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:
1) riding to the right hand side of the road and sharing the lane.
A cyclist traveling in advanced
vehicular mode is not sharing lanes in any way, shape, or sense of the word.
2) sidewalk or bike path/MUP riding.
(AVC only applies on roads used by motor vehicles).
3) two step left turns.
4) simply following the local laws that are contrary to destination positioning utilizing the whole roadway.
For example, if the local law tells cyclists to use the sidepath, using the sidepath is still not cycling vehicularly. If the local law demands lane sharing; this is still not cycling vehicularly to remain in compliance with this law.
5) the equipment for traffic cycling
6) the head flicks, hand flicks, winks, nods, pedal cadence, steely eyed alpha dog stares (), etc. utilized to gain a motorist's attention.
These will vary according to environment, cyclist, cyclist's mood, etc. [NOTE FROM HH: However, effective communication with other drivers should be recognized as an AVC technique, since most cyclists do this much less than do those advanced in VC).
7) riding to the right in a WOL and sharing this lane with car traffic.
This is a working definition, and for reasons of consistency, I have to exclude this from the working definition. WOLs are a special case where lane sharing is explicitly encouraged. This is not an advanced
vehicular practice. This is not to say that WOLs are somehow inferior cycling facilities. It is just to say that lane sharing while using WOLs is not an example of advanced
8) the basics of cycling, such as riding on the right side of the road and stopping at stop signs
. This is to keep the definition precise.
1) destination positioning at intersections
2) vehicular left turns
3) controlling the lane. (or "taking the lane") when safe and reasonable to do so i.e. not sharing a lane with another vehicle driver by using an assertive "centerish" lane position when faster same direction traffic is not present, the lane is not wide enough to be safely shared, etc.
4) riding in the bike lane.[NOTE from HH: this does not seem to fit the "advanced" notion), I think we should take this one out] This is vehicular because a bike lane, as defined as a traffic lane dedicated to bicycle use (this definition doesn't include those "bike lanes in name only" lanes that DOTs sometimes force on us) meets the requirements of non-lane sharing, and to leave a bike lane means to go through all the procedures used to change lanes in traffic. One cannot, by design move arbitrarily from the bike lane to the adjacent traffic lane because the cyclist does not have right of way to do this. As with the WOL lane sharing designation, this is not to imply that bike lanes are somehow "better" than WOLs.