Brian Ratliff

FWIW, I agree with Mr. Hurst in saying that lane splitting is not vehicular. That's not to say that I don't do it as well. It's not to say that I don't do it in a car either. But I understand that it is a risky maneuver which is not in keeping with vehicular principles on the road and so I have to be ultra aware of people around me and assume that nobody sees me.

To ride vehicularly is to stop behind stoped vehicles in your lane. Period. I'd venture that in some places with well designed and layed out bike lane, riding in the bike lane past the line of traffic is also vehicular, as there are no cars blocking your lane. However, the bike lane must pass some qualifications before I'd consider this a vehicular maneuver. One is that it must be full width. Two is that it must continue on the other side of the intersection (not that I stay in line all the time when it doesn't continue, but this maneuver, too, is not vehicular but rather it is me on my bike taking advantage of my bicycle to carefully break the rules).

If you are splitting lanes, this is not in accordance with universal vehicular rules of the road. Note that, in California, motorcycles can do this in limited situations. Note also that this is an exception carved out for motorcycles, allowing them to break with the normal vehicular rules of the road in a certain limited situation. It is not universal, as not all states have this exception written into their laws. In Oregon, this manuever is illegal.

genec

Oddly enough, I tried and could not find a written exception in the CA laws for Motorcycles and splitting lanes. What I did find was there is not a specific written prohibition to this, and the CHP specifically states that it is not illegal... but they too do not specify a law either supporting nor denying lane splitting.

While it does not appear to be illegal, it does appear to "stretch" the bounds of "vehicular driving" in that sharing a lane adds to the abiguity of ROW of the various occupants of that lane.

sbhikes

The motorcycle handbook, which doesn't have the text of any specific laws, says this:
(Their emphasis)

Later it goes on to suggest ways to increase your visibility. The recommend bright clothing, lights, using your turn signals AND using hand signals, checking your blind spots frequently and sounding your horn.

All the advice regarding lane position is about your own ability to react to people who don't see you or situations that may arrise suddenly. None of it is about making people who don't see you react to you.

John Forester

The following is the Uniform Vehicle Code 11-304

11-304 When Passing on the Right is Permitted
(a) The driver of a vehicle may overtake and pass upon the right of another vehicle only under the following conditions:
1. When the vehicle overtaken is making or about to make a left turn.
2. Upon a roadway with unobstructed pavement of sufficient width for two or more lines of vehicles moving lawfully in the direction being traveled by the overtaking vehicle.
(b) The driver of a vehicle may overtake and pass another vehicle upon the right only under conditions permitting such movement in safety. Such movement shall not be made by driving off the roadway.


This section has been in the UVC since 1930, although in several different forms. Note that it specifically states "lines of vehicles" and not "lanes of vehicles", indicating that marking is irrelevant to this movement.

Bekologist

so, john, does that mean bikes can pass stopped cars on the right? should we?

LittleBigMan

Can someone show me where it's illegal for a motorist to pass a cyclist without changing lanes, if there is sufficient lane width?

I'm not sure I understand why we're arguing about this. Are we splitting hairs, as well as lanes? Which of us don't share lanes w/cars? Which of us don't ride two abreast when we can?

Brian Ratliff

JF: Is "vehicular rules of the road" exactly synonomous with the Uniform Vehicle Code, or are there variations between the two?

Brian Ratliff

In this analogy, the cyclist is the motorcyclist trying to split lanes. I don't see how your comment connects with the discussion. Perhaps you can elaborate...

Brian Ratliff

You might be right. I'm going on what an Oregon driving instructor told me during driver's ed, which was, what, 12 years ago? The explanation was that air cooled engines in the motorcycles would overheat while sitting in traffic jams, so the motorcyclists wanted an exception to normal operating procedure that allows them to keep moving, splitting lanes to move through traffic jams.

LittleBigMan

Brian, I have not read everything in this discussion. Maybe I'm coming off the wall a bit.

Nevertheless, I was assuming the opposite: that arguing about motorcyclists doesn't connect with the discussion about bicycling, they are two different animals altogether, and are treated differently under the law.

Brian Ratliff

I believe the discussion of interest is about a cyclist (Helmet Head, in fact) splitting lanes to the left of stopped traffic in a straight plus right turn lane as they are stationary approaching an intersection. And whether this was good cycling practice or not. The argument that this is acceptable was revolving a bit around procedure for motorcyclists splitting lanes in traffic jams. Hence the motorcyclist/bicyclist analogy bit.

I'm, though, also getting a bit lost here. By this time, we might be onto something altogether different. I think there are at least three conversation threads in this thread. Kind of confusing.

Bekologist

this thread is supossed to be comparing a couple of books;

one author- JF- odious, pedantic, overly long, short on the science, antiquated, pontificating, quarrelsome, devisive, inaccurate.

the other- RH- well written, concise, good information, accurate, a worthwhile read.

Bekologist

I also think Mr. Head, in his description of what I'd describe as an everyday riding technique, considers himself some kind of super cyclist. In reality he is basically, a part time commuter and weekend club fred, suffering delusions of grandeur about his riding skills.

LittleBigMan

(you made me crack up)

LittleBigMan

Anyway, ( ) it's Friday... (And I'm off Monday, too!)



OOPS! That makes four!

Brian Ratliff

Damn you!!!

LittleBigMan

Confederate Memorial Day (I'm from DC. I didn't know about it either, until I started working for the gov't. in Atlanta.)

Helmet Head

Thank you for clarifying this. Now we have a much more objective "common ground" standard by which to measure. Fortunately, we also have Mr. Forester here to clarify any misunderstanding we may have with the ramifications of applying these principles in real situations, such as the one at issue here.

While I was in the left lane I was centered the entire time as I was rolling forward towards the 2 cars stopped at the light in front of me, until I decided to merge right. I did that merge in two separate moves, as described above and clarified here:

1. First I merged from the center position to the right of the left lane.
2. Then I merged from the right of the left lane to the left of the right lane.

In each merge, I looked back over my right shoulder before I moved.

Contrary to what Robert understood, and for what it's worth, I did not move to the right side of the left lane in order to share that lane with the car in front of me in the left lane. I did that to be visible, predictable and orderly, as opposed to making the merge right in one move from the center of the left lane to the left side of the right lane. At no time while I was in the left lane was I sharing... that lane is too narrow for sharing. The right lane is wide enough to share with right turners when the right turners are properly merged into the bike lane on their right, which this car (the 2nd one in line on the right side, the first turning right) was. Since it was in the bike lane, there was plenty of sharing space on its left, which I used to pass the right turner on his left.

Mr. Forester can clarify, because it's his book and principles I refer to when I say: My understanding is that the above is by the book.

Assuming Mr. Forester does confirm that what I described above is consistent with the vehicular-cycling principles and practices that he writes about, the fact that Mr. Hurst and Brian did not recognize this, and thought is was a non-VC example, is exactly what I mean by VC critics criticizing something other than VC when they criticize it.

This is but one example, but I think it underscores why many of the disagreements about VC are often really about many people not understanding what the VC principles mean and how they apply, in particular with respect to taking advantage of the rights accorded to drivers of relatively narrow vehicles (like motorcycles and bicycle) while remaining in accordance with the vehicular principles, including those responsibilities that apply to the drivers of slow moving vehicles, which of course often apply to drivers of bicycles (though notably not in this particular case because all traffic was stopped or moving slowly throughout the entire scenario).

Bekologist

ho hum. yawn.
nice move, head, but not extraordinary. certainly not VC. you're such a supercyclist- NOT!.

isn't this thread about a couple of authors' books?

Helmet Head

This thread is about how one author (Hurst) doesn't understand what another author (Forester) wrote, in particular what Forester means by VC and how it applies in the real world. This current discussion is a great example of that, because it illustrates how you and Brian, as well as Robert, think what I did is "not VC" because it involved lane splitting and (in Robert's case), because it involved lane changes within 100 feet of an intersection, thought that is not illegal and certainly was not done in an unpredictable manner in this case.

By the way, if any of you have seen Mr. Forester's Effective Cycling dvd, you would see plenty of lane splitting demonstrated in it, much more than the vehicluar-cyclists like those depicted in the clips linked in the OP of this thread utilize, which is closer to my style. Both styles, and others, are consistent with VC principles and practices, which describes a broad range of styles, contrary to the other misconception about VC which is conveyed in Robert's books and many of the posts here: that VC is a very narrow and specific way of bicycling.

Bekologist

funny. that is SO NOT vehicular for you to be darting and weaving past traffic as the light is green. adaptive cycling, yes. vehicular, NOT!


anyway, about those books...

John Forester

No. A very good statement of the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles is in the Uniform Vehicle Code. However, there are a couple of deliberate nastinesses regarding cyclists. When the NCUTLO made the big bicycle revision of 1975, one item it included was changing the classifications of bicycles from devices to vehicles. The committee had long resisted making such a change. They thought, as did the cyclists who advocated that change, that doing so would remove the effect of the rules that discriminated against cyclists. However, once the NCUTLO discovered that not only could they maintain that discrimination, but they could make it worse, they accepted that change. I participated in that meeting. One such discrimination was that up to that time the following too closely prohibition had applied to drivers of motor vehicles, but not to equestrians or bicyclists. The NCUTLO then changed the prohibition against following too closely to apply to all drivers of vehicles, thus prohibiting pace-lining by cyclists. The rule prohibiting racing of motor vehicles was similarly changed to prohibit racing of all vehicles. No big deal, you say? But the racing motorists had worked so hard to develop ways of evading the original racing rule that when the rule was applied to cyclists it prohibited cycling fast when trying to get to work on time, and prohibited cycling to the extent that one became tired. And, of course, cyclists had been racing for a hundred years without anyone complaining, so long as they did it at locations and times where they did not upset traffic (I had been racing since 1949 in this manner), so that the grass-roots racing was prohibited and only the big professional events permitted. Think about that, all you who complain that I aim my words only at what you call professional cyclists, when I have for decades advocated amateur cycling instead.

Bekologist

traffic laws prohibit weekend pelotons pacelining ? yeah, you are so in touch with modern cycling, old man.....

what about helmet heads's lane weaving approaching a green light, john?

Blue Order

Actually, I'd have to agree with JF-- the law could certainly be interpreted to mean that pacelining comes under the proscription against following too closely. There may be some wiggle room in there for cyclists-- i don't have the language in front of me-- but absent some wiggle room language, there's no reason to believe that the proscription on following too closely doesn't apply to cyclists as well as motorists.

RobertHurst

Ah, so lane-splitting is definitely part of VC. Great! That means so many of the sketchiest, riskiest maneuvers that we messengers can possibly perpetrate in traffic are actually 'vehicular cycling' -- by definition predictable, lawful and 'reasonably safe.' Good to know. Up til now it sure seemed like this stuff was unpredictable, likely to get me a very expensive ticket, and 'reasonably safe' only for a rider riding at conservative speeds with full-alert situational awareness. I feel so much better now, so vehicular. This is what 'drivers of vehicles' do when they want to fare best, they split those lanes.

Is all lane-splitting considered VC? When is lane-splitting at speed through door zones, while entering an intersection, not considered VC? So many questions for my small mind to contemplate.

Please VC Truthkeepers, can you also please answer my questions about filtering? When is filtering forward at a red light 'vehicular' and when is it not 'vehicular?' Am I a vehicular filterer as well as a vehicular lane-splitter?

Robert