Roody

...is that, even here on the carfree section of Bike Forums, the word "vehicle" is frequently used as a synonym for "car" or "motor vehicle".

Bikes are also vehicles. So are buses, trains, canoes, and so forth. Even walking has been thought of as a vehicle. (For example, Bob Marley's "My feet is my only carriage. ")

Walter S

I use the interpretation that fits my circumstances. For example if I'm on my bicycle and I see a sign that says "no vehicles" then I assume that a bicycle is not a vehicle

Seattle Forrest

Somebody on the local hiking forum was talking about how most forest service roads should be closed permanently to vehicles. I pointed out that these are often wonderful places to ride a bike, with great scenery, solitude, and much less danger of being hit by a texting driver. The guy replied, seemingly very confused, that he was talking about closing these roads to vehicles, not to bikes.

I think that ship has already sailed.

mconlonx

In most state statute it has to be spelled out, something like, for all intents and regarding road laws, bicycles are considered vehicles...

Doesn't such language imply that outside of state statute they may certainly or popularly be considered something other than vehicles...?

Roody

If it's a question of usage, it seems pretty clear that here, of all places, "vehicle" should at least include bikes and buses.

Identify is very important in contemporary culture. If we don't even identify ourselves as independent vehicle operators, who will?

Roody

In statutes, almost every term is defined.

Besides, you are stating that bikes are legally defined as vehicles. So good for us!

B. Carfree

OMG, I agree with Roody 100% on this. I also despise it when people call a travel lane a "car lane".

baldilocks

If calling a bicycle a vehicle means I have to license and insure it. I'm out. I prefer to think of it as a wonderful mechanical extension of myself.

rumrunn6

I've seen signs on bike trails that say "no motor vehicles"

Roody

Neat! Sometimes the bike takes on almost mystical qualities for me also.

But, at times, the magical extension has been called some other names. The forum censor bot wouldn't like what I called it when I was running late and found the tire was flat. Or what I call it when i've been riding for hours and my butt is really hurting.

Most of the time it's just called a vehicle that gets my butt from Point A to Point B.

(BTW, I don't think that calling your bike a vehicle will automatically require you to purchase insurance. It doesn't work that way.)

Walter S

If I called it a vehicle then the places I can ride shrink. So I call it a bicycle.

If signs say "no bicycles" I'm out of luck. For the more common "no vehicles" I'm in there

Roody

Again,I don't think that calling it a vehicle will automatically change any laws or regulations.

Walter S

Of course not. It will just change whether my current behavior is in compliance.

no1mad 

For the most part around here, the "no bikes (or skateboards/rollerskates/blades) allowed" pertain to bored kids using mostly strip malls as their personal stunt park.

Never had an issue 'violating' that when I was simply riding up to a store front, conducted my business, and then left .

no1mad 

Given the fact the two largest toy retailers (in the US anyway)- Toys-R-Us and Wal-Mart- sell 'bikes', it shouldn't be too hard for the uninformed to think of them as anything but toys.

Walter S

It's already decided in Roody's favor.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle

loky1179

I kind of like the term "Launch Vehicle".

Roody

As long as I'm being a curmudgeon, I usually prefer "bicyclist." It seems to be the term most used by people who ride mainly for transportation.

But when I'm on the trails or a road trip, riding more for fun or fitness, I think of myself as a "cyclist."

Walter S

Good job!

Ekdog

The vehicular cycling crowd has turned me off of the word with all of their babbling. I wouldn't want to be associated with them.

I-Like-To-Bike

Not just you has been turned off by vehicular cyclists' babble; their use of stilted language to describe bicycling as in "driving a bicycle" or disparaging terminology ("cyclist inferiority complex" or "incompetent cycling") to describe other bicyclists who don't practice the Vehicular Cycling faith is enough to chase others away, even those who actually ride their bikes in accordance with vehicular cycling precepts.

Some people who post on LCF might wish to consider this when they use fabricated terms like "automotivism" to describe alleged conspiracies and economic plots against the posters' desired lifestyle. Stilted language and obtuse arguments are not likely to win support for any proposal or program.

Walter S

+1. People use these terms to be cool and leading edge. It only alienates people and makes it harder to find common ground by putting up artificial barriers.

Roody

Actually, this would be a good topic for a controversial but relevant thread. Something like "Conflict between VC and LCF." Except possibly everybody would agree, which wouldn't be very interesting.

tandempower

I agree with you here. I make an effort to ride as close to the line on the side of the road if there is no bike lane. I figure motorists will appreciate the courtesy and support bike lanes when they realize they wouldn't have to slow down at all if I was on the right side of the stripe instead of the left.

Let's not revive the old debate about the term, 'automotivism.' Suffice it to say that since that discussion, I have tried to use terms like "automotive culture," "automotive economics," "driving-dependency," etc. but sometimes there's a combination of culture, economics, infrastructure, sprawling land-use, psychology, politics, and other factors that all add up to a paradigm of automotive dominance that is really summed up well by the simple term, "automotivism."

RidesaJapanese

Think of it as an unmotorized vehicle, the same way, at least in my state, canoes and other paddler craft need not be registered, licensed, etc.