Vehicular Cycling (VC) - curbhugging - a VC technique

Curbhugging. Riding next to the curb or edge of the road. This is not an endorsement nor a condemnation of either curbhugging or vehyicular cycling, just some observations.

Last night, riding home. unaccomodated, 30mph, two lane, narrow urban streets with houses, driveways, mix of business and residential, stoplights at arterial crossings. On street parking. A cyclist even moderately taking the lane or riding anywhere near the right tire track would block traffic from passing if oncoming traffic is present.


I'm a very assertive, 'take the lane', cross the double yellow ;) kind of bicyclist. I ride uber-vc.


Yet, a curious phenomenon occured- I found spots - no oncoming traffic, no parking on my side, etc,a few blocks to the next signalized intersection, etc... where i could ride right next to the curb- like 6-8" away and let cars pass me. It wasn't in violation of any of my safety standards, and was 'vehicular' in operation.

THEN it came to me!!!! riding like a curbhugger can be a VC technique!!

^^:rolleyes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WFhlddGqmE

Wow Bek, your powers to state the obvious never cease to amaze me.

From what I remember reading here, from even the "VC Zealots" is that they tend to take the lane and move over to let overtaking traffic pass when it is safe to do so

So in this instance, you have found that you can curb hug and allow the traffic to pass. So you are moving over when it is safe to do so.

Often I find myself on 2 lane roads with 30-50mph posted speeds that have no shoulder. At best I have maybe 6in to the right of the fog line. Sometimes I have to "take the lane" because it would be unsafe to get squeezed. Most of the time however I find it is perfectly safe for me to move as far right as I can to allow the overtaking traffic to safely pass. I always want to be safe, but I also like to be as polite as possible.

-D

"Yes, 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."

Com'on Bek... this is a troll for Forester...

Just drop it. Consider best practices and promote those... don't be antagonistic.

Com'on Bek... this is a troll for Forester...

Just drop it. Consider best practices and promote those... don't be antagonistic.

+1 This topic has been covered extensively already. Don't make me write another song.

Don't make me write another song.

:roflmao: More cowbell for the next song. :p

what are you guys riding me for? I'm just pointing out a VC technique :D that gets underemphasized.

complaining this is a troll? please. this subforum is expressly for all the nuances of vehicyular cycling.

Well I would say it is more of a Flamebait. Unfortunately the main target of a Bek Flambait thread has been perma banned. And the other one is missing his partner in crime so is likely not going to be around as much anymore.

thanks everyone for tuning in to yet another episode of "Yep that was obvious" by your host Bekologist.

Stay tuned for scenes from the next show.

-D

I saw a cyclist curbhugging today. I also see a cyclist every day who looks like Jerry Garcia.

I saw a bicyclist today who was the spitting image of Jay Leno.

THEN it came to me!!!! riding like a curbhugger can be a VC technique!!

How exciting for you.

Perhaps this should be titled "Stating the Obvious - A VC technique"

Sorry, but I couldn't resist :)

what are you guys riding me for?
Maybe because, with both Helmet Head and John Forester gone, your baiting is out of place. Baiting someone who can't respond is just lame.

With both of HH and JF here, your trolling could be excused as a legitimate counter-balance to their lunacy (at least that's how I rationalized it).

But that excuse is now gone.

VC-ists discredited themselves with their tactics. You have adopted similar tactics, which can only serve to discredit opponents of VC-ism.

It's called "shooting yourself in the foot" and, evidently, you haven't learned much from the ineffectiveness of the "shoot yourself in the foot" tactics that HH and JF made an artform.

Go ahead. Take good aim.

Hopefully, cooler and more rational heads will prevail.

y'aalll are RICH. "shooting myself in the foot?" :D

I'm pointing out a vc technique- it has no bait quality.

I'm illustrating curbhugging is allowed as a 'VC' road position, and because two incorrigible forum members CAN'T respond, I'M baiting?

please. I'm pointing out curbhugging is a valid vehicycular cycling technique. I've got affirmation from chipseal, derath. markhr seems to disagree with me, but with ;) video!

curbugging can be vehicular.

from the LAB?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rU4nKKq02BU

what do these links mean, Mark????

what is your stance on riding as far right as practicable to allow faster traffic to pass, mark?

I'm a VERY 'take the lane' kind of guy, btw, markhr...

Yet, a curious phenomenon occured- I found spots - no oncoming traffic, no parking on my side, etc,a few blocks to the next signalized intersection, etc... where i could ride right next to the curb- like 6-8" away and let cars pass me. It wasn't in violation of any of my safety standards, and was 'vehicular' in operation.

THEN it came to me!!!! riding like a curbhugger can be a VC technique!!
I can ride within a couple of inches of obstacles on the right. But why?

ah, as far right as practicable to allow motorists to pass. you could ride that far right if it behooved you to conveinence the motorists, despite a lane being considered too narrow to share. coz curbhugging - it's sometimes VC! :roflmao:

ah, as far right as practicable to allow motorists to pass. you could ride that far right if it behooved you to conveinence the motorists, despite a lane being considered too narrow to share. coz curbhugging - it's sometimes VC! :roflmao:
...and gasoline is getting cheaper everyday...

;)

I haven't been around here for the great debates or the pre-bannings shenanigans, so I'm not too concerned with what's been said before, done to death, or whatever else. I'm merely reading this thread, and seeing what I'd consider to be a nonsense.



Simple fact of the road? If two vehicles are travelling in the same direction and occupying the same lane there is nothing 'vehicularly' legitimate about the practice. It's dangerous driving, in anybody's definition. It is quite illogical to postulate some theorum of 'vehicular cycling' and then attempt to accomodate practice such as this within it. That's a nonsense. It's an exercise in saying "We've got this great idea, but it doesn't really work all the time so we won't really do it all the time!" Might as well jettison the grandiose espoused principles, methinks! Bugger being a hypocrite!


Bikes aren't cars. They're different. Bikes can travel in the traffic when it's safe and sensible to do so, and bikes can travel out of the traffic when it's safe and sensible to do so. If I drive my car down along the highway shoulder I'm gonna get arrested. Ride my bike down there and it's perfectly acceptable.


I've been reading this stuff for a while now, and can't get beyond the notion that the espousal of 'vehicular cycling is little more than word-******y which intrudes. An imaginary construct which distracts from safe and sensible riding practices by trying to restrictively categorise.


This post isn't intended as trollage or flamebait, by the way, although doubtless some people will choose to view it as such. It's simply an honest reflection on what I've read here. The concept of 'vehicular cycling' is well and good, to my way of thinking, and espouses fine (honourable?) principles. But it's merely one facet of cycling, and not a concept which can hope to be descriptive of an all-encompassing approach to cycling on the road network.

IMO. :)

IMO. :)

Bloody well put though :)

I haven't been around here for the great debates or the pre-bannings shenanigans, so I'm not too concerned with what's been said before, done to death, or whatever else. I'm merely reading this thread, and seeing what I'd consider to be a nonsense.

Welcome to a Bek VC thread. They used to be midly amusing when he used them to bait those "VC zealots" (ya know the ones who end up getting banned).

Now threads by Bek "Captain Obvious" ologist are just silly.

-D

my, such thinly veiled contempt.

you agree with my POV, yet you call my pointing it out is silly?

riding near the curb, even in a narrow lane, does not necessarily violate any rules of the road, so vehicular cyclists can curbhug and possibly even dodge in between breaks in lines of parked cars and not violate the rules of the road.

derath has the audacity to call my threads silly, yet he agrees with my POV, and point out his own situations he can do the same in a narrow lane. I don't know what's sillier.


this subforum was created expressly to discuss all the nuances of vehicycular cycling ,derath. and stop pissing and moaning- you agree with my point of view.

my, such thinly veiled contempt.

you agree with my POV, yet you call my pointing it out is silly?

riding near the curb, even in a narrow lane, does not necessarily violate any rules of the road, so vehicular cyclists can curbhug and possibly even dodge in between breaks in lines of parked cars and not violate the rules of the road.

derath has the audacity to call my threads silly, yet he agrees with my POV, and point out his own situations he can do the same in a narrow lane. I don't know what's sillier.


this subforum was created expressly to discuss all the nuances of vehicycular cycling ,derath. and stop pissing and moaning- you agree with my point of view.

Bek,

You gloss over the important details my friend.

Yes I agreed with your POV. Like I would agree if you made a post saying "on a nice day the sky is blue" Sure I agree because it is OBVIOUS.

Yes this subforum is for discussing the nuances of VC. But this thread isn't anything new. You are restating the obvious.

The standard VC mantra I have seen goes something like "Moving right to let same direction traffic pass when it is safe to do so"

What you have stated is that you feel it is safe to move right and curbhug to let safe direction traffic pass A restatement of the above line, which is restating the obvious. Yet you start a thread as if you thought up something new.

Sorry, try again.

-D

despite deraths incessant beratement and my artistic liscense describing my ride like it was an illuminating, Hoffmanesque bike ride filled with insights, riding next to the curb in a narrow lane can be VC.

Curbhugging in narrow lanes -like derath says, to conveinence faster motorists- is a VC lane position.

I started this thread with an Albert Hoffmanesque bent to a topic infrequently discussed in VC philosophy- you can curbhug and still be riding VC, riding the edge in narrrow lanes- like derath and the founder of EC have endorsed in this forum- can be vehicuycular for bicyclists.

I think it's contradictory to think sharing narrow lanes by curbhugging would ever BE considered vehicycular, but that's the subject of another thread. Catweazel touches on this in his second paragraph.

Derath, besides personally attacking me for my OBVIOUS posts, and calling my posts- about valid techniques you agree with - as SILLY? do you think you can give it a rest?

I'm posting threads to discuss nuances of vehicyular cycling. try to stay on topic despite how obvious you think it is.

This thread is about how VC allows curbhugging in narrow lanes to allow faster traffic to pass....a bit inferior IMO not about how obvious my posts are, eh?

I do find it interesting that derath illustrates the differences in riding envirnoment might make a difference in how often a vehicyuclar cyclist chooses to curbhug. Shoulderless, higher speed rural roads are different from curbed, narrow laned, urban neighborhood arterials, but vehicycular cycling allows curbhugging in narrow lanes on both these roads to allow faster traffic to pass.

Shoulderless, higher speed rural roads are different from curbed, narrow laned, urban neighborhood arterials, but vehicycular cycling allows curbhugging in narrow lanes on both these roads to allow faster traffic to pass.

Point of order there. I ride narrow, shoulderless rural roads lots, and on them I almost invariably keep well left when vehicles are passing me from behind. But I'm not doing so to allow the vehicles to pass me. Those vehicles can pass me whether I hold my lane position or not.

Instead, I'm keeping further left when they pass to minimise the chance of those vehicles running their outside wheels over onto the gravel shoulder on 'tother side of the road. I don't want to be sprayed with gravel. I don't want any less experienced driver to have the outside wheels hit the gravel on the approach behind me if that can be avoided, because if that car loses control before it gets to me and slaps me sideways into Hades it's too friggin' late to stand on principle!


On an even narrower rural road, where there's not enough bitumen for the three sets of wheels, I have to assess what that vehicle behind me is doing and make a decision whether to remain on the bitumen myself or not.



I'm thinking like a driver, you see. That's the ONLY sense in which 'vehicular cycling' can possibly make sense to me. An inclusive philosophy, rather than any semblance of an "us vs them" exclusive philosophy. A method of constantly and continually acknowledging the difference and commonalities between cycles and motorised vehicles, and riding (or driving) according to the strengths and weaknesses of them when they are present together.

despite deraths incessant beratement and my artistic liscense describing my ride like it was an illuminating, Hoffmanesque bike ride filled with insights, riding next to the curb in a narrow lane can be VC.
And elephants can fly.

what disbelief! the guy that wrote Effective Cycling- a VC master tome- endorses edge of the road (curbhugging) riding as a VC road position, littlebigman......

hey, i find it very second class too, but curbhugging can be VC!

what disbelief! the guy that wrote Effective Cycling- a VC master tome- endorses edge of the road (curbhugging) riding as a VC road position, littlebigman......

hey, i find it very second class too, but curbhugging can be VC!
...channel surfing...

Curbhugging. Riding next to the curb or edge of the road. This is not an endorsement nor a condemnation of either curbhugging or vehyicular cycling, just some observations.

Last night, riding home. unaccomodated, 30mph, two lane, narrow urban streets with houses, driveways, mix of business and residential, stoplights at arterial crossings. On street parking. A cyclist even moderately taking the lane or riding anywhere near the right tire track would block traffic from passing if oncoming traffic is present.


I'm a very assertive, 'take the lane', cross the double yellow ;) kind of bicyclist. I ride uber-vc.


Yet, a curious phenomenon occured- I found spots - no oncoming traffic, no parking on my side, etc,a few blocks to the next signalized intersection, etc... where i could ride right next to the curb- like 6-8" away and let cars pass me. It wasn't in violation of any of my safety standards, and was 'vehicular' in operation.

THEN it came to me!!!! riding like a curbhugger can be a VC technique!!

whatever you wanna call it ... it works for me.

Ride the white line, take the lane when impossible to do

Bikes aren't cars. They're different.

Yay!

I don't know the exact definition of VC to be honest. I get the concept I think.

I am actually a darned polite cyclist when the situation allows. I don't ride in the tire tracks if there is a safe/debris free spot somewhere near the curb. BUT...I will break any/all the rules if that's what it takes to get to my destination in one piece tho, and inconvenience every vehicle from curb to curb without hesitation.

That's how motor vehicles act where I come from. So I guess I am a VC cyclist!

Arguments and trolling aside, I think the OP has some insight here. VC is a tortured concept in America-- Drivers don't expect it and sometimes even disagree with it, and the vast majority of cyclists enorce those expectations and views. As a result, it's very easy to get strident when riding in VC fashion. You want to take the lane to show that you can. You expect that people won't like the way you ride.

You start to want to get into a fight, just so that ****er can get out of his car and you can tell him the truth about where you're allowed to ride and when he's allowed to pass. I've been there. I've punched cars who passed too close, gotten into shouting matches with angry drivers at lights.

Of course, the VC practicer is technically and legally right. And maybe, although improbably, you could convince a driver of this if you got into a conflict. but it starts ruining your rides. Things get stressful and confrontational. for me, I actually stopped riding for a while.

When I came back, I remembered on my first few rides how nice it is to ride without expecting conflict. Often, if you relax about "protecting your territory," you notice that you can give up the lane safely more often. And, although you don't have to, sometimes if you yield right-of-way by waving someone by, things are easier and less stressful than otherwise. This is not non-vehicular cycling. This is vehicular cycling without the road rage. Just as an unhurried car can allow others to pass and yield right-of-way, so can we.

I believe that vehicular cycling happens when we really begin to act as equal road users, as opposed to desperate outsiders clutching at mere feet of roadway. If I sincerely try to give the lane when I can, I find that other road users are willing to wait when it really is unsafe to pass. When other road users see you adding a little give to the give-and-take, they often follow suit.

Of course, there will still be *******s on the road. But I find that the numbers are a lot lower when I ride this way, and that I'm in a much better state of mind to deal with them when they come up.

To clarify, I'm not talking about riding in a non-vehicular fashion, or acting as if cyclists don't always have the right to hold the lane etc. I'm talking about a concerted effort to make concessions on the road in ways consistent with VC-- allowing safe passing, yielding right-of-way, etc. Often, we get so obsessed with our rights that we try to exercise them all the time, to the unnecessary detriment of other road users.

To clarify, I'm not talking about riding in a non-vehicular fashion, or acting as if cyclists don't always have the right to hold the lane etc. I'm talking about a concerted effort to make concessions on the road in ways consistent with VC-- allowing safe passing, yielding right-of-way, etc. Often, we get so obsessed with our rights that we try to exercise them all the time, to the unnecessary detriment of other road users.

I think I'm starting to get the gist of what VCers and non-VCers are disagreeing about. I am a CAN-BIKE instructor here in Canada, which is similar to the Effective Cycling course in the US. We teach vehicular cycling - riding your bike as if you where driving a motor vehicle.

However, there are two things I don't agree with in the CAN-BIKE curriculum. I will teach it, but state that I don't agree and offer up what I do in that instance. So does that make me a non-VCer? Hmm, it's a good question, but I do not think I am a non-VCer. I feel that cycling on-road is best done abiding by the rules and that makes you predictable, being predictable = safe in my mind.

The very nature of the bicycle as a slow moving vehicle means that it just cannot mix well in certain instances with motor vehicle traffic, for those instances there are options that can make you safe and yet predictable to other road users. CAN-BIKE is strickly VC, but some of the things are cannot agree with. It's alot to type here, and this post is long enough now. If you really want to know what those 2 are, ask me and I will type in another post.

I guess for the true VCers, then this would mean that you are giving up some of your rights and only further supporting the notion in motorists that cyclists do not belong? No, I don't believe so. As alpacalypse alluded to above, operating any vehicle on road means making some concessions to others so that we all move along as conveniently as possible. In some cases that means giving up some of your space, or some of your 'rights' for others. Doing so, can even be beneficial.

As an example of giving up your 'rights':
often on rural roads I will come opon a side road with a motorist sitting there waiting to either turn left or right. I am on the major road, hence I have the RIGHT to make him wait until I pass. That motorist is on the minor road and is required to wait until it is safe to move into traffic. If the situation allows (no oncoming traffic) and I'm a safe enough distance, I will touch the brakes, slow down and signal the driver to continue. I ALWAYS get a wave a thanks. Besides, if that car is turning right it's going to pass me anyway. So I have accomplished a three things; better flow of traffic, less danger to me with this passing vehicle and another positive experience with a cyclist.

As alpacalypse said, I'm talking about a concerted effort to make concessions on the road in ways consistent with VC

CAN-BIKE is strickly VC, but some of the things are cannot agree with. It's alot to type here, and this post is long enough now. If you really want to know what those 2 are, ask me and I will type in another post.
I'm interested in what portion of the CAN-BIKE program that do not agree.

Arguments and trolling aside, I think the OP has some insight here. VC is a tortured concept in America-- Drivers don't expect it and sometimes even disagree with it, and the vast majority of cyclists enorce those expectations and views. As a result, it's very easy to get strident when riding in VC fashion. You want to take the lane to show that you can. You expect that people won't like the way you ride.

You start to want to get into a fight, just so that ****er can get out of his car and you can tell him the truth about where you're allowed to ride and when he's allowed to pass. I've been there. I've punched cars who passed too close, gotten into shouting matches with angry drivers at lights.

Of course, the VC practicer is technically and legally right. And maybe, although improbably, you could convince a driver of this if you got into a conflict. but it starts ruining your rides. Things get stressful and confrontational. for me, I actually stopped riding for a while.

When I came back, I remembered on my first few rides how nice it is to ride without expecting conflict. Often, if you relax about "protecting your territory," you notice that you can give up the lane safely more often. And, although you don't have to, sometimes if you yield right-of-way by waving someone by, things are easier and less stressful than otherwise. This is not non-vehicular cycling. This is vehicular cycling without the road rage. Just as an unhurried car can allow others to pass and yield right-of-way, so can we.

I believe that vehicular cycling happens when we really begin to act as equal road users, as opposed to desperate outsiders clutching at mere feet of roadway. If I sincerely try to give the lane when I can, I find that other road users are willing to wait when it really is unsafe to pass. When other road users see you adding a little give to the give-and-take, they often follow suit.

Of course, there will still be *******s on the road. But I find that the numbers are a lot lower when I ride this way, and that I'm in a much better state of mind to deal with them when they come up.

Oh wait a minute, you mean you act co-operative vice assertive?

I'm interested in what portion of the CAN-BIKE program that do not agree.

Sorry that sentence where I state:

CAN-BIKE is strickly VC, but some of the things are cannot agree with. It's alot to type here, and this post is long enough now. If you really want to know what those 2 are, ask me and I will type in another post.

Did not come out as I intended, it was poor proof reading on my part. I do not mean that portions of the
course do not agree. I meant that I do not agree with SOME parts of the course. As I said, I will teach it, but state that I do not agree with the method and offer alternatives.

Below is an example regarding merges and diverges. CAN-BIKE states that in this situation you ride through the lane as shown. I do not agree with this. Not only do you have following traffic, but you now have traffic from behind trying to merge onto the road and traffic from behind trying to merge OFF the road. Here is litle ol' you riding along the inside portion of that straight through lane.

What I propose is the green line. At each stop you look for traffic and proceed when safe.

This is not strickly vehicular cycling. BUT I am an advocate of vehicular cycling. Hypocritical? Technically....yes. Common sense? Defenitly.

Oh wait a minute, you mean you act co-operative vice assertive?

Co-operative and assertive can go hand in hand. Assertive, is not unlike agressive where you act in a positive or firm action. However, unlike aggressive the implication of billigerance or anger is absent.

You are assertive in that you are confidently riding on the road and stating your place. However, concessions to others certainly can be possible and even desirable for a smooth flow of traffic.

Common sense? Defenitly.

I disagree. Your green line requires you to stop in a place where motorists do not expect you to be, cross traffic, proceed for a short distance, stop again in a place where motorists do not expect you to be, and then cross traffic again.

I think that most motorists, as they travel the ramp at the bottom left corner of your diagram, will be looking ahead or to their left to find a gap in traffic. You propose to cross in front of them and then position yourself outside of the place where their attention will be focused. I don't think that this is safer.

I disagree. Your green line requires you to stop in a place where motorists do not expect you to be, cross traffic, proceed for a short distance, stop again in a place where motorists do not expect you to be, and then cross traffic again.

I think that most motorists, as they travel the ramp at the bottom left corner of your diagram, will be looking ahead or to their left to find a gap in traffic. You propose to cross in front of them and then position yourself outside of the place where their attention will be focused. I don't think that this is safer.

It's a good point and I see what you mean. I'm not sure there is ANY option other than find another route.

However, in my mind any motorist merging is paying more attention to traffic coming up from behind to find this gap. Now, either ahead or directly opposite of this motorist, there is a slow moving cyclist that the motorist now has to either reduce or increase speed in order to avoid AND get into the gap on main travelled portion of the road. Yes, you're right they see you (we hope), but you ARE out in the middle of 3 possible alternatives a motorist can take; those proceeding on through the main road, those wishing to leave the main road (diverge) and those wishing to get onto the main road (merge).

Seems like a harry situation to me that I want to avoid.

My alternative is to stop and wait until it is safe to proceed. Yes, you cross the road, when it is safe to do so. Then cross again a little ways down to get back onto the main road.

Right or wrong, this is the actual setup they have on Vancover Island, BC , they have painted lines and stop sign on those merges and diverges for cyclists to cross. Of course, one can argue this is for the convenience of motorists.

that's some extreme curbhugging going on there, Mr. CAN-BIKE instructor man!

The reason(s) i first wrote the original post i wanted to illustrate the riding positions often accused of as being UN-vehicular by the vc crowd actually are quite vehicular.

I felt it was lyrical retelling and a rational use of a vc technique.

taken to its logical extreme, even dodging in and out of breaks in parked cars is vehicular albiet not as visible as some of us would recommend.

Doing the 'gutterbunny' is vehicular. as long as the gutterbunny gets destination positioned, eh?

We've all done this with long breaks in parked cars, maybe. (I honestly am NOT one to do this very much at all, I'm holdin' steady mostly- maybe this is why the night i wrote about it was so out of the ordinary behavior i found it remarkable ;)?), but a slower rider could perhaps vehicularily dodge in and out of shorter breaks of cars and still be riding vehicularily, no?

look at the way the CAN-BIKE instructor thinks cyclists should ride a different road environment. some of us would never consider that type of extra lane manuevering, but here's an instructor from canada with a very extreme curbhugging technique of sorts- what isn't clear is if that's CAN or CAN'T bike.

thanks for the studied consideration by some members of the forum.

My post wasn't meant to antagonize Bekologist, I'd rather not you use it for that purpose please.

We are just having a discussion, sometimes people don't agree, and that's ok, but please let's try and not make things purposly antagonistic.

I'm not traying to claim I am a know-it-all, nor am I claiming that any technique will work in all situations all the time. I would be a poor instructor to say that I cannot learn from another.

Bekologist, I wouldn't call it "extreme" curbhugging. The hand-drawn green line is drawn in to show the path, not necessarily the distance, from the curb. Moving to the right for those merges and diverges is to avoid being 'out in the middle of it all." I would still expect that the cyclist would take position from the curb using the proper lane width rule - wider the lane, the farther from the curb. Again, the official CAN-BIKE stance is to hold the line on the travelled portion of the lane. When I state so in a course, people gasp and cry "no way!". Other than stating that one should try and avoid this type of road, I offer this solution, and it is what I do.

Just to address your comment regarding dodging in and out of breaks in parked cars:

During my instructor training on-road (5 years ago now) I was trying to follow the CAN-BIKE rules closely. I was passing parked cars about 1 metre to avoid the door zone, but then the parked cars ended for some time. I can't remember the exact distance or number of empty spaces but it WAS a Saturday morning and I'm guessing there was a span of about 30 spaces, keep in mind that these were UNMARKED spaces. At any rate, it was a considerable distance of no parked cars.

However, I held the same line on the road, about 1 metre out from a space of where a car would be parked.

At the next stop the instructor asked why I had stayed in that position when there were no parked cars. I stated that I was staying out of the door zone and trying not to weave in and out of parked cars. The instructor stated that this is proper procedure, it is not wise to weave in and out of parked cars, but for such a long distance of no parked cars it would be prudent to move right to about 1 metre from the curb.

So, yes, this is something we teach in CAN-BIKE. when the space is long enough, move right to 1 metre from the curb. Then as you come upon the next set of parked cars, signal and shoulder check to move left to the position 1 metre from the parked cars to avoid the door zone.

As with anything, this is a grey area. What would be a 'considerable distance of parked cars'? Sorry, I can't answer that, it's a judgement call. There are so many variables, that I just cannot advise. I CAN give general considerations, but it is impossible to state "when you have XX spaces, move right".

It comes down to judgement. Yes, there are hard and fast rules when driving on road, but alot of driving (or cycling) on road is judgement, and you have to exercise good judgement for your safety and the safety of others. That's what the CAN-BIKE training is about, helping a cyclist gain the skills to make good judgement calls and be predictable by using proper VC technique.

Your line on the road will vary from 1 metre from the curb to left of centre depending on road conditions, parked cars is another road condition that you have to deal with and adjust your riding accordingly. This is proper VC techqnique.

So, yes (I'm probably going to regret this), you're right; moving right in between parked cars is a VC technique. I suggest though that you choose your words more accurately. Stating that "dodging in and out of parked cars is VC" carries differant connotations than "move right when sufficient space allows."

Semantics my friend, it all comes down to semantics. :rolleyes:

Digger


that's some extreme curbhugging going on there, Mr. CAN-BIKE instructor man!

The reason(s) i first wrote the original post i wanted to illustrate the riding positions often accused of as being UN-vehicular by the vc crowd actually are quite vehicular.

I felt it was lyrical retelling and a rational use of a vc technique.

taken to its logical extreme, even dodging in and out of breaks in parked cars is vehicular albiet not as visible as some of us would recommend.

Doing the 'gutterbunny' is vehicular. as long as the gutterbunny gets destination positioned, eh?

We've all done this with long breaks in parked cars, maybe. (I honestly am NOT one to do this very much at all, I'm holdin' steady mostly- maybe this is why the night i wrote about it was so out of the ordinary behavior i found it remarkable ;)?), but a slower rider could perhaps vehicularily dodge in and out of shorter breaks of cars and still be riding vehicularily, no?

look at the way the CAN-BIKE instructor thinks cyclists should ride a different road environment. some of us would never consider that type of extra lane manuevering, but here's an instructor from canada with a very extreme curbhugging technique of sorts- what isn't clear is if that's CAN or CAN'T bike.

thanks for the studied consideration by some members of the forum.

moving right, dodging right, small diferences. a better rider might be more agile in traffic....

I'm not sugesting this, i think maximizing sightlines is more valuable than yielding to motorists moving up behind.

if you can do it in a loooong break of parked cars, couldn't a slower rider do it in a shorter break?

I wasn't meaning to be antagonstic, digger. i was trying to make a joke with the "can/can't" bike comment.

I started this thread was meant to ilustrate the ambiguities of vc and how a rider butted up against the curb in a narrow lane too narrow to be safely shared while motorists pass could be

both:

riding 'vc'

AND

gutterbunnying it.

Curious, Digger, what is CAN-BIKE's position on bike-specific infrastructure? Does can-bike officially recognize the accomodationalist model in it's teachings or does it gloss over them by omission?

moving right, dodging right, small diferences. a better rider might be more agile in traffic....


You did say "dodging in and out of parked cars". This implies swerving, hence being unpredictable. It's a big difference. You also mentioned 'riding VC' and 'gutterbunnying'. The term gutterbunnying implies riding in the ditch.

You seem too extreme in either stance.

What EC and CB try to convey is riding right as far as is practicable. Now of course we can get into what that means but its intended to leave it open so that a person can judge what is best for their safety based on the conditions, that's the short definition. For the most part CB teaches to ride as if you are the driver of an automobile. As I said, that CAN break down as the speed differential between bicycle and car increases and road volume increases. We teach options for those instances such as vehicular left turn Vs. pedestrian style left turn.



if you can do it in a loooong break of parked cars, couldn't a slower rider do it in a shorter break?


Hmmm.....it's an intersting perspective. Yes, I think so. The issue is how much time you spend in that break before you have to move left again. Someone moving faster would spend less time in the same 'break' as compared to someone moving slower. Depending on the distance then, that faster person would appear to be swerving, so would need a longer 'break'. Again, it's judgement.



Curious, Digger, what is CAN-BIKE's position on bike-specific infrastructure? Does can-bike officially recognize the accomodationalist model in it's teachings or does it gloss over them by omission?

NOOOOOO! Don't open up the bike lane debate! :twitchy:

But I feel myself taking the bait.

There is no part in the course that deals with bike lanes, but they ALWAYS come up and we do talk about them. As for bike trails, those seperate from motor vehicles, then there is nothing in the CB curriculum. CB is about riding on-road with motor vehicles.

If a bike lane is placed so that one can avoid the door zone use it. But don't use it if it comprimises your safety. If in a bike lane, and you have to move left then proper shoulder check and signal is still required.

I'm torn in my attitude about bike lanes.....and I've already said too much.

dodging doesn't imply swerving! more apt traffic cyclists tend to have better 'dodging' skills, btw. even at speed. not that I'm recommending this! ;)

and lets hope the 'bike lane' debate goes to an appropriate thread, i was just curious if they omitted any mention of the accomodated streetscape and it appears they do. "CB is about riding on-road with motor vehicles" - on road bike infrastructure is ALSO about riding on the road with motor vehicles and appears a very important component of riding ever more modern north american streetscapes. i find the blanket omission of integrated, on street accomodations very curious in both can-bike and lab classes - it's like the ignorance of the flat earth society.

however, curbhugging can be vc, sometimes the gutterbunny is riding 'vc' but not as visible as some of us would recommend.

However, the next gutterbunny you see might very well be a 'vc' zen master of their own riding style.

"CB is about riding on-road with motor vehicles" - on road bike infrastructure is ALSO about riding on the road with motor vehicles and appears a very important component of riding ever more modern north american streetscapes. i find the blanket omission of integrated, on street accomodations very curious in both can-bike and lab classes - it's like the ignorance of the flat earth society.



That's not what I said. Bike lanes, yes, this is riding on road. We talk about that. But no, there is no official curriculum in CB for bike lanes.

Bike trails, not riding on a road (but they do cross roads). We do not talk about riding on bike trails in CB as this is not riding on-road.

right. no mention of infrastructure in the course literature can be fairly called a blanket omission.

....how about those vc zen gutterbunnys some of us might on first glance dismiss...

right. no mention of infrastructure in the course literature can be fairly called a blanket omission.
...

The ommission is not out of malice. Rather, the bike lanes that are about 50 metres long, start and stop, and are used for parking (especially here) is a difficult topic to discuss; how does one deal with them? If the CB national committee is working on an adendum for on-road cycling infrastructure, I'm not sure.

Regardless, for here anyway, it is a non-issue as there is so little on-road cycling infrastructure. Here in Nova Scotia we have about 23,000km of roads and if memory serves me correctly, we have 25km of bike lanes (which are located in Halifax/Dartmouth). That's 0.001% of all roads totaled have a bike lane.

Merges/diverges, road debris, parked cars and bike lanes that start and stop are all topics that affect how we cycle. Again, CB is about giving the proper tools to cyclists and trying to come to some sort of consensus on how cyclists should act for differant types of scenerios/circumstances/situations, etc.

In general, yes, it is VC. But VC using the MVA as a basis for development of the curriculum (far right as is practicable) and of course the tenants of manouverability, visibility, predictability and communication.



....how about those vc zen gutterbunnys some of us might on first glance dismiss...

I'm not sure what you are asking my friend....are you asking something or making a comment?

In your country, do vehicles drive on the left side of the road, or the right side of the road?
Thanks!

Point of order there. I ride narrow, shoulderless rural roads lots, and on them I almost invariably keep well left when vehicles are passing me from behind. But I'm not doing so to allow the vehicles to pass me. Those vehicles can pass me whether I hold my lane position or not.