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

Without debating the definition of a vehicular cyclist, do you consider yourself one generally, in the sense that you generally believe that you are safer when you act and are treated like a slow-moving vehicle, as opposed to a pedestrian on wheels?

You may or may not ride in bike lanes or gutters, depending on both circumstances, and your ideas of safety. But generally, you take the lane (or move left to avoid a RTOL) at intersections, when you are at the speed of traffic, to avoid door zones or narrow lanes and dangerous passers, when there is any other "danger" to being farther right, or when there is no reason to stay right.

Only under unusual circumstances would you even consider riding on a sidewalk

There are situations in which you may or may not ride strictly vehicularly, like on an MUP, or specific scenarios in which you feel it is not necessary for safety (like an unclipped stop at an empty 4-way stop), but in general, the majority of your riding follows the basic principles of vehicular cycling, as you understand them.

Without debating the definition of a vehicular cyclist
I'm a uniter, HH.

I said no, because I do things a VC would never do. like ride on sidewalks.

I consider myself a vehicular cyclist. I ride according to the vehicular rules of the road and I have done so almost daily for approximately four decades.

I do not by any stretch of the imagination, consider myself a VC-ist. I think John Forester's social and psychological theories are quite wrong, not even approaching reality, and I sincerely believe that Forester inspired VC-ist lunacy is the worst thing that has happened to vehicular cycling in my lifetime.

I said no, because I do things a VC would never do. like ride on sidewalks.
No judgement here, you have your own free will.

I used to ride on sidewalks about 25% of the time to avoid certain traffic-related complications. But I was also always careful at intersections, and always considerate to pedestrians.

Now I am in the habit of riding vehicularly, and it has become almost a taboo to even think about getting on a sidewallk. It's just more comfortable to my current style.

I said no, because I do things a VC would never do. like ride on sidewalks.

I rode on a sidewalk yesterday on my way to go get water ice. It's the only way to get between two neighborhoods on the way there without going onto the less pleasant arterials (it was rush hour and I felt like taking the quieter, longer route). I also rode on a MUP as part of the same route. I did "take the lane" through the neighborhoods though, at about 10mph.

I never voted.
I am not a "Vehicular Cyclist" but I do ride "vehicularly" when it suits me and when necessary to do so.
As far as the safer when you act and are treated like a slow-moving vehicle goes, I find I act more often than I'm treated. In a perfect society I would be treated like a slower moving vehicle when I act as though I am one, but reality is a different beast and I have to adapt to the circumstances.

When I ride on the road I ride according to the rules and laws of the road - cept when I don't. Vehicular cycling is just one tool in the tool box, but in general, when on the road, I ride vehicularly.

I rode on a sidewalk yesterday on my way to go get water ice. It's the only way to get between two neighborhoods on the way there without going onto the less pleasant arterials (it was rush hour and I felt like taking the quieter, longer route). I also rode on a MUP as part of the same route. I did "take the lane" through the neighborhoods though, at about 10mph.

OMG JJ, you have the phobia!!! :eek: ;)

OMG JJ, you have the phobia!!! :eek: ;)
And I got a notion.

And I got a notion.

I'll see your notion and raise you a bottle of lotion...and some porn.

another reason I identified myself as NOT VC is that the words/abbreviation/ acronym seems to be accompanied by so much total crap, political posturing, misinformation, sophistic game playing and negativity I don't want to be a part of it. at all.

I'll follow the rules of the road, usually.
and sometimes not.

another reason I identified myself as NOT VC is that the words/abbreviation/ acronym seems to be accompanied by so much total crap, political posturing, misinformation, sophistic game playing and negativity I don't want to be a part of it. at all.

I'll follow the rules of the road, usually.
and sometimes not.
Right!
Who needs a *another* label in order to ride your bike lawfully in the street and obey the rules. We already have one, it's called "law abiding citizen".

I'll follow the rules of the road, usually.
and sometimes not.

What rules of the road do you not follow? Why?

OMG JJ, you have the phobia!!! :eek: ;)

Not the phobia! I hope I didn't catch the gay or the HIV too ;)

I'll see your notion and raise you a bottle of lotion...and some porn.
How 'bout a notion to rock (with your partner) in the motion of the ocean? Note: credit to James Brown "It's a Man's, Man's World" Live at the Apollo version.

I guess I had to vote no because I don't subscribe to the Forester brand and I often do things that are more bicycular than vehicular. I do try to ride predictably and safely for the most part.

I guess I had to vote no because I don't subscribe to the Forester brand and I often do things that are more bicycular than vehicular. I do try to ride predictably and safely for the most part.
I bet you a wooden nickel someone is going to point out to you that a bicycle is a vehicle in the coming posts.

What rules of the road do you not follow? Why?

it depends! :D

for one, not stopping for a stop sign if there's no one around.
riding on deserted sidewalks.
cutting across lots and through alleys.

I bet you a wooden nickel someone is going to point out to you that a bicycle is a vehicle in the coming posts.

Diane, a bicycle is a vehicle in most states...but not your beloved California. Do I get a piece of that wooden nickle?

You can have the wooden nickel, but only if you can pick it up without stopping and dismounting from your slow-moving vehicle.

another reason I identified myself as NOT VC is that the words/abbreviation/ acronym seems to be accompanied by so much total crap, political posturing, misinformation, sophistic game playing and negativity I don't want to be a part of it. at all.

I vote yes, why not? The basic concepts make sense and do help cyclists fit in with traffic. No one I know personally really has a clue about what VC is, or that cyclists online argue about it like it's some kind of religion.

You can have the wooden nickel, but only if you can pick it up without stopping and dismounting from your slow-moving vehicle.
Hey, that reminds me of a trick I saw performed at a sideshow at the Kutztown, PA county fair over 40 years ago.;)

Diane, a bicycle is a vehicle in most states...but not your beloved California. Do I get a piece of that wooden nickle?
John Forester, that great champion of "cyclists fare best..." opposed attempting to change California law to define a bicycle as a vehicle. "Why?" you ask. Well, if a bicycle were defined as a vehicle, in the absense of changes to other laws to include exceptions for bicyclists, then bicyclists might actually be required to obey the same rules that drivers of other vehicles obey (oh, the horror of it!). That's right. Despite the fact that Foresterites have "Same Roads, Same Rules" as a slogan, the great Forester himself opposes actually requiring bicyclists to obey the same rules that drivers of other vehicles obey. Go figure. So much for the internal consistancy of VC-ism.

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - Emerson

We sure don't need any more hobgoblins than we already have.

Hey, that reminds me of a trick I saw performed at a sideshow at the Kutztown, PA county fair over 40 years ago.;)
I could do a lot of tricks 40 years ago.

The early hobgoblin gets the wooden nickel (I actually have some wooden nickels-- and a bowl full of mills).

John Forester, that great champion of "cyclists fare best..." opposed attempting to change California law to define a bicycle as a vehicle. "Why?" you ask. Well, if a bicycle were defined as a vehicle, in the absense of changes to other laws to include exceptions for bicyclists, then bicyclists might actually be required to obey the same rules that drivers of other vehicles obey (oh, the horror of it!). That's right. Despite the fact that Foresterites have "Same Roads, Same Rules" as a slogan, the great Forester himself opposes actually requiring bicyclists to obey the same rules that drivers of other vehicles obey. Go figure. So much for the internal consistancy of VC-ism.

Pretty close.

If a bicycle were defined as a vehicle, in the absense of changes to CERTAIN other laws to include exceptions for bicyclists, then bicyclists might actually be required to obey the same rules that drivers of MOTOR vehicles must obey (like no racing and no tailgating).

Defining a bicycle as a vehicle technically makes racing your buddy to the top of the local hill illegal. That makes sense if you and your buddy are racing Ford vs. Chevy, but not if Trek vs. Specialized, or your horses 9 to 5 vs. Annie pulling buggies.

Truly, in states like CA we have the best of both worlds. We have the same rights and responsibilities that apply of drivers of all types of vehicles, but not those rights and responsibilities that apply ONLY to drivers of MOTOR vehicles.

Do you seriously have a problem with that?

Do you seriously have a problem with that?
Only that I now can't place the granny on the 3-speed who beat me up Texas street under citizen's arrest for racing.


Hey, that reminds me of a trick I saw performed at a sideshow at the Kutztown, PA county fair over 40 years ago.
Are you sure it wasn't Thailand?


I hope I didn't catch the gay or the HIV too
:roflmao:

Truly, in states like CA we have the best of both worlds. We have the same rights and responsibilities that apply of drivers of all types of vehicles, but not those rights and responsibilities that apply ONLY to drivers of MOTOR vehicles.

Do you seriously have a problem with that?

It sounds an aweful lot like special treatment if you ask me. Which should be something all cyclists strive against when it comes to our rights to the road.
If cyclists are afforded special rights that would lead to animosity from motorists.

Is it not easier and better for motorists to understand that we (cyclists) must obey the same rules while on the road instead of them having to take note of our special rights and laws?

And special rights for a bicycle tend to lead to the belief that a bicycle is an inferior vehicle.

It sounds an aweful lot like special treatment if you ask me. Which should be something all cyclists strive against when it comes to our rights to the road.
You forget which tiny slice of the cycling population Forester really represents. Priority must be given to protecting Forester's cycling club associates from any fear, no matter how remote, of any limitation on their right to paceline and/or conduct a race on public roads, whenever and wherever they choose.

And special rights for a bicycle tend to lead to the belief that a bicycle is an inferior vehicle.

I like a lot of the "special" rules for bikes in the road rules where I live. I think they acknowledge that in some ways bicycles are superior vehicles :)

Buses, motorcycles, taxi's, trucks and even cars with more than a certain number of occupants have special rules and exemptions for using the road, so why not bikes?

When riding I am not a "pedestrian on wheels" or a motor vehicle, I am a cyclist on a bike (that is also legally a vehicle) .... and I ride like one.

You can have the wooden nickel, but only if you can pick it up without stopping and dismounting from your slow-moving vehicle.

Piece of cake, white girl. :)

Pretty close.

If a bicycle were defined as a vehicle, in the absense of changes to CERTAIN other laws to include exceptions for bicyclists, then bicyclists might actually be required to obey the same rules that drivers of MOTOR vehicles must obey (like no racing and no tailgating).

Defining a bicycle as a vehicle technically makes racing your buddy to the top of the local hill illegal. That makes sense if you and your buddy are racing Ford vs. Chevy, but not if Trek vs. Specialized, or your horses 9 to 5 vs. Annie pulling buggies.

Truly, in states like CA we have the best of both worlds. We have the same rights and responsibilities that apply of drivers of all types of vehicles, but not those rights and responsibilities that apply ONLY to drivers of MOTOR vehicles.

Do you seriously have a problem with that?

No...as long you you don't try to export your BS VC politics anywhere outside of California, I could care less if you sleep in the bed you made. You want special treatment, like any other dependent class. The inferiority complex is yours, so next time you think about spreading that BS to others, you are going to get called on it - Pot-Kettle-Black.

Interesting that after all the blather from you and Forester about 'transportational' cycling...it turns out your biggest concerns about being considered a vehicle have to do with racing. Hear that sucking sound of your credibility going down the toilet?

It sounds an aweful lot like special treatment if you ask me. Which should be something all cyclists strive against when it comes to our rights to the road.
If cyclists are afforded special rights that would lead to animosity from motorists.

Is it not easier and better for motorists to understand that we (cyclists) must obey the same rules while on the road instead of them having to take note of our special rights and laws?

And special rights for a bicycle tend to lead to the belief that a bicycle is an inferior vehicle.

Why not special rights for cyclists? We are a non polluting, low impact, highly efficient form of personal transport that is in reality somewhat fragile when compared to the other vehicles on the road. Motorcycles and hybrid cars get certain "special treatment" when it comes to car pool lanes. Pedestrians get preferential treatment when it comes to ROW, why shouldn't cyclists get special treatment?

The typical argument is that motorists pay taxes and fees for the roads... but that is not true when it comes to the surface streets that cyclists use... those roads are paid for by all of us that pay taxes, and the licenses are because motorists are driving a heavy powerful vehicle. So why not laws that give preferential treatment to cyclists... especially in light of the energy issues that we are facing now and in the future.

Why not "3 foot laws," "stopsigns as yield laws" and "vulnerable road user laws (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=296610)" to give cyclists a certain advantage similar to that advanatage that hybrid drivers get in car pool lanes.

I rode on a sidewalk yesterday on my way to go get water ice. It's the only way to get between two neighborhoods on the way there without going onto the less pleasant arterials (it was rush hour and I felt like taking the quieter, longer route). I also rode on a MUP as part of the same route. I did "take the lane" through the neighborhoods though, at about 10mph.
My understanding is that Rando is truely non vehicluar in style. He chooses sidewalk even when the road is pleasant (except for lack of shade), such as this example of a lightly traveled low speed limit road with very wide lanes.
Google Map Link to 14th Street between 52nd and Priest (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=W+14th+St,+Tempe,+Maricopa,+Arizona+85281,+United+States&ie=UTF8&oe=UTF-8&cd=1&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=53.300127,74.707031&ll=33.413704,-111.964974&spn=0.001733,0.00228&t=k&z=19&om=1)
http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=4404157&postcount=415

This is not at all meant as a negative comment about him. I very much appreciate the honesty and the reasoning.

The only thing I am curious about is if he uses the sidewalk on same road on colder days or when the sun is down.

Al

Why not special rights for cyclists? We are a non polluting, low impact, highly efficient form of personal transport that is in reality somewhat fragile when compared to the other vehicles on the road. Motorcycles and hybrid cars get certain "special treatment" when it comes to car pool lanes. Pedestrians get preferential treatment when it comes to ROW, why shouldn't cyclists get special treatment?

The typical argument is that motorists pay taxes and fees for the roads... but that is not true when it comes to the surface streets that cyclists use... those roads are paid for by all of us that pay taxes, and the licenses are because motorists are driving a heavy powerful vehicle. So why not laws that give preferential treatment to cyclists... especially in light of the energy issues that we are facing now and in the future.

Why not "3 foot laws," "stopsigns as yield laws" and "vulnerable road user laws (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=296610)" to give cyclists a certain advantage similar to that advanatage that hybrid drivers get in car pool lanes.


In the context of California and considering a bicycle a vehicle, how do you think black folks, for example, would have tolerated laws that gave them the same rights and responsibilities as others, but refused stipulate that they were equal human beings?

Special privileges do not mean equality. You wanna have equal footing with other vehicles, you need to first be considered a vehicle. Anything less is lip service to shut you up and get you out of the way of the 'real' vehicles...which is what HH & JF allegedly oppose in principle but not in deed.

Once you are a vehicle, laws and regs concerning different classes of vehicles will give you the special treatment you seek.

It sounds an aweful lot like special treatment if you ask me. Which should be something all cyclists strive against when it comes to our rights to the road.
If cyclists are afforded special rights that would lead to animosity from motorists.

Is it not easier and better for motorists to understand that we (cyclists) must obey the same rules while on the road instead of them having to take note of our special rights and laws?

And special rights for a bicycle tend to lead to the belief that a bicycle is an inferior vehicle.
You're close. It's special treatment, special treatment of MOTOR vehicles.
Before motor vehicles, it was not against the rules to "tailgate" and race on the roads.
The MOTORs made those practices dangerous, and, so, they are rightly prohibited, for drivers of MOTOR vehicles.

My understanding is that Rando is truely non vehicluar in style. He chooses sidewalk even when the road is pleasant (except for lack of shade), such as this example of a lightly traveled low speed limit road with very wide lanes.
Google Map Link to 14th Street between 52nd and Priest (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=W+14th+St,+Tempe,+Maricopa,+Arizona+85281,+United+States&ie=UTF8&oe=UTF-8&cd=1&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=53.300127,74.707031&ll=33.413704,-111.964974&spn=0.001733,0.00228&t=k&z=19&om=1)
http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=4404157&postcount=415

This is not at all meant as a negative comment about him. I very much appreciate the honesty and the reasoning.

The only thing I am curious about is if he uses the sidewalk on same road on colder days or when the sun is down.

Al

Yes, I do!

In the context of California and considering a bicycle a vehicle, how do you think black folks, for example, would have tolerated laws that gave them the same rights and responsibilities as others, but refused stipulate that they were equal human beings?

Special privileges do not mean equality. You wanna have equal footing with other vehicles, you need to first be considered a vehicle. Anything less is lip service to shut you up and get you out of the way of the 'real' vehicles...which is what HH & JF allegedly oppose in principle but not in deed.

Once you are a vehicle, laws and regs concerning different classes of vehicles will give you the special treatment you seek.

I don't want to go down the black and white debate... frankly because bicycles are not equal to MOTORvehicles... the weight is different, the speed is different, the load carrying is different, and we are talking human powered verses motor powered... the differences far outweigh the need to be equal. Therefore we should be beyond equality... and in fact should be treated differently.

I really don't want equality, I want to be special. I don't use 4 wheels or gasoline, I AM different and want to be treated differently. If I want equality, I could just jump in a MOTOR vehicle and be equal.

John Forester, that great champion of "cyclists fare best..." opposed attempting to change California law to define a bicycle as a vehicle. "Why?" you ask. Well, if a bicycle were defined as a vehicle, in the absense of changes to other laws to include exceptions for bicyclists, then bicyclists might actually be required to obey the same rules that drivers of other vehicles obey (oh, the horror of it!). That's right. Despite the fact that Foresterites have "Same Roads, Same Rules" as a slogan, the great Forester himself opposes actually requiring bicyclists to obey the same rules that drivers of other vehicles obey. Go figure. So much for the internal consistancy of VC-ism.
In California, the traffic laws make a distinction between vehicles (meaning motor vehicles according to the legal definition) and drivers. The movement laws usually start off with "the driver of a vehicle must....", while the laws dealing with physical characteristics of the vehicle (turn signals, lighting, seat belts, etc.) leave out the reference to "driver" and refer only to the vehicle itself. A bicycle is not a vehicle in California, which is a good thing because that means we're exempt from having things like seatbelts and big headlights permanently attached to our bikes. (There are separate laws dealing with bicycle lighting requirements when riding at night.) But "bicyclists have the same rights and duties as the driver of a vehicle", so they are subject to the same movement laws as other drivers - which is the essence of the "same roads, same rules, same rights" saying.

I really don't want equality, I want to be special. I don't use 4 wheels or gasoline, I AM different and want to be treated differently. If I want equality, I could just jump in a MOTOR vehicle and be equal.

Well if all you want is to be special, come my friend, join me on the short bus! :D

Personally, I think we are talking about a difference without a distinction. It is not about how the vehicle is defined. It is about how the law is applied. No more, no less.

since vehicular cyclists like mossy john and helmet head have clarifed that vehicular cyclists can ride in bike lanes, on bike paths, on shoulders of high speed roads, ETC,

then YES, of course I ride vehicularily. all the semantics surrounding this 'vehicular' debate is largely internet posturing about minuatae.


I've been taking the lane since 1976. I ride vehicularily, and I also support bike infrastructure. Even mossy john has admitted vehicular bicyclists CAN RIDE VEHICULARILY IN A BIKE LANE.

Hear that sucking sound of your credibility going down the toilet?
Careful, this is almost exactly what I got reported for saying...

:eek:

:rolleyes:

;)

Personally, I think we are talking about a difference without a distinction. It is not about how the vehicle is defined. It is about how the law is applied. No more, no less.
Agreed. The law applies to operators, not to vehicles anyway.

And if cyclists have the same general rights and responsibilities of vehicle drivers (but not necessarily all the specific extra responsibilities that apply only to drivers of certain types vehicles), what's the problem?

Why not special rights for cyclists? We are a non polluting, low impact, highly efficient form of personal transport that is in reality somewhat fragile when compared to the other vehicles on the road. Motorcycles and hybrid cars get certain "special treatment" when it comes to car pool lanes. Pedestrians get preferential treatment when it comes to ROW, why shouldn't cyclists get special treatment?
Motorists also get to use all those special limited access 'non-motorized vehicles prohibited' roads.

Motorists also get to use all those special limited access 'non-motorized vehicles prohibited' roads.

Exactly... We have no access to limited access freeways... therefore we should get preferential treatment on regular surface streets.

I voted no, I am not much of a label person, nor as I satated really get VC....

You're close. It's special treatment, special treatment of MOTOR vehicles.
Before motor vehicles, it was not against the rules to "tailgate" and race on the roads.
The MOTORs made those practices dangerous, and, so, they are rightly prohibited, for drivers of MOTOR vehicles.

Dude, you seriously can't compare 100 years ago to today, that is totally asenine. Before motor vehicles there was no such thing as a tailgate and racing took place on tracks, not the roads... for the most part. But then again, 80 years ago I was allowed to beat my wife with a stick if I felt I had good reason.
The roads today are designed with motor traffic in mind first, that makes them the main user of the roads.

I find it humerous that you have posted several times, "same roads, same rules" yet are all happy and giddy that you don't have to abide by that statement.
There is a word for people like that (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypocrite)

John Forester, that great champion of "cyclists fare best..." opposed attempting to change California law to define a bicycle as a vehicle. "Why?" you ask. Well, if a bicycle were defined as a vehicle, in the absense of changes to other laws to include exceptions for bicyclists, then bicyclists might actually be required to obey the same rules that drivers of other vehicles obey (oh, the horror of it!). That's right. Despite the fact that Foresterites have "Same Roads, Same Rules" as a slogan, the great Forester himself opposes actually requiring bicyclists to obey the same rules that drivers of other vehicles obey. Go figure. So much for the internal consistancy of VC-ism.

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - Emerson

We sure don't need any more hobgoblins than we already have.

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.

Dude, you seriously can't compare 100 years ago to today, that is totally asenine. Before motor vehicles there was no such thing as a tailgate and racing took place on tracks, not the roads... for the most part. But then again, 80 years ago I was allowed to beat my wife with a stick if I felt I had good reason.
The roads today are designed with motor traffic in mind first, that makes them the main user of the roads.

I find it humerous that you have posted several times, "same roads, same rules" yet are all happy and giddy that you don't have to abide by that statement.
There is a word for people like that (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypocrite)
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.

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


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