Devices?

[Laika]

Randya has intrigued me... is it true that the home state of two of our primary VC advocates doesn't consider bikes vehicles but rather devices? If so, why so? And ought vehicular cycling be more properly called "deviceular cycling" or "vehicular devicing" "cycicular device vehicularism?"

TIA!!

[sbhikes]

Yeah, it's a tush delivery device. Delivers my tush to work each day.

I don't think the device thing affects you much in the day-to-day because you still get treated as the operator of a street-legal vehicle by the law. The laws for cyclists are contained in the CA Vehicle Code, not some "device" manual.

[noisebeam]

Study up on this great overview/guide:

"This report is presented as a guide to improving the traffic law to provide fair and equal treatment for bicyclists. The analysis and recommendations should greatly assist those interested in preparing a comprehensive reform of the state vehicle code affecting bicycling in the states where they live. The report also is a resource for anyone interested in understanding how bicyclists are treated under the traffic laws. "

http://www.bicycledriving.com/trafficlaw.htm

Al

[joejack951]

Go read the California Vehicle Code and get the real scoop. While a bike is a device, a cyclist is still a vehicle driver and the same rules apply that apply to all vehicle drivers.

[genec]

Go read the California Vehicle Code and get the real scoop. While a bike is a device, a cyclist is still a vehicle driver and the same rules apply that apply to all vehicle drivers.

True and that is spelled out very specifically in the first line of laws dealing with bicycles.

But the fact of the matter is that recognition of a bike as a unique "human powered device" is perhaps more realistic than lumping bikes with all other (powered) vehicles.

The fact is a human powered device has different operating characteristics than a powered device and these differences need to be recognized and acknowledged...

The focus is often on the rights of the users, but the reality is the method of transportation is unique and different... so while the rights may be the same, the results are not.

[Helmet Head]

True and that is spelled out very specifically in the first line of laws dealing with bicycles.

But the fact of the matter is that recognition of a bike as a unique "human powered device" is perhaps more realistic than lumping bikes with all other (powered) vehicles.

The fact is a human powered device has different operating characteristics than a powered device and these differences need to be recognized and acknowledged...

The focus is often on the rights of the users, but the reality is the method of transportation is unique and different... so while the rights may be the same, the results are not.
No one has ever denied that bicycles have different operating characteristics from cars.

Semi-trucks, cement trucks, farm tractors, sedans, pickup trucks, sports cars, mopeds, bulldozers, pedal taxis, motorcycles and horse & buggies all have different operating characteristics too. Never-the-less, we all fare best when we act and are treated as drivers of vehicles according to the same vehicular rules of the road, on the same roads, with the same rights.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Never-the-less, we all fare best when we act and are treated as drivers of vehicles according to the same vehicular rules of the road, on the same roads, with the same rights.
Same old, same old hammerheaded, brow beating mantra.http://www.majordickwinters.com/phpBB2/images/smiles/violent1.gif

[rando]

we all fare best when we act and are treated as drivers of vehicles according to the same vehicular rules of the road, on the same roads, with the same rights.

I just can't agree with this blanket statement... there are going to be times when a cyclist fares best when he doesn't act as a driver of vehicles according to the rules of the road, on the same roads with the same rights.

this is one of the points where VC doesn't cut it for me.

along with anti BL and Phobias

[noisebeam]

there are going to be times when a cyclist fares best when he doesn't act as a driver of vehicles according to the rules of the road, on the same roads with the same rights.

For example?
Al

[chipcom]

No one has ever denied that bicycles have different operating characteristics from cars.

Semi-trucks, cement trucks, farm tractors, sedans, pickup trucks, sports cars, mopeds, bulldozers, pedal taxis, motorcycles and horse & buggies all have different operating characteristics too. Never-the-less, we all fare best when we act and are treated as drivers of vehicles according to the same vehicular rules of the road, on the same roads, with the same rights.

But you aren't the driver of a vehicle, you are the operator of a device. Do I fare best when operating an Ipod according to vehicular rules? How about a lathe? :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: I crack myself up sometimes.

[Helmet Head]

Randya has intrigued me... is it true that the home state of two of our primary VC advocates doesn't consider bikes vehicles but rather devices? If so, why so? And ought vehicular cycling be more properly called "deviceular cycling" or "vehicular devicing" "cycicular device vehicularism?"

TIA!!
The whole thing is semantic nonsense. There were two choices:


to define bicycles as vehicles and go through every law and change "vehicle" to "motor vehicle" as appropriate, OR
define bicycles as devices and assign the same rights to bicyclists that drivers of vehicles have.

In theory, the result would be the same. But it was much easier, less error-prone and less likely to cause problems to go with (b). This way the laws that apply to physical vehicle equipment (lights, horns, rear view mirrors, treaded tires) and some of the rules that are based on the (no racing, no tailgating) do not apply to bicyclists (bicycle equipment is separately regulated - with lights required only at night, for example). We get the best of both worlds.

[chipcom]

Been working on that spin for 30 years, eh. "We didn't want to inconvenience the printer" :lol:

[genec]

No one has ever denied that bicycles have different operating characteristics from cars.

Semi-trucks, cement trucks, farm tractors, sedans, pickup trucks, sports cars, mopeds, bulldozers, pedal taxis, motorcycles and horse & buggies all have different operating characteristics too. Never-the-less, we all fare best when we act and are treated as drivers of vehicles according to the same vehicular rules of the road, on the same roads, with the same rights.

Everything you mentioned with the exception of the horse and buggy... which is very very rarely seen is powered... and thus is not beholden to the laws of inertia in the same manner as a cyclist on a bike... Everything you mentioned can easily acclerate up a hill by a simple push of pedal or twist of a wrist...

Trying to lump the operators of different vehicles together is like lumping fish and birds together and saying they can use the same medium to live in. Yup, they are both animals...

[sbhikes]

Well, the operator of a vehicle might open the door, hop inside, put on the seat belt, adjust the stereo, put the coffee cup in the cup holder, light up a ciggie, start the ignition, put the car in gear and go.

I can't do any of those things, except maybe the coffee cup if I had one of those holders. Instead, I have to roll up my pant legs, put on my helmet, adjust the iPod, put out the ciggie (ok, I don't smoke, but I would think it would be hard to smoke and ride), start pedaling, change gears and I'm on my way.

So, fiddle with the things on your dash or fiddle with the things in your pannier. We're all just operating devices.

[Helmet Head]

Everything you mentioned with the exception of the horse and buggy... which is very very rarely seen is powered... and thus is not beholden to the laws of inertia in the same manner as a cyclist on a bike... Everything you mentioned can easily acclerate up a hill by a simple push of pedal or twist of a wrist...
So what? "Being "not beholden to the laws of inertia in the same manner" just translates into cyclists being slower in many situations, which the rules of the road already accomodate. Nothing new or significant here.

[Laika]

The whole thing is semantic nonsense.

Which makes it a perfect topic for discussion in ths subforum.

Thanks for your take on it.

[genec]

So what? Being "not beholden to the laws of inertia in the same manner" just translates into cyclists being slower in many situations, which the rules of the road already accomodate. Nothing new or significant here.

or faster, when gravity takes over but the inertial of a larger vehicle prevents them from taking advantage... and then there are stopsigns... which to a cyclist moving at 10-15MPH and with ears and eyes open, can easily just be yield signs.

The rules of the road are not exactly accomodating to HPV or HPD (Human Powered Devices). Nope, the road and rules are geared for motortraffic... and we are just trying to fit in.