Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Do you consider yourself a vehicular cyclist?

...had that change been made, cyclists would be limited to knobby mountain-bike tires because normal road tires would be prohibited...
You can't just say something like this without explaining it, it sounds unbelievable to me.

You can't just say something like this without explaining it, it sounds unbelievable to me.

Maybe he is referring to tread depth requirements in tires of vehicles in CA?

JRA, your statement demonstrates that you are either completely ignorant of what went on, or are a compulsive liar. I don't know which, but they are both ugly. For example, had that change been made, cyclists would be limited to knobby mountain-bike tires because normal road tires would be prohibited. That has nothing whatever to do with the rules of the road concerning traffic operations, but it was just one of the many things that would have occurred. Since the rights and duties of drivers of vehicles covers all the rules of the road for traffic operations is entirely sufficient, we saw no reason to change, and many troubles if we did change.

Right, like there would have been no further ammendments to correct this. You do know that laws/rules/regulations adapt don't you?

Same rules means same rules that apply to drivers of all types of vehicles.
it does not mean same rules that apply to drivers of particular types of vehicles with radically different physical and operational characteristics of bicycles
There are rules that apply only to commercial trucks, only to motorcycles, and only to motor vehicles. Those are special rules, not general rules that apply to all drivers of all vehicles.

I've seen starving fish refuse to take a bite at less spoiled bait, geesh!
But really, what clout do you hold in this matter when you are happy to ride your non-vehicle in a vehicular manner.... hrm, that's an interesting statement.



It's not that hard. You can get it.

Are you ever going to shut up with your just don't get it statements?
Oh I get it alright, you think I'm that flipping dumb? Or is it that you think you are just that much smarter than the rest of us?



And I'm not the only one who says "same rules same rights same roads".


Results 1 - 20 of about 4,880,000 English pages for same rules same roads same rights.

http://www.google.com/search?q=same+rules+same+roads+same+rights&sourceid=mozilla&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Without google what would you do? :D
I never said you were the only one, I was just talking to you at the moment.
You always brighten my day Helmie, I think I am in love with you... in a prison type way. ;)

Maybe he is referring to tread depth requirements in tires of vehicles in CA?
Like the CHP would have started enforcing those for bicyclists? I don't think so! :roflmao:

Personally, the racing and tailgating thing seems much more believable to me; OTOH, if they were seriously worried about the tire thing, it seems like paranoia got the upper hand over reason.

Right, like there would have been no further ammendments to correct this. You do know that laws/rules/regulations adapt don't you?
Jeez. He already addressed this. The tire thing is just one example. Tailgating and racing are two more. There are countless others. It was much easier and practical to declare bicycles as devices and assign the rights and responsibilities of drivers of vehicles to bicyclists than to go through the error-prone process of each and every statute and revise it to make sense for bicycles as well as motor vehicles.

Right, like there would have been no further ammendments to correct this. You do know that laws/rules/regulations adapt don't you?

And how long would it have taken to get all the necessary changes made? And what was the probability that the change process would have gone wrong, as is so often in bicycling law? And what would the benefits have been?

All you and the previous poster choose to do is to jeer at vehicular cyclists for something that you think they did not do in the political realm that would suit your peculiar view of what vehicular cycling is. Instead of discussing the pros and cons like a reasonable person. Is it any wonder that some of us express disdain for people who choose to argue as you do?

pj7 - if you get it, then please stop asking question indicating that you don't.

cya

Jeez. He already addressed this. The tire thing is just one example. Tailgating and racing are two more. There are countless others. It was much easier and practical to declare bicycles as devices and assign the rights and responsibilities of drivers of vehicles to bicyclists than to go through the error-prone process of each and every statute and revise it to make sense for bicycles as well as motor vehicles.

Not quite correct. The declarations that bicycles were devices and cyclists had the rights and duties of drivers of vehicles had been made decades ago in the early days of traffic law. A whole body of law had grown up around those definitions, with so many peculiarities that were difficult to identify and to count. However, none of the important rules of the road aspects were compromised to a greater extent by those definitions than were by the later change, in UVC and in some states, to defining bicycles as vehicles. Indeed, the later change strengthened the discrimination against cyclists in several respects.

Those who have been challenging the decision by the California Association of Bicycling Organizations have shown no significant knowledge of traffic law regarding cyclists and give every impression of being motivated by base motives.

This all begs the question about all the other states that have bicycles defined as vehicles yet have none of these problems with tire thread depth, pacelining, and racing. Why is this? Are the laws in CA set up in some unique way that precludes doing what other states did?

BTW, HH: post #58 wasn't nice, showed lack of tact, and is grounds for reporting you to the mods. Please, lay off pj7 and quit insulting his intelligence. We don't want any cyber bullying taking place here, now do we?

This all begs the question about all the other states that have bicycles defined as vehicles yet have none of these problems with tire thread depth, pacelining, and racing. Why is this? Are the laws in CA set up in some unique way that precludes doing what other states did?

BTW, HH: post #58 wasn't nice, showed lack of tact, and is grounds for reporting you to the mods. Please, lay off pj7 and quit insulting his intelligence. We don't want any cyber bullying taking place here, now do we?

Oh I can take it, and I'm part to blame as well... but that's just me being my usual "smart ass who hates when others think they are btter or more intelligent than me" self.
I have no emotions or feelings to hurt ;)

This all begs the question about all the other states that have bicycles defined as vehicles yet have none of these problems with tire thread depth, pacelining, and racing. Why is this? Are the laws in CA set up in some unique way that precludes doing what other states did?

BTW, HH: post #58 wasn't nice, showed lack of tact, and is grounds for reporting you to the mods. Please, lay off pj7 and quit insulting his intelligence. We don't want any cyber bullying taking place here, now do we?

I have not investigated the vehicle codes of other states with the same care that CABO devoted to investigating the California Veh Code. So far as I know, nobody has. All I can say is that we identified numerous problems, and could see no benefit from making the change in California. Therefore, we chose to not advocate the change. Considering the careless way in which traffic law regarding bicycles has always been administered, none of what might, or might not, have happened elsewhere is surprising. If you want to blame people, then blame those in other states for not paying attention, or for advocating useless changes, or whatever. Don't blame us in California for an extremely well-considered decision that you, a foreigner, and for whatever reason, don't like.

And how long would it have taken to get all the necessary changes made? And what was the probability that the change process would have gone wrong, as is so often in bicycling law? And what would the benefits have been?

All you and the previous poster choose to do is to jeer at vehicular cyclists for something that you think they did not do in the political realm that would suit your peculiar view of what vehicular cycling is. Instead of discussing the pros and cons like a reasonable person. Is it any wonder that some of us express disdain for people who choose to argue as you do?

Actually I have no stance, I couldn't care less... really, I couldn't.


Jeez. He already addressed this. The tire thing is just one example. Tailgating and racing are two more. There are countless others. It was much easier and practical to declare bicycles as devices and assign the rights and responsibilities of drivers of vehicles to bicyclists than to go through the error-prone process of each and every statute and revise it to make sense for bicycles as well as motor vehicles.

When I read this statement I see one underlying theme, that bicycles are inferior vehicles.

Oh I can take it, and I'm part to blame as well... but that's just me being my usual "smart ass who hates when others think they are btter or more intelligent than me" self.
I have no emotions or feelings to hurt ;)

Ah, don't worry; I'm not trying to protect you or anything. He knows what I am talking about though. In a different thread, he made himself out to be the victim and challenged people to find instances where he lacked tact. I couldn't pass this one up.

HH, if you want to avoid digressions like this, I suggest you stop insulting people. Then the digressions won't occur. Like magic!

I just would like to know what IT is and why no one seems to get it.
Kinda reminds me of that E-bay commercial.

Like the CHP would have started enforcing those for bicyclists? I don't think so! :roflmao:

Personally, the racing and tailgating thing seems much more believable to me; OTOH, if they were seriously worried about the tire thing, it seems like paranoia got the upper hand over reason.

So now you are advocating disobeying the law. Sure, we could have bought tires from outside the state, but what happens when a violation gets brought into a court of law? Again, like so many bicycle advocates, you just do not understand the way the law works. Besides, it would not have been the CHP, most likely, but a local police force, because those are the enforcement forces for most of the areas in which cycling is done.

I really have no idea of why you choose to pursue such meaningless arguments, except for your strong dislike of vehicular cycling, either as an activity or as a policy.

I have not investigated the vehicle codes of other states with the same care that CABO devoted to investigating the California Veh Code. So far as I know, nobody has. All I can say is that we identified numerous problems, and could see no benefit from making the change in California. Therefore, we chose to not advocate the change. Considering the careless way in which traffic law regarding bicycles has always been administered, none of what might, or might not, have happened elsewhere is surprising. If you want to blame people, then blame those in other states for not paying attention, or for advocating useless changes, or whatever. Don't blame us in California for an extremely well-considered decision that you, a foreigner, and for whatever reason, don't like.

Oh, I'm just curious. My take on the issue is that all that matters is the end result; see my first post in this thread. CA has a history of going off on its own path. My mother is a pharmacist and I believe still maintains her CA license because she doesn't want to go through the test again, as it is, I hear, pretty tough. Much tougher than other states.

All we can do is project into the future to choose our current path. Other states didn't run into many of the problems you have stated here, but that might be purely by accident - I was pacelining and "racing" just last Saturday on a bike with treadless road tires. What are the current day ramifications of the CA definition of bicycles as devices rather than vehicles? Are there many current day differences between CA and other states where they are defined as vehicles?

Wouldn't tire tread depth be based upon the weight of the vehicle? I mean, truck tires have much deeper tread than passenger vehicles.

The absolutism of VCers is another reason I have little patience with them. Too black and white, but always in conflict because in one breath they are always x and in another they are never x.

Wouldn't tire tread depth be based upon the weight of the vehicle? I mean, truck tires have much deeper tread than passenger vehicles.

The absolutism of VCers is another reason I have little patience with them. Too black and white, but always in conflict because in one breath they are always x and in another they are never x.

Just one more example of egregious ignorance producing meaningless complaints. The weight of the vehicle is completely irrelevant.

Oh, I'm just curious. My take on the issue is that all that matters is the end result; see my first post in this thread. CA has a history of going off on its own path. My mother is a pharmacist and I believe still maintains her CA license because she doesn't want to go through the test again, as it is, I hear, pretty tough. Much tougher than other states.

All we can do is project into the future to choose our current path. Other states didn't run into many of the problems you have stated here, but that might be purely by accident - I was pacelining and "racing" just last Saturday on a bike with treadless road tires. What are the current day ramifications of the CA definition of bicycles as devices rather than vehicles? Are there many current day differences between CA and other states where they are defined as vehicles?

Whether a state defines bicycles as vehicles or as devices, of itself, has little bearing on its treatment of cyclists according to traffic law, in fact, practically none. If a bicycle is a vehicle, then its rider has the rights and duties of drivers of vehicles. If the cyclist is given the rights and duties of drivers of vehicles, he has the same rights and duties. There's no difference between the two. There is, of course, a difference between how each state treats its cyclists. It may have a law that prohibits pacelining, or it may not; that difference is in the details of the statutes, and has little to do with whether or not that state considers bicycles to be vehicles.

As for your consideration of how the law treats you in Oregon, which is, I believe, your home state, for that you have to consult Oregon law. Have you done so?

Whether a state defines bicycles as vehicles or as devices, of itself, has little bearing on its treatment of cyclists according to traffic law, in fact, practically none. If a bicycle is a vehicle, then its rider has the rights and duties of drivers of vehicles. If the cyclist is given the rights and duties of drivers of vehicles, he has the same rights and duties. There's no difference between the two. There is, of course, a difference between how each state treats its cyclists. It may have a law that prohibits pacelining, or it may not; that difference is in the details of the statutes, and has little to do with whether or not that state considers bicycles to be vehicles.

As for your consideration of how the law treats you in Oregon, which is, I believe, your home state, for that you have to consult Oregon law. Have you done so?

Only a little. We do have issues with the mandatory bike lane laws, though the problem is uneven enforcement and interpretation of the california exceptions which were written into law last year. Oregon is by no means uniform in it's views about cycling. The city of Portland is rather liberal on the subject, though a couple of beat officers have their own take on the mandatory bike lane laws which are being worked out in court at the moment. The outlying areas of Portland, where I live are both more conservative and more permissive than the city. The citizens are more conservative about bicyclists, and the city is permissive out of agnosism more than anything.

The biggest problem cyclists have in terms of the laws is the mandatory bike lane law. Fortunately, it is not strongly enforced. Unfortunately because it is a state law and many counties are resistant to the idea of doing away with this law, it is hard to change. We did get the exceptions added, which is good though.

The general tone of the public though is one of acceptance of cyclists. Bike lanes seem to help in this respect, especially in the suburban cities of Beaverton, etc where I live. Our road are ammenable to bike lanes because we don't have extremely dense commercial areas.

Only a little. We do have issues with the mandatory bike lane laws, though the problem is uneven enforcement and interpretation of the california exceptions which were written into law last year. Oregon is by no means uniform in it's views about cycling. The city of Portland is rather liberal on the subject, though a couple of beat officers have their own take on the mandatory bike lane laws which are being worked out in court at the moment. The outlying areas of Portland, where I live are both more conservative and more permissive than the city. The citizens are more conservative about bicyclists, and the city is permissive out of agnosism more than anything.

The biggest problem cyclists have in terms of the laws is the mandatory bike lane law. Fortunately, it is not strongly enforced. Unfortunately because it is a state law and many counties are resistant to the idea of doing away with this law, it is hard to change. We did get the exceptions added, which is good though.

The general tone of the public though is one of acceptance of cyclists. Bike lanes seem to help in this respect, especially in the suburban cities of Beaverton, etc where I live. Our road are ammenable to bike lanes because we don't have extremely dense commercial areas.

Well, then, if your own state does not prohibit the items and activities that you mention,
"I was pacelining and "racing" just last Saturday on a bike with treadless road tires", then you have nothing to worry about and the issue is irrelevant.

Just one more example of egregious ignorance producing meaningless complaints. The weight of the vehicle is completely irrelevant.
And this is a perfect example of you just picking on someone for your own jollies pal.
D. made two seperate statements

The first being:

Wouldn't tire tread depth be based upon the weight of the vehicle? I mean, truck tires have much deeper tread than passenger vehicles.
Which appears to me to be a sincere question.

The next is:

The absolutism of VCers is another reason I have little patience with them. Too black and white, but always in conflict because in one breath they are always x and in another they are never x.
Which is in a seperate paragraph and while it might appear to correlate with the first statement there is no evidence there to make that fact.It looks to me like she was clearly asking a question. and how do you respond?

Just one more example of egregious ignorance producing meaningless complaints. The weight of the vehicle is completely irrelevant.

Maybe you should apologize to her for your schoolyard bully attack of words there bub! And you like to say that we never make posts or have discussions about anything meaningful and that our posts are full of "nothing". Well Mr. Pot, I'd like to introduce you to Mr. Kettle.
The weight of the vehicle is completely irrelevant. Well Mr, what is the deal with the tread then? She asked you, and you just attack.
And you wonder why people dislike the idea of VC? Just look at how it's mountebanks treat people!

Well, then, if your own state does not prohibit the items and activities that you mention,
"I was pacelining and "racing" just last Saturday on a bike with treadless road tires", then you have nothing to worry about and the issue is irrelevant.

People, and perhaps this is mostly HH talking, implied that this would happen automatically with the definiting of a bicycle as a vehicle. Evidently it is not automatic. At least it is not interpreted automatically as applying to bicycles, regardless as their designation of "device" or "vehicle." I think Oregon gets around this by the statement that, while bicycles are vehicles, they are only required to follow laws which are obviously applicable to bicycles.

People, and perhaps this is mostly HH talking, implied that this would happen automatically with the definiting of a bicycle as a vehicle. Evidently it is not automatic. At least it is not interpreted automatically as applying to bicycles, regardless as their designation of "device" or "vehicle." I think Oregon gets around this by the statement that, while bicycles are vehicles, they are only required to follow laws which are obviously applicable to bicycles. Well, then, that's how Oregon gets around it.

The point is if there are a whole slew of statutes that are written with requirements for "vehicles" which really are intended to apply only to "motor vehicles", then if you simply define bicycles as vehicles, without any exceptions like you noted above, then you have a problem. One way to get around that is to define bicycles as something else, like a device, but assign the rights and responsibilities of vehicle drivers to those of cyclists, so that the laws that apply to vehicles do not apply to bicycles, but the behaviorial rights and responsibilities that apply to drivers of vehicles do apply to bicyclists.
Another way is to rewrite the whole slew of statutes. Another way is to put in some kind of tricky exception law (though that seems to be prone to misinterpretation on statues that may or may not be obviously applicable to bicycles/bicyclists).

The bottom line is the goal seems to be consistent: to give bicyclists the same rights and responsibilities that vehicle drivers have in terms of how they behave in traffic when on the road.

And you wonder why people dislike the idea of VC? Just look at how it's mountebanks treat people!
mountebanks: Had to look up the meaning of the new (to me) word. Perfect!

So now you are advocating disobeying the law. Sure, we could have bought tires from outside the state, but what happens when a violation gets brought into a court of law? Again, like so many bicycle advocates, you just do not understand the way the law works. Besides, it would not have been the CHP, most likely, but a local police force, because those are the enforcement forces for most of the areas in which cycling is done.

I really have no idea of why you choose to pursue such meaningless arguments, except for your strong dislike of vehicular cycling, either as an activity or as a policy.
Do you really think the police would have started enforcing tire tread depth restictions on cyclists? My my, you really are paranoid!

You mistake my dislike for VC acolytes, toadies or Foresterites, Foresterology, whatever you want to call them/it, for my dislike of vehicular cycling; I simply consider vehicular cycling to be one tool in a cyclist's toolbox, and not the be-all, end-all to the discussion of how best to accomodate cyclists safely on our auto-centric road system; and not a very good method or tool, when used alone, to promote cycling as an alternative to single-occupancy motor vehicularism.

Do you really think the police would have started enforcing tire tread depth restictions on cyclists? My my, you really are paranoid!

You mistake my dislike for VC acolytes, toadies or Foresterites, Foresterology, whatever you want to call them/it, for my dislike of vehicular cycling; I simply consider vehicular cycling to be one tool in a cyclist's toolbox, and not the be-all, end-all to the discussion of how best to accomodate cyclists safely on our auto-centric road system; and not a very good method or tool, when used alone, to promote cycling as an alternative to single-occupancy motor vehicularism.

Since you obviously have very little knowledge of the ways in which the legal system operates, you should never try to advise people about it. Yes, indeed, we need to tell you bits of truth, no matter how much that upsets you.

Of course, vehicular cycling is only one tool; it has to operate in a society that is organized for operation according to the rules of the road. It is a method of operation, not a method of accommodation; it is the best method that we know. Nobody has demonstrated that riding while violating the rules of the road is safer or better than obeying the rules of the road. Your words imply that something else is safer. That claim has never been demonstrated. Until it has been so demonstrated, your claim has no merit.

Furthermore, while vehicular cycling is the best method for cyclists to operate, it is not a tool for reducing motoring. As the best method for cyclists to operate, it is likely to increase the amount of bicycle transportation being done, but I do not think that that effect is likely to have a significant effect on the amount of motoring. You are perfectly free to advocate whatever anti-motoring means you choose, but if you advocate means that contradict the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles you would be clearly doing harm to cyclists, and that is something that you should not be doing.

I said no, because I do things a VC would never do. like ride on sidewalks.
By the way Rando, you can ride on the sidewalk and still be a vehicular cyclist, provided you understand the rules of the road, the reasons behind them, and choose to do so as part of a carefully-considered decision, accepting all the risks :)

By the way Rando, you can ride on the sidewalk and still be a vehicular cyclist, provided you understand the rules of the road, the reasons behind them, and choose to do so as part of a carefully-considered decision, accepting all the risks :)
Indeed, even Mr. Forester writes about riding on the sidewalk using it as a shortcut to his home in one of his books.

VC riders can ride on a sidewalk? "VC" is all in the blowhard-ness of the Foresterites.

Vehicular cyclists CAN RIDE IN A BIKE LANE, vehicularily, can ride on a bike path, can ride on the shoulder, can ride in the door zone, can even ride on a sidewalk.

Aside from the arrogance and discrimination against bike specific infrastructure, the arrogant VC-ists aren't that much different from other riders.

mountebanks: Had to look up the meaning of the new (to me) word. Perfect!
Even my hillbilly selfe has a decent vocabulary. And I reserve the right to not use it. ;)