kickstart

I see that some folks call for full rights for all road users, and the end of prioritizing motor vehicles but there seems to be no clear definition of what that really means.
Full access for all users on all roads? Restricting motor vehicles to bicycle speeds? Bicycles on freeways? Motor vehicles on MUTs?

Is there a resource that defines these concepts, or are they simply catch phrases used by folks who are not satisfied with status quo, but with no real objective?

This is a genuine question, not a troll.

John Forester

I realize that those of the anti-motoring persuasion have quite radical ideas on this subject; they have so written. But for vehicular cyclists this means returning to cyclists the rights and duties of drivers of vehicles (RRDV), just as is stated by the rules of the road in most state codes, but which have been grossly denied by the far-to-the-right (FTR and similar) laws, which need to be repealed. Repeal of these would remove the legal jeopardy imposed on cyclists who obey the RRDV, removing the ability of police and judicial forces to harass and prosecute cyclists who are riding as legal equals to motorists, rather than subservient to them. Being legally equal to all other drivers of vehicles (not to motorists, who have some restrictions for themselves) would improve traffic operation for cyclists, with little effect on motorists.

Since the rules of the road apply only to roadway traffic, there would be no change in the regulations for MUTs. This would not change the speed limits for roadway traffic. Motorists on roadways would still have to be licensed; this is not "Full access for all users on all roads". This would not change the rules for freeways, which are divided highways with controlled access and no intersections at grade; non-motorized traffic would still be prohibited, except for the routes that are specially excepted because there is no other reasonable route for cyclists.

kickstart

Thank you for the basic explanation,
I take it there is no recognized set of goals? Would the desired repeal of FTR laws be all inclusive, or would it still be applicable to high speed roads other than freeways?

BTW, my comments about cycles on freeways and motor vehicles on MUTs was only a poor attempt to convey my confusion humorously.

CB HI

Sadly, many cyclists believe that FTR laws make them special. They either do not know the history of the laws or they refuse to accept the original reason motorist got the laws passed.

Painting bike lanes made many of these people feel love and FEEL safer because it "gave cyclists their own space". In fact, bike lanes as they exist today make cycling less safe do to problems/conflicts they create at intersections. Unfortunately, no proper studies have been funded to fully prove the problems sufficiently to unpaint so many of these bad bike lanes. It seems that feeling safer is more important than actually being safer.

there are many freeways in western states that cyclist legally and often do ride on. I have ridden on freeways. The wide shoulders/break down lanes make these freeway safer to ride on than many high speed highways.

There is a huge divide between cyclist on what we should advocate for, and all too often, the discussion gets very nasty.

Look at mandatory helmet laws. Washington cities have ended up with such laws because a small number of cyclists lobby for them and politicians latch onto those small numbers to claim broad support for such laws. even when most cyclists oppose such laws.

kickstart

I was just looking for some claification on if there was any recognized set of goals.

Personally I like bike lanes, and feel FTR is the best thing for high speed roads, but do agree that is excessive for low speed and lightly used roads.
This is just my opinion, I make no claim that its correct. One thing that concerns me is some things being proposed by advocates are baised on the skills and abilities of the most dedicated enthusiast, not the average cyclist or kids. Kinda like letting forumla 1 drivers wright traffic code to suit their needs. Again, just a thought, not a criticism.

Yes I'm aware cyclists and pedestrians may use interstates in certain places where there are no other routes, but they are strictly prohibited from ever using travel lanes, I have done it too.

John Forester

You assume that the FTR laws make cycling much safer for those without traffic competence. In that assumption you are merely repeating motordom's claim for the last seventy years, which claim has never had any scientific support. Furthermore, the FTR principle has been proved to be more dangerous than obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles (RRDV). The California legislature, which tried to support FTR, in the face of this proof had to write into the FTR law the exceptions which were the obvious cases of this sort. The California law became generally accepted across the nation because of its obvious correlation with traffic engineering.

The conclusion to be reached from your message is that people without traffic-cycling competence should not ride where there is traffic. Which is what I have been writing for decades. However, America has chosen to try to prohibit cyclists from obeying the RRDV (by means of the FTR laws), to denigrate obeying the RRDV (so that so ordinary a task [we expect the veriest motorist to obey the RRDV] becomes, in your own words, equivalent to the skill required for Formula 1 racing) and to advocate cycling in traffic without the competence required to operate safely. And all because motorists believe that this policy makes motoring more convenient.

Such is the sorry state into which motordom and bikedom have pushed American bicycle traffic. There's no reasonable way to support it; just give up trying.

kickstart

All I can say is if I'm riding on a road where motorized traffic is going 30, or 40 mph faster than I can go, I much rather have a bike lane or use the shoulder rather than have to use the traffic lane. I don't understand why some want to take those options away.

turbo1889

Its not so much a matter of taking the option to ride FRAP away, but rather removing the requirement for cyclists to ride FRAP. If the FRAP laws are repealed it doesn't make riding FRAP illegal or prevent you or anyone else from doing so (heck when there is a nice wide shoulder edge on the side of a high speed road with cars wizzing around at 60+ mph I personally strongly prefer to shoulder edge ride and I find it a huge hinderance to safe, effective, and efficient cycling that a lot of high speed long distance travel roads don't have nice wide good pavement shoulder edges.)

My personal preference leans not towards total repeal of FRAP laws for cyclist but rather an even better option of re-writing them the other way around flipping them on their heads.

Currently the vast majority of FRAP laws at least in the U.S. are written like this:

----- Bicyclists on the public roadways shall ride FRAP and get the (insert explicit(s) of your choice) out of the way !!!
----- Oh, and by the way here are a few mostly ignored exceptions where they don't have to ride FRAP so we don't get are rears sued off when one of them gets hurt as a result of riding FRAP.

That's totally backwards thinking and a backwards way of writing a law which the whole purpose of laws for rules of the road is to protect innocent people from getting hurt and try to encourage an atmosphere of mutual respect among public right of way users. Instead FRAP laws should be re-written along these lines:

----- Cyclists are lawful users of the public rights of way and have full right to use the roads as any other vehicle and may make use of a full traffic lane width to ensure their own safety and transportation and are responsible to follow the rules of the road as any other vehicle and are due all the same respect in return from other road users operating other vehicles.
----- Since cyclists are a lower speed vehicle then many other vehicles on the road. When a cyclists can continue to travel in a safe, sane, effective, and efficient manner while also staying further to the right to allow (legally) faster moving vehicles to pass more easily without compromising their own safety are ability to effectively and efficiently travel they shall do so without fail out of basic courtesy and respect for other road users.


If flip the FRAP laws on their head like that and start out from the position that cyclists are people with equal rights and due equal respect. Then you can tell them not to make an (insert explicit(s) of your choice) out of themselves without creating an oppressive prejudiced ghetto like second class citizen situation.

turbo1889

Then to address the OP's points about armature and or very slow cyclists that may not wish to use the roadways. I personally have no problem with sidewalk bicycling or MUP's & Sidepaths (AKA = sidewalk bicycling a little polished up for show).

PROVIDED IT ISN'T MANDATORY IN ANY WAY INCLUDING PUBLIC PERCEPTION !!!




Who am I to tell someone else that if they prefer they aren't allowed that option? So long as they aren't trying to attack my road rights not a problem (unfortunately some of them do actively attack my road rights including at least one pro-path group in a nearby town that actively sought mandatory use legislation to force cyclists to use their path after they got it built).

I do have some very strong feelings about what "rules of the path" should govern such facilities since I myself even use them from time to time when they are at some times a better option then the road for some stretches (one rails-to-trails path specifically which is a very good path along a very, very, very bad road for cyclists). These are as follows along with the "Why" of them:

#1 = When you mix pedestrians and cyclists (along with other similar modes such as roller-bladers and skate-boarders) together it must be clearly understood that cyclists (and other higher speed users anything from sprinters to roller-bladers and skate-boarders and should not run-down, close high speed pass "buzz", or otherwise harass pedestrians (or other lower speed users) !!! This is extra especially true with conventional sidewalks as apposed to MUPs because they are far more low speed pedestrian dominant structures with usually much less room to maneuver and many obstructions and conflict points. It's no different a situation then cars vs. cyclists on the roads the faster users should show extra care and respect around the slower and more vulnerable users and should not endanger or harass them !!!

#2 = On MUPs especially all users peds., cyclists, and others must understand that multiple users operating as a "pack" side by side blocking the whole path from edge to edge in both directions of travel so no-one can pass them and "charging" at traffic coming the other way is not acceptable behavior is very uncivilized and not in any way in line with common respect and courtesy. Most MUPs I've seen are 8-foot wide or so and represent basically two unmarked lanes of travel yet users of all types peds., cyclists, roller bladers, skateboarders, etc. . . seem to just love to take up the whole path from one edge to the other with zero respect for anyone coming the other direction or trying to pass. Even when cyclists "take the lane" on a public roadway with the very small exception of a handful of one-lane, one-way roads they do not take up the whole road from one edge to the other so no one can get by them either direction. At most they take up the right half of the road (two lane road) leaving the left half of the road open for oncoming traffic and to allow others behind them the opportunity to pass when there is a break in oncoming traffic. For some strange reason this very basic level of common courtesy seems to go completely out the window on MUPs and that needs to be corrected and doing so infringes on no-ones rights but rather improves the situation for all users.

#3 = It is critically important that traditional pedestrian dominant right of way and legal protection be preserved and enforced for all side-walk and MUP crossings of vehicular roadways. The traditional crosswalk right of way model dictates that cross-walk traffic always has dominant right of way except for at signal light controlled intersections where there are crosswalk "walk"/"don't-walk" signs wired in synchronization with the vehicular roadway signal lights. Long story short, vehicles on the road yield to cross-walk traffic NOT the other way around. This is an incredibly important thing to preserve for the future of our society that is under sustained and nearly overwhelming attack by a belligerent violent aggressive motorist first mentality. When they put up stop signs for the path traffic and make the vehicular road traffic have dominant right of way at an MUP crossing of a vehicular roadway an incredibly dangerous and utterly malevolent legal nightmare is created for all users of such an MUP pathway making it such that anyone using that crossing that is struck by a motorist on the road is always in the wrong and has no legal rights whatsoever !!! Such crossing effectively become "legalized killing zones" where vulnerable MUP users can be run down at will by motorist with little to no consequences. This is the diametric, complete opposite of traditional cross-walk right of way !!! Now, it is true that higher speed MUP users such as cyclists, other wheeled users, and even runners do represent a potential conflict if full traditional crosswalk right of way standards are used at MUP crossings. This is very easily and simply addressed, however. All that is needed is a simple "slow to walking speed before entering crossing" standard of conduct, legal encoding, and signage for MUP crossings to allow them to function with full traditional crosswalk right of way and legal protection for vulnerable users right of way standards. That produces the optimal "mutual respect" kind of climate that makes for a safe transportation system. Thus at MUP crossings that are not signal light controlled intersections vehicular traffic is required to show respect for cross-walk users as normal (with "State Law, Yield to All Cross-walk Users" type signage) while path users are also expected to do their part (as clearly indicated with ("State Law, Slow to Walking Speed Before Entering Crossing" type signage) which allows vehicular road users the opportunity to properly yield to cross-walk traffic so they don't have some cyclists "come flying out of now-where right in front of them" in the crosswalk and they can't stop in time to avoid hitting them.

#4 = It is ridiculous that many signal light intersections are set-up with pedestrian (and thus MUPs and sidewalk cyclists as well) crossing signals that do not work unless you push the button and the button often gets broken !!! Crosswalk "walk"/"don't-walk" signals should function with every light cycle automatically and require no special triggering !!! As for the buttons they should exist but should be there to trigger signal lights that are sensor based and only an additional way for side-walk/side-path users to trigger the light not the only way !!!


Do those things to address the problems that side-path type infrastructure creates and it would be a benefit for everyone and make our overall transportation system far better for everyone.

CB HI

No one is trying to take choice away from you, if you want to ride on a shoulder or bike lane. But those of us that do not want to spend all of our time riding on shoulders or bike lanes have had our choice taken away from us. Hawaii, Oregon and other places have mandatory bike lane laws in addition to FTR laws. Portland has had experienced and new cyclist killed because they were forced to use bike lanes. Hawaii has some of the worst bike lanes in the nation - 2 foot wide bike lanes, bike lanes in door zones, bike lanes without proper lines of sight from driveways, bike lanes filled with glass and other debris, bike lanes that do not allow cyclist to take the lane at intersections to prevent right and left hooks.

Even when there are no mandatory use laws, motorist and police harass cyclist to use them. It gets used in courts to claim that cyclists were riding improperly.

Those that push for bike lanes make no effort to help repeal mandatory use laws or FTR laws. Until that happens, expect push back from those that do not want to be harassed for their choice to not ride in a bike lane or shoulder.

turbo1889

I didn't address "bike lanes" in my two previous posts in this thread, my feelings on them is that there shouldn't be any "bike" lanes but rather only "lower speed, single wide vehicle lanes" that are fully integrated with the existing lane structure and usually produced by drawing another line down the middle of existing lanes splitting them in half to make every lane (or at least the right most lane(s)) into two bike lanes as well as one car lane along with often adding enough width to the road to allow for at least one more single wide lane (I consider current lane width to be "double wide") to be added in addition.

Such would result in a true integration of mode type where narrow single track vehicles (bicycles, mo-peds, electric scooters, etc . . . ) being fully integrated into low speed roadways and partially integrated in the right most lanes of high speed roadways. Double wide vehicles would use the same space as single wide vehicles just by using two single wide lanes while narrower vehicles only used one. For roads that right now only have one double wide lane in each direction (classic two lane narrow road) instead of adding narrow dangerous second class citizen bike lanes to their edges you would instead add enough width to their edges to allow for redrawing the lines on the road to provide three single wide lanes in each direction.

With sensible implementation, especially on lower speed roads, this would result in a more inclusive, fluid approach to multi-mod roadway less automobile-centrist conversion that avoids most of the pitfalls and danger problems with conventional bike lanes which often becoming ghettos filled with debris and bad pavement of too narrow width and re-enforce a cultural perception that cyclists are second class road users and/or don't belong on the public right of ways. Where as using a full integration philosophy instead as I propose at least on slow speeds roads allows for and makes much more natural things like a cyclist being in the left most of three such single wide lanes waiting to make a left turn with traffic going around him/her in the two single wide lanes to his/her right side and also offers benefits with partial integration on high speed roadways with the right most lanes (at least two) being of single wide width rather then conventional double wide width. It also minimizes and often eliminates the need for right turn only lanes and in so goes a long ways in addressing right hook and left-T-cross problems for cyclists.

I've been building up a series of illustrative diagrams to explain my proposition of this kind of set-up with a whole variety of road situations and intersection types demonstrated and am planning to eventually post a dedicated thread in this section but have yet to complete all my diagrams showing all the pros. and cons. that would result showing mixed traffic in motion.

But just thought I'd mention the basics of what I'm talking about in this post since the OP has brought up the whole "bike lanes" thing.

kickstart

This is why I was asking questions as there seems to be no real definition of what VC is.

VC = equal rights and responsibilities. At face value that seemed to imply that cyclists would need to obey all laws applicable to all vehicles such as no use of shoulders or walkways, no filtering past stopped vehicles, licensing, registration, and financial responsibility,, none of which seemed desirable to me.
"
The other thing I don't understand is why some are so against bike lanes, I think they're great.

Some folks have taken me to task for some of my opinions, but my perspective is that of a professional CDL driver who must always put safety and responsibility ahead of my rights and desires.

CB HI

You still seem to be taking on blind faith that bike lanes are safer. That is not true at intersections and when they are installed in door zones. By you statement, you too should be opposed to bike lanes because of the added danger.

kickstart

I never assume anything will make me safer, so my only frame of reference is personal experience, which has been all positive in regard to bike lanes. I can't say I've ever experienced any challenges that were caused by using one, or that wouldn't be encountered using a shoulder or lane.
On the positive side, they provide a clear lane through congested urban traffic, and folks seem to be more aware, and actually look for bikes, the lanes and signage being a reminder.

Maybe things have change some in the 8 years I've been away from cycling, but I'm skeptical things have changed so much for the worse that the disadvantages now outweigh the advantages.

I'm a little grumpy right now because I just finished lacing the rear wheel for my new bike, but can't true and tune it because all my fathers bike tools seem to have disappeared from my brothers shop, so I will have to pay the LBS to do it.

CB HI

So you are basing your information on 8 years ago?

Were the bike lanes you rode, on quiet streets?

Come ride some of my bike lanes and see how quickly you change your mind:

CB HI

kickstart

I've never been to Hawaii, so all I can say is the images you show don't represent the typical bike lanes here in the Seattle metropolitan area, not to say you wouldn't be able to find problem spots if you really looked for them.
I'm on the road in the Seattle east side 8 to 10 hours a day and know my service area well, the issues you show are virtually non existent, though the heart of my route, Redmond, proudly proclaims to be "the bicycle capitol of the Northwest" so that may have something to do with it.
If the images shown do represent the typical bike lanes in Hawaii, then I fully understand your dislike of them and wouldn't want to be forced to use them either.

I think its fair to say bad execution doesn't make it a bad concept.

CB HI

Do your bike lanes end and encourage cyclists to take the lane as they approach intersections? If not, they are poorly executed bike lanes. I bet you have a few door zone bike lanes as well.

kickstart

If there is a right turn lane the cycle lane will continue through between the turn lane and the through lane, when there is no turn lane it will end short of the intersection and there will be an icon showing where to stop to trigger the signal, in round abouts the bike lane will end and the entire lane will be designated as a cycle lane.

There are a few "door zone" sections but its pretty rare.

FBinNY 

There's no clear definitions of what "equal rights" means, or even what's desirable, because cyclists encompass such a broad class with different needs, wishes and outlooks. The spectrum runs from J. Forester and the Vehicular Cycling concept, to hose at the opposite end of the spetrum who see as mixed road use as too dangerous and want to see separate but equal infrastructure.

You have to decide for yourself what works, and which way to tweak it to improve things.

John Forester

You still don't understand. Vehicular cycling is cycling in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, ignoring the government's and society's attempts to prohibit this by enacting FTR laws, and similar, that turn cyclists into second class roadway users subservient to motorists. The rules of the road is a specific section in each state's vehicle code (I think all), that specifies the manner of moving on the roadway. It covers nothing else, licensing, insurance, tire tread depth, or any of these things. Repeal of the FTR and similar laws will simply return cyclists to the legal position they had had for decades, as drivers of vehicles equal to all other drivers of vehicles.

kickstart

You are correct, I still don't get it.
Does that equality include all the same restrictions? Does that equality take into account the limitations of bicycles? Does that equality allow for things a bicycle can do that other vehicles can't?
What rights does VC restore other than eliminating FTR laws? Does VC call for the elimination of separate bicycle infrastructure?

John Forester

Repealing FTR and similar laws would allow cyclists to operate in accordance with what is generally the first statute in the section of the rules of the road that applies to cyclists. That statute states that cyclists using the roadway have all the rights and are subject to all the duties of drivers of vehicles. I don't know what you mean when you ask about all the same restrictions. If you mean prohibiting cycling on the wrong side of the roadway, then that still applies. If you mean something else, then tell us what it is, so we can answer. You ask: "Does that equality take into account the limitations of bicycles?" To what limitations do you refer? If you don't tell us, we can't provide an answer. However, so far as I know, there's nothing in the rules of the road section of vehicle codes that bicycles cannot be ridden to perform. You ask: "Does that equality allow for things a bicycle can do that other vehicles can't?" Again, what do you have in mind? The cyclist can dismount and become a useful pedestrian; so can a motorist, but the result of trying to push the car is unsatisfactory. The cyclist can ride on a sidewalk, where that is permitted, because the rules of the road apply only to roadway use and the sidewalk is not part of the roadway. The cyclist can ride on a bike path, again because a bike path is not part of the roadway. VC has nothing to do with elimination of separate bicycle infrastructure; it applies only to the operation of bicycles, not to the structure of the roadway.

turbo1889

Part of the reason the OP "doesn't understand", "doesn't get it" is because he is still basing his logic on a foundation of thinking its a question as to whether cyclists should have or can ever have "equal right" which shows an extremely fundamental misunderstanding at the very foundation of his belief systems.

First off ~ Driving an automobile on the public right of way is NOT a right !!! It is only a privilege something that has been upheld in common law precident to be beyond question in our legal system !!!


However ~ The courts have also clearly ruled that to the freedom to travel on the public right of way IS a right with full constitutional protection as a necessary component of liberty !!!


Now a cager head who only thinks in terms of automobile driving and believes that he has a right to the road and questions whether others such a pedestrians, cyclists, equestrians, and animal draw carriages have any much less equal right to use the public right of way roadways to travel will find those two very clearly established facts to be contradictory and they can't both be right.

That is because he is still thinking inside his cager head box. There have been cases which have addressed the perceived contradiction between those two clearly established matters of legal precedent. The reason why driving is a privilege not a right is because you do not have a right to operate a dangerous machine around other innocent people on the public right of way to accomplish your right to travel on the public right of way because it is not necessary to do so in order for you to exercise your right to travel !!!

This is why you do not need a drivers license to ride a bicycle on the public right of ways including the roadways !!! Why you do not need a drivers license to ride a horse on the public right of ways including the roadways !!! Why you do not need a drivers license to drive a carriage/buggy/wagon/cart drawn by a horse/mule/donkey/ox team on the public right of way including the roadways !!!

In my state of MT we once had a law put on the books during my youth many years ago that required that bicyclists had to have a drivers license in order to ride your bicycle on the public roadways with cars. It was challenged and was struck down in our state supreme court based on extensive legal precident that riding a bicycle on the public roadways does not represent a significant threat to public safety of other people such that operating a bicycle machine on the public roadways would be considered a privilege rather then a right as is the case with automobiles.

Now that doesn't mean that bicyclists (and other forms of non-public-danger-to-innocent-bystanders transportation methods) do not have to follow the basic established rules of the road. Riding on the right side of the road, stopping at red lights, etc . . . and that has also been firmly established in the courts as well.

Just because its a right doesn't mean you don't have to follow the basic rules of the road. But it also should be made very clear that to bicycle on the public right of way is a right where as to operate an automobile or other dangerous vehicle is NOT a right but is only a privilege.

This is why you have to have a drivers license to drive an automobile on the public roadways and you do not have to have drivers license to operate a bicycle or a horse drawn carriage on the public roadways. This is why for the larger and more dangerous motorized vehicles (motorcycles are often exempt because they aren't as big of a danger to others if operated in a negligent manner) require mandatory liability insurance for the driver or at least a registered bond deposit to cover liability where as such is not required for operators of bicycles.

This is also why registration and clearly visible license plates with unique numbers are required for automobiles and not for bicycles (and when required for cyclists by some local jurisdictions and challenged in court have fallen to the challenge). The reason why you are legally required to register an automobile and put clearly visible license plates with unique identification numbers on them that are publicly visible is because of the sever danger to innocent bystanders these dangerous machines represent if operated in a negligent, reckless, or deliberately malicious manner. License plates with registration is the legal answer of our society to hit and run collisions especially fatal ones perpetrated against vulnerable public right of way users !!! Now if cyclists ever get to be lawless vicious terrors to the point where they are running down pedestrians and injuring and killing them and then taking off from the scene to try to escape justice, then yes, you can expect mandatory registration and clearly visible license plate numbers to be enacted and hold up in court.

Since the OP claims to be a commercial driver he should extra especially understand that driving a fast, heavy, and large motor vehicle on the public roadways is not a right but rather only a privilege since a special drivers license with even stricter expectations of safe and responsible conduct are required for commercial big rig drivers !!!


Now as you might have noticed I often used the phrase "public right of way" as apposed to saying public roadways all of the time. That is because it has also been established that provided an alternative route that does not infringe upon the right to safely travel exists it is lawful to direct its use for some forms of travel for the over all good. This is what allows jurisdictions to adopt laws requiring pedestrians to use the sidewalk or walk along the side of the roadway if they can do so without jeopardizing their safety or ability to effectively travel rather then walk down the middle of the road. But if a pedestrian can successfully argue that walking down the middle of the road was the only option and better alternatives were not available to them then they do have their rights and their rights do take precedence over the mere privileges of motorists. I personally have used that in crossing the bridge on MT-82 over the Flathead River since that bridge is extremely narrow two lane with no pedestrian accommodations whatsoever. It of course made a bunch of motorists very angry and some of them called the cops on me and I was questioned by an officer about the incident about a mile further east down the road from the bridge where I was walking on the public right of way but not on the roadway just along side it. I explained to the officer this exact concept and pointed out that the only safe way for a pedestrian to cross the bridge was to walk right down the middle of the traffic lane because there was no way to walk over the bridge without being in the way of motorists its just too narrow. I've crossed that bridge literally thousands of times on my bikes and a few times on horseback (I don't have horses myself and just have smaller livestock but my woman's family does and lives near that bridge and we have ridden across it on horseback) always taking the lane but only once on foot as a pedestrian "taking the lane" and although the cops were only called out on me the time I crossed on foot I was still well within my rights to take the lane on that bridge on foot as a pedestrian just like when I do so all the time on my bikes and a few times on horseback. There are no separate pedestrian accommodations on that bridge and its too narrow to stay to the edge without getting squashed against the guard rail and smeared out like a pancake. It is the only bridge across the river for many miles in both directions. If your on foot the only half way safe way to cross the bridge is to "take the lane" on foot !!!

If you don't want to have to deal with a pedestrian, cyclists, equestrian, etc . . . exercising their rights in priority over your privileges due to insufficient infrastructure to accommodate both at the same time then your going to have to have the infrastructure improvements made. And they have to be done well enough that it is a safer better way for me to travel using them then the main road, because if the main road is still safer and better then I still have the right to use it over your shoddy infrastructure because my right to safely and effectively travel by a means which does not represent a public safety hazard trumps your privilege to travel by a means which does represent a significant public safety hazard and is thus a privilege not a right !!! And even then, if its a low speed roadway such that someone using a non-motorized method of travel can keep up at or near the legal speed of the roadway then you can't kick them off of it and in so doing violate their rights even when there is alternate infrastructure for them specifically. 25-mph in town low speed roadway with traffic backed up and congested such that its barely moving at half that speed, even if their is a perfect bike path which is perfect in every way right next to the road cyclists have every right to use the road and not the bike path if their keeping up with traffic, same goes for someone riding a horse or any other kind of transportation method that falls into the "rights" catagory and is not a privilege because of the public danger it represents.

Your own personal annoyance and prejudice with seeing a cyclist or someone riding a horse in traffic following the rules of the road just as any other road user and its only in your own mind that anything is different because you don't see them in a car. Your personal prejudice with seeing a cyclist riding "in the road" is no more supported legally then if you were personally prejudiced and annoyed by seeing a black man who was on the wrong side of town. Yes, if there are actual differences (usually in terms of speed capabilities) then it is legal to build good infrastructure for lower speed forms of traffic to use instead but just remember that such infrastructure has to be good enough to attract users on its own because any legitimate concern about its safety or convenience is legitimate reason for those with a right to use the public right of ways to trump your privilege with their rights.



Long story short, the OP apparently needs to have some serious though at the very root of "rights" vs. "privileges" and the long standing centuries old basic logic of how in a civilized moral society the rights of vulnerable users that rarely represent a risk to the lives, health, or property of innocent others take precedence over the privileges of others that do represent a significant risk to the lives, health, and property of innocent others !!!

If he can open his mind and get outside of the cager box brain anti-logic conundrum long enough to successfully question the very root basis of his assumptions he might start to "understand" and "get it".

turbo1889

As to the OP's specific question about "What exactly is VC cycling?" This is what my answer would be:

VC cycling (noun) = A method of operating a human powered pedal cycle on the public roadways such that the rider is riding in the same or similar manner as a responsible motorcycle rider would operate their motor powered cycle on the public roadways. Such that even some of the same defensive maneuvers, posturing, and terminology is used and equally applied.
VC cycling (verb) = The act of operating a human powered pedal cycle on the public roadways using this methodology.


Please note that I personally consider VC cycling as defined as such to be only one of the possible acceptable ways of operating a bicycle on the public right of way and roadways.

Depending on the situation sometimes it IS the preferred method offering the best in safety and efficient, effective transportation for the cyclist while reducing any inconvenience to other road users to only that which is necessary to allow the cyclist to safely, effectively, and efficiently exercise their right to travel on the public right of ways.

Other times it is NOT the preferred methodology and does not off the best in safety, efficient, and effective transportation for the cyclist and/or results in an unnecessary and disrespectful inconvenience to other road users.

A good cyclists is smart enough to know which is which when and where and adapt accordingly to maximize their own ability to travel safely, effectively, and efficiently while also being as respectful of other road users as they can without stooping to the self degradation of compromising their own safety and rights for the mere selfish privileges of others.


MT-82 is a fairly short stretch of highway in my area that I am intimately familiar with that is an excellent illustration of this. West of the bridge except for a few spots is shoulder edge is just wide enough and just good enough surface condition for it to be a safe, sane, efficient place for a cyclist to effectively travel and the west end of that road has pretty good sight lines for visibility. The bridge itself is very narrow two lane with double solid re-enforced guard rails on both sides that are "sandwiched against and squashed and smeared out like a pancake" hazards and then east of the bridge the shoulder is way too narrow (down to like 6-12 inches most of the time) on a narrow windy road with bad sight-lines but there is a grassy area on the edge of the road that is within the public right of way so you aren't trespassing on private property but the going is rough and not acceptable for a bicycle unless your really timid and have a mountain bike with low gears and are willing to do a whole lot of work you are not required to do but it is walk-able if your on foot without much if any extra inconvenience. Legs are a much better off-road all-terrain design then wheels will ever be.

So long story short, if your a cyclist and a smart one, you shoulder edge ride west of the bridge not VC ride and then east of the bridge and on the bridge itself you do VC ride.

If your a pedestrian you walk on the shoulder edge west of the bridge, walk down the middle of the traffic lane on the bridge "staring down" automobile drivers to be sure they aren't going to run you down, and walk in the grass strip that is on the public right of way but not on the road just along its edge east of the bridge.

If your riding a horse (equestrian) then you ride in the grass strip on the public right of way but not on the road on both the west and east sides of the bridge (grass is better for the horses feet then the shoulder edge even when shoulder edge is wide enough) and then ride right down the middle of the traffic lane on the bridge itself and usually don't have to stare down automobile drivers but you do have to keep the horse calm if they start honking their horns.



You will find very few cyclists (or pedestrians, or equestrians) who actually want to put ourselves in danger unnecessarily or want to face off with selfish self-conceited privilege entitled motorists that have high speed, multi-ton killing machines under their control. You will find some of us though that refuse to surrender our rights to terrorists and will exercise our rights when necessary. Most of us also do care about your convenience and do our best to inconvenience your privileges only as much as we have to in order to exercise our own rights to safely, effectively, and efficiently travel on the public right of ways.

All we ask is that you and your kind cease and desist in your acts of terrorization. If you can help provide good alternative infrastructure on the public rights of way such that we would gladly use it because it is a safer, more efficient, and effective place for us to travel ~ COOL !!!

But be warned we are not fooled by shoddy trash infrastructure which is not designed to give us a safe, effective, and efficient place to travel but rather intended as ghettos for us to be forced into !!!