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

Average drivers?

Typical drivers?

Atypical drivers?

All drivers?

Drivers in general?

(Do I want that?)

Good drivers only?

Excellent drivers?

Skillful drivers?

Skillful and responsible drivers?

Skillful, responsible and safe drivers?

Not all drivers?

***
"Learn to be skillful, responsible and safe" makes great sense.

Being like most drivers does not.

"Acting skillfully, responsibly and safely," and "learning to act skillfully, responsibly and safely" also make great sense.

Acting or learning to act like other drivers does not.

Emulating models of excellence makes sense. Emulating the general category of drivers does not.

Cyclists can set higher standards for themselves.

:rolleyes:

"Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles. - John Forester

In the context of the VC principle "act as drivers of vehicles" simply means follow the rules of the road for drivers, as opposed to following the rules of the road for pedestrians, or no rules at all.

That's all.

Average drivers?

Typical drivers?

Atypical drivers?

All drivers?

Drivers in general?

(Do I want that?)

Good drivers only?

Excellent drivers?

Skillful drivers?

Skillful and responsible drivers?

Skillful, responsible and safe drivers?

Not all drivers?

***
"Learn to be skillful, responsible and safe" makes great sense.

Being like most drivers does not.

Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles. The acts referred to are those of lawful drivers.

Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles. The acts referred to are those of lawful drivers.

Lawful drivers of average skill?

Typical lawful drivers?

Typical, average, or general levels of responsibility, skill and safety?

Cyclists fare best this way?

Lawful drivers of average skill?

Typical lawful drivers?

Typical, average, or general levels of responsibility, skill and safety?

Cyclist fare best this way?
It's a simply dichotomy, Niles.

When riding on roadways, cyclists fare best when they act like lawful drivers (as opposed to not acting like lawful drivers).

Lawful drivers of average skill?

Typical lawful drivers?

Typical, average, or general levels of responsibility, skill and safety?

Cyclist fare best this way?

I wrote, lawful drivers. I don't care whether they have superlative skills, or lesser skills, just so long as they operate in a lawful manner according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, and that goes for both cyclists and motorists.

It's a simply dichotomy, Niles.

When riding on roadways, cyclists fare best when they act like lawful drivers (as opposed to not acting like lawful drivers).
Thank you. That is a clear answer.

***
Then the question arises, if that is the aspect (lawfulness) that you are trying to communicate or convey, then why not say, "act lawfully"?

It is simpler and clearer, and it points to the aspect that is relevant. (Otherwise, as seen on these threads and elsewhere, other aspects may quite reasonably be read.)

***
And another question arises: aren't higher levels of skills, responsibility (or responsible behaviors), knowledge, and safety also important? Wouldn't it be reasonable to give these more emphasis, particularly since recommending being lawful is not exactly bringing surprising news to most people.

***
Higher levels of skills, knowledge, and safe operation -- and the degrees to which these can be improved -- are not as widely appreciated, and may come as news to many people.

I wrote, lawful drivers. I don't care whether they have superlative skills, or lesser skills, just so long as they operate in a lawful manner according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, and that goes for both cyclists and motorists.
Is simply operating in a lawful manner really such a desirable standard?, or a very high standard?

Is it really enough?

Recommending that (as faring best) can be somewhat misleading.

Cyclists can fare very badly in some situations while cycling lawfully.

You ask:

then why not say, "act lawfully"?

Then state:


Cyclists can fare very badly in some situations while cycling lawfully.

Again, it's about the dichotomy between acting "like a driver of a vehicle" versus NOT acting "like a driver of a vehicle".

If you start qualifying, even with just "lawful", then you leave it open to even more misinterpretation and objections, like:



Cyclists can fare very badly in some situations while cycling lawfully.

Remember the context. We live in a culture where many still think that cyclists "fare best" when they act like pedestrians (some even think we should ride on the side of the road opposite vehicular traffic), and there is very little recognition for the equal rights of cyclists to the roadway, much less appreciation for the fact that riding accordingly is safe. That's the point that "cyclists fare best ..." is trying to make.

Is simply operating in a lawful manner really such a desirable standard?, or a very high standard?

Is it really enough?

Recommending that (as faring best) can be somewhat misleading.

Cyclists can fare very badly in some situations while cycling lawfully.

Well, yes, a lawful cyclist is still open to injury by falling aircraft, or, more likely, lightning. Note that the vehicular-cycling principle states "Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles." Falling aircraft and lightning strikes are outside the realm of traffic law, but it seems to me that you are trying, with almighty imagination, to dredge up any old criticism of that principle that is imaginable. Well, to start with, when one is treated as a driver of a vehicle by other traffic, then that traffic is, by definition, operating lawfully. The same goes for a government act, as in designing a roadway.

umm, left hooks, john, are examples of a cyclists sometimes faring badly when cyclists act like vehicles.

oh, i see the sophistry, you include "and are treated as"

Remember the context. We live in a culture where many still think that cyclists "fare best" when they act like pedestrians (some even think we should ride on the side of the road opposite vehicular traffic), and there is very little recognition for the equal rights of cyclists to the roadway, much less appreciation for the fact that riding accordingly is safe. That's the point that "cyclists fare best ..." is trying to make.

This brings up a very important point: you are speaking in different contexts, or to different audiences.
(This may deserve a separate thread.)

To be regarded as a vehicle by policy makers and lawmakers may be important in some ways. I can see that.

One group (audience or context) regarding cyclists as drivers of vehicles, and regarding bikes as vehicles, is one thing; another is another.

The sentence is often read not in the context of a group of policy makers (or any one individual policy maker) as the pertinent audience, but rather in the context of the individual cyclist as the pertinent audience.

(There are also cyclists collectively, which is another audience.)

(There is also the culture and cultural attitudes and perceptions, which may be yet another audience.)

(And there is the non-cycling public. And there are motorists. Different audiences, sometimes having different needs. Overlapping, perhaps, but also different (Venn-diagram overlap).)

The individual cyclist (as audience or reader) may have no good reason whatsoever to regard himself or herself as the driver of a vehicle, and the sentence makes very little sense to many people in this context.

The individual cyclist (as audience or reader) may have no good reason whatsoever to regard himself or herself as the driver of a vehicle, and the sentence makes very little sense to many people in this context. What!??

The main audience, by far, of vehicular cycling is the individual cyclist, and perhaps the main message is that he or she needs to think and see him or herself as a driver of a vehicle (with the same rights and responsibilities as drivers of vehicles) in order to "fare best" on roadways (as opposed to not seeing him or herself as a vehicle driver).

snip
The individual cyclist (as audience or reader) may have no good reason whatsoever to regard himself or herself as the driver of a vehicle, and the sentence makes very little sense to many people in this context.

Then he has to go along as a road sneak, unhappy, fearful, and in the danger caused by his phobia. That's what's wrong with American bicycling policy, and what vehicular cyclists are trying to change.

Well, yes, a lawful cyclist is still open to injury by falling aircraft, or, more likely, lightning. Note that the vehicular-cycling principle states "Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles." Falling aircraft and lightning strikes are outside the realm of traffic law, but it seems to me that you are trying, with almighty imagination, to dredge up any old criticism of that principle that is imaginable. Well, to start with, when one is treated as a driver of a vehicle by other traffic, then that traffic is, by definition, operating lawfully. The same goes for a government act, as in designing a roadway.
Falling aircraft, lightning, etc. -- meteorites, cats that have fallen out of police helicopters, bombing pelicans, and too many other absurdities to mention. But can't you see that your selective use of these examples evades the many and more-relevant other examples?

One has already been given by someone else, but there are many others as well.

To John and HH (and anyone else who wishes to contribute something here),

There may be a difference (for certain audiences and purposes) between simply 'acting lawfully' and 'acting lawfully as the driver of a vehicle' (or 'acting as the lawful driver of a vehicle'). As you point out, some people need to hear the point that bikes are vehicles, and the point that cyclists have some kind of equivalence to other drivers.

Agreed.

Problems arise, though, from the dual-audience or multiple-audience attempt with this sentence.

And it is not always clear which audience (or context) is being addressed. This can cause confusions.

When it is clear that the sentence is directed toward 'the culture', and changing the relevant attitudes there, it is one thing.

When the audience is different (individual cyclist) (or worse, certain particular or specific individual cycists) (or specific individual cyclists in specific individual situations or conditions), then the communication can be less meaningful, or serve no good purpose, or even be misleading.

When you are speaking to a policy maker there may be one set of concerns.

When you are speaking to a non-cycling member of the public, there may be another.

There may be other sets of concerns for certain individual cyclists, and for other audiences.

And the shifting or unclear addressees can cause some confusions.

Then he has to go along as a road sneak, unhappy, fearful, and in the danger caused by his phobia. That's what's wrong with American bicycling policy, and what vehicular cyclists are trying to change.
American bicycling policy. One thing. Let's be clear; otherwise, it just shifts around.

Individual cyclists (in general). Another thing.

One specific (or specified) individual cyclist. Another thing.

American bicycling policy. One thing. Let's be clear; otherwise, it just shifts around.

Individual cyclists (in general). Another thing.

One specific (or specified) individual cyclist. Another thing.

Playing the semantic theologist as if you do not understand common discourse? More silly waste of time, and demonstration of miniature mindedness.

Originally Posted by Niles H.snip
The individual cyclist (as audience or reader) may have no good reason whatsoever to regard himself or herself as the driver of a vehicle, and the sentence makes very little sense to many people in this context.


Then he has to go along as a road sneak, unhappy, fearful, and in the danger caused by his phobia. That's what's wrong with American bicycling policy, and what vehicular cyclists are trying to change.
A road sneak, cringing in the gutter.

Rat-like. Abject. Pathetic.

In danger. Psychologically, spiritually, physically, and probably in other ways.

A cockroach among cockroaches.

Worse: a tumour-cockroach-rodent-hybrid -- greasy, poor, limping along in the soot, reviled by Lexuses, traveling nuns, taxicabs, and retired Presidents.

***
I'm sorry, I got a little off track.

You were saying....

And I was about to say this:

That is not the only option.

I (for example) (and it is just one example, I want to stress that) may regard myself as a pilot -- for this, to me, means something much higher and more responsible than "a driver." The word pilot, to me, more specifically suggests certain extremely responsible (far more than "drivers"), highly skilled, safe, well trained major airline pilots I have known.

Or I may regard myself as a cyclonaut.... (and this may have relevant meanings to me that make me fare better)

Or various other things that are far more meaningful and valuable to me as an individual cyclist....

:rolleyes:
"Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles. - John Forester

I don't care much for this statement. Of course we fare best when we act like and are treated like drivers of vehicles. But in reality, how many people that pass us each and every day out there on the road think of us as vehicle drivers and not just someone in their way? Granted not all of them yell at us or harass us, but that does not mean they are treating us as vehicle operators. This quote gets tossed around ALOT on here without much real examination, which seems to be what the OP is looking for.
How about when I am around the people who do not wish to treat me like a vehicle driver? And what if those people are so set in their ways that they do not care if harm comes to me by them passing closely? Would I still fare best around those people by acting like the driver of a vehcile?
I don't think so.
Drivers of motor vehicles do not treat other drivers of motor vehicles with the due respect of a fellow vehicle driver. And I doubt I would fare best when riding my bike on the road when that type of motorist is around.

I don't care much for this statement. Of course we fare best when we act like and are treated like drivers of vehicles. But in reality, how many people that pass us each and every day out there on the road think of us as vehicle drivers and not just someone in their way? Granted not all of them yell at us or harass us, but that does not mean they are treating us as vehicle operators. This quote gets tossed around ALOT on here without much real examination, which seems to be what the OP is looking for.
How about when I am around the people who do not wish to treat me like a vehicle driver? And what if those people are so set in their ways that they do not care if harm comes to me by them passing closely? Would I still fare best around those people by acting like the driver of a vehcile?
I don't think so.
Drivers of motor vehicles do not treat other drivers of motor vehicles with the due respect of a fellow vehicle driver. And I doubt I would fare best when riding my bike on the road when that type of motorist is around. I could care less what they think - it's how they treat me that matters.
And as long as the vast, vast majority treat me like a driver of the vehicle - which is the case when I act like driver of a vehicle - that's all that matters as far as I'm concerned.

If someone faster approaching from behind slows down to my speed, or changes lanes to pass me safely, that's treating me like a driver of a vehicle, whether they think of me as one, or just as someone/something that is in their way.

If someone waiting to enter or cross the road up ahead sees me and waits until I pass, rather than cutting in front of me as if I'm not there, that's treating me like a driver of a vehicle, whether they think of me as one, or just as someone/something that is in their way.

Playing the semantic theologist as if you do not understand common discourse? More silly waste of time, and demonstration of miniature mindedness.
Theologist??

Sir, you cut me to the quick!

I won't resort to the downward path of calling you or your perceptions theological or miniature-minded; but I will point out that there are some wider points here, if you could see them, and stop looking only at the level of the miniature.

I could care less what they think - it's how they treat me that matters.
And as long as the vast, vast majority treat me like a driver of the vehicle - which is the case when I act like driver of a vehicle - that's all that matters as far as I'm concerned.

I can accept that. As long as the motorists I come into contact with are not agressive towards me, then I honestly do not care what they *think* about me at all. But I was talking about the actual quote that keeps getting tossed around. I might have even been eluding to how we should stop using that quote and come up with something a little better to be used in its stead.



If someone faster approaching from behind slows down to my speed, or changes lanes to pass me safely, that's treating me like a driver of a vehicle, whether they think of me as one, or just as someone/something that is in their way.

I disagree. Just because they slow down does not mean they are treating you as a vehicle driver. It means they are slowing down for either your safety, their safety, or maybe they don't want to scratch their paint too badly if they hit you. One action on a persons part does not constitute them treating you as though you belong to a certain group.



If someone waiting to enter or cross the road up ahead sees me and waits until I pass, rather than cutting in front of me as if I'm not there, that's treating me like a driver of a vehicle, whether they think of me as one, or just as someone/something that is in their way.
I was driving the other day and there was a dog in the road. I stopped. I was not treating the dog as a pedestrian (even though he was actually in a crosswalk), I just didn't want to kill it. I treated it like a living creature, not a pedestrian. And I use this example to point to my statement above. Just because you are not treated like a Group A memeber, does not mean you are treated like a Goup B member.

I could care less what they think - it's how they treat me that matters.
And as long as the vast, vast majority treat me like a driver of the vehicle - which is the case when I act like driver of a vehicle - that's all that matters as far as I'm concerned.

"...which is the case when..."

Some may; others do not.

Some -- certainly not the vast, vast majority.

Some -- certainly not the vast, vast majority.
Yes, it's the vast, vast majority. I go weeks, sometimes months, before someone treats me as something other than a driver of a vehicle, and that's including honks, which, considering how much drivers honk at each other, is not necessarily treating someone other than a driver.

...we should stop using that quote and come up with something a little better to be used in its stead.

This is an entirely reasonable point, since the quote is, among other things, so often misunderstood and ineffective.

It does not communicate the intended points effectively.

Helmet Head, you are the person on here that analyzes every_single_word in a phrase. And it is actually interesting to watch you do your work hen reading legal code and how you take a phrase bit by bit and figure out what they mean. So I ask you to analyze this phrase using those skills of yours, and that's not meant as an insult.


Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles.


Now can you see my issue with this statement?

Yes, it's the vast, vast majority. I go weeks, sometimes months, before someone treats me as something other than a driver of a vehicle....

Maybe you don't ride that much. Or maybe your area is different from others. Or maybe they do treat you as something other than....

We could do a poll. This assertion may not correspond very well with others' experiences.

Personally, I do not wish to be treated like the driver of a vehicle.
I wish to be treated with the due respect of the driver of a vehicle. But I want to be treated as what I am, something more fragile.

I was driving the other day and there was a dog in the road. I stopped. I was not treating the dog as a pedestrian (even though he was actually in a crosswalk), I just didn't want to kill it. I treated it like a living creature, not a pedestrian. And I use this example to point to my statement above. Just because you are not treated like a Group A member, does not mean you are treated like a Goup B member.

Exactly.

They often think there is only one alternative, when there are many alternatives.

***
There are times when I would rather be treated as a vulnerable cyclist (on a non-vehicular device that has its own characteristics).

Just this morning I was talking with a motorist who said that he gives cyclists extra room, and treats them with extra caution -- much more so than other vehicles and the drivers of those vehicles.

He knows that they are not as well protected, that they may wobble into his path, etc. He slows down. He is extra-attentive.

I would often rather be treated as a special case.

Cylists often fare better this way.

Maybe you don't ride that much....

nailed it! a weekend club rider, NOT a dedicated, solo transportationalist. Head sees his commute thru the windshield, Niles.

Maybe you don't ride that much. Or maybe your area is different from others. Or maybe they do treat you as something other than....

We could do a poll. This assertion may not correspond very well with others' experiences.
Since very few cyclists consistently act like drivers of vehicles, I would expect very few to report being treated by the vast, vast majority as drivers of vehicles. A poll of general cyclists with results that did not correspond with my experience would simply support my hypothesis.

All I know is that on all the forums and mailing lists comprised of vehicular cycling advocates from all over the country the reporting is similar to my experience.

Personally, I do not wish to be treated like the driver of a vehicle.
I wish to be treated with the due respect of the driver of a vehicle. But I want to be treated as what I am, something more fragile.
You're splitting hairs, pj.

To be treated like a vehicle drivers is a very general concept, and it essentially means treated with the same due respect.

As far as "more fragile", do you feel more fragile than the driver of a Vespa scooter?

If you start qualifying, even with just "lawful", then you leave it open to even more misinterpretation and objections, like:

Quote:Cyclists can fare very badly in some situations while cycling lawfully.


But it is clearer.

It says what you want to say.

If there are other objections, then why hide from them?

If you have good answers, then simply give them.

If the objections have some validity, then why not take them into account?

***
Are you suggesting using unclarity (or vagueness) as a way of avoiding objections?

No, I'm suggesting your suggestion does not add clarity but muddles the point which is about cyclists following rules and which rules with respect to fare best, not what types of drivers they need to emulate.

Since very few cyclists consistently act like drivers of vehicles, I would expect very few to report being treated by the vast, vast majority as drivers of vehicles. A poll of general cyclists with results that did not correspond with my experience would simply support my hypothesis.

All I know is that on all the forums and mailing lists comprised of vehicular cycling advocates from all over the country the reporting is similar to my experience.
The poll could be limited to VCers.

"Vast, vast majority" sounds a little questionable and hyperbolic.

It isn't my experience, and you can find many postings already on these forums describing mistreatment by motorists -- and the cyclist is often obeying the laws and riding vehicularly.

No, I'm suggesting your suggestion does not add clarity but muddles the point which is about cyclists following rules and which rules with respect to fare best, not what types of drivers they need to emulate.
The relevant point was about words like "lawful".

When riding on roadways, cyclists fare best when they act like lawful drivers (as opposed to not acting like lawful drivers).
That would be clearer, and I do not see why you would want to avoid saying it that way.

If that is what you mean (and you say that it is), then why not say it, and say it openly??

Well, yes, a lawful cyclist is still open to injury by falling aircraft, or, more likely, lightning. ...

...or left turners, or light-runners, or stop-sign runners, or wayward pedestrians, or potholes and other surface hazards, or a whole variety of other road users who may not notice them even though they are riding in a lawful and 'visible' position on the roadway.

Reality check -- experienced adult riders involved in collisions are likely to have been riding lawfully at the time of their wreck. Somehow, just riding lawfully wasn't enough to save their bacon.

Robert

You're splitting hairs, pj.

To be treated like a vehicle drivers is a very general concept, and it essentially means treated with the same due respect.

As far as "more fragile", do you feel more fragile than the driver of a Vespa scooter?

Splitting hairs is all that happens here Helmet Head, and you should know that.
Maybe now you are saying it is a general concept, but I'm sure that'll change in a different thread. In the examples that you provided already, and I'm not asking you to offer any more either, you claimed you were being treated as a vehicle driver. But where is the respect there? The respect comes with the way the other people feel, not their actions. You can not treat someone with the due respect of them being a vehicle operator if you do not feel that they are in actuality operators of vehicles.

By more fragile I mean more vulnerable.
And yes, on my bicycle I am more vulnerable than a person on a Vespa. The difference in the weight of the vehicles makes me more vulnerable to wind. The lacking in power of my bicycle compared to a Vespa makes me more vulnerable to various things on hills and fighting headwinds. I get fatigued, scooter riders do not. I am more vulnerable to cmaller cracks and road debris than Vespas. I could keep going with this but I feel my point has been made.

Now, back on topic of the discussion that I originally came in here for: please see post #28.

Originally Posted by Helmet HeadWhen riding on roadways, cyclists fare best when they act like lawful drivers (as opposed to not acting like lawful drivers).

That would be clearer, and I do not see why you would want to avoid saying it that way.

If that is what you mean (and you say that it is), then why not say it, and say it openly??

HH and JF,

Have you noticed how you start to resort to ad hominem attacks when someone begins to get to some point -- or how you evade it in one way or another?

I'm starting to wonder if some of the vagueness isn't also another means of evasiveness or avoidance.

By more fragile I mean more vulnerable.
And yes, on my bicycle I am more vulnerable than a person on a Vespa. The difference in the weight of the vehicles makes me more vulnerable to wind. The lacking in power of my bicycle compared to a Vespa makes me more vulnerable to various things on hills and fighting headwinds. I get fatigued, scooter riders do not. I am more vulnerable to cmaller cracks and road debris than Vespas. I could keep going with this but I feel my point has been made.


Yes, and why, HH, use the example of a Vespa to begin with, when the vast, vast majority [with no offense intended there] of vehicles are not Vespas?

Not only that, but (importantly) the vast majority of them are far heavier and far different, and their drivers far less vulnerable??

Not only that, but (importantly) the vast majority of them are far heavier and far different, and their drivers far less vulnerable??
A vast, vast majority of the vehicles on the road today have had nothing done to them to make others more safe in their presence, instead they have become speeding cacoons that protect the occupants only. In my opinion, a cyclist is the most fragile and vulnerable vehicle operator on the road, period.

A vast, vast majority of the vehicles on the road today have had nothing done to them to make others more safe in their presence, instead they have become speeding cacoons that protect the occupants only. In my opinion, a cyclist is the most fragile and vulnerable vehicle operator on the road, period.
Why is it that they try to evade, ignore, or obscure this very important fundamental point??

I'm starting to wonder if some of the vagueness isn't also another means of evasiveness or avoidance.
It's taken you this long to start to wonder about their deliberate vagueness of terms? Ask the wise ones to define "fare best". What are are the characteristics that define a cyclist who is "faring best"? How is "faring best" measured?

A vast, vast majority of the vehicles on the road today have had nothing done to them to make others more safe in their presence, instead they have become speeding cacoons that protect the occupants only. In my opinion, a cyclist is the most fragile and vulnerable vehicle operator on the road, period.
You're not the only one who thinks that fact is significant, but I'm not among them.

The motorists that think that fact is significant resent us being out there where they "might" hit us.

All vehicle operators have to deal with the advantages and disadvantages of their particular vehicles. The bicycle's relatively low speeds and light weight are safety advantages (a Vespa rider is more likely to be damaged by his machine than is a Trek rider).

Helmet Head, you are the person on here that analyzes every_single_word in a phrase. And it is actually interesting to watch you do your work hen reading legal code and how you take a phrase bit by bit and figure out what they mean. So I ask you to analyze this phrase using those skills of yours, and that's not meant as an insult.


Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles.


Now can you see my issue with this statement?
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?

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.

seems that pithy witticism predicates more expansive driver education regarding bicycling.