But there are rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, and there are rules of the road that are exclusive to cyclists.

Vehicular cycling is acting in accordance to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles.
That's the difference between VC and "letter of the law cycling". Otherwise, you could just call VC "cycling according to the law", or "Legal Cycling". In that case, why call it vehicular cycling? Makes no sense.

If the cyclist-specific law happens to be consistent with vehicular law - then it's vehicular cycling to follow it. But if the cyclist-specific law contradicts the "rules of the road for drivers of vehicles", then its not a law that VCs necessarily follow. In particular, this applies to mandatory bike lane and sidepath laws.

Otherwise, you're saying that it's VC to get off the road and ride on the sidepath if the law says cyclists must do that. That's absurd, because the vehicular rules of the road don't even apply on the sidepath.

OK, and I have maintained here that there is NOTHING predictable about a cyclist riding into traffic lanes and then riding back out of the lane-- aka POWERWEAVE. nor is it in accordance with the rules of the road.

OK, fair enough, it's the VC principle. I'm not sure Diane will agree that she's misrepresented VC, though.

What**********

I said your anaolgy of treating bicycles as slow-moving vehicles (i.e., slow-moving vehicles use a lane) conveniently ignores that bicycles have their own designated lane. So what are you rambling about here?

Well, if that's truly VC, you've convinced me-- it's as big a crock as POWERWEAVE.

Diane made an admittedly common mistake - confusing the definition of VC with the VC principle. That doing so misrepresents VC I'm not going to say. That doing so doesn't define VC is all I'm saying.

Whether you recognize it or not, the purpose of operating a vehicle in the traffic lanes is to be visible and predictable.

As far as the in and out thing goes, I assure that how often that actually happens is much more often in your mind than in reality, or in anything I intend to convey. Ask someone who has seen me ride, like Gene, if your impression even comes close to reality.

And to the extent that your impression does not match reality, the bulk of the fault is mind, for not explaining it sufficiently clearly. But no one can claim it's due to not trying!

Double amen....! It's a garbage concept.

Another example, if some state doesn't require lights at night for cyclists (just reflectors), since they do require lights on vehicles, riding at night without lights is not vehicular cycling, even though it may be legal.

Vehicular cycling is riding on roads in according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles (including the rules of the road for drivers of slow moving vehicles, but not including rules of the road that are exclusive to cyclists and contradict the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles).

The purpose of operating a vehicle in a lane is to avoid hitting anything else on the road. And weaving in and out of lanes is illegal, regardless of what type of vehicle you're operating. And if the goal is predictability, then POWERWEAVE should never be practiced, because it's unpredictable and confusing behavior to the other vehicle operators on the road.

Sorry to hear that.

Garbage or not, like it or not, that's what it is.

It should illegal to teach crap like that---it's no wonder people are confused about cycling!

Most LCIs that I know openly ignore mandatory sidepath laws, and treat bike lanes as if the stripe is not there, regardless of what the law says. And that's what they teach, implicitly if not explicitly.

That's consistent with what other cycling experts teach too, including Robert Hurst, who is not exactly a "VC/Forester advocate". In fact, Hurst and others imply cyclists can violate the law much more than simply ignoring the anti-cyclist garbage (which is basically as far as VC goes). For example, see Dave Glowacz' Urban Bikers' Tricks & Tips: Low-Tech & No-Tech Ways to Find, Ride, & Keep a Bicycle for some truly whacky stuff.

Again, anything unpredicatable and confusing is something other than what I practice and attempt to convey with the flawed tool known as the written English language, a very poor means for conveying concepts such as this one. Much better would be video, which, unfortunately, I don't have. For now.

I've recently seen some video of cyclists using DLP on a downhill, where they are controlling the lane at one point, and then moving aside to allow faster traffic to pass at another, then moving back into the center, etc. It looks much more predictable than it may present itself in words.

I think that's a pretty good description. I also think most of the disagreement comes down to how much of a responsibility cyclists have to "stay out of the way".

Personally, I ride in the roadway, but will move to the right to allow expedient passing by faster vehicles if I feel it is safe for me to do so.

STATE UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL
Title XXIII
Chapter 316
MOTOR VEHICLES
(42) ROADWAY.--That portion of a highway improved, designed, or ordinarily used for vehicular travel, exclusive of the berm or shoulder. In the event a highway includes two or more separate roadways, the term "roadway" as used herein refers to any such roadway separately, but not to all such roadways collectively.

The roadway is what's between the white lines. No other pavement is included.

I think you are all proving my point. The arguments all boil down to disagreements on what it means to act as drivers of vehicles and disagreements on how much responsibility drivers of motor vehicles have to treat us as drivers of vehicles. Secondarily we disagree on what constitutes "the street" or "the roadway" and what consitutes "defensive" driving.

Nothing anyone has said refutes this.

This is where you have mis understood DLP or POWERWEAVE. There is no "intentional pulling in front of vehicles" in DLP. The idea is to ride more in the center when there is no other same direction traffic present. When same direction traffic is present, one pulls to the side... just like the tractor.

One does NOT pull out in front of traffic... that makes no sense at all.

But riding in a manner more left then at the far right of a road (where one could easily be mistaken for a shadow, or a sign post) simply makes you somewhat more visible.

Where is there disagreement among vehicular cyclists as to how much responsibility drivers of motor vehicles have to treat us as drivers of vehicles? Has anyone argued that a motorist need not respect the right of way of a cyclist who is operating according to vehicular rules under some scenario?

vehicular cyclists will follow the rules of the road, traffic laws, signs, striping. vehicular cyclist take advantage of roadway striping when appropriate including proper use of left turn/center turn lanes, right hand only turn lanes. vehicular cyclists take advantage of roadway striping that is bicyclist specific or otherwise accomodating. this is all in accordance with the rules of law and general traffic codes of conduct.

i'm a pro facilities VC myself. I believe communities that vigorously support bicycling in the transportation networks facilitate more vehicular cycling on the majority of the roads in the community that don't have any bike specific accomodations.

vehicular cyclists follow the rules of the road and uses bike lanes when safe and acceptable for use. this is in accordance to VC rules and the rules of the road.

Ever do a long tour? Ever ride in the country... ever ride where there is no shoulder... or Bike Lane.... I assure you it is not a garbage concept. I don't know how much more visible it may make you, but I can assure you that trying to ride far to the right in certain conditions just ain't gonna happen.

All HH is saying is don't hug the right (or hide in a bike lane) if there is no other same direction traffic... riding more to the left will make you more visible to motorists on cross streets, and may make you more visible to same direction approaching traffic... but the whole concept requires moving out of the way before you are a burden to any approaching traffic.

Of course there is no way to do this on some urban roads, where the motorists don't even give themselves a 2 second gap between cars (quite often around here). You have to have room to move left... and that room means gaps... good decent gaps.

I find that during my commute hours, there are few gaps... although I do (and this is NOT DLP) ride left in some areas and take the lane simply because there is no other safe way to ride some roads. But that is not DLP.

During recreational rides, I find less traffic... and in times, I ride out of the BL toward the right tire track. And I watch for approaching traffic and move left before it arrives. It is that simple.

BTW I should never look like I am "weaving" to anyone... because I would be riding to the left long before any traffic approaches me or saw me... to that approaching traffic, I would only appear to be already out in the lane and moving right, for them.

Exactly. The key words are "safe and acceptable." Not all communities are quite as diligent in their implementation of cycling facilities... and that in of itself is a big issue.

I don't know if HH knows much about cycling, but I'll give him point for grammar, vocabulary, and alliteration.

Where do these "rules of the road" come from? Initially there may have been rules of the road, but they have long since been codified. Trying to create some other set of rules governing driving/riding is pointless, as well as being potentially deadly since these "rules" are unpublished in any form and therefore unavailable to the masses.

I have riden as VC riders suggest for years (although I don't know or care what DLP and powerweave are or mean, and only recently learned about VC) not because I consider myself an activist or practitioner, but because it is the safe and statutorially mandated means of riding whether it has a "principle" or not.

For the most part (with few if any exceptions, none that I can't think of right now), they are the laws that govern the operation of vehicles on the roads, minus those laws that apply only to cyclists and contradict the laws that govern the operation of vehicles.

Two ssets of rules? This is what I was refering to when calling it a garbage concept.

Well as an example... the rules in some locations tell a cyclist that they must stay in the bike lane... yet there are no similar rules mandating that motorists must stay in some particular lane... on the other hand, there are rules telling motorists to not use lanes unless they have the required number of people aboard (car pool lanes) but even then, a motorist with a full car may choose to use some other lane.

So there are some "alternate rules" for cyclists.

Diane, what thread are you reading???