chipcom 

Note JF mentions traffic law...not the mythical 'rules of the road for drivers of vehicles'.

John Forester

What's bothering you, chipcom? Traffic law classifies those to whom it is applicable as drivers of vehicles and pedestrians. Cyclists are drivers of vehicles by law. The rules of the road for drivers of vehicles are, specifically, those traffic laws that traffic law applies to drivers of vehicles. That name is the chapter heading for many vehicle codes. However, though state codes differ in various ways, their specific rules of the road for drivers of vehicles all have much in common. That enables people to drive between states, and between many nations for that matter, without having to learn new operating rules and techniques. The principles of which the specific laws are the individual embodiments all have much in common because vehicles and drivers have very similar characteristics across the world. Therefore, when I use the phrase "rules of the road for drivers of vehicles" in a general sense, I am referring to the more general principles of those rules.

chipcom 

Yeah we know the drill...only obey the law if is convenient for you, but the mythical 'rules of the road' (that change by the minute, depending upon what point some zealots wish to make) shalt not be trifled with upon pain of banishment from the VC realm!

John Forester

No need to further exemplify your misunderstandings, chipcom. The rules of the road do not change by the minute, but, as in most rules, there is some freedom of action within the bounds of the rule.

Bekologist

can I do rolling stops at stopsigns and still be following the rules of the road?

- that's one grey area Chipcom's referring to that gets bandied about in this forum by rambling, pontificating, foresterite VC'ists.

Helmet Head

I must admit, it's nice to see you confirm this. I've been making this point for a long time on this forum. Of course, it's perfectly logical and is really just an observation more than anything else. It's amazing how much resistance there is to something so simple and obvious.

chipcom 

It's an invalid point. The local laws trump the mythical rules of road. The only exception is if following the law would compromise your safety - compromises to your convenience are not a valid reason to disobey the law. It's amazing how many excuses those who think of themselves as 'professional' cyclists will come up with to disobey the law.

Helmet Head

Only in the unrealistic strict legal context that you imagine.
In the context of safe, effective and practically legal driving and cycling (i.e., the real world), it's a very valid point.

In the strict legal context, of course.

You say that as if anyone disagrees with it. Weak.

A baseless accusation which reveals how pathetic your position is.

John Forester

Well, Chipcom, on what excuses and what laws are you basing this statement? Provide your real examples, so we can discuss them. Without such examples, your statement has no basis.

Bekologist

rolling thru stopsigns when the right of way is clear? following the "Rules of the road"? and the letter of the law?

joejack951

The problem at hand is that there's only so much road space to divide up between all the different modes of transportation one might choose. In order to do that, a line must be drawn between those modes that can operate together successfully in the same general manner and those that cannot. To single cyclists out as needing special space on the road opens up a whole slew of problems. In an area where slow moving scooters or golf carts are common, roadway rules get really tricky as to who can use the bike lane and who cannot. I certainly don't know how those rules vary from state to state. A WOL or shoulder makes everything a whole lot simpler; if you are going slower than traffic, pull over when safe to let traffic pass. With a bike lane, who is to use the bike lane if the cyclist is going faster than the scooter? What about runners? Can a runner use a bike lane if the sidewalk is too broken up or non-existant? What about a mother walking a baby in a stroller? What about a roller blader or skateboarder? Should we make 10 seperate lanes on every road so that each of these modes of transportation has it's own special place to operate, after all, they do have different operating characteristics.

Or do these other modes of transportation not have the legitamacy that cyclists do on the road?

Whether skateboarders or roller bladers or runners for that matter shoulder be classified as vehicles is a difficult question. I think the biggest issue with skateboarders and roller bladers is their inability to deal with commonly encountered road imperfections, like small potholes, expansion joints, and metal grating. Another issue is braking power, for instance if one had to stop at the bottom of a steep hill. (I may be wrong on this last point as I don't have much experience with either mode and am commenting based on that very limited exposure.) Where pavement is smooth and hills are non-existant, like South Beach, I've seen both modes act as vehicles just fine. With runners, I'm all for them treating themselves as vehicles when their speed dictates that it makes more sense to do so than acting as a ped. Bike lanes do a lot to illegitimatize runners on the roadway though (just read some threads from this forum about stiff arms and such).

genec

Why does speed matter? If I am riding slow on a bike should I then not ride in a vehicular manner?

If the speed of motor traffic is dramatically greater, should I then not ride in a vehicular manner if I am no where near the speed of traffic?

Or to put it another way... when my cycling speed approaches that of a ped, should I then leave the road?

At what speed may I be vehicular?

joejack951

The difference between a runner and a cyclist is that a runner can quickly and easily attain the mobility of a slow moving ped whereas a cyclist cannot, even after dismounting (they still have a bike to move around with them). A runner who decides to move at ped speed for a bit can easily hop up onto the curb to get on the sidewalk midblock (even going in between parked vehicles) and easily hop back down whereas a cyclist cannot. A slow moving runner going downhill will not suddenly accelerate to very vehicular speed when going downhill.

genec

But here you are focusing on the physical charateristics of the vehicle... yet you dismiss that when comparing bicycles to motor vehicles.

Mass and speed being the primary differences between human powered vehicles and motor powered vehicles.

With reference to peds above, there is little difference between that fast moving ped and a slow moving cyclist.

ghettocruiser

I know cyclists who have the runner-like mobility you describe. And I see a great many cyclists who never approach vehicle speeds no matter what the gradient. What are you suggesting exactly?

But the speed-of-traffic argument is an interesting point, particularly for those of us on roads with no margins where motorized traffic travels between 80 and 100 kph. It's easy to sing the praises of the VC method when I am out on my road bike on a windless summer day. In the winter, on the snow-tires, upwind, or uphill, much less so.

hotbike

I've included two pictures of one of my bikes. It has a heavy fibrerglass box/fairing on the front and an orange triangle on the back.

Which vehicle do I drive it like? Why, a Front-End Loader, of course.
Motorists behind are warned by the triangle that my bike is a slow-moving vehicle, and those in front can get their car opened like it's a sardine tin.

https://cmms.cat.com/cmms/servlet/cat...52&imageType=9

Here's a link to Caterpillar's web site. Keep your car clear of the bucket. That's how I drive my bike.

joejack951

I'm focusing the fact that a runner moving at pedestrian speed, aka walking, is a lot more mobile than a cyclist. An average cyclist (like myself) moving at pedestrian speeds cannot do the same things a pedestrian can at those speeds, like moving sideways up a curb or stepping down off a sharp drop on the edge of the roadway without completely stopping. A walking pedestrian can. A runner doesn't have quite the same mobility either which is why I suggested they could/shoud be treated as a vehicle. Do you see the difference between focussing on speed alone and focussing on mobility at different speeds?

joejack951

I've seen cyclists who have incredible mobility at slow speeds too, but I certainly don't and I'm sure most other cyclists don't either. I also doubt those cyclists who do go around practicing in traffic (not to say that they don't occasionally use those skills in traffic). Also note that I'm referring to slow moving runners (basically walking speed) who have a lot more mobility than a runner moving at 5-12mph.

When I mentioned vehicular speed, I wasn't talking about moving at the speed of traffic. I was referring to a speed above pedestrian speed (2-4mph or so) at which even a human by himself begins to lose mobility. A cyclist moving at pedestrian speed never has the mobility of a pedestrian hence their classification as a vehicle.

What do you suggest doing on a narrow road with fast traffic while moving slowly if not act like a vehicle driver? Walk? Not use the road?

genec

The same thing applies to a cyclist... I can easily ride circles around a car, so my mobility is a quite a leap over their's, yet you do not see the difference between cyclists and motorists as you insist exists between cyclists and pedestrians... interesting bias.

chipcom 

Maybe if you read these forums you might understand the attitudes of (some of) your followers concerning traffic laws. The 'monkey see, monkey do' claus oft stated by HH is a good example...which essentially states that a cyclist should only obey the law to the extent that motorists do.

joejack951

I can drive circles around another car in a car too. It just takes more space than if I was on a bike. I see plenty of differences between motorists and cyclists and plenty between cyclists and pedestrians. It's much more difficult for a cyclist to operate as a pedestrian than it is for a cyclist to operate as a vehicle, even when they are going pedestrian speeds. Simply because a few ignorant motorists out there can get this through their thick skulls doesn't make it wrong.

genec

You can't drive around another car within the same lane... nor can you take a car into a shop if you can't find parking. No, I am afraid the differences between a ped and cyclist are far fewer than the differences between a bike and a car.

You were contrasting mobility and speed, and using speed and differing mobility to illustrate why bikes and peds don't mix... but that same difference in speed and mobility exist between bikes and cars... yet you insist that they should mix... do you not find a bit of a dichotomy in that?

An even larger contrast exists when you consider that both the ped and cycist have in common the fact that they are human powered, whereas most other road using vehicles are powered by a fuel which results in the equvilent of several horses of power.

Again, the greater differences exist between motorists using cars and cyclists using bikes.

Your orginal comment regarding ped speed seems pretty lame at this point.

joejack951

In most lanes in my area, I can't ride a bike around a car in the same lane either. What does parking a bike have to do with what we are discussing?

Maybe you're confused or I'm not being clear enough. I did reread my posts and found nothing misleading in them though. I wasn't talking about why bikes and peds don't mix due to speed. I was talking about how cyclists, even at ped speeds, have a much easier time operating as vehicles than as peds. My examples included stepping up onto curbs or moving off the edge of the roadway without stopping. These are both situations where a runner who decided to slow down to pedestrian speeds could easily go into pedestrian mode when previously operating as a vehicle. A cyclist could not, at least not without dismounting first. Due to this limitation that cyclists have, it's easier for them to stick to operating strictly as vehicles then switching back and forth between two different modes. Note that I am saying nothing about JAM's who don't want to slow down.

So what? Quite often, motorists are travelling as less than ped speeds and even more commonly, less than average cycling speed.

In regards to what a cyclist needs to operate efficiently and what a motorist needs to operate efficiently, compared to what a pedestrian can get by with, I don't think the differences are that great. Because cyclists use the same facilities as motorists though, those facilities are all wider than we need them to be. I see little reason to complain about this other than environmental reasons.

My original comment had to do with runners acting as vehicles while at running speed and acting as peds while at walking speed. What is so lame about that? Or are you talking about a different comment?

genec

I am talking specifically about your comment that involves treating the exact same person in a different manner simply because of a speed difference...

You choose to make "speed" the governing factor.

Yet given the same discriminating difference for a cyclist, you chose not to treat the cyclist differently... why?

What magic does the cyclist have at 4MPH that the pedestrian does not?

joejack951

I chose speed as a difference for how to treat one human on foot from another human on foot. When comparing one cyclist to another, it's not the same. The cyclist at 20mph can't ride up a parallel curb and neither can the 4mph cyclist. The 4mph pedestrian can and so could too (probably) the 6mph pedestrian but it would begin to get more difficult as the ped's speed increased.