive cycling.

"vehicular cyclists can use a bike lane"
"vehicular cyclists can lane split at traffic signals after the light has turned green"
"vehicular cyclists can use special classed lanes"
"vehicular cyclists can roll thru stopsigns"
"vehicular cyclists don't have to signal"

:eek: :roflmao:

and anyone who supports bike specific infrastructure has 'cyclist inferiority'

:roflmao:

john, john, john. your dishonest spiel is offensive.

... I thought this thread was to compare a couple of authors' works. or was it another one of helmet heads' soapboxes?


JF- pedantic, odious, innacurate, dishonest 'logic'. Dated & out of print.

RH- well written, concise. the more readable of the two authors. much more relevant to contemporary cycling and echoes the 21st century riding environment.

nonetheless, I still can't believe heads' insistence in the vehicularity of splitting lanes at a light after its' turned green, to advance on two cars.

I'm believing more and more, the more i read john foresters insults and non anwsers & heads 'logical' sophistries, that 'vc' as envisioned by the foresterites is nothing more than an exercise in debate, to legitimize self-serving expedient adaptive cycling.

So, you feel that I have insulted bicycle advocates when I have demonstrated, and told you so, that in this two month's discussion you have never presented a reasonable argument, based on facts and reason, to support the advocacy that you pursue so passionately, and the opposition to vehicular cycling which you also pursue so passionately. All this passion about a subject about which you know very little, about which you cannot articulate reasonable arguments, is a clear indication that there must be some deep and irrational emotional cause.

The nation's highway system should never be governed by such undefinable emotions; it is far too important to allow that to occur.

john, did you realize cyclists that ride vehicularily can also support bike specific infrastructure?

it is NOT an "all or nothing" mandate. :roflmao:

john, YOUR rantings about my 'deep and irrational emotional cause' makes YOU out to be the wackjob, buddy.

john, are you implying I don't know much about riding my bike 365, taking vacations on my bike, riding vehicularily?

I don't understand the benefits to citizens in cities around america and the globe that have added bike infrastructure to their transportation grid? you ARE the ranting fool, john.

have you ridden in Portland yet, john? I rode 200 miles to Portland a couple of weeks ago, and rode 135 miles in the greater portland area to check out their city. infrastructure has turned Portland into a very bikeable community. do you wonder why it's been voted "america's most bikeable city?'

I'm picturing john as a tragic Yosemite Sam figure, a 20th century dinosaur, lost in his Quixotic battles from 40 years ago, musing darn those advocates making cycling more popular for more people in Portland, dangnabbit.

Hahahaha. when's the last time YOU picked up groceries on your bike, john? or rode 120 miles a day on a touring bike?

john, are you implying I don't know much about riding my bike 365, taking vacations on my bike, riding vehicularily?

I don't understand the benefits to citizens in cities around america and the globe that have added bike infrastructure to their transportation grid? you ARE the ranting fool, john.

have you ridden in Portland yet, john? I rode 200 miles to Portland a couple of weeks ago, and rode 135 miles in the greater portland area to check out their city. infrastructure has turned Portland into a very bikeable community. do you wonder why it's been voted "america's most bikeable city?'

I'm picturing john as a tragic Yosemite Sam figure, a 20th century dinosaur, lost in his Quixotic battles from 40 years ago, musing darn those advocates making cycling more popular for more people in Portland, dangnabbit.

Hahahaha. when's the last time YOU picked up groceries on your bike, john? or rode 120 miles a day on a touring bike?

You are discussing bicycle transportation, and most of what you write on that subject is nonsense.

I have cycled in Portland, at a time when the bikeway program was being discussed, and there was no need then for what was being proposed.

I used to ride mountain double centuries pretty reliably in 12.5 hours. True, I have not done this for about 15 years, but I am now 77 years old. I have participated on the Sierra Super Tour (all the Sierra passes in a week). I last picked up groceries, sundries at least, about three months ago; with the advantages of electrical refrigeration, I try to shop as infrequently as possible, which makes large loads. At times in my past, without refrigeration available, I had to shop in the older European manner, buying food every day. Dorris and I took a five-week cycling tour of England.

I don't understand the benefits to citizens in cities around america and the globe that have added bike infrastructure to their transportation grid? you ARE the ranting fool, john.



And what are the benefits to citizens in cities around America and the globe that have added bike infrastructure to their transportation grid? The discussion has been about bikeways, not bike infrastructure in general, so limit your reply to that subject. Be specific as to the cities and the benefits, and the logical by which the benefits have been produced by the bikeways.

john, the discussion has been about how your books (and opinions) are odious, pedantic, dishonest, out of print and a dated look at cycling in america,

versus robert hursts' excellent treatment of modern cycling.

john, can you explain why portland is widely considered 'america's most bikeable city', how bicycling has flourished there, how indexed accident rates have declined for bicyclists in portland, concurrent with the addition of bike infrastructure?

I understand cause and effect, I know what makes cities and communities more bikeable by more people. I see the clear as day effects in communities that have encouraged massive increases in bicycling as transportation via the use of bike-specific enhancements to the transportation network.

Robert, you are conflating your own confusion with an inconsistency between Forester and myself.

There are principles, and there applications of those principles. The words used to describe an application of principles to a given scenario are certainly likely to differ depending on who is providing the description. But if the principles are applied consistently, then the meaning should be the same.

There is no struggle to define "vehicular". Mr. Forester defined it 30 years ago. The only struggle is getting you to understand it.

HH, a smug and nasty tone is difficult enough to take from someone who is right.

No, you and Forester are saying completely different things, which you would know if you had read this thread as carefully and mind-numbingly as I did.

First of all, he noted that lane marking is irrelevant, not in terms of bikelanes, but for the action of passing on the right, citing the UVC's explicit use of the term "lines of traffic" rather than "lanes of traffic."

More importantly, he interpreted the requirement to ride as near as practicable within a single lane very differently than you do with respect to lane-splitting cyclists. He wrote: "The purpose of this statute is to prevent a driver from simultaneously occupying two lanes and blocking traffic in both of them. When the lanes are not narrow, a cyclist riding between two lines of vehicles does not occupy two lanes simultaneously. This is quite evident when the motor traffic is going faster than the cyclist, because the traffic in both lanes is overtaking him without delay."

You are saying that the lane-splitter passing traffic in both lanes while riding on the line is occupying both lanes, is afoul of the law, and is non-vehicular. He is saying the lane-splitter isn't occupying either lane, and the law is irrelevant.

So now you should morph your definition of 'vehicular' to match his. Or are you going to start arguing with Einstein about Relativity?

Robert

This topic has been very enlightening. I read Robert's book. I did not read Forester's book, but I have read some of his Internet articles. I find Robert to be the most intelligent writer in this forum. I find Forester to be emotional and dishonest.

I'm glad this topic was raised so we could read, observe and decide for ourselves. And yes, having 2 HH's is more than too much.
This topic has been very enlightening. I read Robert's book. I read Forester's book. I read Dave Glowacz' book. I read John Franklin's book. I read John S. Allen's pamphlet. I read Jeffrey Hiles' essay. I find it impossible to evaluate which is the most intelligent among all of these clearly intelligent writers. I find them all to be genuinely motivated by personal beliefs and honesty.

I'm glad I raised this topic so everyone could read, observe and decide for ourselves.

(does this type of post contribute anything?)