Originally Posted by John C. Ratliff
The terms "Cooperative Cycling," and "Advanced Traffic-Bicycling," better fit into my thoughts of what we should be doing than does the term "Vehicular Cycling." Vehicular Cycling goes by the acronym of "VC," and to me, being a Vietnam Veteran, the term "VC" is an automatic turn-off. It conjures up too many very nasty images in my brain, and this is something I cannot get rid of. I can say that this is another generation, unemcumbered by these images from the Vietnam War, but that still doesn't help me and that term. I simply do not like it, and I never will. So if you are willing to write off the Baby Boom Generation from the VC (Vehicular Cyciling) movement, keep using the term.
Cooperative cycling is much more what I do, and how I go about my cycling. I cooperate with the traffic, signal my intentions, use the bike lane when it's available and when it's going where I want to go, slow down to find traffic gaps to get into when I need to take the lane, etc. I cannot, at my age, maintain a 20-25 mph pace on level ground. So I find the gaps to get into a lane, signal my intent, then positon myself in the lane where I will be noticed, but not necessarily take up the whole lane. This is not "The Gap Effect," that Robert Hurst discusses, but rather looking at traffic waves, or surges, that are produced by the stop lights. I will wait until a surge of traffic is past before taking the lane at times. I'm not "type AAA," in that I don't push time limits. If I'm slightly later to work, or somewhere else, it really doesn't matter that much. At times, I will signal my intent, and I will stop people who are trying to either pass unsafely. For instance, if I'm going downhill at 40 mph, and there's a bridge coming up which narrows the lane, and there is opposing traffic, I'll stick my hand out and down and motion for a car not to pass. This type of communication between the bicyclist and a vehicle is the type of cooperation that is necessary for us to share the road as equals. I will not hog the lane simple to make a statement, but will take the lane if passing is hazardous for a vehicle.
I think this is part of "Advanced Traffic-Bicycling," or "Cooperative Bicycling" which is not the ego approach that the VC advacotes seem to promote.
John
I don't care for acronyms, and since I think the purpose of the term is to describe the paradigm in contrast to pedestrian-oriented rules, I prefer to use the full term "vehicular cycling."
My cycling is highly cooperative, courteous, and adaptive, but it is all done in accordance with the basic vehicular rules of the road. Since it is possible to be cooperative, courteous, and adaptive when attempting to operate a bicycle on pedestrian facilities according to pedestrian rules, and sometimes possible to act uncooperatively, discourteously and non-adaptively while still following the letter of the traffic laws for drivers, these terms do not provide the desired specificity of paradigm.
Forester's book,
Effective Cycling, describes a great deal more than vehicular cycling; for instance, issues of nutrition, pedaling efficiency, and comfort. These all can make cycling more enjoyable and "effective" depending on the cyclists' goals, but these are irrelevant to vehicular cycling. One can operate according to the rules for a driver of a vehicle while dehydrated, pushing an inefficient gear, and sitting on a too-low seat.
I have experimented with other terms, such as "bicycle driving." The point is to identify the cyclist as acting as the driver of a vehicle, according to ordinary vehicular rules, so that the corresponding set of traffic negotiation actions (roadway use, destination positioning, speed positioning, yielding when entering, crossing, and moving laterally, etc.) can be implied succinctly.