Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Act as drivers act? ...which drivers?

Why is it that they try to evade, ignore, or obscure this very important fundamental point??

Because that's where VC falls apart. It's great to be act like a vehicle but to be treated like a vehicle when an accident occurs definitely favors vehicles with air bags, seat belts and steel cages surrounding the driver. For that matter, a farm tractor can dole out a lot of damage to a car, so it's given a wide berth if on the road. A car and bike accident? Heck, most times the worst thing that will happen is that the windshield needs to get replaced on the car. The cyclist who is in the hospital or dead? [Insert every excuse or reason that a motorist can think of here] The motorist will never say that he failed to treat the cyclist as any other vehicle on the road.

You have to ask yourself what is the outcome of their deliberate vagueness and their resorting to ad hominem attacks is. Seems to me that the outcome is the continuation of auto-centric roadway design, auto-centric development, and auto-centric thinking among policy-makers, drivers and the culture at large. This is the true goal of the Foresterite Vehicular Cycling movement as evidenced by their direct link to the American Dream Coalition.

People who actually cared about cyclists and cycling would teach vehicular cycling principles to cyclists and motorists alike and wouldn't rely on pithy sayings to hide alternative agendas.

Then you are accusing us of lying, despite having been told the truth time after time. My judgment on this is that your mind is so warped that you cannot consider the truth when it is presented to you. And much of your other writing about your experiences suggests that it confirms my opinion.

The relative vulnerability to injury argument has been advanced for decades to support cyclist-inferiority cycling.

However, it is not a very good argument. The purpose of obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles is to allow operation at reasonable speed in reasonable safety. If there were better rules for avoiding collisions, then motorists, who have the political power, would have adopted them for themselves and all other drivers. Those who decry the rules of the road for drives of vehicles need to come up with better rules instead of opposing vehicular cycling.

Uh, I'm not decrying the ROTR. And I'm not supporting cyclist-inferiority complex BS that I think VCers are the ones advancing such nonsense. There are plenty of ROTR regarding cyclists as vehicles. The problem with VC is the ASSUMPTION that drivers of cars and trucks and buses know that a bicycle is a "vehicle" and will always act accordingly.

BTW, motorists do have the political power and urban sprawl is a pefect testament to that. Car friendly, yes. Bicycle friendly? Please...

The problem with VC is the ASSUMPTION that drivers of cars and trucks and buses know that a bicycle is a "vehicle" and will always act accordingly.
Actually, that is not an assumption of VC or VC advocates at all.
That is an assumption of VC contrarians like John Ratliff (who, by the way, clearly does not understand that which he opposes) as exemplified in this recent post (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=4629738&postcount=25) out of another thread:



What galls me is that the VC bicyclists will do all they can to prevent an accident from the bicyclist point of view (ride vehicularly, give way to traffic, etc. mentioned above), but will not lift a finger concerning the driver. This is a two-way street (figuratively, and in this case, literally too). Each player has a role in this safety game, or all are in jeopardy, especially if the other player is driving a 1.5 ton vehicle fast. Why are cyclists willing to put up with the most obnoxious, dangerous behavior on the part of drivers? Is it because we don't think we can do anything about it? Are we too used to seeing it on a daily basis? http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=4629738&postcount=25

Here the VC position is that the cyclist should have looked over his shoulder before moving left (in this case to make sure no one is illegally passing him on the left), and Ratliff seems to be arguing that that should not have been necessary since such a pass is illegal. He's arguing you it's reasonable to assume others are not behaving illegally. That is not an assumption of VC.

There is no assumption in VC that "that drivers of cars and trucks and buses know that a bicycle is a 'vehicle' and will always act accordingly." There is an assumption that if the cyclist acts like a vehicle driver, he will, with rare exception, be treated as one. There is no study that I know of that proves this, but every vehicular cycling advocate that I've ever talked to about this confirms it, no matter where in the country, or the world, they ride and have ridden.

Of course, for cyclists who are not accustomed to acting consistently like drivers of vehicles, and, so, are routinely not treated like drivers of vehicles, it's difficult if not impossible to believe. But, there we are.

The biggest factor, by far, that determines how you are treated in life, in any aspect, is your own behavior. Cycling in traffic is no exception.

Frankly, no.

The phrase means that cyclists who act and are treated as drivers of vehicles fare better than cyclists who don't act and/or are not treated as drivers of vehicles.

Do you agree?

In most circumstances, of course I agree - who wouldn't? But there are circumstances where a cyclist would fare better by not acting as a driver of a vehicle. However, that is not why i have joined this discussion.

I joined this discussion because the phrase "Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles" has been tossed around and this thread seemed to have the intention of discussing that statement.
That statement, in the way it is used, seems to say that if you act like the driver of a vehicle you will also be treated like one. And your posts earlier seem to reflect that idea. You have said repeatedly that when you are acting like a vehicle driver that other vehicle drivers treat you as such. Ok, so maybe you think they are, but in reality you have no idea what they are thinking! And this statement is somewhat misleading unless it is examined.
(If A + B then cyclists fare best) Fine, that would seem true. But how do we get to B? How do we get other vehicle drivers to treat cyclists as vehicle drivers? By making this broad general statement on forums and in books that only cyclists read?

In most circumstances, of course I agree - who wouldn't? But there are circumstances where a cyclist would fare better by not acting as a driver of a vehicle. However, that is not why i have joined this discussion.

I joined this discussion because the phrase "Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles" has been tossed around and this thread seemed to have the intention of discussing that statement.
That statement, in the way it is used, seems to say that if you act like the driver of a vehicle you will also be treated like one. And your posts earlier seem to reflect that idea. You have said repeatedly that when you are acting like a vehicle driver that other vehicle drivers treat you as such. Ok, so maybe you think they are, but in reality you have no idea what they are thinking! And this statement is somewhat misleading unless it is examined.
(If A + B then cyclists fare best) Fine, that would seem true. But how do we get to B? I don't think the statement implies that acting like a DOAV means you will, generally, be treated as one.
However, I have found that to be the case, and so have all other VC advocates I've ever talked to about this.

What motorists think I don't know, nor do I care. All I care about is how they treat me, and, in particular, whether it's like I'm a DOAV or not.


How do we get other vehicle drivers to treat cyclists as vehicle drivers? By making this broad general statement on forums and in books that only cyclists read? Again, the most effective way I know to get other vehicle drivers to treat cyclists as vehicle drivers is for cyclists to act as vehicle drivers.

I don't think the statement implies that acting like a DOAV means you will, generally, be treated as one.
Maybe you don't. Because you are the type of person who examines a statement from every angle. Which is most of the time a good thing. But for the newbie type cyclist who comes in here and get that statement tossed at them, they surely could. When I was new, that is what I thought when I first read that statement. And I know I am not likely to be the only one.



However, I have found that to be the case, and so have all other VC advocates I've ever talked to about this.
So everyone in a certain group believes in a certain outcome of a situation based on their actions? That doesn't make it so though. Every Bible thumping Baptist believes that they will go to heaven if they live a godly lifestyle. But that doesn't make it so.
Now I'm not trying to compare VC to religeon, that has been done enough on here. I'm just saying that just because everyone in group A subscribes to the words of the founder of Group A likely means that they accept his teachings at face value and wether or not the facts support them, they agree.



What motorists think I don't know, nor do I care. All I care about is how they treat me, and, in particular, whether it's like I'm a DOAV or not.
Earlier you said that the statement in question is a general statement and applies to the due respect of a vehicle driver. So you must care what they think, because respect is all about thinking! But like I and others have already pointed out, just because you think they are treating you like the DOAV does not mean that they are! If I slow down to pass a hot female in tight cycling clothing while I am driving just because I want to savor the view of her body more does not mean I am slowing down to giver her the due respect of a DOAV, no mater what she thinks, I'm just checking out the scenery!



Again, the most effective way I know to get other vehicle drivers to treat cyclists as vehicle drivers is for cyclists to act as vehicle drivers.
But if the other drivers do not know that cyclists are drivers of vehicles then why in the world would they treat them as such? And this is where the problem is.

Uh, I'm not decrying the ROTR. And I'm not supporting cyclist-inferiority complex BS that I think VCers are the ones advancing such nonsense. There are plenty of ROTR regarding cyclists as vehicles. The problem with VC is the ASSUMPTION that drivers of cars and trucks and buses know that a bicycle is a "vehicle" and will always act accordingly.

BTW, motorists do have the political power and urban sprawl is a pefect testament to that. Car friendly, yes. Bicycle friendly? Please...

Except for the rare motorist who tries to drive a cyclist off the road, it really doesn't matter what the motorist considers a bicycle to be, or a cyclist to be. If he sees another moving object moving as he expects a vehicle to move, then he acts accordingly. That's about all there is to it.

However, this discussion is ignoring the other equally important meaning of the vehicular-cycling principle. It is government and society, not only individual motorists, who treat cyclists in one way or another. All too frequently, government and society do not treat cyclists as drivers of vehicles, and this is detrimental to cyclists.

So you must care what they think, because respect is all about thinking Therein lies our disagreement.

I think respect is all about behavior and treatment, not thinking. At least that's the due respect I'm talking about.

You might not respect George W. Bush, but if he showed up at your house and asked to a share a cup of coffee, you could, or not, choose to treat the POTUS with due respect, independent of what you think of him.

But if the other drivers do not know that cyclists are drivers of vehicles then why in the world would they treat them as such? And this is where the problem is.

To expand on what John Forester has already said to this end, when I cycle in a left turn only lane, other drivers appear to understand that I am turning left, so they do not pass on my left to go straight. When I am operating in the center of a lane, they change lanes to pass. When I stop at a red light, they appear to believe that I will stay stopped. When I use lights at night, they yield to me when they prepare to enter the roadway at cross streets. They don't want to deal with my bike stuck under their car, so they extrapolate from my actions to predict the outcome of our mutual behavior.

It is true that the occasional driver will honk or yell when a cyclist acts as the driver of a vehicle. However, these relatively harmless interactions are less common than the accidental problems that occur when operating contrary to the rules of the road for drivers. The more cyclists act as drivers of vehicles on ordinary roads, the more drivers appear to habituate to this, and they lose interest in complaining about it. Of course cyclists fare better if motorists think of them as legitimate drivers, and that is a goal of every vehicular cycling advocate, but that is secondary to protecting our legal status (treatment by government) and acting accordingly.

Sure, collisions happen despite cycling lawfully. Vehicular cycling is the best system anyone has come up with, not a perfect system. If a perfect system existed, drivers would probably already have adopted it, and we'd still be talking about operating bicycles that way. Meanwhile, best is better than worse.

To expand on what John Forester has already said to this end, when I cycle in a left turn only lane, other drivers appear to understand that I am turning left, so they do not pass on my left to go straight. When I am operating in the center of a lane, they change lanes to pass. When I stop at a red light, they appear to believe that I will stay stopped. When I use lights at night, they yield to me when they prepare to enter the roadway at cross streets. They don't want to deal with my bike stuck under their car, so they extrapolate from my actions to predict the outcome of our mutual behavior.

It is true that the occasional driver will honk or yell when a cyclist acts as the driver of a vehicle. However, these relatively harmless interactions are less common than the accidental problems that occur when operating contrary to the rules of the road for drivers. The more cyclists act as drivers of vehicles on ordinary roads, the more drivers appear to habituate to this, and they lose interest in complaining about it. Of course cyclists fare better if motorists think of them as legitimate drivers, and that is a goal of every vehicular cycling advocate, but that is secondary to protecting our legal status (treatment by government) and acting accordingly.

Sure, collisions happen despite cycling lawfully. Vehicular cycling is the best system anyone has come up with, not a perfect system. If a perfect system existed, drivers would probably already have adopted it, and we'd still be talking about operating bicycles that way. Meanwhile, best is better than worse.
:beer: :beer: :beer:

FWIW, I agree 100%.

To expand on what John Forester has already said to this end, when I cycle in a left turn only lane, other drivers appear to understand that I am turning left, so they do not pass on my left to go straight.
And if a dead moose were in the left turn lane, they wouldn't pass on the left to go straight either.

When I am operating in the center of a lane, they change lanes to pass.
Now imagine the moose walking in the center of that same lane

When I stop at a red light, they appear to believe that I will stay stopped.
Yes, the appear to believe that. Wether they do or not remains to be seen.

When I use lights at night, they yield to me when they prepare to enter the roadway at cross streets. They don't want to deal with my bike stuck under their car, so they extrapolate from my actions to predict the outcome of our mutual behavior.
Because they don't want to hit you and get your bike stuck under their car still does not mean that they think of or are treating you as the operator of a vehicle.


It is true that the occasional driver will honk or yell when a cyclist acts as the driver of a vehicle. However, these relatively harmless interactions are less common than the accidental problems that occur when operating contrary to the rules of the road for drivers.
What accidental problems are you talking about here? this statement seems to me that you are trying to compare getting honked at for being in the lane to getting backed over by a car exiting a driveway because you are on the sidewalk. Once again, it only seems that way to me so I am asking for clarity here on what you really mean in this. (not trying to put words in your mouth)

The more cyclists act as drivers of vehicles on ordinary roads, the more drivers appear to habituate to this, and they lose interest in complaining about it.
I can totally agree with this statement. Once the thrill of harassing the cyclist wears off from day to day getting their jollies they tend to give up and accept the fact that they (we) are there to stay.

Of course cyclists fare better if motorists think of them as legitimate drivers, and that is a goal of every vehicular cycling advocate, but that is secondary to protecting our legal status (treatment by government) and acting accordingly.
Well, Helmet Head, the mountebank of VC on this forum, claims he does not care what they think so long as he thinks they are treating him like the operator of a vehicle.
and I think it is a good thing that we have something, wether it be a paradigm or a lobying group, that is trying to protect our rights as cyclists on the roads.


Sure, collisions happen despite cycling lawfully. Vehicular cycling is the best system anyone has come up with, not a perfect system. If a perfect system existed, drivers would probably already have adopted it, and we'd still be talking about operating bicycles that way. Meanwhile, best is better than worse.
Now this, is a very good statement!


Maybe you got my intentions here wrong. I'm not claiming that cycling according to law is wrong, and I'm not claiming that I do not fare best when I act and am treated like the operator of a vehicle. I came in here to discuss the quoted statement that gets passed around here like a drunken freshman femal at a frat party; "Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated like the drivers of vehicles." I think that this statement gets tossed around without any exploration of it. Please see my posts #21, #24, and #30 for insight as to why I am in this thread in the first place.

:beer: :beer: :beer:

FWIW, I agree 100%.


So you agree that we can educate people into learning that cyclists are operators of vehicles and deserve to be on the roads? Aren't these the same people that harass us and sometimes "try" to cause us harm?
Yet you made the following statement:



And as far as the idea that educating these yahoos that cyclists have the
legal right to be on the road is going to keep these neanderthals from trying
to intimidate cyclists "for their own good", you're giving them far too much
credit.

And if a dead moose were in the left turn lane, they wouldn't pass on the left to go straight either.

I prefer that drivers correctly predict my direction of travel. Acting as a driver accomplishes that more effectively than acting like a dead moose, whose lane position has no implications for its likely movement.



What accidental problems are you talking about here? this statement seems to me that you are trying to compare getting honked at for being in the lane to getting backed over by a car exiting a driveway because you are on the sidewalk. Once again, it only seems that way to me so I am asking for clarity here on what you really mean in this. (not trying to put words in your mouth).

Intersection traffic is much more hazardous to sidewalk cyclists due to unexpected conflicts. In our local police crash reports, right-turning drivers hitting contra-flow sidewalk cyclists and wrong-way roadway cyclists (acting as pedestrians rather than drivers) are greatly overrepresented, making up a full 1/3 of all car-bike crashes. Another third involve other movements by cyclists at intersections contrary to the rules for drivers. Far fewer collisions occur to cyclists operating in the roadway in the same lane of traffic serving their destination according to the rules for drivers, despite this representing a much larger number of miles traveled on our roads.

I prefer that drivers correctly predict my direction of travel. Acting as a driver accomplishes that more effectively than acting like a dead moose, whose lane position has no implications for its likely movement.

Agreed.



Intersection traffic is much more hazardous to sidewalk cyclists due to unexpected conflicts. In our local police crash reports, right-turning drivers hitting contra-flow sidewalk cyclists and wrong-way roadway cyclists (acting as pedestrians rather than drivers) are greatly overrepresented, making up a full 1/3 of all car-bike crashes. Another third involve other movements by cyclists at intersections contrary to the rules for drivers. Far fewer collisions occur to cyclists operating in the roadway in the same lane of traffic serving their destination according to the rules for drivers, despite this representing a much larger number of miles traveled on our roads.
Thanks for the clarification on that. And I do agree with what you are saying, it seems that people don't see that though (that I agree that riding vehicularly is the safest way).

I just think that blindly quoting cyclists fare best when they act and are treated like drivers of vehicles is used too blindly without much examination and that just because I am acting like a vehicle driver does not mean that others are treating me as one.