Cycling and bicycle discussion forums. 
   Click here to join our community Log in to access your Control Panel  


Go Back   > > >

Vehicular Cycling (VC) No other subject has polarized the A&S members like VC has. Here's a place to share, debate, and educate.

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-06-07, 04:43 PM   #51
CommuterRun
Conservative Hippie
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wakulla Co. FL
Bikes:
Posts: 4,271
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
The first thing that needs to happen to get a correct definition of the term "vehicular cycling," is that the word "vehicular" must be defined.

The word "vehicular" in the term "vehicular cycling" means to use a bicycle as a vehicle for transportation.

The word "vehicular" in the term "vehicular cycling" does not, in any way, shape or form, mean operating a bicycle as a motor vehicle. Athough, this may be done when utilizing a bicycle as transportation.

I think this is what causes the confusion and why the definition of "vehicular cycling," as defined by the OP, is in error.

Last edited by CommuterRun; 03-06-07 at 04:50 PM.
CommuterRun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-07, 04:46 PM   #52
sggoodri
Senior Member
 
sggoodri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Cary, NC
Bikes: 1983 Trek, 2001 Lemond, 2000 Gary Fisher
Posts: 3,073
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Here are the concise, well-defined vehiclar traffic negotiation principles that I've had posted on the humantransport.org web site for the last half dozen years or so, and are based on the LAB Road 1 Course, which in turn originated mostly as John Forester's work:

http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/page4.html

Quote:
Traffic Negotiation Principles

The basic principles that all drivers of vehicles follow in order to prevent collisions are listed below *:

1. First come, first served. Each driver on the road is entitled to a "safety zone", i.e. the space their vehicle occupies, plus reasonable clearance behind and to each side, and reasonable stopping distance in front of them. Other drivers who want to use this space must first yield to the driver already entitled to it. This principle applies both between intersections and at intersections. Yielding to traffic already on the road ahead requires driving slowly enough to stop if traffic just beyond view is slow or stopped, and not following too closely in case traffic ahead stops suddenly.

Cyclists operating on roadways usually travel slower than motorists, but motorists are expected to drive within their sight distance and not collide with slower traffic. Sober, competent motorists have no trouble avoiding such collisions. Cyclists are not expected to get out of the way of motorists; cyclists are only expected to stay visible and behave predictably. Motorists should pass cyclists at safe distance: at least three feet at slow speeds; farther at higher speeds.

2. Drive on the right-hand side of the roadway.

Wrong-way cycling is a leading cause of car-bike crashes.

3. Yielding to crossing traffic. Drivers on less important roads, and that includes driveways and alleys, yield to traffic on more important roads. Yielding means looking and waiting until the movement can be made without violating the right of way of other highway users. Drivers turning left must also yield to thru traffic traveling in the opposite direction on the road. Traffic signals or signs often indicate which road has priority.

Most car-bike collisions occur at intersections, where either cyclists or motorists fail to yield when required to traffic crossing their path.

4. Yielding when moving laterally. Drivers who want to move laterally on the roadway must yield to traffic in their new line of travel. Yielding means looking behind, to the side, and in front and waiting until the movement can be made without violating the right of way of other highway users.

Cyclists should travel reasonably straight in order to allow other road users to pass safely. Yielding prior to lateral movement requires that a cyclist turn her head and look behind without swerving into other traffic.

5. Destination positioning at intersections. Drivers must approach intersections (including driveways) in the proper position based on their destination. Right turning-drivers make their turns from next to the curb, left turning drivers do so from near the center line, straight traffic goes between these positions.

Bicycle drivers communicate their intended destination through appropriate positioning; hand signals are not enough. Turning left without first approaching the center of the road invites conflicts with straight-traveling drivers who may attempt to pass on the left. Straight-traveling cyclists should avoid right-turn lanes and use the thru-lane instead.

6. Speed positioning between intersections. Drivers park on the rightmost edge of the highway. Drivers travel in a portion of the right side of the roadway that is wide enough for them to maneuver safely and is available for thru-traffic. Where safe and practical, slower drivers operate far enough to the right to allow faster drivers to see past them and perhaps pass when it is safe to do so. Drivers should overtake slower traffic on the left, not on the right. (There are exceptions when vehicles are turning left, on multi-lane roads, and on one-way roads).

In narrow lanes, drivers of wide vehicles must move into the adjacent lane to pass cyclists. In wide lanes, a motorist and a cyclist may have enough room to share a lane as the motorist passes. Cyclists should not ride too far right to operate safely for their speed.

* These rules have been adapted from the Effective Cycling Road 1 Student Notebook published by the League of American Bicyclists.
sggoodri is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-07, 04:53 PM   #53
sggoodri
Senior Member
 
sggoodri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Cary, NC
Bikes: 1983 Trek, 2001 Lemond, 2000 Gary Fisher
Posts: 3,073
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by CommuterRun
The first thing that needs to happen to get a correct definition of vehicular cycling is that the word "vehicular" must be defined.

The word "vehicular" in the term "vehicular cycling" means to use a bicycle as a vehicle for transportation.

The word "vehicular" in the term "vehicular cycling" does not, in any way, shape or form, mean operating a bicycle as a motor vehicle. Athough, this may be done when utilizing a bicycle as transportation.

I think this is what causes the confusion and why the definition of "vehicular cycling," as defined by the OP, is in error.
Good point. A road vehicle has certain kinematic and dynamic constraints based on its wheel arrangement and location of mass. These are fairly similar between vehicles.

Motor vehicles are simply vehicles with motor power. The motor doesn't change the kinematic constraints, and generally exacerbates the dynamic constraints.

Non-motorized vehicles may have a better or worse power-to-weight ratio than motor vehicles, and may have better or worse maneuverability, depending on whether one includes horse-drawn carriages. However, it's interesting to observe that when most of the basic vehicular rules of the road were developed, the most dangerous things on the road were bicycles and horsedrawn carriages.

-Steven Goodridge
sggoodri is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-07, 04:58 PM   #54
webist
Huachuca Rider
 
webist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Charlotte, NC
Bikes: Fuji CCR1, Specialized Roubaix
Posts: 4,275
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I actually do enjoy these threads/conversations. They really have no impact on my cycling from ride to ride though. I go out, use the roads or, when convenient and legal, other facilities. I try to ride for a specific minimum amount of time at a certain level of exertion and arrive back at my starting point safely. I think of my method as "bicycular cycling." Sometimes my bicycular cycling is done with and among other vehicles, including occasionally other bicycles. Sometimes it ain't. Sometimes it's transportation. Sometimes it ain't. Sometimes there's a destination. Sometimes not. Sometimes it's strenuouous exercise. At other times it is pure leisure.
__________________
Just Peddlin' Around
webist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-07, 05:03 PM   #55
kalliergo 
Senior Member
 
kalliergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: SF Bay
Bikes: Trek Valencia+, Dutch cargo bike, Karate Monkey, etc.
Posts: 708
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
Brian, do you know of anyone anywhere who has ever used a definition of vehicular cycling that comes close to what you have defined here? If so, who, where?

If not, why not come up with some other name for whatever it is that you're trying to define, rather than use a term for which there are already meanings quite different from what you're trying to define here?

Indeed. What Brian describes is clearly *not* vehicular cycling as the term is generally understood by the proponents and practitioners of VC. Consequently, this attempt to force the term to mean what he wants it to mean, and nothing else, is destined for failure and irrelevancy.

If one wants one's own definition, one should consider adopting a unique name. Perhaps, in this case, "Brian Cycling."
kalliergo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-07, 05:18 PM   #56
Bekologist
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Posts: 18,025
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
steve, if vehicular cycling encompasses speed positioning between intersections, and there is a bike lane dedicated to bikes on the road, then use of the bike lane WOULD be speed postioning specific vehicular cycling.

and same case applies to bike lanes striped to the left of right turn only lanes.
Bekologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-07, 05:33 PM   #57
Helmet Head
Banned.
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Bikes:
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bekologist
steve, if vehicular cycling encompasses speed positioning between intersections, and there is a bike lane dedicated to bikes on the road, then use of the bike lane WOULD be speed postioning specific vehicular cycling.

and same case applies to bike lanes striped to the left of right turn only lanes.
Yes, Bek. No one disputes this except the Ratliffs.
The elder just described in another thread a lunch time ride where he rode "VC" which included staying out of the bike lane even with faster same direction traffic present and honking.

Last edited by Helmet Head; 03-06-07 at 05:38 PM.
Helmet Head is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-07, 05:39 PM   #58
Brian Ratliff
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Brian Ratliff's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Near Portland, OR
Bikes: Three road bikes. Two track bikes.
Posts: 10,060
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by CommuterRun
The word "vehicular" in the term "vehicular cycling" means to use a bicycle as a vehicle for transportation.
So, if I ride on the sidewalk, stopping at each driveway to clear for cars, riding at 10 mph average speed (still a 5x greater speed than walking, and thus, a transportational advantage), am I riding "vehicularly"?

If I ride in a great, big, 50 mile loop for recreational purposes, is this riding vehicularly? If so, what if I wasn't using the road? What if it weren't for recreational purposes?

Again, people are missing the point of having a precise definition. I am not trying to prove some sort of ideological bona fides.

And, guys. I love the mocking. Keep it coming. (though, if you grow up a bit...)

Seriously, you guys tie yourselves in knots to preserve the notion that vehicular cycling encompasses lane sharing. Does it really matter? Call lane sharing what it is: lane sharing. There are absolutely no vehicular principle which allows for two vehicles to share a lane. And yes, folks, if you look at an road with a speed limit over 25mph in the US, there are lane lines, and those lane lines have distinct engineering and legal meanings.

Do you see the problem of including lane sharing within the purview of vehicular cycling? Now you have to explain the manner in which you lane share to distinguish "vehicular lane sharing" with "non-vehicular lane sharing". Since you already have to make the distinction, why include it in the definition?

And, folks, I seriously don't care how "popular" or "unpopular" vehicular cycling is or how defining the term more tightly than "everything under the sun" will affect popularity of the "VC movement". This isn't a popularity contest. People either get on their bikes and ride, or they don't. If they choose to get on, then there isn't a reason in the world to not have a precise language to talk about how to avoid getting into trouble.

Face it. The hallmark of vehicular cycling; that thing that makes it distinct from other schools of cycling, is the act of taking the lane for destination lane positioning. This is what I want to emphasis. Everything else, from signaling, stopping at stop signs, and riding on the right hand side of the road, to situational awareness and experience, fall under more generalized categories.
__________________
Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
"If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --the tiniest sprinter
Brian Ratliff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-07, 05:39 PM   #59
JRA
Senior Member
 
JRA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: St. Louis
Bikes:
Posts: 945
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bekologist
steve, if vehicular cycling encompasses speed positioning between intersections, and there is a bike lane dedicated to bikes on the road, then use of the bike lane WOULD be speed postioning specific vehicular cycling.
Indeed. A properly designed bike lane violates none of the Traffic Negotiation Principles which sggoodri posted above. Vehicular cyclists' opposition to the principle of bike lanes (and their preference for WOLs) is based on ideology, not basic traffic principles.
JRA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-07, 05:42 PM   #60
Brian Ratliff
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Brian Ratliff's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Near Portland, OR
Bikes: Three road bikes. Two track bikes.
Posts: 10,060
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
Yes, Bek. No one disputes this except the Ratliffs.
The elder just described in another thread a lunch time ride where he rode "VC" which included staying out of the bike lane even with faster same direction traffic present and honking.
Since when did I have a mind meld with my father (John C. Ratliff)? Shouldn't you confine your comments about what he said to that other thread?

EDIT: I haven't really been following that thread. For the record, nothing of what Bek mentioned conflicts with the definition in the OP, so I don't know why you are lumping me in with my dad and in opposition to Beks comment.
__________________
Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
"If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --the tiniest sprinter
Brian Ratliff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-07, 05:46 PM   #61
Helmet Head
Banned.
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Bikes:
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by CommuterRun
The word "vehicular" in the term "vehicular cycling" means to use a bicycle as a vehicle for transportation.
I disagree. You can use a mountain bike on trails for transportation. That is not the intent of the meaning of vehicular in vehicular cycling.

It means Riding on roadways in accordance to the vehicular rules of the road (or the rules of the road for vehicles, if you prefer, as opposed to the rules of the road for pedestrians).
Helmet Head is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-07, 05:56 PM   #62
Brian Ratliff
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Brian Ratliff's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Near Portland, OR
Bikes: Three road bikes. Two track bikes.
Posts: 10,060
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
I disagree. You can use a mountain bike on trails for transportation. That is not the intent of the meaning of vehicular in vehicular cycling.

It means Riding on roadways in accordance to the vehicular rules of the road (or the rules of the road for vehicles, if you prefer, as opposed to the rules of the road for pedestrians).
So, what are the "vehicular rules of the road" when it comes to a lane meant to be shared? I have yet to see it specifically for car traffic, and when I have seen a lane which is wide enough for two cars, generally those cars are prohibited from sharing the lane. I have yet to see it defined in any official documentation.

Remember, per your own words, speed should not enter into the equation, so simply saying that lane sharing is vehicular because of the slower to the right rule is misleading and unhelpful as a cycling technique. The whole point of vehicular cycling is to point out that, even though bicycles are generally slower than cars, the correct place for a bicycle is not always to the right.
__________________
Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
"If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --the tiniest sprinter
Brian Ratliff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-07, 05:58 PM   #63
JRA
Senior Member
 
JRA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: St. Louis
Bikes:
Posts: 945
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Indeed, a major souce of confusion regarding the term "vehicular cycling" is that it is not based on the common English language definition of "vehicular". It is based on a special legal definition which, to further confuse the issue, is found, in many states, in the motor vehicle code (which may apply to human powered vehicles). Further confusing the issue is that some states define bicycles as vehicles while others do not. Add to that, the political baggage associated with the term VC, and strong feeling on both sides about it, and you've got a term which means different things to different people.

Hence Brian's attempt to find a useful working definition.

Lot's of luck!
JRA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-07, 06:12 PM   #64
Helmet Head
Banned.
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Bikes:
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Ratliff
So, what are the "vehicular rules of the road" when it comes to a lane meant to be shared? I have yet to see it specifically for car traffic, and when I have seen a lane which is wide enough for two cars, generally those cars are prohibited from sharing the lane. I have yet to see it defined in any official documentation.
I don't know of any law anywhere that prohibits two cars from sharing a single lane side by side, provided they can safely fit. Do you?

Many roads, including the street I live on, have no marked lanes at all. Sometimes even multi-lane roads have no marked lanes (particularly when freshly paved, open, but lane stripes not painted yet).

With all lanes, the space makes the lane, not the stripe.

The general rule is: if the space is there, you can use it. This is why two motorcycles can share the same lane, legally. It's very vehicular - that is, it is in accordance to the vehicular rules of the road.

The stripes are just there to facilitate road sharing laterally by standard width vehicles.
Helmet Head is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-07, 06:13 PM   #65
Brian Ratliff
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Brian Ratliff's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Near Portland, OR
Bikes: Three road bikes. Two track bikes.
Posts: 10,060
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRA
Indeed, a major souce of confusion regarding the term "vehicular cycling" is that it is not based on the common English language definition of "vehicular". It is based on a special legal definition which, to further confuse the issue, is found, in many states, in the motor vehicle code (which may apply to human powered vehicles). Further confusing the issue is that some states define bicycles as vehicles while others do not. Add to that, the political baggage associated with the term VC, and strong feeling on both sides about it, and you've got a term which means different things to different people.

Hence Brian's attempt to find a useful working definition.

Lot's of luck!
That's right...

I am trying to reduce the term to its defining essence, so all us can talk about it on a common level.
__________________
Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
"If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --the tiniest sprinter
Brian Ratliff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-07, 06:16 PM   #66
Helmet Head
Banned.
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Bikes:
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRA
Indeed, a major souce of confusion regarding the term "vehicular cycling" is that it is not based on the common English language definition of "vehicular". It is based on a special legal definition which, to further confuse the issue, is found, in many states, in the motor vehicle code (which may apply to human powered vehicles). Further confusing the issue is that some states define bicycles as vehicles while others do not. Add to that, the political baggage associated with the term VC, and strong feeling on both sides about it, and you've got a term which means different things to different people.

Hence Brian's attempt to find a useful working definition.

Lot's of luck!
Folks, it's not that hard!

The rules of the road can be divided into two sets:

1) the rules of the road for operating vehicles
2) the rules of the road for pedestrians.

Vehicular cycling simply means riding a bicycle on roads in accordance to (1) rather than (2).
Helmet Head is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-07, 06:26 PM   #67
Brian Ratliff
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Brian Ratliff's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Near Portland, OR
Bikes: Three road bikes. Two track bikes.
Posts: 10,060
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
I don't know of any law anywhere that prohibits two cars from sharing a single lane side by side, provided they can safely fit. Do you?
You didn't answer me. What does the law say? And if there were not concerns about two cars sharing a lane, then why are WOL widths restricted on the basis of exactly that concern.

Quote:
Many roads, including the street I live on, have no marked lanes at all. Sometimes even multi-lane roads have no marked lanes (particularly when freshly paved, open, but lane stripes not painted yet).

With all lanes, the space makes the lane, not the stripe.

The general rule is: if the space is there, you can use it. This is why two motorcycles can share the same lane, legally. It's very vehicular - that is, it is in accordance to the vehicular rules of the road.
I respectfully disagree. One cannot talk about lanes independently of their lane markings. The space... and the designations... create the symbolic construct known as a traffic lane. Go to Cambodia or India where there are roads with no lane markings, and see what I mean. For example, if I draw a star on my whiteboard, I can point to it and say "it's a star." If I erase the markings making up the star, I don't have a star anymore even though the space making up the star is still there. If I point to any old random marking, that's not a star either. The star is made up of both the space and the boundary.

The two motorcycles are a special case; an exception. Only in CA and a few select other states, can motorcyclists share a lane legally with a car, and then only when in a traffic jam.

For instance, just because it is 2am and there are no people out on the road doesn't mean I can legally drive on the left side of the road, down the center lane, or even straddling two lanes. "But there is space..." doesn't matter, I am still prohibited from using it by the way the road is painted.

And lastly, 25mph residential streets are sometimes unmarked. But then again, I wouldn't describe a car traveling on an unmarked residential street as driving in the same way as a car out on the arterial. Unmarked residential streets indicate that drivers are not restricted to a lane because they have to worry about other dangers, such as on-street parking in the extreme, driveway pullouts, and small kids running around. Alternatively, one could describe an unmarked residential street as a single lane, two way road.
__________________
Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
"If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --the tiniest sprinter
Brian Ratliff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-07, 06:32 PM   #68
Brian Ratliff
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Brian Ratliff's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Near Portland, OR
Bikes: Three road bikes. Two track bikes.
Posts: 10,060
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
Folks, it's not that hard!

The rules of the road can be divided into two sets:

1) the rules of the road for operating vehicles
2) the rules of the road for pedestrians.

Vehicular cycling simply means riding a bicycle on roads in accordance to (1) rather than (2).
So, the gutter hugger who follows the rules of the road is cycling vehicularly? He's not on the sidewalk, so it cannot be pedestrian. According to the law books, he might even be more legal than the vehicular cyclist we all have in our mind's eye.
__________________
Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
"If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --the tiniest sprinter
Brian Ratliff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-07, 06:53 PM   #69
noisebeam
Al
 
noisebeam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: AZ
Bikes: Cannondale SuperSix, Lemond Poprad. Retired: Jamis Sputnik, Centurion LeMans Fixed, Diamond Back ascent ex
Posts: 14,109
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 32 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Ratliff
There are absolutely no vehicular principle which allows for two vehicles to share a lane.
Lets look at AZ law:
"28-723. Overtaking a vehicle on the left
The following rules govern the overtaking and passing of vehicles proceeding in the same direction:
1. The driver of a vehicle overtaking another vehicle proceeding in the same direction shall pass to the left of the vehicle at a safe distance and shall not again drive to the right side of the roadway until safely clear of the overtaken vehicle.
2. Except when overtaking and passing on the right is permitted, the driver of an overtaken vehicle shall give way to the right in favor of the overtaking vehicle on audible signal or blinking of head lamps at nighttime and shall not increase the speed of the overtaken vehicle until completely passed by the overtaking vehicle."


No where does it state that the overtaking vehicle must merge fully into an adjacent lane.

And... this well known law (or its local variations)
"28-815. Riding on roadway and bicycle path; bicycle path usage
A. A person riding a bicycle on a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, except under any of the following situations:
1. If overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction.
2. If preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.
3. If reasonably necessary to avoid conditions, including fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals or surface hazards.
4. If the lane in which the person is operating the bicycle is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane."

#1 and #4 suggest the principle of lane sharing - granted with a bicycle and a vehicle, not two vehicles.

and perhaps most to the point:
"28-903. Operation of motorcycle on laned roadway; exceptions
A. All motorcycles are entitled to the full use of a lane. A person shall not drive a motor vehicle in such a manner as to deprive any motorcycle of the full use of a lane. This subsection does not apply to motorcycles operated two abreast in a single lane.
B. The operator of a motorcycle shall not overtake and pass in the same lane occupied by the vehicle being overtaken.
C. A person shall not operate a motorcycle between the lanes of traffic or between adjacent rows of vehicles.
D. A person shall not operate a motorcycle more than two abreast in a single lane.
E. Subsections B and C do not apply to peace officers in the performance of their official duties."


(A) suggest that it is the wider vehicle operator who must not deprive full use of lane. I would interpret this to mean that if a narrow vehicle moves right in the presence of fsdt that passing within same lane is not depriving narrow vehicle of full use of lane as the narrow vehicle operator is requesting the sharing. One can not deprive someone of something they are willingly giving.
(B) is requiring that a faster/overtaking narrow vehicle not share a lane with another vehicle. If the opposite was required, wouldn't it be explictly noted vs. the language in (A)
(C) is two vehicle sharing a lane. Granted they are both narrow, but this directy contradits your statement.

Al
noisebeam is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-07, 06:54 PM   #70
chipcom 
Infamous Member
 
chipcom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ohio
Bikes: Surly Big Dummy, Fuji World, 80ish Bianchi
Posts: 24,366
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
The above definition also separates the concept from the concept of vehicular cycling that I, Forester, Stephen, and many others advocate.
Not the concept - the brand.

I understand what Brian is trying to do here and I think it's a good approach. IMO the only reason anyone should have a problem with this approach is:

a. they do not have the capacity to think outside the box to better define the box
b. they feel their 'ownership' of a dogma, methodology or core belief is threatened.
__________________
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
chipcom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-07, 06:55 PM   #71
CommuterRun
Conservative Hippie
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wakulla Co. FL
Bikes:
Posts: 4,271
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Okay,
Quote:
Originally Posted by CommuterRun
The word "vehicular" in the term "vehicular cycling" means to use a bicycle as a vehicle for transportation.
While
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
Riding on roadways in accordance to the vehicular rules of the road (or the rules of the road for vehicles, if you prefer, as opposed to the rules of the road for pedestrians).
All better?

But it still
Quote:
Originally Posted by CommuterRun
does not, in any way, shape or form, mean operating a bicycle as a motor vehicle. Athough, this may be done when utilizing a bicycle as transportation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
You can use a mountain bike on trails for transportation. That is not the intent of the meaning of vehicular in vehicular cycling.
I was under the understanding that most of us were talking strictly about road and urban cycling on this thread. My bad, I didn't realize you were talking about something different.

At any rate, I don't know what the definition in the OP defines, but it ain't VC. No doubt about that.
CommuterRun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-07, 06:58 PM   #72
Helmet Head
Banned.
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Bikes:
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Ratliff
You didn't answer me. What does the law say?
Brian, the law says nothing about lane sharing. If it's not prohibited, it's legal.

Quote:
And if there were not concerns about two cars sharing a lane, then why are WOL widths restricted on the basis of exactly that concern.
We have WOLs that are not so restricted, particularly at approaches to intersections.


Quote:
I respectfully disagree. One cannot talk about lanes independently of their lane markings.
Well, one can talk about lanes on a road with no lane markings, so why not?

How do you talk about two motorcyclists sharing a lane?

Quote:
The space... and the designations... create the symbolic construct known as a traffic lane.
When the lanes are marked, yes the markings make it clear where the lanes are.
When the lanes are not marked, usage determines where the lanes are.

Don't forget that there are ship lanes in the ocean, which are not marked at all.

The terminology does get confusing when you are sharing lanes on a road with marked lanes.

But if two motorcyclists are sharing a marked lane, and one is moving too close to the other, you could say that one is moving into the other's (unmarked) lane.

Quote:
Go to Cambodia or India where there are roads with no lane markings, and see what I mean.
I can imagine.

Quote:
For example, if I draw a star on my whiteboard, I can point to it and say "it's a star." If I erase the markings making up the star, I don't have a star anymore even though the space making up the star is still there. If I point to any old random marking, that's not a star either. The star is made up of both the space and the boundary.
You are stuck on like Definition 2 or so of probably half a dozen definitions for lane in the average dictionary, the one that means a marked lane. For that definition of lane, the analogy is valid.

Try this: Forget the chalkboard analogy and go into Excel and create a table with 4 columns. Fill it with data and print to screen. Do it with and without telling it to print the borders/separators. When there are borders, the borders define the columns. When you print the table without borders, the data defines the columns, but the columns are still there!. Just because the columns are defined by the lines when the lines are there, does not mean the columns are not there when the lines are not there. Note that you can also split a cell so that one column is shared - if the column is wide enough for the data that you are trying to fit in there.

Similarly, on a road with no lane markings and no traffic, there are no lanes.
When traffic shows up, usage defines the lanes.
On a road with lane markings, the markings define the lanes, whether traffic is there or not.
But you can also "split" a lane and share it, if the the lane is wide enough for the vehicles that are trying to fit in there.

Quote:
The two motorcycles are a special case; an exception. Only in CA and a few select other states, can motorcyclists share a lane legally with a car, and then only when in a traffic jam.
How is two motorcyclists a special case? It's two vehicles that can fit in a lane side-by-side. What's special case about that?

Quote:
For instance, just because it is 2am and there are no people out on the road doesn't mean I can legally drive on the left side of the road, down the center lane, or even straddling two lanes. "But there is space..." doesn't matter, I am still prohibited from using it by the way the road is painted.
Again, my street is not painted. No center stripe even. But the law still requires me to stay in my (unmarked) lane - the right side of the road.

Quote:
And lastly, 25mph residential streets are sometimes unmarked. But then again, I wouldn't describe a car traveling on an unmarked residential street as driving in the same way as a car out on the arterial. Unmarked residential streets indicate that drivers are not restricted to a lane because they have to worry about other dangers, such as on-street parking in the extreme, driveway pullouts, and small kids running around. Alternatively, one could describe an unmarked residential street as a single lane, two way road.
Fine, 25 mph unmarked streets are special cases, WOLs where 2 cars can fit are special cases, motorcyclists sharing with cars are special cases, two motorcyclists sharing a lane is a special case, and, guess what, a cyclist sharing lane with another car is just another special case too.
Helmet Head is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-07, 06:59 PM   #73
CommuterRun
Conservative Hippie
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wakulla Co. FL
Bikes:
Posts: 4,271
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by chipcom
Not the concept - the brand.

I understand what Brian is trying to do here and I think it's a good approach. IMO the only reason anyone should have a problem with this approach is:

a. they do not have the capacity to think outside the box to better define the box
b. they feel their 'ownership' of a dogma, methodology or core belief is threatened.
This is just another thread where someone is trying to redefine terminology for their own self-validation.
CommuterRun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-07, 07:00 PM   #74
noisebeam
Al
 
noisebeam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: AZ
Bikes: Cannondale SuperSix, Lemond Poprad. Retired: Jamis Sputnik, Centurion LeMans Fixed, Diamond Back ascent ex
Posts: 14,109
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 32 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Ratliff
So, if I ride on the sidewalk, stopping at each driveway to clear for cars, riding at 10 mph average speed (still a 5x greater speed than walking, and thus, a transportational advantage), am I riding "vehicularly"? .
Not in AZ:
"28-904. Driving on sidewalk
A. A person shall not drive a vehicle on a sidewalk area except on a permanent or duly authorized temporary driveway."


Of course bicyclists can ride on sidewalk as in AZ they are not classified as vehicles, instead devices.

Al
noisebeam is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-07, 07:01 PM   #75
chipcom 
Infamous Member
 
chipcom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ohio
Bikes: Surly Big Dummy, Fuji World, 80ish Bianchi
Posts: 24,366
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
Then I strongly suggest you come up with a less loaded term to mean what it is that you want it to mean. Call it "Ratliff Cycling" and define it any way you want.

But to take a term for which there are already well recognized meanings, and defining it as something similar but different, is very confusing, to say the least.

It's a bit like defining abortion as the killing of any human less than 6 months old, and then suggesting we stick to that definition when debating whether abortion is moral or should be legal. Good luck.
The term is not well-recognized and your worries about terminology indicate that you feel you have some ownership of the term and feel threatened by any discussion that is not under your control. Why don't you try working with Brian here in an honest way, as you always claim that you wish, rather than fighting tooth and nail anything that you might not understand?
__________________
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
chipcom is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:11 AM.