Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Riding tests and bike registration?

you admit to riding on the edges of narrow lanes, something contemporary bicycling education and yes, even government publications, recommends strongly against.

If i were administering a riding test, and you rode the edge of a narrow lane of traffic, I'd flunk ya, john!

And you would be flunked as an instructor, instead. The specific question clearly applied to a two-lane narrow rural highway with little but fast traffic. That leaves plenty of room for the overtaking traffic to generally go past, so there is no particular reason to control the lane.

um, you don't get to 'flunk' me john! in a test about cyclist competancy of my design, your methods would get you flunked. Why do you think I'm only referencing your lane position on highway speed roads, john?

your published "ROAD SNEAK" methods are also subpar, and something I do not expect from any competant cyclist except in extremely limited situations. At what speeds of passing traffic does a vehicular cyclist go from occupying a narrow lane to riding on the lane lines as a 'road sneak', john? At what speed of passing traffic should the vehicular cyclist stop taking a narrow lane, too narrow to be safely shared, and begin NOT taking the lane, playing 'road sneak' as speed differrentials get over, what is it, john, 15 MPH?

This 15MPH speed differential you mention in EC, john- does this mean if a cyclist is doing 12, and traffic is moving 30, negotiation is 'impossible' and the cyclist should now start riding more like a "road sneak"?

I see failing techniques on a cycling test of MY design, if you're splitting 30 MPH traffic lanes for the conveinence of motorists in narrow lanes, john!


I'm not for a test for cyclist competancy, but if i were designing a test for cyclist competancy, I'd expect a little more than 'road sneak' positioning for the motorists' conveinience in narrow lanes- I'd even flunk john forester for it!

um, you don't get to 'flunk' me john! in a test about cyclist competancy of my design, your methods would get you flunked. Why do you think I'm only referencing your lane position on highway speed roads, john?

your published "ROAD SNEAK" methods are also subpar, and something I do not expect from any competant cyclist except in extremely limited situations. At what speeds of passing traffic does a vehicular cyclist go from occupying a narrow lane to riding on the lane lines as a 'road sneak', john? At what speed of passing traffic should the vehicular cyclist stop taking a narrow lane, too narrow to be safely shared, and begin NOT taking the lane, playing 'road sneak' as speed differrentials get over, what is it, john, 15 MPH?

This 15MPH speed differential you mention in EC, john- does this mean if a cyclist is doing 12, and traffic is moving 30, negotiation is 'impossible' and the cyclist should now start riding more like a "road sneak"?

I see failing techniques on a cycling test of MY design, if you're splitting 30 MPH traffic lanes for the conveinence of motorists in narrow lanes, john!


I'm not for a test for cyclist competancy, but if i were designing a test for cyclist competancy, I'd expect a little more than 'road sneak' positioning for the motorists' conveinience in narrow lanes- I'd even flunk john forester for it!

Some inventions are fantasies; yours are deliberate nasty lies. I won't play your game.

And you would be flunked as an instructor, instead. The specific question clearly applied to a two-lane narrow rural highway with little but fast traffic. That leaves plenty of room for the overtaking traffic to generally go past, so there is no particular reason to control the lane.

You mean the roads I ride to and from work every day? Please clarify for me John...do you recommend hugging the shoulder on these types of roads?

don't be a road sneak, chip!! John's all about the edges of the narrow lanes when traffic is faster than the bicyclist.



I won't play your game.

Do you mean you won't be explaining your published road sneak methods or validate your inferiority-laden technique of riding ambiguously on the stripes so as to not inconveinence the motorists in the face of faster traffic? Or not explaining how you expect overtaking to be the onus of the motorists, so lateral lane position of the cyclist is not important even in narrow lanes? your rationale for hugging the edge of rural highways, i believe....

john, it doesn't look good- not explaining yourself by 'not playing the game'?? when your published techniques are brought to scrutiny in a discussion of cycling competance.

Government only wants us licensed so:
a. they can generate more revenue
b. keep tabs on us

My bike is my freedom machine, I dont want that freedom taken away from me. I obey the road rules and that's that.

there you have it

I see two possibilities here, one your talking about licensing the bicycle, the other is license the driver.

I'm undecided on the first but I'm all for the second. Having a drivers license for a bicycle basically states that you at one time indicated that you knew the rules for operating the bicycle on a public roadway. So if your caught ignoring the rules you have no excuse. I doubt it would generate more respect from car drivers. I believe that enforcement of existing laws regarding the operation of a bicycle on a public roadway would go much further than even adding a driver's license. I believe that most of the anger towards bicycle drivers is not with the speed factor but rather the implied exception from traffic rules.

As for flamers,

A drivers license is not a revenue generator, $26 every 4 years is not a significant revenue stream.

Don't even bring up licensing pedestrians, there are already laws about where they can interact with the public roadways. That's the child's argument of "Why can't I do it? Billy's doing it". In MN you can drive your bicycle on the sidewalk an be like a pedestrian, but that wouldn't be very VC. In this case a bicycle driver's license wouldn't apply.

Don't bring up freedom. You don't personally own the public roadway, you are not free to do as you please on it. The rules are there to help everybody get along on it. You are free to use the public roadway if you follow the rules, just like everybody else. If you want to drive your bicycle in complete freedom do it in your own yard. Please note, just because everybody is supposed to follow the rules doesn't mean that everybody does, but this is not limited to any one class of vehicle so it is also not a point to argue.

Rather well put, johndeere

...but then this is VC, so it'll go right over their heads ;)

That's a good idea! Just one major problem, who's going to train the motorist and who will enforce the rules on the public roadway? Certainly not a do-nut munching policeman?I have experience with a cycle cop who you'd think would watch out for a possible "lil brother". Told me that he would not ticket the lady that turned in front of me after she snuck past me late to work. He told me that since niether of us hit each other it was "No harm, no foul"! And you wonder why Americans can't drive safely? Why a Toyota Celica will challenged a 18 wheeler going max speed down a steep incline to who has the right of way? Hope the semi kills his dumba**!

You mean the roads I ride to and from work every day? Please clarify for me John...do you recommend hugging the shoulder on these types of roads?

It's been my experience that gutter hugging can get you run over. The cars can't (or just don't) see you in time, especially in an urban/suburban setting. I prefer to ride in the middle of the lane unless/until I need to move over for someone who has already seen me.