Originally Posted by RobertHurst
Such behavior may be common, because it is useful and convenient for cyclists, but it is considered "vehicular" only by those with a desperate need to be labeled "vehicular cyclists."
Once again you imply you have some definition of "vehicular" in mind when used in the term "vehicular cycling", but you won't reveal what it is. I have long wondered what such a definition would look like that would be compatible with all of your apparent expectations for it.
If being consistent with the vehicular rules of the road and being consistent with common behavior by drivers of vehicles all over the world does not determine what "vehicular" is, than what does? Let us know. What's the big secret?
You can't have it both ways. You can't contend
this is vehicular and
that is not without revealing the standard by which you are making these determinations. But that is what you do in your book, and that is what you're doing here.
Filtering around cars at a red light is decidedly non-VC.
And I say it's decidedly non-XYZ. Each is a meaningless statement when the intended meaning of the respective term is not known. You say it's non-VC. By what standard? What is the definition of "VC/non-VC" you are using when you make this assertion? Please, spell it out.
What you did in your story, change lanes within an intersection at speed, is decidedly non-VC.
Again, it cannot be decidely
anything until you define what you mean by that
anything.
And not that it matters, but I changed lanes about one car length prior to the intersection, not within an intersection, and, it was moving from the right side of the left lane (that I was not sharing) to the left side of the right lane (in order to briefly share with a right turner who was far right and I was quickly passing since I was accelerating and he was crawling to make his right turn). In similar situations except with a wider right lane, I've seen drivers of cars do the same thing, but I guess that could be "non-VC" too as long as you're making up definitions as we go along here.
Just because self-described Vehicular Cyclists do these things does not make these things any more "vehicular."
If that were the reason claimed for what makes it "vehicular", that would be absurd. But that is not what is claimed (the claim is that it's perfectly legal and drivers of motorcycles and even cars do it, and that's why it's "vehicular"), and, so, your argument is a strawman.
It just makes their preaching more hypocritical.
Robert
Did your girlfriend leave you for a vehicular cyclist or something? I just can't figure out where all this irrational animosity is coming from.