konageezer

I always try to cycle predictably. Over time I have determined that most motorists don't actually want to kill me, rather they are just apathetic about the issue. I try to make it inconvenient for them to slam me, and that seems to work.

I've been put down twice, both times by cars making sudden and unsignalled right turns. The second time, at the entrance to a mall parking lot, a helpful motorist who witnessed the incident said he had the license number and saw where the guy parked—in case I wanted to go and vandalize his car. (I graciously declined while swabbing grit and crushed glass out of my skin.)

Largely, I adhere to the VC principles, as I find myself wishing—often—that other cyclists would do so. When I see the helmetless guy on Main Street, at night in the rain, without any lights or reflectors, weaving in and out of parked cars while listening to his iPod, I offer up a little prayer for either a safe outcome or a quick and painless demise.

That being said, I would never adhere to any "dogma." That's just wrong.

Roody

It's really funny. I have never seen a better description of the way I behave on a bike. (Maybe it's a generational thing--I too am 50.) But I would call myself a vehicular cyclist, but Blackberry would not. Furthermore, other posters here have insisted they are not vehicular cyclists, then list specific VC "rules" that they nevertheless adhere to.

What is going on here? Are we arguing over a term, a definition, or literally nothing at all?

Helmet Head

I am not debating VC vs. non-VC. I am simply pointing out that those who say they are not vehicular cyclists seem to have an impression of VC that is not accurate. I will illustrate my point with one point from vincenzosi, who is making his second post in trying to explain why he is not a vehicular cyclist.


While some vehicular cyclists oppose bike lanes "like a zealot", many do not, and doing so is certainly not required to be a vehicular cyclist. Loving bikepaths is also not a VC sin. No vehicular cyclist pretends his bike is a car, that I know of, or drives it like one. We do ride our bikes more like they are very low powered motorcycles, but that's true of all cyclists, because, essentially, that's what bicycles are. As far as riding with the "mistaken" belief that motorists are okay with a bike acting like another vehicle, all I can say is that until I tried riding my bike like it was a (low power/narrow) vehicle, I had no idea how accepting motorists would be.


Nothing non-VC about that. Forester himself describes doing this in Effective Cycling.


This is a sadly wrong interpretation of vehicular cycling. Vehicular cyclists are NOT "generally under the impression that if they want something they can take it". Rather, they ARE generally under the impression that if they want the right-of-way in a given situation, and ask for it, it will often be yielded to them. But they would not take it before it was yielded to them.

Many vehicular cyclists are not fond of the phrase, "taking the lane", precisely because of the misconception it causes, in terms of "taking" possibly implying that you're taking something that is not yours. I've seen the phrase "use the full lane" suggested as a less confusing alternative. When a cyclist signals to merge left, and a motorist slows to yield the right of way in the full lane, and the cyclist moves into the lane, he is not "taking" anything. It's more like you see a bowl of candy, you ask if you can have one, the owner of the bowl says yes, and then you take one. But you don't take it without asking first!


It sounds more to me like you don't consider yourself a vehicular cyclist because you have an inaccurate understanding of what vehicular cycling is.

sbhikes

I wait my turn at a stop sign, use the left lane to turn left, the right lane to turn right, and I don't go straight from the right turn lane or right turn portion of the street. For those last things I consider the way I ride to be vehicular.

BUT since the "marketing hype" around here (vs any actual words anybody might insist they never said) seems to say that VCers hate bike lanes, would rather ride in the road and negotiate with every car who wants to ride past, insist that cars should pass them slowly, and seem to know that every accident is caused by non-VC riding, then no, I'm not a VC cyclist.

I'm just a commuter on a recumbent.

Guest

That's how I pretty much ride. I want to be good, but sometimes... the temptation to blow the light is too great. I also like showing off to the cars stuck at the light.

Koffee

Bruce Rosar

According to reports
the VC apparently [ have | carry | produce | excrete ] dogma, which
the reporters want to avoid [ fully receiving | becoming glued to ].

Roody

So VC is dogmatic and horrible, even though most experienced cyclists seem to agree with 99% of its dogma. What would you anti-dogmites propose as an alternative to VC? What book (preferably), article or web site presents a "good" alternative to the "evils" of VC? What are the differences between the good alternative and horrible VC? If VC is PC and the RC religion of cycling, who is our Martin Luther?

vincenzosi

No, VC Zealots are. VC in itself is a thing and therefore incapable of being dogmatic.

Not ramming VC down everyone's throat and pretending to be more enlightened than those who don't care?

In and of itself, VC is not anywhere near horrible. The people who "preach" it are quite honestly some of the most pompous self-absorbed blowhard jerks I've ever come across, and I'm sure lots of people on here would give me a pat on the back for saying that.

I don't know, but your god is probably Forrester.

webist

I prefer to use the roadway but am not particularly asssertive. I ride in very rural, residential areas or on long stretches of open road. My conduct around stop signs might generally suggest to an observer that I am aware that it is there and it does have some moderating influence on my behavior. Often though, I do not make a full stop.

In one sense though I am indeed a Vehicular Cyclist. My bikes all get to stay in the garage. None of my cars do

Helmet Head

So you have a problem not with VC substance, but with how it is presented?

Roody

But do you have any answers? Or just an opinion?

nick burns

I've never read the Forrester book, so I can't say for sure that I'm VC or not. Probably not though, based on things I've read here in the forums. But I've been riding a long time and have for the most part been incident free. Riding predictably is the thing I try to keep in mind. Nobody likes it when cars turn suddenly without signaling, so I try to respect the fact that my actions affect other people using the road too.

BostonFixed

First of all, thanks to the people who have replied and not tried to attack non VC cycling, or didn't try to stat a debate. Thank you, vrkelley for warning the people who cannot seem to let it go.... but..

I started this thread because all I ever hear on this site is how VC is the only way. The VC 'activists' are usually very prominent, and even go so far as attack other's riding habits. This was meant as a poll sort of, as I never hear from the non VC minority, and was curious to see if I was the only one, or if there are others as well...

Of course there is no one way to cycle, and to debate that on an internet forum seems silly.

I don't VC because it would probably double the time on my commute, and the main reason why I ride is for effiiciency and speed in an urban environment.

I also don't wear a helmet, and sometimes ride with a black sweatshirt.

Again, these are personal choices, just like the type of bike I ride and the color of my handlebar tape so please don't attack me for this.

Crashtest

I follow VC rules except where I think it will get me killed - then I just do whatever makes sense to me. The last thing I want written on my tombstone is "He had the right of way".

Helmet Head

But is it silly to discuss and share about the various ways there are to cycle, and to "debate" which way works best when, and why?

Yes, VC is one way to cycle - cycling in accordance to the vehicular rules of the road.
Another way is so-called "ped" cycling - cycling in accordance to the pedestrian rules of the road.
There are other ways, of course, including anarchist cycling, if you will, where you ignore all the generally accepted rules and do whatever you think is appropriate for the given circumstance. But even then, you must be following some rules, whether you are consciously aware of them or not, upon which to decide what is the most "appropriate" action in a given situation.
But in order to evaluate any one way of cycling against another, all we can do is compare the rules of each. And to do that, we must identify the rules of each way that is being evaluated.

BostonFixed

It is not silly to discuss the various ways of cycling, but when some people, mostly VC 'advocates' push their adgenda a little too hard, and even go as far as to criticize others' riding *cough*serge ********cough*, then I think it has gone too far..

nick burns

Fretting over the minutia of things can really take the enjoyment out of it. Cycling can be such a simple & pure sport/activity. Why spoil it with pedantic scrutiny?

Just get out, ride & have a great time doing it is the way I like to look at it.

I-Like-To-Bike

Nick and Vince, you are right on target, accept friendly pats on the back.

The "problem" with joining or agreeing with the VC clan is not the simple message about preferred positioning at intersections and compliance with the written traffic law. What creates non-VC's out of the potential population of VC advocates is the excess baggage and over the top rhetoric associated with the proselytizers; i.e.:
*statistical tom-foolery in place of credible risk analysis,
*hysterical anti-bike lane ranting,
*unfounded safety claims for proprietary products and educational schemes,
*psycho-babble/voodoo "stuff" ( phobias, complexes, taboos, superstitions, and stereotypes),
*wacky/unique interpretations of law,
*wild extrapolations of gross generalizations,
*etc., etc.

VC "moderates" (if there are any), heal thyselves. Replace the current coven of inflexible VC proselytizers, pedants, and product salesmen with advocates who don't display contempt for the majority of cyclists, and many more cyclists might be receptive to a simple message about the alleged virtues of vehicular cycling techniques in the appropriate environment.

TrevorInSoCal

I think there are plenty of VC moderates, they just don't identify as VC so they're uncounted. Given that a lot of VC ideas are plain common-sense and come naturally to anyone who's spent a lot of time riding in traffic, there are probably plenty of VC riders who don't even know what "vehicular cycling" is. They've just realized through trial & error, that riding in a predictable manner, and asserting their lane position when necessary, is the easiest way to deal with traffic. The proselytizers are the ones who get all the attention, so they become the public "face" of VC.

I could probably be considered a "moderate" vehicular cyclist in that 90% of the time I ride as if I were driving a car. Yet I still roll stop-signs if there isn't a car approaching within half a block and I'll use the bike-lane without complaint provided it's not strewn with debris. If it's a glorified gutter littered with trash and broken glass, then I'm gonna use as much of the lane as I need to safely proceed along my way...

-Trevor

noisebeam

I really think the important distinction to make is between those who understand what VC cycling is and use it to the degree appropriate for their needs vs. those who have no clue. I'd say that the vast majority of anyone on the bike forums (at least in the safety/adv and commuting) are in the former group. It is those that many of us encounter daily on the streets (& sidewalks ) that have no clue that the VC message needs to go to. These riders annoy and sometimes put me in danger to a degree that makes me want to rant on and on about the benefits of VC. I can't tell you how annoying it is to pass a slower biker when a gap in traffic finally opens, then stop behind a short line of traffic then have the cyclist you just passed pass you and the line of cars on your right, blocking right turners, then you have to pass them again right after the light. Or have a cyclist come flying at you off the curb into the sidewalk on the wrong side of the road when you are making a right turn, etc.

As to stop signs - motorist make rolling stops all the time, so what is not VC about doing it on a bike
As to BLs - VC does not mean you should stay out of BL, it simply means to ignore the lane marker line and ride where best for the situation, which could be on either side of the line.

Al

Daily Commute

Hmmm. And some say the VC'ers argue obnoxiously?

vincenzosi

What question asked has a factual answer?

vincenzosi

Ummm, they do. Especially when they call everyone who disagrees stupid because they haven't seen the light.

I-Like-To-Bike

I can understand why moderates would not want to identify themselves as "VC's", given the well earned reputation of those who do claim to represent VC advocacy. I can also understand why the VC advocates are ignored, also for the same reason.

Daily Commute

Perhaps people on both sides of the debate should take a look in the mirror. Some VC'ers cross the line from time to time, but many of the anti-VC'ers resort to personal attacks (like the ones I quoted above). The venom level is at least as high on that side of the debate.