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 04-20-07, 08:04 AM   #201
Brian Ratliff
Senior Member
 
Brian Ratliff's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Near Portland, OR
Bikes: Three road bikes. Two track bikes.
Posts: 10,065
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
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.
__________________
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 04-20-07, 08:21 AM   #202
genec
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Posts: 24,972
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 898 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.

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.
genec is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-07, 08:49 AM   #203
sbhikes
Dominatrikes
 
sbhikes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Still in Santa Barbara
Bikes: Catrike Pocket, Lightning Thunderbold recumbent, Trek 3000 MTB.
Posts: 4,920
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
The motorcycle handbook, which doesn't have the text of any specific laws, says this:
Quote:
Lane Sharing
Cars and motorcycles each need a full lane to operate safely. Lane sharing is not safe.

Riding between rows of stopped or moving cars in the same lane can leave you vulnerable. A car could turn suddenly or change lanes, a door could open, or a hand could come out of a window. Discourage
lane sharing by others. Keep a center position whenever drivers might be tempted to squeeze by you. Drivers are most tempted to do this:
• In heavy, bumper-to-bumper traffic.
• When they want to pass you.
• When you are preparing to turn at an intersection.
• When you are moving into an exit lane or leaving a highway.
(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.
sbhikes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-07, 10:26 AM   #204
John Forester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.

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.
John Forester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-07, 10:42 AM   #205
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)
so, john, does that mean bikes can pass stopped cars on the right? should we?
Bekologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-07, 10:49 AM   #206
LittleBigMan
Sumanitu taka owaci
 
LittleBigMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Bikes:
Posts: 8,945
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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?
__________________
No worries

Last edited by LittleBigMan; 04-20-07 at 10:55 AM.
LittleBigMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-07, 10:52 AM   #207
Brian Ratliff
Senior Member
 
Brian Ratliff's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Near Portland, OR
Bikes: Three road bikes. Two track bikes.
Posts: 10,065
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
JF: Is "vehicular rules of the road" exactly synonomous with the Uniform Vehicle Code, or are there variations between the two?
__________________
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

Last edited by Brian Ratliff; 04-20-07 at 10:58 AM.
Brian Ratliff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-07, 10:54 AM   #208
Brian Ratliff
Senior Member
 
Brian Ratliff's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Near Portland, OR
Bikes: Three road bikes. Two track bikes.
Posts: 10,065
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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?
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...
__________________
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 04-20-07, 10:57 AM   #209
Brian Ratliff
Senior Member
 
Brian Ratliff's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Near Portland, OR
Bikes: Three road bikes. Two track bikes.
Posts: 10,065
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
__________________
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 04-20-07, 11:00 AM   #210
LittleBigMan
Sumanitu taka owaci
 
LittleBigMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Bikes:
Posts: 8,945
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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, 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.
__________________
No worries
LittleBigMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-07, 11:04 AM   #211
Brian Ratliff
Senior Member
 
Brian Ratliff's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Near Portland, OR
Bikes: Three road bikes. Two track bikes.
Posts: 10,065
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
__________________
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 04-20-07, 11:05 AM   #212
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)
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 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-07, 11:08 AM   #213
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)
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.
Bekologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-07, 11:08 AM   #214
LittleBigMan
Sumanitu taka owaci
 
LittleBigMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Bikes:
Posts: 8,945
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.


(you made me crack up)
__________________
No worries
LittleBigMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-07, 11:11 AM   #215
LittleBigMan
Sumanitu taka owaci
 
LittleBigMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Bikes:
Posts: 8,945
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Anyway, ( ) it's Friday... (And I'm off Monday, too!)



OOPS! That makes four!
__________________
No worries
LittleBigMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-07, 11:19 AM   #216
Brian Ratliff
Senior Member
 
Brian Ratliff's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Near Portland, OR
Bikes: Three road bikes. Two track bikes.
Posts: 10,065
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleBigMan
Anyway, ( ) it's Friday... (And I'm off Monday, too!)



OOPS! That makes four!
Damn you!!!
__________________
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 04-20-07, 11:34 AM   #217
LittleBigMan
Sumanitu taka owaci
 
LittleBigMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Bikes:
Posts: 8,945
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Ratliff
Damn you!!!
Confederate Memorial Day (I'm from DC. I didn't know about it either, until I started working for the gov't. in Atlanta.)
__________________
No worries
LittleBigMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-07, 11:49 AM   #218
Helmet Head
Banned.
Thread Starter
 
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 RobertHurst
[For my definition of vehicular-cycling], I am simply using Forester's own definition, which defines 'vehicular cycling' in terms of a few basic principles.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
I'm northbound on Regents, 4 lanes + bike lanes.
Signal up ahead is red, there are about 7 or 8 cars stopped in the right lane, 2 in the left lane. There are cars behind me, but they have to slow for the light, so I'm in the right lane, not the bike lane. It is tempting to merge into the bike lane and pass on the right. Of course, I don't...

I look back over my left shoulder and merge into the left lane. From that improved vantage point I can see that the first car at the red light in the right lane is positioned to go straight, while the next 4 or 5 cars are all either flashing right or right biased as if they plan to turn right at the light. As I approach the back of the 2nd car in line in the left lane, the light turns green. I'm still rolling, and they're about to go, so I look back over my right shoulder, merge to the right side of the left lane, look back again, and merge to the left side of the left lane, in a lane-sharing position to the left of the right turners. As I pass the 2nd car in line in the right lane (the 1st one turning right), I look back over my right shoulder and merge right, behind the first car who is now accelerating straight through the intersection.
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).
Helmet Head is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-07, 11:52 AM   #219
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)
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?
Bekologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-07, 12:00 PM   #220
Helmet Head
Banned.
Thread Starter
 
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
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?
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.

Last edited by Helmet Head; 04-20-07 at 12:29 PM.
Helmet Head is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-07, 12:04 PM   #221
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)
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...
Bekologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-07, 12:46 PM   #222
John Forester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Ratliff
JF: Is "vehicular rules of the road" exactly synonomous with the Uniform Vehicle Code, or are there variations between the two?
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.
John Forester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-07, 12:52 PM   #223
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)
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?
Bekologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-07, 12:57 PM   #224
Blue Order
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Bikes:
Posts: 7,282
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
Blue Order is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-07, 01:02 PM   #225
RobertHurst
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Denver
Bikes:
Posts: 1,621
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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,....
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
RobertHurst 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 12:41 AM.