VC is anything goes - as long as it's consistent with the ROTR

[Helmet Head]

What some people seem to have a hard time understanding is that vehicular cycling is not a strict set of precise behavior. In fact, one might define VC as "anything goes" - as long as the behavior is consistent with the vehicular rules of the road.

The rules do not define what to do as much as they proscribe the limits of what can be done. Within those boundaries, whether its queueing up in line or moving ahead by splitting lanes, riding in the margin or choosing a more assertive/conspicuous centerish lane position, etc., anything goes.

[joejack951]

So VC includes riding in bike lanes sometimes? :eek: ;)

[randya]

So VC includes riding in bike lanes sometimes? :eek: ;)
just for you guys, but not for the average joe or jane...

:rolleyes:

[natelutkjohn]

You're joking right? If that's the case, then why is there a subforum to discuss "anything goes"? That seems pretty stupid if you ask me (oh, don't worry, I know you didn't). Is this so you can now change the rules whenever you like yet avoid being called out on it?

[Helmet Head]

You're joking right? If that's the case, then why is there a subforum to discuss "anything goes"? That seems pretty stupid if you ask me (oh, don't worry, I know you didn't). Is this so you can now change the rules whenever you like yet avoid being called out on it?
What part of as long as it's consistent with the ROTR do you not understand?

[natelutkjohn]

What part of as long as it's consistent with the ROTR do you not understand?


I understand that you are making this crap up as you go - it just gets sillier every day :roflmao:
Which begs the question, why this subforum if that's all you say there is to it now?

[chipcom]

Anything goes in Chess, as long as it follows the rules of Chess. :rolleyes:

[Helmet Head]

Anything goes in Chess, as long as it follows the rules of Chess. :rolleyes:
Exactly.

And the VC rules are no more confining than are the rules of chess.

[randya]

unless it's specifically prohibited, it's generally legal to ride on the sidewalk; therefore riding on the sidewalk is consistent with the rules of the road.

[Helmet Head]

I understand that you are making this crap up as you go - it just gets sillier every day :roflmao:
Which begs the question, why this subforum if that's all you say there is to it now?
Making this up as I go? Now? I've never said anything different.

[Helmet Head]

unless it's specifically prohibited, it's generally legal to ride on the sidewalk; therefore riding on the sidewalk is consistent with the rules of the road.
From the OP: as long as the behavior is consistent with the vehicular rules of the road.

Unless specified otherwise, ROTR usually refers to the vehicular, not pedestrian, rules of the road. And so it does in the title of this thread.

[rando]

so VC is against riding on sidewalks even though it is legal to do so?

[Helmet Head]

so VC is against riding on sidewalks even though it is legal to do so? NO!

Riding on sidewalks is not VC, but VC is not against riding on sidewalk.

Riding on MUPs or mountain biking single-track trails is not VC either, but VC is not against it.

VC is about how you ride when you're on a roadway (and getting on and off the roadway), period.

[rando]

then how come over the past year or so I've been here I got a totally different impression of it? am I the only one? hands? could it be you guys are not explaining it well and getting too caught up in side issues?

[natelutkjohn]

Is it legal for a motorcycle to pass a car on the right in the gap between the car and the gutter to take a right turn if he fits?

[chipcom]

Exactly.

And the VC rules are no more confining than are the rules of chess.

When that car is bearing down on you, it's not confining at all to only be limited to moving your horsey in an L pattern.

[natelutkjohn]

For your help there HH, I highlighted in bold all the points from your Wiki article that should be removed as they are not requirements of VC if all VC means is that you follow rules of the road.

You don't have to thank me - I would never ask you to stoop to that:rolleyes:

A vehicular cyclist is a cyclist who generally travels within the roadway in accordance with the basic vehicular rules of the road that are shared by all drivers, and the most effective cycling practices. Primarily, this means:

* Traveling on the same side of the road as other traffic traveling in the same direction.
* Staying outside of the door zone; when passing a motor vehicle that is parked parallel to the road, no closer than the length of the door.
* Respecting traffic controls such as yield signs, stop signs and traffic lights.
* Between intersections and other junctions, choosing the appropriate lane or lateral position according to those rules of the road that are shared by all drivers
* While preparing to turn or turning, choosing the appropriate lane or lateral position according to destination positioning.right.
* Ignoring designated bicycle lane stripes when choosing where to travel on the pavement.
* Changing lanes or lateral (left/right) position in response to, and in anticipation of, factors such as changing traffic conditions.
* Using the full lane unless overtaking traffic is likely to be delayed and the marked traffic lane is wide enough to share.
* When making a turn toward the inside of a road when multiple traffic lanes are marked, merging into the traffic in each lane while using negotiation with other drivers as required.
* Generally feeling and acting like a vehicle driver, albeit the driver of a narrow and relatively low-powered vehicle.

[Helmet Head]

Indeed, there might be a problem that at least I have. Whether other VC advocates have it too, you can judge for yourself. That is using VC to mean simply, "riding in accordance to the vehicular rules of the road", or, that plus adopting certain best practices (like staying out of door zones).

I know I personally conflate the two definitions, often without realizing it, and probably cause a lot of confusion, as exemplified by this thread. Sorry about that.

Edit: a third view is that the ROTR that VC is based on includes common sense defensive driving principles such as "stay out of door zones".

[natelutkjohn]

So which is it?

[Helmet Head]

Like many words and terms in the English language, VC may have more than one definition.

[rando]

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhh!!

(scream)

[zeytoun]

then how come over the past year or so I've been here I got a totally different impression of it? am I the only one? hands? Because there is a huge difference between HHs definition of VC here, and his definition of VC elsewhere, and it changes.

HHs power weave, for example, is no more VC then staying in the bike lane. Defaulting to a centerish position absent FSDT, also not required by VC, according to him here. And yet, in his VC definitions thread, he brings up his default center idea as an important concept for vehicular cyclists.
In particular, in the absence of FSDT there is no reason for a vehicular cyclist to ride in the road margin Note that by road margin he meant bike lanes, shoulders, etc.

Passing stop or slowed traffic on the right is something HH does. It used to be against VC, according to HHs own Wikipedia article. Now it is VC. But only if you have the right attitude while you do it.

This is where it gets interesting.

His "as long as it is consistent with the rules of the road" speal. Because the points of "consistent" and "rules of the road" are rather fluid ideas. We all know that HH has a loose concept of consistent.

For example, HH once referred me to a primer on the VC rules of the road

Also, some of the core ideas in Effective Cycling, go beyond the rules of the road

cyclists must think for and control the overtaking driver to some extent, even though this is not in the rules of the road. So here, while Helmet Head says that you are VC so long as you behave consistently with the ROTR, Forester says that to be VC you must go beyond that....

----

What we really have is Helmet Head defined concepts, clarified below:

VC is everybody following the rotr
Advanced VC is everybody following Helmet Head's extra-VC philosophy, which includes the attitude, the default center weave, the gap negotiating.

----

So when HH is criticizing people, it's usually for them not following or agreeing with his "Advanced VC" ideas. It's just confusing because he blurs the line between VC and "advanced VC" so often.

[natelutkjohn]

Like many words and terms in the English language, VC may have more than one definition.

Ahhh, I get it now! Sort of like

axes

(n) I cut down the tree with two axes. (plural of axe/ax)
(n) The x and y axes intersect at (0,0). (plural of axis)

[Laika]

I feel like this is the third thread of the last week which has, or will soon, force an existential crisis upon the VC crowd. Like any dogma, when pinned to the board its boundaries diminsh and diminish and diminish until there's nothing left but the name, or expand and expand and expand until there's no meaning left to the name at all.

[natelutkjohn]

I feel like this is the third thread of the last week which has, or will soon, force an existential crisis upon the VC crowd. Like any dogma, when pinned to the board its boundaries diminsh and diminish and diminish until there's nothing left but the name, or expand and expand and expand until there's no meaning left to the name at all.


I sure as hell hope so :lol:

[zeytoun]

Like many words and terms in the English language, VC may have more than one definition.

----and yet a few days ago----

Thus outlining another major flaw of VC, at least the HH brand....it is everything, it is nothing, it is all points in between - and it changes daily, weekly, hourly and sometimes by the minute.
:rolleyes:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicular_cycling

---

So if you bring up the poitn that VC changes, and it is hard to find one consistent meaning for Helmet Head brand VC, he roll's his eyes at you and points you to his Wikipedia article.

He also disagreed with his own article on another occasion.

Then he changed his article.

Then he implies that the inconsistencies are life, and to be accepted.

But Helmet Head's posts are consistent......right...

[webist]

VC = Ride so you don't hit stuff. Ride so stuff doesn't hit you. Avoid doing stuff that would offend law enforcement folks when there are law enforcement folks about. If you are right, be a little assertive. If you are wrong, admit it.

[flipped4bikes]

----

What we really have is Helmet Head defined concepts, clarified below:

VC is everybody following the rotr
Advanced VC is everybody following Helmet Head's extra-VC philosophy, which includes the attitude, the default center weave, the gap negotiating.

----



You're forgetting about being vigilant at all times while being vigilant as little as possible... :D

[Laika]

Advanced VC is everybody following Helmet Head's extra-VC philosophy, which includes the attitude, the default center weave, the gap negotiating.


You forgot the steely-eyed, alpha dog stare. It makes motorists wet themselves in a combination of fear and unimaginable sexual longing.

[Helmet Head]

----and yet a few days ago----
---

So if you bring up the poitn that VC changes, and it is hard to find one consistent meaning for Helmet Head brand VC, he roll's his eyes at you and points you to his Wikipedia article.

He also disagreed with his own article on another occasion.

Then he changed his article.

Then he implies that the inconsistencies are life, and to be accepted.

But Helmet Head's posts are consistent......right...

This has been addressed ad nauseum.

In short VC doesn't change, but our understanding of how how best to explain and describe it effectively does evolve, not to mention that mistakes are made (at least by me) that need to be corrected. This type of forum is ideal for fostering evolutionary improvements like that.

The VC article has been fairly stable for a couple of years now. Of course there are lots of minor changes (that's par for the course on Wikipedia), but nothing substantial.

Finally, I repeat, VC, broadly means bicycling on roads in accordance to the vehicular rules of the road. But in many contexts VC can also refer to a particular style of "bicycling on roads in accordance to the vehicular rules of the road", and in fact usually refers to a style that encompasses generally recognized best practices for riding a bicycling that goes above and beyond simply obeying the rules of the road. Maybe we should use a different term for the latter contexts, like "Effective Cycling" or "Assertive VC", or ???

[zeytoun]

So your OP was just a hook...

One might define VC as "anything goes" so long as you stick to the rules of the road.

But often you define VC as much more, and in fact, two of your core "VC" arguments have been to default to a centerish position when FSDT is not present, and to have an attitude that you approve of. Almost all of your argumentative threads have revolved around these two concepts that have nothing to do with the rules of the road. In fact, you don't always even practice the one.

Don't huff at us for bringing it up "ad nauseum". It's your own fault.

[rando]

I think you would do well to explicitly state what is VC and what is your own mutation of VC or addition to it, or something else because it's incredibly confusing to those seeking enlightenment on VC...

[rando]

seriously, maybe we have separate forums for VC, EC/Forester, and EC/VC/HH, with the stipulation that the latter two contain personal views and theories... or something. brain hurts.

[zeytoun]

In short [insert sacred cow here] doesn't change, but our understanding of how how best to explain and describe it effectively does evolve, not to mention that mistakes are made (at least by me) that need to be corrected. I grew up in a fundamentalist religion, and I heard this one a lot there. In fact, I think this is the first time I have heard this argument outside the confines of a dogmatic religion.

Sure, our understanding of everything changes and evolves over time. That's ok. It's just no excuse to be dogmatic. Whenever I hear this, it meant that the person wanted to be cut some slack for being making a foolish assertion earlier, and wanted to continue to tell you that your viewpoint is wrong, even though he might change his mind tomorrow.

[Helmet Head]

So your OP was just a hook...

One might define VC as "anything goes" so long as you stick to the rules of the road.

But often you define VC as much more, and in fact, two of your core "VC" arguments have been to default to a centerish position when FSDT is not present, and to have an attitude that you approve of. Almost all of your argumentative threads have revolved around these two concepts that have nothing to do with the rules of the road. In fact, you don't always even practice the one.

Don't huff at us for bringing it up "ad nauseum". It's your own fault.
I have never equated VC with "default to a centerish position when FSDT is not present".

The fact that in order to actually practice VC consistently you need to have an attitude of confidence about your rights to, well, practice VC consistently, is implied by the definition, but does not define VC per se.

[The other Inane]

To understand VC you need to understand the uncertainty principle.

The more you understand about VC the less you will know about how it is changing.
The more you know about how VC is changing the less you know about what it is.

Simple really :)

[dewaday]

This has been addressed ad nauseum.

In short VC doesn't change, but our understanding of how how best to explain and describe it effectively does evolve, not to mention that mistakes are made (at least by me) that need to be corrected. This type of forum is ideal for fostering evolutionary improvements like that.

I'm picturing a priest that closely resembles Pee Wee Herman, spouting diatribes that remind one vaguely of Franz Kafka.

[zeytoun]

I have never equated VC with "default to a centerish position when FSDT is not present".
Did I ever say you "equate VC with a default to centerish position"?

But it is one of the central ideas that you argue about in the VC subforum, in threads that discuss VC when you are specifically discussing or defining VC. And in fact, while you may admit that your technique is not necessarily "VC" per se, you believe that it follows from the philosophy of VC, and should be advocated alongside VC.

A central tenet of the philosophy is that about half of bike-car crashes are caused by blatant cyclist error (not adhering to even Basic VC rules), and that most others could have been avoided had the cyclist also been utilizing the more advanced skills.
Advanced VC
snip
Using assertive "centerish" lane positioning to improve sight lines and conspicuity when safe and reasonable to do so.

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

[genec]

To understand VC you need to understand the uncertainty principle.

The more you understand about VC the less you will know about how it is changing.
The more you know about how VC is changing the less you know about what it is.

Simple really :)

Classic. :beer:

[Helmet Head]

Did I ever say you "equate VC with a default to centerish position"?

But it is one of the central ideas that you argue about in the VC subforum, in threads that discuss VC when you are specifically discussing or defining VC. And in fact, while you may admit that your technique is not necessarily "VC" per se, you believe that it follows from the philosophy of VC, and should be advocated alongside VC.
Yes, and I've already conceded that doing so fosters confusion. What's your point?

[Bekologist]

no, no, you've got it wrong... doing so foresters confusion.

[Laika]

well played, sir.

[sbhikes]

In short [insert sacred cow here] doesn't change, but our understanding of how how best to explain and describe it effectively does evolve, not to mention that mistakes are made (at least by me) that need to be corrected.
I grew up in a fundamentalist religion, and I heard this one a lot there. In fact, I think this is the first time I have heard this argument outside the confines of a dogmatic religion.

Sure, our understanding of everything changes and evolves over time. That's ok. It's just no excuse to be dogmatic. Whenever I hear this, it meant that the person wanted to be cut some slack for being making a foolish assertion earlier, and wanted to continue to tell you that your viewpoint is wrong, even though he might change his mind tomorrow.

Just promise me that when he starts talking about burning down the compound you take that as a cue to get the heck out of there.

[skanking biker]

Exactly.

And the VC rules are no more confining than are the rules of chess.

except a chess game has a rule bookw hereas VC follows some undefined "rules of the road" that we can discern only by consulting our local VC oracle

[noisebeam]

I've driven motor vehicle and many cases bicycle in Mexico, USA, Argentina, Malaysia, Germany, France, Italy, England, Denmark, Norway, French Polynesia, Canada, Austria, Thailand, Switzerland, Lichtenstein, Belgium and a few other countries and never had to uniquely study (left side driving was already known) any new rules to do so successfully. Habits and conventions may be different (most notably in Argentina, Thailand and Malyasia) but the principles all remained the same. Those conventions were very quickly absorbed with hands-on experience, not knowing them at first did not prevent successful driving, but instead made me less efficient.
Al

[Helmet Head]

except a chess game has a rule bookw hereas VC follows some undefined "rules of the road" that we can discern only by consulting our local VC oracle
Have you ever driven in another state? Another country? Who or what did you consult to learn how to drive there? Same thing for VC. No need to consult any oracles.

[Helmet Head]

I've driven motor vehicle and many cases bicycle in Mexico, USA, Argentina, Malaysia, Germany, France, Italy, England, Denmark, Norway, French Polynesia, Canada, Austria, Thailand, Switzerland, Lichtenstein, Belgium and a few other countries and never had to uniquely study (left side driving was already known) any new rules to do so successfully. Habits and conventions may be different (most notably in Argentina, Thailand and Malyasia) but the principles all remained the same. Those conventions were very quickly absorbed with hands-on experience, not knowing them at first did not prevent successful driving, but instead made me less efficient.
Al
And in how many of those countries did you have to consulted the vehicle code prior to driving there? Or the appropriate oracle? How did you know what the rules were?

[chipcom]

And in how many of those countries did you have to consulted the vehicle code prior to driving there? Or the appropriate oracle? How did you know what the rules were?

In Japan, you are going one way on a road barely wide enough for one vehicle, two vehicles are approaching from the other direction, side-by-side. Who has the right of way and why?

[noisebeam]

And in how many of those countries did you have to consulted the vehicle code prior to driving there? Or the appropriate oracle? How did you know what the rules were?
Vehicle code? none
Rules? minimal differences learned thru hands on experience
Honestly in I did glance thru a travel guide that gave a few tips on driving (most common for non-European was 'don't, it is dangerous'), but nothing that was fundamentally unnatural to what I'd call 'innate group movement survival' Tips included things like be extra assertive, don't hesistate, know where you are going before heading out, flashing headlights mean driver is taking ROW in ambiguous situation, move to shoulder at last second if an vehicle is coming at you in your lane on two lane highway and they flash lights. Things that look like 'crazy' driving to an outside observer are less to do with different rules of road and more do do with drivers taking advantage of oppotunities while reading the 'body language' of other drivers.

I think also the more significant differences are how drivers communicate vs. the rules they follow.

Al

[noisebeam]

In Japan, you are going one way on a road barely wide enough for one vehicle, two vehicles are approaching from the other direction, side-by-side. Who has the right of way and why?
I haven't driven in Japan, but I'll guess: The one who honks or flashes lights first.
Why? Because they are the one that claimed it first.

Al