VC vs. Hurst's "Urban Cycling"

[Helmet Head]

INTRODUCTION

A recurring theme in Robert Hurst's book, The Art of Urban Cycling, and in many of his posts on this forum, is that the Forester/Effective Cycling/Vehicular Cycling/LAB/LCI approach relies too much on others obeying the rules of the road. I agree that relying on others obeying the rules of the road can be a problem, but I strongly disagree that the Forester approach is an example of this.

Robert made a statement about this recently in the Filtering (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=352947) thread up in A&S, to which I replied, but that thread has since been closed. I am reposting his statement, along with the quote to which he was replying, and my comment here.

ROBERT'S POST ATTACKING LCIS



Almost have to agree with HH. I have noted a close coorelation between making an issue of anthropomorphic language with respect to cars and being a pedantic Vehicular Cycling proselytizer. HH is hardly the first of his breed to be such a silly Donkey on this "issue." Several of his close associate LCI's from California and elsewhere can be counted on to do the same foolish nitpicking in any discussion group where they roost.
Yet these same fellars will end up putting their faith in the traffic _system_, without fully grasping that traffic is nothing more than individual humans doing human things.

Robert


MY REPLY

Robert, you claim that LCIs put "their faith in the traffic _system_, without fully grasping that traffic is nothing more than individual humans doing human things".

No, Robert, with all due respect, you're the one who does not fully realize something. What you don't realize is that we "fellars" (at least the VC advocates and LCIs that I've met) do not put faith in the traffic system without fully grasping that traffic is nothing more than individual humans doing human things.

You also don't seem to realize that a cyclist, including you, is nothing more than an individual human doing human things as well. This is why a practice that puts more reliance on the cyclist's vigilance than another practice, all other factors held equal, is a higher risk practice that the other one is.

Vehicular cycling is about mitigating risk, not eliminating risk, and that includes accounting for the risk of the cyclist failing to be vigilant 100% of the time. That's what following the rules of road (*) is about, and that's why it's the vehicular cyclist's first line of defense. Following the rules of the road makes the cyclist less likely to make a mistake (if nothing else because violating the rules of the road is often already making a mistake), and it also makes a cyclist less vulnerable to a motorist's mistake. Vigilance -- in particular, looking ahead for hazards, reading motorists and watching for errors -- is the second line of defense.

Though you don't say so explicitly, I think you would agree that your book emphasises vigilance as a higher priority than following the rules of the road. You do not discount the value of following the rules as much as Glowacz does, but it's there, mostly between the lines. And doing so puts more reliance than necessary on the cyclist's ability to stay vigilant 100% of the time, which of course is impossible (as exemplified by your crash with the Mercedes backing out of the alley).

And, as I've pointed out before, simply focusing on trying to follow the rules improves a cyclist's vigilance. You have to establish and maintain good situational awareness in order to effectively follow the rules. So by making following the rules the first priority, VC helps the cyclist be less likely to fail being vigilant, including watching for and being ready for the inevitable motorist errors.



* By "following the rules of the road" I do not mean following the absolute letter of the law like a non-thinking automaton. In general, it means being conspicuous and predictable, which means the biggies... ride on the right half of the road, use lights at night, obey traffic controls and ROW rules, follow speed and destination positioning rules (which, when done properly, maximizes sight lines and buffer spaces), stay out of door zones, don't ride too fast for conditions, don't invite sharing in narrow lanes, etc. It also means knowing the rules and understanding their purpose, so that you understand the risk and potential ramifications of not following them when you choose to do so.

[Brian Ratliff]

^^^
Why are you yelling?

Since this is a new thread, why not add a little intro so we all can understand what it is you are talking about? Start over from the beginning. State your subject and your position, then the counterargument and then your rebuttle of your counterargument.

That phrase: "with all due respect" is funny. Whenever someone uses it, they mean to say exactly the opposite.

[rando]

with all due respect, Serge, please more riding and less posting.

[zeytoun]

following the rules of the road makes the cyclist less likely to make a mistake (if nothing else because violating the rules of the road is often already making a mistake), and it also makes a cyclist less vulnerable to a motorist's mistake.
False.

Following the "rules of the road" sometimes makes a cyclist less like vulnerable to a motorist's mistakes. Sometimes it increases vulnerability.

For example:

-careful filtering (counter to the rules of the road) can make a cyclist less vulnerable to being rear ended.
-beginner cyclists are probably less vulnerable to motorist mistakes if they do a pedestrian left turn, rather then trying to cross several lanes of arterial traffic
-many cyclists are probably less vulnerable to motorist mistakes if they choose to ride on the sidewalk of a bridge, if it has a slippery metal surface on the car-traveled section.
-many beginner cyclists are probably less vulnerable to motorist mistakes if they ride on an MUP, using due care at intersections
-on sections of freeways where cyclists are permitted to ride, cyclists are safer when they ignore destination positioning, and instead exit at each offramp, regardless of whether they are continuing on.

As Rando astutely pointed out once, (paraphrasing slightly) Cyclists fare best when they recognize that there are times when acting vehicularly is not the best practice, and are flexible enough to do what is necessary as the situation warrants.

For many of us, this is a daily, frequent occurrence.

[genec]

Cyclists fare best when they recognize that there are times when acting vehicularly is not the best practice, and are flexible enough to do what is necessary as the situation warrants.


Ah... truer words have never been spoken.

:beer:

[Helmet Head]

^^^
Why are you yelling?
I was trying to make the footnote smaller than the other part. I removed it.


Since this is a new thread, why not add a little intro so we all can understand what it is you are talking about? Start over from the beginning. State your subject and your position, then the counterargument and then your rebuttle of your counterargument.
The part above the quote is the intro. That, combined with Robert's statement, is the beginning.

EDIT: I added section headings. Hope that helps.

[zeytoun]

Ah... truer words have never been spoken.

:beer:That was actually Rando's coinage, I believe :)

[genec]

That was actual Rando's coinage, I believe :)

My compliments also to Rando.

[zeytoun]

simply focusing on trying to follow the rules improves a cyclist's vigilance. You have to establish and maintain good situational awareness in order to effectively follow the rules.In order to follow the basic rules of the road, one must only maintain awareness of signs, road markings, etc. One only needs to pay attention to other drivers when potential ROW issues arise.

For example, I know a few drivers who pay attention when merging onto the freeway, and thereafter stay in one of the right lanes at below the speed limit. At that point, they only pay attention to traffic signs and keeping a safe distance to the car in front of them. They are oblivious to cars behind and in other lanes.

Is a driver like that breaking any of the basic rules of the road? I can't think of one. However I wouldn't call that driver vigilant, and I wouldn't call that driver safe.

[Helmet Head]

False.

Following the "rules of the road" sometimes makes a cyclist less like vulnerable to a motorist's mistakes. Sometimes it increases vulnerability.

For example:
careful filtering (counter to the rules of the road) can make a cyclist less vulnerable to being rear ended.
beginner cyclists are probably less vulnerable to motorist mistakes if they do a pedestrian left turn, rather then trying to cross several lanes of arterial traffic
many cyclists are probably less vulnerable to motorist mistakes if they choose to ride on the sidewalk of a bridge, if it has a slippery metal surface on the car-traveled section.
many beginner cyclists are probably less vulnerable to motorist mistakes if they ride on an MUP, using due care at intersections
on sections of freeways where cyclists are permitted to ride, cyclists are safer when they ignore destination positioning, and instead exit at each offramp, regardless of whether they are continuing on.For many of us, this is a daily, frequent occurrence.
First, when something is generally true, as opposed to absolutely true in every instance, that means there will be exceptions, such as some of those in your list. No one has ever claimed that the VC principle is absolutely true in every instance, without exception.

As to the individual examples, which I took the liberty to identify by letter bullets for easier reference...
Whether filtering is counter to the rules of the road is an edge case question. In many countries, and in at least one state, CA, it's not against the law. As I said in the final sentence of the "following the rules" definition foot note, [following the rules] also means knowing the rules and understanding their purpose, so that you understand the risk and potential ramifications of not following them when you choose to do so.. With respect to filtering, as long as there is at least one line of stopped traffic on your left, you're strictly violating the speed positioning rule when filtering. Do so accordingly, and you're not violating the VC principle. That is, the vehicular cyclist, knowing and understanding the risks and potential ramifications of filtering to the right of vehicular traffic because it violates speed positioning, will do so with due car that the typical cyclist who lacks this understanding will not.
It is no secret that cycling in traffic becomes more challenging with higher volumes and speed differentials, with left merges and left turns being the most challenging. VC is no panacea for this (or anything else). But in most conditions where cyclists ride, it works great. There are special conditions, including left turns, which drivers of other types of vehicles also avoid. Some roads are too steep or cannot support the weight of large moving vans, for example, so drivers of those vehicles are required to take alternate routes. So are cyclists. If following pedestrian rules is even more efficient than choosing an alternate route, so be it. Yes, it's an exception to the rule. That's normal.
Long stretches of intersectionless road, like on a bridge, particularly with hazardous roadway conditions and perfectly decent sidewalk, is another obvious exception.
I know of no evidence that indicates "many beginner cyclists are probably less vulnerable to motorist mistakes if they ride on an MUP, using due care at intersections." If they know to "use care at intersections", and know how to do that, then they're probably just as safe on the roads. EDIT: I should add that the VC principle applies on roads. That is, on roads, cyclists fare best.... I've never understood it to mean that cyclists fare better on roads than on MUPs.
Freeways where cycling is generally prohibited are exceptions, to which VC obviously does not apply, of course. No surprise there.
As Rando astutely pointed out once, (paraphrasing slightly) Cyclists fare best when they recognize that there are times when acting vehicularly is not the best practice, and are flexible enough to do what is necessary as the situation warrants.
In general, when riding on roadways shared with drivers of vehicles, cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles. This includes recognizing that there are relatively rare specific situations when acting strictly in accordance to the vehicular rules of the road may not be the best practice (e.g., riding along a safe sidewalk on a long bridge with surface hazards).

Recognizing exceptions is one thing, but to say "are flexible enough to do what is necessary as the situation warrants", which is very vague, opens Pandora's box and can easily lead to typical scofflaw and unpredictable cycling.

[Helmet Head]

In order to follow the basic rules of the road, one must only maintain awareness of signs, road markings, etc. One only needs to pay attention to other drivers when potential ROW issues arise.

For example, I know a few drivers who pay attention when merging onto the freeway, and thereafter stay in one of the right lanes at below the speed limit. At that point, they only pay attention to traffic signs and keeping a safe distance to the car in front of them. They are oblivious to cars behind and in other lanes.

Is a driver like that breaking any of the basic rules of the road? I can't think of one. However I wouldn't call that driver vigilant, and I wouldn't call that driver safe.
No, he's not violating the rules, nor is he being vigilant, but my main point (in the OP) is his safety depends less on him being vigilant that does the safety of a driver who is not concerned with following rules such as safe following distances.

More to the particular secondary point you're challenging, the cyclist who is trying to obey the rules is more likely to be vigilant than is the cyclist mindlessly riding along in the margin not paying attention to obeying the rules or to other traffic.

[Helmet Head]

with all due respect, Serge, please more riding and less posting.
Hey, this subforum was supposedly created for me, and you complain about me posting in it?

[Bekologist]

Hey, this subforum was supposedly created for me, and you complain about me posting in it?

no, head, not for you. this subforum was created because of your derailing, obfuscationist presence. BIG difference.


More saddle, less prattle.

[csr]

As Rando astutely pointed out once, (paraphrasing slightly) Cyclists fare best when they recognize that there are times when acting vehicularly is not the best practice, and are flexible enough to do what is necessary as the situation warrants.

Ah, excellent. Just what I was thinking. Now if you would please write a book for me to read, or put a helmet cam on so I can learn by example, that would be super. :)

[zeytoun]

I would propose that "Robert's Post Attacking LCIs" is a bit sensationalist. I-Like-to-bike was the one that insulted some LCIs.

I think it's also interesting that you react so strongly to Robert's suggestion that you and some of your colleagues might not fully grasp the idea that "traffic" is made up of individuals, when you so often make a similar argument towards anyone that uses the term "car" to refer to the automobile and it's driver.

[zeytoun]

No, he's not violating the rules, nor is he being vigilant, but my main point (in the OP) is his safety depends less on him being vigilant that does the safety of a driver who is not concerned with following rules such as safe following distances.
Which is why I personally prefer the philosophy of defensive driving, which Hurst adapted to cycling in his book.

My grandparents and parents have often espoused a "VC" driving philosophy to me while I rode in their cars with them. It went something along the lines of, "follow the rules, (be destination, speed oriented) don't change lanes unless you need to make a turn or really must pass a slowpoke, keep a good buffer between you and the next car. Do all that, and just pay attention to the road ahead." They didn't pay to much attention to other cars unless they were at an intersection or merging. They felt that since they were driving correctly they wouldn't ever cause an accident. In one sense they were right, they never caused accidents. But they've been victims in many accidents because they didn't avoid a bozo.

[zeytoun]

Now if you would please write a book for me to read, or put a helmet cam on so I can learn by example, that would be super. :)
Many here are fans (rightly so) of Robert Hurst's The Art of Urban Cycling. Hurst talks about accident prevention in great detail, from a practical point of view, without having an ax to grind or a philosophy to sell, other then the attitude of not letting anyone hit you, no matter what a jerk they are.

I don't have a helmet cam, and would not presume to think that I know better than someone else how they should ride. ;)

[RobertHurst]

... ... ...
* By "following the rules of the road" I do not mean following the absolute letter of the law like a non-thinking automaton. In general, it means being conspicuous and predictable, which means the biggies... ride on the right half of the road, use lights at night, obey traffic controls and ROW rules, follow speed and destination positioning rules (which, when done properly, maximizes sight lines and buffer spaces), stay out of door zones, don't ride too fast for conditions, don't invite sharing in narrow lanes, etc. It also means knowing the rules and understanding their purpose, so that you understand the risk and potential ramifications of not following them when you choose to do so. ....

In the end, nobody knows what the heck you mean by 'rules of the road,' not even you.

It takes a minimum of awareness to follow the actual rules of the road.

When I say 'rules of the road' I'm thinking of traffic law; as in, if you break these rules you may get a citation from a police officer, not just a critique from a certified cycling instructor on the intertron. Obviously you prefer a much more expansive definition of 'rules of the road' which would include all sorts of wonderful things but I suspect your definition would morph and change at your convenience and that it would have no beginning or end. Thus it would be no definition at all, and useless to discuss.

We already went through this whole ordeal in another thread I believe. And iirc the operative term that emerged there was 'monkey fist.'

As I have stated repeatedly, I believe the safest rider on the road would be one who both follows the rules of the road (traffic laws) and maintains situational awareness, and the least safe rider is the one who rides contrary to the rules and without situational awareness. We can agree on that, right? However, the rider who maintains situational awareness while breaking the law is going to be a safer cyclist than the one who rides lawfully but without situational awareness. Don't tell me that people don't, or can't, ride lawfully without situational awareness, or that riding according to the law is effective in protecting cyclists -- accident statistics are bulked out with adult riders who were riding according to the rules of the road but who got nailed anyway in imminently avoidable situations, like right hooks, left hooks and restarts from stop signs. And there is the other side of the coin: veteran messengers have proven over the decades that one can maintain a relatively stellar safety record (in terms of accident or injury per mile or per hour, several times better than the rates recorded in Moritz' survey of LAB members, or Kifer's survey of touring cyclists for instance), while running many hundreds of thousands of red lights and generally using the entire city surface in a way unconnected from the traffic code. In fact one can break one traffic law after another while (otherwise) staying completely loyal to the principles of safe, conservative, defensive riding that you would like to gather under the big party tent that you call 'rules of the road.' People may cringe to hear of the secondary importance, for safety purposes, of cyclists' following traffic law, but it is nonetheless reality. It may ultimately be much better (for other reasons) if cyclists wait at lights and obey other traffic laws, but the critical variable in a cyclist's _safety_ is situational awareness (aka vigilance), not rule following. This is something that I am quite sure of, as it is obvious in available statistics as well as in my own observations over many years.

If you believe otherwise you should try to come up with something other than hopes, dreams and enthusiastic assertions to back it up.

Robert

[randya]

^^ + alot!

:beer:

[Allister]

When I say 'rules of the road' I'm thinking of traffic law... Obviously you prefer a much more expansive definition of 'rules of the road' which would include all sorts of wonderful things but I suspect your definition would morph and change at your convenience and that it would have no beginning or end. Thus it would be no definition at all, and useless to discuss.

Great post. It's a source of endless amusement to me that HH cites you as a source for his cockamamie theories, despite all evidence to the contrary.

Then again, anyone that can come up with the following sentence and think they're making a perfectly reasonable point has a dubious grasp on reality in the fiirst place

Finally, just because the law allows a certain behavior does not mean it's following the rules to engage in that behavior, and not following the rules to not engage in that behavior.

[rando]

My compliments also to Rando.

Thanks, Guys. I forgot I said that! sometimes I DO nail it! :D

[noisebeam]

As Rando astutely pointed out once, (paraphrasing slightly) Cyclists fare best when they recognize that there are times when acting vehicularly is not the best practice, and are flexible enough to do what is necessary as the situation warrants.

While I would not disagree with this, I have never in 4 years of commuting ever found a non-vehicular practice to be the better option. That does not mean I don't have the flexibility to use a non-vehicular option if needed, just that when riding in the same environment as Rando it has never been needed.

Al

[Brian Ratliff]

^^^
"never" is a strong word. You've never cut across a parking lot to avoid an intersection or taken to the sidewalk to ride up the wrong way on a one way street?

[noisebeam]

^^^
"never" is a strong word. You've never cut across a parking lot to avoid an intersection or taken to the sidewalk to ride up the wrong way on a one way street?

Nope. Very sure on those two. (Anyway cutting across a parking lot is vehicular, just not legal)

Sure never is a strong word and there may be some time I have, but far from memorable. Effectively never.

Al

[genec]

While I would not disagree with this, I have never in 4 years of commuting ever found a non-vehicular practice to be the better option. That does not mean I don't have the flexibility to use a non-vehicular option if needed, just that when riding in the same environment as Rando it has never been needed.

Al

So you have never used a sidewalk to get to favorable intersection?

I have to laugh at this as I have no problem being vehicular; however some time back, as I left a local meeting, I was faced with the choice of either hitting the street, making a merge into traffic across two lanes to a left turn signal, waiting for the signal and then making a U turn to turn around to the direction I needed to go, OR... I could ride down the sidewalk to the other intersection (against the flow of traffic on my side of the center divide) leave the sidewalk at the light of this minor road and make the left turn there to the direction I needed to go.

So I had a choice of merging across 2 lanes of heavier traffic and waiting for two lights or using a sidewalk to get to one light and merging into a minor lane of traffic... it was a no brainer, and quite unvehicular.

The irony was that I was leaving an advocacy meeting. ;)

[Brian Ratliff]

Nope. Very sure on those two. (Anyway cutting across a parking lot is vehicular, just not legal)

Sure never is a strong word and there may be some time I have, but far from memorable. Effectively never.

Al

Why? Are we defining vehicular suddenly as "anything a car can do"? I always thought it pertained solely to traffic interactions on streets. I can do lots of things on a bike. Cars can do lots of things. I can do lots of things that cars can do. It doesn't necessarily mean that any of these things are "vehicular".

Amongst many of the ideas we are lacking in terms of discussing vehicular cycling topics, is the total lack of a specific definition of "vehicular". We've attempted to come to one before, but it always got muddled up in the need for certain people to expand the definition to fit the world so that they can be purist in their description of their cycling, regardless of their actual maneuvers on the road.

What is the spirit of the term "vehicular cycling"?

I view it as cycling with the flow of traffic. "Flow" here being the expansive definition, rather than the mere description of riding on the right hand side of the road (left if in "left of the road" nation states).

[Brian Ratliff]

^^^
I'm going to repost this. It's caused me to think, and I want a new thread to explore this line of thinking. (noisebeam, go ahead and reply in the new thread if you desire)

[noisebeam]

So you have never used a sidewalk to get to favorable intersection?

I haven't had the need to yet, but if the option was there and it would save a lot of hassle and/or time as in your example I'd use it.

I have made left turns by making a right turn, then a u-turn and then going thru the intersection. I do this perhaps once every two weeks. But that is vehicular. I'd even seen taxi drivers do this to avoid having to cut across 3 lanes of very busy near stopped traffic to make left turn after just having entered the primary road.

Al

[noisebeam]

Brian, I don't know nor really care if cutting across a parking lot is or is not 'vehicular' or 'VC' per strict definitions, but I do know all it takes is making a legal right turn, traveling in a parking lot where vehicles of all kinds are permitted to drive, then making another right turn exiting the parking lot. All of those motions are vehicular and can be done while following all the generally accepted rules of the road. However that particular manuever is in many places explicity made illegal. That is one of the reasons I don't do it, not because it is or is not 'vehicular' The main reason I don't do it is because parking lots generally present more hazards than a right turn on a road does.

Al

[Helmet Head]

In the end, nobody knows what the heck you mean by 'rules of the road,' not even you.
So says you. More on this below.


It takes a minimum of awareness to follow the actual rules of the road.

At any given time for the next minute, yeah, you can probably drive without breaking any laws (not the same as following the actual rules of the road - see OP) with only a minimum of awareness. But to consistently drive in a manner that avoids violating any rules, you do have to pay more attention than that. More on this below.


When I say 'rules of the road' I'm thinking of traffic law; as in, if you break these rules you may get a citation from a police officer, not just a critique from a certified cycling instructor on the intertron.

Yeah, well, when Forester and the other VC advocates you critique (see OP) say "rules of the road", they mean stuff like obey destination and speed positioning, which is related but not exactly the same thing at traffic law.


Obviously you prefer a much more expansive definition of 'rules of the road' which would include all sorts of wonderful things but I suspect your definition would morph and change at your convenience and that it would have no beginning or end. Thus it would be no definition at all, and useless to discuss.

Suspect all you want about my definition changing at my convenience, but I've been using the same concept consistently in thousands of posts over several years here, not to mention in my riding.


We already went through this whole ordeal in another thread I believe. And iirc the operative term that emerged there was 'monkey fist.'

Yes, in your mind.


As I have stated repeatedly, I believe the safest rider on the road would be one who both follows the rules of the road (traffic laws) and maintains situational awareness, and the least safe rider is the one who rides contrary to the rules and without situational awareness. We can agree on that, right?
Yes. But, even safer than the one who both follows the rules of the road (traffic laws) and maintains situational awareness is the one who both follows the rules of the road (see definition in OP for overview, or Effective Cycling, Cyclecraft , a set of Road 1/2 manuals, or John Allen's pamphlet StreetSmarts for more detail) and maintains situational awareness.

However, the rider who maintains situational awareness while breaking the law is going to be a safer cyclist than the one who rides lawfully but without situational awareness.
Yes, but that is an impractical theoretical point of fact. Situational awareness is a continuous characteristic. It's not something you either have or you don't. It can be good, or it can be bad. I suppose if you close your eyes and plug your ears and jump in a box you can come close to reducing it to zero. But practically speaking, there is no such thing as a cyclist without situational awareness. Similarly, there is no such thing as a cyclist with ideal situational awareness 100% of the time.

The issue is how acute is the situational awareness and how rarely does it fall below and reasonably acceptable threshold.

The more interesting and infinitely more useful point (any point with utility is infinitely more useful than a point with zero utility, which yours is) is that for a given cyclist with a given level of situational awareness, the one who rides consistently with the rules of the road (see OP for definition) is going to be safer than the one who doesn't. See your example in your book of the Mercedes driver suddenly backing out of a hidden alley into the path of a cyclist with a reasonable level of s.a., though momentarily distracted, who crashes because he is violating the rules of the road (see O.P.) by riding too far right (in a door zone bike lane) while approaching a junction (with the alley), thus riding in space for right turners, riding too fast for conditions, or both.

Speaking of "riding too fast for conditions", there's another example of why following the rules of the road consistently requires vigilance. In order to not ride too fast for conditions, a fundamental ROTR, you have maintain awareness of the conditions so that you can reasonably judge what is or is not too fast. When you say following the rules of the road does not require s.a., your concept of the rules, and what it takes to really obey them, is far too simplistic, and certainly does not match the more sophisticated concept that is conveyed by all the VC advocates I know and read, and whom you criticize.



Don't tell me that people don't, or can't, ride lawfully without situational awareness, or that riding according to the law is effective in protecting cyclists -- accident statistics are bulked out with adult riders who were riding according to the rules of the road but who got nailed anyway in imminently avoidable situations, like right hooks, left hooks and restarts from stop signs.

Again (at least you're consistent) you are using an overly simplistic idea of "rules of the road". Take the recent right hook tragedy in Portland where you went and checked out the situation. By your simplistic definition, Tracey Sparling was "riding according to the law". Yet every VC advocate and LCI I know believes she was violating the rules of the road as we understand and teach them. And this example is not a cherry-picked rare exception - it is the case in all but the most eggregious cases of driver misconduct (like a drunk driver careening across the road).



And there is the other side of the coin: veteran messengers have proven over the decades that one can maintain a relatively stellar safety record (in terms of accident or injury per mile or per hour, several times better than the rates recorded in Moritz' survey of LAB members, or Kifer's survey of touring cyclists for instance), while running many hundreds of thousands of red lights and generally using the entire city surface in a way unconnected from the traffic code. In fact one can break one traffic law after another while (otherwise) staying completely loyal to the principles of safe, conservative, defensive riding that you would like to gather under the big party tent that you call 'rules of the road.' People may cringe to hear of the secondary importance, for safety purposes, of cyclists' following traffic law, but it is nonetheless reality. It may ultimately be much better (for other reasons) if cyclists wait at lights and obey other traffic laws, but the critical variable in a cyclist's _safety_ is situational awareness (aka vigilance), not rule following. This is something that I am quite sure of, as it is obvious in available statistics as well as in my own observations over many years.

If you believe otherwise you should try to come up with something other than hopes, dreams and enthusiastic assertions to back it up.

Robert
Your "veteran messengers" might very well be a special breed of human with inherited traits that allow for enhanced situational awarness as compared to the average Joe. If so, their bad examples that take advantage of these traits are just that: bad examples for the mere mortals. See your Mercedes example of how that works.

To repeat the point you keep missing: For a given cyclist with a given level of situational awareness, the one who rides consistently with the rules of the road (see OP for definition) is going to be safer than the one who doesn't.

[Brian Ratliff]

@Helmet Head
Why are you holding situational awareness constant? Is it a relevent comparison?

Your argument at one time was that following the "rules of the road" increased situational awareness. You presented this as a cause/effect chain. If this causal chain is justified, then how can one keep situational awareness constant across the two different riding styles? In other words, if situational awareness is a non-trivial function of riding in accordance with the rules of the road, how can you keep situational awareness constant without changing the person you are referring to?

It seems to me that, for you to describe bicycling with a given level of situational awareness while situational awareness is a non-trivial function of your environment and your compliance to the rules of the road, you'd have to be talking about two different people in two different environments. Then, of course, by definition, one of these riders is more situationally aware in general than the other, and this person will be the safer one (given that situational awareness figures in with safety).

The other hypothesis is that situational awareness is not a function or is a weak function of riding environment and style.

[zeytoun]

Your "veteran messengers" might very well be a special breed of human with inherited traits that allow for enhanced situational awareness as compared to the average Joe.
:rolleyes:

Suspect all you want about my definition changing at my convenience, but I've been using the same concept consistently in thousands of posts over several years here, not to mention in my riding.
:rolleyes:

You're a revisionist historian.

[Brian Ratliff]

Brian, I don't know nor really care if cutting across a parking lot is or is not 'vehicular' or 'VC' per strict definitions, but I do know all it takes is making a legal right turn, traveling in a parking lot where vehicles of all kinds are permitted to drive, then making another right turn exiting the parking lot. All of those motions are vehicular and can be done while following all the generally accepted rules of the road. However that particular manuever is in many places explicity made illegal. That is one of the reasons I don't do it, not because it is or is not 'vehicular' The main reason I don't do it is because parking lots generally present more hazards than a right turn on a road does.

Al

I believe your need to correct me speaks of a deeper motivation.


The main reason I don't do it is because parking lots generally present more hazards than a right turn on a road does.

How about for a left turn where the motivation is not safety, but time?

[noisebeam]

Brian, please don't read my parenthetical remark as a 'need to correct' you. It's just stating what I think, an open comment to everyone and open to comment back of course.

If I had this need to correct, I'd probably preface the remark with 'No, you are wrong...'

I am really not as adversarial and with 'hidden agendas' as you often seem to treat me.

Al

[noisebeam]

How about for a left turn where the motivation is not safety, but time?
I can't really think of a scenario where I could easily cut thru a parking lot to make a left turn without complications and resulting in saved time. That may be the mindset due to the roadway-layout-environment I live in.

perhaps you could describe one. What I think of is making a left ahead of the turn I am avoiding, going into a park lot, cut across it then needing to make a left turn out of that parking lot. That last left turn would be without a traffic light (or stop sign for x-traffic) making it a likely long delay to turn. Two left turns would seem on average to take longer than one.

Al

[RobertHurst]

So says you. More on this below.


At any given time for the next minute, yeah, you can probably drive without breaking any laws (not the same as following the actual rules of the road - see OP) without only a minimum of awareness. But to consistently drive in a manner that avoids violating any rules, you do have to pay more attention than that. More on this below.


Yeah, well, when Forester and the other VC advocates you critique (see OP) say "rules of the road", they mean stuff like obey destination and speed positioning, which is related but not exactly the same thing at traffic law.


Suspect all you want about my definition changing at my convenience, but I've been using the same concept consistently in thousands of posts over several years here, not to mention in my riding.


Yes, in your mind.


Yes. But, even safer than the one who both follows the rules of the road (traffic laws) and maintains situational awareness is the one who both follows the rules of the road (see definition in OP for overview, or Effective Cycling, Cyclecraft , a set of Road 1/2 manuals, or John Allen's pamphlet StreetSmarts for more detail) and maintains situational awareness.


Yes, but that is an impractical theoretical point of fact. Situational awareness is a continuous characteristic. It's not something you either have or you don't. It can be good, or it can be bad. I suppose if you close your eyes and plug your ears and jump in a box you can come close to reducing it to zero. But practically speaking, there is no such thing as a cyclist without situational awareness. Similarly, there is no such thing as a cyclist with ideal situational awareness 100% of the time.

The issue is how acute is the situational awareness and how rarely does it fall below and reasonably acceptable threshold.

The more interesting and infinitely more useful point (any point with utility is infinitely more useful than a point with zero utility, which yours is) is that for a given cyclist with a given level of situational awareness, the one who rides consistently with the rules of the road (see OP for definition) is going to be safer than the one who doesn't. See your example in your book of the Mercedes driver suddenly backing out of a hidden alley into the path of a cyclist with a reasonable level of s.a., though momentarily distracted, who crashes because he is violating the rules of the road (see O.P.) by riding too far right (in a door zone bike lane) while approaching a junction (with the alley), thus riding in space for right turners, riding too fast for conditions, or both.

Speaking of "riding too fast for conditions", there's another example of why following the rules of the road consistently requires vigilance. In order to not ride too fast for conditions, a fundamental ROTR, you have maintain awareness of the conditions so that you can reasonably judge what is or is not too fast. When you say following the rules of the road does not require s.a., your concept of the rules, and what it takes to really obey them, is far too simplistic, and certainly does not match the more sophisticated concept that is conveyed by all the VC advocates I know and read, and whom you criticize.



Again (at least you're consistent) you are using an overly simplistic idea of "rules of the road". Take the recent right hook tragedy in Portland where you went and checked out the situation. By your simplistic definition, Tracey Sparling was "riding according to the law". Yet every VC advocate and LCI I know believes she was violating the rules of the road as we understand and teach them. And this example is not a cherry-picked rare exception - it is the case in all but the most eggregious cases of driver misconduct (like a drunk driver careening across the road).



Your "veteran messengers" might very well be a special breed of human with inherited traits that allow for enhanced situational awarness as compared to the average Joe. If so, their bad examples that take advantage of these traits are just that: bad examples for the mere mortals. See your Mercedes example of how that works.

To repeat the point you keep missing: For a given cyclist with a given level of situational awareness, the one who rides consistently with the rules of the road (see OP for definition) is going to be safer than the one who doesn't.


Again, your so-called definition for 'rules of the road' isn't a definition at all. It includes many things that I am sure I would agree would be fine and dandy guidelines, but which I would be more inclined to count as the fruit of good situational awareness, not rule-following. So it seems we are talking past each other here, until I can figure out just what you mean by rules of the road. Can you give me a real definition of what you mean, that is, something with a beginning and an end, where we can say this over here is a rule of the road, and this over here is not? If you can't do that, in a clear and concise manner, you're done.

It seems you want to gather all kinds of forms of cyclist vigilance under the heading 'rules of the road,' so that maintaining situational awareness itself becomes a 'rule of the road.' (And therefore manufacturing a situation where rule-following can still be held up as all-important.) That ain't gonna fly with me though. I could say: the most important rule of the road is to avoid collisions with motor vehicles; therefore, if you collide with a motor vehicle you have violated the rules of the road. But that would be pretty retarded, wouldn't it?

Define your 'rules of the road,' or take your impossible monkey fist from my sight.

Robert

[Helmet Head]

@Helmet Head
Why are you holding situational awareness constant? Is it a relevent comparison?

Your argument at one time was that following the "rules of the road" increased situational awareness. You presented this as a cause/effect chain. If this causal chain is justified, then how can one keep situational awareness constant across the two different riding styles? In other words, if situational awareness is a non-trivial function of riding in accordance with the rules of the road, how can you keep situational awareness constant without changing the person you are referring to?

It seems to me that, for you to describe bicycling with a given level of situational awareness while situational awareness is a non-trivial function of your environment and your compliance to the rules of the road, you'd have to be talking about two different people in two different environments. Then, of course, by definition, one of these riders is more situationally aware in general than the other, and this person will be the safer one (given that situational awareness figures in with safety).

The other hypothesis is that situational awareness is not a function or is a weak function of riding environment and style.
If you're comparing the safety of cycling while following some set of rules (VC) vs. cycling while not following those rules, then why would you vary situational awareness in the comparision? I see no reason in that comparision, that's why I hold it constant.

Whether following the "rules of the road" increases situational awareness is a separate question (and argument).

[chipcom]

Define your 'rules of the road,' or take your impossible monkey fist from my sight.

Robert

I've covered this ground before Robert...enjoy your joust with the monkey fist.

[Brian Ratliff]

If you're comparing the safety of cycling while following some set of rules (VC) vs. cycling while not following those rules, then why would you vary situational awareness in the comparision? I see no reason in that comparision, that's why I hold it constant.

Whether following the "rules of the road" increases situational awareness is a separate question (and argument).

The latter argument invalidates the relevence of the former comparison, as the comparison is not something which will come up naturally, via the arguments you make for the latter argument.

You have argued the latter position. I was curious how you reconcile your stated argument with your stated comparison.

[Helmet Head]

:rolleyes:


:rolleyes:

You're a revisionist historian.
I guess if you say it it must be true. :rolleyes:

Just because I word the same concepts differently and you intentionally try to misunderstand it does not make me a revisionist historian. That's the same kind of criticism creationists have for claiming evolutionists are inconsistent.

What you can't do is produce something I said about the concept of vehicular ROTR that vehicular cycling is based on in one instance, that is inconsistent in some significant non-pedantic way to something else I said about the same concept in some other instance (and doesn't reflect an actual change/correction with which I've remained consistent ever since).

[Helmet Head]

If you're comparing the safety of cycling while following some set of rules (VC) vs. cycling while not following those rules, then why would you vary situational awareness in the comparision? I see no reason in that comparision, that's why I hold it constant.

Whether following the "rules of the road" increases situational awareness is a separate question (and argument).
The latter argument invalidates the relevence of the former comparison, as the comparison is not something which will come up naturally, via the arguments you make for the latter argument.

You have argued the latter position. I was curious how you reconcile your stated argument with your stated comparison.
How does the latter argument invalidate the relevence of the former comparison?

"As the comparison is not something which will come up naturally, via the arguments you make for the latter argument."? What does that mean? The question of whether following the rules is safer than not following the rules comes up all the time, quite naturally. So it's only natural to compare following the rules vs. not following the rules.

We have separate questions here. In simplest form, they are:


Is following the rules safer than not following the rules?
Does making a genuine effort to consistently follow the rules affect situational awareness?


More precisely:


Is following the rules, all other factors, including s.a., held constant, safer than not following the rules?
Does making a genuine effort to consistently follow the rules, as compared to not making a genuine effort to consistently follow the rules, affect situational awareness?


Robert's assertion (his words) is:

The rider who maintains situational awareness while breaking the law is going to be a safer cyclist than the one who rides lawfully but without situational awareness.


My objections are twofold:


He's tweaking two variables simultaneously (maintaining s.a. and riding lawfully) making it much more difficult to evaluate.
Even if true, he's using it to disparage VC which is not based on merely riding lawfully in the way that he uses it. For example, a vehicular cyclist following the rules of VC would not be in a position to be right hooked by a truck the way Tracey Sparling was a few days ago in Portland, yet what she did qualifies as "riding lawfully". Robert likes to point out that half of all cycling fataliities involve cyclists "riding lawfully" (like Tracey), and concludes from that that VC can only help in half of all fatal collisions. But his argument is based on the fallacy that VC is the same as merely "riding lawfully", which of course it is not (as exemplified by Tracey's tragic death, which was lawful cycling, but clearly not VC).

[Helmet Head]

Again, your so-called definition for 'rules of the road' isn't a definition at all. It includes many things that I am sure I would agree would be fine and dandy guidelines, but which I would be more inclined to count as the fruit of good situational awareness, not rule-following. So it seems we are talking past each other here, until I can figure out just what you mean by rules of the road. Can you give me a real definition of what you mean, that is, something with a beginning and an end, where we can say this over here is a rule of the road, and this over here is not? If you can't do that, in a clear and concise manner, you're done.

It seems you want to gather all kinds of forms of cyclist vigilance under the heading 'rules of the road,' so that maintaining situational awareness itself becomes a 'rule of the road.' (And therefore manufacturing a situation where rule-following can still be held up as all-important.) That ain't gonna fly with me though. I could say: the most important rule of the road is to avoid collisions with motor vehicles; therefore, if you collide with a motor vehicle you have violated the rules of the road. But that would be pretty retarded, wouldn't it?

Define your 'rules of the road,' or take your impossible monkey fist from my sight.

Robert
They are not my "rules of the road". They are any version the rules of the road that are based on the principles that all drivers are supposed to follow, and were specified as five basic principles by Forester years ago.

Have you take the time to read Jeffrey Hiles' critique of Forester (http://www.wright.edu/%7Ejeffrey.hiles/essays/listening/contents.html) yet? Have you read Forester? Hiles' critique at least is based on a genuine understanding of that which he criticizes. From his paper:

The Effective Cycling credo is that “cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles” (Forester, 1994, p.1). This guiding idea, which Forester calls the “vehicular-cycling principle,” means that bicyclists should follow the five “basic principles of traffic cycling” outlined below.

Forester’s “basic principles of traffic cycling”

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).

As you can see, these are not just principles for cyclists, they are the basis for the rules of the road that apply to all vehicles.
http://www.wright.edu/~jeffrey.hiles/essays/listening/ch4.html#forester_principles (http://www.wright.edu/%7Ejeffrey.hiles/essays/listening/ch4.html#forester_principles)

"They are the basis for the rules of the road that apply to all vehicles". Those are Hiles' words, and he's a critic of Forester.

Because they are fundamental principles, once someone understands them, the "rules" that are created in his or her own words that are based on these principles, and consistent with them, may look different at first glance, but will ultimately be consistent with each other. This is why you can drive in any state in this country, or any country in Europe, without relearning the rules of the road, despite them being stated in writing totally differently, and even in different languages. This is also why writers like Forester, Allen and Franklin can basically say the same thing using very different styles and language. It's all based on the same underlying principles.

Any rule that is based on and consistent with those principles is a rule of the road that vehicular cyclists generally follow. I can't understand how these writers (and the interesting thing is that Franklin apparently wrote his book without ever hearing of Forester), and countless other VC advocates, LCIs, forum members like Al and JoeJack, not to mention critics like Hiles and forum member JRA, seem to just innately get this stuff, and other people, like you, just don't. I'm beginning to think one either has the ability to think in terms of principles, or not. If you can't think in terms of principles, you're never going to understand vehicular cycling.

[Allister]

Yeah, well, when Forester and the other VC advocates you critique (see OP) say "rules of the road", they mean stuff like obey destination and speed positioning, which is related but not exactly the same thing at traffic law.


If you and your little enclave are going to use your own special definition of words, don't be surprised when people fail to grasp your meaning.

The Rules of the Road are the written down laws that everyone must follow. What you're describing is merely good driving practice. You may ignore them at your peril, but there is no formal imperative to follow them.

[Helmet Head]

If you and your little enclave are going to use your own special definition of words, don't be surprised when people fail to grasp your meaning.

The Rules of the Road are the written down laws that everyone must follow. What you're describing is merely good driving practice. You may ignore them at your peril, but there is no formal imperative to follow them.
When someone like Robert decides to take someone like Forester to task, especially when he does so in a published book, it is incumbent on him to make the effort to understand what he is challenging, and explain it.

Jeffrey Hiles was able to do it. (http://www.wright.edu/%7Ejeffrey.hiles/essays/listening/ch4.html) Why is it too much to ask of Robert Hurst?

In his book, Robert doesn't even go to the trouble of explaining his (mis)understanding of the vehicular cycling that he criticizes to be merely following traffic law while bicycling. We had to get that out of him here on this forum.

[Helmet Head]

By the way, I should add that Hiles' interpretation of Forester and effective/vehicular cycling is not without error, but at least he makes it clear that he has read and studied Forester's Bicycle Transportation as well as Effective Cycling.

[Brian Ratliff]

When someone like Robert decides to take someone like Forester to task, especially when he does so in a published book, it is incumbent on him to make the effort to understand what he is challenging, and explain it.

Jeffrey Hiles was able to do it. (http://www.wright.edu/%7Ejeffrey.hiles/essays/listening/ch4.html) Why is it too much to ask of Robert Hurst?

In his book, Robert doesn't even go to the trouble of explaining his (mis)understanding of the vehicular cycling that he criticizes to be merely following traffic law while bicycling. We had to get that out of him here on this forum.

Why? I very much doubt that he is incumbent on him to do any such thing.

FWIW, having read both books, Hurst does a fine job at explaining exactly what his disagreement with vehicular cycling is. Hint: it is not at all the techniques (he espouses them himself), and it has little to do with Mr. Forester. It is about the, in his terms, "neo-vehicular cyclists" who get pedantic about the whole thing. He even gives Mr. Forester credit for his early, some would say pioneering (in the US anyway), work.

Mr. Hurst's book is in response to Mr. Forester's book. Not in rebuttle of it. Hurst presents his own thoughts on the subject. Mr. Forester and the Vehicular Cycling ideology are just background.

How's that book of yours coming along, Serge? I'll offer to read an advance copy if you like...

[Allister]

When someone like Robert decides to take someone like Forester to task, especially when he does so in a published book, it is incumbent on him to make the effort to understand what he is challenging, and explain it.

Jeffrey Hiles was able to do it. (http://www.wright.edu/%7Ejeffrey.hiles/essays/listening/ch4.html) Why is it too much to ask of Robert Hurst?

In his book, Robert doesn't even go to the trouble of explaining his (mis)understanding of the vehicular cycling that he criticizes to be merely following traffic law while bicycling. We had to get that out of him here on this forum.

Another attempt at diversion.

We're talking about how the term is used here on this forum, and this thread in particular. In this context, if you have to define what you mean by a word every time you use it, you have failed as a communicator.

[Allister]

How's that book of yours coming along, Serge? I'll offer to read an advance copy if you like...

He's on page 1000 and just about to start chapter 2.

[RobertHurst]

They are not my "rules of the road". They are any version the rules of the road that are based on the principles that all drivers are supposed to follow, and were specified as five basic principles by Forester years ago.

Have you take the time to read Jeffrey Hiles' critique of Forester (http://www.wright.edu/%7Ejeffrey.hiles/essays/listening/contents.html) yet? Have you read Forester? Hiles' critique at least is based on a genuine understanding of that which he criticizes. From his paper:
[INDENT][COLOR=green]
The Effective Cycling credo is that “cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles” (Forester, 1994, p.1). This guiding idea, which Forester calls the “vehicular-cycling principle,” means that bicyclists should follow the five “basic principles of traffic cycling” outlined below.

Forester’s “basic principles of traffic cycling”
[LIST]
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).

[...]

I have already corrected these false charges about what is or is not in my book four or five times I think and you have feigned ignorance and pretended to be sorry each time. I now have no choice but conclude that you are a hopeless, shameless ass. Previously I had given you the benefit of the doubt that you were just unusually forgetful, but now I will have to proceed with the unfortunate knowledge that I'm dealing with someone who is completely disingenuous, and I will treat you accordingly. Congratulations.

I am quite familiar with Forester's five principles. If that's your definition of 'rules of the road,' it's missing quite a lot of what you earlier claimed were 'rules of the road.' For instance, no mention of the door zone there. No mention of riding too fast for conditions. And of course no mention whatsoever of maintaining situational awareness or anticipating motorist mistakes, nothing like that. Are you sure those define your 'rules of the road' or do you want to rethink that?

Assuming Ms. Sparling meant to turn right onto Burnside, exactly which of Forester's five sacred principles did she violate anyway? Of course, we can say she was to the right of a right-turning vehicle, and thus violated destination positioning rules, and be very smug with ourselves. But Forester says right there -- 'on the right near the curb if you want to turn right.' That's exactly where she was.

As they are written, she violated none of these principles. In fact, if she had violated the first, and had been riding on the sidewalk, she would be alive today. Is it just the fact that these 'principles' aren't written clearly enough which is the problem here, or what? Or is this going to be a problem with principles in general?

Your 'principles' aren't what you make them out to be, HH.

Robert

[sbhikes]

Oh boy this is like the best train wreck ever. I can't wait to see the ripping of new a&&holes. I hope I get a new quote for my signature. Pass the popcorn.

Anyway, I can hardly stand to follow most of the drivel around here anymore, but if there's anything I know it's that Robert Hurst understands cycling and Helmet Head doesn't understand anything.