Vehicular Cycling (VC) - curbhugging narrow lanes?

at what speed does "hug the curb" replace 'taking the lane'?



"....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."

for john forestor, 65 mph kicks him to the curb where he must cower, unvehicularily, in the face of high speed overtaking traffic. on roads with high speed differentials and lanes too narrow to be safely shared, john forester admits he would not take the lane, and presumably hug the curb, white stripe or k-rail.



Does riding a 30 mph road and hugging the curb still pass john forestors' criticism for appropriate bicycle operation?

if it's okay to hug the edge on narrow laned, high speed roads, surely it must also be okay to hug the curb of lower speed roads.

Is this a question or an attack?

are you upset?

i see a contradiction in how to operate a bike in traffic, it appears it depends on the speed differential. take the lane on slow speed roads, hug the curb for dear life on higher speed ones.

are you upset?

i see a contradiction in how to operate a bike in traffic, it appears it depends on the speed differential. take the lane on slow speed roads, hug the curb for dear life on higher speed ones.
Of course appropriate lane positioning depends on speed differential. That's what the concept of speed positioning is based on.

Now, with a mirror I will probably choose to take the lane during gaps even on a 65 mph 2 lane road so that the next driver approaching from behind will realize sooner rather than later that I'm in the road, that he needs to at least encroach into the oncoming lane to pass, and, so, he needs to plan accordingly. More importantly, this position makes me more conspicuous to drivers in oncoming traffic thinking about moving into my lane to pass someone. Most importantly, this gives me better positioning and sight lines with respect to potential cross traffic conflicts in front of me.

Now, as a driver approaching from behind gets closer and slows I am very likely to move aside closer to the shoulder stripe to make it easier to pass me, assuming there are no conditions that make passing at that time unsafe (like oncoming traffic, or a blind curve).

But, if I'm riding without a mirror, I think that I would not take the lane.

In any case, neither approach is in violation of the vehicular rules of the road, and so both approaches are perfectly vehicular.

dude. hugging the curb of lanes too narrow to be safely shared is most definetly NOT vehicular for bicyclists!

if what head (and john) postulates is true, vc is worthless due to its shifting parameters.

is it vehicular for a bicyclist to hug the curb of roads with lanes too narrow to be safely shared if the road is a 30mph road, helmie?

dude. hugging the curb of lanes too narrow to be safely shared is most definetly NOT vehicular for bicyclists!

if what head (and john) postulates is true, vc is worthless due to its shifting parameters.

is it vehicular for a bicyclist to hug the curb of roads with lanes too narrow to be safely shared if the road is a 30mph road, helmie?
Yes, Bekkie, it's vehicular for a bicyclist to hug the curb of roads with lanes too narrow to be safely shared if the road is a 30mph road, because it's not in violation of the vehicular rules of the road to do that.


Vehicular cycling encompasses any and all lane positions that are not in violation with the vehicular rules of the road. Vehicular cycling does not specify any one particular lane position for any particular situation. There are principles and guidelines. Follow them and you are cycling vehicularly. Are some vehicular positions better than others? Surely. But they're all vehicular, as long as riding in them does not violate the vehicular rules of the road.

I hope for your sake you're just playing dumb, again.

In any case, neither approach is in violation of the vehicular rules of the road, and so both approaches are perfectly vehicular.

What exactly isn't "vehicular?"

Maybe that is the question that should be asked.

Thus far I have read that splitting the lane at stops is vehicular, riding at the curb is vehicular, and making turns like a pedestrian (as described in Effective Cycling) is vehicular.

So far the only thing that seems to be "not vehicular" are "bike lanes," even though riding in that exact same location on the road IS vehicular.

..... it's vehicular for a bicyclist to hug the curb of roads with lanes too narrow to be safely shared if the road is a 30mph road....


I call major BS on that one, head. bull. if that's the case, this vc is worthless crapola.

a new vc slogan of worthlessness: "hug the curb, take the lane, it's all vehicular!" :roflmao:

I'm gonna ride in the same position on a narrow 65mph road that I would on a narrow 35mph road - wherever it is safest and most courteous for the situation at that moment. I could give a frack if it is 'vehicular' or not...words don't make you safe.

Consider this for discussion...on a 65mph road where the lane is too narrow to share, wouldn't hugging the curb make it more likely that a motorist would attempt a pass that is too close for comfort than if you were obviously 'in his way' making it unsafe to pass without moving across the center line? I think most of us would agree on the answer...but humor me. ;)

What exactly isn't "vehicular?"

Maybe that is the question that should be asked.

Thus far I have read that splitting the lane at stops is vehicular, riding at the curb is vehicular, and making turns like a pedestrian (as described in Effective Cycling) is vehicular.

So far the only thing that seems to be "not vehicular" are "bike lanes," even though riding in that exact same location on the road IS vehicular.
What is so hard to understand about "in accordance with the vehicular rules of the road"?
What isn't vehicular? Riding on the wrong side of the road, turning left from the rightmost lane, going straight from a right-only lane, etc.

Making turns like a pedestrian is not vehicular (by definition), thought it can be effective. Do not confuse vehicular cycling with Effective Cycling. Effective Cycling is a training program that teaches vehicular cycling, plus some additional traffic cycling techniques, like pedestrian left turns, instant turns, rock dodges, not to mention proper cycling nutrition, training, and even maintenance. Forester even mentions that he rides his bike on sidewalks once in a while; just because that is in Effective Cycling does not mean it is an example of vehicular cycling.

Again, what is so hard to understand about "in accordance with the vehicular rules of the road"?

And, yes, bike lanes are not vehicular treatment of bicyclists, but riding (or driving) in space that happens to be demarcated by a bike lane stripe may or may not be vehicular, depending on the circumstances.

I'm gonna ride in the same position on a narrow 65mph road that I would on a narrow 35mph road - wherever it is safest and most courteous for the situation at that moment. I could give a frack if it is 'vehicular' or not...words don't make you safe.

Consider this for discussion...on a 65mph road where the lane is too narrow to share, wouldn't hugging the curb make it more likely that a motorist would attempt a pass that is too close for comfort than if you were obviously 'in his way' making it unsafe to pass without moving across the center line? I think most of us would agree on the answer...but humor me. ;)
I agree.

By the way, the answer to "what is safest" is not necessarily "whatever is vehicular". For any given situation, only one choice could be safest, or tied for safest, while many choices could be vehicular.
However, for the most part, when riding on roads, "whatever is vehicular" is generally safer than "anything that is not vehicular", and whatever choice is safest is almost certainly vehicular.

I call major BS on that one, head. bull. if that's the case, this vc is worthless crapola.

a new vc slogan of worthlessness: "hug the curb, take the lane, it's all vehicular!" :roflmao:

Actually it is all vehicular according to HH... except riding the wrong way and making turns from the wrong lane.

So riding on a sidewalk in a vehicular manner (proper side of the road, proper side of the sidewalk, destination positioned and at an appropriate speed) is also vehicular. Just don't make a left turn from the sidewalk.

Yet for some reason, a bike lane is not vehicular, but riding in them is.

"hug the curb, take the lane, it's all vehicular!"
I've been asked to ignore you, for good reason, but I also think it's important to emphasize this:

Yes, it's all vehicular, as long as it is not in violation of the vehicular rules of the road, and that means curb hugging is vehicular.

A big part of vehicular cycling is learning your rights and riding accordingly, and so vehicular cyclists are probably much more likely to take the lane than are other cyclists. Perhaps this is why vehicular cycling is so closely related to the practice of taking the lane. But, there is nothing inherently wrong with curb hugging in terms of consistency with the vehicular rules of the road - it certainly does not violate any vehicular rule I am aware of. So yes, hug the curb, ride in door zones, take the lane... it's all vehicular!

Actually it is all vehicular according to HH... except riding the wrong way and making turns from the wrong lane.

So riding on a sidewalk in a vehicular manner (proper side of the road, proper side of the sidewalk, destination positioned and at an appropriate speed) is also vehicular. Just don't make a left turn from the sidewalk.

Yet for some reason, a bike lane is not vehicular, but riding in them is.
No, Gene, it is not vehicular to ride on the sidewalk. The vehicular rules of the road do not apply on sidewalks. Drivers of vehicles are not allowed to drive on sidewalks; it's not vehicular! Riding on the sidewalk is not acting like a driver of a vehicle, no matter how you're positioned, directed or how fast you're going.

Is this really so hard to grasp? Please tell me you're just playing.

this is hilarious!

riding 3 inches from the barrier of a ten foot wide laned, 50mph bridge deck is considered vehicular cycling?

HILARIOUS! Head, you've really outdone yourself in this thread, and it's only on page one!

according to head and john forestor, curb hugging IS vehicular! WHAT A JOKE!!!!!!!!

vehicular cycling - what a fraud.

head, do you understand the difference between lanes too narrow to be safely shared and shareable lanes?

care to explain the difference, and why it is now considered 'vc' to curb hug (and encourage close passes) to facilitate lane sharing in an unshareable lane? is this because vc is really all about the convience of the motorists?

RICH. incredibly rich.

No, Gene, it is not vehicular to ride on the sidewalk. The vehicular rules of the road do not apply on sidewalks. Drivers of vehicles are not allowed to drive on sidewalks; it's not vehicular! Riding on the sidewalk is not acting like a driver of a vehicle, no matter how you're positioned, directed or how fast you're going.

Is this really so hard to grasp? Please tell me you're just playing.

The vehicular rules of the road apply on sidewalks as well as in grocery stores... I see them applied in those very locations all the time.

The vehicular rules of the road apply on sidewalks as well as in grocery stores... I see them applied in those very locations all the time.

That would be the other VC. Vehicular Carting. This is where shoppers are encouraged to follow the vehicular rules of the aisle. It works pretty well actually.

The vehicular rules of the road apply on sidewalks as well as in grocery stores... I see them applied in those very locations all the time.
You're confusing what can apply in theory (and occasionally does in practice) with what does apply in practice (for the most part). But, then, confusion is a familiar state for you to be in.

No, Gene, it is not vehicular to ride on the sidewalk. The vehicular rules of the road do not apply on sidewalks. Drivers of vehicles are not allowed to drive on sidewalks; it's not vehicular! Riding on the sidewalk is not acting like a driver of a vehicle, no matter how you're positioned, directed or how fast you're going.


There are plenty of places (Queensland included) that permit cycling on footpaths, and yet bikes are still defined as vehicles in those same rules. There is also a complete section in our road rules pertaining to pedestrians, and the proper use of footpaths. They are all in the document that is quite clearly entitled 'Road Rules'.

I get the distinct impression that when you talk about 'vehicular rules of the road' you are referring to rules that apply to motor vehicles, and that cyclists should act as similarly to car drivers as they can at all times. This denies the specific differences that apply to bikes, which doesn't make them any less legitimate as vehicles, but means they can quite legally and practicably be operated 'vehicularly' in ways that would be inappropriate for motor vehicles, such as riding on the footpath.

Your tunnel vision is showing again.

You're confusing what can apply in theory (and occasionally does in practice) with what does apply in practice (for the most part). But, then, confusion is a familiar state for you to be in.

Only when talking to inconsistent, overly verbose nobs like you.

Bekologist=troll
This never was a legitimate question, it was just an attack..

There are plenty of places (Queensland included) that permit cycling on footpaths, and yet bikes are still defined as vehicles in those same rules. There is also a complete section in our road rules pertaining to pedestrians, and the proper use of footpaths. They are all in the document that is quite clearly entitled 'Road Rules'.

I get the distinct impression that when you talk about 'vehicular rules of the road' you are referring to rules that apply to motor vehicles, and that cyclists should act as similarly to car drivers as they can at all times. This denies the specific differences that apply to bikes, which doesn't make them any less legitimate as vehicles, but means they can quite legally and practicably be operated 'vehicularly' in ways that would be inappropriate for motor vehicles, such as riding on the footpath.

Your tunnel vision is showing again.

:beer::beer::beer:

and he thinks I'm confused.... I merely ride a bike.

'hugging the curb' is now, apparantly, addmitedly a bonifide vehicular cycling lane position!

what a laugh. a gas. vehicular cycling falls far short.

if one of the most outspoken proponents of taking the lane vehicularily admits he'd cower at the curb on high speed roads, and it's okay to do so

the notion of 'taking the lane' becomes worthless, a counterfeit currency in bicycling advocacy.

I see some new vc slogans

'hug the curb, those cars can get you!'

"Take the lane, if you get scared you can curb hug too!"

There are plenty of places (Queensland included) that permit cycling on footpaths, and yet bikes are still defined as vehicles in those same rules. There is also a complete section in our road rules pertaining to pedestrians, and the proper use of footpaths. They are all in the document that is quite clearly entitled 'Road Rules'.

I get the distinct impression that when you talk about 'vehicular rules of the road' you are referring to rules that apply to motor vehicles, and that cyclists should act as similarly to car drivers as they can at all times. This denies the specific differences that apply to bikes, which doesn't make them any less legitimate as vehicles, but means they can quite legally and practicably be operated 'vehicularly' in ways that would be inappropriate for motor vehicles, such as riding on the footpath.

Your tunnel vision is showing again.
Not at all. When we're talking about the "vehicular rules of the road" we're talking about the "vehicular rules of the road", as in the rules for vehicle drivers that apply when operating on the road. Note that these rules do not apply to drivers of motor vehicles when they're operating on sand dunes in a desert park, or on a farm field, just as they do apply to bicyclists who are on the road, but not to bicyclists who are on a trail or on a sidewalk.

The distinction is not the vehicle type, but WHERE the vehicle is operated. Vehicular rules of the road apply to all drivers, regardless of vehicle type, on the road and not OFF the road. Capice?

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

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.

The vehicular rules of the road apply on sidewalks as well as in grocery stores... I see them applied in those very locations all the time.

Escalators too.

The vehicular rules of the road apply on sidewalks as well as in grocery stores... I see them applied in those very locations all the time.

Escalators too.

Just because in some places the pedestrian rules have something very basic in common with vehicular rules (i.e., "keep right") does not mean they are vehicular rules of the road.

helmet head, care to explain the difference between a shareable lane and an unshareable lane, and at what speed 'hug the curb' replaces 'take the lane'.

consider a bridge deck with 10' lanes and 50 mph traffic. is it vehicular cycling to ride 3 inches from the bridge rail?

come on now and stay on topic -

its' about hugging the curb. john forester admits he's hugging the stripe on high speed roads. i find that a stunning betrayal of the vehicular cyclists' prime directive.

Just because in some places the pedestrian rules have something very basic in common with vehicular rules (i.e., "keep right") does not mean they are vehicular rules of the road.

Well, what is that very basic thing? I think what we have are basic "rules of travel".

In order to travel, whether it be by paved asphalt with marked lanes, sidewalk, grocery store aisle, escalator, or otherwise we, by definition, need a means of propulsion and a way or course. Without a means of propulsion movement is impossible and no movement can be considered travel without a course (or way, or path, whatever you want to call it to describe an excursion from the origin).

Looking at your choice of dictionary I'm sure you'll see that a means of propulsion meets at least one definition of the term "vehicle" while a course, or way, or path meets at least one definition of "road". So, in a sense, all travel can be considered as vehicular travel on roads and the "rules of travel" can, thus, be interpreted as "vehicular rules of the road". Indeed, aligning our terminology in this way provides a unifying framework in which to understand, for example, the "keep right" dynamic.

Now, obviously there are differences between different kinds of travel which may be used to justify modification of the aforementioned rules. As a proponent of this concept I leave it to you to draw that distinction and justify your position.

blech.

maekineu, at what speed does overtaking traffic have to travel to make you start hugging the curb?

No, Gene, it is not vehicular to ride on the sidewalk. The vehicular rules of the road do not apply on sidewalks. Drivers of vehicles are not allowed to drive on sidewalks; it's not vehicular! Riding on the sidewalk is not acting like a driver of a vehicle, no matter how you're positioned, directed or how fast you're going.

I was told by the cops that it is OK (legal) for me to ride on the sidewalk as long as I was going the direction of traffic next to me. Since my bike is a vehicle, and riding on the sidewalk is legal for this class of vehicle, isn't it vehicular? seems like it would be to me. I think you're wrong on this one, head.

and, anything over 30 mph will make me get on the sidewalk, hug the curb, or find another route. I'm lucky that I have choices.

If curbhugging and sidewalk riding are vehicular, then I guess practically every cyclist I see is riding in a vehicular manner after all. Really, what is the point of the term if it's going to cover just about everything?

Well, what is that very basic thing?
I already specified it: "keep right".



I think what we have are basic "rules of travel".

"Rules of travel" is a very general concept that encompasses various sets of rules that apply in various contexts, including pedestrian rules of the road, boating rules, Disneyland line rules, escalator rules, grocery store cart rules, airway rules, etc., etc., as well as the vehicular rules of the road.. Some of these sets have some rules in common of course, such as "keep right" (or "keep left") and "first come, first served". Some of these rules are more formal than others; some codified in law, others not.



In order to travel, whether it be by paved asphalt with marked lanes, sidewalk, grocery store aisle, escalator, or otherwise we, by definition, need a means of propulsion and a way or course. Without a means of propulsion movement is impossible and no movement can be considered travel without a course (or way, or path, whatever you want to call it to describe an excursion from the origin).

I'm with you here, though the relevance to this discussion escapes me. At least we establish this very general common ground, for what it's worth.



Looking at your choice of dictionary I'm sure you'll see that a means of propulsion meets at least one definition of the term "vehicle" while a course, or way, or path meets at least one definition of "road". So, in a sense, all travel can be considered as vehicular travel on roads and the "rules of travel" can, thus, be interpreted as "vehicular rules of the road". Indeed, aligning our terminology in this way provides a unifying framework in which to understand, for example, the "keep right" dynamic.

Now you're playing semantics. The "road" I speak of in "vehicular rules of the road" has a legal definition in almost every part of the world - the California vehicle code definition is as good as any.



Now, obviously there are differences between different kinds of travel which may be used to justify modification of the aforementioned rules. As a proponent of this concept I leave it to you to draw that distinction and justify your position.
I've explained the distinction in great length in a previous post (in reply to Alister). If you have any specific questions about that, let me know.

I was told by the cops that it is OK (legal) for me to ride on the sidewalk as long as I was going the direction of traffic next to me. Since my bike is a vehicle, and riding on the sidewalk is legal for this class of vehicle, isn't it vehicular? seems like it would be to me. I think you're wrong on this one, head.

and, anything over 30 mph will make me get on the sidewalk, hug the curb, or find another route. I'm lucky that I have choices.
The cop was wrong. There is no legal distinction between riding on the sidewalk on one side of the road or the other, regardless of direction of travel. But even if there was, that would be a special rule that applied to cyclists acting like pedestrians while riding on sidewalks, and not a vehicular rule of the road.

And, no, it's not vehicular in terms of the meaning of "vehicular" as intended in "vehicular cycling", which is: in accordance with the vehicular rules of the road which, by definition, only apply to drivers of vehicles (including cyclists acting like drivers of vehicles) while operating on the road (and not on the sidewalk). If you disagree with this, you're just playing semantics with the meaning of the term "vehicular".

helmet head, care to explain the difference between a shareable lane and an unshareable lane, and at what speed 'hug the curb' replaces 'take the lane'.
For the umpteenth time, a shareable lane is a lane in which a bicyclist and motor vehicle can travel side-by-side safely, both fully fitting within the lane. An unshareable lane is any lane more narrow than that. Obviously, this is a subjective definition and depends on the circumstances, but, in general, usually the line is drawn at about 14' (14' or wider is shareable - less than 14' is unshareable).



consider a bridge deck with 10' lanes and 50 mph traffic. is it vehicular cycling to ride 3 inches from the bridge rail?
Is there a vehicular rule of the road that prohibits riding 3 inches from the bridge rail? I think not. Therefore, it is vehicular cycling to do so. Just because it is not of shareable width does not mean it's "unvehicular" to ride in a position that gives faster traffic more room to pass. In fact, all drivers of slow moving vehicles are required to do precisely that on 2-lane roads, regardless of the width of the lane.



come on now and stay on topic -

its' about hugging the curb. john forester admits he's hugging the stripe on high speed roads. i find that a stunning betrayal of the vehicular cyclists' prime directive.
To nobody's surprise, least of all mine, you've never understood vehicular cyclists' prime directive.

If curbhugging and sidewalk riding are vehicular, then I guess practically every cyclist I see is riding in a vehicular manner after all. Really, what is the point of the term if it's going to cover just about everything?
Curbhugging alone is not necessarily riding in violation of the vehicular rules of the road, so it may well be vehicular. It depends on whether the curbhugging cyclist is riding in accordance with the vehicular rules of the road (in particular, if he's applying destination positioning rules as he approaches each intersection and junction).

Sidewalk riding is not riding in accordance with the vehicular rules of the road, so it is not vehicular.

The point of the term is to distinguish cycling on roads that is in the accord with the rules used by vehicles drivers from cycling that is not.

If that's the case then simply being a "vehicular cyclist" has a lot less value than I previously thought. Again, by allowing inappropriate curb hugging, almost every cyclist is a vehicular cyclist.

The cop was wrong. There is no legal distinction between riding on the sidewalk on one side of the road or the other, regardless of direction of travel. But even if there was, that would be a special rule that applied to cyclists acting like pedestrians while riding on sidewalks, and not a vehicular rule of the road.


:roflmao: No, the cop was not wrong! it's a local ordinance. it's an exception for a certain class of vehicle. and the law says nothing about acting like a pedestrian, that's VC la-la land speak.

:roflmao: No, the cop was not wrong! it's a local ordinance. it's an exception for a certain class of vehicle. and the law says nothing about acting like a pedestrian, that's VC la-la land speak.
Citation, please. The law may say nothing about acting like a pedestrian (one who WALKs), but that's what a cyclist is doing when he's riding on a sideWALK - space at the SIDE of the road designated for WALKing.

The point, again, is this. When it comes to the rules of the road, there are two basic sets of rules, or subsets if you will:


The rules that govern the behavior of drivers of vehicles on the roadway, and cyclists on the roadway acting like drivers of vehicles, including right of way rules among drivers, as well as between drivers and pedestrians (which includes cyclists acting like pedestrians - when permitted by law to do so).
The rules that govern the behavior of pedestrians, and cyclists on pedestrian facilities acting like pedestrians (when permitted by law to do so), including right of way rules between pedestrians and drivers of vehicles (including cyclists on the roadway acting like drivers of vehicles).

For lack of a better term, we use vehicular rules of the road to apply to (1) above, and vehicular cycling to describe cycling on roadways in accordance to those rules.

The 2nd set is referred to as the pedestrian rules of the road.

That there may be slight variations to these rules as they apply to bicyclists - including the possibility that allowing cyclists to act like pedestrians and ride on sidewalks is limited to only one direction on each side of the street - is entirely beside the point.

In any case, neither approach is in violation of the vehicular rules of the road, and so both approaches are perfectly vehicular.

In other words you have to take into account considerations beyond the principles (or rules, if you prefer) of vehicular cycling to determine how best to ride in this situation.

In other words you have to take into account considerations beyond the principles (or rules, if you prefer)of vehicular cycling to determine how best to ride in this situation.
Of course.

And this goes to my recent discussion with Gene, perhaps in another thread. Traffic is a social situation, and all social situations have their unwritten rules. Simply because you're behaving in accordance with the written vehicular rules of the road does not obviate you from complying with the unwritten social rules, assuming you don't want people to harass you for violating them. There may be some unwritten rules you don't agree with, and refuse to follow. That's fine, but just like in any other social situation where you choose to go your own way, so to speak, you need to be prepared to pay the consequences. In this case, in traffic, that means being honked at, yelled, close passed, shown the finger, etc. Now, I've learned that the main unwritten social rule you want to follow is to be visible and predictable - don't do anything sudden, unexpected or unpredictable. Do things that make it obvious to others what you're doing. Don't be oblivious to how you're affecting them. Be polite and courteous. Ask nicely for others to slow down to let you in, and convey a deep-down sense that you understand they are not obliged to let you in, and you are genuinely thankful when they do. If you do all that, then there is very little harassment and honking. But all that is of course going beyond merely following the vehicular rules of the road.

(c) No person shall ride or operate a bicycle in any direction except that permitted by vehicular traffic on the same side of the roadway where the sidewalk or bicycle lane exists; provided, that bicycles may proceed either way where signs or pavement markings on the sidewalk, bikeway or bicycle lane appear designating two-way traffic.

you're driving you vehicle according to the rules of the road (i.e. sidewalk), so that's vehicular for this situation.

(c) No person shall ride or operate a bicycle in any direction except that permitted by vehicular traffic on the same side of the roadway where the sidewalk or bicycle lane exists; provided, that bicycles may proceed either way where signs or pavement markings on the sidewalk, bikeway or bicycle lane appear designating two-way traffic.
Well, there you go. See the reference to "vehicular traffic"? That's to distinguish from the other traffic, in particular the traffic on the sidewalk (or even bicycle lane in this case). Then, for bicyclists operating non-vehicularly, they are still required to go in the same direction as vehicular traffic. But that hardly puts them in accord with the vehicular rules of the road - it just makes them comply with one particular rule that they have in common, the one governing direction of travel. Again, having that one rule in common doesn't make it "vehicular" in the sense conveyed by "vehicular" in "vehicular cycling" which is: in accordance with the vehicular rules of the road.

blech.

maekineu, at what speed does overtaking traffic have to travel to make you start hugging the curb?

I personally don't think it would ever be safe to hug a curb which is directly adjacent to a travel lane at anything but the lowest speeds (where the potential damage due to collision is negligible). The higher the speed differential the more exclusive space I want.

The very safest option at all speeds is to have an exclusive course for vehicles with momentums (speed, direction, and mass) close to your own (such as a bike trail or rail network) to roughly bound the potential damage of a collision. This works well for vehicles like high speed trains, but is not realistic option for cars or transportation cyclists.

As I see it, in the absense of an exclusive course there are three different ways for vehicles to physically interact and, thus, for the havoc of a collision to be unleashed:
1. They can interact laterally. This occurs when two vehicles traveling in parallel interact perpendicularly to their primary direction of travel (ie by "sharing a lane"). The danger is similar to the danger of eliminating lanes altogether.
2. They can interact longitudinally. This occurs when two vehicles traveling in parallel interact parallel to their primary direction of travel (ie by "blocking traffic behind", "being rear ended", etc).
3. They can interact by intersection. This occurs when two vehicles traveling perpendicularly to each other have intersecting paths (ie "yielding for traffic on a crossroad", "blowing a stop sign and causing a head on collision", etc). The danger of this kind of interaction is often ignored when it comes to cycling, by lawmakers and cyclists alike.

In the absence of an exclusive course the way I try to ride safely is to minimize the total of these three kinds of interaction and, thus, maximize the exclusivity of my course. This involves trade offs. Riding on the right hand side of a lane increases 1 and 3, but probably has relatively little effect on 2. Riding in the center of the lane decreases 1 and 3, but slightly increases 2. Riding on the shoulder decreases 1 and 2, but increases 3. However, the road itself also has an affect on these interactions. Roads with few intersections obviously decrease 3, roads with high speed differentials increase 2, and roads with many lane breaks increase 1. For a given road, the way I use my cycling style to minimize the overall interaction is to choose a cycling style which is complimentary to the road. For example, if a road by it's very nature automatically lowers 3, then my cycling efforts are best spent by lowering 1 and 2.

Roads with higher speeds and fewer intersections increase 2 and decrease 3, which is roughly complimentary to riding on a shoulder that has some breaks (which decreases 2 and increases 3 and is probably fairly even on 1). If the curb is next to the shoulder then so be it, but if there is no shoulder then I wouldn't see any particular reason to hug the curb.


Now you're playing semantics. The "road" I speak of in "vehicular rules of the road" has a legal definition in almost every part of the world - the California vehicle code definition is as good as any.

But I thought there was an essence of the "rules of the road" that transcends legal codes? What about safety? Shouldn't safety take priority to the law or, at the very least, be used to shape and justify the law? Is vehicular riding always the safest option and, if so, why? Can the concept of vehicular cycling be used to determine how the law should be reformed, or does it depend on the law as is?

If the state of California arbitrarily changed the definition of road to something unfavorable for cyclists on what grounds would you oppose it? If it's not vehicular cycling then I think it would be more worthwhile to discuss whatever it is instead.

But I thought there was an essence of the "rules of the road" that transcends legal codes? What about safety? Shouldn't safety take priority to the law or, at the very least, be used to shape and justify the law? Is vehicular riding always the safest option and, if so, why? Can the concept of vehicular cycling be used to determine how the law should be reformed, or does it depend on the law as is?
The vehicular rules of the road upon which vehicular cycling is based, for all intents and purposes, is the legal rules of the road that apply to drivers of vehicles, with a few relatively minor exceptions here and there. But the general principles that form the basis for all legal rules of the road around at least the western world are definitely shared with vehicular cycling, and that they apply only on roads intended for vehicular travel is key among them.



If the state of California arbitrarily changed the definition of road to something unfavorable for cyclists on what grounds would you oppose it? If it's not vehicular cycling then I think it would be more worthwhile to discuss whatever it is instead.
Local discriminatory legal rules against cyclists is precisely one of the relatively minor exceptions that differentiates the vehicular rules of the road according to which vehicular cycling is based from the legal rules of the road for vehicle drivers. In fact, for the most part, you could say the vehicular rules of the road are the legal rules of the road that apply to vehicle drivers, minus the cyclist-specific exceptions.
But let's be reasonable. If there is a cyclist-specific rule that is, in principle, really not much different from the slow-moving vehicle rule, then it's not really, in practical terms, an exception for cyclists per se, particularly if it has a "when moving slower than other same direction traffic" clause, similar to the slow moving vehicle rules.

The vehicular rules of the road upon which vehicular cycling is based, for all intents and purposes, is the legal rules of the road that apply to drivers of vehicles, with a few relatively minor exceptions here and there. But the general principles that form the basis for all legal rules of the road around at least the western world are definitely shared with vehicular cycling, and that they apply only on roads intended for vehicular travel is key among them.

Local discriminatory legal rules against cyclists is precisely one of the relatively minor exceptions that differentiates the vehicular rules of the road according to which vehicular cycling is based from the legal rules of the road for vehicle drivers. In fact, for the most part, you could say the vehicular rules of the road are the legal rules of the road that apply to vehicle drivers, minus the cyclist-specific exceptions.
But let's be reasonable. If there is a cyclist-specific rule that is, in principle, really not much different from the slow-moving vehicle rule, then it's not really, in practical terms, an exception for cyclists per se, particularly if it has a "when moving slower than other same direction traffic" clause, similar to the slow moving vehicle rules.

Fair enough, but why is vehicular cycling a good thing? The center hypothesis of vehicular cycling, that "Cyclists fair best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles," is rather vague isn't it? What, precisely is the benefit of "fairing best" and why should I care? Moreover, isn't the hypothesis a bit biased towards the car mentality? After all, train operators are not drivers, they are engineers and as such act and are treated much differently from operators of driven vehicles. Might the central hypothesis be wrong? Might cyclists, like train engineers, fair best when they act and are treated as uniquely different operators of their own type of vehicle?

Would it not be better to group cycling strategy according to the various qualities they achieve in order for each cyclist to strategically select the best strategy to suit his own preferences? For example, if one cyclist gives a priority to safety while another gives a priority to speed should they not employ different strategies? Which set of priorities does the vehicular cycling strategy optimize? If vehicular cycling is best in an average sense then why should we settle for average as opposed to carefully tailoring cycling strategy for each situation?

Fair enough, but why is vehicular cycling a good thing? The center hypothesis of vehicular cycling, that "Cyclists fair best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles," is rather vague isn't it? What, precisely is the benefit of "fairing best" and why should I care?
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.



Moreover, isn't the hypothesis a bit biased towards the car mentality? After all, train operators are not drivers, they are engineers and as such act and are treated much differently from operators of driven vehicles. Might the central hypothesis be wrong? Might cyclists, like train engineers, fair best when they act and are treated as uniquely different operators of their own type of vehicle?

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.



Would it not be better to group cycling strategy according to the various qualities they achieve in order for each cyclist to strategically select the best strategy to suit his own preferences? For example, if one cyclist gives a priority to safety while another gives a priority to speed should they not employ different strategies? Which set of priorities does the vehicular cycling strategy optimize? If vehicular cycling is best in an average sense then why should we settle for average as opposed to carefully tailoring cycling strategy for each situation?
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.

If that's the case then simply being a "vehicular cyclist" has a lot less value than I previously thought. Again, by allowing inappropriate curb hugging, almost every cyclist is a vehicular cyclist.

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.

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.

Of course.

And this goes to my recent discussion with Gene, perhaps in another thread. Traffic is a social situation, and all social situations have their unwritten rules. Simply because you're behaving in accordance with the written vehicular rules of the road does not obviate you from complying with the unwritten social rules, assuming you don't want people to harass you for violating them.
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.