Advocacy & Safety - Any Non-Vehicular Cyclists here?

I don't want to start another vehicular cyccling thread where we debate the merits of VC vs. Non VC cycling, but I want to know if there are any riders who don't follow VC cycling.

I'd say I don't really follow VC most of the time, but I do adopt some of the principles. I do blow most red lights/stop signs, lane split, ride in bike lanes, etc.

Any other Non VC cyclists out there? I'm just curious, not trying to conninve you to ride a certain way or anything.

PLEASE! I DO NOT WANT TO START A DEBATE ON VC vs. NON VC, SO PLEASE DON'T POST ON THAT SUBJECT!

I try to be visible but also to follow what feels like common sense and instinct & I'm not a dogmatist, so I guess I'm not particularly VC.

I tend to stay in the bike lane when it's there. I only move out as needed near intersections. I don't ever run straight through a red light, but have slowed down to a crawl and made a right turn on red. At lines of cars waiting for lights, I slow down and pull ahead on the right.

I'd say I don't really follow VC most of the time, but I do adopt some of the principles. I do blow most red lights/stop signs, lane split, ride in bike lanes, etc.

I'd say that fits my riding style quite accurately, mainly because it's practical.

... I want to know if there are any riders who don't follow VC cycling.I don't follow VC cycling. I lead. :D

What is the different between VC and Non VC cycling?

As I never heard these terms before.

nope

A VC cyclist is required to stop and wait at four way stops until a car approaches the intersection, validating the VC cyclists' traffic ettiqute, and a non VC cyclist wears black while riding the wrong way down busy streets at night.

I'm a mixture of both, total noob here but currently building up to holding my own with traffic.
I ride the sidewalks alot but am very careful about it. If there is no autos around I'll blow lights and signs if I am sure I'll be safe doing it. And occasionally I'll pull out into traffic and ride VC style, but not very often and usually only do so if it is absolutely necessary.

What is the different between VC and Non VC cycling?

As I never heard these terms before.

In my experience VC (Vehicular Cyclists) ride on the same side of the road as motor traffic.
Non-VC ride against motor traffic or on the sidewalk. Sometimes against traffic and on the sidewalk.

VC tend to observe stop signs though they will sometimes roll them after slowing enough to verify there is no cross traffic. Non-VC ignore stop signs and weave through where ever they think they can get through.

When riding in groups VC cycles will proceed together in the same lane, usually but not always in single or double file depending on road width and conditions. Two non-VC cyclists on a four lane road (two lanes each direction) will ride one in each lane into oncomming traffic with one near curb and the other just inside center stripe and will force cars to split the two lanes to pass inbetween them. If at night they will do this while wearing black with no reflectors, lights or helmets. (I'm not streching here folks, I've observed it many times.)

While riding along a street with parked cars a VC cyclist will ride just outside the door zone until there is a long enough break between parked cars to move over and allow faster traffic to pass. Non-VC will weave in and out between the parked cars when ever there is a car length between them and will pass the parked cars in the door zone.

VC cyclists will position themselves approaching an intersection according to where they are headed, generally in the right most lane that normally goes in the direction they want to go. Non-VC hold to the curb up to the intersection and will proceed through the intersection in the pedestrian crosswalk.

I really don't have time to keep going so hopefully you get the idea.

Jeff

I've seen all of the things mentioned above and worse too many times and too frequently. Most of us fall somewhere between the exteems.

Personally I consider VC to be generally following normal vehicular road rules to the extent that conditions, experience and expertice allow. There are a lot of situations where I can't proceed exactly as I would in a car. I don't get bent out of shape about it, I proceed on in whatever is the safest and most reasonable method at hand.

I'm also not dogmatic about bicycle lanes or multi-use-paths one way or the other. I do think it's prudent to understand their associated potential hazards and take them into account as appropriate to the specific situation.

Be Safe.

PLEASE! I DO NOT WANT TO START A DEBATE ON VC vs. NON VC, SO PLEASE DON'T POST ON THAT SUBJECT!

I've already warned a few people on this thread. Please honor BostonFixed request as in original post.

Thanks
vrkelley
Moderator

VC "experts" can detect non-VC behavior at the root of almost all cycling accidents; hence accidents almost never happen to the "competent" vehicular cyclists who are always clever/clairvoyant enough to be always doing the right thing at the right time and to be always in the right place at the right time.

I can say for a fact I am not a vehicular cyclist.

I don't weave.

I don't wear black at night.

I don't ride in the "door" zone.

I never ride against traffic.

Yet all the VC "experts" seem to think that everyone who isn't out there pretending their bike is a car does.

I'm so tired of the generalizations, I could drop dead.

I'm not a VC rider. I'm proud to not be. I ride my bike. I'm safe. I'm visible. I'm predictable, and unless I'm on a deserted street early in the morning, I follow stop signs, traffic lights, and so on.

Oh, and despite my reckless behavior, I've never been in an accident.

I don't want to start another vehicular cyccling thread where we debate the merits of VC vs. Non VC cycling, but I want to know if there are any riders who don't follow VC cycling.


Perhaps you should define "follow VC cycling" for your inquiry if you don't want to start a debate.


For some VC "advocates", VC cycling requires more than just following the applicable traffic law and using common sense.

I don't "follow VC cycling" if it requires espousing/practicing a dogmatic belief in the ONLY way to "fare best" when cycling, regardless of local conditions or individual requirements.

Any other Non VC cyclists out there? I'm just curious, not trying to conninve you to ride a certain way or anything.

In urban gridlock, it would take me 30 mintues instead of 12 to get home if I followed all the VC guidelines. As it is, I hold my place in the right tire track of the right lane, move up between lanes at stops, and proceed through reds after ensuring no cars or peds are coming. To me, this is one of the benefits of commuting via bike as opposed to bus.

Humm I slow way down for lights and stop signs, but if no one is around my wheels might not stop turning. I ride on the right, but outside of the door zone . I try to remember to signal before turning. I don't know what "mode" I'm in. -;)

Joe

Wait a minute. If there are two lanes full of traffic jammed cars, not moving anywhere, is it VC to ride between them? Is that what "lane splitting" is?

There is a very big difference between being an ignorant non-VC cyclist vs. a non-VC cyclist who understands what VC is, the benefits of it and can ride VC. The later then can make intelligent risk based decisions* on when and how to deviate from pure VC riding.

As with learning anything that requires a mix of art, skill, strategy (music, photography, sports, chess, business, etc.) it is often the best route to first solidly learn and practice the fundamentals until they are fully internalized, then as you become an expert you learn how to break or bend the rules within the framework you have mastered.

*This should be understood to allow that a non-VC approach to a specific situation may even be lower risk.

Al

I can say for a fact I am not a vehicular cyclist.

I don't weave.

I don't wear black at night.

I don't ride in the "door" zone.

I never ride against traffic.

Yet all the VC "experts" seem to think that everyone who isn't out there pretending their bike is a car does.

I'm so tired of the generalizations, I could drop dead.

I'm not a VC rider. I'm proud to not be. I ride my bike. I'm safe. I'm visible. I'm predictable, and unless I'm on a deserted street early in the morning, I follow stop signs, traffic lights, and so on.

Oh, and despite my reckless behavior, I've never been in an accident.
I do not understand. From your description, you sound pretty VC, but you say you're not. What is the difference? If the difference is a vague attitude--people cannot discuss it intelligently. If the difference is observable behavior, we can talk productively. You say you are tired of generalizations, so please be more specific! And whatever you do, please don't drop dead--especially in a bike lane! :)

There is a very big difference between being an ignorant non-VC cyclist vs. a non-VC cyclist who understands what VC is, the benefits of it and can ride VC. The later then can make intelligent risk based decisions* on when and how to deviate from pure VC riding.

As with learning anything that requires a mix of art, skill, strategy (music, photography, sports, chess, business, etc.) it is often the best route to first solidly learn and practice the fundamentals until they are fully internalized, then as you become an expert you learn how to break or bend the rules within the framework you have mastered.

*This should be understood to allow that a non-VC approach to a specific situation may even be lower risk.

Al
Well put, Al.

I would add that there is also a very big difference between cyclists who can intelligently apply so-called VC principles (i.e. lane positioning and compliance with laws applicable to BICYCLING), and those VC cyclists who "follow," or worse - advocate, a by-the-book "best" solution for all cycling situations

I do not understand. From your description, you sound pretty VC, but you say you're not. What is the difference? If the difference is a vague attitude--people cannot discuss it intelligently. If the difference is observable behavior, we can talk productively. You say you are tired of generalizations, so please be more specific! And whatever you do, please don't drop dead--especially in a bike lane! :)

I don't oppose bikelanes like a zealot, I love bike paths, I don't pretend my bike is a car and drive it like one, and I don't ride with the mistaken belief that motorists are okay with a bike acting like another vehicle.

Sometimes I do cut through a crosswalk to make a left turn because it's more convenient or safer.

Most of all, I understand the difference between having a right to the road and riding like you own it. Vehicular cyclists are generally under the impression that if they want something they can take it. All it takes is one car squeezing you to realize that motorists don't see things that way. The truth is that when you weigh 2 or 3 thousand pounds less than a majority of vehicles on the road, you don't "take" anything. You try to get it and you move on if you don't.

That's why I don't consider myself a vehicular cyclist.

I'm a vehicular cyclist (sometimes) but I don't consider myself a VC cyclist.

I adhere to most of the fundamental principles of VC riding but I do not accept all of VC dogma. For example, I don't think that VC riding is the best, safest and most effective way to ride under all circumstances.

That said, I ride with traffic, ride predictably, obey traffic laws and take the lane when I need to.

BTW: A bicycle that is used for transportation is a vehicle, no matter how it is ridden. 'Vehicular cycling', as it is used by VC advocates, is a poor choice of words. 'Bicycle driving' would would make more sense.

As someone who's ridden a lot of miles over the past three decades, I'm not sure whether I'm VC or not. I was never familiar with the term until a couple of weeks ago, when I stumbled onto this forum. So I would imagine, I'm probably not.

I try to ride with courtesy and awareness of those around me. I am very cognizant of the fact that a couple of tons of steel could ruin my whole day, but I generally don't feel intimidated in traffic. There's a little stretch on my commute where it's more convenient to (gasp) ride on the sidewalk for about 100 feet than do a very complicated maneuver at an intersection, so I briefly ride on the sidewalk (I've never, ever seen anyone walking on that stretch of sidewalk). Bike lanes are ok with me. Not having bike lanes are ok with me. I sometimes come to a "rolling stop" at a stop sign and keep going, but I almost always wait at traffic lights, even when there's no traffic. I guess I'm just a crazy mixed up 50-year-old. On the other hand, I've never crashed. At least not yet.

Gosh no. My bike isn't a car and won't protect me like a car will in the event of a collision. That said, I usually do ride in the road in the car lane toward the right. I have no problem moving to the left to make a left turn (taking the lane) or switching lanes when appropriate. I actually have no trouble behaving like a car. That said, I also have no problem rolling through stop signs (I always stop driving a car). I will run a red light if the scene is deserted. I will jump a red light changing green if I feel the car behind me is chomping at the bit. I will go right into a side street and make a u-turn if there is too much traffic for me to change lanes properly for the left turn I really want to make. I will go on sidewalks to avoid particularly tight intersections (I slow way down) and I will go down empty sidewalks if I want to go the wrong way down a one-way street. I can't do any of this in my car. I also cut through parking lots and alleys ... I guess I could do this in my car, but why?

So, no I don't adhere to VC. I live in Chicago and I don't think it's a very pratical option for getting around. Sometimes it isn't the safest choice either.

I do find the more roadie my bike (quicker pick-up and less apt to hop a curb) the more VC I do ride.

JRA said it well.

I bike.

Currently no....

I found this great bike path to ride on and since there is no motor traffic, there is no need for me to act like a vehicle...

I more act like a cyclist out to beat the clock... and damn, it is great... the only interactions are with the occasional runner that crosses the path and other cyclists.

I do admit cycling as if I am a motorist for the 1/2 mile or so that it takes to get to the path... But on the path, for the next 20 miles or so... I am "Lance Armstrong -- TDF... ta da" or whatever... :D

I always try to cycle predictably. Over time I have determined that most motorists don't actually want to kill me, rather they are just apathetic about the issue. I try to make it inconvenient for them to slam me, and that seems to work.

I've been put down twice, both times by cars making sudden and unsignalled right turns. The second time, at the entrance to a mall parking lot, a helpful motorist who witnessed the incident said he had the license number and saw where the guy parked—in case I wanted to go and vandalize his car. (I graciously declined while swabbing grit and crushed glass out of my skin.)

Largely, I adhere to the VC principles, as I find myself wishing—often—that other cyclists would do so. When I see the helmetless guy on Main Street, at night in the rain, without any lights or reflectors, weaving in and out of parked cars while listening to his iPod, I offer up a little prayer for either a safe outcome or a quick and painless demise.

That being said, I would never adhere to any "dogma." That's just wrong.

As someone who's ridden a lot of miles over the past three decades, I'm not sure whether I'm VC or not. I was never familiar with the term until a couple of weeks ago, when I stumbled onto this forum. So I would imagine, I'm probably not.

I try to ride with courtesy and awareness of those around me. I am very cognizant of the fact that a couple of tons of steel could ruin my whole day, but I generally don't feel intimidated in traffic. There's a little stretch on my commute where it's more convenient to (gasp) ride on the sidewalk for about 100 feet than do a very complicated maneuver at an intersection, so I briefly ride on the sidewalk (I've never, ever seen anyone walking on that stretch of sidewalk). Bike lanes are ok with me. Not having bike lanes are ok with me. I sometimes come to a "rolling stop" at a stop sign and keep going, but I almost always wait at traffic lights, even when there's no traffic. I guess I'm just a crazy mixed up 50-year-old. On the other hand, I've never crashed. At least not yet.It's really funny. I have never seen a better description of the way I behave on a bike. (Maybe it's a generational thing--I too am 50.) But I would call myself a vehicular cyclist, but Blackberry would not. Furthermore, other posters here have insisted they are not vehicular cyclists, then list specific VC "rules" that they nevertheless adhere to.

What is going on here? Are we arguing over a term, a definition, or literally nothing at all?

I am not debating VC vs. non-VC. I am simply pointing out that those who say they are not vehicular cyclists seem to have an impression of VC that is not accurate. I will illustrate my point with one point from vincenzosi, who is making his second post in trying to explain why he is not a vehicular cyclist.



I don't oppose bikelanes like a zealot, I love bike paths, I don't pretend my bike is a car and drive it like one, and I don't ride with the mistaken belief that motorists are okay with a bike acting like another vehicle.
While some vehicular cyclists oppose bike lanes "like a zealot", many do not, and doing so is certainly not required to be a vehicular cyclist. Loving bikepaths is also not a VC sin. No vehicular cyclist pretends his bike is a car, that I know of, or drives it like one. We do ride our bikes more like they are very low powered motorcycles, but that's true of all cyclists, because, essentially, that's what bicycles are. As far as riding with the "mistaken" belief that motorists are okay with a bike acting like another vehicle, all I can say is that until I tried riding my bike like it was a (low power/narrow) vehicle, I had no idea how accepting motorists would be.



Sometimes I do cut through a crosswalk to make a left turn because it's more convenient or safer.
Nothing non-VC about that. Forester himself describes doing this in Effective Cycling.



Most of all, I understand the difference between having a right to the road and riding like you own it. Vehicular cyclists are generally under the impression that if they want something they can take it. All it takes is one car squeezing you to realize that motorists don't see things that way. The truth is that when you weigh 2 or 3 thousand pounds less than a majority of vehicles on the road, you don't "take" anything. You try to get it and you move on if you don't.
This is a sadly wrong interpretation of vehicular cycling. Vehicular cyclists are NOT "generally under the impression that if they want something they can take it". Rather, they ARE generally under the impression that if they want the right-of-way in a given situation, and ask for it, it will often be yielded to them. But they would not take it before it was yielded to them.

Many vehicular cyclists are not fond of the phrase, "taking the lane", precisely because of the misconception it causes, in terms of "taking" possibly implying that you're taking something that is not yours. I've seen the phrase "use the full lane" suggested as a less confusing alternative. When a cyclist signals to merge left, and a motorist slows to yield the right of way in the full lane, and the cyclist moves into the lane, he is not "taking" anything. It's more like you see a bowl of candy, you ask if you can have one, the owner of the bowl says yes, and then you take one. But you don't take it without asking first!



That's why I don't consider myself a vehicular cyclist.
It sounds more to me like you don't consider yourself a vehicular cyclist because you have an inaccurate understanding of what vehicular cycling is.

I wait my turn at a stop sign, use the left lane to turn left, the right lane to turn right, and I don't go straight from the right turn lane or right turn portion of the street. For those last things I consider the way I ride to be vehicular.

BUT since the "marketing hype" around here (vs any actual words anybody might insist they never said) seems to say that VCers hate bike lanes, would rather ride in the road and negotiate with every car who wants to ride past, insist that cars should pass them slowly, and seem to know that every accident is caused by non-VC riding, then no, I'm not a VC cyclist.

I'm just a commuter on a recumbent.

I don't want to start another vehicular cyccling thread where we debate the merits of VC vs. Non VC cycling, but I want to know if there are any riders who don't follow VC cycling.

I'd say I don't really follow VC most of the time, but I do adopt some of the principles. I do blow most red lights/stop signs, lane split, ride in bike lanes, etc.

Any other Non VC cyclists out there? I'm just curious, not trying to conninve you to ride a certain way or anything.

PLEASE! I DO NOT WANT TO START A DEBATE ON VC vs. NON VC, SO PLEASE DON'T POST ON THAT SUBJECT!


That's how I pretty much ride. I want to be good, but sometimes... the temptation to blow the light is too great. I also like showing off to the cars stuck at the light. :D

Koffee

... other posters here have insisted they are not vehicular cyclists, then list specific VC "rules" that they nevertheless adhere to.

What is going on here? Are we arguing over a term, a definition, or literally nothing at all?
According to reports

I do not accept all of VC dogma.
I would never adhere to any "dogma."the VC apparently [ have | carry | produce | excrete ] dogma, which
the reporters want to avoid [ fully receiving | becoming glued to ]. ;)

So VC is dogmatic and horrible, even though most experienced cyclists seem to agree with 99% of its dogma. What would you anti-dogmites propose as an alternative to VC? What book (preferably), article or web site presents a "good" alternative to the "evils" of VC? What are the differences between the good alternative and horrible VC? If VC is PC and the RC religion of cycling, who is our Martin Luther?

So VC is dogmatic and horrible, even though most experienced cyclists seem to agree with 99% of its dogma

No, VC Zealots are. VC in itself is a thing and therefore incapable of being dogmatic.


What would you anti-dogmites propose as an alternative to VC?

Not ramming VC down everyone's throat and pretending to be more enlightened than those who don't care?


What are the differences between the good alternative and horrible VC?

In and of itself, VC is not anywhere near horrible. The people who "preach" it are quite honestly some of the most pompous self-absorbed blowhard jerks I've ever come across, and I'm sure lots of people on here would give me a pat on the back for saying that.


who is our Martin Luther?

I don't know, but your god is probably Forrester.

I prefer to use the roadway but am not particularly asssertive. I ride in very rural, residential areas or on long stretches of open road. My conduct around stop signs might generally suggest to an observer that I am aware that it is there and it does have some moderating influence on my behavior. Often though, I do not make a full stop.

In one sense though I am indeed a Vehicular Cyclist. My bikes all get to stay in the garage. None of my cars do :)

In and of itself, VC is not anywhere near horrible. The people who "preach" it are quite honestly some of the most pompous self-absorbed blowhard jerks I've ever come across, and I'm sure lots of people on here would give me a pat on the back for saying that.
So you have a problem not with VC substance, but with how it is presented?

No, VC Zealots are. VC in itself is a thing and therefore incapable of being dogmatic.



Not ramming VC down everyone's throat and pretending to be more enlightened than those who don't care?



In and of itself, VC is not anywhere near horrible. The people who "preach" it are quite honestly some of the most pompous self-absorbed blowhard jerks I've ever come across, and I'm sure lots of people on here would give me a pat on the back for saying that.



I don't know, but your god is probably Forrester.But do you have any answers? Or just an opinion?

I've never read the Forrester book, so I can't say for sure that I'm VC or not. Probably not though, based on things I've read here in the forums. But I've been riding a long time and have for the most part been incident free. Riding predictably is the thing I try to keep in mind. Nobody likes it when cars turn suddenly without signaling, so I try to respect the fact that my actions affect other people using the road too.

First of all, thanks to the people who have replied and not tried to attack non VC cycling, or didn't try to stat a debate. Thank you, vrkelley for warning the people who cannot seem to let it go.... but..

I started this thread because all I ever hear on this site is how VC is the only way. The VC 'activists' are usually very prominent, and even go so far as attack other's riding habits. This was meant as a poll sort of, as I never hear from the non VC minority, and was curious to see if I was the only one, or if there are others as well...

Of course there is no one way to cycle, and to debate that on an internet forum seems silly.

I don't VC because it would probably double the time on my commute, and the main reason why I ride is for effiiciency and speed in an urban environment.

I also don't wear a helmet, and sometimes ride with a black sweatshirt.

Again, these are personal choices, just like the type of bike I ride and the color of my handlebar tape so please don't attack me for this.

I follow VC rules except where I think it will get me killed - then I just do whatever makes sense to me. The last thing I want written on my tombstone is "He had the right of way".

Of course there is no one way to cycle, and to debate that on an internet forum seems silly.
But is it silly to discuss and share about the various ways there are to cycle, and to "debate" which way works best when, and why?

Yes, VC is one way to cycle - cycling in accordance to the vehicular rules of the road.
Another way is so-called "ped" cycling - cycling in accordance to the pedestrian rules of the road.
There are other ways, of course, including anarchist cycling, if you will, where you ignore all the generally accepted rules and do whatever you think is appropriate for the given circumstance. But even then, you must be following some rules, whether you are consciously aware of them or not, upon which to decide what is the most "appropriate" action in a given situation.
But in order to evaluate any one way of cycling against another, all we can do is compare the rules of each. And to do that, we must identify the rules of each way that is being evaluated.

But is it silly to discuss and share about the various ways there are to cycle, and to "debate" which way works best when, and why?
It is not silly to discuss the various ways of cycling, but when some people, mostly VC 'advocates' push their adgenda a little too hard, and even go as far as to criticize others' riding *cough*serge ********cough*, then I think it has gone too far..

But is it silly to discuss and share about the various ways there are to cycle, and to "debate" which way works best when, and why?

Fretting over the minutia of things can really take the enjoyment out of it. Cycling can be such a simple & pure sport/activity. Why spoil it with pedantic scrutiny?

Just get out, ride & have a great time doing it is the way I like to look at it.

Fretting over the minutia of things can really take the enjoyment out of it. Cycling can be such a simple & pure sport/activity. Why spoil it with pedantic scrutiny?

Just get out, ride & have a great time doing it is the way I like to look at it.


In and of itself, VC is not anywhere near horrible. The people who "preach" it are quite honestly some of the most pompous self-absorbed blowhard jerks I've ever come across, and I'm sure lots of people on here would give me a pat on the back for saying that.

Nick and Vince, you are right on target, accept friendly pats on the back.

The "problem" with joining or agreeing with the VC clan is not the simple message about preferred positioning at intersections and compliance with the written traffic law. What creates non-VC's out of the potential population of VC advocates is the excess baggage and over the top rhetoric associated with the proselytizers; i.e.:
*statistical tom-foolery in place of credible risk analysis,
*hysterical anti-bike lane ranting,
*unfounded safety claims for proprietary products and educational schemes,
*psycho-babble/voodoo "stuff" ( phobias, complexes, taboos, superstitions, and stereotypes),
*wacky/unique interpretations of law,
*wild extrapolations of gross generalizations,
*etc., etc.

VC "moderates" (if there are any), heal thyselves. Replace the current coven of inflexible VC proselytizers, pedants, and product salesmen with advocates who don't display contempt for the majority of cyclists, and many more cyclists might be receptive to a simple message about the alleged virtues of vehicular cycling techniques in the appropriate environment.

Nick and Vince, you are right on target, accept friendly pats on the back.

The "problem" with joining or agreeing with the VC clan is not the simple message about preferred positioning at intersections and compliance with the written traffic law. What creates non-VC's out of the potential population of VC advocates is the excess baggage and over the top rhetoric associated with the proselytizers; i.e.:
*statistical tom-foolery in place of credible risk analysis,
*hysterical anti-bike lane ranting,
*unfounded safety claims for proprietary products and educational schemes,
*psycho-babble/voodoo "stuff" ( phobias, complexes, taboos, superstitions, and stereotypes),
*wacky/unique interpretations of law,
*wild extrapolations of gross generalizations,
*etc., etc.

VC "moderates" (if there are any), heal thyselves. Replace the current coven of inflexible VC proselytizers, pedants, and product salesmen with advocates who don't display contempt for the majority of cyclists, and many more cyclists might be receptive to a simple message about the alleged virtues of vehicular cycling techniques in the appropriate environment.

I think there are plenty of VC moderates, they just don't identify as VC so they're uncounted. Given that a lot of VC ideas are plain common-sense and come naturally to anyone who's spent a lot of time riding in traffic, there are probably plenty of VC riders who don't even know what "vehicular cycling" is. They've just realized through trial & error, that riding in a predictable manner, and asserting their lane position when necessary, is the easiest way to deal with traffic. The proselytizers are the ones who get all the attention, so they become the public "face" of VC.

I could probably be considered a "moderate" vehicular cyclist in that 90% of the time I ride as if I were driving a car. Yet I still roll stop-signs if there isn't a car approaching within half a block and I'll use the bike-lane without complaint provided it's not strewn with debris. If it's a glorified gutter littered with trash and broken glass, then I'm gonna use as much of the lane as I need to safely proceed along my way...

-Trevor

I think there are plenty of VC moderates, they just don't identify as VC so they're uncounted.
....
I could probably be considered a "moderate" vehicular cyclist in that 90% of the time I ride as if I were driving a car. Yet I still roll stop-signs if there isn't a car approaching within half a block and I'll use the bike-lane without complaint provided it's not strewn with debris.

-Trevor

I really think the important distinction to make is between those who understand what VC cycling is and use it to the degree appropriate for their needs vs. those who have no clue. I'd say that the vast majority of anyone on the bike forums (at least in the safety/adv and commuting) are in the former group. It is those that many of us encounter daily on the streets (& sidewalks ;) ) that have no clue that the VC message needs to go to. These riders annoy and sometimes put me in danger to a degree that makes me want to rant on and on about the benefits of VC. I can't tell you how annoying it is to pass a slower biker when a gap in traffic finally opens, then stop behind a short line of traffic then have the cyclist you just passed pass you and the line of cars on your right, blocking right turners, then you have to pass them again right after the light. Or have a cyclist come flying at you off the curb into the sidewalk on the wrong side of the road when you are making a right turn, etc.

As to stop signs - motorist make rolling stops all the time, so what is not VC about doing it on a bike ;)
As to BLs - VC does not mean you should stay out of BL, it simply means to ignore the lane marker line and ride where best for the situation, which could be on either side of the line.

Al

"Zealots"
"ramming VC down everyone's throat"
"pretending to be more enlightened"
"pompous self-absorbed blowhard jerks"
Hmmm. And some say the VC'ers argue obnoxiously?

But do you have any answers? Or just an opinion?

What question asked has a factual answer?

Hmmm. And some say the VC'ers argue obnoxiously?

Ummm, they do. Especially when they call everyone who disagrees stupid because they haven't seen the light.

I think there are plenty of VC moderates, they just don't identify as VC so they're uncounted.
I can understand why moderates would not want to identify themselves as "VC's", given the well earned reputation of those who do claim to represent VC advocacy. I can also understand why the VC advocates are ignored, also for the same reason.

Ummm, they do. Especially when they call everyone who disagrees stupid because they haven't seen the light.
Perhaps people on both sides of the debate should take a look in the mirror. Some VC'ers cross the line from time to time, but many of the anti-VC'ers resort to personal attacks (like the ones I quoted above). The venom level is at least as high on that side of the debate.