Vehicular Cycling (VC) - riding shoulders- 'vehicular'? "VC"?

Just got back from a 170 mile, overnight trip around the Hood Canal and up to Port Townsend for some fantastic pizza. I was riding mostly on state highways yesterday and today with steady traffic and wide, clean shoulders.

This morning, leaving Port Townsend, I was tooling along in the shoulder, watching lines of steady traffic approach to overtake me in my rear view mirror, and I began to question my riding -

With steady highway speed traffic, narrow lanes and a wide shoulder on a two lane state highway, there was NO lane sharing or grabbing the lane necessary. I was riding, happy as a clam, on the wide, clean shoulder.

was i being vehicular? Was I in denial of "VC"? what would a bonifide, 'EC certified' rider have been doing? would they have been vehicular? would john be riding VC in the shoulder or not?

what do you do while riding two lane highway speed roads with narrow lanes, wide clean shoulders and steady streams of traffic? are you still vehicular? do you still abide with the "VC" camp?

Can VC ride in shoulders? are they doing it vehicularly? or are they adaptive and non vehicular when they do so?

I operate on the shoulder if it is clean, between intersections. I merge into the through lane when approaching intersections or if there is debris (or other surface problems) on the shoulder.

If there is little traffic I ride in the travel lane near the fog line in order to reduce the risk of a flat.

John would be driving his car. Helmet Head would be weaving in and out of the shoulder. The rest of the cycling world would be riding just as you were.

The rest of the cycling world would be riding just as you were.
Except we'd be enjoying the ride and wouldn't be agonizing over whether or not it is VC/EC/whatever. :D

there was NO agony, trust me. :D

so, steve, is your riding in the shoulder vehicular? is it "VC"?

oh, yeah, and in a few places, leaving Port Townsend, there was a bike stencil...

is your riding in the shoulder vehicular? is it "VC"?

It is part of the vehicle code in many states that slow moving vehicles should pull over into the shoulder if they are impeding the flow of traffic (slowing down 5 or more vehicles) and there is no same direction or other available lane for passing. With steady passing traffic (no long gaps between pods of vehicles), you'd be consistently slowing down traffic which makes staying the shoulder a reasonable choice assuming it's wide and clean enough for the speed you are travelling. At intersections, you should be looking to merge into the rightmost straight lane as Steve has suggested though or at least verifying that you can safely cross the right hook zone without crossing paths with a right turner (sometimes easy to do, sometimes not).

If there were significant gaps between pods of vehicles (30+ seconds) I'd ride in the traffic lane in those gaps for a variety of reasons that have been previously discussed. Doing so is definitely vehicular as is moving back into the shoulder when faster traffic approaches.

not sure, but I do have to say, I have seen slow moving vehicles (farm equipment, cars with flats etc) using the shoulder as a lane so they do not impede faster traffic. I do not know the legality of it, but I know I did the same thing when I had some car problems I had to drive slowly with one time.

not sure, but I do have to say, I have seen slow moving vehicles (farm equipment, cars with flats etc) using the shoulder as a lane so they do not impede faster traffic. I do not know the legality of it, but I know I did the same thing when I had some car problems I had to drive slowly with one time.

Surpisingly, Illinois does not have any laws that I can find about operating slow moving vehicles. They do have this law prohibiting driving on the shoulder though:

Sec. 11‑709.1. (a) Vehicles shall be driven on a roadway, and shall only be driven on the shoulder for the purpose of stopping or accelerating from a stop while merging into traffic. It shall be a violation of this Section if while merging into traffic and while on the shoulder, the vehicle passes any other vehicle on the roadway adjacent to it. (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=062500050HCh%2E+11+Art%2E+VII&ActID=1815&ChapAct=625%26nbsp%3BILCS%26nbsp%3B5%2F&ChapterID=49&ChapterName=VEHICLES&SectionID=59652&SeqStart=104400&SeqEnd=105700&ActName=Illinois+Vehicle+Code%2E)

Bicycles are to be operated on the roadway as well (as is the case in most states). Of course, bike lanes muck up the laws (as most as just shoulders with a stencil, so is it part of the roadway or the shoulder?) as do inconsistencies in states laws in regards to slow moving vehicles and cyclists (they should be treated as the same thing but often they are given different operating restrictions).

Just got back from a 170 mile, overnight trip around the Hood Canal and up to Port Townsend for some fantastic pizza. I was riding mostly on state highways yesterday and today with steady traffic and wide, clean shoulders.

This morning, leaving Port Townsend, I was tooling along in the shoulder, watching lines of steady traffic approach to overtake me in my rear view mirror, and I began to question my riding -

With steady highway speed traffic, narrow lanes and a wide shoulder on a two lane state highway, there was NO lane sharing or grabbing the lane necessary. I was riding, happy as a clam, on the wide, clean shoulder.

was i being vehicular? Was I in denial of "VC"? what would a bonifide, 'EC certified' rider have been doing? would they have been vehicular? would john be riding VC in the shoulder or not?

what do you do while riding two lane highway speed roads with narrow lanes, wide clean shoulders and steady streams of traffic? are you still vehicular? do you still abide with the "VC" camp?

Can VC ride in shoulders? are they doing it vehicularly? or are they adaptive and non vehicular when they do so?
All cyclists, including vehicular cyclists, employ integrated, segregated and separated styles of riding. The key difference is that vehicular cyclists pay attention to which mode they are in when, when they transition from one mode to another, and are aware as to the advantages and disadvantages of each, and how to employ each one safely and efficiently.

So, certainly vehicular cyclists can choose to ride in shoulders in segregated mode under certain conditions. But when doing so they recognize they are segregated, and not integrated or separated, and understand the associated right-of-way and conspicuity consequences, and think and ride accordingly.

so, we have one vehicular with contradictions (joejack) one dodge (brian, an LCI) one its okay but keeping mum if its vc or not (Steve, another LCI) and one it's not vehicular but it is VC (helemt head)


interesting contradictions. so, helemt, does that mean, EVERY time you move across a shoulder line to let faster traffic pass, you are going non-vehicular? how does that jibe with "VC, all the time?"

do "VC" riders often go adaptive cyclists? is VC rendered null and void with every shoulder stripe, narrow lane, speed differentials and steady traffic? :eek:

Why, how does that work that way???

(In my opinion, shoulder riding as I described is defiently vehicular and has no contradiction with safe cycling or vehicular cycling concepts.)

so, we have one vehicular with contradictions (joejack)

Did I contradict myself in my post or are you referring to the Illinois law that I quoted?

the IL law.

You don't have to be "VC" to pay attention to which mode you are in.

Stop labeling normal, successful, competent cyclists with Forester-based nonsense.

+1 it seems he's found a new angle...

Seems the difference is whether you are playing peekaboo with traffic or with your own self-definition of what kind of rider you are (now I'm VC! now I'm not! Peekaboo!) or whether you're just plain old riding your bike (in which case you're not playing peekaboo at all -- you're just doing whatever comes most naturally and makes the most sense at the time.)

The key difference is that vehicular cyclists pay attention to which mode they are in when, when they transition from one mode to another, and are aware as to the advantages and disadvantages of each, and how to employ each one safely and efficiently.

You don't have to be "VC" to pay attention to which mode you are in.

Stop labeling normal, successful, competent cyclists with Forester-based nonsense.
Yes, you do have to be VC to pay attention to which mode you are in. VC is just a word used to distinguish the minority of cyclists who understand and can apply the vehicular rules of the road to their riding from the vast majority of cyclists who cannot. If you're not a vehicular cyclist, then you don't even understand what the modes are, by definition.

VC simply means knowing and understanding the vehicular rules of the road, and riding accordingly.
If you don't know and understand the vehicular rules of the road, you cannot ride accordingly.

Seems the difference is whether you are playing peekaboo with traffic or with your own self-definition of what kind of rider you are (now I'm VC! now I'm not! Peekaboo!) or whether you're just plain old riding your bike (in which case you're not playing peekaboo at all -- you're just doing whatever comes most naturally and makes the most sense at the time.)
The problem is that "whatever comes most naturally" for most cyclists is often unsafe. For example, if you're riding near the ride side of a relatively wide outside lane it may come most naturally to simply maintain your path of travel relative to the right edge as the road and outside lane narrows, but that doesn't mean it's the safest or correct thing to do. In particular, it may not come naturally to understand that you don't necessarily have right of way to merge left here simply because the lane is narrowing. Since you are riding relative to the right edge of the road, you may not even realize you are merging left. Most cyclists don't in that situation.

Heres how to ride your bike.

Step 1 un lock
step 2 get on bike
step 3 ride how ever makes you the most comfortable with traffic (while staying safe and legal avoid side walks wrong way cycling etc)
Step 4 the most important thing enjoy the ride.

If you must think about what "MODE" your in then your not going to enjoy riding.

Enjoy living in your Forester fantasyland.
Why is the relatively vague "normal, successful, competent"[1] (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=5023106&postcount=13) an acceptable cyclist label for you, but the somewhat less vague "vehicular" is not? Because Fagerlin coined the former, and Forester coined the latter? What difference does it make who coined the label with respect to whether it's useful to use it or not?

Serge, enjoy living in your Forester fantasyland.
And you enjoy your Fagerlin fantasyland. :rolleyes:

John would be driving his car. Helmet Head would be weaving in and out of the shoulder. The rest of the cycling world would be riding just as you were.

Stop making such silly statements, Diane. The only time that I have been in Port Townsend was when I was cycling through on a long tour.

and a dodge from john.

john, care to actually anwser the question posted in the original post, without insulting my, or others point of view?

Is riding in a clean wide shoulder, while steady streams of high speed traffic pass VC or is it not VC? is it vehicular? Do VC riding along go from vehicular to non-vehicular with every move across the white stripe?

and a dodge from john.

john, care to actually anwser the question posted in the original post, without insulting my, or others point of view?

Is riding in a clean wide shoulder, while steady streams of high speed traffic pass VC or is it not VC? is it vehicular? Do VC riding along go from vehicular to non-vehicular with every move across the white stripe?

Your argument is nothing but semantic foolishness. Why should crossing the line change one from a vehicular cyclist to a non-vehicular cyclist? It's still the same cyclist. You are nothing but a logic-chopping ideologue with a very big axe to grind.

more dodging from john.

john, is it vehicular for a cyclist to ride in the accomodating shoulder of a roadway, or is a VC riding non-vehicularily every time they cross the white stripe?

more dodging from john.

john, is it vehicular for a cyclist to ride in the accomodating shoulder of a roadway, or is a VC riding non-vehicularily every time they cross the white stripe?

I can only guess why you think that your question has relevance. It doesn't. It doesn't matter.

Possibly you could inform us of why you think this is important?

:roflmao:

the head poobah vehikular cyclist cannot answer a simple question about his suggested riding style......


:roflmao: what a dodger.

HILARIOUS!!!

john. whether shoulder riding is considered vehicular is a bonifide question.

your failure to answer a simple question about bicycling is very telling.

...tap, tap, tap....is this microphone on? john, would you anwser the question, please.

is riding a bike in a wide clean shoulder of a highway speed road as steady streams of traffic pass considered vehicular or non vehicular?

do VC riders ride nonvehicularily while in a shoulder in these conditions, or does VC consider riding in the shoulders of roads, outside of the travelled way, vehicular?

you can't provide a simple, non-derrogatory, non-infammatory answer to whether this simple AND commonplace riding scenario is vehicular or non-vehicular?



.

check and mate.

...tap, tap, tap....is this microphone on? john, would you anwser the question, please.

is riding a bike in a wide clean shoulder of a highway speed road as steady streams of traffic pass considered vehicular or non vehicular?

do VC riders ride nonvehicularily while in a shoulder in these conditions, or does VC consider riding in the shoulders of roads, outside of the travelled way, vehicular?

you can't provide a simple, non-derrogatory, non-infammatory answer to whether this simple AND commonplace riding scenario is vehicular or non-vehicular?



.

I repeat, whether one is riding on a shoulder or not is not determinative of whether or not one is riding in the vehicular manner. Other things matter, that does not.

that is VERY interesting. The official VC take on shoulders of roads.....

Bicyclists can ride, out of the way of traffic, on the sides of a road, and it can still be considered vehicular.

bring on the bike lanes and accomodating shoulders of roads for bicycling.


john, it sounds like you are saying that when a bicyclist is out of the way of traffic, riding to the right, out of the traffic lanes entirely, it can still be considered VC and vehicular riding.

shoulders, space to the right of a traffic lane, a bike lane, can still be ridden in vehicularily.

So, regarding riding on wide, clean shoulders of high speed roads (some marked with a bike lane stencil) while steady traffic streams past


whether one is riding on a shoulder or not is not determinative of whether or not one is riding in the vehicular manner. Other things matter, that does not.

What are these 'other things' that matter, john? do you mean 'speed' and 'destination' positioning? (yawn) intersections?

taking into consideration speed and destination positioning for straight ahead travel, these bike lanes along high speed roads, to the right of the travel lane, in the shoulder, are vehicular.

Shoulders of roads as well as bike lanes can be vehicularily ridden and not in conflict with vehicular bicycling.

So, regarding riding on wide, clean shoulders of high speed roads (some marked with a bike lane stencil) while steady traffic streams past



What are these 'other things' that matter, john? do you mean 'speed' and 'destination' positioning? (yawn) intersections?

taking into consideration speed and destination positioning for straight ahead travel, these bike lanes along high speed roads, to the right of the travel lane, in the shoulder, are vehicular.

Shoulders of roads as well as bike lanes can be vehicularily ridden and not in conflict with vehicular bicycling.

Well, yes, you have finally figured out what I have told you so many times. So what? What's the significance? The whole issue is silly.

riding in well provided bike lanes is not in conflict with vehicular bicycling. thank you.

Bek. is "pedaling" vehicular or not? Please don't dodge. It's a bona fide question. We need to know. Is "pedaling" vehicular, or not? :rolleyes:

start another thread for that, head.

looks like john disagrees with your POV.

riding shoulders and bike lanes can be vehicular and not in conflict with vehicular cycling.

seems to me, along high speed roads, if shoulders and bike lanes are vehicular, it would benefit bicyclists and bicycling to improve shoulders and bike infrastructure- after all, they're not in conflict with vehicular bicycling.

With steady highway speed traffic, narrow lanes and a wide shoulder on a two lane state highway, there was NO lane sharing or grabbing the lane necessary. I was riding, happy as a clam, on the wide, clean shoulder.



This was my commute every day where I lived in Vermont. The shoulders
where a good 10' wide. A lane unto themselves. Why would anyone NOT ride
them ? Rhetorical question....

seems to me, along high speed roads, if shoulders and bike lanes are vehicular, it would benefit bicyclists and bicycling to improve shoulders and bike infrastructure- after all, they're not in conflict with vehicular bicycling.

Adding pavement width to allow for easier passing by faster traffic is a benefit to cyclists. It has some other issues but for cyclists (and other slow moving traffic), it's a good thing (at least when there are no frequent intersections). This has been stated by JF countless times. It's nothing new.

joe, I'm sure you can see that making lanes wider compared to shoulders or bike lanes (especially along high speed roads and state highways), are distinctly different types of road improvement.

it seems john is on board with the vehicular nature of shoulders and bike lanes along high speed roads.

bring on the bike infrastructure!

joe, I'm sure you can see that making lanes wider compared to shoulders or bike lanes (especially along high speed roads and state highways), are distinctly different types of road improvement.

it seems john is on board with the vehicular nature of shoulders and bike lanes along high speed roads.

bring on the bike infrastructure!

I've never heard JF oppose a shoulder stripe. Where do people park, change a tire, walk, rollerblade, or skateboard when the shoulder is turned into a cyclist only lane?

in the pictures in #35, those activities can take place to the RIGHT of the bike lane....

Yes, you do have to be VC to pay attention to which mode you are in. VC is just a word used to distinguish the minority of cyclists who understand and can apply the vehicular rules of the road to their riding from the vast majority of cyclists who cannot. If you're not a vehicular cyclist, then you don't even understand what the modes are, by definition.

VC simply means knowing and understanding the vehicular rules of the road, and riding accordingly.
If you don't know and understand the vehicular rules of the road, you cannot ride accordingly.
This seriously seems to be the most pretentious way of riding a bike I've ever heard. If you've ever taken a driving test, you should know the basic rules of the road. Then, once informed on cyclists rights, you should have everything you need to ride in a "vehicular" manner. As far as "modes" go, unless you're on a track you really shouldn't be riding in any manner other than a "vehicular" one. If you're a vehicle on public roads, anywhere, anytime, you're supposed to obey the rules of the road.

And if you're seriously saying that this takes a lot of thought to do, there's a problem. This is far from rocket science.