Vehicular Cycling (VC) - What 'Exactly" is VC?

So maybe I just arrived from another planet. I sure would appreciate some help understanding just what 'VC" is. My previous experience relates it to a very unpopular military conflict. Thanks!

Coming from another planet seems to be a prerequisite for VC cultism. You'll fit in nicely.

In all honesty it seems the simplest way to put it. Guidelines for a safer ride (http://bike-journeys.blogspot.com), to better able be seen as a vehicle not just a pedestrian on wheels. Vehicular Cycling, is one persons viewpoint on the best strategies for a safe ride. Otherwise it is just what you make of it. I use some of the techniques in my rides but not all.

So maybe I just arrived from another planet. I sure would appreciate some help understanding just what 'VC" is. My previous experience relates it to a very unpopular military conflict. Thanks!
Vehicular cycling is riding a bicycle on roadways in accordance with the vehicular rules of the road (as opposed to in accordance with the pedestrian rules of the road, or not in accordance to any rules).

It means thinking like an equal driver (of an unequal vehicle) in traffic, and riding accordingly, as opposed to thinking like someone who doesn't belong on the road (except out of the way), and trying to stay out of the way of those who do belong (motorists). This doesn't preclude moving out of the way to allow faster traffic to pass when it is safe and reasonable to do so, but that's normal vehicular behavior for any driver of any relatively slow moving vehicle, so it's still acting like an equal driver (of an unequal vehicle) in traffic.

Beyond that, there are many different practices, styles and techniques that fall within the umbrella concept of "vehicular cycling". But as long as the behavior is consistent with the rules of the road that drivers of vehicles follow, then it is vehicular cycling.

One of the questions that sometimes arises here is how strictly the rules of the road have to be followed for it to be vehicular cycling. I think the best answer to that is that in order to practice vehicular cycling you don't have to follow the vehicular rules of the road any more strictly than does a typical motorist. Just as when you're driving, the important thing is to know the rules, and why they exist, so you understand when it's okay to bend them a little (like rolling a stop when there is no other traffic around, but certainly not when others are present who got there first).

it SHOULD be a method of riding, nothing more, but in bike forums and in the real world some confuse it with a politicism on public right of way design, despite said 'vc' being best suited to handle any and all road designs and striping patterns..

the social designs of the vcists are particularily unpalatable and the desires of the vcist have partly encouraged the pathetic modal share for bicyclists in the USA and Great Britain.

Vehicular cycling is riding a bicycle on roadways in accordance with the vehicular rules of the road (as opposed to in accordance with the pedestrian rules of the road, or not in accordance to any rules).

It means thinking like an equal driver (of an unequal vehicle) in traffic, and riding accordingly, as opposed to thinking like someone who doesn't belong on the road (except out of the way), and trying to stay out of the way of those who do belong (motorists). This doesn't preclude moving out of the way to allow faster traffic to pass when it is safe and reasonable to do so, but that's normal vehicular behavior for any driver of any relatively slow moving vehicle, so it's still acting like an equal driver (of an unequal vehicle) in traffic.

Beyond that, there are many different practices, styles and techniques that fall within the umbrella concept of "vehicular cycling". But as long as the behavior is consistent with the rules of the road that drivers of vehicles follow, then it is vehicular cycling.

One of the questions that sometimes arises here is how strictly the rules of the road have to be followed for it to be vehicular cycling. I think the best answer to that is that in order to practice vehicular cycling you don't have to follow the vehicular rules of the road any more strictly than does a typical motorist. Just as when you're driving, the important thing is to know the rules, and why they exist, so you understand when it's okay to bend them a little (like rolling a stop when there is no other traffic around, but certainly not when others are present who got there first).
Short version: "VC" means riding around in the middle of the road and blocking traffic. For all the fancytalk, that really is what it boils down to. The part about ignoring traffic laws if you feel like it is just icing on the cake.

Short version: "VC" means riding around in the middle of the road and blocking traffic. For all the fancytalk, that really is what it boils down to. The part about ignoring traffic laws if you feel like it is just icing on the cake.

I rode "VC" on the way home from work today in the snow. I rode in the middle of the lane (left tire track actually) and would have made it home about 15 minutes earlier if it weren't for all those darned motorists going so slow and blocking traffic. *******s wouldn't even pull into the right lane to let me pass on the left even when I flashed my lights and screamed at them (just kidding) :)

Six Jours, since you often make this same comment, for those of us in the forum who care (at least me), please define "blocking traffic."

Sorry mate, I've had too much experience with you lot to get sucked into the semantics game again. Before long someone is arguing that holding a motorist up for seven seconds is unacceptable, but six seconds is just fine. Then somebody else will demand to know the definition of "seconds".

We all know what "blocking traffic" means.

I wonder, though: when motorists are going slower than the cyclist is traveling, do "VCers" sit in line? Or do they illegally lane-split, in another instance of ignoring laws when they feel like it?

I wonder, though: when motorists are going slower than the cyclist is traveling, do "VCers" sit in line? Or do they illegally lane-split, in another instance of ignoring laws when they feel like it?

When traffic is moving <5mph, and looks like it will continue to do so for a long time, I have no problems creating an extra line of traffic when the roadway is wide enough to permit it. When traffic is rolling along, I'll generally sit in line and relax. Today was an interesting situation where I could have done much more lane splitting than I did but there was so much snow piled up in between the lanes on one road that it would have made for tricky riding. I wouldn't want to slip and accidentally put a handle bar into somebody's door. As far as I know, I am not breaking any laws in PA or DE by lane splitting.

Sorry mate, I've had too much experience with you lot to get sucked into the semantics game again. Before long someone is arguing that holding a motorist up for seven seconds is unacceptable, but six seconds is just fine. Then somebody else will demand to know the definition of "seconds".

We all know what "blocking traffic" means.

When a new report says that an accident is "blocking" a lane, I can understand what they mean by blocking. When you speak about a slow moving vehicle occupying a lane, you lose me. By the way, the different between 7 seconds and 6 seconds is a 1 second delay. Almost any trip that you take using any vehicle will at some point cause someone else a delay. Unless you illegally stop in the middle of the roadway with the intent to block (there's the word again) traffic, there's nothing illegal about it.

Think about making a left onto a heavily trafficked mulitlane arterial at a traffic light. Are you causing a delay or blocking traffic? No matter how fast you drive, you are still bringing 4+ lanes to standstill just so that you can make your turn a little more safely. When enough people use that arterial and enough people make that same turn, you can contribute to quite a large delay. I still wouldn't accuse you of blocking traffic though.

When traffic is moving <5mph, and looks like it will continue to do so for a long time, I have no problems creating an extra line of traffic when the roadway is wide enough to permit it. When traffic is rolling along, I'll generally sit in line and relax. Today was an interesting situation where I could have done much more lane splitting than I did but there was so much snow piled up in between the lanes on one road that it would have made for tricky riding. I wouldn't want to slip and accidentally put a handle bar into somebody's door. As far as I know, I am not breaking any laws in PA or DE by lane splitting.
Motorized two-wheelers are not allowed to lane-split in PA according to PA Vehicle Code section III, subchapter B, 3523(c).

Again, it seems an awful lot like "VCers" want the priviledges of operating a motor vehicle without the burden of restrictions on same. "I'm just like a car!!!" right up to the point that you want to start running red lights or passing on the shoulder.

I wonder why people in SMART cars and little Opels dont have
to schedule an appointment with their therapist when a Porsche
passes them on the Autobahn in the outside lane ?

Think about making a left onto a heavily trafficked mulitlane arterial at a traffic light. Are you causing a delay or blocking traffic? No matter how fast you drive, you are still bringing 4+ lanes to standstill just so that you can make your turn a little more safely. When enough people use that arterial and enough people make that same turn, you can contribute to quite a large delay. I still wouldn't accuse you of blocking traffic though.
Think about driving your car on the same road at 15 MPH, just cruising down the lane. You might not call it "blocking traffic", but traffic would have a different opinion.

Script, it comes down to this, "VC" is no more than acting like you are driving a vehicle... and acting in a manner that is consistent with driving a vehicle and expecting the same treatment.

The semantics that you will run into here will drive you nuts... as will the politics associated with vehicular cycling. In fact, some of us have taken to using the lower case "vc" to imply straight vehicular cycling, and any of the mechanics associated with it, and use "VC" or "EC" to relate to the politics (as it relates to the book Effective Cycling and the author John Forester and the political aspects of the strict adherents of VC). Now, by even mentioning the politics... I have stepped into the potential sh!tstorm of those politics.

But let's move beyond that, and just examine the reality of "what is vc?"

It really is simple; it is riding a bike in the manner of a driver of a vehicle... which means taking your place on the road where it best suits you for reasons of safety, and efficiency. This means you are destination positioned... aligned toward where you intend to go... just like the other vehicles on the road. If you want to go straight, you are in a position to go straight, if you wish to go left, you are in a left lane and positioned to go left, and if right... then, over to the right and and in the same place any other vehicle would be.

A vehicular rider will obey the markings, lights and signs that any other vehicle driver would obey; a vehicular rider would be predictable in their movement... it should be obvious to any other vehicle driver what you intend to do... so if you intend to change lateral positions on the road, such as to change lanes... you might indicate so... in a manner that is understood by others.

Perhaps the easiest way to think of it is to imagine yourself on some other narrow vehicle, such as a motorcycle... and how might you act while on such a vehicle. Now seeing as you are from another planet, it might be best to observe for a bit. :D

But really, the goal is to act just like any other driver might and to expect other drivers to treat you in a proper manner accordingly.

Now this also means that in the case where the road is narrow... you may have to take the full lane, with respect to the traffic that may build up behind you due to your generally slower speed. On the other hand, if the road is wide, with due respect to other users of the road, and still mindful of your own safety, a position toward the right side is more suitable, but in a manner that you are still visible to cross traffic, and not in such a way as to be misconstrued to be turning right.

Regarding speed... if you are moving at the speed of other traffic, there is no reason why you should not be in the same place on the road as other traffic, but just as any other slow vehicle may move toward the right side (or what we sometimes refer to as the "slow lane") you are expected to move to the right side. (but be mindful of that destination positioning)


That really is it... anything else are nuances of vehicular cycling and workarounds for when the vc method doesn't quite work... usually as a result of your speed or the traffic density.

What "exactly" is VC?

http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s176/kencheeseman/canofworms.jpg


And you just opened it! ;)

Motorized two-wheelers are not allowed to lane-split in PA according to PA Vehicle Code section III, subchapter B, 3523(c).

Again, it seems an awful lot like "VCers" want the priviledges of operating a motor vehicle without the burden of restrictions on same. "I'm just like a car!!!" right up to the point that you want to start running red lights or passing on the shoulder.

I don't think I'd like riding much if I was always in traffic jams. In fact, it would be much more irritating on a bike, since you're exposed to weather.

I know I'm a chicken, but I stay as far away from a car as I can. I hate it when I have to take the lane. I view cars the same as I view horses... they're really nice as long as I can keep my feet from being squished, and I'd be nervous running with the herd.

Nothing against you guys that are fearless, but I will never get there. It took a whole season to stop clenching my bars after getting hit by a car.

Script, it comes down to this, "VC" is no more than acting like you are driving a vehicle... and acting in a manner that is consistent with driving a vehicle and expecting the same treatment.
So far so good, though I think it's important to note that "expecting the same treatment" does not mean that having an exception now and then (i.e., you don't get the same treatment) is not expected. Of course it is, but you can expect to be mistreated now and then no matter what you're driving.



The semantics that you will run into here will drive you nuts... as will the politics associated with vehicular cycling.

Speak for yourself, Gene.



In fact, some of us have taken to using the lower case "vc" to imply straight vehicular cycling, and any of the mechanics associated with it, and use "VC" or "EC" to relate to the politics (as it relates to the book Effective Cycling and the author John Forester and the political aspects of the strict adherents of VC). Now, by even mentioning the politics... I have stepped into the potential sh!tstorm of those politics.
Indeed, there is X, and there is advocacy for X.
There is cycling, and there is cycling advocacy.
There is the great outdoors, and there is advocacy for protecting the great outdoors (Sierra Club).
Likewise, there is vehicular cycling, and there is vehicular cycling advocacy.

Nothing wrong or confusing with that, is there?



But let's move beyond that, and just examine the reality of "what is vc?"

It really is simple; it is riding a bike in the manner of a driver of a vehicle... which means taking your place on the road where it best suits you for reasons of safety, and efficiency. This means you are destination positioned... aligned toward where you intend to go... just like the other vehicles on the road. If you want to go straight, you are in a position to go straight, if you wish to go left, you are in a left lane and positioned to go left, and if right... then, over to the right and and in the same place any other vehicle would be.
Well, destination positioning is part of it, just as it's part of driving any vehicle in traffic. This paragraph makes it seems like that's all there is to it.



A vehicular rider will obey the markings, lights and signs that any other vehicle driver would obey; a vehicular rider would be predictable in their movement... it should be obvious to any other vehicle driver what you intend to do... so if you intend to change lateral positions on the road, such as to change lanes... you might indicate so... in a manner that is understood by others.

Yes, this is part of it too.



Perhaps the easiest way to think of it is to imagine yourself on some other narrow vehicle, such as a motorcycle... and how might you act while on such a vehicle. Now seeing as you are from another planet, it might be best to observe for a bit. :D

Yes, the driving a motorcycle analogy is better than the driving a car analogy. Driving a low-power motorcycle is even better.



But really, the goal is to act just like any other driver might and to expect other drivers to treat you in a proper manner accordingly.

Right, but you're just repeating the point of your first paragraph again.



Now this also means that in the case where the road is narrow... you may have to take the full lane, with respect to the traffic that may build up behind you due to your generally slower speed. On the other hand, if the road is wide, with due respect to other users of the road, and still mindful of your own safety, a position toward the right side is more suitable, but in a manner that you are still visible to cross traffic, and not in such a way as to be misconstrued to be turning right.

Regarding speed... if you are moving at the speed of other traffic, there is no reason why you should not be in the same place on the road as other traffic, but just as any other slow vehicle may move toward the right side (or what we sometimes refer to as the "slow lane") you are expected to move to the right side. (but be mindful of that destination positioning)

Actually, all this lane positioning stuff is not necessarily part of vehicular cycling, since vehicular cycling does not dictate any particular lateral position, so long as it's consistent with the rules of the road. The rules of the road do not dictate that a cyclist must ride near the center of a narrow lane, or in any other part of it. This is an error I used to make too, and is still reflected on the Wikipedia page, which needs to be corrected. That's not to say that I'm not a proponent of using a lane-controlling position in a narrow lane - of course I am. I'm just saying that this is not necessarily dictated by vehicular cycling.



That really is it... anything else are nuances of vehicular cycling and workarounds for when the vc method doesn't quite work... usually as a result of your speed or the traffic density.
There is no such thing as "the vc method" (since vc is not a method), so the assertion "when the vc method doesn't quite work" is meaningless. Perhaps you're saying there are places and conditions where riding in accordance with the vehicular rules of the road "doesn't work". Pray tell, where would that be?

I don't think I'd like riding much if I was always in traffic jams. In fact, it would be much more irritating on a bike, since you're exposed to weather.

I know I'm a chicken, but I stay as far away from a car as I can. I hate it when I have to take the lane. I view cars the same as I view horses... they're really nice as long as I can keep my feet from being squished, and I'd be nervous running with the herd.

Nothing against you guys that are fearless, but I will never get there. It took a whole season to stop clenching my bars after getting hit by a car.
I can imagine it is difficult to rebuild confidence once you're hit by a car, but I know cyclists who have done it. I think the key is understanding the causes of crashes, and being confident in your ability to avoid those causes. And that's a big part of vehicular cycling. The tragic irony is that trying to "stay as far away from a car as I can" is often such a cause in and of itself.

In fact, cyclists who focus on trying to "stay as far away from a car as I can" are probably much more likely to get hit by a car than are vehicular cyclists, who focus on riding in a manner that avoids crash causes. This is because trying to stay as far away as possible from cars that you are aware of (primarily same-direction traffic behind and beside you), often makes you more vulnerable to cars you are not yet aware of (primarily cross-traffic ahead of you), and it's the cross-traffic up ahead that is the much bigger threat to your safety, not to mention that moving too far right ("as far away from a car as I can") often invites same-direction traffic to try and squeeze into the lane beside you, thus keeping them much closer to you than they would be if you clearly and obviously controlled the lane, and forced them to change lanes to pass.

Think about driving your car on the same road at 15 MPH, just cruising down the lane. You might not call it "blocking traffic", but traffic would have a different opinion.
And that's exactly what drivers of certain types of construction equipment do when they need to drive on the road. So what?

Get over it. When there is no safe and reasonable alternative (the lane is too narrow to be safely shared), there is nothing wrong with "blocking traffic" (given your broad definition of "blocking traffic").

In fact, cyclists who try to do that are probably much more likely to get hit by a car than are vehicular cyclists.

I agree with you. My indecision and squirrelly-ness has cause caused problems while riding. I wouldn't want to be a car behind me as I pass over an interstate or ride by a shopping district. I try, but I just chicken out. I'll sometimes give up and walk the bike a couple blocks if it's during rush hour and noone will let me in.

There is no such thing as "the vc method" (since vc is not a method), so the assertion "when the vc method doesn't quite work" is meaningless. Perhaps you're saying there are places and conditions where riding in accordance with the vehicular rules of the road "doesn't work". Pray tell, where would that be?

Ah yes, the semantics and nuance...

While the "rules of the road**" do indeed work everywhere, actually riding a bike in a vehicular manner tends to fall apart as the speed of traffic becomes vastly greater than that which a cyclist can maintain... in which case the cyclist appears more and more like a rolling pedestrian; to such an extent that there are even non-vehicular workarounds to such things as left turns.

The vehicular cyclist also needs co-operation from other users of the road, as does any other vehicle driver... this is part of the basic mantra of vehicular cycling... where cyclists are to "act and are treated as drivers of a vehicle...; " if that latter part, "being treated as a driver of a vehicle" is not present, and thus the co-operation of other users of the road is not given, then vehicular cycling fails.




** a loosely defined definition of generally accepted practices that tends to form the basis for the western worlds' driving practices.

Right, but you're just repeating the point of your first paragraph again.




Sidenote here. Ever taken any classes in instruction?

Ever heard of the method of: "Tell 'em what you're going to tell them; Tell them; Tell them what you told them?"

It is a common method of instruction. You probably should have learned it in your LCI training. I learned it in the military, and later in college, and also a SCUBA instructor.

Repetition is also a cornerstone of any education method. There are different methods of teaching, but for short sessions, this works well... the Socratic method is a bit time consuming for something like a quick bike course or even SCUBA instruction.

I agree with you. My indecision and squirrelly-ness has cause caused problems while riding. I wouldn't want to be a car behind me as I pass over an interstate or ride by a shopping district. I try, but I just chicken out. I'll sometimes give up and walk the bike a couple blocks if it's during rush hour and noone will let me in.
Ah, well, if you go so far as to resort to being a pedestrian, you are probably quite reasonably safe doing that, assuming a level of vigilance appropriate to traveling as a pedestrian.

Sidenote here. Ever taken any classes in instruction?

Ever heard of the method of: "Tell 'em what you're going to tell them; Tell them; Tell them what you told them?"

It is a common method of instruction. You probably should have learned it in your LCI training. I learned it in the military, and later in college, and also a SCUBA instructor.

Repetition is also a cornerstone of any education method. There are different methods of teaching, but for short sessions, this works well... the Socratic method is a bit time consuming for something like a quick bike course or even SCUBA instruction.
I just pointed out that that didn't say anything new. I did not mean to imply it should not have been there.

Ah yes, the semantics and nuance...

While the "rules of the road**" do indeed work everywhere, actually riding a bike in a vehicular manner tends to fall apart as the speed of traffic becomes vastly greater than that which a cyclist can maintain... in which case the cyclist appears more and more like a rolling pedestrian; to such an extent that there are even non-vehicular workarounds to such things as left turns.
The two-step pedestrian-left turn is used only because the cyclist prefers to take that non-vehicular shortcut to the normal vehicular workaround used by drivers of other slow moving vehicles who choose to avoid merging left in fast/dense traffic: three vehicular right turns to go around the block, and then go straight across to continue along the desired route.

My point is that when a driver of a slow moving vehicle (whether he is a cyclist or not) chooses to not deal with what he chooses to perceive as the hassle of negotiating a left merge through fast/busy traffic, this is not a failing of the vehicular rules of the road.



The vehicular cyclist also needs co-operation from other users of the road, as does any other vehicle driver... this is part of the basic mantra of vehicular cycling... where cyclists are to "act and are treated as drivers of a vehicle...; " if that latter part, "being treated as a driver of a vehicle" is not present, and thus the co-operation of other users of the road is not given, then vehicular cycling fails.

No, vehicular cycling does not fail simply because cooperation is not obtained from all others. You are confusing the principle of vehicular cycling advocacy (though it is as known as "the vehicular cycling principle") with a principle of the practice of vehicular cycling. The principles of the actual practice of vehicular cycling have to do with destination and speed positioning, driving on the right side of the road, first come first served, etc. This:

"Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles." - John Forester
with the "fare best" wording, is clearly a promotional statement. Further, it is not only advocating the practice of vehicular cycling (cyclists acting like drivers of vehicles), but also the practice of others treating cyclists as drivers of vehicles. It is not defining vehicular cycling; it is not even a defining principle of vehicular cycling.

If you're acting like a vehicle driver when riding a bike in traffic, then you are successfully practicing vehicular cycling, regardless of whether you are treated as a driver or a rolling pedestrian. What matters is your behavior, not theirs. Whether or not a given cyclist is engaged in vehicular cycling depends entirely on his behavior, and not on the behavior of anyone else.



** a loosely defined definition of generally accepted practices that tends to form the basis for the western worlds' driving practices.
Fair enough.

The two-step pedestrian-left turn is used only because the cyclist prefers to take that non-vehicular shortcut to the normal vehicular workaround used by drivers of other slow moving vehicles who choose to avoid merging left in fast/dense traffic: three vehicular right turns to go around the block, and then go straight across to continue along the desired route.

My point is that when a driver of a slow moving vehicle (whether he is a cyclist or not) chooses to not deal with what he chooses to perceive as the hassle of negotiating a left merge through fast/busy traffic, this is not a failing of the vehicular rules of the road.



I agree that this is not a failing of "the vehicular rules of the road" and I never said that... I said it is a failing of vehicular cycling. Much like that gentleman in the British Roads movie that just wanted to cross the street but could not. The system failed.





No, vehicular cycling does not fail simply because cooperation is not obtained from all others. You are confusing the principle of vehicular cycling advocacy (though it is as known as "the vehicular cycling principle") with a principle of the practice of vehicular cycling. The principles of the actual practice of vehicular cycling have to do with destination and speed positioning, driving on the right side of the road, first come first served, etc. This:

"Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles." - John Forester
with the "fare best" wording, is clearly a promotional statement. Further, it is not only advocating the practice of vehicular cycling (cyclists acting like drivers of vehicles), but also the practice of others treating cyclists as drivers of vehicles. It is not defining vehicular cycling; it is not even a defining principle of vehicular cycling.

If you're acting like a vehicle driver when riding a bike in traffic, then you are successfully practicing vehicular cycling, regardless of whether you are treated as a driver or a rolling pedestrian. What matters is your behavior, not theirs. Whether or not a given cyclist is engaged in vehicular cycling depends entirely on his behavior, and not on the behavior of anyone else.


Fair enough.

"Not fair enough..." here you are playing with semantics... as I knew you would. A "promotional statement indeed."

I agree that this is not a failing of "the vehicular rules of the road" and I never said that... I said it is a failing of vehicular cycling. Much like that gentleman in the British Roads movie that just wanted to cross the street but could not. The system failed.
When a cyclist chooses to not look back, signal, and negotiate for ROW to merge left in accordance with the vehicular rules of the road, this is not a failure in vehicular cycling. It's a choice the cyclist is making to do a 2-step left turn instead in accordance with the pedestrian rules of the road instead.



"Not fair enough..." here you are playing with semantics... as I knew you would. A "promotional statement indeed."
By saying your footnote is a reasonable statement ("fair enough"), I'm playing with semantics? Huh?

Are you agreeing or disagreeing with me with respect to my contention that the VCP is a promotional statement of vehicular cycling, rather than an operating principle of vehicular cycling itself? Do you think asking this question "playing with semantics"?

When a cyclist chooses to not look back, signal, and negotiate for ROW to merge left in accordance with the vehicular rules of the road, this is not a failure in vehicular cycling. It's a choice the cyclist is making to do a 2-step left turn instead in accordance with the pedestrian rules of the road instead.


By saying your footnote is a reasonable statement ("fair enough"), I'm playing with semantics? Huh?

Opps, my bad. No my reference is to what you are saying below... in which case you are implying that Forester's statements are not to be taken at face value, and in fact that some or all of it is for promotion... which somewhat negates the basis of vehicular cycling. At what point is it "live" and at what point just salesmanship???



Are you agreeing or disagreeing with me with respect to my contention that the VCP is a promotional statement of vehicular cycling, rather than an operating principle of vehicular cycling itself? Do you think asking this question "playing with semantics"?

No my reference is to what you are saying below... in which case you are implying that Forester's statements are not to be taken at face value, and in fact that some or all of it is for promotion... which somewhat negates the basis of vehicular cycling. At what point is it "live" and at what point just salesmanship???
I don't understand why agreeing with anything I wrote would lead to "Forester's statements are not to be taken at face value".

Of course he promotes vehicular cycling, that's what he's all about.

Not sure what you see as the difference between "live" and "just salesmanship". What, if anything, do you think is "just salesmanship"?

Like all vehicular cycling advocates, Forester talks about vehicular cycling, and what it is, and he also promotes vehicular cycling, and explains why. It's pretty easy, at least for me, to discern when he is doing which, whether it's in his book or in a post on this forum.

It's like discerning when John Muir is writing about how to live in and enjoy the great outdoors, and when he is writing about promoting doing so. Of course there is overlap, but it's not a problem, is it?

Motorized two-wheelers are not allowed to lane-split in PA according to PA Vehicle Code section III, subchapter B, 3523(c).

Ah, but I'm not motorized.


Again, it seems an awful lot like "VCers" want the priviledges of operating a motor vehicle without the burden of restrictions on same. "I'm just like a car!!!" right up to the point that you want to start running red lights or passing on the shoulder.

What "VC contrarians" like yourself seem to think is that cyclists do not have the rights to act according to the laws for drivers of vehicles, which includes using a full lane whenever the driver feels it is necessary (and in the case of a slow moving vehicle, pulling over when appropriate to let backed up traffic pass that cannot pass while you are using the full lane).

Read the following law from PA (paying attention to the bolded section):

Vehicle proceeding at less than normal speed.--Upon all roadways any vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic, or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into an alley, private road or driveway. This subsection does not apply to a driver who must necessarily drive in a lane other than the right-hand lane to continue on his intended route.

This section applies to cyclists. Now, please tell me how you can assert so confidently that cyclists (or any other slow moving vehicles) do not have the right to use a full lane on a multilane arterial regardless of speed.

I don't understand why agreeing with anything I wrote would lead to "Forester's statements are not to be taken at face value".

Of course he promotes vehicular cycling, that's what he's all about.

Not sure what you see as the difference between "live" and "just salesmanship". What, if anything, do you think is "just salesmanship"?

Like all vehicular cycling advocates, Forester talks about vehicular cycling, and what it is, and he also promotes vehicular cycling, and explains why. It's pretty easy, at least for me, to discern when he is doing which, whether it's in his book or in a post on this forum.

It's like discerning when John Muir is writing about how to live in and enjoy the great outdoors, and when he is writing about promoting doing so. Of course there is overlap, but it's not a problem, is it?


This is the vehicular-cycling principle: "Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles." This quote is directly from John Foresters web page.

So now you are telling me that well the "fare best" part is "just for promotion," as is the part about being "treated as drivers of vehicles."

Your words:
with the "fare best" wording, is clearly a promotional statement. Further, it is not only advocating the practice of vehicular cycling (cyclists acting like drivers of vehicles), but also the practice of others treating cyclists as drivers of vehicles. It is not defining vehicular cycling; it is not even a defining principle of vehicular cycling.

So removing those "promotional statements," yeilds: Cyclists may/should/might want to act like drivers of vehicles. Okay... So... for what reason, for what benefit? Is it because they "fare best..." well that was just promotional... has nothing to do with the actual message, apparently.

How about "cyclists fare best when they are treated like drivers of vehicles..." well, that makes sense, but according to you... that is just promotional, and has nothing to to with what cyclists should actually expect from motorists.

So essentially "act like a driver of a vehicle" and what, good luck, thanks for buying all the books... so long...

Thats what you are touting? Oh yeah, that makes sense.

NOT.

The conditional statement "cyclists fare best" is followed by a cause and effect situation... act like a driver of a vehicle and thus be treated like a driver of a vehicle. It's a two way street out there... for your proper action as a cyclist, you should expect to be treated in this proper manner. Period.

In it's whole, it makes sense, and according to Forester, it is the "vehicular cycling principal."

Break it up any other way and it is nonsense, and leads to silly semantical arguments, just like this.

This quote is directly from John Foresters web page.

So now you are telling me that well the "fare best" part is "just for promotion," as is the part about being "treated as drivers of vehicles."

Your words:

So removing those "promotional statements," yeilds: Cyclists may/should/might want to act like drivers of vehicles. Okay... So... for what reason, for what benefit? Is it because they "fare best..." well that was just promotional... has nothing to do with the actual message, apparently.

How about "cyclists fare best when they are treated like drivers of vehicles..." well, that makes sense, but according to you... that is just promotional, and has nothing to to with what cyclists should actually expect from motorists.

So essentially "act like a driver of a vehicle" and what, good luck, thanks for buying all the books... so long...

Thats what you are touting? Oh yeah, that makes sense.

NOT.

The conditional statement "cyclists fare best" is followed by a cause and effect situation... act like a driver of a vehicle and thus be treated like a driver of a vehicle. It's a two way street out there... for your proper action as a cyclist, you should expect to be treated in this proper manner. Period.

In it's whole, it makes sense, and according to Forester, it is the "vehicular cycling principal."

Break it up any other way and it is nonsense, and leads to silly semantical arguments, just like this.

I do not understand how you, genec, manage to get so confused about words. "Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles" is the vehicular cycling principle. It says nothing about how to do it. Furthermore, it does not say that acting like a driver ensures that you are treated as a driver. That often happens with individual drivers, so frequently that the vehicular cyclist can rely upon it until the rare instance when it becomes obvious that a particular driver is not treating the cyclist as a driver. However, that clause also refers, and indeed I intended it to so refer, with greater strength to the way that society and government treat cyclists. In a state with mandatory bikeways, government never treats cyclists as drivers of vehicles. In states with optional bike lanes, the cyclist cannot count on being treated as the driver of a vehicle, because the bike-lane system itself is designed according to childish cycling instead of vehicular cycling.

There's nothing difficult in these concepts. Stop creating difficulties out of nothing to suit your own emotions. Think accurately instead.

This quote is directly from John Foresters web page.

So now you are telling me that well the "fare best" part is "just for promotion," as is the part about being "treated as drivers of vehicles."
First, I meant nothing disparaging about those words being promotional. Not sure why you're taking it that way.



Your words:

So removing those "promotional statements," yeilds:

If you remove those words, the statement becomes meaningless nonsense. Why would you do that? I'm totally lost.



Cyclists may/should/might want to act like drivers of vehicles. Okay... So... for what reason, for what benefit? Is it because they "fare best..." well that was just promotional... has nothing to do with the actual message, apparently.

There's that "just promotional" thing again? Why "just"? He's advocating vehicular cycling with this statement. He's contending that cyclists who practice vehicular cycling, and are treated like drivers, "fare best". That's the point of the statement. That is the principle. If you start removing parts... I just don't understand what your point is.



How about "cyclists fare best when they are treated like drivers of vehicles..." well, that makes sense, but according to you... that is just promotional, and has nothing to to with what cyclists should actually expect from motorists.
There's "just promotional" again, Gene. That's really bizarre. Anyway, there are many reasons for why cyclists "fare best" when they act like vehicle drivers, and one of the reasons is that they are treated like drivers. You certainly won't be treated like a driver if you don't act line one. So Forester worded it the way he did. It's very clear. But it's not about the practice of vehicular cycling per se. It's a statement that asserts the reason cyclists should follow the practice (hence it's promoting the practice): in order to "fare best".



So essentially "act like a driver of a vehicle" and what, good luck, thanks for buying all the books... so long...

Thats what you are touting? Oh yeah, that makes sense.

NOT.

Gene, you've really lost me this time. Totally and completely. You're off on your wildest tangent ever.



The conditional statement "cyclists fare best" is followed by a cause and effect situation... act like a driver of a vehicle and thus be treated like a driver of a vehicle. It's a two way street out there... for your proper action as a cyclist, you should expect to be treated in this proper manner. Period.

Yes, you can expect most drivers, but not all, to treat you in this proper manner. But, the key point of the VCP is that you can expect many more of the drivers to treat you like a driver if you act like a driver. That's how you fare best (that is, better than all the alternative that involve not acting like a driver, and, thus, not being treated like one).



In it's whole, it makes sense, and according to Forester, it is the "vehicular cycling principal."

Yes, it's the vehicular cycling principle - it states the reason cyclists should practice and advocate vehicular cycling. Hence, it promotes vehicular cycling - the VCP is a promotional statement. Duh.



Break it up any other way and it is nonsense, and leads to silly semantical arguments, just like this.
Why would you break it up at all? That's where you lost me.

http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/1618/1349cap002dv4.jpg
That's Vehicular Charlie. We're gonna take this road cuz Charlie don't ride!!!!

I do not understand how you, genec, manage to get so confused about words. "Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles" is the vehicular cycling principle. It says nothing about how to do it. Furthermore, it does not say that acting like a driver ensures that you are treated as a driver. That often happens with individual drivers, so frequently that the vehicular cyclist can rely upon it until the rare instance when it becomes obvious that a particular driver is not treating the cyclist as a driver. However, that clause also refers, and indeed I intended it to so refer, with greater strength to the way that society and government treat cyclists. In a state with mandatory bikeways, government never treats cyclists as drivers of vehicles. In states with optional bike lanes, the cyclist cannot count on being treated as the driver of a vehicle, because the bike-lane system itself is designed according to childish cycling instead of vehicular cycling.

There's nothing difficult in these concepts. Stop creating difficulties out of nothing to suit your own emotions. Think accurately instead.
LOL. Just saw this after my last post. Not sure what he's so confused about.

Earlier, I was differentiating the VCP, which I'm sure you'll agree is the principle of vehicular cycling advocacy, from the "the basic traffic principles" like destination and speed positioning, which form the framework of vehicular cycling (or, in your words, address "how to do it"). That is, there is the question of what is vehicular cycling, and there is the question of whether cyclists who practice vc "fare best", or whether there are things they can do other than vc to fare better. The VCP address this latter question.

I pointed out that the "fare best" words in the VCP cause it to be a "promotional statement" - because, well, it promotes vehicular cycling as being that which cyclists must do in order to "fare best". Somehow this caused Gene to think that made the "fare best" part meaningless or unnecessary or something. And off we went. What a rat hole. But all too typical for this forum.

And that's exactly what drivers of certain types of construction equipment do when they need to drive on the road. So what?

Get over it. When there is no safe and reasonable alternative (the lane is too narrow to be safely shared), there is nothing wrong with "blocking traffic" (given your broad definition of "blocking traffic").
Construction equipment operators rarely have the option of pulling to the right so that motorists can pass. Cyclists do.

And as usual, it comes back to "the lane is too narrow to be safely shared", which sounds perfectly reasonable until you notice that the VCers have expanded the definition of "too narrow" as up to 22 feet wide. It'd be funny if you guys weren't trying to be serious. Actually, it's funny partly because you guys are so serious.

Ah, but I'm not motorized.
So which is it? Do you want to be treated like the operator of a motor vehicle, or don't you?


What "VC contrarians" like yourself seem to think is that cyclists do not have the rights to act according to the laws for drivers of vehicles, which includes using a full lane whenever the driver feels it is necessary (and in the case of a slow moving vehicle, pulling over when appropriate to let backed up traffic pass that cannot pass while you are using the full lane).
Firstly, it's not about "rights", it's about reality. Even ignoring the fact that police and judges don't seem to find any "right" for bicyclists to taking over lanes, there is zero factual evidence that taking the lane makes the cyclist any safer at all, but plenty of anecdotal evidence suggesting that it angers fellow road users.



Read the following law from PA (paying attention to the bolded section):

Vehicle proceeding at less than normal speed.--Upon all roadways any vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic, or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into an alley, private road or driveway. This subsection does not apply to a driver who must necessarily drive in a lane other than the right-hand lane to continue on his intended route.

This section applies to cyclists. Now, please tell me how you can assert so confidently that cyclists (or any other slow moving vehicles) do not have the right to use a full lane on a multilane arterial regardless of speed.
I notice you bolded the "right-hand lane" bit, apparently hoping I'd miss the "as close as practicable to the right hand curb" part. Hmm...

But as I noted, the "you assert that cyclists do not have the right to use a full lane" is the sort of strawman typical of your arguments on the subject. I've never argued that you don't have the "right" to make a fool of yourself on the public roadways. I merely argue that it's foolish.

Even driving a car I pull over if I'm holding someone back... why is this any different?

Even driving a car I pull over if I'm holding someone back... why is this any different?
Because you don't normally drive your car at 15 mph, I'm assuming.

As far as I can tell, the typical VCer on this site feels that shoulders are rarely safe enough for cyclists. I have not found this to be true, although I have not ridden my bike in every possible scenario. I only know that in 25 years of riding in more than a dozen states and several foreign countries, I have rarely felt the need to impede traffic and have never seen a fellow cyclist who did. This makes me skeptical, at the least, if this suddenly discovered "need" to ride around in front of traffic.

Vehicular Cycling certainly has many variables. I will admit the fact that it can be difficult but the best solution is to start ... and then keep it up. Particularly in rush hour, when I rode today I was cruising along with traffic in the "bike" lane there are parts of that route, that is just not consistent and as you progress you find you need to move out of the turning lane that often a cyclist ends up in by following "bike" lanes. When I look back at it, as a slow moving motorcycle (thanks for that) though there is only one lane in one direction in another lane going the other direction it would of been easier to stay in the actual "car" lane. Vehicular Cycling in this circumstance would of served me well enough. Particularly as I progress to a left turn over about three other lanes in order to head towards my home. Today I made the mistake of not exerting myself as a "slow moving motorcycle" so instead of moving smoothly with traffic and moving over to the turning lane I ended up on the crosswalk off the sidewalk to go across traffic. I guess sometimes it is difficult to use "vc" because of the fact I don't really want to deal with traffic, though if I had instead implemented "vc" from the start of the route to the end it would of made it alot easier to get where I needed to go quickly just as a car would do instead of taking detours. Certainly it can be difficult and almost scary when you first start but it makes sense to be diligent in the effort and make it a habit. So my 2.5 cents on the subject.

First, I meant nothing disparaging about those words being promotional. Not sure why you're taking it that way.

If you remove those words, the statement becomes meaningless nonsense. Why would you do that? I'm totally lost.

There's "just promotional" again, Gene. That's really bizarre. Anyway, there are many reasons for why cyclists "fare best" when they act like vehicle drivers, and one of the reasons is that they are treated like drivers. You certainly won't be treated like a driver if you don't act line one. So Forester worded it the way he did. It's very clear. But it's not about the practice of vehicular cycling per se. It's a statement that asserts the reason cyclists should follow the practice (hence it's promoting the practice): in order to "fare best".

Gene, you've really lost me this time. Totally and completely. You're off on your wildest tangent ever.

Yes, it's the vehicular cycling principle - it states the reason cyclists should practice and advocate vehicular cycling. Hence, it promotes vehicular cycling - the VCP is a promotional statement. Duh.

Why would you break it up at all? That's where you lost me.


No, you lost me when you stated that it is "promotional."

Go back and follow this whole thread... start where I attempt to explain vehicular cycling to Script... and use the words: ""VC" is no more than acting like you are driving a vehicle... and acting in a manner that is consistent with driving a vehicle and expecting the same treatment.

What do you find wrong with those words? Do they not explain the "vehicular cycling principle?" (and what is with this "principle" stuff? )

If you're acting like a vehicle driver when riding a bike in traffic, then you are successfully practicing vehicular cycling, regardless of whether you are treated as a driver or a rolling pedestrian. What matters is your behavior, not theirs. Whether or not a given cyclist is engaged in vehicular cycling depends entirely on his behavior, and not on the behavior of anyone else.


If you are not being treated like a driver of a vehicle, then what is the point of acting like one?

If you are not being treated like a driver of a vehicle, then what is the point of acting like one?

Have you ever gone on a bike ride where less than 90% of drivers treated you like a driver? I don't think I've taken a ride and had less than 99% of drivers treat me like a driver, unless it was a very short ride and I got really unlucky (I can't recall this ever happening but it may have). Anyway, I hope the point of acting like a vehicle driver is clear given the results it produces. Your question is meaningless as no one experiences that sort of reaction.

So which is it? Do you want to be treated like the operator of a motor vehicle, or don't you?

Of I course don't want to be treated like the operator of a motor vehicle. I never said I did either. I do want (and have) the right to use a full lane when I need to but that has nothing to do with wanting to be treated like a motor vehicle operator.


Firstly, it's not about "rights", it's about reality. Even ignoring the fact that police and judges don't seem to find any "right" for bicyclists to taking over lanes, there is zero factual evidence that taking the lane makes the cyclist any safer at all, but plenty of anecdotal evidence suggesting that it angers fellow road users.

You really have your mind made up about this subject. Did you ever read my story about the police officer in PA who pulled over a truck that was honking at me for using a full lane? No? Well it happened, and I've talked to another who's said that he's done the same thing. HH has his own story about a cop pulling a guy over for honking at him, and a story about using a middle lane on a 3 lane arterial to stay out of a right turn only lane leading to an expressway where a cop followed behind him for a decent distance. Apparently, one cherry-picked story is enough to shape your opinion of the entire country though.

But back to your post, ignoring facts, I have heard far, far, more anecdotal evidence that motorists pass cyclists with greater clearance and at more reasonable times (not with oncoming traffic or around blind turns) when the cyclist rides in a lane controlling position. I have also heard of plenty anecdotal evidence that motorists are happier when a cyclist controls the full lane as they know well in advance that they need to change lanes and can plan ahead.

There's also plenty of anecdotal evidence that exisiting on the same planet as others pisses some people off. That's far from a persuasive argument to get me to off myself though.


I notice you bolded the "right-hand lane" bit, apparently hoping I'd miss the "as close as practicable to the right hand curb" part. Hmm...

I hope you realize that I give you far more credit than to expect you to miss an obvious statement in a law simply because I did not bold it. It's nice to see that you did read that PA allows cyclists to use the right hand lane (and not share it) regardless of width when a left lane exists.


But as I noted, the "you assert that cyclists do not have the right to use a full lane" is the sort of strawman typical of your arguments on the subject. I've never argued that you don't have the "right" to make a fool of yourself on the public roadways. I merely argue that it's foolish.

You've stated that by me wanting to use a full lane, that I want to be treated like a motor vehicle which I am not. Reread the first line of your post or this previously posted statement:


Again, it seems an awful lot like "VCers" want the priviledges of operating a motor vehicle without the burden of restrictions on same.

In the context of this discussion, "the priviledges of operating a motor vehicle" according to you was the right to use a full lane, correct? If so, by stating that this priviledge is something I "want" you clearly seem to implying that it's something I do not have already, right? Or did I miss something? Or are you just confused about what you are arguing about?

Have you ever gone on a bike ride where less than 90% of drivers treated you like a driver? I don't think I've taken a ride and had less than 99% of drivers treat me like a driver, unless it was a very short ride and I got really unlucky (I can't recall this ever happening but it may have). Anyway, I hope the point of acting like a vehicle driver is clear given the results it produces. Your question is meaningless as no one experiences that sort of reaction.

Yeah, all the time.

Maybe 10% of the drivers just act plain dumb... they drive right up behind me and slow way down, get right on my tail and wait for me to "do something." Often this is with the left lane open too. It's down right strange. Then there are the rude one or two that have to offer suggestions... if you know what I mean. They don't happen every ride though either.

Often I get treated like an unwanted obstruction, like a dog in the road. Not like a driver of a vehicle.

Happens all the time; generally when I take the lane near my house on the main road running east and west and lined with parked cars. I can guarantee rude behavior, and I ride very vehicularly. So don't give me this speech about drivers treating you well because you act in a proper manner... it works sometimes and in some places... but some places motorists just find cyclists a PITA and they express it in action and sound. BTW, for the record, there is not a bike lane anywhere on that road. But there is a sidewalk... and most other bicycle riders use the sidewalk. I don't, and there are a few rare others that also ride in a vehicular manner.

No, you lost me when you stated that it is "promotional."

Go back and follow this whole thread... start where I attempt to explain vehicular cycling to Script... and use the words: ""VC" is no more than acting like you are driving a vehicle... and acting in a manner that is consistent with driving a vehicle and expecting the same treatment.

What do you find wrong with those words? Do they not explain the "vehicular cycling principle?" (and what is with this "principle" stuff? )
Go back to my post #26, Gene, at the top of this page, which is the first post in which I used "promotional" (which is where you say you got lost) in reference to the VCP, and which is I don't know how many posts going back and forth between you and me, long after your "attempt to explain vehicular cycling to Script". There you will find what I find wrong with your words, in particular this part:



if that latter part, "being treated as a driver of a vehicle" is not present, and thus the co-operation of other users of the road is not given, then vehicular cycling fails.

Vehicular cycling does not fail if the co-operation of other users of the road is not given. As Forester himself just said, that "latter part" has more to do with "the way that society and government treat cyclists", than with how well other users of the road co-operate with bicyclists. The rare instance of a motorist failing to co-operate is not a failure in vehicular cycling; no more than the rare instance of a motorist failing to co-operate with a defensive driver is a failure in defensive driving.

And yes, I've reviewed the thread. Have you? I still don't understand why you got lost with my use of the world "promotional" with respect to a statement that clearly is about promoting vehicular cycling. Regardless, do you get it now?

Yeah, all the time.

Maybe 10% of the drivers just act plain dumb... they drive right up behind me and slow way down, get right on my tail and wait for me to "do something." Often this is with the left lane open too. It's down right strange. Then there are the rude one or two that have to offer suggestions... if you know what I mean. They don't happen every ride though either.

Often I get treated like an unwanted obstruction, like a dog in the road. Not like a driver of a vehicle.

Happens all the time; generally when I take the lane near my house on the main road running east and west and lined with parked cars. I can guarantee rude behavior, and I ride very vehicularly. So don't give me this speech about drivers treating you well because you act in a proper manner... it works sometimes and in some places... but some places motorists just find cyclists a PITA and they express it in action and sound. BTW, for the record, there is not a bike lane anywhere on that road. But there is a sidewalk... and most other bicycle riders use the sidewalk. I don't, and there are a few rare others that also ride in a vehicular manner.
Do me a favor, Gene. Ride your bike on some route and keep track of how fast you ride. After you get home, get in your car, and retrace the route, at the same speed. Now compare how you are treated while operating a motor vehicle vs. how you are treated riding a bike, holding the speed factor constant. I would expect that you would find you're treated significantly worse going that speed in a car.

I suspect you are treating normal treatment of a slow driver as "not being treated like a driver". I can conceive of no other explanation for how you could actually come to the conclusion that 1 out of 10 drivers mistreats you. And even then, that's a 100 instances of mistreatment out of every 1,000 drivers who pass you - pardon me for being highly skeptical of this, considering I live less than 10 miles from you and I can count on my two hands how many times per year I get mistreated (on good years I can probably do it on one hand), including being harassed for being in the road while going too slowly.

Did you ever read my story about the police officer in PA who pulled over a truck that was honking at me for using a full lane? No? Well it happened, and I've talked to another who's said that he's done the same thing. HH has his own story about a cop pulling a guy over for honking at him,


But if you weren't cycling like pillocks in the first place then no-one would have reason to honk at you.

In case the OP is still following this thread ;) here is a link to a short booklet that summarizes the techniques that many here would consider "VC".

http://www.bikexprt.com/streetsmarts/usa/index.htm

Most of it is common sense (ride in the direction of traffic), while some of it is counter-intuitive (ride further left when the lane is too narrow to safely share).

A lot of discussions on the A&S board go into what should a cyclist do in a given situation - should a cyclist further left due to actual or potential hazards, or is it safe enough ride further right to avoid delaying overtaking traffic? These discussions sometimes even prompt disagreement among those who consider themselves cyclists who use "VC".