Originally Posted by Helmet Head
This thread is about how one author (Hurst) doesn't understand what another author (Forester) wrote, in particular what Forester means by VC and how it applies in the real world. This current discussion is a great example of that, because it illustrates how you and Brian, as well as Robert, think what I did is "not VC" because it involved lane splitting and (in Robert's case), because it involved lane changes within 100 feet of an intersection, thought that is not illegal and certainly was not done in an unpredictable manner in this case.
By the way, if any of you have seen Mr. Forester's Effective Cycling dvd, you would see plenty of lane splitting demonstrated in it,....
Ah, so lane-splitting is definitely part of VC. Great! That means so many of the sketchiest, riskiest maneuvers that we messengers can possibly perpetrate in traffic are actually 'vehicular cycling' -- by definition predictable, lawful and 'reasonably safe.' Good to know. Up til now it sure seemed like this stuff was unpredictable, likely to get me a very expensive ticket, and 'reasonably safe' only for a rider riding at conservative speeds with full-alert situational awareness. I feel so much better now, so vehicular. This is what 'drivers of vehicles' do when they want to fare best, they split those lanes.
Is all lane-splitting considered VC? When is lane-splitting at speed through door zones, while entering an intersection, not considered VC? So many questions for my small mind to contemplate.
Please VC Truthkeepers, can you also please answer my questions about filtering? When is filtering forward at a red light 'vehicular' and when is it not 'vehicular?' Am I a vehicular filterer as well as a vehicular lane-splitter?
Robert