Vehicular Cycling (VC) - VC vs. Hurst's "Art of urban cycling"

WHO?

This thread is for anyone who knows and has practiced advanced vehicular cycling (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=275653) (basically, the style/practice/methods/techniques/philosophy espoused in John Forester's Effective Cycling, John Franklin's Cyclecraft, and John S. Allen's Streetsmarts (http://www.bikexprt.com/streetsmarts/index.htm)) and has read Robert Hurst's book, The Art of Urban Cycling (or the 2nd edition, The Art of Cycling).

WHAT?

The topic of this thread is to compare the style/practice/methods/techniques/philosophy of vehicular cycling to both vehicular cycling as described in Hurst's book, and to the style/practice/methods/techniques/philosophy that he advocates.

To kick-off the discussion, here are some questions:
Is Hurt's depiction of vehicular cycling in his book fair and accurate, as compared to how you understand vc? Based on on how he writes about vc, do you believe Hurst has a good understanding of vc? Please explain.
Compare Hurst's "Art" (the style/practice/methods/techniques/philosophy that he advocates in his book) to VC. Are they basically the same? Substantially different? Please explain.
Compare and contrast (as best as you can based on your knowledge/understanding of each) the different lane positioning approaches:
Forester's destination and speed positioning principles/rules; positioning in order to maximize conspicuity and predictability.
Franklin's "primary" and "secondary" riding positions.
Hurst's positioning to maximize buffer space and vision.
Do vigilance and responsibility play significantly different roles and/or have significantly different priorities in Hurst's philosophy than they do in VC? Please explain.
Does "following the rules" play a significantly different role and/or have a significantly different priority in Hurst's philosophy than it does in VC? Please explain.WHY?

The reason I'm starting this thread is because I believe Hurst's book is valuable and influential (and I strongly recommend it), but I think it has some problems in certain areas. I believe these problems are significant and are related to his depiction of VC (which I believe to be inaccurate) and some of the differences between VC and what he recommends. I think comparing Hurst's riding philsophy to the VC philosophy is a valuable exercise as part of forming, evaluating and refining one's own riding philosophy.

Do I have to read the books or can I just spout off???

Do I have to read the books or can I just spout off??? You have an obvious strong understanding of VC, so reading the VC books is not required. But this is mostly about comparing VC to Hurst, so reading Hurst is probably required, unless you have gleaned his philosophy well enough from other sources (like his posts on this forum).

If you feel you can address the questions effectively, go for it!

Books, Movies, Music, & Entertainment
That is the forum this thread belongs in.

Robert has called HH on some of his wacky theories, so now the bashing of Hurst's book is HH's latest crusade.

get the pitch forks!!!!

Is this like MTV's "Celebrity Deathmatch?"

Do we get clay models of Forester and Hurst to fight in a ring? Who gets to chuck cogs at the other?! This could be quite exciting!

Oh...wait...it's just a pointless, circular debate. :rolleyes:

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/B00005BY8V.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_SS500_.jpg

WHO?

This thread is for anyone who knows and has practiced advanced vehicular cycling (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=275653) (basically, the style/practice/methods/techniques/philosophy espoused in John Forester's Effective Cycling, John Franklin's Cyclecraft, and John S. Allen's Streetsmarts (http://www.bikexprt.com/streetsmarts/index.htm)) and has read Robert Hurst's book, The Art of Urban Cycling (or the 2nd edition, The Art of Cycling).So we can only comment on Hurst's book if we're Foresterites?

Your VC arguments get weaker with every breath you take, HH... :roflmao:

I ride VC- a lot more often than the original poster, and likely a lot more "advanced" than the original poster, and also recognize riders can ride VC in a bike lane.

where does that put me in this thread analysis?

WHO?
This thread is for anyone who knows and has practiced advanced vehicular cycling (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=275653) (basically, the style/practice/methods/techniques/philosophy espoused in John Forester's Effective Cycling, John Franklin's Cyclecraft, and John S. Allen's Streetsmarts (http://www.bikexprt.com/streetsmarts/index.htm)) and has read Robert Hurst's book, The Art of Urban Cycling (or the 2nd edition, The Art of Cycling).



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:

So you want people who fit into your definition of AVC to post here, which you claim are few and far between, and expect this to be an impartial discussion?
Don't plan on having many people post here eh? You said yourself that few cyclists utilize it.

Then you talk about compairing Hursts definition of VC to (whos?) definition of VC based off your definion of VC. But only want it to be discussed by people who practice AVC.
I think I can speak for the masses here when I say HUH??

Books, Movies, Music, & Entertainment
That is the forum this thread belongs in.
Politics and (especially) Religion seems to me to be the appropriate place for this topic.

I think I can speak for the masses here when I say HUH??
I hear the cycling population chanting WTF!

I hear the cycling population chanting WTF!

Sir, I believe you are correct.

Why does anybody read books about cycling? Is it to study and deconstruct every single word? Does anybody really want yet another topic deconstructing the words of Robert Hurst in order to prove that John Forester is more precise about some abstract topic that has little to do with reality? I really can't see how this helps anybody, unless stroking egos is helpful.

Why does anybody read books about cycling? Is it to study and deconstruct every single word? Does anybody really want yet another topic deconstructing the words of Robert Hurst in order to prove that John Forester is more precise about some abstract topic that has little to do with reality? I really can't see how this helps anybody, unless stroking egos is helpful.
Does Hurst have anything to say about how many angels can dance on a painted stripe? If this subject is not covered in excruciating detail there is nothing to discuss.

i think robert hurst covers cycling a lot more succintly than john forester does. john's book is out of print and not available even at major public libraries. must have been a real stinker in the eyes of librarians, critics, etc.

i find some unadulterated idol worship going on by the original poster....fawning over a long out of print, out of date book that contains a lot of malarky about bicycling.

So we can only comment on Hurst's book if we're Foresterites?
Not at all. Anyone who understands VC and Hurst would be interesting to hear from. An example of someone who understands VC but is clearly not a "Foresterite" is JRA. Genec and Brian Ratliff too. There are others, but they come to mind. Chipcom, Bek, and sbhikes are good examples of folks who don't get VC (they couldn't explain, for example, the fundamental differences between VC and Hurst's views). An excellent example outside of the forum of someone who understands VC is Jeffrey Hiles, author of "Listening to Bike Lanes" (http://www.wright.edu/~jeffrey.hiles/essays/listening/contents.html).

Chipcom, Bek, and sbhikes are good examples of folks who don't get VC (they couldn't explain, for example, the fundamental differences between VC and Hurst's views).
Maybe they have the good sense to not give a poop about those "fundamental" differences. In fact, who but HH does give a dang?

Some people claim that they were unable to ride a bicycle on pavement until they read Forester's book.
Really? Who?

I was unable to ride a bicycle on pavement until I read Foresters book. :(

Sadly, I rode on pavement for years before I...

No, wait, I've never read Forester's book.

oy vey.

I have to say, though, I'm really enjoying Hurst's book.

Still, according to HH, one can only comment on it if one "understands" VC...

helmie, you think I don't know how to ride a bike according to the rules of the road? think I can't ride my bike like a vehicle?

what a wonk.

helmie, you think I don't know how to ride a bike according to the rules of the road? think I can't ride my bike like a vehicle?

what a wonk.
I have no reason to believe you understand the rules of the road, or their purpose, and countless posts that give reasons for me to think that you don't understand the rules of the road, or their purpose.

I might be wrong, of course, but I'm just saying you have provided no reason for me to believe otherwise.

hehe, its all about me now, isn't it?

i'm EXTRA-Vehicular, dude. I can operate a bike both like a vehicle and a bicycle, and take advantage of adaptive methods of bicycling.

you don't approve of splitting lanes on drawbridge grating, eh? of riding clean, 12' shoulders of highways with a lot of logging trucks?


you're quite a piece of work, mr. head. I very well understand how to operate a bike according to the rules of the road. I also understand how a bicyclist can use a bike lane in a vehicular manner.

I ride in traffic daily, mr. head. and have a more 'advanced' understanding of the nuance of 'vehicular cycling' than your part time riding allows you. I might be wrong of course, but doubt it.

what IS this thread about anyway? 'advanced vehicular cyclists' sound off about some bike books?

I'm in the club, mr. head, are you sure you fit the criterea?

i'm EXTRA-Vehicular, dude. I can operate a bike both like a vehicle and a bicycle, and take advantage of adaptive methods of bicycling.

Über-Vehicular Cyclist? ÜVC!

I have no reason to believe you understand the rules of the road, or their purpose, and countless posts that give reasons for me to think that you don't understand the rules of the road, or their purpose.

I might be wrong, of course, but I'm just saying you have provided no reason for me to believe otherwise.

I see. Apparently one must now be approved by HH to call themselves a VC rider. Is there an application/interview process or do you just hand-pick the chosen few?

Why does anybody read books about cycling? Is it to study and deconstruct every single word? Does anybody really want yet another topic deconstructing the words of Robert Hurst in order to prove that John Forester is more precise about some abstract topic that has little to do with reality? I really can't see how this helps anybody, unless stroking egos is helpful.
Translation: "I don't need no fancy book learnin'."

In any field, many people are "just do it" types. That's fine. But you will also find others who enjoy both doing that activity and talking/thinking/writing about the details. Forester and Hurst have taken the time to write about cylcing comprehensively. If you don't like discussing the details of various cycling theories, there are plenty of threads for you. But mocking the idea of thinking about cycling just makes you look ignorant.

HH's questions are fair, but they are very difficult to answer without the texts in front of you. Since I checked out both texts from the library (they are BOTH available here, Bek) (edit, I tried to reserve Hurst's 2006 book, but the library doesn't carry it), and since I haven't read them in a year or two, I don't remember enough of those details to comment.

I see. Apparently one must now be approved by HH to call themselves a VC rider. Is there an application/interview process or do you just hand-pick the chosen few?
Just post a few messages agreeing with HH on some point, any point, and you will be rewarded with obsequious praise about your "brilliant" powers of perception. It is the first step in the process of being accepted as a worthy colleague of the HH.

Not at all. Anyone who understands VC and Hurst would be interesting to hear from. An example of someone who understands VC but is clearly not a "Foresterite" is JRA. Genec and Brian Ratliff too. There are others, but they come to mind. Chipcom, Bek, and sbhikes are good examples of folks who don't get VC (they couldn't explain, for example, the fundamental differences between VC and Hurst's views). An excellent example outside of the forum of someone who understands VC is Jeffrey Hiles, author of "Listening to Bike Lanes" (http://www.wright.edu/~jeffrey.hiles/essays/listening/contents.html).

More baseless, ignorant assumptions. :rolleyes:

Vehicular Cycling is quite simple, HH, you are the only one who tends to overcomplicate it by attempting to extend it way beyond its intended purpose into some zen-like religious cult.

I have no reason to believe you understand the rules of the road, or their purpose, and countless posts that give reasons for me to think that you don't understand the rules of the road, or their purpose.

I might be wrong, of course, but I'm just saying you have provided no reason for me to believe otherwise.

And what credentials or appointed office do you have would make anyone care what you 'think'?
HH, when are you going to get it through your head that you are just some recreational cyclist with no special knowledge, special skills or special anything - hardly in a position to judge others, especially transportational cyclists.

Chip understands VC perfectly. I am sure he rides VC on a regular basis. But, the politician in him won't let him draw a line in the sand and say "I am VC and bike lanes suck" until 51% of the cyclists agree....

Chip understands VC perfectly. I am sure he rides VC on a regular basis. But, the politician in him won't let him draw a line in the sand and say "I am VC and bike lanes suck" until 51% of the cyclists agree....

I am a cyclist and bike lanes suck - for me. There that was easy. :p I don't claim vc because vc is just one tool in the tool kit, not the whole enchilada like some think.

HH assumes I couldn't write down the fundamental differences between JF's and RH's discussions of VC. HH assumes too much. I do not care about the fundamental differences between JF's and RH's discussions of VC. I know from all the words I've read from both those guys that Robert Hurst rides a bike in the city and cares about it, while John Forester cares about cars, promoting cars as the foundation of all that is great, and has his shiny happy face plastered on a pro-car web site from which he can be contacted to come, expenses paid, to your town to promote auto-centric development.

HH assumes I couldn't write down the fundamental differences between JF's and RH's discussions of VC. HH assumes too much. I do not care about the fundamental differences between JF's and RH's discussions of VC. I know from all the words I've read from both those guys that Robert Hurst rides a bike in the city and cares about it, while John Forester cares about cars, promoting cars as the foundation of all that is great, and has his shiny happy face plastered on a pro-car web site from which he can be contacted to come, expenses paid, to your town to promote auto-centric development.

Your hatred of motoring evidently conceals from you the fact that both cyclists and motorists need good roads and equitable traffic laws. Working for cyclists' interest in good roads and equitable traffic laws does not equate with a desire to promote motoring.

Glad you joined us here, John. I have a question for you.
I believe that Vehicular Cycling is simply riding a bike as a vehicle, following the rules and laws of the road, but certain others in these forums like to extend it into some kind of religion or way-of-life, far beyond what I feel the scope of vehicular cycling should be. What are your feelings on this, since you pretty much coined the term in the first place?

Glad you joined us here, John. I have a question for you.
I believe that Vehicular Cycling is simply riding a bike as a vehicle, following the rules and laws of the road, but certain others in these forums like to extend it into some kind of religion or way-of-life, far beyond what I feel the scope of vehicular cycling should be. What are your feelings on this, since you pretty much coined the term in the first place?

Yes, this would certainly be helpful considering HH's definition runs anywhere from "following the rules of the road" to a two page dissertation on the subject. It is hard to keep track of what VC really means.

...but certain others in these forums like to extend it into some kind of religion or way-of-life...

http://amplifymobile.com/storage/25jy_nun_bikes.jpg
High priestesses of the VC movement - taking the lane!

http://www.tripsource.com/images/photos/Michelle/Mongolia/bike1.jpg

Glad you joined us here, John. I have a question for you.
I believe that Vehicular Cycling is simply riding a bike as a vehicle, following the rules and laws of the road, but certain others in these forums like to extend it into some kind of religion or way-of-life, far beyond what I feel the scope of vehicular cycling should be. What are your feelings on this, since you pretty much coined the term in the first place?

When using the roadway, operate according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. By and large, the traffic laws for drivers of vehicles have been drafted to match the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. However, there are some traffic laws that do not apply to drivers but discriminate against cyclists and contradict the rules of the road, such as the mandatory side-path law and the mandatory bike-lane law and the mandatory side-of-the-road law.

38 states had mandatory side-path laws. The opposition by cyclists (led by me) started the repeal movement and the removal from the Uniform Vehicle Code. There's no longer the handy database that used to be kept the the Committee for Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances, so I don't know how many states still have mandatory side-path laws, but I know that many states have repealed theirs.

In many states, the opposition by cyclists has reduced the power of both the mandatory bike-lane laws and the mandatory side-of-the-road laws; they have been watered down with exceptions that have made them difficult to enforce.

My advice regarding all of these is for the cyclist to operate properly according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, and, if enforcement is attempted, decide whether to surrender or to fight it, depending on circumstances.

Nothing in the vehicular-cycling principle says that one should ride only on roadways, but when riding elsewhere the cyclist needs to be alert because off the roadway there are no rules of the road to protect one, and the cyclist should operate accordingly.

You consider that some people have extended vehicular cycling into fields in which it is not applicable, sort of as a way of life, as you put it. I don't know just what you mean, but I will provide my own version of the proper scope of the vehicular-cycling principle. It applies when cycling on the roadway, as stated above. It also applies as the general principle of how road traffic should operate. It is clearly best if cyclists operate as drivers of vehicles. Therefore, our society should encourage them to do so. Most Americans riding bicycles were not operating as drivers of vehicles twenty years ago when I measured behaviors, and I have not seen evidence that the situation has significantly improved since. Despite this problem, and as a cause of it, our society disapproves of cyclists operating as drivers of vehicle. Our society provides the bikeways that were designed to push cyclists aside for the convenience of motorists and uses them to encourage bicycle riders to operate incompetently by whispering that these bikeways make it safe to operate without having the skill of operating as the driver of a vehicle. I used whispering in the previous sentence because we have managed to prevent officials from making unjustified official claims [no evidence for them] that bikeways make cycling safe, but the whispering still goes on, on this list as in other places.

Therefore, I say that opposition to the government's program for bicycle transportation, a program that is based on superstition and, in some cases, lies, and is contrary to the interest of cyclists, is a proper activity for those vehicular cyclists who choose to undertake more than just cycling itself.

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/B00005BY8V.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_SS500_.jpg

Can I be the red guy?

-G

Chip understands VC perfectly. I am sure he rides VC on a regular basis. But, the politician in him won't let him draw a line in the sand and say "I am VC and bike lanes suck" until 51% of the cyclists agree....

:lol:

When using the roadway, operate according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. By and large, the traffic laws for drivers of vehicles have been drafted to match the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. However, there are some traffic laws that do not apply to drivers but discriminate against cyclists and contradict the rules of the road, such as the mandatory side-path law and the mandatory bike-lane law and the mandatory side-of-the-road law.

38 states had mandatory side-path laws. The opposition by cyclists (led by me) started the repeal movement and the removal from the Uniform Vehicle Code. There's no longer the handy database that used to be kept the the Committee for Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances, so I don't know how many states still have mandatory side-path laws, but I know that many states have repealed theirs.

In many states, the opposition by cyclists has reduced the power of both the mandatory bike-lane laws and the mandatory side-of-the-road laws; they have been watered down with exceptions that have made them difficult to enforce.

My advice regarding all of these is for the cyclist to operate properly according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, and, if enforcement is attempted, decide whether to surrender or to fight it, depending on circumstances.

Nothing in the vehicular-cycling principle says that one should ride only on roadways, but when riding elsewhere the cyclist needs to be alert because off the roadway there are no rules of the road to protect one, and the cyclist should operate accordingly.

You consider that some people have extended vehicular cycling into fields in which it is not applicable, sort of as a way of life, as you put it. I don't know just what you mean, but I will provide my own version of the proper scope of the vehicular-cycling principle. It applies when cycling on the roadway, as stated above. It also applies as the general principle of how road traffic should operate. It is clearly best if cyclists operate as drivers of vehicles. Therefore, our society should encourage them to do so. Most Americans riding bicycles were not operating as drivers of vehicles twenty years ago when I measured behaviors, and I have not seen evidence that the situation has significantly improved since. Despite this problem, and as a cause of it, our society disapproves of cyclists operating as drivers of vehicle. Our society provides the bikeways that were designed to push cyclists aside for the convenience of motorists and uses them to encourage bicycle riders to operate incompetently by whispering that these bikeways make it safe to operate without having the skill of operating as the driver of a vehicle. I used whispering in the previous sentence because we have managed to prevent officials from making unjustified official claims [no evidence for them] that bikeways make cycling safe, but the whispering still goes on, on this list as in other places.

Therefore, I say that opposition to the government's program for bicycle transportation, a program that is based on superstition and, in some cases, lies, and is contrary to the interest of cyclists, is a proper activity for those vehicular cyclists who choose to undertake more than just cycling itself. John,

In "Listening to Bike Lanes", Jeffrey Hiles includes the following quotation of you from Bicycle Transportation:


There is much more to the vehicular-cycling principle than only obeying the traffic laws for drivers. The vehicular-style cyclist not only acts outwardly like a driver, he knows inwardly that he is one. Instead of feeling like a trespasser on roads owned by cars he feels like just another driver with a slightly different vehicle, one who is participating and cooperation in the organized mutual effort to get to desired destinations with the least trouble (Forester, 1994, p. 3).
http://www.wright.edu/~jeffrey.hiles/essays/listening/ch4.html (http://www.wright.edu/%7Ejeffrey.hiles/essays/listening/ch4.html)

My interpretation of this excerpt is that the way this inward knowledge within the vehicular-style cyclist manifests itself in his riding goes beyond merely obeying the traffic laws. Do you agree? If so, can you expand on how it is manifested in his riding?

As one example to illustrate what I'm talking about... a cyclist riding to the right of faster same-direction traffic approaching an intersection where he is going straight has no legal obligation to look back, much less merge left, before entering and crossing the intersection. He is certainly legally permitted to simply keep going straight from the right side of the road. In fact, this is the way the vast majority of cyclists do it. Perhaps the biggest change I've noticed in myself, since I've adopted what I understand (after reading your book, taking Road 1 and Road 2, and the LCI certification, where we met) to be the vehicular-style, is a habitual reflex to always look back when approaching any intersection, and at least entertain if not actually execute a merge left, but at least make sure I'm not about to be right-hooked, etc. Looking back helps those approaching from behind know that I'm not turning right, and often encourages them to slow down to let me in. The look back also allows me to recognize the situation where everyone is going too fast to possibly turn right, and so it is safe for me to proceed straight from my current position. The further-left position, if it's safe and appropriate to take, makes me more visible and predictable to potential cross traffic in the intersection, improves my sight lines to them and increases the "buffer space" to my right. But, technically, this style is not any more consistent with merely obeying the traffic laws than is the typical style of simply maintaining course at the right side of the road oblivious to what others are doing. But, to my understanding, only one of these legal styles exemplifies the "vehicular-style".

Another example: a cyclist passing slow motorists on the right is in compliance with the law, but a vehicular-style cyclist, it seems to me, is more likely to entertain options of passing on the left, and, if he rules them out, to ride with more caution and vigilance as he passes on the right than is the typical cyclist. But, again, technically, neither style is inconsistent with merely obeying the traffic laws.

I hope these two examples at least begin to illustrate what I understand the difference to be between "vehicular-style cycling" and cycling while merely obeying the traffic laws.

DESPITE all the misleading spiel, a bicyclist CAN ride "VC" in a bike lane.

Get with the program, John & Helmet.

John,

In "Listening to Bike Lanes", Jeffrey Hiles includes the following quotation of you from Bicycle Transportation:

http://www.wright.edu/~jeffrey.hiles/essays/listening/ch4.html (http://www.wright.edu/%7Ejeffrey.hiles/essays/listening/ch4.html)

My interpretation of this excerpt is that the way this inward knowledge within the vehicular-style cyclist manifests itself in his riding goes beyond merely obeying the traffic laws. Do you agree? If so, can you expand on how it is manifested in his riding?

As one example to illustrate what I'm talking about... a cyclist riding to the right of faster same-direction traffic approaching an intersection where he is going straight has no legal obligation to look back, much less merge left, before entering and crossing the intersection. He is certainly legally permitted to simply keep going straight from the right side of the road. In fact, this is the way the vast majority of cyclists do it. Perhaps the biggest change I've noticed in myself, since I've adopted what I understand (after reading your book, taking Road 1 and Road 2, and the LCI certification, where we met) to be the vehicular-style, is a habitual reflex to always look back when approaching any intersection, and at least entertain if not actually execute a merge left, but at least make sure I'm not about to be right-hooked, etc. Looking back helps those approaching from behind know that I'm not turning right, and often encourages them to slow down to let me in. The look back also allows me to recognize the situation where everyone is going too fast to possibly turn right, and so it is safe for me to proceed straight from my current position. The further-left position, if it's safe and appropriate to take, makes me more visible and predictable to potential cross traffic in the intersection, improves my sight lines to them and increases the "buffer space" to my right. But, technically, this style is not any more consistent with merely obeying the traffic laws than is the typical style of simply maintaining course at the right side of the road oblivious to what others are doing. But, to my understanding, only one of these legal styles exemplifies the "vehicular-style".

Another example: a cyclist passing slow motorists on the right is in compliance with the law, but a vehicular-style cyclist, it seems to me, is more likely to entertain options of passing on the left, and, if he rules them out, to ride with more caution and vigilance as he passes on the right than is the typical cyclist. But, again, technically, neither style is inconsistent with merely obeying the traffic laws.

I hope these two examples at least begin to illustrate what I understand the difference to be between "vehicular-style cycling" and cycling while merely obeying the traffic laws.


Yes, indeed, I forgot to include in my reply to chipcom the inner feelings of the vehicular cyclist. Of course, I can only estimate, from what I am told, the inner feelings of the cyclist-inferiority cyclist, but there has been so much written, shall we call it confessional literature, on the subject that I think a reasonable estimate can be reached, even by me. As for the vehicular cyclist, Hurst has selected a good paragraph from my writings of years ago. The vehicular cyclist does not consider himself particularly different, though his vehicle is unusual. Just like most of the other drivers on the road, he wants to participate in the proper operating system so that he, just like all the others, can complete his journey safely and with a minimum of fuss. In short, the vehicular cyclist feels that he is a driver.

I take one exception to your descriptions. The cyclist who is overtaking on the right-hand side of other straight-ahead traffic is disobeying both the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles and the traffic laws (which try to be the official embodiment of the rules). The only exception, and whether or not this is an exception depends on the bike-lane laws of the particular state, would be when operating in a bike lane. Of course, encouraging, and even legitimizing, such dangerous behavior is complete justification for opposing the government's bikeway program.

Yes, indeed, I forgot to include in my reply to chipcom the inner feelings of the vehicular cyclist. Of course, I can only estimate, from what I am told, the inner feelings of the cyclist-inferiority cyclist, but there has been so much written, shall we call it confessional literature, on the subject that I think a reasonable estimate can be reached, even by me. As for the vehicular cyclist, Hurst has selected a good paragraph from my writings of years ago. The vehicular cyclist does not consider himself particularly different, though his vehicle is unusual. Just like most of the other drivers on the road, he wants to participate in the proper operating system so that he, just like all the others, can complete his journey safely and with a minimum of fuss. In short, the vehicular cyclist feels that he is a driver. It was Jeffrey HILES, not Robert HURST who selected the good paragraph...

Sorry for the confusion in including a quote selected by Jeffrey HILES in a thread about Robert HURST. If you ever get around to obtaining and reading Hurst's book, (the Art of Urban Cycling or The Art of Cycling, depending on whether it's the 1st or 2nd edition) which I hope you do, I think you'll see that HURST, though he writes a lot about his slanted opinion of what you have written, actually quotes you very little (if any), and certainly does not select anything that you would consider to be a "good paragraph".


I take one exception to your descriptions. The cyclist who is overtaking on the right-hand side of other straight-ahead traffic is disobeying both the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles and the traffic laws (which try to be the official embodiment of the rules). The only exception, and whether or not this is an exception depends on the bike-lane laws of the particular state, would be when operating in a bike lane. Of course, encouraging, and even legitimizing, such dangerous behavior is complete justification for opposing the government's bikeway program. Yes, I was actually picturing in my mind the bike lane situation. In any case, the reason the vehicular cyclist is more cautious in that situation, and rides accordingly, is because he knows and understands the reasons for why passing on the right is against the rules of the road, though doing so on a bike in a bike lane is not technically disobeying the law.

john, your lumping your opposition to the 'government bikeway' program doesn't even reflect any cohesive element. hilarious.

vehicular cyclists can ride vehicularily in a bike lane, John. thanks for coining a term that describes riding a bike like a vehicle, then trying to comandeer it to your nefarious anti-populist agenda.

I'd estimate TENS OF THOUSANDS of riders that are 'vehicular' cyclists ride according to the rules of the road while using bike lanes every day, just here in the Northwest, John. can you explain that?

I think a "WWJR" thread is forthcoming, to get the 'down and dirty' from the great vehicular cyclist himself. Where Would John Ride here, for instance?

Yes, I was actually picturing in my mind the bike lane situation. In any case, the reason the vehicular cyclist is more cautious in that situation, and rides accordingly, is because he knows and understands the reasons for why passing on the right is against the rules of the road, though doing so on a bike in a bike lane is not technically disobeying the law.

Would that same vehicular cyclist have any reasons for not passing on the right in a right lane on a four lane road where all the motor traffic is stopped in the left lane, for one motorist making a left turn?

If a motorist choses to leave the stuck left lane, does that motorist have an obligation to look to the right to ensure that his way is clear before changing lanes?