Originally Posted by
Raiden
Its my (American; primarily Californian) perspective that most roads are in place for all forms of transportation. Few roads have specific accommodations for any specific type of vehicle- the basic 'road' is a bare strip of pavement (I'm not sure if a white line on either side is even a legal requirement for a road). Sometimes, there are posted limits to follow- lines to pilot your vehicle between, speed limits to obey, maximum height and weight allowances- but not always, and in an absence of posted limits (and in addition to them), all rules default to the vehicle code.
Of course, in many places, there are bike lanes and separated bike paths- but they're not everywhere (in fact, they're only on a tiny percentage of roads in the US). I'm assuming a non-'vehicular cyclist' would default to the shoulder of a road in the absence of a designated bike lane, which would increase the percentage of roads usable to non-'vehicular cyclists', but would not be 100%. This means that its (currently) impossible to be a non-'vehicular cyclist' on all roads. Also, a non-'vehicular cyclist' on a road, with or without specific accommodations for a bicycle will always be a vehicle and subject to the vehicle code.
My point is that I think this part of the forum is organized backwards, and that the separation is bizarre. I realize that it sounds like I'm taking the term 'vehicular cycling' too literally, but I think splitting cyclists into specific camps is unnecessary. I consider myself a 'vehicular cyclist' because I ride on the roads with everyone else- but you'll typically (not always) find me on the shoulder or bike lane if there was a separated bike path that was faster or safer than the road, I'd use that too. By the typical definitions, I'm not a hardcore 'vehicular cyclist', nor am I whatever the other school of thought calls itself.
Bike lanes and bike paths are tools, just like the law is a tool and my bike is a tool. When I ride, I try to use the best tool for the job. I feel that vehicular cycling is the norm, and the use of additional cycling infrastructure is a bonus, but not the default method of cycling.
Sorry if that was long-winded, redundant, and/or pedantic.
Forum suggestion: If a separation in the forum is truly needed, eliminate 'VC' and install 'Grandma, Not Lycra' or, uhh, 'Progress Toward the European-Style Cycling Utopia' in its place.
Let me see if I got this right. The "VC" subforum exists to keep the unpleasant and unpopular savages away from the decent folk. This is not what I thought it was, about cycling in traffic--it is a religious war that is out of control! I must say, the vehicular cyclist views are pretty hard to stomach--what are you trying to protect? I don't think it is cyclists. Bikes and cars are not alike. People have the same rights, but when they do different things those rights are affected. Bikes and cars is not an apples to apples conversation. All vehicles are not the same. I agree with Raiden for the most part. I am confused by the VC folks. However, I see bike infrastructure as a policy being done to cyclists, not for cyclists or by them. Consequently, I wonder what is the end and where it will end?
I take intersections very seriously, but I do not feel any need to stop and go when motorists do--it just doesn't apply. It doesn't apply because 99% of the time a cyclist usually isn't a danger to others. I stop and wait if necessary, but if it's not I don't. Bike lanes on the other hand, lead to bike lights and other efforts at management, which I think screw both motorists and cyclists. They can keep Copenhagen right where it is as far as I'm concerned. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Bike lanes can't fix it, so I think drivers just need to learn to share. Cyclists need to learn some graceful handling on the road. Now which forum is a good place to take that up?