Vehicular Cycling (VC) - VC vs. Hurst's "Urban Cycling"

"I now have no choice but conclude that you are a hopeless, shameless ass."
(Robert Hurst, on Mr. Fearful (Helmet head)


Thanks for confirming, RH.

I thought maybe it was just me.

Much of this discussion with Mr. Hurst fails to consider many factors. The two most serious, in my opinion, are the following.

To be situationally aware of traffic conditions, Hurst's big factor, requires that the observer know the difference between proper and improper traffic conditions. It is not something that one is capable of observing without knowing what should be done. Only when one knows what should be happening can one observe when something occurs that should not be occurring. In other words, nobody can be properly aware of traffic conditions who does not already understand operating according to the rules of the road.

Hurst praises the low accident rate of the unlawfully behaving bicycle messengers. This is not an example of the effect only of situational awareness, which Hurst claims. It is the combined effect of knowing how to operate according to the rules of the road and knowingly, with the advantage of more traffic cycling experience, particularly in the area served, than almost anybody else, knowingly violating the rules of the road when conditions appear safe for the messenger type of cyclist to make that particular movement.

The messenger factor does not apply to the typical cyclist. Following the rules of the road became the prime traffic-cycling instruction simply because the typical cyclist has no clue at all about doing it. He has probably never even heard the instruction before, only useless and biased bits of "bike-safety" propaganda.

Much of this discussion with Mr. Hurst fails to consider many factors. The two most serious, in my opinion, are the following.

To be situationally aware of traffic conditions, Hurst's big factor, requires that the observer know the difference between proper and improper traffic conditions. It is not something that one is capable of observing without knowing what should be done. Only when one knows what should be happening can one observe when something occurs that should not be occurring. In other words, nobody can be properly aware of traffic conditions who does not already understand operating according to the rules of the road.

Utter bollocks. To be situationally aware, all you need to know is what's actually happening in your immediate vicinity. Any thoughts about what should or shouldn't be happening only distract you from what is happening.

Hurst praises the low accident rate of the unlawfully behaving bicycle messengers. This is not an example of the effect only of situational awareness, which Hurst claims. It is the combined effect of knowing how to operate according to the rules of the road and knowingly, with the advantage of more traffic cycling experience, particularly in the area served, than almost anybody else, knowingly violating the rules of the road when conditions appear safe for the messenger type of cyclist to make that particular movement.

The messenger factor does not apply to the typical cyclist.

Why not? The 'advantage of more traffic cycling experience' isn't the exclusive pervue of messengers.

Following the rules of the road became the prime traffic-cycling instruction simply because the typical cyclist has no clue at all about doing it. He has probably never even heard the instruction before, only useless and biased bits of "bike-safety" propaganda.

This 'typical cyclist' doesn't exist, John. Any definitive statement about the knowledge or experience of the 'typical cyclist' is worthless.

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.

You're living in a fantasy land, my friend.

The only "charge" I'm making has never been corrected. It can't be. The charge I'm making is that the concept of "vehicular cycling" that you criticize in your book and on this forum is not the concept of vehicular cycling that is described by Forester, the LAB, or by any LCI that I know. In particular, the concept of vc that you clearly have in mind and which you criticize is riding on roads while following the legal rules of the road, period. There is no requirement in your concept for the cyclist to be consistent with (not contradict) Forester's five principles. You don't even mention them in your book.

In fact, in your smugly titled chapter, Beyond Vehicular Cycling, you clearly show your misunderstanding when you write, soon after introducing VC in terms of the basic principle (kudos to you for getting that much right), the following:
However, the vehicular-cycling principle has a big hole in it: The strict vehicular cyclist who has eliminated many of his or her own mistakes by riding lawfully will still remain quite vlunerable to the mistakes of others. -Hurst, Urban Cycling, p. 61
There it is. Riding lawfully. No mention of the five principles that define the cornerstones of vc. Later you add:
It's amazing how a few trips to the MRI room will color one's judgment of traffic laws and fellow road users.The concept of vehicular cycling you clearly have in mind here is: obey traffic laws without paying much if any attention to "fellow road users". It's bizarre. And, again, no mention of the five principles.

Once again, my only charge is that the concept of "vehicular cycling" that you criticize in your book and on this forum is not the concept of vehicular cycling that is described by Forester, the LAB, or by any LCI that I know. This has never been "corrected". It can't be. Those are your words, in black and white.

Despite these errors, I admire your book enough to recommend it to many cyclists, particularly younger males full of bravado. But almost any sentence in the book with the word "vehicular-cycling" in it is one in which you reveal that you don't know what you're talking about (at least in that particular sentence).

The concept of vehicular cycling that Forester describes, and is taught by LAB LCIs, is following the legal rules of the road that are consistent with the five principles, to ride consistent with the five principles, and to be visible and predictable. When there is conflict, the five principles trump the law.


I am quite familiar with Forester's five principles.
Really? You conveniently forgot to mention them in your book. Nor did you bother to present a concept of vehicular cycling that doesn't blatantly violate these principles, but that didn't stop you from criticizing it. The "vehicular cycling" that you criticize is some bizarre concept that is defined merely in terms of following the legal rules of the road, and nothing else. As long as a behavior does not explicitly violate traffic law, even if the behavior clearly violates one of Forester's five principles, you still consider it to be "vehicular cycling". That hardly reflects familiarity with the principles. To the contrary, it reveals a lack thereof. Maybe you'll get it right in the 3rd edition, but that would require you to study Forester's published works before you criticize them, which you've apparently never felt compelled to do in the past, so I'm not holding my breath.


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.'

Huh? I never said the principles are the definition of the rules of the road. I said the rules of the road are based on these principles. I said the rules of the road are consistent with these principles. Any rule that violates these principles is not a VROTR that VC is based on. Can't you grasp this?

There are many manifestations of the rules of the road. Legal vehicular laws in Germany are one version, and they are VC rules, but only to the extent that they are consistent with the principles. When a cyclist-specific traffic law is contrary to the rules of the road that affect all drivers, such as laws that require sidepath use by cyclists which exists in many countries and states, it is not consistent with the principles. The principles define the rules indirectly. If they follow logically from the principles, then they are a rule 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?

Oh, please. No one ever claimed the five principles are exhaustive. Of course the VC VROTR also are based on such basic traffic common-sense concepts as "avoid hazards" and "don't drive too fast for conditions". And you're calling me an ass? These are fundamental vehicular rules of the road that do not contradict the five principles. Why is this so difficult to grasp?


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?

You are refuting a strawman: that the five principles alone define a complete/exhaustive framework for the vehicular rules of the road that VC is based on.

Whether Ms. Sparling's lane positioning was consistent with VC assuming she was turning right is debatable. Passing through, much less stopping, in a truck driver's blind spot would clearly violate the VC concept of being visible. But if she was going straight, there is no debate about it being VC; it clearly was not. Yet it was perfectly consistent with your criticized version of VC since she was not explicitly in violation of any traffic law. She would fall into the 50% of cyclist fatalities in which the cyclist did nothing legal wrong, which you like to use as refutation of VC. Yeah, such stats refute your simplistic conveniently-defined-for-your-own-interests version of VC. :rolleyes:


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

First you ignore them in your book and earlier, then you assume too much about them in this post.
Forester's principles are not what you assume they are, RH.

Have you read the Hiles paper?

Much of this discussion with Mr. Hurst fails to consider many factors. The two most serious, in my opinion, are the following.

To be situationally aware of traffic conditions, Hurst's big factor, requires that the observer know the difference between proper and improper traffic conditions. It is not something that one is capable of observing without knowing what should be done. Only when one knows what should be happening can one observe when something occurs that should not be occurring. In other words, nobody can be properly aware of traffic conditions who does not already understand operating according to the rules of the road.

Hurst praises the low accident rate of the unlawfully behaving bicycle messengers. This is not an example of the effect only of situational awareness, which Hurst claims. It is the combined effect of knowing how to operate according to the rules of the road and knowingly, with the advantage of more traffic cycling experience, particularly in the area served, than almost anybody else, knowingly violating the rules of the road when conditions appear safe for the messenger type of cyclist to make that particular movement.

The messenger factor does not apply to the typical cyclist. Following the rules of the road became the prime traffic-cycling instruction simply because the typical cyclist has no clue at all about doing it. He has probably never even heard the instruction before, only useless and biased bits of "bike-safety" propaganda.

As a non-beginner who'd been riding in traffic since the age of 11, a first read through Effective Cycling many years ago left me shaking my head, mainly because the idea of defensive operation of the vehicle seemed conspicuously absent. I found the expressed belief in the near-perfection of the traffic system and its drivers to be off the mark; this was confirmed by experience, observation and even the statistics that you yourself gathered for your books.

As I wrote in my own book, I think vehicular cycling is a 'stellar guideline for beginners,' who would otherwise be practicing what I called 'absentminded anarchy.' But that's not exactly an award-winning slogan -- 'VC: better than absentminded anarchy.'

Robert

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.
The neo-vehicular cyclists is only part of it.

His disagreement with vehicular cycling is consistently explained in terms of a definition of vehicular-cycling that is not the one presented by Forester. Hurst's implied definition is: Merely riding in accordance to the traffic law (without any regard to Forester's five principles (http://www.wright.edu/%7Ejeffrey.hiles/essays/listening/ch4.html#forester_principles)).


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.
If someone is going to write a book which is at least in part in response to, say, the theory of evolution, then wouldn't you agree that it is incumbent on the author to clarify his understanding of evolution before he proceeds with his attempt to respond to it? Say he thinks that evolutionists believe the earth is flat, and so goes right into explaining how the earth is round, and thus he has refuted evolution. Of course, all he has refuted is his own misconception of evolution, but that would be much clearer if he explained his concept of evolution from the outset.

As I've explained in my last post to Robert, and above, he doesn't explicitly explain what he understands vehicular-cycling to be in his book. But his references to it, as well as his posts to this forum, clearly indicate that his definition is very simplistic - merely obeying traffic law, without regard to Forester's principles. And, yes, he clearly explains what his disagreements are with that, but that is not what Forester describes, nor what I nor any other LCI that I know teach it to be.


How's that book of yours coming along, Serge? I'll offer to read an advance copy if you like...
Zippo. But thanks for the offer. I'm likely to take you up on it if I ever get to there.

That was a ******** wall of words (not you, I don't make personal insults, just post 56), Helmet Head.

RH can argue his own intent if he likes.

However, to make a point, take the quote you made from his book:

The strict vehicular cyclist who has eliminated many of his or her own mistakes by riding lawfully will still remain quite vulnerable to the mistakes of others.

Now let's (just to see what happens) take out the words "riding lawfully" and in their stead put "riding in accord with the 5 principles that are the cornerstone of VC".

The strict vehicular cyclist who has eliminated many of his or her own mistakes by riding in accord with the 5 principles that are the cornerstone of VC will still remain quite vulnerable to the mistakes of others.

Wow, it still makes perfect sense. One would be well advised to add the defensive driving principle of "vigilance" to VC in order to be safer. Hey, that's one of the big points of RH's book... YAY!

----

Helmet Head, did you know that Freud didn't believe in the existence of a literate William Shakespeare. He was obsessed by, and resentful of, Shakespeare's writings, and it has been very well argued that the reason was because deep down he realized that his own observations on pyschology were derivative of the characters in Shakespeare's plays.

Maybe you resent Robert Hurst because your ideas are so similar to his (the idea of adding defensive driving principles to generally following the rotr - whatever they may be right now).

The fact that your ideas are similar - and derivative - makes you push to try to be different, new, and original. You criticize Hurst for not getting it "just right", charitably commend him for a good effort, and lay out your new idea, which is similar, but tweaked just a bit so as to be individual.

However, your tweaks are wonky. And everybody sees them. Get over it.

that's not exactly an award-winning slogan -- 'VC: better than absentminded anarchy.'

Robert

that's funny, Robert. but very close to the mark.


head, don't you get it? even forestor's aggrandizing 'vehicular principles' aren't the rules of the road, do not represent 'vehicular' travel according to legal rules that dictate vehicle operation.

for example, riding up to a 'superior' roadway, a vehicle does NOT have to 'yield' if an intersection is signalled and cars are already yielding to YOUR direction of traffic.

'slippery slope', 'monkey fist', 'meltdown' all combine in your vacuous complaint.

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.
There is somebody's new sig line right there! ;) :D

That was a ******** wall of words (not you, I don't make personal insults, just post 56), Helmet Head.

RH can argue his own intent if he likes.

However, to make a point, take the quote you made from his book:

The strict vehicular cyclist who has eliminated many of his or her own mistakes by riding lawfully will still remain quite vulnerable to the mistakes of others.

Now let's (just to see what happens) take out the words "riding lawfully" and in their stead put "riding in accord with the 5 principles that are the cornerstone of VC".

The strict vehicular cyclist who has eliminated many of his or her own mistakes by riding in accord with the 5 principles that are the cornerstone of VC will still remain quite vulnerable to the mistakes of others.

Wow, it still makes perfect sense. One would be well advised to add the defensive driving principle of "vigilance" to VC in order to be safer. Hey, that's one of the big points of RH's book... YAY!

It might make sense, but it would still be problematic for the other reason that I have argued (and will not repeat here), having to do with not recognizing the role of vigilance in order to consistently operate in accordance with the ROTR.

But my main charge stands: the vehicular-cycling that he presents and attempts to skewer is not the concept conveyed by Forester in his books, nor the concept that is taught by LCIs all over this country.



Helmet Head, did you know that Freud didn't believe in the existence of a literate William Shakespeare. He was obsessed by, and resentful of, Shakespeare's writings, and it has been very well argued that the reason was because deep down he realized that his own observations on pyschology were derivative of the characters in Shakespeare's plays.

Maybe you resent Robert Hurst because your ideas are so similar to his (the idea of adding defensive driving principles to generally following the rotr - whatever they may be right now).

The fact that your ideas are similar - and derivative - makes you push to try to be different, new, and original. You criticize Hurst for not getting it "just right", charitably commend him for a good effort, and lay out your new idea, which is similar, but tweaked just a bit so as to be individual.

However, your tweaks are wonky. And everybody sees them. Get over it.
I have really mixed feelings about Hurst's book. I agree with much of it, and the stuff on personal responsibility and vigilance is outstanding. But I don't like the fear mongering, nor the treatment of vehicular-cycling, which I think is a great disservice to the advocacy of the benefits of riding in accordance with the rules of the road (those that are consistent with Forester 5 principles, of course).

WoW!

it would still be problematic for the other reason that I have argued (and will not repeat here), having to do with not recognizing the role of vigilance in order to consistently operate in accordance with the ROTR.You didn't succeed at convincing anyone of that idea. You can be mostly oblivious and still follow the ROTR consistently, if by rules of the road you mean the law and or the 5 principles you've mentioned.

The whole "following rules intrinsically requires paying attention, and following them flawlessly requires vigilance" doesn't cut it, bud.

Lots of people ride the same route to work and home every day, know all the intersections and speed limits, and don't pay much attention to anything but the car in front of them. They are following the rules, but are certainly not vigilant.

fear mongeringhehhehehehhehehh

As a non-beginner who'd been riding in traffic since the age of 11, a first read through Effective Cycling many years ago left me shaking my head, mainly because the idea of defensive operation of the vehicle seemed conspicuously absent. [???] I found the expressed belief in the near-perfection of the traffic system [???] and its drivers to be off the mark; this was confirmed by experience, observation and even the statistics that you yourself gathered for your books.

So be confident that most [most hardly qualifies as "near perfect"] drivers will cooperate, but be watchful for those who don't. -Forester, EC, p. 251
Be watchful for those who don't cooperate and drive legally says the writer that you claim promotes a style of riding that "has a big hole in it" because it is just about "riding lawfully", and not about being watchful for the mistakes of others, thus leaving cyclists who use that style vulnerable to those mistakes. :rolleyes:
Ride with fear and joy. Hurst, UC, p. 234
And on that fear-mongering note, you end your book.

You're living in a fantasy land, my friend.

The only "charge" I'm making has never been corrected. It can't be. The charge I'm making is that the concept of "vehicular cycling" that you criticize in your book and on this forum is not the concept of vehicular cycling that is described by Forester, the LAB, or by any LCI that I know. In particular, the concept of vc that you clearly have in mind and which you criticize is riding on roads while following the legal rules of the road, period. There is no requirement in your concept for the cyclist to be consistent with (not contradict) Forester's five principles. You don't even mention them in your book.

In fact, in your smugly titled chapter, Beyond Vehicular Cycling, you clearly show your misunderstanding when you write, soon after introducing VC in terms of the basic principle (kudos to you for getting that much right), the following:
However, the vehicular-cycling principle has a big hole in it: The strict vehicular cyclist who has eliminated many of his or her own mistakes by riding lawfully will still remain quite vlunerable to the mistakes of others. -Hurst, Urban Cycling, p. 61
There it is. Riding lawfully. No mention of the five principles that define the cornerstones of vc. Later you add:
It's amazing how a few trips to the MRI room will color one's judgment of traffic laws and fellow road users.The concept of vehicular cycling you clearly have in mind here is: obey traffic laws without paying much if any attention to "fellow road users". It's bizarre. And, again, no mention of the five principles.

Once again, my only charge is that the concept of "vehicular cycling" that you criticize in your book and on this forum is not the concept of vehicular cycling that is described by Forester, the LAB, or by any LCI that I know. This has never been "corrected". It can't be. Those are your words, in black and white.

Despite these errors, I admire your book enough to recommend it to many cyclists, particularly younger males full of bravado. But almost any sentence in the book with the word "vehicular-cycling" in it is one in which you reveal that you don't know what you're talking about (at least in that particular sentence).

The concept of vehicular cycling that Forester describes, and is taught by LAB LCIs, is following the legal rules of the road that are consistent with the five principles, to ride consistent with the five principles, and to be visible and predictable. When there is conflict, the five principles trump the law.


Really? You conveniently forgot to mention them in your book. Nor did you bother to present a concept of vehicular cycling that doesn't blatantly violate these principles, but that didn't stop you from criticizing it. The "vehicular cycling" that you criticize is some bizarre concept that is defined merely in terms of following the legal rules of the road, and nothing else. As long as a behavior does not explicitly violate traffic law, even if the behavior clearly violates one of Forester's five principles, you still consider it to be "vehicular cycling". That hardly reflects familiarity with the principles. To the contrary, it reveals a lack thereof. Maybe you'll get it right in the 3rd edition, but that would require you to study Forester's published works before you criticize them, which you've apparently never felt compelled to do in the past, so I'm not holding my breath.


Huh? I never said the principles are the definition of the rules of the road. I said the rules of the road are based on these principles. I said the rules of the road are consistent with these principles. Any rule that violates these principles is not a VROTR that VC is based on. Can't you grasp this?

There are many manifestations of the rules of the road. Legal vehicular laws in Germany are one version, and they are VC rules, but only to the extent that they are consistent with the principles. When a cyclist-specific traffic law is contrary to the rules of the road that affect all drivers, such as laws that require sidepath use by cyclists which exists in many countries and states, it is not consistent with the principles. The principles define the rules indirectly. If they follow logically from the principles, then they are a rule of the road.


Oh, please. No one ever claimed the five principles are exhaustive. Of course the VC VROTR also are based on such basic traffic common-sense concepts as "avoid hazards" and "don't drive too fast for conditions". And you're calling me an ass? These are fundamental vehicular rules of the road that do not contradict the five principles. Why is this so difficult to grasp?


You are refuting a strawman: that the five principles alone define a complete/exhaustive framework for the vehicular rules of the road that VC is based on.

Whether Ms. Sparling's lane positioning was consistent with VC assuming she was turning right is debatable. Passing through, much less stopping, in a truck driver's blind spot would clearly violate the VC concept of being visible. But if she was going straight, there is no debate about it being VC; it clearly was not. Yet it was perfectly consistent with your criticized version of VC since she was not explicitly in violation of any traffic law. She would fall into the 50% of cyclist fatalities in which the cyclist did nothing legal wrong, which you like to use as refutation of VC. Yeah, such stats refute your simplistic conveniently-defined-for-your-own-interests version of VC. :rolleyes:


First you ignore them in your book and earlier, then you assume too much about them in this post.
Forester's principles are not what you assume they are, RH.

Have you read the Hiles paper?

You should type less and think more.

If I read Robert correctly, what he's saying is that the 5 principles are all well and good, but they're missing a sixth principle, which can be possibly summed up as 'Be vigilant for erratic, aggressive or ignorant road users, and be prepared to do everything in your power to avoid them.' Maybe VC does touch on that, but it really should be included as a principle as it is at least as important as the other 5.

If I read Robert correctly, what he's saying is that the 5 principles are all well and good, but they're missing a sixth principle, which can be possibly summed up as 'Be viginlant for erratic, aggressive or ignorant road users, and be prepared to do everything in your power to avoid them.' Does that make it easier for you to understand?
Again, that's based on the strawman that the entirety of vehicular cycling can be derived exclusively from those 5 principles. If that were the case, the entire book would be just one page.

The 5 principles are missing a lot more than that, including "avoid hazards" and "don't go too fast for the circumstances", basic rules that cannot be derived from those principles, as Robert has pointed out.

As far as "Be vigilant for erratic, aggressive or ignorant road users, and be prepared to do everything in your power to avoid them.", that sounds a lot like:

"So be confident that most drivers will cooperate, but be watchful for those who don't." -Forester, EC, p. 251

Maybe VC does touch on that, but it really should be included as a principle as it is at least as important as the other 5.
I agreed a long time ago that the presentation of VC, both in Forester's book, and in the LAB courses, should emphasize the importance of vigilance (as well as personal responsibility) more. And that's how I've taught it. I even read from Robert's book.

Whether it should be added to the 5 principles is a separate issue.

The main charge of mine in this thread is that Robert's vehicular-cycling presentation in his book as merely following traffic law is way off the mark.

You're living in a fantasy land, my friend.

The only "charge" I'm making has never been corrected. It can't be. The charge I'm making is that the concept of "vehicular cycling" that you criticize in your book and on this forum is not the concept of vehicular cycling that is described by Forester, the LAB, or by any LCI that I know. In particular, the concept of vc that you clearly have in mind and which you criticize is riding on roads while following the legal rules of the road, period. There is no requirement in your concept for the cyclist to be consistent with (not contradict) Forester's five principles. You don't even mention them in your book.

In fact, in your smugly titled chapter, Beyond Vehicular Cycling, you clearly show your misunderstanding when you write, soon after introducing VC in terms of the basic principle (kudos to you for getting that much right), the following:
However, the vehicular-cycling principle has a big hole in it: The strict vehicular cyclist who has eliminated many of his or her own mistakes by riding lawfully will still remain quite vlunerable to the mistakes of others. -Hurst, Urban Cycling, p. 61
There it is. Riding lawfully. No mention of the five principles that define the cornerstones of vc. Later you add:
It's amazing how a few trips to the MRI room will color one's judgment of traffic laws and fellow road users.The concept of vehicular cycling you clearly have in mind here is: obey traffic laws without paying much if any attention to "fellow road users". It's bizarre. And, again, no mention of the five principles.

Once again, my only charge is that the concept of "vehicular cycling" that you criticize in your book and on this forum is not the concept of vehicular cycling that is described by Forester, the LAB, or by any LCI that I know. This has never been "corrected". It can't be. Those are your words, in black and white.

Despite these errors, I admire your book enough to recommend it to many cyclists, particularly younger males full of bravado. But almost any sentence in the book with the word "vehicular-cycling" in it is one in which you reveal that you don't know what you're talking about (at least in that particular sentence).

The concept of vehicular cycling that Forester describes, and is taught by LAB LCIs, is following the legal rules of the road that are consistent with the five principles, to ride consistent with the five principles, and to be visible and predictable. When there is conflict, the five principles trump the law.


Really? You conveniently forgot to mention them in your book. Nor did you bother to present a concept of vehicular cycling that doesn't blatantly violate these principles, but that didn't stop you from criticizing it. The "vehicular cycling" that you criticize is some bizarre concept that is defined merely in terms of following the legal rules of the road, and nothing else. As long as a behavior does not explicitly violate traffic law, even if the behavior clearly violates one of Forester's five principles, you still consider it to be "vehicular cycling". That hardly reflects familiarity with the principles. To the contrary, it reveals a lack thereof. Maybe you'll get it right in the 3rd edition, but that would require you to read Forester's published works before you criticize them, which you've never felt compelled to do in the past, so I'm not holding my breath.


Huh? I never said the principles are the definition of the rules of the road. I said the rules of the road are based on these principles. I said the rules of the road are consistent with these principles. Any rule that violates these principles is not a VROTR that VC is based on. Can't you grasp this?

There are many manifestations of the rules of the road. Legal vehicular laws in Germany are one version, and they are VC rules, but only to the extent that they are consistent with the principles. When a cyclist-specific traffic law is contrary to the rules of the road that affect all drivers, such as laws that require sidepath use by cyclists which exists in many countries and states, it is not consistent with the principles. The principles define the rules indirectly. If they follow logically from the principles, then they are a rule of the road.


Oh, please. No one ever claimed the five principles are exhaustive. Of course the VC VROTR also are based on such basic traffic common-sense concepts as "avoid hazards" and "don't drive too fast for conditions". And you're calling me an ass? These are fundamental vehicular rules of the road that do not contradict the five principles. Why is this so difficult to grasp?


You are refuting a strawman: that the five principles alone define a complete/exhaustive framework for the vehicular rules of the road that VC is based on.

Whether Ms. Sparling's lane positioning was consistent with VC assuming she was turning right is debatable. Passing through, much less stopping, in a truck driver's blind spot would clearly violate the VC concept of being visible. But if she was going straight, there is no debate about it being VC; it clearly was not. Yet it was perfectly consistent with your criticized version of VC since she was not explicitly in violation of any traffic law. She would fall into the 50% of cyclist fatalities in which the cyclist did nothing legal wrong, which you like to use as refutation of VC. Yeah, such stats refute your simplistic conveniently-defined-for-your-own-interests version of VC. :rolleyes:


First you ignore them, then you assume too much about them.
Forester's principles are not what you assume they are, RH.

Have you read the Hiles paper?


Yes, I have read the Hiles paper, long ago. I enjoyed it about as much as one can enjoy something like that. And I have read all of Forester's published works that I am aware of, several times, and very carefully. while taking notes. And enjoyed that about as much as a sane person can enjoy that.

And, beyond that, I have attempted to familiarize myself with any available facts about traffic cycling, something which you clearly haven't bothered to do. You soldier on, unencumbered by facts or experience.

Does anyone smell flying monkey fist? You still can't tell me what these supposed 'rules of the road' are -- there are an infinite amount of rules to be conjured that would be 'consistent with the five principles.' If you can't define these rules, then please kick rocks rather than trying to pass off any ideas about the wonderful magic that following these rules will bring us, or the horror that will befall us if we fail to follow them. WHAT RULES. You can't even say what the rules are. Aarrgh. Think about that folks. Here we have a man so desperate to uphold the primacy of rules -- the system -- any rules -- any system -- but he can't even figure out what he means by his system or his precious rules. Never mind that, we'll sort that out later. Just DRINK the KOOLAID. DRINK THE KOOLAID!!! RUUUULES!!!!

That's a mode of thought I find frightening in history, current events, and discussions of traffic cycling.

HH, neither you nor I know what happened in Portland. But consider that the victim may have been well aware of the basic principles of traffic cycling, including that which prohibits passing right-turning vehicles on the right. You just assume she was clueless, but it is possible to understand these things very well (even be a so-called 'expert' on the subject) and read a situation wrong, to be a good cyclist and have a bad moment; to see a truck as moving straight through rather than turning, to make a bad call, to get impatient perhaps, to filter forward (as almost all VCers claim is consistent with their gospel teachings) in available space and get caught off guard. Any one of us could make a mistake like that, and certainly not immune to that very important ruuule we have the backward obsessed rule jockeys with minimal experience. That would not be a failure to follow rules at all; that would be a failure of awareness.

Rule-following is always going to be less important than awareness. It's been shown again and again and again. The only way we can get around that is by including awareness as one of the rules, and that's just kind of a bargain basement sophistic trick that just confuses matters, imo.

But HH, if you need to play some kind of mind-trick on yourself to get yourself to maintain awareness in traffic, by calling it a 'rule of the road,' fine. Weird, and frankly a little frightening, but fine.

Robert

Again, that's based on the strawman that the entirety of vehicular cycling can be derived exclusively from those 5 principles.

Isn't that the entire point of the principles? If not, why bother having them at all?

If that were the case, the entire book would be just one page.

Perhaps it should've been.

Here's a rule for ya. I'm going to close my eyes and ride no hands between intersections. Why not? It certainly is consistent with the 5 sacred principles.

Don't violate my rule, whatever you do. Remember, if you violate the rules great disasters will befall you, unless you are an immortal alien messenger type cyclist.

As far as "Be vigilant for erratic, aggressive or ignorant road users, and be prepared to do everything in your power to avoid them.", that sounds a lot like:

"So be confident that most drivers will cooperate, but be watchful for those who don't." -Forester, EC, p. 251Lest anyone mistakenly imagine that JF was big on vigilance in EC, here is the context of that, where JF basically dismisses the fear of motorists driving unsafely around cyclists for 2 paragraphs, and then tags on a "watch out" at the very end:

Many people consider it foolhardy for a cyclist to stand up for his legal rights despite the danger. They argue that the cyclist who stands up for his rights will be “dead right.” That is not so. The object of traffic law is to minimize collisions while still allowing travel. Obeying traffic law while insisting on the duty of other drivers to also obey it is the very best way to reduce the probability of collisions, car-bike collisions as well as all other types. All drivers should cooperate in obeying traffic law.

Nearly all motorists cooperate with other traffic within the rules of the road. If might really made right, the only vehicles left would be the toughest, gravel trucks, and the fleetest, Porsches. Motorists typically cooperate with cyclists as well as they do with other motorists, aside from a few understandable mistakes due to special conditions. So long as cyclists act reasonably, most motorists will treat them reasonably. Those that act unreasonably, either cyclists or motorists, are acting illegally. So be confident that most drivers will cooperate, but be watchful for those who don’t.

" Obeying traffic law while insisting on the duty of other drivers to also obey it is the very best way to reduce the probability of collisions, car-bike collisions as well as all other types. All drivers should cooperate in obeying traffic law.

holy shief! VC= junk.

as robert says, better than unabsentminded anarchy. but not by much.

i't hard to believe forestor still has a following. what a quack.

Whether Ms. Sparling's lane positioning was consistent with VC assuming she was turning right is debatable.

Indeed it is.

And yet earlier you didn't hesitate:

every VC advocate and LCI I know believes she was violating the rules of the road as we understand and teach them.

Of course you do. You have to, to feed your monkey fist. Obviously, nobody is going to take hapless dogmatists like that seriously, nor should they. You don't need any pesky facts, you already KNOW. You fellars jump like Bob Beamon with a tailwind to pre-ordained conclusions.

Passing through, much less stopping, in a truck driver's blind spot would clearly violate the VC concept of being visible.

You could understand all about that, stop in a 'visible' location, and still be overlooked, especially if the driver doesn't turn his head your way until long after the turn is initiated. You could understand all about that and more and still get ruined if you didn't understand how a truck's rear wheels track far inside its front wheels around a corner (just like your bicycle). Which rule is that.

Robert

I'm getting some great laughs here today. Thank you all.

Now, as a rather ordinary and somewhat absentminded cyclist I can tell you I learn a lot more from Robert's clear and concise language and his ideas that are based on real experience than I do from theorists who draw logic diagrams and puzzle out results based on Internet discussion forum chatter.

Sorry fellas, but 'VC: better than absentminded anarchy' isn't even a truthful statement. 'VC: better than anarchy' might be, because my absentminded vigilance has worked out ok over the years. Someday I'll write a book on the theory since I'm sure it's superior to all.

Here's a rule for ya. I'm going to close my eyes and ride no hands between intersections. Why not? It certainly is consistent with the 5 sacred principles.

Don't violate my rule, whatever you do. Remember, if you violate the rules great disasters will befall you, unless you are an immortal alien messenger type cyclist.
This too reveals the absurdity of your (mis)interpretation of vehicular-cycling.
Now you are apparently conceding that vehicular-cycling is not merely following traffic law, but have seemed to jump to the equally absurd, vehicular-cycling is following any rule as long as it does not conflict with the five principles. To refute that straw man, you conjure the following vc "rule": "close my eyes and ride no hands" since it does not violate the 5 principles. Don't forget: "brush after every meal". :rolleyes:

What part of SAME rules, SAME rights, SAME roads do you not understand? Is "close my eyes and drive no hands" a rule you learned in driver ed? Do the five principles cause you to do this? Why would you think this rule, or any other rule that has absolutely no basis for being a VROTR, is a VC rule?

The concept of "vehicular cycling" that you criticize in your book and on this forum is not the concept of vehicular cycling that is described by Forester, the LAB, or by any LCI that I know. In your book you mischaracterize it as merely following traffic law (and, in particular, not watching for driver errors).

On this forum you make the same error, as exemplified by the statement of yours I quoted in the OP. About the vc advocates and LCIs that ILTB derides in his post, you add that they don't fully grasp "that traffic is nothing more than individual humans doing human things." Ironically, you make that statement in a discussion about the very subject that vc advocates grasp that fact so well that they intentionally avoid using anthropomorphic references to cars when thinking and communicating about traffic. Recognizing that traffic is "nothing more than individual humans doing human things" is at the very heart of vehicular-cycling, yet you claim, without any basis, and without any provocations, that it's the vc advocates who don't fully grasp this.

I repeat, the concept of "vehicular-cycling" that you criticize in your book and on this forum is not the concept of vehicular cycling that is described by Forester, the LAB, or by any LCI that I know.

slippery slope, head. stop with diatribe, dude.

what is vc? 'five principles', following your 'accepted rules of the road', applying vigilance in addition to these concepts, or 'same roads, same rights, same rules?'

vc's 'five principles' in and of themselves are inaccurate reflections of traffic rules. you don't need to 'yield' on a green light crossing a superior road!

vc=junk. a little bit better than absentminded anarchy.
head's faulty criticism of robert hurst= libelous.

I sometimes read the newspaper (kept on my front rack) on part of my bicycle commute. kind of tough to keep it from flapping in the breeze, but I've got the subway fold thing going on.

reading a newspaper while bicycling doesn't violate any of the five principles, does it?

Lest anyone mistakenly imagine that JF was big on vigilance in EC, here is the context of that, where JF basically dismisses the fear of motorists driving unsafely around cyclists for 2 paragraphs, and then tags on a "watch out" at the very end:

Really that single phrase could be seen in the context of the entire book and its ongoing theme that anyone who believes extracurriculur defensiveness is necessary is irrational, incompetent, and a raging p#ssy.

But kudos to HH for digging up that phrase out of the book's dark caverns. Way to go, HH.

Robert

Can someone help describe simply what the practical differences being argued are.

I ride in a style I self describe as vehicular, follow the rules of the road and expect, but not rely on others to do so as well. I also generally follow all traffic laws, but am not so stupid as to follow them in a situation which would put me in greater danger, with such a situation I can't recall experiencing.

Al

this IS pretty weak.... i think jhon hasn't ridden in 21st century traffic conditions.

Obeying traffic law while insisting on the duty of other drivers to also obey it is the very best way to reduce the probability of collisions, car-bike collisions as well as all other types. All drivers should cooperate in obeying traffic law.

..... Motorists typically cooperate with cyclists as well as they do with other motorists...

jhon is out of touch!

Can someone help describe simply what the practical differences being argued are.

I ride in a style I self describe as vehicular, follow the rules of the road and expect, but not rely on others to do so as well. I also generally follow all traffic laws, but am not so stupid as to follow them in a situation which would put me in greater danger, with such a situation I can't recall experiencing.

Al

This is a good point considering that everyone involved can most likely get themselves around on a bicycle safely. I guess some just have to be "right" and others just love to disagree.

Can someone help describe simply what the practical differences being argued are.

Outstanding question. I look forward to reading Robert's answer, but I'm not holding my breath.

The only practical difference that I can see between the Forester/EC/VC style and Hurst/UC style is that Hurst minimizes the value of knowing, understanding and following the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles that are consistent with Forester's five principles (for example, although he claims familiarity with the principles in this thread, he fails to even mention them in his book).

The practical ramifications of this difference are perhaps best exemplified by Robert's accounting of his crash with a Mercedes on pp 65-66. To this day he does not recognize the role that his minimization of "following the rules" almost certainly played in not preventing the crash. He does recognize that he may have been riding with "a few mph of excess speed", but he does not seem to recognize that this is a violation of a VROTR (the basic speed law). As to lane positioning, recently I thumbed through his 2nd edition in an REI store, and noticed that he changed his wording to be a little more ambiguous. In the first edition he clearly states that "the rider" is within the 4 1/2 foot wide bike lane, though he fails to recognize that this puts him in the door zone of parked cars and obscures the sight lines between him and anyone in the blind alley to the right that he is approaching. In the 2nd edition, perhaps due to discussions here, he's a little bit more vague about his positioning, implying that he may have been a little bit outside of the bike lane. It should also be noted that he admits riding this route "literally thousands of times", so this non-VC manner of ignoring destination roadway positioning is probably habitual, though he once claimed on this forum that the reason he was so far right this one time was because there was a car approaching from behind, though he neglected to recognize the importance of mentioning that in his book to explain his positioning. Not to mention that an approaching vehicle from behind is not a good excuse to compromise your safety by moving right when approaching a junction with a blind alley. Of course, all this further reveals his lack of recognizing the value of destination positioning rules in the first place, much less his recognizing the value of developing the practice to follow them habitually. The value, of course, is that it prepares you for the unexpected, like a Mercedes suddenly pulling out of a blind alley right that you've ridden by thousands of times without incident.

Robert has responded to this before, by insisting that riding further left would not have prevented this particular crash because the Mercedes driver pulled out so quickly. But even if true, which I suggest even he has no way of knowing for sure, that is still missing the point entirely. Even if in this particular case proper destination positioning would not have helped, in other similar cases the improved sight lines and conspicuity of being further left would have helped. He does not recognize that value of knowing, understanding and following the rules.

With chapter headings like "Beyond Vehicular Cycling", Hurst implies that there are practical advantages to what he advocates over vehicular-cycling. But in his book what he's going "beyond" (by paying less attention to traffic law and being watchful for motorist errors and other hazards) is not the concept of vehicular cycling that is described by Forester, the LAB, or by any LCI that I know.


I ride in a style I self describe as vehicular, follow the rules of the road and expect, but not rely on others to do so as well. I also generally follow all traffic laws, but am not so stupid as to follow them in a situation which would put me in greater danger, with such a situation I can't recall experiencing.

According to Robert, that makes you very different from vc advocates, because he alleges that they can't fully grasp that traffic is "nothing more than individual humans doing human things". :rolleyes:

If I choose to read the newspaper while bicycling in on my way to work, I'm not violating any of the 'five principles of vehicular cycling', am I?

I will use, like mossy jhon states, the VC concept of "obey traffic law while insisting :roflmao: on the duty of other drivers to also obey it" as the very best way :rolleyes: to reduce collisions....

what a joke. VC mantra is a joke, Heads weak attempts at refuting Hurst's writings is much more serious than a joke, but pretty funny in heads' own smallminded, inaccurate ways.

More saddle, less prattle, headjob. did you ride- and by ride, I mean bicycle, not drive your car as if it were a bicycle- to work this morning, head?

Found on page 1, #18:

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

After reading this :beer:, can't understand why HH is still at it...:crash:

Outstanding question. I look forward to reading Robert's answer, but I'm not holding my breath.

The only practical difference that I can see between the Forester/EC/VC style and Hurst/UC style is that Hurst minimizes the value of knowing, understanding and following the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles that are consistent with Forester's five principles (for example, although he claims familiarity with the principles in this thread, he fails to even mention them in his book).

The practical ramifications of this difference are perhaps best exemplified by Robert's accounting of his crash with a Mercedes on pp 65-66. To this day he does not recognize the role that his minimization of "following the rules" almost certainly played in not preventing the crash. He does recognize that he may have been riding with "a few mph of excess speed", but he does not seem to recognize that this is a violation of a VROTR (the basic speed law). As to lane positioning, recently I thumbed through his 2nd edition in an REI store, and noticed that he changed his wording to be a little more ambiguous. In the first edition he clearly states that "the rider" is within the 4 1/2 foot wide bike lane, though he fails to recognize that this puts him in the door zone of parked cars and obscures the sight lines between him and anyone in the blind alley to the right that he is approaching. In the 2nd edition, perhaps due to discussions here, he's a little bit more vague about his positioning, implying that he may have been a little bit outside of the bike lane. It should also be noted that he admits riding this route "literally thousands of times", so this non-VC manner of ignoring destination roadway positioning is probably habitual, though he once claimed on this forum that the reason he was so far right this one time was because there was a car approaching from behind, though he neglected to recognize the importance of mentioning that in his book to explain his positioning. Not to mention that an approaching vehicle from behind is not a good excuse to compromise your safety by moving right when approaching a junction with a blind alley. Of course, all this further reveals his lack of recognizing the value of destination positioning rules in the first place, much less his recognizing the value of developing the practice to follow them habitually. The value, of course, is that it prepares you for the unexpected, like a Mercedes suddenly pulling out of a blind alley right that you've ridden by thousands of times without incident.

Robert has responded to this before, by insisting that riding further left would not have prevented this particular crash because the Mercedes driver pulled out so quickly. But even if true, which I suggest even he has no way of knowing for sure, that is still missing the point entirely. Even if in this particular case proper destination positioning would not have helped, in other similar cases the improved sight lines and conspicuity of being further left would have helped. He does not recognize that value of knowing, understanding and following the rules.

...


Fine, this is as good a place to illustrate your rule retardation as any.

Of course it is true, I was too far right, and moving too fast. Your contention that I should not have moved over for the passing car due to the presence of the alley smacks of inexperience in certain riding environments, however. In urban centers at typical cycling speed one might pass an intersection of some sort, whether it be with a street, alley, or driveway, every few seconds or so. On the street where that incident occurred, I was passing an alley or street intersection approx. once every four seconds, with occasional driveways interspersed. With all the sideparking and blatant stopsign running there, I prefer to ride way out near the double yellow at a cruising speed over 20 mph. But even at that speed, I have traffic coming up behind in a hurry. When some faster vehicle comes up behind on that road, I am required by law to move over to let them pass; since there is actually plenty of space to allow faster traffic to pass it is also my obligation as a citizen and fellow road user to use that space to facilitate the pass. But -- unless I slow down drastically this means I will be further to the right than I would like while passing an intersection, even if I retain a 6-foot buffer to the door handles as I did on that day.

In other words, if I stay left past the alley to keep the guy bottled up behind me, great, but then I've got a road intersection coming up in a few seconds; another alley after that; another road; click click click go the intersections. If you think I could simply hold off on letting someone pass until I'm safely between intersections, and maintain good speed, you don't haven't the slightest idea what's going on.

Obviously, the scenario described in my book is an example of what NOT to do in this situation. That's the whole point. But is solving this problem really as simple as maintaining central lane position past the alley, or is the reality more complex than that? How will you reconcile your legal,moral and VC obligations to passing traffic with your stated rule of staying left through all intersections, and still make progress down the road?

Do you pull over and stop rather than ride to the right through an intersection? That's the only way you could avoid doing so in an urban center with all the intersections and all the traffic.


Robert

Obviously, the scenario described in my book is an example of what NOT to do in this situation. That's the whole point. But is solving this problem really as simple as maintaining central lane position past the alley, or is the reality more complex than that? How will you reconcile your legal,moral and VC obligations to passing traffic with your stated rule of staying left through all intersections, and still make progress down the road?

I don't know about Colorado's impeding traffic laws, but in Delaware and PA, you need a 5 vehicle backup before you can be considered to be impeding traffic.

Do you pull over and stop rather than ride to the right through an intersection? That's the only way you could avoid doing so in an urban center with all the intersections and all the traffic.

What about waiting until you are at a location with better sightlines to the intersections then pulling over? Or cutting your speed in half to allow the faster traffic to pass quickly in between intersections. Or, waving them around you letting them cross over into the oncoming lane (fully or partially) to pass, allowing you to retain good sightlines and speed.

:rolleyes:

This morning I witnessed a guy on a bicycle wearing a bright ANSI yellow jacket, riding with the sun to his back in the center of the lane with his left arm outstretched in a left turn signal on a road with only one lane in each direction and in a 25 mile school zone. He was in the center of the lane for more than 200 feet before his intended turn.

Behind him was a line of car traffic approaching at 35mph despite the school zone, the crossing guard and the sign that tells you your speed. The car in front approaching the cyclist did absolutely nothing to slow down for the cyclist right in front of his path. He slammed his breaks at the last minute and veered around him but that's all the consideration he gave to the law-abiding, vehicularly-riding cyclist directly in his field of view.

Not 15 seconds later a garbage truck parked in the parking lane was enough to prompt the same driver to actually stop and wait until the guy loading garbage gave him a signal to just keep going.

Believing that lane positioning and following "rules of the road" or "principles" or whatever baloney-de-jour will make drivers of cars treat you any particular way is stupid. You cannot control the behavior of car drivers. You simply cannot do it.

Your best option is to follow the practical advice of folks who actually ride bikes, like Hurst and ignore crackpots who just theorize and generalize and write dissertations based on logic puzzles and presumptions about "the rules". Those folks have no idea what real life is like, living solely in their minds comfortable behind their computers.

Fine, this is as good a place to illustrate your rule retardation as any.

Of course it is true, I was too far right, and moving too fast.

Your contention that I should not have moved over for the passing car due to the presence of the alley smacks of inexperience in certain riding environments, however. In urban centers at typical cycling speed one might pass an intersection of some sort, whether it be with a street, alley, or driveway, every few seconds or so. On the street where that incident occurred, I was passing an alley or street intersection approx. once every four seconds, with occasional driveways interspersed. With all the sideparking and blatant stopsign running there, I prefer to ride way out near the double yellow at a cruising speed over 20 mph. But even at that speed, I have traffic coming up behind in a hurry. When some faster vehicle comes up behind on that road, I am required by law to move over to let them pass; since there is actually plenty of space to allow faster traffic to pass it is also my obligation as a citizen and fellow road user to use that space to facilitate the pass. But -- unless I slow down drastically this means I will be further to the right than I would like while passing an intersection, even if I retain a 6-foot buffer to the door handles as I did on that day.

In other words, if I stay left past the alley to keep the guy bottled up behind me, great, but then I've got a road intersection coming up in a few seconds; another alley after that; another road; click click click go the intersections. If you think I could simply hold off on letting someone pass until I'm safely between intersections, and maintain good speed, you don't haven't the slightest idea what's going on.

Obviously, the scenario described in my book is an example of what NOT to do in this situation. That's the whole point. But is solving this problem really as simple as maintaining central lane position past the alley, or is the reality more complex than that? How will you reconcile your legal,moral and VC obligations to passing traffic with your stated rule of staying left through all intersections, and still make progress down the road?

Do you pull over and stop rather than ride to the right through an intersection? That's the only way you could avoid doing so in an urban center with all the intersections and all the traffic.
Robert
Now we're getting somewhere. I'm glad you recognize you were too far right. I look forward to your third edition where you make this perfectly clear. In your first edition you describe the positioning as "as far left as possible while still remaining within [the bike lane]", as if the door zone, obscured sight lines and the fact that you're approaching a junction with a blind alley does not obviate you from any "legal, moral and VC obligations" to ride as far right as staying within that bike lane requires one to do.

Especially in the context of discussing this incident, it's interesting that you bring up your belief that when some faster vehicle comes up behind on that road you are "required by law to move over to let them pass; since there is actually plenty of space to allow faster traffic to pass it is also my obligation as a citizen and fellow road user to use that space to facilitate the pass." Most such manifestations of this rule are expressed in law in terms of the "as far right as practicable" language, which essentially means that you only have to move right when and where it is safe and reasonable. In some states, including CA, the condition of approaching "any place where a right turn is authorized" is called out as a specific exception to this rule precisely because of the hazard that approaching such junctions present 1 (http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21208.htm), 2 (http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21202.htm). But whether the law in your state specifically recognizes that particular exception, it is an exception. That is, the reason that exception is in the laws in some states applies equally in those states where it happens to not be explicitly recognized. It is my observation that the vast majority of cyclists, including most very experienced cyclists, are all too willing to give up right of way space in favor of yielding to overtaking traffic by staying and/or moving right when it is not necessarily safe and reasonable to do so. It is what they do by default. Whatever reasons any of us may have had to suspect you were an exception to this general observation in the past no longer apply.

Of course I can't tell you exactly how I (or any other VC advocate or LCI) would position myself and manage faster same direction overtaking traffic on a road with which I'm not familiar. And almost certainly it is more complex than simply maintaining a centralish position. But I can tell you that I would not default to riding within a door zone bike lane, especially when approaching a junction with a blind alley, especially at 20 mph, just because someone driving a car is approaching from behind. And I'm not going to pull over and stop unless there are probably at least three motorists behind me being significantly held up for a significantly long time. Otherwise, they are going to have to wait, and probably slow down, before I reach a place where moving temporarily aside is safe and reasonable. There may be other junctions and intersections every 100-150', but are they all blind? I mean, if the sight lines are such that you can clearly see there is no crossing traffic in an upcoming intersection or junction, and you're sure the overtaking vehicle is not turning right, or you will not be in a position to be right hooked as they pass (the timing for which I sometimes accomplish by bleeding some speed), then it may very well be safe and reasonable to move aside for them. By the way, in the first edition you write that you are riding within a 4 1/2 foot bike lane, but above you say you were maintaining a 6 foot buffer to the door handles. I'm having trouble picturing that.

I don't know about Colorado's impeding traffic laws, but in Delaware and PA, you need a 5 vehicle backup before you can be considered to be impeding traffic.

The law to which you refer only applies on roads where there is not enough space for a car to pass or where it is otherwise legal for a cyclist to 'take the lane' in front of faster traffic. On this road, there is a clean six foot buffer between the travel lane and the door handles of parked vehicles and as a slower vehicle you are required to use it when faster same direction traffic is present. It is possible to use this space and still remain entirely out of the door zone.


What about waiting until you are at a location with better sightlines to the intersections then pulling over?.

Would probably be several blocks before reaching such a location.

Or cutting your speed in half to allow the faster traffic to pass quickly in between intersections. Or, waving them around you letting them cross over into the oncoming lane (fully or partially) to pass, allowing you to retain good sightlines and speed.

Slowing down by half? Illegally waving passing cars into the oncoming lane? No thanks to both of those.

What about moving to a position about five or six feet left of parked vehicles to allow traffic to pass while simultaneously slowing down a bit and using the requisite amount of awareness for the situation at hand? Crazy idea I know.

Robert

The law to which you refer only applies on roads where there is not enough space for a car to pass or where it is otherwise legal for a cyclist to 'take the lane' in front of faster traffic. On this road, there is a clean six foot buffer between the travel lane and the door handles of parked vehicles and as a slower vehicle you are required to use it when faster same direction traffic is present. It is possible to use this space and still remain entirely out of the door zone.

As HH pointed out, there are several exceptions in many state's vehicle codes to the "far right" law, and when there isn't, the "practicable" wording is always there as a reason to not be too far right. An upcoming intersection (blind or not) would be plenty good of a reason to not be off to the right. Now, if you stay in that position long enough for traffic to stack up behind you, then you need to start thinking about moving off to the right (into whatever space is there) to allow traffic to pass. That may include slowing down or stopping.

The law I referred to does only apply to roads with one lane in each direction. It specifies the situation in which slow moving vehicles need to leave the roadway to allow traffic to pass. It trumps the "far right" rule which would otherwise allow cyclists to hold up traffic indefinitely if they could find a reason to not move right.

Would probably be several blocks before reaching such a location.

For a total delay to the motorist of how many seconds? I know we want to get along as good as possible with motorists but I don't see a short delay as a reason to immediately move right even at a bad spot.

Slowing down by half? Illegally waving passing cars into the oncoming lane? No thanks to both of those.

What's so bad about slowing down to let them pass (by half was just a rough estimate of a speed to let traffic pass quickly)? It's better than stopping and keeps everybody happy. I don't recall if you mentioned if there was a double yellow centerline or not. Either way, if motorists all of sudden decided to obey the letter of the law and never cross a double yellow line to pass me, my cycling would be far less enjoyable. When there's good sightlines and you are going slow enough, I don't see why it matters. Cops around me don't seem to care either.

What about moving to a position about five or six feet left of parked vehicles to allow traffic to pass while simultaneously slowing down a bit and using the requisite amount of awareness for the situation at hand? Crazy idea I know.

Robert

Why not wait until you just passed the blind intersection until doing so, leaving yourself enough time to get back into your primary position before the next intersection?

Whether Ms. Sparling's lane positioning was consistent with VC assuming she was turning right is debatable.
Indeed it is.

And yet earlier you didn't hesitate:
Whether
every VC advocate and LCI I know believes she was violating the rules of the road as we understand and teach them.

Of course you do.

The earlier statement was based on the assumption that she was going straight. If she was turning right, she probably would have already gone.

The later statement, per your hypothesis, was made assuming she was turning right. I say it's "debatable" whether it's VC because I can imagine some arguments made that it is. Of course, I wouldn't make those arguments.


You could understand all about that, stop in a 'visible' location, and still be overlooked, especially if the driver doesn't turn his head your way until long after the turn is initiated. You could understand all about that and more and still get ruined if you didn't understand how a truck's rear wheels track far inside its front wheels around a corner (just like your bicycle). Which rule is that.

All of which is moot if you follow the VC rule to not pass or be beside a vehicle whose driver can or might turn right.

Much of this stuff is easier said than done, especially in a habitual fashion. I got the following note, relevant to this discussion, from a student in the class I taught recently. This is an experienced guy in his late 40s or 50s who still races time trials, has for years, and has been a regular commuter for decades. I forget how many bikes he said he owned, but I know he said over a dozen. Anyway, this is what he wrote to me:
I think you make a special effort to provide concrete guidelines that one can remember. "Never let your front wheel get past the rear bumper of a vehicle on your left." These are things I know but having clearly stated makes analysis of a situation much easier.
But according to you, vc advocates and LCIs like myself don't fully grasp that "traffic is nothing more than individual humans doing human things". :rolleyes:

"So be confident that most drivers will cooperate, but be watchful for those who don't [cooperate and obey the law]." -Forester, EC, p. 251

You have written an excellent book that I often recommend, but the concept of "vehicular cycling" that you criticize in it and on this forum is not the concept of vehicular cycling that is described by Forester, the LAB, or by any LCI that I know.

Now we're getting somewhere. I'm glad you recognize you were too far right. I look forward to your third edition where you make this perfectly clear. In your first edition you describe the positioning as "as far left as possible while still remaining within [the bike lane]", as if the door zone, obscured sight lines and the fact that you're approaching a junction with a blind alley does not obviate you from any "legal, moral and VC obligations" to ride as far right as staying within that bike lane requires one to do.

Especially in the context of discussing this incident, it's interesting that you bring up your belief that when some faster vehicle comes up behind on that road you are "required by law to move over to let them pass; since there is actually plenty of space to allow faster traffic to pass it is also my obligation as a citizen and fellow road user to use that space to facilitate the pass." Most such manifestations of this rule are expressed in law in terms of the "as far right as practicable" language, which essentially means that you only have to move right when and where it is safe and reasonable. In some states, including CA, the condition of approaching "any place where a right turn is authorized" is called out as a specific exception to this rule precisely because of the hazard that approaching such junctions present 1 (http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21208.htm), 2 (http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21202.htm). But whether the law in your state specifically recognizes that particular exception, it is an exception. That is, the reason that exception is in the laws in some states applies equally in those states where it happens to not be explicitly recognized. It is my observation that the vast majority of cyclists, including most very experienced cyclists, are all too willing to give up right of way space in favor of yielding to overtaking traffic by staying and/or moving right when it is not necessarily safe and reasonable to do so. It is what they do by default. Whatever reasons any of us may have had to suspect you were an exception to this general observation in the past no longer apply.

Of course I can't tell you exactly how I (or any other VC advocate or LCI) would position myself and manage faster same direction overtaking traffic on a road with which I'm not familiar. And almost certainly it is more complex than simply maintaining a centralish position. But I can tell you that I would not default to riding within a door zone bike lane, especially when approaching a junction with a blind alley, especially at 20 mph, just because someone driving a car is approaching from behind. And I'm not going to pull over and stop unless there are probably at least three motorists behind me being significantly held up for a significantly long time. Otherwise, they are going to have to wait, and probably slow down, before I reach a place where moving temporarily aside is safe and reasonable. There may be other junctions and intersections every 100-150', but are they all blind?.

The alley intersections tend to be blind. The street intersections have fair visibility, but lots of side traffic with bad manners and minimal awareness at stop signs. The street intersections are worse overall. If you stay all the way left past the alleys, you'll have to let fsdt pass while you go through a street intersection. But if you keep left through the street intersections, you'll have to let them pass while you're going through an alley or driveway intersection. Your only other options are to not let them pass, for many blocks at a time, which would of course be illegal as well as stupid, or to pull over and virtually stop to let them pass, which is just stupid.

Are we to understand then that your choice among these options would be to simply not let any traffic pass while you cruise down the road in the center of the lane for many blocks, for reasons not apparent to anyone but yourself? Is that what your rules dictate? I'll mark you down for option three then: riding like a tard.

I mean, if the sight lines are such that you can clearly see there is no crossing traffic in an upcoming intersection or junction, and you're sure the overtaking vehicle is not turning right, or you will not be in a position to be right hooked as they pass (the timing for which I sometimes accomplish by bleeding some speed), then it may very well be safe and reasonable to move aside for them..

You (and they) will be waiting all day before you find such a situation that satisfies your high maintenance requirements as an extreme prima donna VCer. If you ever get around to riding regularly in busy traffic you might figure that out. Your requirements are unrealistic: following them would dictate a very uncooperative, let's just say dickish, form of riding, or pulling over all the time to avoid sharing lanes through intersections. In short your rules will leave you hanging at the first sign of reality. If your rules can't account for a situation as common as that, what good are they?

By the way, in the first edition you write that you are riding within a 4 1/2 foot bike lane, but above you say you were maintaining a 6 foot buffer to the door handles. I'm having trouble picturing that.

Poor fellow.. There is approx. a foot and a half between the bike lane and parked cars. I was not remotely within the door zone at any time.

Robert

[sigh]

Newsflash time: when riding in typical urban environments your lateral position is necessarily going to be less than optimal much of the time. Shocking, but true.

How will you deal with this reality? Oh, that's right. You won't. You won't have to. You're at home at the computer, or riding through the bucolic suburbs and freaked out about close passes.

Robert

Found on page 1, #18:



After reading this :beer:, can't understand why HH is still at it...:crash:

He's afflicted with the Cyclist Superiority Complex.

[sigh]

Newsflash time: when riding in typical urban environments your lateral position is necessarily going to be less than optimal much of the time. Shocking, but true.

How will you deal with this reality? Oh, that's right. You won't. You won't have to. You're at home at the computer, or riding through the bucolic suburbs and freaked out about close passes.

Robert

Truer words have never been written!

Truer words have never been written!

How do you know?

The alley intersections tend to be blind. The street intersections have fair visibility, but lots of side traffic with bad manners and minimal awareness at stop signs. The street intersections are worse overall. If you stay all the way left past the alleys, you'll have to let fsdt pass while you go through a street intersection. But if you keep left through the street intersections, you'll have to let them pass while you're going through an alley or driveway intersection. Your only other options are to not let them pass, for many blocks at a time, which would of course be illegal as well as stupid, or to pull over and virtually stop to let them pass, which is just stupid.

Are we to understand then that your choice among these options would be to simply not let any traffic pass while you cruise down the road in the center of the lane for many blocks, for reasons not apparent to anyone but yourself? Is that what your rules dictate? I'll mark you down for option three then: riding like a tard.


You (and they) will be waiting all day before you find such a situation that satisfies your high maintenance requirements as an extreme prima donna VCer. If you ever get around to riding regularly in busy traffic you might figure that out. Your requirements are unrealistic: following them would dictate a very uncooperative, let's just say dickish, form of riding, or pulling over all the time to avoid sharing lanes through intersections. In short your rules will leave you hanging at the first sign of reality. If your rules can't account for a situation as common as that, what good are they?

Robert, the answers to your questions (above in bold) are both no. The later questions seem to be based on assuming that these first questions are to be answered in the affirmative, so I'm ignoring them.

Again, I can't tell you exactly how I (or any other VC advocate or LCI) would position myself and manage faster same direction overtaking traffic on a road with which I'm not familiar. And, of course, there is no one set answer anyway, for where one rides is often determined by current conditions which can change at any time. But we know that the vc speed positioning principle applies, which mandates moving aside for fsdt whenever it's safe and reasonable to do so, and that one of the most important conditions to consider with respect to lane positioning is the presence and volume of fsdt.

As for conditions that applied at the time of the Mercedes incident, in your book, at least in the first edition, there is no mention of any other same direction traffic, though on this forum you've told us there was one driver of a car approaching from behind. It's not clear how far back it was, but clearly it was not close enough to be involved in the crash.

On such a street if traffic volume is relatively low, with most gaps being 10-15 seconds or longer, I ride centerish when fsdt is not present, and even as they approach from behind. Where intersections/junctions are so frequent, particularly with door zones and frequent blind alleys, I pick and choose where and when I move aside carefully, and typically like to have those passing me to slow down to my speed first. With 4 second gaps between junctions, and given it only takes a second or two for a motorist to pass, I would time it such that I moved aside to the sharing position (on course with being just outside of the door zone) just after, or during, the crossing of an intersection or alley junction, so that they can pass me and I can easily move back to my centerish position before reaching the next intersection or junction.

On such a street with higher traffic volumes arriving in platoons of long continuous streams, the conditions are of course entirely different. That a Mercedes driver would suddenly pull out into the street out of a blind alley into the middle of a continuous stream of motor traffic going by is of course not unthinkable, but the likelihood is so extremely low that the possibility must be ignored for all practical intents and purposes. Under such conditions, with the passing stream of fsdt effectively running interference, maintaining a steady course just outside the door zone is probably what I would do, taking extra care to watch for and manage right hook potentials at each intersection and junction approach, of course. This highlights an apparent paradox that Bekologist has had trouble getting his mind around in the past: a lane-sharing position off to the side may be perfectly safe and reasonable while being passed by a stream of fsdt can easily become neither safe nor reasonable as soon as the stream passes and no fsdt currently remains. So not only would I adjust speed and positioning to avoid potential right hook situations, I would monitor rearward for the end of the stream as well. The arrival of a gap of any significant length is my queue to look back, verify it's clear, and move left back to my default centerish position.



Poor fellow.. There is approx. a foot and a half between the bike lane and parked cars. I was not remotely within the door zone at any time.

Poor fellow? Anyway, I see. So either it's a fairly wide parking lane, or all the cars are parked at the curb, or both. Thanks.

My main point in this thread stands. You have written an excellent book that I often recommend, but the concept of "vehicular cycling" that you criticize in it and on this forum is not the concept of vehicular cycling that is described or taught by Forester, the LAB, or by any LCI that I know.

How do you know?

It's just a turn of phrase, Al.

This highlights an apparent paradox that Bekologist has had trouble getting his mind around in the past: a lane-sharing position off to the side may be perfectly safe and reasonable while being passed by a stream of fsdt can easily become neither safe nor reasonable as soon as the stream passes and no fsdt currently remains.

I can't speak for Bek of course, but I for one have no difficulty getting my head around what you're saying. It's perfectly clear, and endlessly repeating it isn't making it any more correct.

This message is hidden because Allister is on your ignore list (http://www.bikeforums.net/profile.php?do=editlist).

I can't speak for Bek of course, but I for one have no difficulty getting my head around what you're saying. It's perfectly clear, and endlessly repeating it isn't making it any more correct.
+1