Vehicular Cycling (VC) - VC at uphill intersections?

http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=1045851

Above is a link to Texas Street, one of our nice little hills in San Diego. It's no mountain, but it's in my daily commute, and I am right proud of my tubby self for making it up every day.

The south end is the top of the hill, btw.

From the intersection below, up to about where the bike lane on the southbound/uphill side goes dashed, and disappears entirely, is a little over 1/3 of a mile at an almost 12% grade.

You'll notice that right as the dashed bike lane disappears, there is a place for cars to make a right turn. There is a signal-controlled intersection a few feet ahead, where the hill levels off.

-----

I have heard it said many times that when approaching a place where a right turn is allowed, one should move laterally away from the edge of the road to avoid a right hook. On this road, when I ride on it there are usually at least 1/2 a dozen right turners at the spot where the bike lane ends.

Also, I have read that when turning left at an intersection, one should either merge over one lane at a time, or do a pedestrian-style two-point left turn by going straight and crossing.

Is that how any of you VC advocates recommend handling this road?

------


FWIW, I don't move left of the dashed bike lane.

I am going all of about 3-4mph at this point, since it's a steep section, and I am already tired.

Cars that turn right pass me and turn in what would be a right hook, if I were going faster. But I'm not, so there's plenty of time/space.

Then when I get within a few feet of the intersection I verify that the car(s) behind are giving me ROW, and I chug straight through. If a car right hooked me, I could easily turn with them or roll off my bike into the plants on the side, since I am going so slowly.

Of course, this has never happened, and I feel safe all the way to the top of the hill.

Then, when I get to the top, and it levels out, I usually time the light so it's red. I merge across both through-lanes in one motion, after the left-turn lane has gone solid. I move accross the solid line of the left turn lane, and cut in line.

The car drivers often smile and wave. I have never had one angry about my "rude" behavior.

Is my cycling behavior here VC?

http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=1045851

Above is a link to Texas Street, one of our nice little hills in San Diego. It's no mountain, but it's in my daily commute, and I am right proud of my tubby self for making it up every day.

The south end is the top of the hill, btw.

From the intersection below, up to about where the bike lane on the southbound/uphill side goes dashed, and disappears entirely, is a little over 1/3 of a mile at an almost 12% grade.

You'll notice that right as the dashed bike lane disappears, there is a place for cars to make a right turn. There is a signal-controlled intersection a few feet ahead, where the hill levels off.

-----

I have heard it said many times that when approaching a place where a right turn is allowed, one should move laterally away from the edge of the road to avoid a right hook. On this road, when I ride on it there are usually at least 1/2 a dozen right turners at the spot where the bike lane ends.

Also, I have read that when turning left at an intersection, one should either merge over one lane at a time, or do a pedestrian-style two-point left turn by going straight and crossing.

Is that how any of you VC advocates recommend handling this road?

------


FWIW, I don't move left of the dashed bike lane.

I am going all of about 3-4mph at this point, since it's a steep section, and I am already tired.

Cars that turn right pass me and turn in what would be a right hook, if I were going faster. But I'm not, so there's plenty of time/space.

Then when I get within a few feet of the intersection I verify that the car(s) behind are giving me ROW, and I chug straight through. If a car right hooked me, I could easily turn with them or roll off my bike into the plants on the side, since I am going so slowly.

Of course, this has never happened, and I feel safe all the way to the top of the hill.

Then, when I get to the top, and it levels out, I usually time the light so it's red. I merge across both through-lanes in one motion, after the left-turn lane has gone solid. I move accross the solid line of the left turn lane, and cut in line.

The car drivers often smile and wave. I have never had one angry about my "rude" behavior.

Is my cycling behavior here VC?


Sounds pretty much like my left turn on Regents road after ascending from the valley where hiway 52 runs. I make a left across Regents to Luna. The speed limit on Regents is 50MPH with a 35MPH decrease about 200 yards before the top, where the light is. Motorists rarely slow to 35.

I generally time it to get behind the largest group of motorists just before the light... I am usually doing 6-8MPH, so sometimes I slow to a crawl, look for a good break in traffic and then ease left... I can't tell if anyone is coming until I move left due to the curves of the road. As I ease left I get a better view down the road and then move accordingly. I signal, but it shouldn't matter as I do this only when there is a good long break in traffic... and any approaching motorists are so far back that they probably are not looking. and don't care anyway.

Of course the left turn loop never detects me (I have reported it and they have responded... to no avail). So I have to wait for a good gap and then I run the light. (although sometimes a motorist comes into the lane and does trigger the lght.

A two point turn would hardly work as motorists barely hesitate before making the right turn at the top. And like you, I don't want to be trapped against the curb.

The key to my crossing is timing the traffic, then moving left and watching down the hill to ensure that I do have a gap. Regents does have gaps in traffic, unlike the parallel Genesee, which seems to flow steadily. This is one reason I prefer Regents, it actually gets quiet for some small period as I ascend... rather than the constant roar and rush of traffic on Genesee.

Is it VC; is your method VC... who knows, at 4MPH I am right at ped speed, and at 6MPH I am at about slow jogging speed. I am still on wheels, so am I vehicular? Who knows... it works and I am not looking for nor expecting any motorist response.

BTW I have never ridden Texas street. I have used either Fairmont or Juan street to come up from the valley... for some reason I have never needed to come up in the center.

Now I do a similar thing coming off hiway 5 and turning left on Genesee... only in this case I stick my left arm out for a long time, and await the first motorist that actually slows way down for me... I use them as a shield to make that left turn at the top. The traffic hits the ramp at 60+MPH, and you cannot tell if there is a gap during rush hour... so I wait for a "shield car" before attemting that left.

Anyone coming off the hiway will see a slow car with brake lights on and will hopefully slow too.

I have had motorists just "fly" past my outstretched arm... so I patiently wait... moving about 6MPH for 5-8 car lenths it takes to get a "shield car." I could push it and "sprint" up to maybe 10-12 MPH to make the same turn... but with with autos closing at 60, why take chances?

I used to live on Texas St. That's one heck of a hill! I only ever rode up the hill once. I would ride up Washington instead. I don't care that it might mean going out of my way. Texas was too narrow and steep and the traffic too heavy and fast back then.

I would say, who cares if your method qualifies as "VC". It sounds like you're doing what works.

Is that how any of you VC advocates recommend handling this road?



You aren't using the wrong lane for your destination, so that is consistent with the rules for drivers.
You aren't overtaking traffic on the right, so that is consistent with the rules for drivers.
You aren't violating the right of way of traffic in the adjacent lane (or line) when you move laterally, instead you are looking and yielding, so that is consistent with the rules for drivers of vehicles.


also,


You aren't having to slam on your brakes to avoid right turning traffic, so not much more defensive driving is required there
You appear to have plenty of time to negotiate with the right-turning traffic before you cross the intersection


Riding farther left to avoid right hooks is a defensive driving technique that is compatible with the rules for drivers. It is not a requirement mandated by the rules for drivers. If this defensive driving technique is of little use to you, due to your very slow speed, and your other skills are working well, then don't concern yourself with it.

BTW, John Forester has written that when speed differences are very high, moving across multiple lanes into a left lane is usually best done by being patient and waiting for a sufficient gap to move through all of the lanes at once. Moving one lane at a time is more convenient, but is easier and more pleasant when traffic speed differentials are lower. I have merged one-lane-at-a-time across 3 lanes on 6-lane roads posted 55mph, but only where congestion has reduce the speeds a bit and eliminated big gaps in traffic.

It is not a requirement mandated by the rules for drivers.
Should the wikipedia article be changed then?

It says that "negotiating" is the VC method.
The key to the process is that the cyclist merges into traffic lanes as per the rules of the road, one lane at a time.

It says that the following are not VC:
Not merging out of a curbside bicycle lane when approaching a junction or intersection when the cyclist is going straight.
While a traffic light is red, moving to the front of the traffic queue instead of taking one's place in line according to the first come, first served principle.
Darting inward across the roadway from the outer edge of the road, instead of merging across one marked lane at a time.
Examples of pedestrian cycling:

* going straight across an intersection from the outside edge of the road
* making inside turns only when it's clear (don't bother negotiating) by darting straight across the road during a gap

I hug the side, even at the intersection. I wait for a gap, and then dart accross the road in one motion. I cross the turn lane line and cut in front of about a dozen cars.

So out of my 3 behaviors, steve said (I believe) that 1 and 2 were compatible with VC. Other VC advocates: agree/disagree? What about behavior 3?

VC is just a worthless political stance against bike infrastructure

riding your bike in the 'vc' manner is now AC- ANYTHING GOES, BABY!~

used to live on Texas St. That's one heck of a hill! I only ever rode up the hill once. I would ride up Washington instead. I don't care that it might mean going out of my way. Texas was too narrow and steep and the traffic too heavy and fast back then. I started out by choosing alternate routes up. I was still dying when I first started. Even on Washington. Then I got used to them, and started up Texas. Now Washington feels like something that I could spin up slowly all day.

Of course, because of the narrow merge at the end, I wouldn't personally every try Texas on a bent, or a trike. The only reason I am comfortable with it is that with my touring frame I can hold a really steady, narrow line, even at 3mph.

But, I agree with you, it's whatever works.

http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=1045851

Above is a link to Texas Street, one of our nice little hills in San Diego. It's no mountain, but it's in my daily commute, and I am right proud of my tubby self for making it up every day.

The south end is the top of the hill, btw.

From the intersection below, up to about where the bike lane on the southbound/uphill side goes dashed, and disappears entirely, is a little over 1/3 of a mile at an almost 12% grade.

You'll notice that right as the dashed bike lane disappears, there is a place for cars to make a right turn. There is a signal-controlled intersection a few feet ahead, where the hill levels off.

-----

I have heard it said many times that when approaching a place where a right turn is allowed, one should move laterally away from the edge of the road to avoid a right hook. On this road, when I ride on it there are usually at least 1/2 a dozen right turners at the spot where the bike lane ends.

Also, I have read that when turning left at an intersection, one should either merge over one lane at a time, or do a pedestrian-style two-point left turn by going straight and crossing.

Is that how any of you VC advocates recommend handling this road?

------


FWIW, I don't move left of the dashed bike lane.

I am going all of about 3-4mph at this point, since it's a steep section, and I am already tired.

Cars that turn right pass me and turn in what would be a right hook, if I were going faster. But I'm not, so there's plenty of time/space.

Then when I get within a few feet of the intersection I verify that the car(s) behind are giving me ROW, and I chug straight through. If a car right hooked me, I could easily turn with them or roll off my bike into the plants on the side, since I am going so slowly.

Of course, this has never happened, and I feel safe all the way to the top of the hill.

Then, when I get to the top, and it levels out, I usually time the light so it's red. I merge across both through-lanes in one motion, after the left-turn lane has gone solid. I move across the solid line of the left turn lane, and cut in line.

The car drivers often smile and wave. I have never had one angry about my "rude" behavior.

Is my cycling behavior here VC?
I've only been up Texas Street 2 or 3 times, and each time I turned left at the top. Frankly, I can't remember exactly what I did, but it seems to me that by the time you get close to the light the hill is not nearly as steep as it is earlier. I certainly don't recall thinking it was a place where negotiation was not a practical option. Of course, I've yet to find such a place anywhere in San Diego County. Having said that, the left turn from w/b La Jolla Village Drive, coming up from Gilman, to s/b Torrey Pines Road into La Jolla, which is on my commute, is much more challenging, I think. The climb is steep, doesn't really flatten out until you're in the left turn lane, and you have to merge across 3 lanes of 50+ mph traffic. Plus, there is a curve to the right at the top which shortens driver's sight lines. I still manage to negotiate my way across, even in the most challenging situations, but it's something very few cyclists would even consider doing in many situations (the alternative is to continue in the bike lane to the light, and then make two ped crossings in crosswalks).

By the way, on Texas St., the bike lane was repainted, twice, in the last year, and is better than before, but still substandard width.

As far as what you did being VC or not, I agree with Steve. VC encompasses a broad range of choices and styles, all of which are VC unless they violate the basic principles and rules of the road that drivers generally follow all over the world. Also, some of the VC rules are fairly rigid (like don't ride at night without lights), while others are suggested best practices or techniques, the not using of which does not mean you're violating VC. For example, while it is VC to merge across one lane at a time, if you pull aside and wait for a gap, that's not necessarily not VC (I know in at least some areas of Mexico, that's normal behavior for car drivers).

Should the wikipedia article be changed then?
Yes, it conveys VC as being much more rigid that it really is.

So out of my 3 behaviors, steve said (I believe) that 1 and 2 were compatible with VC. Other VC advocates: agree/disagree? What about behavior 3?
Why do you give a poop if VC advocates agree or disagree about any cycling behavior? Do you actually place any value on their proclamations/declarations of VC dogma,:rolleyes: or are you just teasing their vanity?:)

I hug the side, even at the intersection. I wait for a gap, and then dart accross the road in one motion. I cross the turn lane line and cut in front of about a dozen cars.

So out of my 3 behaviors, steve said (I believe) that 1 and 2 were compatible with VC. Other VC advocates: agree/disagree? What about behavior 3?

I'd look at that as going briefly into ped mode to get to the left turn lane but you acted vehicularly up to that point as far as I can tell. It's similar in my mind to when I've been at a redlight in a straight lane on a multilane road and realized that I was supposed to make a turn at that intersection. Instead of being forced to go straight like if I was in a car, I convert to a ped and walk (or ride if there's room) into the turn lane.

You are taking advantage of being able to act like a pedestrian when it makes your life easier and doing so at a time when no one is expecting you to be acting like a vehicle (there's a gap in traffic).

Yes, it conveys VC as being much more rigid that it really is. So should I take it that all 3 of my behaviors are VC?

EDIT:
Also, does that mean that when you first wrote the article, you didn't understand VC correctly? or does it mean that you did a poor job of explaining what VC is?

Cutting through the crosswalk to your left turn position might be considered VC switching to Pedestrian then switching back to VC.

EDIT:
Also, does that mean that when you first wrote the article, you didn't understand VC correctly? or does it mean that you did a poor job of explaining what VC is?
Or maybe edited by many others!

Cutting through the crosswalk to your left turn position might be considered VC switching to Pedestrian then switching back to VC.
I don't do that.

Or maybe edited by many others!
http://bikeforums.net/showthread.php?p=4559499#post4559499

So should I take it that all 3 of my behaviors are VC?

EDIT:
Also, does that mean that when you first wrote the article, you didn't understand VC correctly? or does it mean that you did a poor job of explaining what VC is? Probably both, plus others editing.

The question of whether VC is a scientific theory aside, I think it's useful to remember that the way scientific theories evolve is that each starts out as a hypothesis that seems to explain all known facts within the applicable domain. As more facts are brought in, sometimes adjustments have to be made. The ultimate goal is a theory that accurately predicts.

That evolutionary process is applicable to any formation of a set of best practices for any endeavor, and VC is no exception.

That said, I must admit that I struggle with the question of where the line is between the set of cycling behavior that is consistent with general principles and rules of the road, and the set of behavior that includes best practices that go beyond merely operating consistently with the rules of the road, and which of the two VC refers to.

For example, the general rule is lateral movements should be preceded by a look back to verify you have the right of way to make that movement. But if you're making a left turn from the left side of your side of the road, and there is double-yellow stripe, is not looking back prior to making that left turn, just in case some flagrant law-breaker is passing you on the left VC or not? On the one hand, you have the right of way whether you look or not. On the other hand, why not look? So we can probably agree it's good practice to look anyway, but is it VC if you don't look? I honestly don't know.

As far as your 3 behaviors, again, I have to refrain from saying definitively one way or another because I'm still struggling with this issue.

That said, I must admit that I struggle with the question of where the line is between the set of cycling behavior that is consistent with general principles and rules of the road, and the set of behavior that includes best practices that go beyond merely operating consistently with the rules of the road, and which of the two VC refers to.
So you are not sure which parts of your Wikipedia article, or other definitions in this forum, go beyond the basic definition of VC?

----

You once gave me a link with 5 basic principles of VC. Here it is again:
http://www.wright.edu/~jeffrey.hiles/essays/listening/ch4.html (http://www.wright.edu/%7Ejeffrey.hiles/essays/listening/ch4.html)
Are the 5 basic principles* listed here VC#, HHVC%, or occupying the grey area?

-----

*
Drive on the right side of the roadway, never on the left and never on the sidewalk.
When you reach a more important or larger road than the one you are on, yield to crossing traffic. Here, yielding means looking to each side and waiting until no traffic is coming.
When you intend to change lanes or move laterally on the roadway, yield to traffic in the new lane or line of travel. Here, yielding means looking forward and backward until you see that no traffic is coming.
When approaching an intersection, position yourself with respect to your destination direction—on the right near the curb if you want to turn right, on the left near the center line if you want to turn left, and between those positions if you want to go straight.
Between intersections, position yourself according to your speed relative to other traffic; slower traffic is nearer the curb and faster traffic is nearer the centerline (Forester, 1993, p. 246).
#the set of cycling behavior that is consistent with general principles and rules of the road
%
Helmet-Head-brand-VC
the set of behavior that includes best practices that go beyond merely operating consistently with the rules of the road

Should the wikipedia article be changed then?

It says that "negotiating" is the VC method.
...

I hug the side, even at the intersection. I wait for a gap, and then dart accross the road in one motion. I cross the turn lane line and cut in front of about a dozen cars.

The vehicular rules require you to yield before changing lanes, and to make your movement safely. Your earlier description implied this. Now you are using the word "dart" as if to describe the scenario of a child or animal surprising drivers by suddenly entering the space in front of them without looking and yielding.

Certainly you may change multiple lanes in one trajectory without staying in the intermediate ones if there is adequate space to do this safely and without surprising other drivers.

I did not interpret your original post as you cutting in front of other cars, i.e. overtaking them and breaking into line in front of them. I had inferred that you were traveling slower than the other traffic. I will have to re-read it to see what I misunderstood. I don't endorse overtaking on the right.

--

Okay, I've re-read it; you appear to be saying that you cut in line with the left turn lane traffic. Why not simply make your merge farther back so that you don't have to cut in line? That is what I do when climbing a hill toward a left turn on a 6-lane road. I merge all the way over when a big gap in traffic appears, but well before I reach the queue at the left turn lane.

Now you are using the word "dart" as if to describe the scenario of a child or animal surprising drivers by suddenly entering the space in front of them without looking and yielding. No such implication. I look, yield, and when there is a safe gap, I dart accross both lanes in one fast motion. This is at the top of the hill when it is level.

Why not simply make your merge farther back so that you don't have to cut in line? Just in case this is not clear, I am perfectly content with my way of riding the hill. I feel it is the safest method for me. Drivers also seem very satisfied with how I handle this road. I am comfortable, by the way, in merging across lanes of fast traffic for left turns in different situations.

Frankly, merging into the left-most lane on a steep grade well in advance of my turn, with fast traffic seems pointless and a decrease to my net-safety.

I just wanted to know if you consider it VC. If not, what VC behavior would be. And if you recommend this behavior, do you in fact perform it yourself.

That is what I do when climbing a hill toward a left turn on a 6-lane road. I merge all the way over when a big gap in traffic appears, but well before I reach the queue at the left turn lane. You do this on a 10+% grade with 40+mph traffic?

--

Okay, I've re-read it; you appear to be saying that you cut in line with the left turn lane traffic. Why not simply make your merge farther back so that you don't have to cut in line? That is what I do when climbing a hill toward a left turn on a 6-lane road. I merge all the way over when a big gap in traffic appears, but well before I reach the queue at the left turn lane.

This is what I do in these hill situations... the difference in speed between myself and motorists along a 50MPH road AND the presence of large gaps make this quite possible. Otherwise, I would make the crossing one lane at a time... a somewhat risky situation in heavy traffic moving at 50MPH while I am moving at 4-8MPH.

In other places where I have more speed on and I can actually negotiate with motorists (even JF mentions the difficulty of "negotiation" when there are great speed differences) I do it one lane at a time, gap or no gap, based on negotiation. In otherwords, when I am moving quite slow, I look for one huge gap and don't bother negotiating, when I am moving fast enough to not slow traffic terribly much, I negotiate for gaps.

I just wanted to know if you consider it VC. If not, what VC behavior would be. And if you recommend this behavior, do you in fact perform it yourself.
....
You do this on a 10+% grade with 40+mph traffic?

I am considering this question in terms of what I would recommend to a student taking a Road 1 class I'm teaching, as well as what I do myself.

Being on a steep uphill grade in the direction of the roadway need not greatly decrease the speed at which the cyclist crosses the lanes in the direction perpendicular to the grade. So, it should only require a few seconds to merge over two lanes, plus a little extra time for comfort, when choosing a gap in traffic. Maybe a little longer than waiting until the top of the hill as you describe, but I really can't say without being there. The important thing is to choose the gap conservatively since drivers won't have much time to see you and compensate if you misjudge.

After moving across an adequate break in traffic and upon arriving near the center of the roadway to take the left turn, there are three possible conditions.

One possibility is that the left turn only lane has not started yet. In this case I ride up the left edge of the inside through lane until I reach the start of the left turn lane. I did this on a road posted 45 max on my commute home today. Since drivers sit on the left side of their vehicles in the US, they have a very good view of me and their passing distance, and so I have not had any concerns about this.

A second possiblity is that the left turn only lane has started but the back of the queue of left turning traffic is still ahead of me. This is preferable, since I can take my normal position in line but am out of the way of straight through traffic. I do not feel worried about other traffic that may arrive in the LTO lane behind me because they must be prepared to slow and/or stop for the turn or the stopped traffic ahead anyway. Now, if I have moved across very early, and the LTO lane is very long, the traffic in it may still be moving very fast, and this could be somewhat uncomfortable, but I don't often encounter such situations. Drivers can change lane to pass me before turning left if they must, and sometimes they do.

The third possibility is that drivers are already queued in the left turn only lane and I have overshot the back of the stopped queue. I try very hard to avoid this, because since the traffic is stopped it would usually be difficult to negotiate a space between the traffic to merge into the LTO lane. I cannot remember this happening to me; I negotiate my lane changes before traffic beside me has actually stopped, else I probably give up on making the turn, just as I would in my car. The closest I have come was merging left across two lanes (rightmost became a RTO lane, center through) while climbing a steep hill. By the time I got beside the LTO lane, drivers in the LTO lane were slowing and stopping. I had to match speed with them in order to negotiate a merge, and so I had to travel slowly while still in the through lane, which had a green light ahead. A driver behind me in the through lane became irate that I slowed him down; he honked his horn and told me that I gave cyclists a bad name by being so far from the curb. Apparently he believed I ought to operate contrary to the normal rules for drivers in order to stay out of his way, regardless of what larger problems this might cause for others.

One possibility is that the left turn only lane has not started yet. In this case I ride up the left edge of the inside through lane until I reach the start of the left turn lane.
There is a concrete divider, narrow lanes, and no safe room to pass the cars on the left. You would likely have to mount/dismount several times in rapid succession, as traffic is stop and go in this lane, waiting for the next green arrow.

A second possiblity is that the left turn only lane has started but the back of the queue of left turning traffic is still ahead of me.
The left turn queue is usually backed up into the left traffic lane at rush hour when I ride this road. In response to the block left lane, the cars rush to change lanes into the right.

The third possibility is that drivers are already queued in the left turn only lane and I have overshot the back of the stopped queue.
This is usually what happens by the time there is a suitable gap in traffic.

I probably give up on making the turn, just as I would in my car.
The cars are more then happy to let me cut, after watching me pedal up the hill. If the light is red when I get to the level spot just before the light, I have no problem cutting. If the light is green, but there is a gap, I have no problem darting. If the light is green but there is no gap then I would turn right into the gas station on top of the hill, cut through the parking lot and make a left on the other side.

I think my method is much safer then the VC method, & I think it saves time for both the cyclists and the drivers.

There is a concrete divider, narrow lanes, and no safe room to pass the cars on the left. You would likely have to mount/dismount several times in rapid succession, as traffic is stop and go in this lane, waiting for the next green arrow.
...
The left turn queue is usually backed up into the left traffic lane at rush hour when I ride this road. In response to the block left lane, the cars rush to change lanes into the right.

You apparently place a high value on passing stopped traffic, either to avoid missing a signal cycle, or for some other reason. I do not attempt to pass traffic stopped in the queue; I have not had any problems waiting in the queue at a left turn lane, and only rarely have I missed signal cycles by doing so.

If I were to encounter an intersection where I decided that it is very likely that I would miss a left turn signal cycle by waiting in the left turn queue, I would proceed straight at the intersection, stop, and perform a pedestrian left turn, either walking in a crosswalk or replacing my bike in the roadway on the crossing street and pedaling across on the appropriate signal.

I'm not going to try to talk you out of what you are doing, but given the number of variables involved, you must understand how difficult it would be to explain effectively to a student, let alone to a police officer or judge if something goes wrong. The vehicular methods I practice and teach work every time, and only occasionally are less convenient than other methods, usually more so. I don't like having to keep track of too many different hazards and conditions in different directions at a single time while cycling; I prefer to keep my traffic negotiation simple. I could never do what bike messengers do; I can scarcely walk and chew gum at the same time. That's why I like the simplicity of the normal rules of the road - they make cycling easier for people like me.

You apparently place a high value on passing stopped traffic, either to avoid missing a signal cycle, or for some other reason
You're reading too much into it.

The vehicular methods I practice and teach work every time
This statement either means, they have worked for certain people every time, or that they will work for anyone anytime.

If it is meaning 1, I suggest your sample size is too small.

If it is meaning 2, it is a statement of faith.

Sgoodri, you are such a super cyclist!

Zetyoun, you are NOT being VC, just adaptive. but then again, anything goes for VC, yeah.

here's a little thread hijack. last night, riding home from work, I was NOT as far right as I could have been, safely, to allow faster traffic to pass. I was riding in the center of the lane, because I felt like it. was I being VC?

This statement either means, they have worked for certain people every time, or that they will work for anyone anytime.

If it is meaning 1, I suggest your sample size is too small.

If it is meaning 2, it is a statement of faith.

They have worked for me every time, and they have worked often enough for other cyclists (there will always be some collisions) that they represent the best system to teach to cyclists.

The League of American Bicyclists made it very clear to me, when I received my LCI certification, that their insurance policy would only cover my class if I teach it in a manner consistent with the vehicular rules of the road that they have published (essentially the same ones that John Forester published.)

If I teach something else, I am legally liable for endangering students.

I would be very interested to see an insurance company that insures a class on bicycling that teaches cycling on actual roadways in a method contrary to these rules of the road. No such thing exists, I believe, for the simple fact that nobody has been able to demonstrate such a method as being adequately safe to the satisfaction of an insurance company.

They have worked for me every time, and they have worked often enough for other cyclists (there will always be some collisions) that they represent the best system to teach to cyclists.

The League of American Bicyclists made it very clear to me, when I received my LCI certification, that their insurance policy would only cover my class if I teach it in a manner consistent with the vehicular rules of the road that they have published (essentially the same ones that John Forester published.)

If I teach something else, I am legally liable for endangering students.

I would be very interested to see an insurance company that insures a class on bicycling that teaches cycling on actual roadways in a method contrary to these rules of the road. No such thing exists, I believe, for the simple fact that nobody has been able to demonstrate such a method as being adequately safe to the satisfaction of an insurance company.

By that statement I suppose you cannot teach any "personal theories" beyond what LAB recommends, either.

By that statement I suppose you cannot teach any "personal theories" beyond what LAB recommends, either.

That "personal theory" that I believe you are referring to is actually LAW in PA, DE, and NJ (all states I do a significant amount of riding in).

That "personal theory" that I believe you are referring to is actually LAW in PA, DE, and NJ (all states I do a significant amount of riding in).

Really... in PA, DE and NJ you are required to ride centerish by default? Cool. Take the lane.

By that statement I suppose you cannot teach any "personal theories" beyond what LAB recommends, either.

We cannot teach anything that is contrary to the core vehicular rules as have been described earlier.

We can supplement the core material with our own as long as it does not conflict with this material. If we present our opinions that are not directly reflective of what is in the written curriculum (teacher or student texts) then we are encouraged to state it as personal opinion. For instance, I know an LCI who disagrees with the way LAB defines terms for bike fitting. He's an ex-racer, so he has lots of technical interests in bike fit that go beyond LAB's simplified message. He teaches the LAB way, and then supplements it with his own preferences, which he identifies as such.

Really... in PA, DE and NJ you are required to ride centerish by default? Cool. Take the lane.

Cyclists are required to ride on the roadway (not the shoulder) in the right hand lane and, in a lane too narrow to share, are allowed to use the full lane. Cyclists are only required to leave the roadway to use the shoulder or other safe turnout space if impeding traffic on a 2 lane roadway (going less than the normal speed on the roadway with 5 or more vehicles behind you that cannot pass due to oncoming traffic or short sightlines). None of these states have any special restricitions about bike lanes; they are not even mentioned in the vehicle code.

Cyclists are required to ride on the roadway (not the shoulder) in the right hand lane and, in a lane too narrow to share, are allowed to use the full lane. Cyclists are only required to leave the roadway to use the shoulder or other safe turnout space if impeding traffic on a 2 lane roadway (going less than the normal speed on the roadway with 5 or more vehicles behind you that cannot pass due to oncoming traffic or short sightlines). None of these states have any special restricitions about bike lanes; they are not even mentioned in the vehicle code.

Other states have restrictions (obviously) and "exceptions" are "required" to leave the BL...

I don't believe LAB "pushes" a centrish position on the road, in spite of the potential visibility issues that riding centerish provides. The classes I took rode on the right hand side of the road about 5 feet or so from the curb, and about 5 feet from parked cars.

Others here have suggested that one should ride centerish and wait until a motorist is approaching, see that the motorist reacts, and then move right. I wonder if that is consistent with LAB?

Still others here have suggested that bike lanes are part of an overall network and can be used most of the time... I don't recall any discussion at all about BL in either the Road 1 or Road 2 classes that I took.

Other states have restrictions (obviously) and "exceptions" are "required" to leave the BL...

I don't believe LAB "pushes" a centrish position on the road, in spite of the potential visibility issues that riding centerish provides. The classes I took rode on the right hand side of the road about 5 feet or so from the curb, and about 5 feet from parked cars.

Others here have suggested that one should ride centerish and wait until a motorist is approaching, see that the motorist reacts, and then move right. I wonder if that is consistent with LAB?

Still others here have suggested that bike lanes are part of an overall network and can be used most of the time... I don't recall any discussion at all about BL in either the Road 1 or Road 2 classes that I took.

The Road 1 classes and LCI seminar I attended encouraged cyclists to decide if they felt comfortable sharing the lane side-by-side with another driver at that location and to pick an appropriate but consistent lane position based on that. That is, if sharing, position just to the right of other traffic in a very wide lane, but a safe distance from the gutter/curb in a normal wide lane. If not sharing, ride centerish. The cyclist can change his or her mind, and can adapt to conditions, but riding centerish wasn't described as a method of traffic calming prior to moving right. It was described as a way to discourage close passing or unsafe same-lane passing at intersections.

We did ride centerish a lot for our own convenience and comfort; for instance to talk to others in a two-abreast formation, only to break into single file out of courtesy if traffic arrived behind us and there was only one wide lane in each direction. On low-traffic 2-lane roads I do this a lot; I don't time my move right late in order to reduce passing traffic speeds but I'm not terribly concerned if they do slow down a bit.

At the LCI seminar we rode on one road with a bike lane. The seminar instuctor scolded those prospective LCIs who rode in the bike lane, and told us that we should have been riding pretty much on the line because of the amount of debris that was in the lane on our route. He explained that we were putting ourselves at risk of tire punctures. (I was one of a few cyclists who had been riding on the line during most of the trip.) A couple of the students were local planners who advocated for those particular bike lane stripes, and the seminar instructor's comments left them rather wide-eyed. He didn't have anything bad to say about bike lanes mid-block in general, except that we should teach cyclists to stay out of them when they accumulate debris. He did not advise leaving the bike lane for traffic negotiation purposes except at intersections, and of course to stay away from door zones.

They have worked for me every time, and they have worked often enough for other cyclists (there will always be some collisions) that they represent the best system to teach to cyclists.

The League of American Bicyclists made it very clear to me, when I received my LCI certification, that their insurance policy would only cover my class if I teach it in a manner consistent with the vehicular rules of the road that they have published (essentially the same ones that John Forester published.)

If I teach something else, I am legally liable for endangering students.

I would be very interested to see an insurance company that insures a class on bicycling that teaches cycling on actual roadways in a method contrary to these rules of the road. No such thing exists, I believe, for the simple fact that nobody has been able to demonstrate such a method as being adequately safe to the satisfaction of an insurance company.

JF says it is not contrary to the rules of the road to ride between lines of cars. This makes me curious to know if you or any LCIs are teaching extreme vehicular lane-splitting to your students?

R.

JF says it is not contrary to the rules of the road to ride between lines of cars. This makes me curious to know if you or any LCIs are teaching extreme vehicular lane-splitting to your students?


I don't teach filtering forward. I know some LCIs in California who are trying to figure out an approach to filtering forward that is (1) legal, (2) reasonably safe and (3) simple enough to teach. I haven't paid attention since reading the first debates among LCIs over whether this was a a good idea.

Where I cycle, there is almost never enough traffic backed up for me to worry about possibly missing a traffic signal cycle due to traffic stopped in front of me. Therefore, filtering forward would never buy me more than a few seconds, and would require some car drivers to pass me a second time, typically where the lanes are narrow. This tends to generate ill will toward cyclists; my own wife throws a fit if cyclists she just passed filter past her at a red light and she has to deal with passing them in narrow congested conditions all over again.

I know there are some congested places where filtering forward allows cyclists to avoid missing signal cycles and to reduce their travel times a significant amount. I also know the pitfalls, having once struck a pedestrian who stepped out from in front of a stopped van as I was filtering forward curbside on a college campus. The best advice I can manage for those who insist on filtering forward is to avoid doing it where drivers can turn, and be aware of the danger of opening doors and crossing pedestrians that may appear unexpectedly at any moment.

I don't teach filtering forward. I know some LCIs in California who are trying to figure out an approach to filtering forward that is (1) legal, (2) reasonably safe and (3) simple enough to teach. I haven't paid attention since reading the first debates among LCIs over whether this was a a good idea.

Where I cycle, there is almost never enough traffic backed up for me to worry about possibly missing a traffic signal cycle due to traffic stopped in front of me. Therefore, filtering forward would never buy me more than a few seconds, and would require some car drivers to pass me a second time, typically where the lanes are narrow. This tends to generate ill will toward cyclists; my own wife throws a fit if cyclists she just passed filter past her at a red light and she has to deal with passing them in narrow congested conditions all over again.

I know there are some congested places where filtering forward allows cyclists to avoid missing signal cycles and to reduce their travel times a significant amount. I also know the pitfalls, having once struck a pedestrian who stepped out from in front of a stopped van as I was filtering forward curbside on a college campus. The best advice I can manage for those who insist on filtering forward is to avoid doing it where drivers can turn, and be aware of the danger of opening doors and crossing pedestrians that may appear unexpectedly at any moment.

I like that advice SG. It's true that in many places and situations, filtering through traffic could provide significant advantage to a careful rider. Thus the desperate attempts to gather bicycular filtering under the tent of 'vehicular cycling.' I don't often hear your tone of caution honed by personal experience from anyone in the VC camp who claims filtering is 'vehicular' activity. (Yes, there is a camp. I once stalked it from afar.)

But JF is not endorsing filtering alone, mind us. Perhaps as collateral damage from his too-eager justification of filtering, he also ends up putting a VC stamp-of-approval on lane-splitting, that is, riding right down the lane line between two lines of traffic. Furthermore, this traffic need not be stopped at a light; in fact, as I have discussed numerous times since certain VC-ists have been casually including lane-splitting among 'VC best practices,' riding between lanes is more 'safe and reasonable' if the cars are moving, precisely for the reasons you mentioned.

Robert

But JF is not endorsing filtering alone, mind us. Perhaps as collateral damage from his too-eager justification of filtering, he also ends up putting a VC stamp-of-approval on lane-splitting, that is, riding right down the lane line between two lines of traffic. Furthermore, this traffic need not be stopped at a light; in fact, as I have discussed numerous times since certain VC-ists have been casually including lane-splitting among 'VC best practices,' riding between lanes is more 'safe and reasonable' if the cars are moving, precisely for the reasons you mentioned.

Robert

This is not an accurate statement of my writings. I do not approve of filtering forward between two lines of traffic for the same destination. If there is room at the side, then it is acceptable, provided it is done with caution. When I wrote about riding the lane line between two lines of moving traffic, I was specifically describing the situations in which a new lane of traffic is joining in, and riding the lane line until the motorists had sorted themselves out into which lanes they desire to be. In this situation, the motorists are overtaking the cyclist, not the other way around. I also almost ride the lane line on occasion when in the process of changing lanes, moving from the left side of one lane to the right side of the next lane to the left. Again, at such times the motorists are overtaking the cyclist. I recognize that in some states this is not lawful, but in other states it is, including California, where it is mostly used by motorcyclists in the process of overtaking slowed or stopped auto drivers.

This is not an accurate statement of my writings. I do not approve of filtering forward between two lines of traffic for the same destination. If there is room at the side, then it is acceptable, provided it is done with caution. When I wrote about riding the lane line between two lines of moving traffic, I was specifically describing the situations in which a new lane of traffic is joining in, and riding the lane line until the motorists had sorted themselves out into which lanes they desire to be. In this situation, the motorists are overtaking the cyclist, not the other way around. I also almost ride the lane line on occasion when in the process of changing lanes, moving from the left side of one lane to the right side of the next lane to the left. Again, at such times the motorists are overtaking the cyclist. I recognize that in some states this is not lawful, but in other states it is, including California, where it is mostly used by motorcyclists in the process of overtaking slowed or stopped auto drivers.

John, whether it is legal or not, I certainly don't find it to be a very safe practice, and I am somewhat surprised you would condone it in any way. That rather confused state of the motorists ("as they sort themselves out... ") can easily lead to a situational decision error... where a motorist responds to the other motorists, and blanks on a cyclist upon whom they may be closing.

Just doesn't seem like a good place to be.

I too used to do this, and now I just take a very well defined position in one lane or the other.

I don't teach filtering forward. I know some LCIs in California who are trying to figure out an approach to filtering forward that is (1) legal, (2) reasonably safe and (3) simple enough to teach. I haven't paid attention since reading the first debates among LCIs over whether this was a a good idea.
The general consensus has been this: although filtering forward can be safe and legal under certain circumstances, it is an advanced skill and is therefore not taught in Road 1.

John, whether it is legal or not, I certainly don't find it to be a very safe practice, and I am somewhat surprised you would condone it in any way. That rather confused state of the motorists ("as they sort themselves out... ") can easily lead to a situational decision error... where a motorist responds to the other motorists, and blanks on a cyclist upon whom they may be closing.

Just doesn't seem like a good place to be.

I too used to do this, and now I just take a very well defined position in one lane or the other.

On a downhill portion of my commute home, I ride through a freeway interchange with a new lane joining to my right. The traffic coming up beside me to my right normally travels about 45 without a cyclist present, and the traffic in my lane usually travels about 50-55 without a cyclist present. With me there, they slow considerably. And with gravity, I'm doing about 30-35. In this situation, I find the best approach to the union is to ride near the right lane line, looking back to the right for a gap in traffic in the new lane before merging across it.

I've taken the right half of my lane (right tire track) when approaching this union, and that works too, but I felt concerned that the drivers behind me might try to overtake on my right by moving into the new lane, and so I prefer to entice them into overtaking on my left by riding closer to the line.

On a downhill portion of my commute home, I ride through a freeway interchange with a new lane joining to my right. The traffic coming up beside me to my right normally travels about 45 without a cyclist present, and the traffic in my lane usually travels about 50-55 without a cyclist present. With me there, they slow considerably. And with gravity, I'm doing about 30-35. In this situation, I find the best approach to the union is to ride near the right lane line, looking back to the right for a gap in traffic in the new lane before merging across it.

I've taken the right half of my lane (right tire track) when approaching this union, and that works too, but I felt concerned that the drivers behind me might try to overtake on my right by moving into the new lane, and so I prefer to entice them into overtaking on my left by riding closer to the line.

But not on the line, eh?

I have found that I get better passing by traffic if I ride the right tire track. In riding the lane, I have found motorists that just don't understand and actually parallel me while they want to go right... but then hesitate as I am there. Indeed they are aware of me, and that seems to cloud their picture... I slow down to get behind them and they slow down thinking I am going to pass on their right... it can be a somewhat frustrating "game." Eventually the motorist realizes I am behind them (squarely in the lane... thus defining EXACTLY what I AM doing... ) then they move on.

This is not an accurate statement of my writings. I do not approve of filtering forward between two lines of traffic for the same destination. If there is room at the side, then it is acceptable, provided it is done with caution. When I wrote about riding the lane line between two lines of moving traffic, I was specifically describing the situations in which a new lane of traffic is joining in, and riding the lane line until the motorists had sorted themselves out into which lanes they desire to be. In this situation, the motorists are overtaking the cyclist, not the other way around. I also almost ride the lane line on occasion when in the process of changing lanes, moving from the left side of one lane to the right side of the next lane to the left. Again, at such times the motorists are overtaking the cyclist. I recognize that in some states this is not lawful, but in other states it is, including California, where it is mostly used by motorcyclists in the process of overtaking slowed or stopped auto drivers.

Well, I'm still confused on when filtering or lane-splitting can be called 'vehicular' and when it can not. More important, HH is being played like a yoyo trying to match his definition of VC with yours, poor guy is going to get whiplash. He yearns for a definitive fatwa. When cars pass a cyclist who is between lanes, the cyclist is riding vehicularly, but when the cyclist who is between lanes passes the cars, he/she is no longer vehicular? Hardly seems right. You claimed that filtering was 'vehicular' because the UVC's requirement to remain within a single lane was meant to keep vehicles from taking up two lanes at once; the lane-splitting cyclist isn't taking any lane either, delays nobody. It seems to me that we'll have to either come up with a functional definition for when filtering is 'vehicular' and when it isn't, or just concede that it isn't.

Robert

Well, I'm still confused on when filtering or lane-splitting can be called 'vehicular' and when it can not. More important, HH is being played like a yoyo trying to match his definition of VC with yours, poor guy is going to get whiplash. He yearns for a definitive fatwa. When cars pass a cyclist who is between lanes, the cyclist is riding vehicularly, but when the cyclist who is between lanes passes the cars, he/she is no longer vehicular? Hardly seems right. You claimed that filtering was 'vehicular' because the UVC's requirement to remain within a single lane was meant to keep vehicles from taking up two lanes at once; the lane-splitting cyclist isn't taking any lane either, delays nobody. It seems to me that we'll have to either come up with a functional definition for when filtering is 'vehicular' and when it isn't, or just concede that it isn't.

Robert
Well, I think we can agree that we cannot declare lane-splitting to be certainly/always "vehicular", nor can we can we declare lane-splitting to be never "vehicular". I suggest that if it is safe, reasonable and not in violation of any particular rule of the road, then it is "vehicular", and that reasonable people can disagree on what constutes "safe and reasonable". That's more specific than what you can reasonably expect from an official fatwa.

There is nothing new about having some ambiguity with the rules of the road. Exactly how fast is "too fast for conditions"? At which time, to the nearest second, are motorists required to have their headlights on? Is it legal to exceed the speed limit when passing someone driving 5 mph below the speed limit on a 2 lane highway? Is motorcycle lane-splitting in CA always legal? Etc. etc.

There is nothing new about having some ambiguity with the rules of the road.
AZ law (http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/28/00754.htm)requires: "B. A signal of intention to turn right or left when required shall be given continuously during not less than the last one hundred feet traveled by the vehicle before turning."

The AZ Driver License Manual on p.25 and 26 (http://www.azdot.gov/mvd/documents/CustomerServiceGuide_99-0117.pdf) (and most DD practices) say not to turn on signal until having cleared all preceeding intersections to the one you will be turning at. Of course to do so one may need to break the letter of the law for closely spaced intersections.

Al

AZ law (http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/28/00754.htm)requires: "B. A signal of intention to turn right or left when required shall be given continuously during not less than the last one hundred feet traveled by the vehicle before turning."

The AZ Driver License Manual on p.25 and 26 (http://www.azdot.gov/mvd/documents/CustomerServiceGuide_99-0117.pdf) (and most DD practices) say not to turn on signal until having cleared all preceeding intersections to the one you will be turning at. Of course to do so one may need to break the letter of the law for closely spaced intersections.

Al Good one!

It is simply not possible to define a set of rules that can be literally followed in a context with any kind of complexity. There has to be room for individual judgement for particular situations. The ideal is a perfect set of rules. The reality is there are exceptions. The VC rules are not immune from this, of course.

Well, I'm still confused on when filtering or lane-splitting can be called 'vehicular' and when it can not. More important, HH is being played like a yoyo trying to match his definition of VC with yours, poor guy is going to get whiplash. He yearns for a definitive fatwa. When cars pass a cyclist who is between lanes, the cyclist is riding vehicularly, but when the cyclist who is between lanes passes the cars, he/she is no longer vehicular? Hardly seems right. You claimed that filtering was 'vehicular' because the UVC's requirement to remain within a single lane was meant to keep vehicles from taking up two lanes at once; the lane-splitting cyclist isn't taking any lane either, delays nobody. It seems to me that we'll have to either come up with a functional definition for when filtering is 'vehicular' and when it isn't, or just concede that it isn't.

Robert

Don't fuss it, Hurst. It seems to me that you aren't fussy about the rules that you obey and disobey. Lane splitting is a marginal instance, but you cannot just say that without a specific permission it is impermissible, to suit your argument.

But not on the line, eh?

I have found that I get better passing by traffic if I ride the right tire track. In riding the lane, I have found motorists that just don't understand and actually parallel me while they want to go right... but then hesitate as I am there. Indeed they are aware of me, and that seems to cloud their picture... I slow down to get behind them and they slow down thinking I am going to pass on their right... it can be a somewhat frustrating "game." Eventually the motorist realizes I am behind them (squarely in the lane... thus defining EXACTLY what I AM doing... ) then they move on.

I spend a lot of time in the right tire track for these reasons. It's just when preparing to merge right on this particular union or very similar ones that I ride almost on the line. Overtaking traffic is moving pretty fast there (posted speed limit is 55) and I want them to have a clear place to go.

I do prefer to keep my wheels visibly left of the line, but part of that reason is the raised reflectors on the line.

Here is an overhead view of the interchange. Westbound Tryon Road/64 is downhill; eastbound is uphill. I usually take this route (Tryon/64) westbound through the interchange on my way home.
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=27518&ie=UTF8&t=k&om=1&ll=35.736768,-78.790416&spn=0.00307,0.007135&z=18&iwloc=addr

I spend a lot of time in the right tire track for these reasons. It's just when preparing to merge right on this particular union or very similar ones that I ride almost on the line. Overtaking traffic is moving pretty fast there (posted speed limit is 55) and I want them to have a clear place to go.

I do prefer to keep my wheels visibly left of the line, but part of that reason is the raised reflectors on the line.



So here's a question: you are destination postioned for a straight through destination and approaching a red light and there is some motorist approaching from behind... whaddya do?

Don't fuss it, Hurst. It seems to me that you aren't fussy about the rules that you obey and disobey. Lane splitting is a marginal instance, but you cannot just say that without a specific permission it is impermissible, to suit your argument.

Here's the problem. 'Vehicular cycling' has been un-defined into oblivion. It has become everything and therefore nothing. The term has become, or has revealed itself to be, meaningless. How did this happen? There are some promoters of VCism who, along with everybody else in the universe, see the value in occasionally filtering through traffic (not to mention busting stop signs and red lights and all the rest). But as VC spokesmodels it is important that the things they do habitually in traffic to gain advantage be considered 'vehicular,' i.e. consistent with the Uniform Vehicular Code. So a far-out interpretation/manipulation of the UVC takes place, in the manner of the White House lawyers, to justify filtering for the VC flock. Unfortunately, the resulting justification would also seem to apply to other more extreme forms of filtering, even high-speed lane-splitting and beyond -- remembering that things which might seem crazy to some of us could very well be poundcake for a better rider. The high cost of giving VC approval to questionable activity like filtering is shown with a quick spin over to the place where the border of VC should be, where we find no border at all, only a vertigo-inducing wash of subjective terms. One man's 'safe and reasonable' is another man's 'oh, crap.' This means that for the same move one could get praised by one VC-ist proselytyzer for riding lovely VC-style, and criticized by another for riding non-VC-style, and each would use the same pontificating tone, as if they were reciting commandments off a stone tablet. This is an unacceptable situation. Pointing out that the definition of 'vehicular cycling' is arbitrary, incoherent, nonexistent is called 'fussy.'

Robert

So here's a question: you are destination postioned for a straight through destination and approaching a red light and there is some motorist approaching from behind... whaddya do?

I use the center of the lane, and get in line.

If I am still a very long way from the back of the queue, the lane is wide, and the speed differential is high, I might ride on the far right side of the lane to let drivers pass, essentially racing me to queue for the red light, but I think I move into the center of the lane pretty early.

Sometimes after I stop at a stop line I will edge to the left if a driver wants to turn right and there is room for me to let him pass to my right. But if the lane is at all narrow I won't try.