I have come to realize that some people pretty much equate "vehicular cycling" or "vc" with simply cycling legally. I feel this is at least partially my fault because I have often defined vc in too simple terms, as "cycling on roads in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles". For me, the "rules of the road for drivers of vehicles" did not mean explicit laws, but rather, more general principles that the laws are based on, including some that did not fully manifest in any laws. I've written about vc including lane positioning and other behavior in order to be defensive, visible, predictable and assertive about our rights, but that's not really captured in the words "in accordance with the ... rules ...". Hence, and for other reasons, some people understandably interpret vc as "cycling legally". But I think that misses a lot.

If vehicular cycling (vc) was simply "cycling in accordance with the law", then we'd have very, very little to discuss, and no need for Forester's book, or Cyclecraft, or the many websites, or the Wikipedia entry, etc.

I believe my latest definition, which has been in my signature for a day or two now, captures the difference between vc and simply cycling legally, at least in general terms: defensive bicycle driving on roads visibly, predictably and assertively in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. I reserve the right to refine it again, of course, but I think at least now it captures the concepts of vc being less than what is legal (by limiting our behavior to that which is defensive), and sometimes more than what is legal, by putting defensive, visible, predictable and assertive ahead of "in accordance", implying their priority when there is a conflict (the cyclist's safety is never compromised in the name of legality).

Edit: Per patc's suggestion (see #16), a slight refinement: Vehicular cycling is defensive bicycle driving on roads visibly, predictably, assertively, and in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles".

To clarify further, here are ten examples off the top of my head where vc and "simply cycling on the road in accordance with applicable codes and rules" is significantly different. The first five are where the given behavior is legal, but is not vc. The middle five are the opposite: where the given behavior is not legal, but is vc. The last five are vc techniques that are consistent with the law, but are not mandated by the law.

1. It's legal to ride in door zones, but it's not vc.
2. It's legal to cut across two lanes of traffic during a gap in motor traffic from a bike lane on the right to get to a left turn lane, but it's not vc.
3. It's legal to go straight across an intersection in a bike lane that is to the right of the rightmost lane that serves right or straight, but it's not vc.
4. It's legal to enter an intersection on a green without looking left and right first to make sure no one is running the red, but it's not vc.
5. It's legal to pass stopped cars on your left while traveling 20 mph in a bike lane, crossing driveways, etc., but it's not vc.

1. It's not legal to use a look back alone to signal a turn (a hand signal is legally required), but if other drivers yield to you as a result of your look back, the look back alone is sufficient per vc.
2. It's not legal to slow down as you approach a stop sign, make sure it's clear, and roll through the stop sign without first coming to a complete stop, but it's vc.
3. It's not legal in some states to leave the right side of the road even when the lane is too narrow to be safely shared, but it is vc.
4. It's not legal in most states to ride at night without side reflectors, but it is VC.
5. It's not legal in many states to leave the right side of the road simply because you're approaching a place where a right turn is authorized, but is often vc.

Techniques and practices that are part of vc education, but are not mandated by law:

1. negotiation for the right-of-way,
2. using a centerish position as one's primary/default position (or at least much more often than the law mandates).
3. using the slow/stop arm signal to get tailgaters to back off.
4. instant turn
5. using destination positioning at intersections and their approaches.

Again, these are off the top of my head, and are meant to be a random illustrative sample, not an exhaustive list by any stretch. Some might be arguable one way or other. I'm not going to defend each one - the point I'm trying to make here is made if even only a couple of these differences are accepted as valid and significant. Yet I believe all of these to be valid and significant differences. Also, there are areas not touched on here, like how laws that apply to drivers of slow vehicles are consistent with vc (like prohibitions from freeways and some tunnels and bridges).

In any case, cycling lawfully is, well, cycling lawfully.
Vehicular cycling is more, and less, than simply cycling lawfully. It's significantly different.

I think equating the two is missing a lot, and, arguably, the whole point of vc.

Wikipedia definition: Vehicular Cycling (VC) is the practice of bicycling visibly and predictably on roads in accordance with the rules of the road for operating a vehicle.

I define vehicular cycling as being visible and being predictable as a vehicle. In other words, traveling the roads as any other vehicle would travel the roads, in accordance with applicable traffic law for the local area. Sure, other things can be applied, such as not riding in the door zone, et.al., but in a manner that would still be legal. Therefore, if an action isn't legal, it's not vehicular cycling. Call it something else, because that's what it is.

Sure, vehicular cycling encompasses more than just cycling in a legal manner, but the basic tenet is being legal as a vehicle on the road.

Yawn, Yawn and http://deephousepage.com/smilies/yawn.gif !

"and I was breaking the law, breaking the law!" scenario #1.

"Son, do you know why I pulled you over?"

"No sir, you'll have to enlighten me."

"There's a 10 foot wide bike lane to your right, yet you were riding your bike in the traffic lane, holding up traffic, and you actually contributed to an accident back there with all your neck jerking and dynamic lane position. I was watching it all as I drove behind you for over a mile here on Rainier Ave S. (insert your favorite wide-facilities roadway here)"

"I'm sorry officer, but I read it in a book about C.L.A.P.P.E.R. bicycle driving, and this is how I'm supossed to drive my bike. Right down the middle of the lane. I still yield to traffic."

"Son, you still need to follow the rules of the road. Slower traffic keeps to the right."

"Thanks officer, I'll remember to follow the rules of the road next time."

"You got it, kid. Next time, try 'riding Frogger.'"

***************************************
I think opening a can of worms like 'extra vehicular' bicycling, or picking and choosing among the applicable traffic laws, is going to be a very shaky platform on which to base a 'newly branded' cycling system.

I think VC is already defined, and the way it is written isn't the effective traffic bicycling mode, that ridiculous 'center of the lane' bias has got to go first thing, Helmet Head.

I think it would be a mistake to begin to change definitions mid ride, so to speak.

Oh great! So VC means being part of traffic and asserting your right to the road but ignoring laws that are inconvenient?
I also read the VC advocate that moving violations on a bicycle not count as points violations on thier drivers license, I can see why now :rolleyes:
No wonder motorists want us off the road we have self appointed advocates that promote this BS.
:mad:

Which is why I think this is not VC at all, just a bastardized brand of it that is more accurately called SC - Serge's Cycling.

This is a much better definition of VC in general, no dogma, no theories, no contradictions:

Thank you very much for posting this valuable clarification. I really mean that. Now I understand.

I will not be advocating for VC. I ride my bicycle legally, safely, and defensively, but not according to VC as described in your first post in this thread and in the truncated list I cut from it above. I personally see little value to adding the above techniques to my repetoir.

I think the only thing missing from the list is the anti-bike lane perspective, which perhaps is an outgrowth of the center lane biasing technique. I don't share the anti-bike lane perspective and therefore have a second reason why I can confidently claim that I am not a VC cyclist.

Thanks for the clarification. It was truly helpful.

No, not really. The exceptions are quite minor. The most significant examples are listed below. Do you feel they're unreasonable?


Are you contending that the following are not examples of vehicular cycling?

1. To use a look back alone to signal a turn (even though legally a hand signal is legally required).
2. To slow down as you approach a stop sign, make sure it's clear, and roll through the stop sign without first coming to a complete stop (a so-called "Hollywood stop", so named because it's practically the norm for car drivers to treat stops signs this way in Hollywood, and in many other parts of the U.S.). The argument for allowing Hollywood stops for cyclists is compelling. Cyclists rolling stop signs don't pose any where near the threat that motorists do, and there is the matter of conservation of momentum that is significantly more critical for human powered vehicles... Some states (at least Idaho) already allow it explicitly. In many jurisdictions, it's an unwritten rule (cops look the other way when cyclists roll stops). Note that I'm not talking about rolling a stop when there are others present at the intersection.
3. To leave the right side of the road when the lane is too narrow to be safely shared (to discourage motorists from squeezing in the lane) in a state that does not explicitly list this case as an exception in the law that requires cyclists to keep "as far right as practicable".
4. Ride a bicycle at night without side reflectors, even though the law requires it.
5. Leave the right side of the road when approaching a place where a right turn is authorized (to discourage right and left hooks), even though this situation is not explicitly listed as an exception in the law of the relevant jurisdiction that requires cyclists to ride as far right as practicable.

Where is it already defined, and how is that definition different from what I have addressed in the OP of this thread?


Thank you for verifying that it's the "same old stuff". Indeed, there is nothing new here. The OP is a point of clarification regarding VC not being simply cycling in accordance to the law. But to those of you who have been paying attention, like ILTB (!), this should be nothing new.

Totally OT, but I have reflective sidewall tires on my trike, which are a legal substitute, and I highly recommend them. I think they're awesome and really look cool when lit up.

how can riding without side reflectors be VC? because Forester or Serge says it is?

VC is just what you want it to be it seems to me

and what have you got against side reflectors anyway- they may not be great but they can only improve visibility

I totally reject the new definition of vehicular cycling.

The older simpler definition gives us a fundamental area of agreement, which is essential for meaningful debate. It is a core belief that virtually all users and all published experts are in accord with. The discord in this forum should prove to one and all that we have gotten away from our roots in vehicular cycling, which is simply a bike and a car sharing a road in a safe manner that respects the right of way of vehicles. Everything else is just gravy, not the meat and potatoes.

Even more important, the simple definition provides a simple framework for teaching new cyclists the fundamental skills for safe street riding. Simply following the traffic rules will get you through at least 90 % of the situations you encounter. Embellishments (such as lane positioning or choosing whether to us a bike lane) are subtle niceties best left to more advanced traffic cyclists.

It is crucial to teach the wrong-way cyclists and gutter bunnies to follow the simple rules of the road, especially since they already know most of the rules if they drive a car. Teaching the defensive, assertive, predictable stuff to new riders is like teaching algebra to scond graders. Subtle, confusing, uncalled for.

Your so-called "new definition" merely sows discord among advocates and confuses novices. Helmet Head has shot himslf in the foot this time!

Okay, I'll do this point by point.


Not signaling a turn is not vehicular cycling. In order to be vehicular cycling, the cyclist must be predictable. If the cyclist just does a look back, he doesn't know for sure if an upcoming motorist understands his intention.


Not obeying all traffic signs and signals is not vehicular cycling unless in a state or area where there is a specific exception to the law.


This is vehicular cycling. "As far right as practicable," does not mean, "As far right as possible". As far right as practicable is safely about 3-4 feet from the edge of the lane. Which is, for practical purposes, taking the entire right half of the lane in substandard lanes.


This is not vehicular cycling. Riding in accordance with state and local ordinances includes the use of mandated equipment.


This is vehicular cycling. As far right as practicable never includes using a lane that does not proceed in the intended direction of travel. If the right most lane is a dedicated right turn only lane and the cyclist intends to proceed straight ahead, then the right most straight ahead lane is as far right as practicable.

All of this discussion makes me so happy that I learned how to ride in traffic after years of riding in traffic and not from a book, or even worse from an internet forum. That isn't to say that I haven't learned a thing or two here, but it's nice not to have to subscribe to some rigid dogma about being or not being VC. All this bickering over what is or isn't legal is completely lost on drivers. I know that the cops in Los Angeles, for the most part have better things to do than bug cyclists. And further that drivers understand the times when traffic is backed up and I work my way to the front and I know that I won't be blocking them later on. If there's a big bike lane I use it, if the lanes narrow I take it. I don't have any reflectors, but I have 6 lights on my bike and person that I would love to take into court if I am ever ticketed.

After almost twenty years or rural and urban commuting there just seem to be some very simple truths, do your best to not hold up traffic as long as it doesn't compromise your safety, be predictable, if you are going to be unpredictable, do it quickly, communicate as best you can, and most of all don't be a dick. This discussion will never end and you all will never see eye to eye. There will always be jerk drivers and it shouldn't be our job to placate them or educate them either. Good luck on debating the nuances of VC and bike lane theory.

:beer: +1

In Vermont it is 'the law' that cyclists have to get out of cars way,
so by VC, you are not only angering people who can do grievious bodily injury
to you by virtue of thier speed and mass but you are also breaking the law.

How about, "defensives bicycle driving on roads visibly, predictably, assertively, and in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles"? The slight change gives equal emphasis to each item in the list, and I feel it reads better.

You are also missing something, but I'm not sure how to word it. VC is a system, in the sense that it is based on Forester's work and has some general principles which most VC proponents would agree with (you gave several examples). For example, "healthy eating" can include eggs and milk products, while "healthy eating for vegans" would not. You seem to be missing the equivalent of that "for vegans" bit.


I agree with you on that (hope you were sitting down when you read that!). I support ROTR Cycling, but not VC or any other specific system, and fully agree they are not synonymous. I won't say that are different, because 'different' can imply 'completely different', and there are many parts of VC that simply follow the ROTR.

We need a few more Treespeeds on this forum.

Right on.

I think anyone who wishes to ride VC should print out, laminate and attach HH's post that started this thread to their handlebars so they can reference the rules as they ride in lieu of any common sense they may possess.

+1

This is generally the way I ride and what I consider to be VC. But since it seems like there's different definitions floating around on the forum (and there will never be agreement), I think it's counterproductive to use the term by itself without explanation.

I also learned mostly from riding in traffic, but I wouldn't wish that on anyone else, as there were a few times where I put myself in danger by not taking a narrow lane because at the time I didn't know better. Knowing about taking the lane was the major thing I got out of "Effective Cycling" and "Street Smarts".

Hmmm... nothing to see here!

Part of the problem with equating VC and following the rules is that VC expects cyclists to follow the general rules of the road. Requirements that impose special requirements on cyclists (as opposed to all slower moving vehicles) sometimes make vehicular cycling impossible to do legally. For example, why confine cyclists to bike lanes when busses that move more slowly than many cyclists can still use the traffic lanes?

Your list of "it's not legal but it's VC is off base. Yeah, cyclists sometimes do things that are not legal... I have been known to roll a stopsign or two, but these techniques are not VC... And should not be promoted.

I was using the term shared rules of the road (i.e., the rules that are shared by bicyclists and motorists). I wonder which prefix (general or shared) make the term more likely to be understood correctly when read by someone for the first time?

I think of it as a distinction between "rules" and "laws". There are general rules that all drivers follow, such as speed positioning between intersections and destination positioning at intersections. Traffic laws are generally written in a way to require roadway users to follow the general rules. But sometimes there are cyclist-specific laws that don't allow cyclists to follow the general rules.

Is somebody going to explain this? I don't get this at all. Why would it be important to the VC concept to not have reflectors? Unless you mean the pedal reflectors ... which apparently some (most?) clipless pedals don't have.