Vehicular Cycling (VC) - When VC doesn't work

The Vehicular-cycling principle is: cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles. Of course, the scope of this principle's applicability is essentially limited to when riding a bicycle on roads shared with motor vehicles (whether there are bike lanes or not). It doesn't apply bombing down a single-track at a ski resort, for example, and has limited application on multi-use paths where other users are unlikely to be following any rules whatsoever.

In another thread, Rando has suggested a modified version: cyclists fare best when they act safely and cooperatively as drivers of vehicles, using the same roads under the same rules, recognizing that there are times when acting vehicularly is not the best practice, and being flexible enough to do what is necessary as the situation warrants.

The part that I find curious is this: recognizing that there are times when acting vehicularly is not the best practice, and being flexible enough to do what is necessary as the situation warrants.

I mean, sure, a sidewalk shortcut that avoids a U-Turn with likely delays or going around the block might be useful here and there (Forester cites such examples in his book, by the way), but, overall, it's a pretty rare exception, and I'm not sure I would characterize going around the block vehicularly as "not the best practice".

Are there any specific examples any of you can think of that you feel are characterized by "times when acting vehicularly is not the best practice, and being flexible enough to do what is necessary as the situation warrants"? Such as, what? Please be specific and explain why "acting vehicular is not the best practice" in that situation.

Very windy 2-lane highways (1 lane in each direction). At a leftward curve, if you are in the middle of the lane, a car will see you later, and have less room to react.

in my mind this means anything from avoiding a hazard to doing what feels right to me personally. for example, I ride on a sidewalk during my commute. alongside a very wide well-paved street that I could easily cycle on... not very vehicular, but it is more pleasant to me than the street as it is shaded and planted with flowers and has lots of trees and grass and birds, etc on either side. rarely have I encountered peds here. most people are in the offices, working.

Many bridges. Example: Brooklyn Bridge.

Very windy 2-lane highways (1 lane in each direction). At a leftward curve, if you are in the middle of the lane, a car will see you later, and have less room to react.
And so what do you believe is the vehicular behavior in that case, and what is the specific alternative behavior you're advocating, and how is that behavior not vehicular?

And so what do you believe is the vehicular behavior in that case
Well, according to the Wikipedia article on VC, one of the principles is

Using the full lane unless overtaking traffic is likely to be delayed and the marked traffic lane is wide enough to share.


what is the specific alternative behavior you're advocating
The rules of the road don't require bicyclists to ride on the shoulder, but if there is a suitable shoulder, I would advocate using it in this circumstance.

Edit: Here's a HH quote (from when he was defining VC):

In particular, in the absence of FSDT there is no reason for a vehicular cyclist to ride in the road margin.

http://bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=304192
Also, for this guy, VC on his commute doesn't seem to be working for avoiding dangerous treatment from drivers. Unless you have some VC advice for him that will solve his problem.

in my mind this means anything from avoiding a hazard to doing what feels right to me personally. for example, I ride on a sidewalk during my commute. alongside a very wide well-paved street that I could easily cycle on... not very vehicular, but it is more pleasant to me than the street as it is shaded and planted with flowers and has lots of trees and grass and birds, etc on either side. rarely have I encountered peds here. most people are in the offices, working.

I agree with this. On my commute there is a main heavily travelled arterial (2 lanes each direction) with a sidewalk next to it. Posted speed is 35 but everyone does 45-50 and it is the main road from the burbs into the city. I tried riding vehicularly a few times and multiple cars that came up behind me and had to slow down to pass me in the next lane honked, swerved at me, and drivers yelled insults. I now ride on the sidewalk for this stretch of the road. My state and local law makes it legal to ride on the sidewalk. I know I also have the right to use the main arterial; but I would prefer not to encounter the aforesaid behavior every morning on my way in.

Also, Monsieur Casque-Tete, would you please define "best practice"?

Does this mean best for the longevity of the cyclist?
Best for getting all traffic to their destinations the most efficiently possible?
What?

VC doesn't work when it is boiled down to taking a center-ish lane position by default all the time and hating bike lanes. Otherwise, what the heck are you even talking about? VC is a bunch of things, any of which can work at one time or another, or not.

My old work commute involved riding up a 4 lane (each direction) interstate exchange followed by a major road on/off section that expanded to 6 lanes at the off/on ramp section - 2 lanes were exit only. This was a 55mph posted road and was a good looong section of busy rush hour cars. I had proper lights and vest, etc. but I had to ride it at 5am and several times in blinding rain/wind storms. I chose to ride as a vehicle (before I heard of VC, so don't get all self congratulatory now), sticking in the third land (2 on my right, 3 on my left, 55-65 mph traffic whizzing by. I only got hit once (an ever so light knuckle tap by a side mirror), I did have some other close calls - I of course took my lane like you wouldn't believe it, but after I quit that job and no longer had to ride that route - I'll tell you what, taking the wide sidewalk and waiting for exit traffic would be muuuch safer over the long run. Not that I chose to do that due to waiting for the cars, but I'm a fairly strong commuter, able to maintain high speeds in short bursts. No one else I have ever met will even consider that road in the daytime, let alone pitch black morning with rush hour.

Sure, VC (behaving like a car) worked, but it sure as hell wasn't safe in that situation, which to me means it really didn't work

Southbound PCH as it crosses Barnett Avenue in San Diego.

If one stays on PCH, then one will be routed under a tunnel and then find themselves going uphill, while 2 lanes of 45mph traffic join them on the right....it's much safer for non-advanced cyclists to go right from PCH onto Barnett and pull a pedestrian U-turn.

http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=1008854

high speed two lane exit ramp from Barbur Blvd. northbound to Ross Island Bridge eastbound in heavy traffic

Too many examples there HH? You seem kind of quiet on this one....

Too many examples there HH? You seem kind of quiet on this one....
Have mercy. The lad is shell shocked.

This will probably lose something in the left-right translation but ....

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&t=k&om=1&ll=-27.558632,153.040237&spn=0.003372,0.004147&z=18

We drive on the left and there are two lanes each way.

My daily commute requires going south to north on this road, to turn left at the next intersection. There are traffic lights at the intersection, and being on the less busy road, I have to wait at these almost every time. The road goes up hill so my acceleration and speed after the lights are fairly slow. If there are a lot of cars behind me and I take the lane the typical behavior will be for motorists to accelerate rapidly to overtake me as soon as a gap is available. A large percentage of the time this is fine but occasionally a motorist in the right lane will attempt to turn (illegally) into the commercial plaza in the top right.

This can create a very dangerous situation where I have a car accelerating heavily and overtaking into a lane with a car who is decelerating and trying to turn. With the choice of hitting the car in front or changing lanes (into me) which do you think they will do?

As a result, depending on conditions, I will take the footpath about 50% of the time. This is an adaptive and pragmatic choice base on the conditions at this particular intersection at the time I am there. I believe that if I followed a rigid VC approach and claim my rights to the road every time, that I would increase my likelihood of having an accident on this particular stretch.

I agree with this. On my commute there is a main heavily travelled arterial (2 lanes each direction) with a sidewalk next to it. Posted speed is 35 but everyone does 45-50 and it is the main road from the burbs into the city. I tried riding vehicularly a few times and multiple cars that came up behind me and had to slow down to pass me in the next lane honked, swerved at me, and drivers yelled insults. I now ride on the sidewalk for this stretch of the road. My state and local law makes it legal to ride on the sidewalk. I know I also have the right to use the main arterial; but I would prefer not to encounter the aforesaid behavior every morning on my way in.

I think this post is the perfect example of why we should get together and advocate for new LAWS that protect us instead of trying to just fit in with the laws already here that weren't EVER meant for us.

Riding VC is fine, if in a perfect world, everyone looks for bikes, drives the speed limit, isn't late for anything, always had a good night's sleep or a good day at work.
But like THAT happens!

Times have changed. There are more bikes on the road than there ever have been (don't know that for a fact, but my eyes tell me that there are more out there). The laws haven't changed though. New roads are built all the time, more roads are widened (sp?) every year to catch up with the traffic they have to serve. Why not the laws?
We want more people to bike with us, yes? How many people in a week do any of us talk to who think we are the definition of insane? I talk to hundreds of people each week and they shake their heads at me and ask me what I want on my tombstone and they ain't talkin 'bout pizza. Many would join us but they've seen and heard what we deal with. Some of you are better able to let it roll off your back, others (me) are not. I tend to think about my 5 kids growing up without me or with me in a wheelchair.
The LAWS need to catch up with us. We shouldn't have to be fitted in with a bunch of maniacs who would even think of pretending to swerve at us.
By not making new and enforsing current laws, we are allowing those in charge to tell us that our lives are not worth the time. Not worth effort to make things better.
Just think about what could happen in 10 years. No bike lanes, just lanes that we have a right to, fully. More cyclists, less obese people on the planet, less crap piped into our atmosphere for us to breathe while we are biking. It's a WIN/WIN!!

I understand VC, I really do. For some times and places it works well. But it will do nothing to get others to join us.

Done, off the soapbox. . .Sorry to hijack the thread.

Have mercy. The lad is shell shocked.

haha, old SI doesn't deserve any breaks as far as I'm concerned.

Most cases of VC not working are when the cyclist has not tried it and instead stays in their comfort zone. Trying a new way is not always easy as one does not have the experience with the situation.

I have yet to find a need for a non VC way of riding where I live. In this region I think perhaps the most difficult vehicular maneuver is merging across several lanes of fast traffic for a left turn. One can still (and I do on occasion) make a right turn, a u-turn and then thru the intersection instead - a maneuver that is vehicular and even done by motorists sometimes in heavy traffic.

Al

Southbound PCH as it crosses Barnett Avenue in San Diego.

If one stays on PCH, then one will be routed under a tunnel and then find themselves going uphill, while 2 lanes of 45mph traffic join them on the right....it's much safer for non-advanced cyclists to go right from PCH onto Barnett and pull a pedestrian U-turn.

http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=1008854 I've ridden through there countless times and always do a normal slow vehicular merge with negotiation as required.

None of the examples in this thread so far illustrate a situation where VC does not work.

Al nailed it: "Most cases of VC not working are when the cyclist has not tried it and instead stays in their comfort zone."

blind curves, narrow lanes, highway speed roads, approaching bridgeways. versus using an accomodating walk/bikeway on bridge approach and crossing.

wait a second! since it's vehicular for bicyclists to ride on the accomodating shoulders of high speed roads, and vehicular to use a bike lane, then a lot of this 'vc doesn't work' talk is hype and artifice.

allowed road travel in bicyclists' travel direction ends, transportational bike path on floating bridge provides alternative to 20 mile road commute around lake.

None of the examples in this thread so far illustrate a situation where VC does not work.
That is not the point at all. The original point was not whether there are situations where VC "does not work".

The original point, in your words, was whether or not there are situations where VC is "not the best practice".

Nice try.

Now, in the thread that spawned this one, I asked you how you were defining "best" in this context, and you replied "most effective". Most effective at what? is the question.

There are several examples here of situations in which VC is not necessarily the best in terms of safest.

There are countless others in which VC is not necessarily the best in terms of exediency.

The first thing I do on my morning commute is cruise several blocks of deserted sidewalk against traffic along a busy one-way arterial. This simple act of non-vehicularity chops a great deal of time off my morning commute. When trying to cross this road in my car at that time of day, I find myself waiting for five minutes or longer at the stopsign. I don't agree with the notion that use of sidewalk and other ped facilities provides only 'rare exceptions' to faring best VC-style. In densely populated areas, opportunities to use sidewalks in a safe and efficient manner arise all the time. The cyclist's freedom to exploit ped as well as other facilities is probably the main reason for the bicycle's superiority as a transportation device.

Also, on narrow residential streets lined with parked cars, I might ride a bit on the left side of center if I am cruising fast and feel the need to maximize space between myself and certain right-side hazards. (Taking into account left-side hazards and oncoming traffic, of course.)

In messenger mode, I pretty much jettison the VC model to increase efficiency and get things done. Any messenger who attempted to ride VC all the time would be basically useless. But that is a special case that applies only to a very small percentage of bicyclists.

Robert

approach to looong backup approaching an up drawbridge, I will use the opposing lanes to advance on the backup safely to make my ride most expedient, versus sucking tailpipe in a backup of traffic that will take 10-15 light cycles to clear.

when VC doesnt' work? when the cyclist chooses an adaptive style of bicycling.... which, as even 'big bad john' f. indicates - for him to get home, a rabid, dogmatic vehicular cyclist can and will use sidewalks.

the more i read about the VC brand, the more i see artifice and puffery to advance unaccomodated, autocentric road design.

if we are all riding adaptively, recognize 'vcists' can be riding vehicularily in bike lanes, on the shoulders of high speed roads, riding adaptively on sidewalks......

this VC is more a political quagmire to prevent communities in america from becomming more accomodating for bicycle travel.

None of the examples in this thread so far illustrate a situation where VC does not work.


I would counter this but Zeytoun did it just fine - (well, just a bit more) do you even know what threads you start? You clearly asked:


Are there any specific examples any of you can think of that you feel are characterized by "times when acting vehicularly is not the best practice, and being flexible enough to do what is necessary as the situation warrants"? Such as, what? Please be specific and explain why "acting vehicular is not the best practice" in that situation.

Many posts here including mine answer just that.... but never mind, it doesn't matter becasue you are here to tell us why we are wrong and why the situations we post are exactly perfect for VC, aren't you? Once again you are priceless.

A time when acting vehicularly is not the BEST practice:

On Saturday I went down town. The main street was closed for a parade. When I saw the street closed sign, I looked to the cross street. It too was closed, due to downed live electrical wire. Traffic was being diverted in a completely opposite direction than I wanted to go.

Choice A: Make a U-turn and crawl with all the autos 180 degrees in the wrong direction.
Choice B: Take the sidewalk.
Choice C: Try to sneak through the closed street and slip down an alley.

Unfortunately Choice C didn't work and I got some major harassment by the police. Next time, Plan B. Choice A is for people who love fumes and being late.

A time when acting vehicularly is not the BEST practice:

On Saturday I went down town. The main street was closed for a parade. When I saw the street closed sign, I looked to the cross street. It too was closed, due to downed live electrical wire. Traffic was being diverted in a completely opposite direction than I wanted to go.

Choice A: Make a U-turn and crawl with all the autos 180 degrees in the wrong direction.
Choice B: Take the sidewalk.
Choice C: Try to sneak through the closed street and slip down an alley.

Unfortunately Choice C didn't work and I got some major harassment by the police. Next time, Plan B. Choice A is for people who love fumes and being late.
Given that it was a parade which most often draw crowds, wouldn't have using the sidewalk required being a pedestrian?

Al

Regardless of what I asked in the OP, my statement stands: None of the examples in this thread so far illustrate a situation where VC does not work.

Regarding the question in the OP, again, all the examples in this thread show is that there are rare exceptions, no surprise.

Robert claims that it is false "that use of sidewalk and other ped facilities provides only 'rare exceptions' to faring best VC-style". I guess we have to disagree on whether the number of dense urban situations where that is true amounts to more than rare.

hilarious. just rich.

VC may be the preferred method of riding in the US suburban dystopia, but that's only because the US suburban dystopia is a cars first environment, pursuant to the Americn Dream Coaltion's nocturnal emissions.

Regardless of what I asked in the OP, my statement stands: None of the examples in this thread so far illustrate a situation where VC does not work.

Regarding the question in the OP, again, all the examples in this thread show is that there are rare exceptions, no surprise.


Please explain how my example does NOT "illustrate a situation where VC does not work." In fairness, I suppose theoretically VC "works" in my example given that I was able to ride the rode in question one or two times. However, practically speaking VC does not "work" in my example because there is a readily available less dangerous, less stressful, more accessible alternative available---i.e. the sidewalk.

Regardless of what I asked in the OP, my statement stands: None of the examples in this thread so far illustrate a situation where VC does not work.
Regardless of your statement, my statement that this is not the point of the thread or the OP, still stands. But thanks for throwing it out there.

You asked for people to give you examples of "times when acting vehicularly is not the best practice, and being flexible enough to do what is necessary as the situation warrants". A dozen people have posted examples.

I for one think it is disengenuous to argue against the posts using measures very different from the ones you posted in the OP.

Regarding your other point on the "rare-ness" of VC not being useful, you'll notice that the statement quoted in the OP* makes no claims on frequency. So this statement of "rare-ness" is just another point that has little to do with the accuracy of the original statement that you find curious.

Besides, rare is subjective. For me that "rare" I abandon VC riding on only a fraction of the miles I ride (rare) but do so several times each day (common). Rando finds that VC does not best fit his needs, so he rides sidewalks all the time (not at all rare).

*recognizing that there are times when acting vehicularly is not the best practice, and being flexible enough to do what is necessary as the situation warrants.

Given that it was a parade which most often draw crowds, wouldn't have using the sidewalk required being a pedestrian?

Al

In my case, actually, a "wheelchair" operator :p . Slipping under the radar until I could get a block further to the next cross street.

I agree with this. On my commute there is a main heavily travelled arterial (2 lanes each direction) with a sidewalk next to it. Posted speed is 35 but everyone does 45-50 and it is the main road from the burbs into the city. I tried riding vehicularly a few times and multiple cars that came up behind me and had to slow down to pass me in the next lane honked, swerved at me, and drivers yelled insults. I now ride on the sidewalk for this stretch of the road. My state and local law makes it legal to ride on the sidewalk. I know I also have the right to use the main arterial; but I would prefer not to encounter the aforesaid behavior every morning on my way in. What is the city, name of the street, nearest cross street, and direction you are traveling? Also, have you measured the width of the outside lane? What is it? Is onstreet parking allowed? How frequent are midblock intersections with driveways, etc.?

Regardless of your statement, my statement that this is not the point of the thread or the OP, still stands. But thanks for throwing it out there.

You asked for people to give you examples of "times when acting vehicularly is not the best practice, and being flexible enough to do what is necessary as the situation warrants". A dozen people have posted examples.

I for one think it is disengenuous to argue against the posts using measures very different from the ones you posted in the OP.
Maybe so, but I didn't argue against any posts.




Regarding your other point on the "rare-ness" of VC not being useful, you'll notice that the statement quoted in the OP* makes no claims on frequency. So this statement of "rare-ness" is just another point that has little to do with the accuracy of the original statement that you find curious.
Maybe so, but the point stands.




Besides, rare is subjective. For me that "rare" I abandon VC riding on only a fraction of the miles I ride (rare) but do so several times each day (common). Rando finds that VC does not best fit his needs, so he rides sidewalks all the time (not at all rare).

*recognizing that there are times when acting vehicularly is not the best practice, and being flexible enough to do what is necessary as the situation warrants.

"Most cases of VC not working are when the cyclist has not tried it and instead stays in their comfort zone." - noisebeam

Note that noisebeam and Rando ride near each other in similar areas.

VC does not work in the city, no one "system" can....waiting around for a motorist to give the nod that will never come. I compare it to only having one martial art under your belt and getting into an open art cage match. Take the room you need in urban centers, adapt quickly, and be gone before they know they've been passed. I think the VC system might be a bit antiquated now.

Note that noisebeam and Rando ride near each other in similar areas.
One thing to note about Rando's preference for the sidewalk in the case he cited is that it is along a lightly used 25mph street (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)with wide outside lanes and little to no on street parking - however fairly frequent intersections to office/industrial areas. The sidewalk is setback from the street and between curb and sidewalk is a patch of grass, some garden flowers and the sidewalk gets a fair amount of shade from a canopy of trees (as does the road, especialy during certain times of day)

As I understand Rando preference for non-vehicular cycling on this particular street is far more driven by the desire for a bit of shade and the sense of riding thru a garden like area.

I have no doubt that he would be just as comfortable from a 'safety' or 'efficiency' perspective if he chose the street in this particular case - it would just be a tiny bit less parklike in visuals.

I know that I would strongly prefer the street vs. the set back sidewalk for safety reasons, not only the numerous intersections, but also the end/starts points of this street and how to interface them predictably.

Al

Jesus, Serge, have you split this hair fine enough yet? in my example, I choose not to use VC because it is not as pleasant as the sidewalk. so in that case it doesn't "work" for me. the sidewalk "works" better. what;s wrong with being comfortable and feeling pleasant? others gave specific examples of how they deviate from VC because it "works" better for them in certain situations.

Note that noisebeam and Rando ride near each other in similar areas.
Also note that they are different people, with individual needs and preferences.


I didn't argue against any posts.
We've noticed.


"Most cases of VC not working are when the cyclist has not tried it and instead stays in their comfort zone." - noisebeam

Note that noisebeam and Rando ride near each other in similar areas.
You quoted me and then posted this. Are you making an argument, or just posting independent, not-necessarily-relevent observations?

"Most cases of VC not working are when the cyclist has not tried it and instead stays in their comfort zone." - noisebeam

But this thread is about cases the rider is aware of.. i.e. routes that we HAVE ridden (at least for some) :rolleyes:

Just because VC works for a small subset of riders on a particular route does not mean it is safe for that route, times of day, etc. (see my example on previous page) . If it isn't safe, I consider that to be not working, you may not - but then if that's the case, it just goes to show that your standpoint is not supportive of "bicycling for the masses".

What is the city, name of the street, nearest cross street, and direction you are traveling? Also, have you measured the width of the outside lane? What is it? Is onstreet parking allowed? How frequent are midblock intersections with driveways, etc.?


Are you seriously suggesting that in order to determine whether riding vehicluarly on that street is a good idea given the alternatives that I need to go out and measure the road and make empirical observations?

This is where you VC zealots have a total disconnect with reality. Whether VC "works" for me is based upon the aforementioned adverse reaction from motorists and comparing that to my experience using alternative methods of cycling.

You cannot take a tape measure to pavement and declare once and for all that VC "works" on all roads of X-Y width with intersections spaced Z yards and with A spaces of on street parking per mile. That may well make for a graduate school thesis, but it wholly ignores the real world experience described by multiple posters in this thread. [edit: people are not numbers. No matter how the know-it-all social engineers try to categorize people and fit them into a "system," each person is different, rides different routes, and has different needs.]


The facts are 1) that the road in question is the main arterial for traffic to and from downtown to the residential areas of the city; 2) cars generally travel 40+ mph on the street; 3) certain sections have very little cross traffic, so motorists do not want to stop; 4) there is little, if any shoulder on portions of the road; 5) the times I have attempted to commute on that road I have met with discourteous, rude motorists honking and swerving and making my commute generally unnerving and unsafe.

There is a sidewalk I can use for one section and a MUP for another. Either that or I can use a parallel street a half mile east that has much wider lanes, multiple cross streets, a 25 mph speed limit, and plenty of "bike route" signage. Riding VC on this road is MUCH more pleasant and safer in my estimation.

I don't care how you want to measure and categorize the road in question; but there is no way I am going to attempt to ride VC on that road when I have muvh safer alternatives available to me.

in my example, I choose not to use VC because it is not as pleasant as the sidewalk. so in that case it doesn't "work" for me. the sidewalk "works" better. what;s wrong with being comfortable and feeling pleasant? others gave specific examples of how they deviate from VC because it "works" better for them in certain situations.
Perhaps you are gaining a very slight increase in atmospherics and a tiny bit more shade for somewhat degraded safety? Is that really better?

You example is certainly not one where VC doesn't work, at least in the context of being adaptive for traffic conditions or expediency.

Anyway, enjoy the shade and watch for turning vehicles.

Al

Are you seriously suggesting that in order to determine whether riding vehicluarly on that street is a good idea given the alternatives that I need to go out and measure the road and make empirical observations? No.

The rest of your post, which assumes the answer to that ridiculous question is yes, is ignored.


This is where you VC zealots have a total disconnect with reality. Whether VC "works" for me is based upon the aforementioned adverse reaction from motorists and comparing that to my experience using alternative methods of cycling.

You cannot take a tape measure to pavement and declare once and for all that VC "works" on all roads of X-Y width with intersections spaced Z yards and with A spaces of on street parking per mile. That may well make for a graduate school thesis, but it wholly ignores the real world experience described by multiple posters in this thread. [edit: people are not numbers. No matter how the know-it-all social engineers try to categorize people and fit them into a "system," each person is different, rides different routes, and has different needs.]


The facts are 1) that the road in question is the main arterial for traffic to and from downtown to the residential areas of the city; 2) cars generally travel 40+ mph on the street; 3) certain sections have very little cross traffic, so motorists do not want to stop; 4) there is little, if any shoulder on portions of the road; 5) the times I have attempted to commute on that road I have met with discourteous, rude motorists honking and swerving and making my commute generally unnerving and unsafe.

There is a sidewalk I can use for one section and a MUP for another. Either that or I can use a parallel street a half mile east that has much wider lanes, multiple cross streets, a 25 mph speed limit, and plenty of "bike route" signage. Riding VC on this road is MUCH more pleasant and safer in my estimation.

I don't care how you want to measure and categorize the road in question; but there is no way I am going to attempt to ride VC on that road when I have muvh safer alternatives available to me.
What is the city, name of the street, nearest cross street, and direction you are traveling?
Is the outside lane wide enough to be safely shared (you can be passed by cars by at least 3' without requiring them to encroach in the adjacent lane)?
Is onstreet parking allowed? How frequent are midblock intersections with driveways, etc.?

You quoted me and then posted this. Are you making an argument, or just posting independent, not-necessarily-relevent observations?
I was referring to your comment about Rando.

Perhaps you are gaining a very slight increase in atmospherics and a tiny bit more shade for somewhat degraded safety? Is that really better?

You example is certainly not one where VC doesn't work, at least in the context of being adaptive for traffic conditions or expediency.

Anyway, enjoy the shade and watch for turning vehicles.

Al

well, yes... I was going with a very broad definition of "working". Hey, at least I'm going the right way on the sidewalk. that's an improvement. :D

No.

The rest of your post, ..... is ignored.


What is the city, name of the street, nearest cross street, and direction you are traveling?
Is the outside lane wide enough to be safely shared (you can be passed by cars by at least 3' without requiring them to encroach in the adjacent lane)?
Is onstreet parking allowed? How frequent are midblock intersections with driveways, etc.?

Ah I get it now, you ignore the answers to your questions when you don't like them - particularly when the question is irrelevant, then you repost the question. You really do take the cake man - another reason not to listen to you:roflmao:

Nate, why do you think these questions are irrelevant?

What is the city, name of the street, nearest cross street, and direction you are traveling?
Is the outside lane wide enough to be safely shared (you can be passed by cars by at least 3' without requiring them to encroach in the adjacent lane)?
Is onstreet parking allowed? How frequent are midblock intersections with driveways, etc.?

I was referring to your comment about Rando.
I gathered that. And I'm glad that you observe that Al once said something, and that he and Rando both live in Arizona. Thanks for sharing.

I was asking if you had a point you were getting at.