VC is just natural

[nun]

I only heard of John Forester recently and read about VC, but I realize that its how I've been riding a bike since I was 10 years old. It seems a perfectly sensible, safe and natural way to ride. Maybe that's because in 1970 I took the UK's Cycling Proficiency Test which emphasized following the Highway Code as a bike is a vehicle on the road and lane positioning strategies similar to VC.

[John Forester]

I only heard of John Forester recently and read about VC, but I realize that its how I've been riding a bike since I was 10 years old. It seems a perfectly sensible, safe and natural way to ride. Maybe that's because in 1970 I took the UK's Cycling Proficiency Test which emphasized following the Highway Code as a bike is a vehicle on the road and lane positioning strategies similar to VC.

I started cycling in London, England, at the age of seven. Vehicular cycling came to me by a process that appeared to be natural, because everyone that I knew had grown up in a society in which vehicular cycling was the proper and required way to ride. When I started to consider the views of Americans regarding cycling, I realized that the great majority view was that cycling ought to be done in the cyclist-inferiority manner for the safety of the cyclist, because of the false superstitions of the great danger of same-direction motor traffic and of the incapability of the cyclist. The minority view that cyclists should operate in the vehicular manner was held only by either former European cyclists or experienced cyclists, nearly all of whom were club cyclists. What we see in the US today is just the continuation of the old American superstition.

I see no problem in suggesting that what one grows up with appears to be natural; after all, that is a basic sociological and anthropological fact.

[Helmet Head]

VC is counter-intuitive in the American culture. What's intuitive in the U.S. is to ride as far right as practicable all the time, unless you have a good reason not to, and even when you have a good reason not to.

An excellent example illustrating this can be found in this recent thread (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=392245) up in A&S.
A cyclist was hit by a woman driver who did not yield coming out of a fast food joint, and his assumption is he now needs a daytime flashing light.
Most of the others assumed where he was riding was not an issue. The topic of destination positioning (a key VC principle) was not even raised, never mind that riding one foot from the fog line (which is where it was eventually revealed he was riding) is proper destination positioning for turning right into the fast food place.

Not only do they not think vehicularly (and thus not don't ride vehicularly), they don't want to.

[-=£em in Pa=-]

Get a room.

[Bekologist]

savvy vehicular cyclists realize the benefits in accomodations for bicycling including bike specific on road bike lanes, intersection accomodations, signage, wide lanes, unaccomodated streets, traffic calming, off street bike paths and other inducements to bicycling.

vehicular cyclists like head and john have their heads stuck in the sand when it comes to the progression of community and roadway designs to better accomodate bicyclists.

[Bekologist]

heaad- that woman WAS riding vehicularily, despite your protestations.

[derath]

savvy vehicular cyclists realize the benefits in accomodations for bicycling including bike specific on road bike lanes, intersection accomodations, signage, wide lanes, unaccomodated streets, traffic calming, off street bike paths and other inducements to bicycling.

vehicular cyclists like head and john have their heads stuck in the sand when it comes to the progression of community and roadway designs to better accomodate bicyclists.

A simple yes/no to the poll would suffice.

[Bekologist]

....derath, but thanks for your concern.

vehicular cycling should have no prejudical infrastructure edicts imbedded within its methodology.

[derath]

Yes, in fact I never realized I rode "VC" until I found these forums.

For me I have always defaulted to riding in the lane because, well, the lane is nicer to ride in. Going fast downhill for example, I don't want to be limited to a small strip of road where I have no wiggle room if something ends up in my path.

Of course I use common sense, and I am not going to stay out in a lane when a vehicle is barrelling down at me going a high rate of speed. But whenever I can I default to the lane.

FWIW 9% of my riding involves roads with a shoulder at best.

-D

[derath]

....derath, but thanks for your concern.

vehicular cycling should have no prejudical infrastructure edicts imbedded within its methodology.


And when it comes up jump all over it. But why must you muddy a simple thread such as this? YOU are the first to bring up ANYTHING about infrastructure in this thread.

And to think you are the one that says the other side is constantly prostelytizing...

-D

[Bekologist]

really????

the muddying of the thread was in jon forestors post, derath.

there needs to be a redefinition of vehicular cycling that purges john forestors' prejudical engineering and socialogical fallacies.

[derath]

really????

the muddying of the thread was in jon forestors post, derath.

there needs to be a redefinition of vehicular cycling that purges john forestors' prejudical engineering and socialogical fallacies.

Read again. Where in his post above does he say ANYTHING about facilities [edit] (replace facilities with infrastructure to keep in line with your posts)?

-D

[Bekologist]

muddyed with his crackpot 'childish cycling inferiorities' and already wasted before my comments about SAVVY vehicular bicyclists shedding anti-infrastructure prejudices.

sorry to see you worked up at a simple reiteration of what direction modern vehicular cycling is moving, derath.

it is IMPERATIVE 21st century vehicular cycling moves beyond john's prejudices and let anti-accomodationalism wither.

[mandovoodoo]

Well, in spite of the immediate junk posts, I suddenly realize why I've always ridden differently. I spent my summers growing up in the UK. So cycling as if I were a real vehicle probably seemed pretty natural. While I've had close calls, acting as if I belong on the road has done me very well. Of course, I'm at odds with many of the other aspects of US culture.

[genec]

Even though I have been a vehicular cyclist for years... the whole concept of mixing heavier faster vehicles with un protected cyclists moving a much lower speed is akin to trying to outrun and dodge boulders in a landslide.

[derath]

muddyed with his crackpot 'childish cycling inferiorities and already muddied before my comments about SAVVY vehicular bicyclists shedding anti-infrastructure prejudices.

Where in his post does he say anything regarding anti-infrastructure? And he at least starts out ANSWERING the OP's question. I will agree he takes it a bit far. So you would have been well within the topic to say (here I will do it for you)

"Hey John. The OP asked about if VC riding is natural to YOU. Not your observations about everyone else. So why don't you do everyone a favor and not speak for them ok?"


sorry to see you worked up at a simple reiteration of what direction modern vehicular cycling is moving, derath.

I think you have that backwards. I'm getting a good chuckle. It is funny to see you being so worked up over HH and JF that you feel the need to answer a question that hasn't been asked.

In fact, you are the only one in this thread talking about infrastructure. And you are the only one participating in this thread who hasn't actually answered the OP's question.

it is IMPERATIVE 21st century vehicular cycling moves beyond john's prejudices and let anti-accomodationalism wither.

I don't disagree with you. I welcome any well designed cycling specific infrastructure. I also recognize it is a pipe dream to think it will ever encompass 100% of the roads I ride, so I must also be able to ride unaccomodated roads safely.

I just question why you feel the need to muddy this thread with infrastructure talk when it hasn't even been brought up yet. Do you feel the uncontrollable urge to post in every thread that HH and JF touches with your canned stump speech?

-D

[Bekologist]

would a vehicular cyclist that has grown up in an accomodated community ride vehicularly in a well provided bike lane and feel totally natural doing so?

OF COURSE THEY WOULD.

vehicular cycling must purge itself of its' ideological prejudices.

[John Forester]

would a vehicular cyclist that has grown up in an accomodated community ride vehicularly in a well provided bike lane and feel totally natural doing so?

OF COURSE THEY WOULD.

vehicular cycling must purge itself of its' ideological prejudices.

I think it unlikely that a person growing up in a society such as that of The Netherlands or Denmark would develop into a vehicular cyclist. If, on the other hand, he learned vehicular cycling in some other location and then tried riding in either of those nations he would feel that he was one of a very small minority strongly at odds with the other cyclists on the road.

[LittleBigMan]

I only heard of John Forester recently and read about VC, but I realize that its how I've been riding a bike since I was 10 years old. It seems a perfectly sensible, safe and natural way to ride. Maybe that's because in 1970 I took the UK's Cycling Proficiency Test which emphasized following the Highway Code as a bike is a vehicle on the road and lane positioning strategies similar to VC.
As an adult, I have to say that riding a bike on the road with cars was at first, a scary thought. After doing it, I discovered how wonderful bicycling on the road was.

I, too, was cycling on the road at 10 years old according to road rules. I'm glad that John Forester's ideas offer a balance between vehicular cycling and cycling that is separated from motor traffic. Some prefer separation, but that's not for everyone.

[Bekologist]

john, if a young cyclist grew up riding vehicularliy in San Diego, on Maui, Seattle, Denver, Portland, NYC or and of the other many and myriad accomodated cities in North America, the young cyclist would have developed his notion of vehicular cycling to include riding vehicluarily in well provided bike lanes-

and they'd be doing it totally naturally!
I suspect there is now a generation of vehicular cyclists in the USA that hold no prejudices against well implemented bike infrastructure.

(time to let your engineering prejudices die the death that vehicular cycling REQUIRES to not be at odds with accomodated communities.

why you must equate 'accomodated' with 'amsterdam' belies your supposed 'transportation engineering' abilities, john. your prejudices are showing!!!!

[Bekologist]

if the forestorite vc concede it is perfectly natural to ride vehicularily in a well provided bike lane, they would not be at odds with both riding vehicularism and modern road design-

it ain't the 1950's anymore, Lucy!

[RobertHurst]

I only heard of John Forester recently and read about VC, but I realize that its how I've been riding a bike since I was 10 years old. It seems a perfectly sensible, safe and natural way to ride. Maybe that's because in 1970 I took the UK's Cycling Proficiency Test which emphasized following the Highway Code as a bike is a vehicle on the road and lane positioning strategies similar to VC.

When I made my first bike trip downtown at age 10 or 11 I was on a one-speed kids' bike from Sears and using the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. I may have arrived at that technique of my own accord but I also vaguely remember being told that cyclists should ride like that in some sort of school program. That was certainly the law at the time. It certainly wasn't a 'club cyclist' who taught me, because I didn't know any club cyclists nor any Europeans at the time. I don't recall anybody ever telling us we needed to get out of the way of cars, ride on the sidewalk, or any other sort of 'childish cycling.'

Robert

[Bekologist]

the artifical constructs of john's 'childish cycling' bears no relation to fact. bicycling advocacy and education has never been about instututionalizing 'childish bicycling'- what a far fetched conflagration!

google the 1963 bicycle safety movie "Someone got fat" to see bicycling education that predates forestor and posesses none of his hysterical hyperbole.

(personally, i too learned road cycling at an early age, in a school or other bike rodeo type program. I did a half century before I was even 10 years old.)

[StrangeWill]

I spend all my time posting in A&S instead of riding, thats what real advocates do.

[bmike]

I spend all my time posting in A&S instead of riding, thats what real advocates do.

actually, bek and head and others in here are doing a valuable public service - keeping JF tied up on BF and out of the city council meetings and off the expert witness stand will do much to help everyday, transportational cyclists, out there riding to and from work, trying to figure out how best to work in their communities developing advocacy and infrastructure methods and materials that promote life on the street that can be sane, rational, and comfortable for people wishing to use the public right of way to go about their business, regardless of 'mode' and whether they are classified as vehicles or not.

[Blue Order]

"Natural" isn't the word that springs to mind when I hear "VC"... :lol:

[nun]

My experience of riding on bicycle paths is quite negative. That might be because of the mix of pedestrians with dogs and children and bicycles. Anyway I've had more close calls on bike paths than on the roads because people on them don't follow any rules as they are seen as places for recreation. I feel far safer on the highway riding VC because 99% of the road users follow the rules of the road. Its a far more predictable environment.

[starkmojo]

A simple yes/no to the poll would suffice.

I dont think that is true. I ride semi-VC- Mostly vehicularly, but not always, I like bike lanes (most of them), Bikeways and even use MUPs (gasp!:eek:) as part of my get around town strategy. Am I VC? depends on who you ask- I would say yes, others no...

[bmike]

My experience of riding on bicycle paths is quite negative. That might be because of the mix of pedestrians with dogs and children and bicycles. Anyway I've had more close calls on bike paths than on the roads because people on them don't follow any rules as they are seen as places for recreation. I feel far safer on the highway riding VC because 99% of the road users follow the rules of the road. Its a far more predictable environment.

you seem to be talking about MUPs... which can be called 'bicycle paths' - which are by definition - multi-use paths... certainly the dog walkers, roller bladers, etc. are welcome there as well.

bike lanes are much different... and I doubt you've had the same experience on bike lanes as on MUPs. lanes typically parallel roads, and are usually devoid of dog walkers, roller bladers, etc...

[Script]

you seem to be talking about MUPs... which can be called 'bicycle paths' - which are by definition - multi-use paths... certainly the dog walkers, roller bladers, etc. are welcome there as well.

bike lanes are much different... and I doubt you've had the same experience on bike lanes as on MUPs. lanes typically parallel roads, and are usually devoid of dog walkers, roller bladers, etc...

I agree with starkmojo and ride about the same way. On some other threads, it was certainly implied that I'm not VC since my contention is safety first.

As to dog walkers, rollerbladers, joggers, etc.... I find just as many occupying the marked bike lanes parallel to the road as I do on MUP's. The amazing thing is that in most of the places I have to go out of the bike lane to get around them, there's a sidewalk about six feet away that parallels the road also.

Why do they do this? Maybe one of these days I'll stop and ask one of them. As long as they only have a small dog or they look non-violent.

:)

[Bekologist]

the idea of vc being 'natural' is a joke.

a savage given a bike would have no clue how to interact on the roads.

the rules of the road are hardly 'natural' or inherent. bicycling in traffic -Traffic rules and yielding and reading signage, reading traffic is definetly a learned social interaction with motorized vehicle traffic.


perfectly natural? preposterous.

[bmike]

the idea of vc being 'natural' is a joke.

a savage given a bike would have no clue how to interact on the roads.

the rules of the road are hardly 'natural' or inherent. bicycling in traffic -Traffic rules and yielding and reading signage, reading traffic is definetly a learned social interaction with motorized vehicle traffic.


perfectly natural? preposterous.


just like the 'rules of the road' - vc is a human construct.

if we can get people to understand high speed exit signs and turn only arrows - we can create laws and signage and lane markings that allow the public - regardless of mode - to use the public right of ways in a safe manner. bike lanes, sharrows, markings that differentiate speeds and types of streets could all be used to allow people to move about from point a to b - using bus, car, bike, and foot.

[nun]

you seem to be talking about MUPs... which can be called 'bicycle paths' - which are by definition - multi-use paths... certainly the dog walkers, roller bladers, etc. are welcome there as well.

bike lanes are much different... and I doubt you've had the same experience on bike lanes as on MUPs. lanes typically parallel roads, and are usually devoid of dog walkers, roller bladers, etc...

There aren't many bike only paths where I live, they tend to be MUPs. However, when I use bike lanes on major roads I'm usually more afraid of the cyclists than I am of car drivers as the cars are more predictable. 90% of cars drive in a predictable and safe manner, 90% of cyclist don't ride predictably.

[Bekologist]

so VC ISN'T natural, eh, nun, if 90 percent of riders don't ride 'predictably'?

The majority of riders in Seattle ride predictably and most are riding vehiculalrily- i see less than 15-20 percent sidewalk cycling and very very seldom a wrong way cyclist.


however, is traffic interactions while riding a bicycle 'natural'? HARDLY!! its a learned and induced behavior.

[nun]

so VC ISN'T natural, eh, nun, if 90 percent of riders don't ride 'predictably'?

The majority of riders in Seattle ride predictably and most are riding vehiculalrily- i see less than 15-20 percent sidewalk cycling and very very seldom a wrong way cyclist.


however, is traffic interactions while riding a bicycle 'natural'? HARDLY!! its a learned and induced behavior.

I should have said "natural to you". But then again I did learn how to ride safely so maybe the original question is mis-phrased. But this is all semantics. I'm glad to hear that Seattle cyclists are more predictable that their East Coast cousins, but having a social conscience is more common in the NW, despite its strong tradition of self reliance, or maybe because of it.

I wish that more cyclists rode in a VC manner and that there was some requirement to take a road test before venturing out. On bikes only paths I imagine I'd experience the same level of dangerous riding that I see on the streets every day. So maybe I should have asked "Do you wish VC was natural?"

[Helmet Head]

heaad- that woman WAS riding vehicularily, despite your protestations.
I thought the driver coming out of the fast food place was a woman, and the cyclist was a guy. They were both women? In any case...

The cyclist was approaching a junction with a fast food driveway and so should have switched to destination positioning. It is not vehicular to stay one foot from the fog line when approaching a place where a right turn can be made and you're not turning right, especially when there is someone at the junction who can and might hit you if you stay in this vehicularly-compromised position.

I'm not saying you definitely have to move left every time you approach any junction, but you do have to realize the vulnerable situation you're in, and know the risk you're taking if you choose to violate the destination positioning principle. It's similar to passing on the right... whether doing so is vehicular depends on the situation; the key is to understand that it's a potentially compromising situation and to decide and act accordingly. That's what "thinking vehicularly" means - it means knowing the vehicular rules and how and why they apply when and where. This does not come naturally to most cyclists, at least not to most cyclists in the U.S. today.

[Helmet Head]

Yes, in fact I never realized I rode "VC" until I found these forums.

For me I have always defaulted to riding in the lane because, well, the lane is nicer to ride in. Going fast downhill for example, I don't want to be limited to a small strip of road where I have no wiggle room if something ends up in my path.

Of course I use common sense, and I am not going to stay out in a lane when a vehicle is barrelling down at me going a high rate of speed. But whenever I can I default to the lane.

FWIW 9% of my riding involves roads with a shoulder at best.

-D
I'd say you are a relatively rare exception in our culture - a cyclist to whom VC comes naturally.

[Helmet Head]

Even though I have been a vehicular cyclist for years... the whole concept of mixing heavier faster vehicles with un protected cyclists moving a much lower speed is akin to trying to outrun and dodge boulders in a landslide.
With all due respect, VC most certainly does not come naturally to you, Gene.

[nun]

I thought the driver coming out of the fast food place was a woman, and the cyclist was a guy. They were both women? In any case...

The cyclist was approaching a junction with a fast food driveway and so should have switched to destination positioning. It is not vehicular to stay one foot from the fog line when approaching a place where a right turn can be made and you're not turning right, especially when there is someone at the junction who can and might hit you if you stay in this vehicularly-compromised position.

I'm not saying you definitely have to move left every time you approach any junction, but you do have to realize the vulnerable situation you're in, and know the risk you're taking if you choose to violate the destination positioning principle. It's similar to passing on the right... whether doing so is vehicular depends on the situation; the key is to understand that it's a potentially compromising situation and to decide and act accordingly. That's what "thinking vehicularly" means - it means knowing the vehicular rules and how and why they apply when and where. This does not come naturally to most cyclists, at least not to most cyclists in the U.S. today.

On my commute there's a place where the road forks. I take the left hand fork and to make sure other road users don't cut me off by overtaking me and taking the right hand fork right in front of me I always signal left and move into the lane so I can't be overtaken. It just seems sensible.

[Helmet Head]

When I made my first bike trip downtown at age 10 or 11 I was on a one-speed kids' bike from Sears and using the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. I may have arrived at that technique of my own accord but I also vaguely remember being told that cyclists should ride like that in some sort of school program. That was certainly the law at the time. It certainly wasn't a 'club cyclist' who taught me, because I didn't know any club cyclists nor any Europeans at the time. I don't recall anybody ever telling us we needed to get out of the way of cars, ride on the sidewalk, or any other sort of 'childish cycling.'

Robert
I started riding on the streets at age 7 or 8 on a red Stingray. I didn't get my blue Peugeot 10 speed UO-8 until I was 11 or 12. This was small town in central California with relatively light traffic. I don't remember getting any specific instruction from anyone, but it seemed natural to me to ride on sidewalks or near the curb, so that's what I did. When I got the 10 speed and started riding a lot, I learned to ride further from the curb, but I still oriented myself relative to the outside edge (or curb) of the road, not relative to the center of the road (or anything parallel to it, like the left stripe of the outside lane, or the tire tracks of motor traffic in that lane). Even the club cyclists did not teach me that. I didn't get that until I read Effective Cycling. Now, of course, it's totally natural, and it came naturally as soon as I understood the concept. But until I read about, positioning myself laterally relative to the outside edge seemed totally natural and it didn't occur to me to do anything else. Observing the behavior of the vast majority of cyclists, including obviously very experienced ones, so it is with them.

[Bekologist]

no, head, riding a foot into the lane IS vehicular operation of a bike- you are confusing prudent defensive bicycling with strict vehicularity.

the responsibility of traffic entering a superior roadway is to yield to all traffic until clear to do so, and a motorist overtaking a bicyclist to the right side of the road must also treat the bicyclist safely, regardless of road position.

that is secondary to this post, but you are confusing vehicular with defensive bicycling.

however, i believe you illustrate the point- 'vc' is most definelty NOT natural..to you or anyone else.

[Helmet Head]

no, head, riding a foot into the lane IS vehicular operation of a bike- you are confusing prudent defensive bicycling with strict vehicularity.

the responsibility of traffic entering a superior roadway is to yield to all traffic until clear to do so, and a motorist overtaking a bicyclist to the right side of the road must also treat the bicyclist safely, regardless of road position.

that is secondary to this post, but you are confusing vehicular with defensive bicycling.

however, i believe you illustrate the point- 'vc' is most definelty NOT natural..to you or anyone else.

Even a critic of Forester like Jeffrey Hiles understands that destination positioning is fundamental to vehicular cycling.


Forester’s “basic principles of traffic cycling”

* Drive on the right side of the roadway, never on the left and never on the sidewalk.
* When you reach a more important or larger road than the one you are on, yield to crossing traffic. Here, yielding means looking to each side and waiting until no traffic is coming.
* When you intend to change lanes or move laterally on the roadway, yield to traffic in the new lane or line of travel. Here, yielding means looking forward and backward until you see that no traffic is coming.
* When approaching an intersection, position yourself with respect to your destination direction—on the right near the curb if you want to turn right, on the left near the center line if you want to turn left, and between those positions if you want to go straight.
* Between intersections, position yourself according to your speed relative to other traffic; slower traffic is nearer the curb and faster traffic is nearer the centerline (Forester, 1993, p. 246).


http://www.wright.edu/~jeffrey.hiles/essays/listening/ch4.html

Positioning yourself one foot from the fog line is on the right near the curb which is appropriate if if you want to turn right, and not if you want to go straight.. If you are going straight, which this cyclist was, you should be between "the left near the center line" and "on the right near the curb".

That this does not come natural to that cyclist, or to you, apparently, is the point. What's most amazing to me is that after all these years and countless thousands of posts, you still don't get the absolute basics that even a critic of Forester like Hiles understands.

[Bekologist]

i disagree. it has been repeatedly clarified in this forum that vehicular cycling requires no specific lane position for straight thru travel. - (this is general) as long as a bicyclist does not OVERTAKE traffic on its right that might turn right, a bicyclist is riding vehicularily.

Bicyclists can ride far right past intersections, it is vehicular, and the onus is on the motorists to interact safely with a bicyclist tooling along to the right side of a travel lane.

why you insist to the contrary belies the very notion of what 'vehicular' use of a road is, head.

[Bekologist]

- it is interesting it was natural for you to first ride a bike on the sidewalks, helmet.

[Helmet Head]

i disagree. it has been repeatedly clarified in this forum that vehicular cycling requires no specific lane position for straight thru travel. - (this is general) as long as a bicyclist does not OVERTAKE traffic on its right that might turn right, a bicyclist is riding vehicularily.

What part of between those positions if you want to go straight do you not understand?

Destination positioning is fundamental to vehicular cycling.

It's there in black and white, Beck. Well, navy and white. If you can't grasp that, I can't help you.

[Bekologist]

head-

you are confusing 'defensive' bicycling with strict vehicularity. a bicyclist is not in violation of vehicular operation as long as they do not overtake traffic on the right that might turn right- for thru travel, otherwise, any lane position is vehicular, even 'curbhugging' as the onus on safe passing and interactions at intersections is on the motorists.

head, this has been debated at length in this forum- john forestor and yourself have conceded bikes can ride far right past intersections and not be in violation of vehicularity....don'tyou remember you reiterating this a couple of weeks ago?

[Helmet Head]

- it is interesting it was natural for you to first ride a bike on the sidewalks, helmet.
That's where most of the kids in my neighborhood rode their bikes, so of course it was natural. Much of what we learn naturally comes from watching others. One of the reasons vehicular cycling is unnatural in our culture is because it is unusual.

[Bekologist]

positioned in a lane of travel that is not to the right of traffic that might turn right is vehicular. not overtaking right turning vehicles on the right is vehicular. riding a foot in the lane is between the positions far right and left side, and IS vehicular, despite your protestations, head.

[Helmet Head]

head-

you are confusing 'defensive' bicycling with strict vehicularity. a bicyclist is not in violation of vehicular operation as long as they do not overtake traffic on the right that might turn right- for thru travel, otherwise, any lane position is vehicular, even 'curbhugging' as the onus on safe passing and interactions at intersections is on the motorists.

head, this has been debated at length in this forum- john forestor and yourself have conceded bikes can ride far right past intersections and not be in violation of vehicularity....don'tyou remember you reiterating this a couple of weeks ago?
I don't know what your definitions of "'defensive' bicycling" and "strict vehicularity" are. Unless you define them, you're just playing semantics.

In contrast I'm using a clear and objective definition of vehicular cycling, that presented by a critic of John Forester. Per that definition, destination position is fundamental, and a through cyclist riding one foot from the road edge is clearly in violation.

[Helmet Head]

positioned in a lane of travel that is not to the right of traffic that might turn right is vehicular. not overtaking right turning vehicles on the right is vehicular. riding a foot in the lane is between the positions far right and left side, and IS vehicular, despite your protestations, head.

Maybe somebody else can explain it to you in a way that you'll understand. I apparently cannot, not even by using the words of Jeffrey Hiles.