VC Confessional

Helmet Head

I did too yesterday, many times. So what? One of the things that they don't teach you on the internet discussion groups where you like to spend all your time, Bekologist, is that the 6-foot or whatever the number is that HH and them all spout, minimum clearance, is not sacrosanct. Rather, one may be a considerable chunk of the way inside that zone and make up for the difference by using a mirror to always know how many additional feet are available to one's left for the emergency swerve that might become necessary at any moment.
Tom, no one, certainly not me, spouts anything about any particular minimum distance being sacrosanct.

And as far as Beck's confession goes, I've long stated that when faster same direction traffic is present, staying to the right of them is often the most appropriate thing to do, even when approaching and crossing an intersection, assuming there is space to do it safely and reasonably. The faster same-direction traffic actually serves as interference against potential left and right crosses (which is why I think it's important to move left as soon as the last motorist passes and there is a gap long enough for cross traffic to try to move across your path). However, you have to maintain rearward situational awareness, and this is where a mirror is very helpful, to make sure you're not leaving yourself vulnerable to a right hook from someone in that traffic passing suddenly turning right.

Of course, you can also get away with it dozens if not hundreds of times without paying attention to that, just like you can probably get away with riding dozens if not hundreds of times in door zones without get whacked. It's a numbers games, after all.

Beck's relatively frequent close calls and crashes attests to that.

invisiblehand

^^^
:eek:

You have been around too long to be surprised anymore ... ;)

Allister

...always know how many additional feet are available to one's left for the emergency swerve that might become necessary at any moment.

Do you mean a swerve into traffic? What a goose.

Brian Ratliff

Tom, no one, certainly not me, spouts anything about any particular minimum distance being sacrosanct.

I seem to recall some sort of matra involving five feet that you used to "spout". Is it sacrosanct? Well, you chastised many a person on this forum for spending any time inside five feet - that sounds sacrosanct to me.

Don't bother to tell me to come up with your exact words. Apparently "search" is out of order and is only searching through threads in the past week or so. But I'll bet that other's can recall your saying this as well.

derath

Do you mean a swerve into traffic? What a goose.

What an idiot.

Where did he say he swerved into traffic? By keeping a level of situational awareness he knows when it is safe to swerve left if needed (specifically when there wouldn't be traffic there). This is smart.

I do the same thing, whether on a bike or in a car. It has gotten me out of plenty of close calls over the years.

-D

Bekologist

The faster same-direction traffic actually serves as interference against potential left and right crosses.....

:eek:

reaaallllly? you are truly sophmoric, helemt head. do you even ride a bike?

more VC confessions ....last night, I rode on the sidewalk the wrong way down a one way street the wrong way to shave a mile off my commute.

noisebeam

Every day I ride from the side door of my garage, across my dirt patch also known as a lawn, over the sidewalk and make a left turn into the roadway without signaling nor looking over my shoulder.

Al

Roody

:eek:

reaaallllly? you are truly sophmoric, helemt head. do you even ride a bike?

more VC confessions ....last night, I rode on the sidewalk the wrong way down a one way street the wrong way to shave a mile off my commute.

Funny, Robert Hurst is one writer who articulated the concept of using other traffic as a shield. He said something to the effect of beware of the gap. If there's a gap in same-direction car traffic, other drivers to your left will use the opportunity to enter your lane, So be aware of that!

I thought this was smart when Hurst wrote it, and it's smart when HH writes it too. Your responses to HH are so knee-jerk that if he said it's daytime, you'd put your blinkies on.

invisiblehand

....last night, I rode on the sidewalk the wrong way down a one way street the wrong way to shave a mile off my commute.

A mile ... really?

Well, I would probably do the same.

Now that I think about it more, I would do the same for a considerably shorter distance under certain conditions.

derath

Funny, Robert Hurst is one writer who articulated the concept of using other traffic as a shield. He said something to the effect of beware of the gap. If there's a gap in same-direction car traffic, other drivers to your left will use the opportunity to enter your lane, So be aware of that!

I thought this was smart when Hurst wrote it, and it's smart when HH writes it too. Your responses to HH are so knee-jerk that if he said it's daytime, you'd put your blinkies on.

+1

Bekologist

I DO recommend daytime visible blinkies, boys.

however, faster same direction traffic is never a defense against 'right hooks', roody. the left cross, yes. right hook by the driver to your left? hardly.

TheWheelman

however, faster same direction traffic is never a defense against 'right hooks',

Watch that slander; the term used was "right cross". And many of us have indeed had faster same-direction traffic protect us from right crosses. The more you talk, the narrower we learn that your experience is, Bekologist.

derath

Watch that slander; the term used was "right cross". And many of us have indeed had faster same-direction traffic protect us from right crosses. The more you talk, the narrower we learn that your experience is, Bekologist.

No it is more we learn how adept Bek is at the subtle word change, soundbite, misdirection, catch phrase, and other techniques usually reserved for our politicians.

Notice how well he pulls a re-direct above with the blinkie statement. Of course he ignores the actual point of the statement, but the re-direct is brilliant!

HH says day. Bek says it must be night.

Bek, dude. I have said it before. You should be in politics.

-D

Allister

What an idiot.

Where did he say he swerved into traffic? By keeping a level of situational awareness he knows when it is safe to swerve left if needed (specifically when there wouldn't be traffic there). This is smart.

I do the same thing, whether on a bike or in a car. It has gotten me out of plenty of close calls over the years.

-D

Why would you ride in the door zone if there's no cars passing?

Allister

Bek, dude. I have said it before. You should be in politics.

I'd vote for him.

derath

Why would you ride in the door zone if there's no cars passing?

Allister, you have already shown your inability to read. No need to keep embarrassing yourself.

Oh, and there aren't any door zones where I ride.

Thanks for trying though.

-D

Allister

Allister, you have already shown your inability to read. No need to keep embarrassing yourself.

Aren't you just a sensitive little fellow. :lol:

Oh, and there aren't any door zones where I ride.

Thanks for trying though.

-D

I think you need a recap. (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=5742584&postcount=5)

derath

Aren't you just a sensitive little fellow. :lol:

Not really.

I think you need a recap. (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=5742584&postcount=5)

Again not really.

You didn't reply to Wheelman about riding in a door zone. You replied to me. I never said anything about riding in a door zone.

You replied to wheelman about swerving into traffic. He didn't say anything about swerving into traffic.

I know some people can have these issues. If you think you need assistance maybe something like this might help. Hopefully it is available in the geat down under.

http://www.smartkidssoftware.com/ndlec129.jpg

Helmet Head

I seem to recall some sort of matra involving five feet that you used to "spout". Is it sacrosanct? Well, you chastised many a person on this forum for spending any time inside five feet - that sounds sacrosanct to me.

Don't bother to tell me to come up with your exact words. Apparently "search" is out of order and is only searching through threads in the past week or so. But I'll bet that other's can recall your saying this as well.
Sorry! Somehow I managed to totally misunderstand what that comment was about. Looking back, I don't see how I did that - I missed the context that was stated quite clearly: door zones.

So Tom and I do disagree on this point. I'm not sure I would call the five feet that I use and advocate to be "sacrosanct", but I disagree with what he says about using a mirror to know when it's safe to go into the door zone, especially if that's being done to facilitate passing, which means you're doing it while there is overtaking traffic. If a door does suddenly swing open, you'll swerve or might be pushed into the path of that traffic.

If there is no overtaking traffic, what would be the reason to ride in the door zone?

Ah, well maybe if all that traffic is stopped riding in the door zone to pass them on the right, assuming passing on the left is not an option for some reason, might be a reasonably safe risk. But I don't think that's what Tom is talking about.

LittleBigMan

I rode on an adjacent sidepath when I didn't have to so I could avoid a traffic light.

On the same trip, I left the adjacent sidepath onto the road so I could avoid the path/road crosswalk intersection.

I also left the road onto the sidewalk to allow some cars to pass me.

TheWheelman

I'd vote for him.

That's right; _don't_ use your probably-daily-in-your-country experiences of having faster same-direction traffic protecting you from right crosses, to correct your buddy Bekologist's confessed ignorance of the existence of phenomenon of having faster same-direction traffic protect one from right crosses. _Keep_ BF polarized by, rather, simply saying that you'll vote for him. Thank you for making my decision easy to keep on saying that I'll vote for John Forester.

TheWheelman

I rode on an adjacent sidepath when I didn't have to so I could avoid a traffic light.

Real cyclists don't run _or_ circumvent red lights.

Helmet Head

Real cyclists don't run _or_ circumvent red lights.
Comments like this really make you look silly, Tom.

Given a T intersection where you're riding across the top of the "T" from right to left (westbound assuming north is up) with a traffic signal and a parallel sidepath that could be used to circumvent that traffic light without crossing any other intersections, it's perfectly reasonable for a "real" bicyclist to use the side path to avoid stopping at a red light at that intersection, assuming there is no particular reason to not use that side path (i.e., it has good sight lines, good surface, it's clear of other users, etc.).

As long as you merge and yield properly as you leave and re-enter the road, there is nothing non-vehicular about it - you're just legally temporarily switching to pedestrian rules for a short stretch. Even Forester admits doing this from time to time in his book.

The VC principle is a general principle; it is not meant to be absolutely true in every instance. Sometimes, once in a while, usually for a short distance, cyclists fare quite well acting like pedestrians.

TheWheelman

So Tom and I do disagree on this point. I'm not sure I would call the five feet that I use and advocate to be "sacrosanct", but I disagree with what he says about using a mirror to know when it's safe to go into the door zone, especially if that's being done to facilitate passing, which means you're doing it while there is overtaking traffic. If a door does suddenly swing open, you'll swerve or might be pushed into the path of that traffic.

Facilitating passing (on as wide of a range of street types as can be done without sacrificing one's own safety or efficiency) is indeed the whole idea. I suspect (although I've never gotten a ruler out and measured) that it takes more like 6 feet than 5 to be completely out of the door zone in all cases (and I was only vaguely recalling 6 feet as being the figure that generally gets bandied about on Chainguard/BTI). However, I find 4 or 5 feet to be not too bad as long as I'm using my mirror to always know how much clearance the overtaking traffic is giving me. The rare swerve that an opening car door might impel me to make is a small one - namely only from 4 or 5 feet, to six feet or whatever, strictly at a time when I happen to already know that there's still a sufficient space cushion between the 6-foot longitude and the right edge of the overtaking traffic. When there isn't, I probably noticed it a while back and am in the center of the lane before I begin to pass the parked car.

If there is no overtaking traffic, what would be the reason to ride in the door zone?

Just finished accommodating overtaking traffic seconds ago, want to move to the left _more_ than the 1.5 feet that I already know is safe to swerve left into, but haven't moved left even that 1.5 feet yet because I need my full attention to the front until I finish passing the car door, after which I'll turn my head in preparation for moving the _more_ than 1.5 feet to the left.

Helmet Head

Facilitating passing (on as wide of a range of street types as can be done without sacrificing one's own safety or efficiency) is indeed the whole idea. I suspect (although I've never gotten a ruler out and measured) that it takes more like 6 feet than 5 to be completely out of the door zone in all cases (and I was only vaguely recalling 6 feet as being the figure that generally gets bandied about on Chainguard/BTI). However, I find 4 or 5 feet to be not too bad as long as I'm using my mirror to always know how much clearance the overtaking traffic is giving me. The rare swerve that an opening car door might impel me to make is a small one - namely only from 4 or 5 feet, to six feet or whatever, strictly at a time when I happen to already know that there's still a sufficient space cushion between the 6-foot longitude and the right edge of the overtaking traffic. When there isn't, I probably noticed it a while back and am in the center of the lane before I begin to pass the parked car.
My recollection is that the largest door swings out to about 4.5' from the edge of the vehicle. Adding a 6" buffer for error is how I come up with 5' (from the cyclist's right side), which, by the way, can be stated as 6' in terms of where a typical 2' wide (elbow to elbow) cyclist would track his wheels.

Just finished accommodating overtaking traffic seconds ago, want to move to the left _more_ than the 1.5 feet that I already know is safe to swerve left into, but haven't moved left even that 1.5 feet yet because I need my full attention to the front until I finish passing the car door, after which I'll turn my head in preparation for moving the _more_ than 1.5 feet to the left.
Well, if you think 1.5' is enough for when a door suddenly opens while you're on the outside edge of the door zone, assuming you even have time to react, you're more optimistic than I. Peter F. says I'm fearful. I say I'm appropriately cautious.

I normally move left as soon as the last motorist in an overtaking platoon passes me, by planning ahead precisely for this (thank you, mirror). I look back while the last car is still passing me and start moving left before the rear bumper has cleared my front wheel, assuming the speed differentials are high enough to warrant this. I can look back even if I'm passing parked cars because, unlike you, I am fully outside of the door zone: a suddenly opening door is not a potential hazard that I need to look for.

derath

TheWheelman

Comments like this really make you look silly, Tom.

Given a T intersection where you're riding across the top of the "T" from right to left (westbound assuming north is up) with a traffic signal and a parallel sidepath that could be used to circumvent that traffic light without crossing any other intersections, it's perfectly reasonable for a "real" bicyclist to use the side path to avoid stopping at a red light at that intersection, assuming there is no particular reason to not use that side path (i.e., it has good sight lines, good surface, it's clear of other users, etc.).

As long as you merge and yield properly as you leave and re-enter the road, there is nothing non-vehicular about it -

I agree. Let's just say that being as image-concious-of-cyclists as I am, I'm glad that there's no such "T" with a sidepath paralleling the top of it anywhere near me. It's bad enough that I've lately been doing more and more left-side-of-the-road operation on my (motorized so far, but I'm working on figuring out how to do parts of it by bike) Sunday morning paper route to make it go faster. So far, I've rationalized each small expansion of my left-side-of-the-road driving by remembering John Forester's line about how such things are fine for short-distance maneuvering.

The problem is, where does one draw the line between what constitutes short-distance maneuvering as opposed to bonafide improper operation? For example, not all traffic-signal circumvention is done on bikeways. The closest-to-me example of the "T" that you describe has not a segregated sidepath, but rather a wide ordinary shoulder, alongside the roadway that constitutes the top of the "T". I assume that you would agree with me that I'm not being excessively goodie-two-shoes when I always stop, when the light for me is red, on that shoulder when I'm crossing the top of the "T", even though going right through that particular red light as long as I'm on the shoulder, would produce not an iota of conflict regardless of the amount of traffic? Or to go one more notch: How about when the proposed traffic-signal circumvention doesn't require the presence of any such "T" because it consists of trespassing through a gas station?

Of course VCs fairly well know the differences. But cyclist-inferiority cyclists, and wrong-side-of-the-road motorists who take _their_ borderline activity a notch further by shouting at me like I'm nuts for swerving my bike to avoid a head-on with them as they enter my half of the road to check their mailbox, don't.

you're just legally temporarily switching to pedestrian rules for a short stretch. Even Forester admits doing this from time to time in his book.

The VC principle is a general principle; it is not meant to be absolutely true in every instance. Sometimes, once in a while, usually for a short distance, cyclists fare quite well acting like pedestrians.

I use slightly different semantics here than you and Forester. There are no exceptions to the vehicular cycling principle. This is very important, because when you open the barn door by calling one thing an exception, the cyclist-inferiority advocates will let tens of thousands more in, every time. There's no such thing as a mounted bike not being a vehicle. (A dismounted bike is a disassembled vehicle part.) "Following pedestrian rules" while astride a bike is really just following a subclass of vehicular rules.

Helmet Head

I agree. Let's just say that being as image-concious-of-cyclists as I am, I'm glad that there's no such "T" with a sidepath paralleling the top of it anywhere near me. It's bad enough that I've lately been doing more and more left-side-of-the-road operation on my (motorized so far, but I'm working on figuring out how to do parts of it by bike) Sunday morning paper route to make it go faster. So far, I've rationalized each small expansion of my left-side-of-the-road driving by remembering John Forester's line about how such things are fine for short-distance maneuvering.

The problem is, where does one draw the line between what constitutes short-distance maneuvering as opposed to bonafide improper operation? For example, not all traffic-signal circumvention is done on bikeways. The closest-to-me example of the "T" that you describe has not a segregated sidepath, but rather a wide ordinary shoulder, alongside the roadway that constitutes the top of the "T". I assume that you would agree with me that I'm not being excessively goodie-two-shoes when I always stop, when the light for me is red, on that shoulder when I'm crossing the top of the "T", even though going right through that particular red light as long as I'm on the shoulder, would produce not an iota of conflict regardless of the amount of traffic? Or to go one more notch: How about when the proposed traffic-signal circumvention doesn't require the presence of any such "T" because it consists of trespassing through a gas station?

Of course VCs fairly well know the differences. But cyclist-inferiority cyclists, and wrong-side-of-the-road motorists who take _their_ borderline activity a notch further by shouting at me like I'm nuts for swerving my bike to avoid a head-on with them as they enter my half of the road to check their mailbox, don't.
Okay, well that's a lot more reasonable.

I use slightly different semantics here than you and Forester. There are no exceptions to the vehicular cycling principle. This is very important, because when you open the barn door by calling one thing an exception, the cyclist-inferiority advocates will let tens of thousands more in, every time. There's no such thing as a mounted bike not being a vehicle. (A dismounted bike is a disassembled vehicle part.) "Following pedestrian rules" while astride a bike is really just following a subclass of vehicular rules.
I know and understand your semantics and don't care for them because I think it makes "vehicular" in the context of "vehicular cycling" meaningless. That is, according to your definition, even riding on the wrong side of the street at night with no lights through red lights is "vehicular cycling" because it involves being mounted on a bike.

I think vehicular cycling has to mean "riding on roads in accordance with the principles and rules of the road for drivers of vehicles" for it to be meaningful and useful.

TheWheelman

I know and understand your semantics and don't care for them because I think it makes "vehicular" in the context of "vehicular cycling" meaningless.

The ultimate success for VC advocacy would be for the term "VC" to become meaningless; that's part of the reason I promote the semantics that I do.

That is, according to your definition, even riding on the wrong side of the street at night with no lights through red lights is "vehicular cycling" because it involves being mounted on a bike.

That's technically correct. However, that small disadvantage, which will only be noticed in sophistry anyhow, is a small price to pay for accommodating (without calling anything an "exception") the types of situations that we just discussed a handful of examples of that exist along the vast continuum between, at one extreme, riding on the wrong side of a street at night with no lights through red lights, and at the other extreme, riding _with_ a headlight in the center of the lane in the same-direction half of the Pennsylvania Turnpike's Lehigh Tunnel.

I think vehicular cycling has to mean "riding on roads in accordance with the principles and rules of the road for drivers of vehicles" for it to be meaningful and useful.

There's nothing wrong with using that definition too. Or, "Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles." I use them too; whatever works for the particular audience. But in case anybody ever really puts me on the spot "_be_ _consistent_", I'll always be ready with, "A bicycle is a vehicle, a bicyclist has the same rights and duties as any other vehicle operator, and there are no exceptions", thank you.

noisebeam

...even though going right through that particular red light as long as I'm on the shoulder, would produce not an iota of conflict regardless of the amount of traffic?

It could very well produce conflict with pedestrian traffic.

From a safety perspective, drivers making left turns from the stem of the T often turn wide and encroach into the shoulder, sometimes by a wide margin.

Al

Allister

You didn't reply to Wheelman about riding in a door zone. You replied to me. I never said anything about riding in a door zone.

You replied to wheelman about swerving into traffic. He didn't say anything about swerving into traffic.

I know some people can have these issues. If you think you need assistance maybe something like this might help. Hopefully it is available in the geat down under.

http://www.smartkidssoftware.com/ndlec129.jpg

Well done, champ. I bet you're feeling really pleased with yourself right about now.

Let's see if you can follow along: (I thought merely posting the link would be enough, but clearly I overestimated you)

Bek says he rode in the door zone.

Junior says 'me too' but notes "how many additional feet are available to one's left for the emergency swerve", which would suggest a swerve into traffic, hence my question.

At which point you interjected with some prattle about making sure you only swerve when there's no traffic, so I asked why anyone (ok I used 'you', but it was the general rather than the specific 'you') would ride in the door zone if there was no traffic passing.

Junior has since explained the situation more clearly after Serge (of all people) asked exactly the same question. I probably wouldn't describe such a move as an 'emergency swerve', but that's no matter.

So far your contribution has added nothing of value, but feel free to continue making a fool of yourself.

Allister

That's right; _don't_ use your probably-daily-in-your-country experiences of having faster same-direction traffic protecting you from right crosses, to correct your buddy Bekologist's confessed ignorance of the existence of phenomenon of having faster same-direction traffic protect one from right crosses. _Keep_ BF polarized by, rather, simply saying that you'll vote for him. Thank you for making my decision easy to keep on saying that I'll vote for John Forester.

Fight your own fights, Junior. Or get derath to help. He seems quite keen.

TheWheelman

My recollection is that the largest door swings out to about 4.5' from the edge of the vehicle. Adding a 6" buffer for error is how I come up with 5' (from the cyclist's right side), which, by the way, can be stated as 6' in terms of where a typical 2' wide (elbow to elbow) cyclist would track his wheels.

Well, if you think 1.5' is enough for when a door suddenly opens while you're on the outside edge of the door zone, assuming you even have time to react, you're more optimistic than I. Peter F. says I'm fearful. I say I'm appropriately cautious.

Time to react (i.e. to move that additional 1.5' required for being completely out of the door zone), would be a problem at some speeds, but not at what my speeds are at the times when I ride this little iota inside the door zone. Like I.L.T.B., I ride what a certain faction of BTI has called "plumbing pipe junk". The moderate cycling speeds associated therewith, at least on the uphills - coupled with my not being inclined to rely on your 6" "buffer for error" always sufficing for accommodating errors in your 24" estimate of the width of a cyclist unless perhaps the cyclist is standing at attention - facilitate a different kind of "buffer" and definition of "outside edge", than yours.

Allister

The ultimate success for VC advocacy would be for the term "VC" to become meaningless; that's part of the reason I promote the semantics that I do.

That would be awesome, but as long as the VC cult keeps using it as a means of putting down those cyclists they consider unworthy, it'll never happen.

There's nothing wrong with using that definition too. Or, "Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles." I use them too; whatever works for the particular audience. But in case anybody ever really puts me on the spot "_be_ _consistent_", I'll always be ready with, "A bicycle is a vehicle, a bicyclist has the same rights and duties as any other vehicle operator, and there are no exceptions", thank you.

Very much agree. If a bicycle is a vehicle, it's logically impossible to not ride it vehicularly. Whether one rides legally, safely and predictably is another matter entirely. The bickering over the VC/'childish' cycling is all nothing but bluster and does nothing to help anyone improve their traffic cycling skills

TheWheelman

Fight your own fights, Junior.

Cyclists can indeed fight their own fights, with real bullets, such as Effective Cycling. That is why they don't need any cap-gun smoke - such as tax-and-spend, get-bikes-off-the-road facilities - from Johnny-come-lately advocates such as yourself.

LittleBigMan

Real cyclists don't run _or_ circumvent red lights.
It's not circumventing a red light when a path is not controlled by one.

Neither is it illegal to enter/exit a path from the road.

Your definition of "Real Cyclist" is undoubtedly in the dictionary, next to your own picture.

:roflmao:

(Glad you brought up running red lights, since I never mentioned it, nor do I practice it. A little dishonest injection to an honest conversation? ;) )

TheWheelman

That would be awesome, but as long as the VC cult keeps using it as a means of putting down those cyclists they consider unworthy, it'll never happen.

Very much agree. If a bicycle is a vehicle, it's logically impossible to not ride it vehicularly. Whether one rides legally, safely and predictably is another matter entirely. The bickering over the VC/'childish' cycling is all nothing but bluster and does nothing to help anyone improve their traffic cycling skills

Some cyclists _are_ unworthy and _need_ to be put down, such as yourself when you're conducting most of your spewings other than this particular one which the Tom Frost Institute of Non-Partisan Cycling Politics has deemed to be worthy of an "A-".

Helmet Head

The ultimate success for VC advocacy would be for the term "VC" to become meaningless; that's part of the reason I promote the semantics that I do.
Perhaps, but let's not render the word meaningless while we still need it to differentiate that which we advocate from that which is widely practiced.

That's technically correct. However, that small disadvantage, which will only be noticed in sophistry anyhow, is a small price to pay for accommodating (without calling anything an "exception") the types of situations that we just discussed a handful of examples of that exist along the vast continuum between, at one extreme, riding on the wrong side of a street at night with no lights through red lights, and at the other extreme, riding _with_ a headlight in the center of the lane in the same-direction half of the Pennsylvania Turnpike's Lehigh Tunnel.
Of course I used an extreme example to illustrate the point, but countless examples on that vast continuum definitely involve bicycle mounting but not bicycling on roadways in accordance with the rules of the road. Not having language to make the distinction makes it practically impossible to advocate one over the other.

There's nothing wrong with using that definition too. Or, "Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles." I use them too; whatever works for the particular audience. But in case anybody ever really puts me on the spot "_be_ _consistent_", I'll always be ready with, "A bicycle is a vehicle, a bicyclist has the same rights and duties as any other vehicle operator, and there are no exceptions", thank you.
Using multiple definitions for the same term is confusing, especially if it's a relatively new term for most people. At least the advocates of the practice for which the term is used should agree on what it means.

Let's start by not confusing the definition of vehicular cycling with the vehicular cycling principle. "Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles" is not the meaning of "vehicular cycling" - it is the principle of vehicular cycling advocacy.

That is, vehicular cycling is cycling on roadways in accordance with the rules of the roads for drivers whether acting in accordance with those practices happens to fare best for cyclists, or not. The VC principle, or what VC proponents claim is true about VC, is that "cyclists fare best when they practice VC and are treated accordingly", or, in other words, "Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles".

Let's get our terminology straight, okay?

Allister

Some cyclists _are_ unworthy and _need_ to be put down, such as yourself when you're conducting most of your spewings other than this particular one which the Tom Frost Institute of Non-Partisan Cycling Politics has deemed to be worthy of an "A-".

You're welcome.

It was a refreshing change to see you speaking some sense for a change, short-lived as it was.

Allister

Cyclists can indeed fight their own fights, with real bullets, such as Effective Cycling. That is why they don't need any cap-gun smoke - such as tax-and-spend, get-bikes-off-the-road facilities - from Johnny-come-lately advocates such as yourself.

You've still got me confused with someone else there, Junior.

Helmet Head

Very much agree. If a bicycle is a vehicle, it's logically impossible to not ride it vehicularly. Whether one rides legally, safely and predictably is another matter entirely.
If the usage of vehicular in this context is to have any utility, then whether one operates in accordance with the vehicular rules of the road must be what determines whether the operating is vehicular or not.

Note that this usage applies exactly the same to driving cars. Of course cars are vehicles, but that doesn't mean it's logically impossible to drive it not vehicularly. If you run a red light while driving a car, for example, you're not driving vehicularly because you're violating the vehicular rules of the road.

Again, you can define "vehicular" in this context to simply mean "operating a vehicle" (in which case it does become logically impossible to operate a vehicle in a manner that is not vehicular), but that makes the word redundant and useless, so why do that? It makes no sense.

Whether you agree that vehicular operation of bicyclists on roadways is best, or whether some other type of operation is preferred, is an entirely separate matter. But we have to agree that vehicular means "operating on roadways in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles", or I have no idea what this subforum is about.

TheWheelman

It's not circumventing a red light when a path is not controlled by one.

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.

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.
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.

TheWheelman

Perhaps, but let's not render the word meaningless while we still need it to differentiate that which we advocate from that which is widely practiced.

Of course I used an extreme example to illustrate the point, but countless examples on that vast continuum definitely involve bicycle mounting but not bicycling on roadways in accordance with the rules of the road. Not having language to make the distinction makes it practically impossible to advocate one over the other.

Using multiple definitions for the same term is confusing, especially if it's a relatively new term for most people. At least the advocates of the practice for which the term is used should agree on what it means.

Let's start by not confusing the definition of vehicular cycling with the vehicular cycling principle. "Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles" is not the meaning of "vehicular cycling" - it is the principle of vehicular cycling advocacy.

That is, vehicular cycling is cycling on roadways in accordance with the rules of the roads for drivers whether acting in accordance with those practices happens to fare best for cyclists, or not. The VC principle, or what VC proponents claim is true about VC, is that "cyclists fare best when they practice VC and are treated accordingly", or, in other words, "Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles".

Let's get our terminology straight, okay?

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.