curbhugging narrow lanes?

[Helmet Head]

So behaving vehicularily is a very flexible thing, and the actual vehicular rules are only one small part of learning to ride in the paved envrinment.
Not quite. Judging from the way most cyclists ride, it's a big part. It's not everything, but it's enough to go a long ways towards being much better than the average cyclist, even for the average "experienced" cyclists with decades of experience. And the biggest part is destination positioning, which is one of those things that most people think they already do, but actually don't. There is more to it than they realize.

[Helmet Head]

I've yet to see a curb hugging cyclist who didn't continue along the curb even when that space is designated as a right turn only lane, or when there was right turning traffic ahead. I've also never seen a curb hugging cyclist stop at a red light and wait for the green. I'm sure their exists a vehicular curb hugger but they must be few and far between.
Exactly. A vehicular cyclist is very unlikely to curb hug, but there may be situations where he does. The point is, simply because you're curb hugging does not mean you're not riding vehicularly.

[Allister]

The title of your document is Road Rules, which means it covers the vehicular rules of the road (governing how vehicle drivers traveling on the road are to behave, including rules for entering and exiting the road), and it also covers the pedestrian rules of the road, particularly as they pertain to how and when pedestrians are to cross the road, and who is to yield to whom when.

Your ignorance is showing again.

"11 Regulation applies to vehicles and road users on roads and
road-related areas
(1) This regulation applies to vehicles and road users on roads and
road-related areas.
(2) A reference in this regulation (except in this division) to a “road”
includes a reference to a “road related area”, unless otherwise expressly
stated in this regulation.
Examples for subsection (2)—"

and

"13 What is a road related area
A “road-related area” is any of the following—
(a) an area that divides a road;
(b) a footpath or nature strip adjacent to a road;
(c) an area that is not a road and that is open to the public and
designated for use by cyclists or animals;
(d) an area that is not a road and that is open to, or used by, the
public for parking vehicles;
(2) However, unless the contrary intention appears, a reference in this
regulation (except this division) to a “road-related area” includes a
reference to—
(a) any shoulder of a road; or
(b) any other area that is a footpath or nature strip as defined in the
dictionary.
(3) In this section—
“shoulder” of a road—
(a) includes any part of the road that is not designed to be used by
motor vehicles in travelling along the road; and
(b) includes—
(i) for a kerbed road—any part of the kerb; and
(ii) for a sealed road—any unsealed part of the road, and any
sealed part of the road outside an edge line on the road; but
(c) does not include a bicycle path, footpath or shared path."

I doubt there is much of anything in terms of how they are to behave when walking on the sidewalk.

As usual, you're wrong again. "PART 14—RULES FOR PEDESTRIANS" Which includes rules 228 through to 244. Would you like me to quote them in their entirety as well, or is it starting to sink in?

Bicyclists are allowed to behave as vehicles drivers on the road, or as pedestrians on the sidewalk or footpath, and when doing the latter are presumed to be required to follow the pedestrian rules with respect to crossing the road.

No, they follow the rules for cycling on the footpath.

Your fixation on the 'vehicular' rules of the road, whatever that happens to mean today, is a complete furphey. All you need are the actual rules of the road. That way everyone knows what's being discussed.

Coming up with your own concepts of what is and isn't 'vehicular' doesn't make you special, especially when you can't even make up your own mind about what it means, let alone explain it coherently to anyone else.

[Allister]

Not quite. Judging from the way most cyclists ride, it's a big part. It's not everything, but it's enough to go a long ways towards being much better than the average cyclist, even for the average "experienced" cyclists with decades of experience. And the biggest part is destination positioning, which is one of those things that most people think they already do, but actually don't. There is more to it than they realize.

At least these poor folks have the benefit of your Great Wisdom to tap into. :rolleyes:

[Allister]

Of course the VCP is vague

I nominate this for Understatement of the Year.

[Helmet Head]

You're ignorance is showing again.

"11 Regulation applies to vehicles and road users on roads and
road-related areas
(1) This regulation applies to vehicles and road users on roads and
road-related areas.
(2) A reference in this regulation (except in this division) to a “road”
includes a reference to a “road related area”, unless otherwise expressly
stated in this regulation.
Examples for subsection (2)—"

and

"13 What is a road related area
A “road-related area” is any of the following—
(a) an area that divides a road;
(b) a footpath or nature strip adjacent to a road;
(c) an area that is not a road and that is open to the public and
designated for use by cyclists or animals;
(d) an area that is not a road and that is open to, or used by, the
public for parking vehicles;
(2) However, unless the contrary intention appears, a reference in this
regulation (except this division) to a “road-related area” includes a
reference to—
(a) any shoulder of a road; or
(b) any other area that is a footpath or nature strip as defined in the
dictionary.
(3) In this section—
“shoulder” of a road—
(a) includes any part of the road that is not designed to be used by
motor vehicles in travelling along the road; and
(b) includes—
(i) for a kerbed road—any part of the kerb; and
(ii) for a sealed road—any unsealed part of the road, and any
sealed part of the road outside an edge line on the road; but
(c) does not include a bicycle path, footpath or shared path."

Right. Sidewalks are road-related - they are facilities for WALKing at the SIDE of the road.

I'm ignorant of what exactly? The exact wording of laws Down Under? Well, duh. So what?


No, they follow the rules for cycling on the footpath.

And those rules are different from those for walking on the footpath in what significant manner?


Your fixation on the 'vehicular' rules of the road, whatever that happens to mean today, is a complete furphey. All you need are the actual rules of the road. That way everyone knows what's being discussed.
The rules of the road that apply to drivers (and cyclists) on the road are distinct from (though related to) the rules of the road that apply to pedestrians (and cyclists) on road-related facilities like sidewalks and footpaths, and when crossing the road. Why the strong objection to having distinct terms for these distinct sets of rules?


Coming up with your own concepts of what is and isn't 'vehicular' doesn't make you special, especially when you can't even make up your own mind about what it means, let alone explain it coherently to anyone else.
These are not my concepts. And if you can't understand what I'm staying, I suggest you look up StreetSmarts by John Allen, or "listening to bike lanes" by Jeffrey Hiles.. You can google them.

[Bekologist]

i wonder if darting in and out of parked cars while curbhugging is also now considered vehicular cycling?

vc the fraud.

[Bekologist]

"curbhugging - the vehicular cyclists choice for high speed roads!" attributed to john forester?

[joejack951]

"curbhugging - the vehicular cyclists choice for high speed roads!" attributed to john forester?

What I find funniest about this thread is that, seeing as how I've been active in this forum for at least 2 years now during which time Bek has had seemingly endless energy to devote to mocking John Forester, Bek has obviously never taken the time to actually read his book where he'd probably have found plenty of fodder for this forum, including basically exactly what this thread is about. I don't have the book in front of me to reference a page but somewhere in there Forester says, in these exact words, "Never take the center of a high speed lane."

Bek, do us all a favor and go read the book. Take a long, long time too making sure not to be tempted to post here until you are completely finished :)

[Allister]

Right. Sidewalks are road-related - they are facilities for WALKing at the SIDE of the road.

I'm ignorant of what exactly? The exact wording of laws Down Under?

That the rules of the road don't only apply to the bit that cars use. I doubt that Australia is unique in that.

And those rules are different from those for walking on the footpath in what significant manner?

They're required to give way to pedestrians for a start.

The rules of the road that apply to drivers (and cyclists) on the road are distinct from (though related to) the rules of the road that apply to pedestrians (and cyclists) on road-related facilities like sidewalks and footpaths, and when crossing the road. Why the strong objection to having distinct terms for these distinct sets of rules?

Why your obsession with making the distinction?

I have no objection to giving things names, if that's what turns you on, but when you can't cleary explain what those terms mean, or when the meaning changes from day to day according to whichever way the wind is blowing, you're only going to see confusion, as is clear from this thread. If you have to explain a concept in more than one paragraph, you're making it too complicated.

These are not my concepts. And if you can't understand what I'm staying, I suggest you look up StreetSmarts by John Allen, or "listening to bike lanes" by Jeffrey Hiles.. You can google them.

Don't try to distance yourself from your crackpot theories, Serge. You show me where either of these individuals recommend or even condone kerb hugging.

[genec]

FWIW, I don't see the point in curb hugging as a default position in any narrow lane but it's probably less dangerous on the road in question than on a more common urban/suburban road. A 65mph narrow lane road must be in a very rural area with a very low intersection density, low traffic, and good sightlines. With those features, motorists will not often be confronted with the decision to slow quickly or try to squeeze by with oncoming traffic. The most common interaction will be a motorist spotting a cyclist a long ways ahead and moving over a good distance into the open oncoming lane to pass. I'd personally never ride that way with or without a mirror though.

Would you ride such a road with a curb and a narrow bike lane... your typical 4 foot bike lane? How about if it was just 60MPH?

That is on the downhill side... the uphill side is only 50MPH, quite steep, and yes, there is a 4 foot bike lane and a curb (how good are you at hopping curbs?).

Just beyond the apex of the hill, still in the 50MPH zone, are intersections with streets and company driveways... ya gonna leave the BL to ride in the lane in the presence of that 50MPH traffic, to "avoid intersection conflicts?" Remember, you are going uphill.

That very road exists not a 1/2 mile from my old office. Yah need pics... I'll try to get some.

**************************************************

A bit further to the east is another different 65MPH road... with a bike lane. There are free access wide sweeping ramps for access from that road onto a freeway. Two cyclists were killed there in separate incidents over a 2 year period. The local road engineers finally determined that perhaps the bike lane should be somewhat re-routed and a buffer added. The bike lane is now 4 feet from the traveled way, and still only 4 feet wide. But the BL is now routed over an exit and on ramp to be to the left of the aforementioned freeway on ramp. But it took two deaths to get that change... That road used to be a 45MPH road... prior to that, (over 20 years ago) it was an old limited access freeway with a parallel bicycle path through a military base.

Now the road is back up to 65MPH... with that bike lane, with a buffer.

Riding on Freeway with 10 foot wide shoulders is one thing... riding on a 60MPH arterial road with a 4 foot bike lane is quite another. (how wide is that stripe again... )

Just for further comparison... only 10MPH less at 50MPH are several new arterial roads in the area... with 4 foot bike lanes and intersections, driveways... all sorts of hazards that a cyclist might want to leave the bike lane for... and take the lane... in the presence of 50+MPH traffic, which at times is quite heavy.

So the real question is... when (at what speed for prevailing traffic) is curb hugging "vehicular," and when is it safe to "take the lane." Really.

[Bekologist]

joejack, sometimes it is IMPERATIVE to take the center of a narrow high speed lane. usually lanes too narrow to be safely shared REQUIRE the bicyclist to take the lane.


my example of the 50 mph bridge deck with two ten foot lanes? a bicyclist almost has to take the lane. would john forester hug the edge or take the lane? what if it was a 65 mph highway? see the hypocracy yet?

but is it now vehicular to encourage unsafe passing by curbhugging? what about 30 mph roads? what about darting in and out of parked cars?


obviously john forester has a serious cyclist inferiority complex if he's too scared to take the lane on high speed roads.


"hug the curb the john forester way!" :roflmao:

[makeinu]

Good questions. Of course the VCP is vague - you can't expect the whole thing to be spelled out in one sentence. But the benefit of faring best is inherent - that is it is based on the assumption that you would prefer to fare better than worse. I can't speak for Forester, but I believe that he was trying to convey was that when you take into account effectiveness as well as safety, you fare best if you act like a vehicle driver. That is, you might be marginally safer if you get off your bike and walk along the sidewalks, but it would take you much longer to get there. If you get on your bike and ride at the speeds that are normal and safe on the roads, then it's less safe on the sidewalks. Obviously, if you ride at night without lights, ride on the wrong side of the street, run red lights, etc., you are unlikely to fare very well. So, overall, you "fare best" if you act like a vehicle driver. He's also saying you fare best when society, particularly in terms of legal status, treats you like a vehicle driver. But it's a general principle. Even Forester describes specific situations in which riding on a sidewalk might be advantageous as a shortcut.


I don't think of it as "car" mentality - I think of it is personal/independent vehicle mentality - it just so happens that most vehicles of that nature in our society are cars. But, yeah, VC is biased towards that mentality, because, for all intents and purposes, bikes are personal/independent vehicles.

In theory, cyclists might indeed fare even better if we had a totally separate infrastructure (like trains have). I've stated many times that the ideal is to perhaps underground all motor traffic, thus leaving the surface plane to human powered transport. But even if that were the case, there is no reason to believe that partial separation is better than full separation, and full separation is not going to happen within our lifetimes. There is also little evidence that bicyclists will ever make up a significant portion of the transportation usage, unless it becomes way too inconvenient and/or expensive to use personal motor transportation (as is the case, for example, in $8/gallon gas, old, small, flat, densely populated Amsterdam). So where will the funding come from to maintain the surface infrastructure if all the money goes to the underground? That is, we cyclists benefit from the motoring community who builds all the smoothly paved roads.

In the mean time, back to the real world, we need to get to work, shopping, and wherever else we have to go on our bikes. And for that, we fare best when we act like vehicle drivers. Or so the hypothesis goes, and Forester presents a compelling argument in his books that few have ever tried to really challenge, much less done so successfully. The best challenge I've seen is still Hiles' paper ("Listening to bike lanes" - google for it), but it falls short of actually saying anything substantial. He does criticize a few points of Forester's, but he actually pretty much endorses the VCP itself. Hurst challenges a bizarre rigid/extreme conception of vehicular cycling that is not what Forester or any LCI I know recognizes to be vehicular cycling.


Forester has long said that the VCP applies to those cyclists who are interested in using bicyclists for effective transportation. If you're happy tooling around a velodrome or a lake, then, indeed, vehicular cycling may not be the way for you to fare best. So, perhaps the VCP should say: Serious transportation cyclists in the real world fare best when .... Anyway, that's the implication. And it holds even if safety is the top priority, as it is for me.


Well said, HH.

To recap, what I believe you have said (and what I agree with) is that vehicular cycling is a good starting point; nothing less and nothing more. In other words, when using a bicycle as a vehicle, unless there is a specific and compelling reason to do otherwise (and there often is), it is most likely safest and most efficient to behave as you see the other vehicles on the road behaving, or if no other vehicles are present, as you would expect them to be behaving.

To come back on topic, in contrast to low speed roads I believe it can be argued (and, indeed, has been argued) that certain high speed road situations do indeed present specific and compelling reasons to deviate from typical vehicle behavior.

When in doubt cycle vehicularly.

[ghettocruiser]

Are we referring to a 65mph posted limit, or 65mph being the predominant speed of traffic flow in the right lane?

[makeinu]

Are we referring to a 65mph posted limit, or 65mph being the predominant speed of traffic flow in the right lane?

Don't they usually coincide?

[John Forester]

joejack, sometimes it is IMPERATIVE to take the center of a narrow high speed lane. usually lanes too narrow to be safely shared REQUIRE the bicyclist to take the lane.


my example of the 50 mph bridge deck with two ten foot lanes? a bicyclist almost has to take the lane. would john forester hug the edge or take the lane? what if it was a 65 mph highway? see the hypocracy yet?

but is it now vehicular to encourage unsafe passing by curbhugging? what about 30 mph roads? what about darting in and out of parked cars?


obviously john forester has a serious cyclist inferiority complex if he's too scared to take the lane on high speed roads.




"hug the curb the john forester way!" :roflmao:

Bekologist, you really should have realized by now that since the only way that you can pretend your arguments is by presenting lies, you have little basis for what you think you think.

[John Forester]

Your ignorance is showing again.

"11 Regulation applies to vehicles and road users on roads and
road-related areas
(1) This regulation applies to vehicles and road users on roads and
road-related areas.
(2) A reference in this regulation (except in this division) to a “road”
includes a reference to a “road related area”, unless otherwise expressly
stated in this regulation.
Examples for subsection (2)—"

and

"13 What is a road related area
A “road-related area” is any of the following—
(a) an area that divides a road;
(b) a footpath or nature strip adjacent to a road;
(c) an area that is not a road and that is open to the public and
designated for use by cyclists or animals;
(d) an area that is not a road and that is open to, or used by, the
public for parking vehicles;
(2) However, unless the contrary intention appears, a reference in this
regulation (except this division) to a “road-related area” includes a
reference to—
(a) any shoulder of a road; or
(b) any other area that is a footpath or nature strip as defined in the
dictionary.
(3) In this section—
“shoulder” of a road—
(a) includes any part of the road that is not designed to be used by
motor vehicles in travelling along the road; and
(b) includes—
(i) for a kerbed road—any part of the kerb; and
(ii) for a sealed road—any unsealed part of the road, and any
sealed part of the road outside an edge line on the road; but
(c) does not include a bicycle path, footpath or shared path."



As usual, you're wrong again. "PART 14—RULES FOR PEDESTRIANS" Which includes rules 228 through to 244. Would you like me to quote them in their entirety as well, or is it starting to sink in?



No, they follow the rules for cycling on the footpath.

Your fixation on the 'vehicular' rules of the road, whatever that happens to mean today, is a complete furphey. All you need are the actual rules of the road. That way everyone knows what's being discussed.

Coming up with your own concepts of what is and isn't 'vehicular' doesn't make you special, especially when you can't even make up your own mind about what it means, let alone explain it coherently to anyone else.


Allister, when you discuss the traffic laws, you need to define the legal area to which they apply. It appears that you are calling Helmet Head ignorant for not knowing the peculiar traffic laws that apply it would appear, in Australia. By and large, most of us have been discussing the traffic laws that apply in the USA, and HH's comments apply to those, whereas your comments do not.

[AlmostTrick]

John- While it may not be in violation of the rules of the road, what place does curb hugging (or riding the edge) have in vehicular cycling? You often refer to the "childish, stay out of the way" mentality of many cyclists. I see curb hugging as exactly that. Thanks.

[Bekologist]

yes, john, taking a curbhugging lane position in a lane too narrow to be safely shared is childish cycling. you are apparantly suffering a case of cyclist inferiority complex, john.

[Bekologist]

new VC slogan "all lanes can be shared, just hug the curb and get the heck out of the way!" attributed to john forester 2008?

[Helmet Head]

That the rules of the road don't only apply to the bit that cars use. I doubt that Australia is unique in that.
I'm ignorant of the fact that the rules of the road don't only apply to the bit that cars use? How could you possibly think that when I've clearly stated countless times that the rules of the road include the rules of the road for pedestrians (as well as the vehicular rules of the road), which obviously apply on "road related" bits that cars don't use?



They're required to give way to pedestrians for a start.

No, that the same rules. Within the rules for pedestrians is the (fairly universal) rule that cyclists give way to pedestrian (who give way to equestrians).



The rules of the road that apply to drivers (and cyclists) on the road are distinct from (though related to) the rules of the road that apply to pedestrians (and cyclists) on road-related facilities like sidewalks and footpaths, and when crossing the road. Why the strong objection to having distinct terms for these distinct sets of rules?

Why your obsession with making the distinction?

I have no objection to giving things names, if that's what turns you on, but when you can't cleary explain what those terms mean, or when the meaning changes from day to day according to whichever way the wind is blowing, you're only going to see confusion, as is clear from this thread. If you have to explain a concept in more than one paragraph, you're making it too complicated.

More than one paragraph? How about one sentence (in bold above)?
It only seems like an obsession because any attempt to make the distinction is received with strong objection here, and we get bogged down on that.

Anyway, the reason to make the distinction is that cyclists are generally allowed to follow either, but I think it's important to be cognizant of which one you are following when, and equally important to make it clear to others which you are following when. Cyclists often seem to think and act like "rolling pedestrians" (neither here or there), and this makes it more difficult for other road users to deal with them, and makes conflict more likely. I think developing an appreciation for each set of rules, and the distinction, helps a cyclist be more confident, efficient and safe in traffic


Don't try to distance yourself from your crackpot theories, Serge. You show me where either of these individuals recommend or even condone kerb hugging.
Hurst condones not only curb hugging, but even mentions riding ON the curb is appropriate once in a while. Hiles goes so far as to condone wrongway curb hugging. I'll look up the exact references later, if you want.

[ghettocruiser]

Don't they usually coincide?

You have got to be kidding me.

[Helmet Head]

You have got to be kidding me.
I don't know. I think on many multi-lane roads the "slow" lane is often moving at close to the posted speed limit.

[ghettocruiser]

I don't know. I think on many multi-lane roads the "slow" lane is often moving at close to the posted speed limit.

The right hand lane is used by frequent-stop buses. Generally this means that most traffic drives in the other lanes to avoid constant lane changes unless they intend to turn right.

As a result, the right hand lane, in between buses, is the only lane free of traffic, and becomes a passing lane for the more aggressive motorists. Most of my from-behind near misses have been cars popping over to the right for a quick pass and finding me there at the last minute.

Locally, I generally expect most cars to move at speeds of about 30 kph (say 20 mph) over the posted limit in the absence of obvious police enforcement or traffic delays.

[John Forester]

John- While it may not be in violation of the rules of the road, what place does curb hugging (or riding the edge) have in vehicular cycling? You often refer to the "childish, stay out of the way" mentality of many cyclists. I see curb hugging as exactly that. Thanks.

Curb hugging is the act of staying very close to the curb, or other edge of the roadway, for either or both of two reasons. One reason is that the cyclist feels that this lateral position is the only one that is legal, and often, not very legal at all. The other reason is that the cyclist feels that this lateral position is the only one that is at all safe, and often, not very safe at all. In discussion, such a cyclist might admit to his motives, but by observation the act of curb hugging is detectable only when the cyclist stays close to the curb when a different lateral position would be better.

[Allister]

Allister, when you discuss the traffic laws, you need to define the legal area to which they apply. It appears that you are calling Helmet Head ignorant for not knowing the peculiar traffic laws that apply it would appear, in Australia. By and large, most of us have been discussing the traffic laws that apply in the USA, and HH's comments apply to those, whereas your comments do not.

They were posted in response to this post (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=6034625&postcount=26), where HH made several ignorant claims and doubts about what was contained in the rules in Australia, without bothering to actually read them. Do try to keep up, old man.

And the road rules in America are by no means homogenous either, differing state to state. There are enough similarities, from what I've seen to make such a discussion worthwhile, as there are enough similarities between Aus and US (and Great Britain and Europe). Your US-centricness on an international forum just reinforces the arrogance of Americans we have come to expect over here.

Are you saying that the US road rules don't include clauses regarding the use of footpaths and other 'road related areas' then?

[Allister]

More than one paragraph? How about one sentence (in bold above)?

LOL. One long-winded, convoluted sentence liberally littered with parentheses. Yeah, that's crystal clear.


It only seems like an obsession because any attempt to make the distinction is received with strong objection here, and we get bogged down on that.

Justify it to yourself any way you want, little man.

I think developing an appreciation for each set of rules, and the distinction, helps a cyclist be more confident, efficient and safe in traffic.

It's all one set of rules, Serge.

Hurst condones not only curb hugging, but even mentions riding ON the curb is appropriate once in a while.

You didn't mention anything about Hurst before.

Hiles goes so far as to condone wrongway curb hugging. I'll look up the exact references later, if you want.

You do that.

[Allister]

Curb hugging is the act of staying very close to the curb, or other edge of the roadway, for either or both of two reasons. One reason is that the cyclist feels that this lateral position is the only one that is legal, and often, not very legal at all. The other reason is that the cyclist feels that this lateral position is the only one that is at all safe, and often, not very safe at all. In discussion, such a cyclist might admit to his motives, but by observation the act of curb hugging is detectable only when the cyclist stays close to the curb when a different lateral position would be better.

You didn't answer the question.

[genec]

You didn't answer the question.

Shhhh He's hoping you don't actually notice. ;)

[John Forester]

You didn't answer the question.

Don't be silly. Can't you read? Or think? There is no place for curb hugging in vehicular cycling. These represent practically opposite states of mind.

[Bekologist]

what about not taking the lane of narrow laned high speed roads, john?

remember your quote from a recent thread about you not taking the lane on narrow high speed roads?
"...on a narrow 2-lane rural highway under the conditions in which one would anticipate 65 mph motoring, I think that I would not take the lane."

Your comment is what prompted this thread, curbhugger.


cyclist inferiority complex if I've ever seen one, john.

[joejack951]

Would you ride such a road with a curb and a narrow bike lane... your typical 4 foot bike lane? How about if it was just 60MPH?

I'm not sure where this question is coming from other than misreading my words (unintentionally of course) and thinking that I said "I would not ride a road like that" when I actually said "I'd personally never ride that way." So to answer your question anyway, of course I'd ride such a road with a curb and narrow bike lane. I'd ride it in much the same manner as I would any road with a curb and narrow bike lane, probably with a bit more attention to the rear if there were few intersections.

That is on the downhill side... the uphill side is only 50MPH, quite steep, and yes, there is a 4 foot bike lane and a curb (how good are you at hopping curbs?).

I could show you a section of road where the posted speed limit is 50mph but from experience driving the same road traffic moves closer to 70mph and sometimes more. Sections of this road are two narrow lanes in each direction with a high curb. The road takes you through quite a few valleys which means steep climbs (10mph if I work) and descents. Yes, I've used this road to get back and forth to Philly from work.

Just beyond the apex of the hill, still in the 50MPH zone, are intersections with streets and company driveways... ya gonna leave the BL to ride in the lane in the presence of that 50MPH traffic, to "avoid intersection conflicts?" Remember, you are going uphill.

Depends. What are the sightlines to the driveways? If they are good, I'm not too concerned about traffic pulling out in front of me and given my slow uphill speed, right hooks and such aren't much of an issue. With heavy traffic, I'd treat it like a wide outside lane and use the space to the right to allow faster traffic to pass. Of course, I'd move left into the lane whenever there were breaks in traffic large enough to permit doing so. If I had terrible sightlines to the driveways and/or if there were large amounts of turning traffic, I have no issue with slowing fast traffic to my speed to get across an intersection. It's what I got my ticket for :)

So the real question is... when (at what speed for prevailing traffic) is curb hugging "vehicular," and when is it safe to "take the lane." Really.

Curb hugging is vehicular as long as no rules of the road are being broken (I don't think I need to explain here but I will if you so request). I think it's safe to take the lane any time you are visible long enough to motorists that they have plenty of time to slow to your speed (verified by watching in your rearview mirror). It's not always legal to be taking the lane under those circumstances (single lane road with a large amount of traffic being delayed and room to move right) but that doesn't make it unsafe.

[joejack951]

joejack, sometimes it is IMPERATIVE to take the center of a narrow high speed lane. usually lanes too narrow to be safely shared REQUIRE the bicyclist to take the lane.

Ok, I'm agreeing with you so far.

my example of the 50 mph bridge deck with two ten foot lanes? a bicyclist almost has to take the lane. would john forester hug the edge or take the lane? what if it was a 65 mph highway? see the hypocracy yet?

Of course, with no escape route to the right, a cyclist has to take the lane. I'm going to go out on a limb and try to read Forester's mind and he can correct me if I'm wrong. The road in question was a 65mph rural road (read: no curb). Forester suggested he would not take the lane based on his assumption that traffic would be light, intersections few, and there'd be plenty of room to the right to bail if needed. John?

but is it now vehicular to encourage unsafe passing by curbhugging? what about 30 mph roads? what about darting in and out of parked cars?

Where did John say to encourage unsafe passing by curbhugging? You're asuming he said that and without clarification it's tough to say 100% but given John's general attitude about cycling, I find it hard to believe. The rest of your questions and post aren't worth responding to.

[Bekologist]

so is curbhugging a 30mph lane also vehicular and part of vehicular cycling? what about darting in and out of parked cars? are cyclists suppossed to hug the curb anytime they can't keep up with traffic?

you understand, joe, that john's comment about not taking a narrow lane and curbhugging opens up a whole new series of questions about the worthlessness of john foresters' version of vehicular cycling.

I asked in the first post, and several of us want to know,

at what speed does hugging the curb replace taking the lane?

john, we want to know! when do you start hugging the white stripe for dear life? :eek:

[Helmet Head]

Are we referring to a 65mph posted limit, or 65mph being the predominant speed of traffic flow in the right lane?
Don't they usually coincide?
You have got to be kidding me.
I don't know. I think on many multi-lane roads the "slow" lane is often moving at close to the posted speed limit.
The right hand lane is used by frequent-stop buses. Generally this means that most traffic drives in the other lanes to avoid constant lane changes unless they intend to turn right.

As a result, the right hand lane, in between buses, is the only lane free of traffic, and becomes a passing lane for the more aggressive motorists. Most of my from-behind near misses have been cars popping over to the right for a quick pass and finding me there at the last minute.

Locally, I generally expect most cars to move at speeds of about 30 kph (say 20 mph) over the posted limit in the absence of obvious police enforcement or traffic delays.
The right hand lane on roads with 65 mph speeds (100+ kph) is used by frequent-stop buses???

[Helmet Head]

They were posted in response to this post (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=6034625&postcount=26), where HH made several ignorant claims and doubts about what was contained in the rules in Australia, without bothering to actually read them. Do try to keep up, old man.
Of course I stated I doubted something about what was written without actually reading it. If I actually read it, I would know one way or the other. Doubting (or suspecting) is what you do when you don't know for sure.

[Helmet Head]

Curb hugging is the act of staying very close to the curb, or other edge of the roadway, for either or both of two reasons.
Why do the reasons matter? Isn't curb hugging "the act of staying very close to the curb, or other edge of the roadway", regardless of the reason?

There is no place for curb hugging in vehicular cycling. These represent practically opposite states of mind.

Which vehicular rule of the road is violated when a driver, between intersections, operates his car, tractor, truck, bulldozer or yes, bicycle, staying very close to the curb?

I'm not condoning curb hugging, of course. I just don't see how the act is necessarily in violation of the vehicular rules of the road, or how it's necessarily not "acting like a driver of a vehicle". So I don't see how curb hugging is necessarily excluded from vehicular cycling, unless you're defining vehicular cycling as something significantly different from "cycling on roads in accordance with the vehicular rules of the road", or "cycling on roadways acting like a vehicle driver".

To be sure, I recognize that most of the time curb hugging is not safe and reasonable, and, technically, you could say that operating in a manner that is not safe and reasonable is inherently in violation of the vehicular rules of the road. But I'm sure we've all successfully practiced or at least witnessed safe curb hugging at one time or another, such as:
on steep inclines at very slow speeds while being passed by much faster motor traffic,
being the rightmost of two cyclists riding side-by-side on the outer margin of a WOL,
when passing stopped traffic slowly, and carefully, in a narrow space on the right,
or when moving temporarily aside to allow faster traffic to pass on a narrow rural road.Are these all examples of curb hugging behavior that is not vehicular cycling?

[Allister]

Of course I stated I doubted something about what was written without actually reading it. If I actually read it, I would know one way or the other. Doubting (or suspecting) is what you do when you don't know for sure.

Indeed. Hence my reply quoting the relevant parts. Just trying to help. Of course, you can avoid all that with a mere few clicks of the mouse, but don't over-exert yourself.

It's your mate Forester, with his pointless interjection, that's made the real pillock of himself here, Serge.

[John Forester]

so is curbhugging a 30mph lane also vehicular and part of vehicular cycling? what about darting in and out of parked cars? are cyclists suppossed to hug the curb anytime they can't keep up with traffic?

you understand, joe, that john's comment about not taking a narrow lane and curbhugging opens up a whole new series of questions about the worthlessness of john foresters' version of vehicular cycling.

I asked in the first post, and several of us want to know,

at what speed does hugging the curb replace taking the lane?

john, we want to know! when do you start hugging the white stripe for dear life? :eek:

Never.

[ghettocruiser]

The right hand lane on roads with 65 mph speeds (100+ kph) is used by frequent-stop buses???

Yep. The posted speed limit of the particular road I am thinking of is 70kph, but I've paced even heavy trucks and buses in the high 90s while driving. And yes, this road is part of my daily commute, although I try to minimize it.

[RobertHurst]

... So, perhaps the VCP should say: Serious transportation cyclists in the real world fare best when .... Anyway, that's the implication. And it holds even if safety is the top priority, as it is for me.

Perhaps there shouldn't be a 'VCP' if the cyclists who actually fare best are bike messengers. Why do pro messengers have better safety records than experienced vehicular cyclists? Why are pro messengers more likely to get injured while riding lawfully? Is that even true or am I just making stuff up? Questions, so many questions.

[Helmet Head]

Perhaps there shouldn't be a 'VCP' if the cyclists who actually fare best are bike messengers. Why do pro messengers have better safety records than experienced vehicular cyclists? Why are pro messengers more likely to get injured while riding lawfully? Is that even true or am I just making stuff up? Questions, so many questions.
I'll bite. What is the basis for asserting that pro bike messengers are more likely to get injured while riding lawfully than when riding unlawfully?

[makeinu]

what about not taking the lane of narrow laned high speed roads, john?

remember your quote from a recent thread about you not taking the lane on narrow high speed roads?
"...on a narrow 2-lane rural highway under the conditions in which one would anticipate 65 mph motoring, I think that I would not take the lane."

Your comment is what prompted this thread, curbhugger.


cyclist inferiority complex if I've ever seen one, john.

I would hope that John doesn't believe that vehicular cycling is really appropriate in all situations. I personally see it as a rule of thumb, and a good rule of thumb at that. I agree that curb hugging has no place in vehicular cycling, but all that tells us that when curb hugging is appropriate the rule of thumb must be broken.

Which vehicular rule of the road is violated when a driver, between intersections, operates his car, tractor, truck, bulldozer or yes, bicycle, staying very close to the curb?

I'm not condoning curb hugging, of course. I just don't see how the act is necessarily in violation of the vehicular rules of the road, or how it's necessarily not "acting like a driver of a vehicle". So I don't see how curb hugging is necessarily excluded from vehicular cycling, unless you're defining vehicular cycling as something significantly different from "cycling on roads in accordance with the vehicular rules of the road", or "cycling on roadways acting like a vehicle driver".

To be sure, I recognize that most of the time curb hugging is not safe and reasonable, and, technically, you could say that operating in a manner that is not safe and reasonable is inherently in violation of the vehicular rules of the road. But I'm sure we've all successfully practiced or at least witnessed safe curb hugging at one time or another, such as:
on steep inclines at very slow speeds while being passed by much faster motor traffic,
being the rightmost of two cyclists riding side-by-side on the outer margin of a WOL,
when passing stopped traffic slowly, and carefully, in a narrow space on the right,
or when moving temporarily aside to allow faster traffic to pass on a narrow rural road.Are these all examples of curb hugging behavior that is not vehicular cycling?

It's not vehicular because, quite simply, most other vehicles don't do it. It's outlier behavior and the entire premise of riding bicycles vehicularly despite their obvious differences to most vehicles is that behaving like an outlier is generally a bad idea.

For the record, I don't pass other vehicles on the right. I've had too many close calls this way so I only pass on the left (the usual/vehicular way).

[invisiblehand]

Perhaps there shouldn't be a 'VCP' if the cyclists who actually fare best are bike messengers. Why do pro messengers have better safety records than experienced vehicular cyclists? Why are pro messengers more likely to get injured while riding lawfully? Is that even true or am I just making stuff up? Questions, so many questions.

Sounds like you are making this up.

[Bekologist]

at what speed does hugging the curb replace taking the lane in vehicular cycling?

john, you need to clarify this statement


"...on a narrow 2-lane rural highway under the conditions in which one would anticipate 65 mph motoring, I think that I would not take the lane.

and explain why you hug the edge of the road on high speed roads?
is curbhugging a legitimate vehicular cycling practice at any speed?
i expect 65 mph traffic on 50mph roads, would john forester be hugging the curb on 50mph roads with narrow lanes? would any vehicular cyclist?

can a vehicular cyclist dart in and out of parked cars and curbhug on a 30mph street and still be considered 'vehicular'?


SO MANY QUESTIONS..... for 'curbhugger john' forester

[invisiblehand]

Are we referring to a 65mph posted limit, or 65mph being the predominant speed of traffic flow in the right lane?

I have been thinking about this in the context of (1) how good are we at judging speed -- particularly while cycling -- and (2) do we correctly account all of the cars while riding on the roads? In reference to (2), that is, when we create our assessment of the predominate -- does this mean average? or is this something more like a mode? -- speed of a road, do we tend to remember the speeders while failing to notice/remember an ordinary-to-the-senses law-abiding driver?

Is there data on this?

[Bekologist]

around here, people drive roads 10-15 miles over on a regular basis, so prevailing traffic often moves 65 on 50mph marked roads.

it appears vehicular cycling techniques would fail john forester on many of my regions' 50mph roads.

On roads with narrow lanes and expecting traffic of 65mph, john forester has stated 'he thinks that he would not take the lane.'

curbhugger john, why do you hug the edge of the road?

isn't that what you call 'childish cycling'?

are you selfdiagnosing yourself with your cyclist inferiority complex?

Should the cycling community postulate from your admittances you think vehicular cyclists should hug the curb anytime they can't keep up with traffic in high speed narrow lanes?

[noisebeam]

Pretty much all arterial roads where I live are posted 45mph. I've seen drivers at 65 and even 80, but 50mph is normal as the flow.

It seems that there are more (which still doesn't mean many or most) folks going the speed limit these days vs. 5 years ago. I notice this when motoring mostly. I wonder if some percentage of folks drive more conservatively these days due to gas prices?

Al

[Bekologist]

doubtful.

at what speed do you start hugging the edge in narrow lanes, al?

[noisebeam]

at what speed do you start hugging the edge in narrow lanes, al?

Never

Al