VC Confessional

[TheWheelman]

I have to go back to your claim of being a "real cyclist." Exactly why should anyone believe that you are?

Anyone can post on the internet.

As for your comment, evidently you cannot fathom a path that is separated, but parallel to the road and to an adjacent RR track, which is not controlled by the same traffic light that the adjacent road is.

I suspect a "real cyclist" would avoid the path and use the adjacent roadway. How often would a cyclist have to use the adjacent roadway to be classified a "real cyclist?" 50%? 90%? 100%?

If you saw me on the roadway where there was an adjacent path, riding in the center of the lane, you'd probably ride up next to me and talk to me. If I were on the path instead, you'd probably disdain me as not being a "real cyclist."

What religious poppycock.

My 30 mile round-trip commute in Atlanta is almost completely devoid of bicycle facilities. I've ridden this route for over a decade, while nobody else on my job ever moved a pedal to work (except the guy on the electric bike, but I don't ever tell him he's not a "real cyclist." I just encourage him to ride, and recently he bought a new Schwinn, but I don't put him down for buying it at a department store, either.)

Man, if you were a "real cyclist," you'd be trying to encourage those who are interested in riding bikes to do it more, and not to be afraid of riding on the road, instead of acting like a big shot.

YHBT!

[Helmet Head]

Very good and definitive, for all purposes except answering inquiries as to what all of the above is based on. For that, the only consistent answer is, "The principle that a bicycle is a vehicle and that therefore a bicyclist has the same rights and duties as any other vehicle operator" (and that there are no exceptions, if the enquiring mind also wants to know about that part, which takes more explaining).

Over the years, I've proposed various quicker-to-mention names for that principle - mainly "Bicyclist's Bill of Rights and Duties" (the sacred core of my proposed Triad) and, more whimsically, "TEA-19" (or Transportation Equity Act from the 19th Century, which, to answer the nose ring generation's jeerings that I can almost hear, will still be relevent in the 22nd century when TEA-21 is on the ash heap of history). In my earlier post, when I treated the term "VC principle" as synonymous with that, I did have qualms about doing so (I had only very rarely done so before, always only to oversimplify), and now you've eloquently clarified why I had those qualms: calling it the VC principle or treating it as synonymous with it, erroneously confuses it with what Foresterianism's definition is of VC and of the VC principle.

So, I'll avoid the multiple-definitions problem by keeping on fumbling for names such as "Bicyclist's Bill of Rights and Duties" or "TEA-19" (rather than use the term "VC principle") for the principle that a bicycle is a vehicle and that therefore a bicyclist has the same rights and duties as any other vehicle operator and that there are no exceptions.
Okay, to recap:

1) A bicycle is a vehicle, by definition, and therefore a bicyclist has all the rights and responsibilities of a driver of a vehicle when operating on roadways (by legal definition in some jurisdictions a bicycle is technically a "device" and not a "vehicle", but that's moot since bicyclists are explicitly given all the rights and responsibilities of vehicle drivers in those cases).

2) Vehicular Cycling, or VC, is riding on roadways in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles.

3) The Vehicular Cycling principle, the principle of VC advocacy, is that cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles. VC advocacy is based on the premise that cyclists who practice VC are significantly more likely to fare well (reach their destination safely, comfortably and efficiently) and be treated well when riding on roadways than are cyclists who do not practice VC.

How's that for a summary?

[TheWheelman]

Okay, to recap:

1) A bicycle is a vehicle, by definition, and therefore a bicyclist has all the rights and responsibilities of a driver of a vehicle when operating on roadways

Why only when operating on roadways? Jurisdiction-specific legal gobbledegook aside, a bicycle, like a tractor, may be operated in the smallest space between two trees in the woods that it can physically fit into. When there, it's not only still a vehicle; its driver also still has all of the rights and responsibilities of a driver of a vehicle - in this case, the rights and responsibilities of a driver of a vehicle when operating in a space between two trees in the woods.

(by legal definition in some jurisdictions a bicycle is technically a "device" and not a "vehicle", but that's moot since bicyclists are explicitly given all the rights and responsibilities of vehicle drivers in those cases).

Another reason that that's moot for the purposes of this discussion, is that even when a jurisdiction that a bicycle is in violates TEA-19 (and the dictionary, and physics) by defining a bicycle as something other than a vehicle, that doesn't change the fact that that bicycle is still a vehicle.

2) Vehicular Cycling, or VC, is riding on roadways in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles.

3) The Vehicular Cycling principle, the principle of VC advocacy, is that cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles. VC advocacy is based on the premise that cyclists who practice VC are significantly more likely to fare well (reach their destination safely, comfortably and efficiently) and be treated well when riding on roadways than are cyclists who do not practice VC.

How's that for a summary?

100% agreed on #2 & #3.

[LittleBigMan]

YHBT!
:lol:

Well, your in-depth response does indicate one thing: you know how to use typical internet abbreviations. I, however, have absolutely No I.D. what you just said.

Plain English seems to be universally understood in most parts of the U.S., and indeed, in many areas around the world.

[Helmet Head]

YHBT = You Have Been Trolled (apparently by Tom's use of "real cyclist")

[Helmet Head]

Why only when operating on roadways? Jurisdiction-specific legal gobbledegook aside, a bicycle, like a tractor, may be operated in the smallest space between two trees in the woods that it can physically fit into. When there, it's not only still a vehicle; its driver also still has all of the rights and responsibilities of a driver of a vehicle - in this case, the rights and responsibilities of a driver of a vehicle when operating in a space between two trees in the woods.
Well, first of all, the rights and responsibilities of vehicle drivers is (relatively) clearly defined in the context of roadways. In the woods and on the fields, not to mention MUPs... not so much.

Second, I assume an off-roadway "NO VEHICLES" sign does not apply to me when I'm riding a bicycle, and that's a good thing.

And, yes, I want it both ways. This is not unprecedented. For example, my 2001 VW Eurovan Camper is a registered recreational vehicle. However, if a sign says "NO RVS", we are allowed. If the rule is "RVS Only", we're also allowed. :D

We humans like to order our knowledge into nice little neat compartments, but the reality is that there is usually a continuum of characteristics that need to be met to qualify as being in a class or not, and some members fit those class definitions better than others. Perhaps another good example is the classic dichotomy: the class of sex. Yes, the vast majority of us clearly fall into the class of either Male or Female, but there is a reason the androgynous "Pat" character on SNL was so funny and popular: we all know people like that. Are they both female and male, or are they neither? The answer depends on the context. There is a person where I work who is in transition. I don't know the details, and I prefer it that way. In some contexts he is still a male, in others she is a female.

Bicycles are to vehicles like VW Campers are to RVs and "Pat" is to females. They are at the "edge" of the respective class, if you will. Whether bicycles are actually vehicles or VW Campers are actually RVs or "Pat" is actually a female depends on the context. And at least in the case of bicycles and VW campers, I think that's a good thing.

So, in the context of operating on roadways, bicycles are clearly vehicles. What about other contexts? Well, maybe or maybe not, but that question is irrelevant to vehicular cycling and its advocacy.

That's why "only when operating on roadways".

[Bekologist]

can you operate a vehicle vehicularily in a 'door zone'? the door zone is an arbitrary, bicycling safety specific unit of measure.

I see cars operating in the door zone all the time! :eek:

[noisebeam]

I see cars operating in the door zone all the time! :eek:
The consequences to the lawbreaker are significantly higher than to the victim in this case.

How often to you see motorcyclists using the DZ?

Al

[Bekologist]

it reads like helmet is saying he wants both worlds of bicycling - to be able to operate a bicycle both vehicularly and non vehicularily.

The other day, there was a long, tedious backup of trucks and buses. Stalled vehicle. I hopped the curb, rode on the sidewalk around all of them, then reentered the roadway.

[Helmet Head]

can you operate a vehicle vehicularily in a 'door zone'? the door zone is an arbitrary, bicycling safety specific unit of measure.

I see cars operating in the door zone all the time! :eek:
Yes, I don't see how operating a car, or a bicycle, in a door zone is contrary to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles.

And this is also why I like to distinguish between "pure" vehicular cycling (merely riding in accordance to the rules of the road) and, say, for lack of a better term, "advanced vehicular cycling", "defensive vehicular cycling", or in Forester's language, "Effective Cycling".

I realize it is confusing that we vehicular cycling advocates sometimes use the term VC to mean pure vehicular cycling, and sometimes to refer to mean VC+, if you will.

[noisebeam]

I once almost doored a cyclist who was in the bike lane.

My wife and I had just parked. She opened door and was standing on sidewalk waiting for me as I was getting stuff together in the car. I did not know this at the time, but a cyclist was approaching toward her on sidewalk.

I looked in rear view side mirror as I always do before opening the door and as far as I could see the bike lane was free of cyclists. I opened the door, just as I was doing this the cyclist hopped off the sidewalk behind our car and swerved around the left side of car and I caught this happening in the corner of my eye and pulled door in as they swerved, I think there was only inches of clearance. They yelled obscenities and told me to watch it, etc.

Al

[Helmet Head]

it reads like helmet is saying he wants both worlds of bicycling - to be able to operate a bicycle both vehicularly and non vehicularily.
How astute of you, given that that is exactly what I said...


The other day, there was a long, tedious backup of trucks and buses. Stalled vehicle. I hopped the curb, rode on the sidewalk around all of them, then reentered the roadway.
And this is why I think it's important for the VCP to apply only to operation on roadways. It is hard to argue with the notion that ON ROADWAYS cyclists who obey the rules fare better.

I see no contradiction with the VCP and acknowledging that sometimes cyclists fare better by leaving the roadway, assuming the cyclist exits and re-enters the roadway vehicularly (that is, without violating any rules of the roadway for vehicle drivers in the process).

It's perfectly legal for a driver to pull aside. Once you've pulled off the roadway and are on the sidewalk, you're out of the realm of VC, so the VCP does not apply. It's also perfectly legal for a driver who is pulled over to re-enter the roadway, as long as he yields properly, etc. So, once you re-enter the VC realm by hopping off the sidewalk into the pulled-over position on the roadway (however momentary it may be), the VCP kicks in again.

[Bekologist]

a slippery slope...

[Helmet Head]

a slippery slope...
To the contrary, by clearly defining the boundaries of vehicular cycling (on roadways), I'm avoiding slippery slope problems.

[TheWheelman]

Well, first of all, the rights and responsibilities of vehicle drivers is (relatively) clearly defined in the context of roadways. In the woods and on the fields, not to mention MUPs... not so much.

Only from the perspective of someone operating on a roadway. From the perspective of someone driving, say, his tractor in his private woods, the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles in private woods is very clearly defined. For example, when I come upon what I think is a trespassing hunter and his pickup truck like I did the other day, I have a "responsibility" not to bash my tractor into his pickup truck, but rather, to turn into a space between a different two trees, to start to go around him until I can get close enough to see who he is, and when he turns out to be somebody whom I'd given a wink to earlier that week, that means that he has a "right", after all, to be there. These types of rules of the road for drivers of vehicles in woods, fields, MUPs, sidewalks, seafloors or anything else, are usually simpler and fewer in number than the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles on roadways, but they're no less clearly defined.

Second, I assume an off-roadway "NO VEHICLES" sign does not apply to me when I'm riding a bicycle, and that's a good thing.

It's okay for "u" _and_ "me" to "assume" such things. I do so by assuming that the bureaucrats likely _meant_ to say "no motor vehicles". Same thing with completely "closed" roads; I cycle on them occasionally, and even when cops check me out on them they've never confronted me an iota about the fact that the road is "closed". But I always do so only with qualms, consisting of the knowledge that a cop, Bekologist or anybody else might put the two hyphens into the word "assume". Therefore, changing the signs to "no motor vehicles" (which I've seen in a few places) should be an important VC advocacy goal.

[Helmet Head]

Only from the perspective of someone operating on a roadway. From the perspective of someone driving, say, his tractor in his private woods, the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles in private woods is very clearly defined. For example, when I come upon what I think is a trespassing hunter and his pickup truck like I did the other day, I have a "responsibility" not to bash my tractor into his pickup truck, but rather, to turn into a space between a different two trees, to start to go around him until I can get close enough to see who he is, and when he turns out to be somebody whom I'd given a wink to earlier that week, that means that he has a "right", after all, to be there. These types of rules of the road for drivers of vehicles in woods, fields, MUPs, sidewalks, seafloors or anything else, are usually simpler and fewer in number than the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles on roadways, but they're no less clearly defined.
Don't be silly. You may have responsibilities when you're off road, like "do not damage the property of others", but to the extent that these rules are clearly defined, they have little if anything to do with you being a driver of a vehicle.

As such, there are few if any clearly defined rules that apply specifically and exclusively to drivers of vehicles outside the realm of roadways.


It's okay for "u" _and_ "me" to "assume" such things. I do so by assuming that the bureaucrats likely _meant_ to say "no motor vehicles". Same thing with completely "closed" roads; I cycle on them occasionally, and even when cops check me out on them they've never confronted me an iota about the fact that the road is "closed". But I always do so only with qualms, consisting of the knowledge that a cop, Bekologist or anybody else might put the two hyphens into the word "assume". Therefore, changing the signs to "no motor vehicles" (which I've seen in a few places) should be an important VC advocacy goal.
I agree it's a good goal, but the fact remains, that in some contexts bicycles are not "vehicles", and that's okay, as long as the context is not roadways.

Likewise, in some contexts, push scooters are vehicles too, but not in the realm of roadways, and that's good too.

[TheWheelman]

How astute of you, given that that is exactly what I said...


And this is why I think it's important for the VCP to apply only to operation on roadways. It is hard to argue with the notion that ON ROADWAYS cyclists who obey the rules fare better.

I see no contradiction with the VCP and acknowledging that sometimes cyclists fare better by leaving the roadway, assuming the cyclist exits and re-enters the roadway vehicularly (that is, without violating any rules of the roadway for vehicle drivers in the process).

It's perfectly legal for a driver to pull aside. Once you've pulled off the roadway and are on the sidewalk, you're out of the realm of VC, so the VCP does not apply. It's also perfectly legal for a driver who is pulled over to re-enter the roadway, as long as he yields properly, etc. So, once you re-enter the VC realm by hopping off the sidewalk into the pulled-over position on the roadway (however momentary it may be), the VCP kicks in again.

The only time that the VCP kicks in and out is during mounting and dismounting. You're apparently talking about a cyclist who stays mounted during and after his merge from the roadway onto the sidewalk. For him, the only significant change is that instead of following the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles on roadways, he must now follow the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles on sidewalks. (And setting tire to sidewalks is not an exclusively-cyclist activity; I see motorists park with their right tires on one all the time, apparently legally enough, in a place where the boundary between the road and the sidewalk is vague.)

These rules of the road for drivers of vehicles on sidewalks, sometimes, and sometimes not (depending on the jurisdiction), include the fact that the cyclist broke the law right off the bat by being a "driver" there at all, i.e. by not dismounting upon entering the sidewalk. But only technically. More importantly, the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles on sidewalks include things like 1) only staying mounted if it's one of those rare sidewalks that have all of the important physical characteristics of a roadway, such as plenty of sight distance and/or the absence of any curb separating it from the roadway (I do it occasionally for a couple hundred feet if one of these relatively-roadwayesque sidewalks happens to coincide with when I'm going very slowly uphill - there, Bekologist, another confession! Hope you've still got plenty of popcorn!), 2) passing port-to-port any rare oncoming cyclist who might be operating in the same I.L.T.B.esque manner (if the sidewalk _is_ separated from the roadway by a curb or similar, making it a distinctly separate vehicular - when at least one vehicle is on it, whether legally or illegally - road than the road that it parallels), 3) dismounting when in doubt about (2), and 4) dismounting _well_ before getting to any location, such as a crosswalk, where re-entering the road would require pedestrian operation.

In short, there is no exact line, except among bureaucratic circles (and in a few places such as crosswalks, where failure to dismount would be _absolutely_ blasphemous), between what constitutes a sidewalk and what constitutes an inferior road or an inferior part thereof. The line between when a bike is mounted and dismounted, on the other hand, _is_ sufficiently exact to use as the cutoff point of the VCP.

[TheWheelman]

Don't be silly. You may have responsibilities when you're off road, like "do not damage the property of others", but to the extent that these rules are clearly defined, they have little if anything to do with you being a driver of a vehicle.

As such, there are few if any clearly defined rules that apply specifically and exclusively to drivers of vehicles outside the realm of roadways.

Little, but some. Few, but some. Just as a low-traffic roadway needs fewer micromanagement items (such as striping) than a high-traffic roadway does, the continuum doesn't stop when you stop talking about roadways. Here's another example from the other end of that continuum: I was already a VC, and considered myself to still be obeying VC, when (and here's another confession, Bekologist; buy another popcorn!) I once rode down a wide hard-sand beach at night with no headlight, under bright moonlight on a 10-mile island that I was pretty sure I was the only one on. Bright moonlight, or the lack thereof, provides a plenty "clear" for me, definition of when and when not the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles on wide beaches of see-about-one-other-person-per-week islands, require a headlight at night.

[Helmet Head]

Tom, using your definitions...
Are push scooters vehicles?
Do push scooter riders fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles?

Using my definitions:
I just rode my push scooter to and from lunch and a haircut. Some of time time I acted like a driver of a vehicle (like when I rode in the street in accordance with speed positioning rules), some of the time, in order to fare even better, I did not (like when I rode across the crosswalk against a red light).

Why does the VCP apply to bicyclists but not to push scooter riders? Because trip length for scooter riders is typically much shorter (under a mile), and so the costs of following the rules of the road for vehicle drivers (like waiting for red lights even though you can make it across) are relatively high (just as for runners) and the practical speed differences between roadway and sidewalk are insignificant, whereas bicyclists can typically ride much faster on the road than on the sidewalk.

[Paul L.]

Hey can we still confess in this thread?

Forester forgive me for I have sinned. I uh, hmmm, Used a bike lane (and I feel so dirty)? I guess that will do.
Also forgive me for I have been gone many months, but upon returning find I have missed nothing. :)

Good to see all the usual names (the avatars have changed but the names remain the same, gotta be a song in that somewhere) still around.

[LittleBigMan]

YHBT = You Have Been Trolled (apparently by Tom's use of "real cyclist")
What an education.

I suspect your substitute response in relation to Wheelman's crudeness will be sufficient for him.

[LittleBigMan]

It's not only circumventing it; it's _running_ it if the cyclist makes a mistake (as a cyclist-inferiority cyclist would tend to do in the shoulder example that I gave) as to whether the facility is controlled by it.
HH, if Wheelman's response of "You Have Been Trolled" has any relation to the above post, it sounds to me like the person who insults you, then when he realizes he's picked on the wrong character, says, "I was only kidding."

[TheWheelman]

Tom, using your definitions...
Are push scooters vehicles?
Do push scooter riders fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles?

Using my definitions:
I just rode my push scooter to and from lunch and a haircut. Some of time time I acted like a driver of a vehicle (like when I rode in the street in accordance with speed positioning rules), some of the time, in order to fare even better, I did not (like when I rode across the crosswalk against a red light).

Why does the VCP apply to bicyclists but not to push scooter riders? Because trip length for scooter riders is typically much shorter (under a mile), and so the costs of following the rules of the road for vehicle drivers (like waiting for red lights even though you can make it across) are relatively high (just as for runners) and the practical speed differences between roadway and sidewalk are insignificant, whereas bicyclists can typically ride much faster on the road than on the sidewalk.

The physical differences that you cite are part of it, but an equally large reason is mere politics. If push scooter operators, rollerbladers (which, apparently, New York bureaucrats consider to be vehicle operators but John Forester doesn't), equestrians, carbon-fiber-yuppie cyclists who don't want traffic-signal-loop-detector engineers to leave them out with unshod horses, radio-controlled-toy-car operators, ordinary pedestrians wishing to hoof it through an intersection in a vehicular manner (as I've done a few times in situations where it enabled me to "fare better"), vagabond rickshaw operators wishing to use a 0.001" gear to tow their house trailer with them everywhere they go in ample compliance with the micron-an-eon common-law minimum speed, and other minority road-user groups can assemble the numbers necessary to each start their own organizations/forums for demanding their vehicular rights (or demanding them for however much of the time they "fare better" that way), I wouldn't be the one to stop them nor question the validity of their arguments.

Much.

[TheWheelman]

HH, if Wheelman's response of "You Have Been Trolled" has any relation to the above post,

It doesn't. Rather, it's when I've just unleashed something that includes the terminology, "real cyclist", that I wish I had a bag of popcorn to open while turning on the computer the next time.

it sounds to me like the person who insults you, then when he realizes he's picked on the wrong character, says, "I was only kidding."

I _wasn't_ kidding in the post of which you speak (in which I said that a hypothetical cyclist "is not only circumventing the red light; he's running it, if...")! Either you failed elementary-school reading comprehension or you have a guilty conscience; it has to be one or the other if you think that it had even crossed my mind (before now) that you might be a red light runner.

[LittleBigMan]

It doesn't. Rather, it's when I've just unleashed something that includes the terminology, "real cyclist", that I wish I had a bag of popcorn to open while turning on the computer the next time.



I _wasn't_ kidding in the post of which you speak (in which I said that a hypothetical cyclist "is not only circumventing the red light; he's running it, if...")! Either you failed elementary-school reading comprehension or you have a guilty conscience; it has to be one or the other if you think that it had even crossed my mind (before now) that you might be a red light runner.
:roflmao:

Wheelman is clairvoyant as well.

Go ahead and open that bag of popcorn. It's your show.

:lol:

I guess one thing stands clear: "troll" is a very descriptive term concerning you.

:beer:

[sbhikes]

can you operate a vehicle vehicularily in a 'door zone'? the door zone is an arbitrary, bicycling safety specific unit of measure.

I see cars operating in the door zone all the time! :eek:

Yes, you can. I drive in the door zone all the time. Nobody can tell me I'm not driving my car vehicularly.

I have a confession. They moved my office so now my commute is too far. I no longer commute by bicycle. :(

[Helmet Head]

The physical differences that you cite are part of it, but an equally large reason is mere politics. If push scooter operators, rollerbladers (which, apparently, New York bureaucrats consider to be vehicle operators but John Forester doesn't), equestrians, carbon-fiber-yuppie cyclists who don't want traffic-signal-loop-detector engineers to leave them out with unshod horses, radio-controlled-toy-car operators, ordinary pedestrians wishing to hoof it through an intersection in a vehicular manner (as I've done a few times in situations where it enabled me to "fare better"), vagabond rickshaw operators wishing to use a 0.001" gear to tow their house trailer with them everywhere they go in ample compliance with the micron-an-eon common-law minimum speed, and other minority road-user groups can assemble the numbers necessary to each start their own organizations/forums for demanding their vehicular rights (or demanding them for however much of the time they "fare better" that way), I wouldn't be the one to stop them nor question the validity of their arguments.

Much.
Well, I still think it's much more difficult to defend the effectiveness of push-scootering in accordance with the vehicular rules of the road than than bicycling in accordance with the vehicular rules of the road.

And the vehicular rules of the road only apply on the road, by definition.

And again, if you insist on the extremely broad and general definition of vehicular cycling - that depends merely on mounting the saddle of a bicycle - then you have a useless term with no way to differentiate lawful riding in accordance with the vehicular rules from others types of riding, which are much more prevalent.

[Helmet Head]

Yes, you can. I drive in the door zone all the time. Nobody can tell me I'm not driving my car vehicularly.
Holy cow, Diane and I agree!


I have a confession. They moved my office so now my commute is too far. I no longer commute by bicycle. :(
That's a major bummer!

[Allister]

I realize it is confusing that we vehicular cycling advocates sometimes use the term VC to mean pure vehicular cycling, and sometimes to refer to mean VC+, if you will.

Yeah, it keeps me up at night.

Be sure to clarify for us whether any techniques you may describe in future are VC or VC+, just to avoid confusing us further.

[genec]

Heck wait until he gets to VC++

[Bekologist]

I would hesitate calling any of Helmet Heads' technique tips as a plus version of anything......more like VC -, or VC-P (for paranoid), or his techniques could simply be called FC

the Funky Chicken.

[Allister]

I would hesitate calling any of Helmet Heads' technique tips as a plus version of anything......more like VC -, or VC-P (for paranoid), or his techniques could simply be called FC

the Funky Chicken.

It's VC plus fear, ;)

[Bekologist]

FC, that's Fear based Cycling, helemt head's VC- method.

last night I pulled right as I approached an intersection and a car was overtaking! Violated destination positioning at an intersection! I let cars pass on my left at a place vehicles are authorized to make right turns! The horrors!

[rando]

I ride across the crosswalk. and on sidewalks.

[Helmet Head]

last night I pulled right as I approached an intersection and a car was overtaking! Violated destination positioning at an intersection! I let cars pass on my left at a place vehicles are authorized to make right turns! The horrors!
Very good, Bek, just as I advise (as long as you're sure the overtaking motorist is not going to right hook you). I'm glad to see you've been paying attention to what I've been writing, and learning.

[k_tech]

*hangs head* i crossed in a crosswalk instead of proceeding through the intersection with the rest of traffic to make a right turn. i was nearly hit by an oncoming car turning left who wasn't looking for anyone in the crosswalk.

[Helmet Head]

*hangs head* i crossed in a crosswalk instead of proceeding through the intersection with the rest of traffic to make a right turn. i was nearly hit by an oncoming car turning left who wasn't looking for anyone in the crosswalk.
No reason to hang your head. Head UP, boy!
You're just riding the way our bass-ackwards society expects you to ride.
Anyway, hope you've learned your lesson and will do your part to help us change society's expectations.

[Bekologist]

Very good, Bek, just as I advise (as long as you're sure the overtaking motorist is not going to right hook you). I'm glad to see you've been paying attention to what I've been writing, and learning.

:roflmao: You just like to delude yourself about being the anwser man, dontchya, helmet?

what a joke, helmie. No, I wasn't aware you had been advocating bicyclists ride in right hook positions as vehicles overtake them at intersections.

Interesting. so you've modified FC to include right hook positioning? :eek:

[noisebeam]

I have both a confession and a safety tip.

The confession is that I sometimes do pass on right where right turns from traffic to my left is possible. Of course only with high certainty that the adjacent vehicle(s) will not be turning right across my path at the moment I am crossing.

The tip is to be aware one can get right hooked even while making a right turn from bike lane to bike lane.

Evidence of the confession and the tip can be seen in this newly uploaded video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kQJyZmcBVM

I was anticipating this corner cutting possibility, which is why I hesitated and fell behind.

Al

[genec]

I was anticipating this corner cutting possibility, which is why I hesitated and fell behind.

Al

Can't tell, but can't help but wonder if the motorist even knew you were there.

[noisebeam]

Can't tell, but can't help but wonder if the motorist even knew you were there.
I didn't think then and don't think now that they had any idea I was there. Why would they?

Al

[Paul L.]

No reason to hang your head. Head UP, boy!
You're just riding the way our bass-ackwards society expects you to ride.
Anyway, hope you've learned your lesson and will do your part to help us change society's expectations.
If they expected him to ride there, why didn't they see him? :D

[Helmet Head]

If they expected him to ride there, why didn't they see him? :D
Because expecting something to be there is not the only factor that determines whether that something is noticed. In fact, something being where it is expected can contribute to that something being not noticed.

The key is often relevance. If something (or someone) is where it is expected, but irrelevant, it's likely to be not noticed.

So, to be noticed, you want to be where you are relevant, where drivers are paying most of their attention most of the time, regardless of whether that is where you're expected to be or not.

[Paul L.]

Because expecting something to be there is not the only factor that determines whether that something is noticed. In fact, something being where it is expected can contribute to that something being not noticed.

The key is often relevance. If something (or someone) is where it is expected, but irrelevant, it's likely to be not noticed.

So, to be noticed, you want to be where you are relevant, where drivers are paying most of their attention most of the time, regardless of whether that is where you're expected to be or not.

I agree with you, it just seemed kind of a paradox when I read it the way you stated it and I thought it kind of funny.

[buzzman]

Because expecting something to be there is not the only factor that determines whether that something is noticed. In fact, something being where it is expected can contribute to that something being not noticed.

The key is often relevance. If something (or someone) is where it is expected, but irrelevant, it's likely to be not noticed.

So, to be noticed, you want to be where you are relevant, where drivers are paying most of their attention most of the time, regardless of whether that is where you're expected to be or not.

This seems to me to be a weak theory since some drivers care little whether a person is on a bike in a crosswalk or a pedestrian. A bicyclist in a crosswalk riding at walking speed would be as noticeable as a pedestrian moving at the same speed. I've seen joggers almost get nailed in crosswalks more due to the rate at which they are travelling than their "relevance".

The other night on a ride home as I crossed through an intersection on the green light, taking the lane, a car wanting to take a "right turn on red" saw me coming but started to go anyway. I yelled at the driver to, "STOP" not because I couldn't have negotiated around her or even stopped but because she was so anxious to beat me through the intersection she almost took out a pedestrian in the crosswalk who had stepped off the curb to cross.

The pedestrian was where a pedestrian is expected to be- it was near Harvard Square an area filled with pedestrians, they were certainly relevant in the crosswalk, on a "walk signal" and yet the driver still did not "notice" the pedestrian. Why?- the driver was looking left to watch for on-coming traffic and being inattentive to other possibilities.

"So, to be noticed, you want to be where you are relevant, where drivers are paying most of their attention most of the time..." so I suppose pedestrians should only cross streets from left to right since drivers are putting the lion's share of their attention to their left.

[Helmet Head]

This seems to me to be a weak theory since some drivers care little whether a person is on a bike in a crosswalk or a pedestrian. A bicyclist in a crosswalk riding at walking speed would be as noticeable as a pedestrian moving at the same speed. I've seen joggers almost get nailed in crosswalks more due to the rate at which they are travelling than their "relevance".
That's different. The space that a crosswalk crosses is relevant to drivers. By the way, there is evidence that indicates that pedestrians in marked crosswalks are more likely to be hit than are peds in unmarked crosswalks, perhaps because pedestrians are less careful in marked crosswalks.


The other night on a ride home as I crossed through an intersection on the green light, taking the lane, a car wanting to take a "right turn on red" saw me coming but started to go anyway. I yelled at the driver to, "STOP" not because I couldn't have negotiated around her or even stopped but because she was so anxious to beat me through the intersection she almost took out a pedestrian in the crosswalk who had stepped off the curb to cross.

The pedestrian was where a pedestrian is expected to be- it was near Harvard Square an area filled with pedestrians, they were certainly relevant in the crosswalk, on a "walk signal" and yet the driver still did not "notice" the pedestrian. Why?- the driver was looking left to watch for on-coming traffic and being inattentive to other possibilities.

Indeed being relevant and where you're expected to be does not guarantee you will be noticed. No one, certainly not me, has argued otherwise. It's about probabilities.


"So, to be noticed, you want to be where you are relevant, where drivers are paying most of their attention most of the time..." so I suppose pedestrians should only cross streets from left to right since drivers are putting the lion's share of their attention to their left.
Don't be silly.

[LittleBigMan]

I confess I used to spend more time on Bikeforums than I did on my bike.

[Bekologist]

.... spouting off that tired A&S 'relevancy' fallacy once again.....jeesh.


Sometimes I ride further left than practicable.

[buzzman]

we just got two big snow storms dumped on us in a row.

I confess I drove in today! Got stuck in a snow bank in my car. Took 1/2 an hour to dig it out.

I also confess that the other day after the first 10" of snow I was riding and taking the lane and when a car got right on my butt I pulled off into the slushy side of the road and let them go by(!) even though I had the full right to the lane! :eek: It must have been my childish, cyclist-inferiority syndrome getting the better of me that I wasn't man enough of a cyclist to hold my place in the lane through the ice, potholes, snow banks and slush with a car 1 1/2' behind me at 18 mph. I don't think I held him up for more than 5 seconds before I bailed.

I'm such a wuss!:(

[genec]

I confess, I did a 16 mile ride on a bike path, and I had no helmet on. Part of the path lies on sidewalks in a local beach park. I did not ride in a vehicular manner, but chose to ride in a childish manner... at times reaching the blistering speed of 17MPH on the path. It was great. I didn't have to dodge a single car.