Originally Posted by Helmet Head
There is a subtle but significant difference between "vehicular rules of the road" and "rules of the vehicle code".
To illustrate with an example outside of the cycling context, consider an ambulance driver with sirens glaring who is driving on the wrong side of the road, running red lights, and speeding. He is driving in accordance to the "rules of the vehicle code" that allow him to violate "vehicular rules of the road" that VC is based upon.
For a cycling example... if some town bans cyclists from riding down main street, a cyclist can still do so in accordance to the "vehicular rules of the road", but he would be in violation of the "rules of the vehicle code".
In other words the "vehicular rules of the road" are the subset of implicit rules governing vehicular travel that vehicle codes from all over the world are based on. It is because of their existence, and your knowledge of them, that you can get off a plane in Paris, Beijing, Cincinatti or Moscow, and know how to drive on their roads, without even taking a peak at their particular "rules of the vehicle code".
Therefore, riding in accordance to the "rules of the [local] vehicle code" is not necessarily riding in accordance to the (ubiquitous) "vehicular rules of the road".
Does that make sense, or should I plan on several pages to explain this in my book?
If you're writing a book, like in math, you'll have to set that out in the beginning as an assumption. It's not hard to understand as you explain it, but many of us won't accept it. Whether I accept it or not, I'll know what you mean when you refer to this term.
Now, this would mean that by "your" definition, they were not riding vehiclularly, if they were in the bike lane. If I do not accept "your" definition, then yes, they were riding vehicularly.