Is there a correlation between commuting and VC?
 

I've got a statistics assignment to do and I thought I'd take a poll to see if there is a statistically significant difference in Vehicular Cyclist self-identification between those who commute all of the time (year-round, any weather, any road conditions, barring exceptional circumstances) and those who commute some or most of the time (seasonally, fair weather, when they don't need a car for work, etc.).

VC is the way forward.

Hope you have a chuckle at the "traffic planners" (now there's a waste of perfectly good parchment) idea of what constitutes safe cycling:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.me...onth/index.htm

I have been car free in the past and have commuted full time by bike up until about 5 years ago... while I use the VC method for cycling, I also appreciate having cycling facilities available... for instance, my route consists of 45 and 50MPH roads and a short stretch on a major freeway. On my route there are steep areas where I typically ride at about 8MPH... obviously much slower than the prevailing traffic. Without bike lanes, the commute would be considerably more "intense" than it is now. I base this on an alternate partial route where bike lanes do not cover the entire route and what I endure from motorists in those areas.

I have also long distance toured in several places across the US and outside the country... obviously BL or other facilities do not exist everywhere. I could not have done these tours without using the VC method, however I will say that the mood of motorists or the treatment received by me from motorists varies considerably... and in places where the bicycle is readily accepted as transportation, the experience is quite uplifting.

So while Vehicular Cycling does work, it has limitations, in particular with regard to traffic speed differential, and facilities can make those limitations less of a struggle to deal with.

As for the strict proponents of the Vehicular Method, I believe their lack of acknowledgment for the limitations of VC and their almost militant denial of facilities is narrow sighted... based on my experiences of well over 30+ years of regular cycling as a commuter, a tourist, and a traveler.

So while I do identify as VC and use the Vehicular Method to cope with traffic when and where needed, I also feel that the overall cycling environment can be vastly improved with the inclusion of well designed and implemented facilities and a political environment that supports cycling as part of the overall transportation picture.

+1 and well stated.

Great. A&S is taking over. :rolleyes:
AC all the way.

Some of the street around have a shoulder that's like a bike lane. But for the most part there is no Bike lanes. Most of the roads in my area are 45 to 50 mph. So do I want to ride along at 20 to 25 mph in 45 to 50 mph traffic. Only if I have a death wish. But in rush hour traffic I can keep up better with the traffic then other times. Or if it's late night 12:00 am I have the roads to my self. So at late night hours I am VC. But in the day time hours I'm just a guy on a bike to most drivers.

I indicated commute and identifying as VC. I don't really identify as VC, more as an adaptive driver. Doesn't matter what I'm driving. I drive a truck a bit differently from a car, from a tandem, from my commuter bike, and my performance bike. Performance bike and tandem I'm mostly a straightforward mid-lane driver. Commuter bike I'm slow and to the side. I don't take any guff, I expect people to stop at signs, etc.

I'm never really sure what counts as VC. A bike is a vehicle, so I'm not sure how you can not be VC. Just effective or not effective! I probably don't really get the whole VC argument. I just ride effectively.

I probably ride more VC when commuting than most of the urban cyclists I see. I'll be lane center 80% of the time. At the blind spots I go far right so motorists can get by without passing close to me.

I obey the stop signs as diligently as the average motorist around here.

I would consider myself an adaptive cyclist; i.e. I pick a strategy that seems to best fit my environment. And it so happens, that most of the time it's VC. I don't ride VC for the sake of riding VC, and I do abandon it if conditions seem to dictate it, but most of the time it just works. So am I VC for the purposes of this poll or not? I didn't vote cause I don't know how to answer that question.

For a control on the significance of your "findings" why not ask 20 random cyclists on the street if they ever heard of "vehicular cycling"? Bet you don't find many.

Better yet ask your sample (on BF or on the street) for a definition of "Vehicular Cyclists". I'd be surprised if two people provide similar answers.

Heck just walk into any bike shop and ask anybody in there the same question.

Then ask if there is any sort of local training for learning to ride a bike on the street. Be prepared for a laugh.

I operate my vehicle legally as part of the traffic. I do not identify with the "VC" camp. Your wording may have unintentional results.

Thanks for the link. This is so hilarious:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.me...tember2007.htm

" Essex County Council is promoting cycling as an effective and enjoyable form of aerobic exercise to reduce the incidence heart disease, high blood pressure and obesity in the county. Unfortunately it was discovered that, rather than pedalling briskly, Harlow's cyclists were freewheeling down this gently sloping path. To counter this, signs have been introduced at regular intervals requiring cyclists to get off and walk.

This particularly daunting section, requires seven dismounts within a distance of 380 yards Note, how at each junction the kerbs are maintained on the downhill side of the path, thus ensuring that even the laziest cyclists gain the full health benefits from their activity."

Well if required I take the lane, otherwise I ride on shoulder. I don't ride in a gutter thought. I have no problems merging through multiple lanes to make a left turn. Does it make me VC? No idea.

Yeah, I never heard the term before, though after a little research learned that's pretty much what I am. I treat many stop signs as yields and don't take entire lanes too frequently (living in San Jose, that means contending with 45mph traffic usually). But where possible I follow the wikipedia definition pretty closely (whatever that means). I find the VC mindset to be more safe and enjoyable- not worrying about blowing red lights has made me great at trackstands:)

I am so turned off by the whole VC debates every time I make the mistake of venturing into that area that I've never actually taken the time to learn what the premise is. Maybe you should summarize it briefly for us. I would guess that the vast majority of folks in the commuting forum have no idea.

Yeah - looking through those always makes me wonder if planner and clue are mutually exclusive.

It's been answered in the thread but my first reaction was Huh?
Viet Cong? No, that can't be right. VD, maybe? No, that can't be it either.

Had to be something with cycling but what....

Anyway, I commute year round and do what I have to do to get where I want to go. Sometimes that means a MUP, sometimes that means taking a lane. I don't worry about it, but I do try to enjoy it.

It's just cyclocross. What's the big deal?

It makes a lot of sense to have separate bike facilities, especially for children. In Davis our system of bike paths is very safe and people are confident to let their children ride to school. The school bus system has been obsoleted, which is much better for the environment. Children are not equipped to ride on the street with traffic.

So while I personally ride a bit like a VC, I see a place for separate cycling facilities, and I think they are worth the money. I would use the paths myself, but I ride faster on the street because no-one is in the way.

+1...

safe but practical...

I don't apply the term to myself, but I do take the lane whenever safe and appropriate, especially downtown. I do not ride on sidewalks, but on through streets I stay to the right to avoid fast-moving traffic.

I love those pages. You do realize that the text on all of those are completely tongue-in-cheek, right? Just checking.

OMG. VC!??! :eek: I have no idea what that is. I ride my bike to work every day so what am I? I dunno...employed I guess.

Motorcycles are called bikes. Harley Davidson guys are called bikers. Can't we have a normal word too? Cyclist sounds a little snooty and Vehicular Cyclist sounds like I committed a crime.

The term "Vehicular Cyclist" is as vague a moniker as "Serious Cyclist", "Good Cyclist" or "Safe Cyclist" and defined just as loosely. "Vehicular Cyclist" can mean whatever the speaker/writer thinks/wants/claims it to mean since there is no commonly accepted definition or measurable characteristics.

I voted "I commute every day and identify as VC", but I'm like most of the responders I read. I'm VC when I think it makes sense/is viable.