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 12-31-07, 08:25 AM   #1
Bekologist
totally louche
Thread Starter
 
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)
shared lane, faster steady traffic, driveway or curb cut- how do the VC cope?

Related to my last thread about right hooks at parking spots or shoulders.....

riding along on a road with wide, 18 foot shareable lanes. STEADY traffic moving 2.5-3X the bicyclists speed. Bicyclist is sharing the lane vehicularily, riding to the right of traffic as it seamlessly flows past the bicyclist.

UHOH- here comes a driveway to a residence or minor side street. The bicyclist can see there's no car waiting to pull out, but there's a stream of faster traffic that could potentially turn right. Bicyclist is not able to move further left to enter the traffic stream. Let's postulate there's hundreds of these minor intersections along the bicyclists' route.

HOW does the VC rider cope with this UNVEHICULAR road position of sharing lanes while being to the right of traffic that might turn right at any number of minor intersections?

Last edited by Bekologist; 12-31-07 at 08:38 AM.
Bekologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-31-07, 06:00 PM   #2
Roody
Sophomoric Member
 
Roody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Dancing in Lansing
Bikes:
Posts: 23,351
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Well here we go again. Bekologist is still unable to figure out how to deal with the most common and innocuous situation facing the urban cyclist. I don't know, do you have a velodrome in Seattle? That would be one place to ride where you don't face this befuddling situation.
__________________

"Think Outside the Cage"
Roody is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-31-07, 06:39 PM   #3
DieselDan
Senior Member
 
DieselDan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Beaufort, South Carolina, USA and surrounding islands.
Bikes: Cannondale R500, Motobecane Messenger
Posts: 8,521
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
You listen for a car to slow down behind you.
DieselDan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-31-07, 06:39 PM   #4
Bekologist
totally louche
Thread Starter
 
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)
you really don't get it do you, roody?

I'm not asking for advice, I'm deconstructing vehicular cycling. It's kind of entertaining.

How can you stand it being to the right of traffic that might turn right as you bicycle along in a shared lane and there's steady traffic? How do the rabid VC stand for this distinctly UN-vehicular position?

why is it okay for the 'vc crewe' for a bike to be of the right of steady traffic at potential right hook intersections?

D

Last edited by Bekologist; 12-31-07 at 07:03 PM.
Bekologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-31-07, 06:41 PM   #5
DieselDan
Senior Member
 
DieselDan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Beaufort, South Carolina, USA and surrounding islands.
Bikes: Cannondale R500, Motobecane Messenger
Posts: 8,521
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Sorry Bek, I didn't get it, but boy do I ever do now. Sarcasm is hard to put across in text.
DieselDan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-31-07, 08:18 PM   #6
Roody
Sophomoric Member
 
Roody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Dancing in Lansing
Bikes:
Posts: 23,351
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
you really don't get it do you, roody?

I'm not asking for advice, I'm deconstructing vehicular cycling. It's kind of entertaining.

How can you stand it being to the right of traffic that might turn right as you bicycle along in a shared lane and there's steady traffic? How do the rabid VC stand for this distinctly UN-vehicular position?

why is it okay for the 'vc crewe' for a bike to be of the right of steady traffic at potential right hook intersections?


D
I got the sarcasm a long time ago, but I don't see the point of it. It's like laughing at a three legged dog. I mean, the dog doesn't mind his own condition, and he isn't bothering anybody else, so why go to the trouble of pointing it out?

I can't speak for the whole vc crew, but for me it is vehicular for slower traffic to travel to the right of faster traffic. Maybe you've heard of the fast lane on the freeway? The fact that the lane's shared doesn't matter to me at all. I learned how to share when I was in kindergarten. Back then, if I had a whole bag of candies I would share them with my classmates, but if I only had one candy I would eat it myself (or give it to the cute kid I had a crush on). Nowadays, if the lane's wide enough I'll gladly share it, but if it's too narrow I'll hog it all to myself. What's the big deal about that?
__________________

"Think Outside the Cage"
Roody is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-31-07, 08:32 PM   #7
Bekologist
totally louche
Thread Starter
 
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)
aw shucks

Roody, I know how to share too!(well,I'm pretty hoggy in very wide lanes but that's just me )

and your feelings are so homebred and heartwarming but totally dodge the issue.

routing thru traffic to the right of potentially right turning traffic is distinctly un vehicular and is part of the vcist screed. for traffic to flow vehicularily in principle there can be no thru lanes of traffic to the right of a turning lane at intersections, ever.

You're telling me this is now no big deal, no problem? It's no problem becasue it is normal state of affairs, but it isn't vehicular. It might be 'sharing' but it isn't 'vehicular' in any strict sense of traffic routing.

Last edited by Bekologist; 12-31-07 at 08:39 PM.
Bekologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-31-07, 11:41 PM   #8
DieselDan
Senior Member
 
DieselDan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Beaufort, South Carolina, USA and surrounding islands.
Bikes: Cannondale R500, Motobecane Messenger
Posts: 8,521
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Achmed say "Silence! I keel you!"
DieselDan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-08, 01:04 AM   #9
Roody
Sophomoric Member
 
Roody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Dancing in Lansing
Bikes:
Posts: 23,351
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
aw shucks

Roody, I know how to share too!(well,I'm pretty hoggy in very wide lanes but that's just me )

and your feelings are so homebred and heartwarming but totally dodge the issue.

routing thru traffic to the right of potentially right turning traffic is distinctly un vehicular and is part of the vcist screed. for traffic to flow vehicularily in principle there can be no thru lanes of traffic to the right of a turning lane at intersections, ever.

You're telling me this is now no big deal, no problem? It's no problem becasue it is normal state of affairs, but it isn't vehicular. It might be 'sharing' but it isn't 'vehicular' in any strict sense of traffic routing
.
As far as I know, the only time when "through traffic [is routed] to the right of potentially right turning traffic" is when there's a bike lane striped to the right of a right turn lane. This is not part of the normal "vehicular" design of roads. I don't advocate or design bike lanes, so I'm not the one to ask about this "distinctly unvehicular" departure from normal road design. Maybe you could ask, I don't know, yourself.

In the sarcastic situation you're talking about in this thread, bike traffic is not "routed" to the right of right turners. The individual cyclists may have chosen to ride right of turners, but they were not routed there, as they could have chosen to travel in a different section of the road.
__________________

"Think Outside the Cage"
Roody is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-08, 01:41 AM   #10
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 Bekologist View Post
Related to my last thread about right hooks at parking spots or shoulders.....

riding along on a road with wide, 18 foot shareable lanes. STEADY traffic moving 2.5-3X the bicyclists speed. Bicyclist is sharing the lane vehicularily, riding to the right of traffic as it seamlessly flows past the bicyclist.

UHOH- here comes a driveway to a residence or minor side street. The bicyclist can see there's no car waiting to pull out, but there's a stream of faster traffic that could potentially turn right. Bicyclist is not able to move further left to enter the traffic stream. Let's postulate there's hundreds of these minor intersections along the bicyclists' route.

HOW does the VC rider cope with this UNVEHICULAR road position of sharing lanes while being to the right of traffic that might turn right at any number of minor intersections?
Oops. I mistakenly wandered back into the VC forum, where we all love to devote gigabytes to nailing down just how difficult cycling really is.
__________________
No worries
LittleBigMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-08, 09:47 AM   #11
Tom Stormcrowe
Out fishing with Annie on his lap, a cigar in one hand and a ginger ale in the other, watching the sunset.
 
Tom Stormcrowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: South Florida
Bikes: Techna Wheelchair and a Sun EZ 3 Recumbent Trike
Posts: 16,121
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I think I'll drift back to P&R......

Less argument and contention there
__________________
. “He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.”- Fredrick Nietzsche

"We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." - Immanuel Kant
Tom Stormcrowe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-08, 09:57 AM   #12
JeffB502
Arrogant Safety Nanny
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Santa Maria, CA
Bikes: 2007 Trek 7.2 FX, 2008 Trek Madone 5.2
Posts: 554
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
At least in California, motorists are required to move "as close as practicable" to the right hand curb or edge prior to beginning a right turn. To me this implies the motorist and cyclist would have to negotiate a merge in this situation. Either the motorist merges in front of the cyclist and the cyclist chooses to slow down or pass the motorist on the left, or the motorist slows and merges behind the cyclist. If the motorist fails to merge to the right side of the lane and unexpectedly cuts off the cyclist while entering a driveway or making a right turn, the motorist isn't operating his/her vehicle vehicularly and should be punished
JeffB502 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-08, 03:52 PM   #13
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 Bekologist View Post
you really don't get it do you, roody?

I'm not asking for advice, I'm deconstructing vehicular cycling. It's kind of entertaining.

How can you stand it being to the right of traffic that might turn right as you bicycle along in a shared lane and there's steady traffic? How do the rabid VC stand for this distinctly UN-vehicular position?

why is it okay for the 'vc crewe' for a bike to be of the right of steady traffic at potential right hook intersections?

D
Ooh, Bekologist, so learned of you to have met with deconstruction theory! And so broad-mouthed of you to have swallowed it whole, too! However, this is not a discussion of the baser aspects of modern literary criticism, in which the universe is a reflection of the words. Rather, this is a discussion in the scientific and engineering context, in which the words are not reality, but only our attempt to accurately describe the reality that actually does exist. Of course, we know from all of your previous discussions that you believe in the deconstructionist system in which only words are real, because you refuse to accept the facts about the real world that disprove your imaginary world.

By the way, Bekologist, you are behind the times, for even the literary critics have started to recognize that deconstructionism has been rather overdone, while, of course, the scientific and engineering worlds never accepted that error.
John Forester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-08, 06:50 PM   #14
Bekologist
totally louche
Thread Starter
 
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)
jhon,

'deconstruct' doesn't ONLY mean deconstructionism.
I like to use it in a more general sense, ' to pull apart' but also a little bit of 'to illustrate the contraditions.'

care to address the point raised rather than sniping about semantics and wordplay, jhno?
Bekologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-08, 08:15 PM   #15
Roody
Sophomoric Member
 
Roody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Dancing in Lansing
Bikes:
Posts: 23,351
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
jhon,

'deconstruct' doesn't ONLY mean deconstructionism.
I like to use it in a more general sense, ' to pull apart' but also a little bit of 'to illustrate the contraditions.'

care to address the point raised rather than sniping about semantics and wordplay, jhno
?
Um, I thought you said you were being sarcastic, Eklobogist. Wouldn't that imply that you don't really have a point, other than to point out the perceived faults of others?
__________________

"Think Outside the Cage"
Roody is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-08, 08:23 PM   #16
joejack951
Senior Member
 
joejack951's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Wilmington, DE
Bikes: 1984 Trek 660, 2003 Specialized Hardrock, 2004 LOOK KG386i, 2005 Iron Horse Warrior Expert, 2009 Pedal Force CX1, 2014 Islabikes CNOC 14 (son's)
Posts: 9,811
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
routing thru traffic to the right of potentially right turning traffic is distinctly un vehicular and is part of the vcist screed.
Please elaborate. Based on your previous thread, I'm assuming you are referring to having a wide outside lane where cyclists may travel straight through an intersection to the right of potentially right turning traffic. Am I correct? If so, how is that a case of "routing thru traffic to the right of potentially right turning traffic?" There are no lines indicating that either party must stay in one area of the lane or the other. They are left to sort that out. The motorist can move right in the lane to turn or the cyclist can move left in the lane if he feels it is necessary. Contrast this situation with a bike lane and the faults of the bike lane should be obvious, especially in states where motorists are not allowed to merge into the bike lane.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
for traffic to flow vehicularily in principle there can be no thru lanes of traffic to the right of a turning lane at intersections, ever.
Which is exactly what a wide outside lane allows and what a bike lane fail miserably at except where right turn lanes are involved AND the engineers who designed the lane had a clue. There may be two LINES of traffic going through an intersection where the inner line has the potential to turn right, but if they are going to be turning right, a law abiding motorist would be doing it in-line with the outer line of traffic. Again, the faults of the bike lane are obvious in comparison.

New year, same Bek
joejack951 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-08, 09:24 PM   #17
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 Bekologist View Post
jhon,

'deconstruct' doesn't ONLY mean deconstructionism.
I like to use it in a more general sense, ' to pull apart' but also a little bit of 'to illustrate the contraditions.'

care to address the point raised rather than sniping about semantics and wordplay, jhno?
I have discussed the issue in the terms that it deserves. You have invented a problem based on words only when there is no problem in real life. As others have written, I have cycled many tens of thousands of miles under the conditions that you define, with practically no problems at all. All that you have is wordplay; there is no issue in the real world at all.
John Forester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-08, 08:49 AM   #18
Bekologist
totally louche
Thread Starter
 
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)
despite joe's post that wrongly insists routing thru traffic to the right of potential right turning traffic in wide lanes is not a problem (joe, its a problem wether there's a bike lane or not!)

jhon forester says he's ridden 10 of 1000's of miles in this unvehicular position and admits though it presents 'practically' no problems, it appears it does present problems and is unvehicular.

I'm with jhon. I've ridden tens of thousands of miles in this unvehicular position as well, and so have the rest of us. it presents practically no actual, bonifide collision issues despite it's unvehicularity. It poses little problem to those of us used to dealing with the unvehicularity of riding to the right of traffic that might turn right.

lane positioning and negotiation is what makes wide lanes work to allow bikes and faster traffic to mix at intersections. it works because there is such a small share of slower traffic (bicyclists) needing to be passed at any one point in time at an intersection.

Imagine a steady stream of bicyclists, unbroken, moving to the right of much faster traffic streams that needs to make any number of turns at driveways and curb cuts- it's unvehicular. the cars will be unable to turn past the bikes.
Bekologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-08, 09:54 AM   #19
Roody
Sophomoric Member
 
Roody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Dancing in Lansing
Bikes:
Posts: 23,351
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
The biggest waste of time I ever engaged in. I apologize for the role I played in this debacle.
__________________

"Think Outside the Cage"
Roody is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-08, 09:59 AM   #20
Bekologist
totally louche
Thread Starter
 
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)
really? page one, post 18, a 'debacle'? 'biggest waste of time'? such sensationalism, such hyperbole.

...imagine an unbroken line of bikes, roody, and cars that need to turn right across it.

How's it NOT unvehicular?
Bekologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-08, 11:21 PM   #21
Bekologist
totally louche
Thread Starter
 
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)
Well, that one went down quick. i believe john agrees that it is unvehicular despite most bicyclists being able to deal with it.

I love it. the very premise of vehicular cycling, when applied as a method to move large numbers of bicyclists, fails miserably.

engineering controls HAVE to be introduced to mix a substantial number of bicyclists with automobile traffic. The ambiguous and murky 'vehicularity' of sharing wide lanes fails miserably when a substantial number of bikes are plugged into the transportation grid.

Last edited by Bekologist; 01-03-08 at 08:29 AM.
Bekologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-08, 03:17 PM   #22
joejack951
Senior Member
 
joejack951's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Wilmington, DE
Bikes: 1984 Trek 660, 2003 Specialized Hardrock, 2004 LOOK KG386i, 2005 Iron Horse Warrior Expert, 2009 Pedal Force CX1, 2014 Islabikes CNOC 14 (son's)
Posts: 9,811
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
really? page one, post 18, a 'debacle'? 'biggest waste of time'? such sensationalism, such hyperbole.

...imagine an unbroken line of bikes, roody, and cars that need to turn right across it.

How's it NOT unvehicular?
If someone was to the left of a line of traffic and needed to turn right, they'd merge into that line of traffic and make their right turn. Completely vehicular.
joejack951 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-08, 03:25 PM   #23
Roody
Sophomoric Member
 
Roody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Dancing in Lansing
Bikes:
Posts: 23,351
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by joejack951 View Post
If someone was to the left of a line of traffic and needed to turn right, they'd merge into that line of traffic and make their right turn. Completely vehicular.
Evidently not in Seattle, where there's a constant stream of cyclists in the righthand gutter of every road.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bekologist
...imagine an unbroken line of bikes, roody, and cars that need to turn right across it.
__________________

"Think Outside the Cage"
Roody is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-08, 03:40 PM   #24
noisebeam
Al
 
noisebeam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: AZ
Bikes: Cannondale SuperSix, Lemond Poprad. Retired: Jamis Sputnik, Centurion LeMans Fixed, Diamond Back ascent ex
Posts: 14,109
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roody View Post
Evidently not in Seattle, where there's a constant stream of cyclists in the righthand gutter of every road.
Well in that case the motorist can negotiate a merge into the line of traffic. Put the right turn signal on and a cyclist can slow to open up a gap for the motorist to merge into.

Just yesterday on a 5 lane arterial. I was riding centerish in outside lane, city bus comes up behind and merges fully into adjacent lane to pass. I noted ahead a bus stop with pickup needed, but the bus was ahead of me to my left. The bus driver started to slow to let me pass before merging back right, but instead I slowed and waved them ahead of me and passed them on their left.

Al
noisebeam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-08, 03:46 PM   #25
joejack951
Senior Member
 
joejack951's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Wilmington, DE
Bikes: 1984 Trek 660, 2003 Specialized Hardrock, 2004 LOOK KG386i, 2005 Iron Horse Warrior Expert, 2009 Pedal Force CX1, 2014 Islabikes CNOC 14 (son's)
Posts: 9,811
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roody View Post
Evidently not in Seattle, where there's a constant stream of cyclists in the righthand gutter of every road.
Cyclists who can only go one speed too
joejack951 is online now   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 08:05 PM.