Bruce Rosar

IMHO, using prevents in this context overstates your case somewhat. While a wide vehicle (such as a car) is easier for other road users to see than a narrow vehicle (such as a bicycle), approaching traffic (from any direction) can't actually stop a someone from attempting a pass (although it would be less likely that they'd try).

I-Like-To-Bike

Bruce! You surprise me! +1

noisebeam

One can not make any judgement about that photo due to the presence of the vehicle (bike or car) that it was taken from. That changes the situation completely. Maybe they always ride in the so called 'margin' but that can only be a guess.

Al

Brian Ratliff

Yea. People. To another room with you all if you want to keep on your "fsdt" topic.

Helmet Head

I think the problem with the term "vehicular" is that the only (non cycling ) "vehicular" experience the vast majority of the public has had does not include operating a slow moving vehicle. Therefore, to them, the legitimate behavior of drivers of slow moving vehicles, including moving aside, using shoulders and sharing lanes in order to allow faster same direction traffic to pass easier, when safe and reasonable to do so, does not seem "vehicular". But such behavior for drivers of slow moving vehicles is most certainly vehicular, and most if not all legal manifestations of the vehicular rules of the road mandate it. To eliminate it from the "definition" of "vehicular cycling" does reflect the common sense interpretation of the term vehicular, but ignores the operational and physical characteristics of the bicycle that make the vehicular rules of the road that apply to drivers of slow moving vehicles so relevant to bicyclists operating in traffic on roads in accordance to the vehicular rules of the road.

Helmet Head

Good catch, I used the word "prevent" twice, and "inhibit" the 3rd time, which is more accurate. I've edited the post so that it says "inhibit" in all 3 cases. Thanks.

Edit: in my defense, technically, "hinder" is supposed to be a synonym for prevent, and "hinder" would be an appropriate word to use here, but prevent does imply "not allow" to a greater degree than I intended to convey.

Edit 2: I changed the first one back to prevents, since that's reasonably accurate, and changed the second one to hinder.

Helmet Head

Note that I did not make any judgment about the behavior of those in the photo.

However, IF that exemplifies how they are positioned when fsdt is absent, then my comments apply.

Bruce Rosar

Another point of view is that the vast majority has had experience traveling by human powered vehicle, but that they just don't recognize their bike or trike usage for what it is (even though the concept has been around for a long time, as shown by the 1950s educational film Drive Your Bike, 10:47).

Helmet Head

I think we're both right, but my explanation is really at the root of it: because of their personal experiences, the concept most people associate with the term "vehicle" in their minds is the car. Evidence of this is the shorthand commonly used by folks, even folks with years of exposure to the term, to describe vehicular cycling as "riding a bike as if it's a car".

Again, this is all very understandable because most people's exposure to anything they associate with the term "vehicle" is almost thoroughly dominated by cars. So when they hear or read "vehicular", they think "like a car" or "pertaining to a car".

Edit: Anecdotally, the occasional commercial truck driver who posts here seems to have less of a problem with associating the behavior of drivers of slow moving vehicles with the term "vehicular" than does the average person.

sbhikes

It's hopeless, Brian.

Let's just adopt your definition of vehicular cycling as part of adaptive cycling and be done with these jokers.

Brian Ratliff

I'm glad that someone is still on topic here. Anyway...

The problems you speak of are largely political. I sympathize because most of the battles cyclists have fought with governments have been political. The terminology from these battles have political meanings which conflict with technical meanings, and this is part of the problem.

The fact that the term "vehicular" has an understanding in common vernacular that is somewhat separate from how some of us use the term is what is at the center of all this. The OP definition takes this common vernacular definition and codifies it into the technical language. The issue I disagree with is that the term "vehicular cycling" need take into account any operational characteristics of bicycles. I guess I am taking up your position in this matter, that speed and size of the vehicle don't matter, in the context of vehicular cycling (in the OP definition sense).

The very point of redefining "VC" is to get away from this battle of words between "pro-facilities" people and "anti-facilities" people. Look at the heckling from galen, for example, I get for a simple tightening up of the definition. I want a true discussion of the effects of how cyclists ride on the road. The effects on safety, the effects on the traffic system as a whole, and the effects on cyclist and driver's perception of cycling. It might be expedient for vehicular cyclists to lay claim to the term "vehicular cycling," but realize that by doing this, and combining generalized safe cycling practices in with ideology, you are essentially politicizing a very valuable cycling technique.

The whole goal here is to separate these valuable cycling techniques from the politics. A cyclist who takes the lane through an intersection should not be labeled a "vehicular cyclist." This hypothetical cyclist might take issue with the politics of vehicular cyclists, and get the idea that he shouldn't use any of the techniques that John Forester popularized, because then he'd be a member of a group against his will and opinion.

To separate these cycling techniques from politics, the definition has to be tightened up to the point where it only includes the basic hallmarks of the technique, namely, taking the lane and destination lane positioning. All the other stuff, like lane sharing or stopping at stop signs, is simply stuff that any cyclist has to do to get anywhere on a bike. I want to separate all this extraneous stuff from the term, so that these uniquely vehicular techniques can be evaluated given specific situations. Why have a war over a word which already has a common vernacular meaning which most of the population will recognize? Why not make the common vernacular meaning the formal meaning. It seems like it'd save a lot of confusion.

Brian Ratliff

Aw, don't worry about the hecklers. Just don't make this a shooting war. Retoric is unique in that one has to shoot back to be hit by it. Retoric which is unanswered is well and truly irrelevent. And we've got the moderators if it gets too out of hand.

HH and I are actually having a pretty good discussion here. Even if the terminology cannot be adopted, it drags a whole bunch of stuff out into the open. Including the heckling, which just goes to show how politicized this term is, and how much need there is for a change of definitions on a broad scale.

noisebeam

I'm sorry Brian, but in your tightened definition you being by stating:
"Examples of what is not within the working definition of vehicular cycling:
1) riding to the right hand side of the road and sharing the lane. A cyclist traveling in vehicular mode will not share lanes in any way, shape, or sense of the word. "
When you know very well that most folks who consider themselves vehicular in their cycling style do do this? Given this did you expect there would be no friction in your revised definition?

Somehow I am able to separate the politics of VC with the practical, why can't others? Are folks here that concerned with labels and what other think of them?

Al

Brian Ratliff

^^^^
Again, a "vehicular cyclist" is not what I am defining here. I am defining a word to describe a set of techniques which vehicular cyclists and other types of cyclists sometimes use.

Self described "vehicular cyclists" or "folks who consider themselves vehicular in their cycling style" can describe their cycling style as anything they want.

To get what I am saying, ask yourself: what is the hallmark of a "vehicular cyclist"? It is not riding in the margin and letting a car share their lane (using HH's definition for a "margin"). It is taking the lane and not allowing passing, coupled with destination lane positioning.

Lastly, if "vehicular cycling" already has a meaning in common vernacular, why complicate the definition to make it some sort of intimidating "school" of cycling?

Helmet Head

Now that I'm finally starting to understand what you're trying to do, here's an idea off the top of my head, it's so raw I can't even say for sure that I like it.

But what if we referred to your description in the OP as "Advanced Vehicular Cycling"? OR AVC, to differentiate the subset of VC practices that are not as commonly used by the typical cyclist as are other VC practices.

That way we can say lane sharing, for example, is a VC practice, but it is not an AVC practice (which is not to imply that someone advanced in VC would not use it, just that lane sharing is not an AVC practice), and that using an assertive lane-controlling position (when safe and reasonable to do so), is both a VC practice and an AVC practice.

If we achieve consensus on this, perhaps you can modify the OP accordingly, and coax a moderator to change the title of this thread, and we can stop the arguing over terminology, politics and semantics?

sggoodri

Brian,

After re-reading your words, I agree with your motivations, and believe them to be honorable. I agree that there are problems with calling a cyclist a "vehicular cyclist" just because he does something that overlaps with the practices encouraged by vehicular cycling education programs. ILTB often makes legitimate complaints about John Forester classifying all cyclists who make traffic errors as not being vehicular-cyclists, as though cyclists who attempt to operate according to vehicular principles never make errors.

However, I disagree with your assertion that sharing the lane is outside the fundamental concepts of vehicular cycling. I observe it to be a very important part of vehicular cycling technique; specifically, I believe that proper lane sharing technique must be explained in terms of vehicular rules, so that cyclists will best understand what side of the lane they do and don't want other traffic trying to use to overtake them depending on their destinations. I view sharing of wide lanes to be a specialized case of the more general rule of sharing a substantial width of unstriped pavement, whether this pavement is a residential street or a wide multi-use path. I view overtaking without a stripe between users as an ordinary part of cycling and thus an essential subject for vehicular cycling to address according to basic vehicular rules.

I also disagree with your assertion that stopping for stop signs and such is obviously something that any cyclist must do to get somewhere on a bike. There are some people who feel strongly that cyclists should not have to follow many of the basic vehicular rules that other drivers follow. For instance, some believe that cyclists should have the right of way over other drivers at intersections, or that cyclists should be able to ride across mid-block crosswalks and that drivers on the main road should yield to them like they ought to yield to pedestrians at mid-block crosswalks. Vehicular cycling as a model of traffic negotiation offers explanations of why these alternate rules are problematic due to the kinematic and dynamic limitations of the bicycle as a vehicle, as well as the limited perceptual and reactive abilities of drivers of cars and bikes. Put more simply, if one enters junctions fast enough to have limited time to see and be seen by other drivers, and one has limited ability to stop instantly and/or back up when things happen unexpectedly, then the normal vehicular rules are safer at junctions than other rules such as pedestrian rules.

These are some of the useful features that I see in the vehicular cycling paradigm and the cycling education programs and traffic laws applicable to cyclists that are based on it. This is why I encourage you to not throw out the baby with the bath water by attempting to define vehicular cycling otherwise.

-Steve Goodridge

joejack951

If you want to tighten up a definition, the term "taking the lane" certainly is not going to cut it. I've seen "taking the lane" defined as:

1. riding in any part of the lane
2. riding in the right tire track
3. riding in between the tire tracks
4. riding down the centerline of the road
5. swerving in front of passing vehicles to physically "take" the lane (this last definition is also often confused with what HH refers to as dynamic lateral lane positioning)

No one here will argue that destination lane positioning is not part of vehicular cycling.

Go searching for some threads about stop signs or just observe cyclists anywhere on the roads and see how many actually stop for stop signs when they should. Most don't think they apply because they do not see themselves as vehicles. Most sidewalk cyclists don't give a crap about redlights either and neither do most cyclists who I see sticking to the margins of the road at all times.

You can ride a bike without stopping at stop signs or red lights but then it wouldn't be very vehicular. Rarely do you see anyone driving their car with the same disregard for traffic control devices as you see coming from non-vehicular cyclists (except in the case of speed limits but that's another topic).

Helmet Head

Seems like more reasons to go with "Advanced Vehicular Cycling" or "Advanced Vehicular Cycling Practices".

Helmet Head

Or, now that we've hashed out whatever we accomplished in this thread, let's leave it as is, and you (Brian) start a new thread entitled "Working definition of 'Advanced Vehicular Cycling'", copy/paste/update your OP, and start from there?

sggoodri

I don't really care for your "Advanced" modifier as I don't see what borders on pathological lane dominance as a virtue or desirable progression from normal vehicular cycling.

I suggest we call it something more descriptive and clear, such as "Lane Dominance Cycling". The basic rules of the road, and why it's useful to follow them on a bike, would be outside the scope of a discussion about how to most effectively control a travel lane.

Helmet Head

Here's what I propose as a compromise.
------------------

Vehicular Cycling (VC) is defined as cycling on roads in accordance with the vehicular rules of the road (as opposed to cycling in accordance to the rules of the road to be followed by pedestrians, or not in accordance to any specific set of rules), including the rules of the road that drivers of slow moving vehicles are supposed to follow.


In order to differentiate the VC practices used by most cyclists from those used by those who describe themselves as vehicular cyclists, the term "advanced vehicular cycling" will be used to describe those practices.


Advanced Vehicular Cycling (AVC) is a group of VC techniques and practices surrounding the adoption by a cyclist of destination positioning utilizing the full width of the roadway.


Examples of what is not within the working definition of Advanced Vehicular Cycling:What are within the working definition of Advanced Vehicular Cycling:

Helmet Head

I agree that "what borders on pathological lane dominance" is not a "virtue or desirable progression from normal vehicular cycling". That's why I think the definition should be refined so that it does not border on pathological lane dominance. Does my proposed compromise version above seem that way to you?

sggoodri

Precisely. Stopping for red lights, riding in the same direction as other traffic, and using lights at night may be obvious to all of us reading this forum, but for many of the beginning and "casual" cyclists I've taken out for rides, these represent significant changes in their behavior as part of their conceptual introduction to vehicular cycling. It's a challenge to gently influence new cyclists into following the basic vehicular rules - but the number of near-collisions I've seen convince me of the importance of doing so. These novice cyclists aren't stupid, they just didn't equate bicycle operation with driving a vehicle. Once they understood the paradigm, and why it works, their cycling was immediately safer, because they quickly were able to get the basics right. And best of all, I was no longer worried that I would have to tell their loved ones that they got killed on their bike ride with me.

Brian Ratliff

I think you both are still in the box, so to speak. I'm not defining an ideology or worldview here. Within the OP definition, no cyclist is vehicular all the time. It is a name for a grouping of techniques, which center around taking the lane and desination lane positioning.

I am trying to rid the word of ideology. You both are slipping back into redefining this into an ideology which is separate from the vehicular cyclist ideology. This is not an attempt, like the AC attempt, to define a separate ideology to compete or even coexist with the vehicular cyclist ideology.

To put it in bare terms, the term "vehicular cycling" should be formalized to mean (and will be when I speak of the term from now on) "ride a bike like a car", since this is what it means to most people anyway.

Brian Ratliff

#1. A cyclist who stops at red lights and stop signs and who uses lights at night is not necessarily cycling vehicularly.

#2. A cyclist who takes the lane and does vehicular left turns and other examples of destination lane positioning is definitely and without question riding vehicularly.



#1 is a necessary but not sufficient condition of the broad definition of vehicular cycling. #2 is singularly sufficient in the OP definition. A necessary but not sufficient condition is just fluff.

The broad definition of vehicular cycling is overbroad and includes lots of conditional statements. The OP definition contains none. Moreover, the broad definition of vehicular cycling has a self reference, namely, that a cyclist follows vehicular rules of the road. (now, define vehicular) The OP definition is not self referential.