Niles H.

The statement is unclear, and it causes a lot of confusion.

Why not clarify it?

One simple clarification: simply indicate what is meant by the word vehicles.

What is the intention here? -- what is the idea behind the communication?

And what is being denoted by the term?

Which vehicles are being referred to?

Certainly it does not mean all vehicles. That has already been established on other threads.

If one looks the word up in dictionaries (and other reference works), most of the meanings do not make sense.

Helmet Head

To comprehend the meaning of the phrase act as a driver of a vehicle, one must be able to generalize and conceptualize.

What it's referring to is the general common denominator of the behavior of all drivers of all vehicles.
In other words, any behavior that is specific to driving any one vehicle, or any one type of vehicle, does not apply.
So your question, about which vehicles, doesn't matter.

What driving ALL types of vehicles has in common is simply this: driving in accordance with the rules of the road. Well, there are essentially two sets rules of the road: those for drivers of vehicles and those for pedestrians. We're of course talking about the former, so we really have: driving in accordance with the rules of the road of the road for drivers of vehicles.

That's what "act as a driver of a vehicle" means. It can't mean anything other than: driving in accordance with the rules of the road of the road for drivers of vehicles.

Laika

Ahhh! More esoterica!

zeytoun

Actually, pedestrians are usually part of the vehicle code. So it's just one set of rules of the road.

(See for example CVC division 11 chapter 5
https://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/vc/tocd11c5.htm)

In that one set of rules for the road are many rules that apply to smaller subsets of the groups.

Also, in California for example, equestrians are called "horseback riders" and bicycles are "devices", not vehicles. This is not irrelevant. This means that many of the "vehicle" laws do not apply. A cyclist, unlike a vehicle driver, may be allowed to ride on the sidewalk, on the shoulder to pass, in a bike lane, etc. A bicycle is not allowed on a freeway.

You see, each group has some of the rights and responsibilities as other drivers, but not all (notice the qualifier in the legal wording). What matters is not how "accross the board" those rules apply, but rather, how those rules best match the performance characteristics of the traveller, it's specific needs, and it's contribution to the society as a whole.

Example: A non-hybrid vehicle driver in CA chafes at the notion of not being allowed in the carpool lane. (I have all the rights and responsibilities of a hybrid car, so I should be allowed in!)

To say that a bicyclist is a not a pedestrian is obvious.

To say that a bicyclist is a vehicle driver, in the broadest sense that they should follow the ROTR is obvious.

What really is VC adding to the debate, now?

Niles H.

Thank Goodness for a little breath of clarity.

Maybe I should be reading what some good lawyers and legislators have formulated (in different states and countries). At least some of them can think clearly and express it clearly.

(Why can't VC people express their ideas and concepts in a clear way??)

[Maybe it would short circuit this process of endless debate, confusion, clarification-that-isn't-real-clarification, et cetera ad........................(I guess it wouldn't be as comical and entertaining, frustrating and all the rest.) (Then again, some real progress might be able to occur, and we might be able to move forward, or on to other things. (Maybe some people just don't want that??))]

Niles H.

!

Helmethead, you have outdone yourself.

Niles H.

All drivers of all vehicles???

omg, here we go again.

Niles H.

...you just said "all" vehicles.

Niles H.

You're kidding, right?

Niles H.

(1) And that is supposed to be clear?

(2) There are many different vehicles on the roads, and they are driven (or ridden, which is the usual English language (clearer and clearly legally defined) term for certain vehicles) according to different rules.

(3) If that is the meaning, then why not just say it that way, and avoid the (other) vaguenesses and confusions?

***
Thank you for at least clarifying something here, HH.

(I'm not being sarcastic, I mean it -- you have basically clarified the intended meaning (at least as you understand it), and I thank you for that.)

zeytoun

This statement leads directly on of the core issues of Vehicular Cycling: the idea of "rules of the road".

When distilled into a philosophical formula by the likes of Helmet Head and John Forester, it becomes merely an exercise in Reactionary Recalcitrance.

The rules of the road correspond to the vehicle code, only so much as the vehicle code matches their ideals of the rules of the road. Their myopia allows no room for adaptations regarding the rotr.

For example, lanes crossing each other. Oh the horror! Lanes must never cross each other (except at intersctions). Well, look at light rail, or overhead-electric busses. Car drivers have learned how to deal with ROW, and lanes crossing each other, since light rail uses the road non-"vehicularly" in the Foresterian sense.

Let's just ride our bikes safely. Take the lane when it's safer. Don't pass to the right of right turners. Ride on streets appropriate to your skill. At intersections, stay sufficiently far from the curb to prevent right hooks, and cars pulling out. Etc. etc....

But do we really need to turn it into an absolute, cohesive philosophy? We give the above recommendations because to avoid recently noted statistically recognized danger, not because 100 years ago, the rule to "pass on the left" for example was recognized as safer.

Who knows what developments will come in the future. Perhaps we will use computers to establish a conflict-reducing mode of travel for different users. What if it violates the "rules of the road" some find so precious? Will they be so in love with the past, that they will disbelieve the future? We'll see...

Niles H.

They often seem to be saying something, which upon closer examination is really either something else, nothing, very little, obvious to the point of being meaningless or nearly meaningless, incorrect, or simply internally confused.

noisebeam

From AZ Traffic Law:

"56. "Vehicle" means a device in, on or by which a person or property is or may be transported or drawn on a public highway, excluding devices moved by human power or used exclusively on stationary rails or tracks."

Helmet Head

If you go through the vehicle code with different color hi-lighters, using a different color for each class of user (car drivers, truck drivers, motorcyclists, equestrians, cyclists, pedestrians, etc.) and mark each section (each law) with the appropriate highlight color if that section applies to the associated class of user, then you will find, with few exceptions, that a large set of them that apply to car drivers, truck drivers, motorcyclists, equestrians, and bicyclists, of which none apply to pedestrians, and a set that applies only to pedestrians. That's what I mean by two sets of rules.

Of course there are vehicle-type specific exceptions. But, by and large, there is a set of rules that applies to ALL drivers of ALL vehicles, including bicyclists, and it is that set that is the legal manifestation of the vehicular rules of the road with which VC is concerned.

In California, this is known as Division 11 of the vehicle code, which is comprised of sections 21000-23336, not the least of which is:


21200. (a) Every person riding a bicycle upon a highway has all the rights and is subject to all the provisions applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this division ...

https://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21200.htm

zeytoun

Equestrians have very few of the vehicle code rights and responsibilities applying to them. Are equestrians pedestrians, or vehicle drivers?
Are skateboarders and rollerbladers pedestrians or vehicle drivers?

and the rest is:
So bicyclists do not have all the rights and responsibilities of other drivers in California.

Helmet Head

I randomly picked one section out of chapter 5 to illustrate a point:


Pedestrians Outside Crosswalks

21954. (a) Every pedestrian upon a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway so near as to constitute an immediate hazard.

(b) The provisions of this section shall not relieve the driver of a vehicle from the duty to exercise due care for the safety of any pedestrian upon a roadway.

Note how although it applies to both drivers of vehicles and to pedestrians, it applies to them differently. Also note that it applies to bicyclists, without mentioning them because of 22100, exactly the same as it is applies to drivers of vehicles. This is typically of the laws that apply to pedestrians, which really define separate rules that belong to two different sets: those for drivers of vehicles and those for pedestrians.

The fact that the separate rules are often stated within the same secdtion of the vehicle code is an issue of how it's organized, and has nothing to do with what the rules actually are.

zeytoun

Ok, so here's another "random" one for you.

By being in a bicycle lane, you are attesting to the fact that you are not a pedestrian.

zeytoun

For you, Pete.

zeytoun

Similar to Al's Arizona law.

Note that a remote controlled car, transporting "property", does in fact meet this definition of a "vehicle" unlike a bicycle.

zeytoun

So my question is: If a person were roller-skiing at 15mph down the middle of the road, would they have to yield to a pedestrian crossing at a crosswalk?

Helmet Head

Good way to end the week.

Seriously, though, it illustrates a point: many of these laws were written with certain specific situations in mind. I doubt anyone ever considered the situation depicted in your question, and wrote the laws accordingly.

Pedestrians moving at 0-3 mph don't need ROW rules to get past each other. But throw in a 15 mph "ped on wheels" and the need arises.

If they ever bothered to address this in law, I suspect they would borrow the principles normally used on MUPs and trails, where cyclists yield to skaters who yield to peds who yield to equestrians, usually.

sbhikes

A platform on which to transport an animal carcass after you killed it on a hunting trip is also a vehicle, and as such is prohibited from designated wilderness areas.

zeytoun

I've been thinking about the main question: Are there essentially two categories of rules of the road, one for vehicles, and one for pedestrians? If so, I think there would need to be a clear methodology for distinguishing the two groups.

It can't be wheels, since in many states, like california, roller bladers, and skateboarders are considered pedestrians. And horse riders are lumped in with what some would call the "vehicle" half of the vehicle code.

It's not really speed, since roller bladers can reach speeds similar to cyclists.

And right of way for pedestrians in courts would probably boil down to size and speed relativity issues, and not vehicle vs pedestrian issues. (i.e. a jogger would likely be required to yield to a slower pedestrian, a roller blader more so, a cyclist, more so, etc).

---

Also, think of all the requirements for motor vehicles that attain higher speeds. Safety tests, emission req's, registration, licensing, insurance, etc. They certainly are held to higher responsibilities as far as following stop lights, speeding, etc, then cyclists in many areas.

Then you have the categorie of low powered vehicles. Golf-cart type vehicles, electric scooters, mopeds, segways, etc. If they (as is usually true) have a top speed of about 25, they are only allowed on streets with that speed limit. (one exception is that scooters etc, can travel on faster roads only if there is a bike lane and they use it). They, unlike other vehicles, are allowed to use the bike lane, or the sidewalk.

Then you have bicycles, which likely due in a large part to the legitimacy of it's long history, seems to get the best of both worlds. They are only restricted from certain freeways, and have more access to the roads then almost all other low-powered vehicles. They are completely free of the licensing, registration, insurance requirements. They can often ride on sidewalks (and yield ROW to peds, of course). They can often treat stop signs as yield signs, they can filter in traffic.

----

In short, I don't think it is any more legitimate to classify the vehicle code into the categories of vehicles and pedestrians then it is to break it into another system of categories (like fast vehicles, slow vehicles, slow agile vehicles, and pedestrians.

So frankly, while I see gaining driver acceptance as a big goal (and am not going to argue at the best way to accomplish this), I do not at all see how the vehicle/pedestrian dichotomy helps at all. I think drivers resist it, because it is so easy to "misunderstand" the intent. And I think most drivers see cyclist as something in between a pedestrian and a motor vehicle: something narrow, small, easy to miss, sometimes unpredictable, sometimes fast, often slow - and possibly (to some drivers) something in the way, and not a legitimate road user.

I don't think that forcing the idea of the bicycle as a vehicle is the best way to accomplish
chaging the idea of them not being as legitimate as cars. The cars who treat cyclists as in the way, likely already possess a mindset that will not be changed by forcing them to believe cyclists are vehicles. I personally think the best way is to safely act as something in between, and then pass the suckers in gridlock and don't let them catch up. Then maybe they will start to realize that you are not in their way, but that cars are in your way.....

John Forester

Most of this discussion has been pointless. We are discussing behavior in roadway traffic, the area in which traffic law reigns. Traffic law explicitly divides the roadway users into pedestrians and drivers of vehicles. The kinds of vehicles that it considers are those lawful for use on the highway, not any other kind of vehicle.

I suppose few of you have noticed, in this discussion of all kinds of vehicles, that paint consists of pigment, binder, and vehicle? The vehicle is the solvent that carries the pigment and binder to the surface being painted, and then leaves, its task being complete. We really have to include this vehicle if we are going to introduce all kinds of vehicles, but it would be better to stick to the legal definition of those vehicles that are recognized by traffic law.

rando

much of the discussion here on this forum is pointless. better get used to it!