Square & Compas

I have got to ask. Who made up this definition for vc? Was it forester himself? How did he come up with that vc is riding in accordance with traffic laws? Where is it specified that vc is against bicycle specific laws? Until you mention it I never read anything that said "in accordance with non-bicycle specific laws." forester always says in "accordance with traffic laws". To me this means all traffic laws, bicycle specific or not. It is a generic term with no specification. So what, now you're trying to change it to something else?

njkayaker

You'd have to show the exact place he said that.

Anyway, here is what Forester actually says about "bicycle specific" laws

https://www.johnforester.com/

Clearly, he objects to these "discriminatory" laws.

=================

Note that there could be multiple definitions of what "vehicular cycling" means. Forester's definition clearly excludes these "discriminatory" laws.


You should have read his book before burning it. You clearly have no idea what Forester said.

=================

Wikipedia "vehicular cycling" page is an accurate summary of what Forester means by "vehicular cycling".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicular_cycling

(Note that "bicycle specific" laws are not "shared by all drivers".)

invisiblehand

You're missing some important details.

... it looks like someone else already filled you in.

John Forester

Mr Square does not understand what he reads. I have always been very careful to phrase my definition as obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles.

Square & Compas

I don't remember the exact place. I asked him once and it is how he answered.



I did read it. Just don't agree with how he "educates" the reader. Very preachy and I got the feeling of if I do not ride like the book says I am not a good cyclist and it made me feel inferior. I got this I should ride like the book says or else. Not something I am comfortable with. There is a way to get across with he is trying to say, but with out making people feel bad. Take Robert Hurst for example. I love his writting. I learn so much more from him then I ever did from forester. Hurst does not preach and make you feel like do this or else.

When were bicycles removed from the class of vehicles and became devices? Were they ever part of the class of vehicles? In which states? All 50?

invisiblehand

From conversations, it appears that people do have different definitions of VC. Regardless, Forester describes his positions in detail on his website. You may agree or disagree with the person; but just about all of his positions are there.

Square & Compas

But hte question is which one is the correct definition?

njkayaker

You make yourself look careless if you attack vague recollections of things somebody might have said somewhere. Things don't get better for you when other people link to sources that indicate exactly what somebody has said.

You said that he "always" says (this means "multiple times"). Now, you can't remember and it was "once"? Feel free to make these kinds of statements but doing so makes you look careless.

And what something means "to you" doesn't establish that the person saying it meant the same thing. Over and over again, Forester makes it very clear that he disapproves of "bicycle specific" laws. It's a critical piece of his position!

What you say indicates that you didn't read it or didn't understand it.

This is really your problem. Don't take what you read so personally.

Forester talked about that in another thread.

He invented the term "vehicular cycling". He can define it. Then again, maybe you are wondering what the right thing to do is (you aren't being clear)?

Square & Compas

This quote is from foresters site. Does this mean in 1944 all 50 states decided to make bicycles devices rather then vehicles of the roadway? Were they ever classified as vehicels to begin with under the particular traffic code for each state? What about the Federal traffic code? forester gives a year and then says bicycles were removed from the class of vehicles. That could be interpreted as in 1944 bicycles, which were vehicles of the roadways had their status changed to be something other then a vehicle of the roadway.

Square & Compas

Show me which one. and which post number it is.

njkayaker

No, that's your job! Why do you require other people to do your work for you?

Here's a hint. In another thread (in this forum), he talked about the UVC (universal vehicle code) [I might not have the acronym correct] eliminating bicycles. I think it was in a thread that you said you'd ignore posts by Forester!

Square & Compas

It is not my job. I am not the one making potentially false statments with dates, 1944, attached to it. I am asking someone to prove it. For right now I have taken forester off of my ignore list. I am calling this statement he made into question and am asking he back it up with hard facts and stats. Not his definitions, not his interpretations. I am not the one who made the statement so I am not the one who needs to prove its validity.

John Forester

Potentially false statements by me? Considering the proportion of your statements that have been recognizably false, you really ought to take on a more modest attitude. Are you now prepared to receive instruction?

I will make several quotations from Traffic Laws Annotated, published by the National Committee for Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances, 1972 issue.

!-84 Definition of Vehicle, Historical Note. The basic definition of "vehicle" has been the subject of only slight modification. The 1926 definition provided that for limited purposes a bicycle and a ridden animal were to be considered vehicles. That definition read as follows: (a) "Vehicle" Every device in, upon or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a public highway excepting devices moved by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks; provided that for the purposes of (Title II of) this act, a bicycle or ridden animal shall be deemed a vehicle. [Title II is the Rules of the Road section of the UVC]

1-105 Definition of Bicycle. Every device propelled by human power upon which any person may ride, having two tandem wheels either of which is more than 14 inches in diameter. Historical note: This definition has been in the Code since 1944 ...

11-1202 Traffic Laws Apply to Persons Riding Bicycles. Historical Note. The principle of this section, that rules of the road apply to persons riding bicycles, has been in the code since the first edition in 1926, when "vehicle" was defined to include "a bicycle or a ridden animal". [UVC 1926] In 1930 the following section was added:
Every person riding a bicycle or an animal upon a roadway and any person driving any animal shall be subject to the provisions of this act applicable to the driver of a vehicle, except those provisions of this act which by their very nature can have no application.

The section was revised into its present form in 1944.

The present form is:
Every person riding a bicycle upon a roadway shall be granted all the rights and shall be subject to all the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this act, except as to special regulations in this article and except as to those provisions of this act which by their nature can have not application.

Note that the difference enacted in 1944 is "except as to special regulations in this article".

These new special regulations are:
11-1205 Riding on Roadways and Bicycle Paths
(a) Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable, exercising due care when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction.
(c) Wherever a usable path for bicycles has been provided adjacent to a roadway, bicycle riders shall use such path and shall not use the roadway.
Historical Note: ... subsections (a) and (c) were added in 1944.

njkayaker

Accusing somebody of making "potentially false statements", who you were ignoring, makes no bloody sense!
Accusing somebody of making "potentially false statements", who you appear not to understand, makes no bloody sense!

No one is asking you to "prove its validity". Anyway, Forester provided support for his statement but you ignored it!

It clearly isn't my job to go looking for stuff you said you ignored.

Why do you say things that make you look crazy? I don't get it.

Square & Compas

Not from you!

Let me make this really simple and easy to understand what I am asking.

1. Were bicycles ever defined as vehicles rather then devices in accordance or under traffic codes or laws? Yes or no is all I want/need for an answer.

2. Was there specific language in the traffic code/law that defined a bicycle as a vehicle? Yes or no is all I want/need for an answer.

3. Was there actually specific language changed in the traffic code or law that said or says bicycles were defined as a vehicle and this is what they are defined as now, a device? Yes or no is all I want/need for an answer.

4. In 1944 was the status or definition of bicycles changed from vehicles to devices in all or any of the 50 states? Yes or no is all I want/need for an answer.

5. Were bicycles actually defined as vehicles prior to 1944 in or any of the 50 states? Yes or no is all I want/need for an answer.

6. If the status was not changed in 1944 when was it changed in any of the 50 states? All I need/want is the year.

7. Did this change happen nation wide in 1944? Yes or no is all I want/need for an answer.

8. If it did not happen nation wide which states did it change in in 1944? All I need/want is the name of the states.

9. If it changed latger in other states, which ones and what year? All I need/want for an answer is the name of the state and the year.

I do not need/want a long drawn out answer, just a simple yes or no, the year and name of the state will suffice. IF I want more I will ask.

After this is answered forester goes back on my ignore list.

Square & Compas

While foresters statement, that has yet to be proven true or not, about when bicycles were changed from vehicles to devices might be true. One statement he made that is absolultey false is saying he knows what RAGBRAI is like, what it is about, etc. when he has NEVER ridden a single day of it. He is basing such false statements on other rides. Sure there may be other large rides, but none of them even come close to RAGBRAI. That is like me saying I know what RAAM or RAW is like when I have never ridden a day of either one. I would never presume to make such a statement because I have never done either one, just as forester has never done a day of RAGBRAI. Him making comments like this about RAGBRAI just shows his true arrogance that he knows all and we all know nothing.

High Roller

And the really scary thing is that people who can not be bothered to understand an issue are allowed to vote.

Square & Compas

If forester or anyone else proves his statement that in 1944 bicycles were changed from being vehicles to being devices I will retract what I said about false statements and stand corrected. Note I said potentially false statements, the key word being potentially. Until his statement is proven correct I stand by what I have said.

RobertHurst

Bicycles have been classified as vehicles in traffic laws since the 1880s, and that basic designation has not changed.

John Forester

Mr Square lets his antagonism overlay the information that has been presented to him. The only remarks that I have made about RAGBRAI pertain to the traffic performance of its participants, in which I have written that in that respect RAGBRAI participants act very similarly to those of other mass rides. I make my statement on two things: the traffic performance of the participants of all mass rides with which I am familiar are very similar; the specific evidence that I have about RAGBRAI, being photos and videos and personal accounts, supports the initial statement.

njkayaker

I still have no good idea what this is about. Your recollection of things doesn't appear to be so great anyway.

As far as I can tell, Forester made a comment about the riding "style" of a few participants in RAGBRAI shown in a video.

Bekologist

Let's not forget that foresterian Vehicular cycling can also include riding in bikelanes or on shoulders of roads in a vehicular manner, and not claiming lanes to ride as a 'road sneak' (a very inferior position IMO);

a vehicular cyclist riding intermittently in and out of a bikelane dependent on traffic conditions does not become 'unvehicular' when using the bikelaned portion of the roadway;

and, vehicular cyclists also take advantage of public highway MUPs to their transportational advantage or enjoyment despite these being generally closed to other 'vehicles'.

these truths about the 'strict' vehicular cycling style contradicts some of the claims about vehicular cycling in here.

Square & Compas

So why is forester stating that in 1944 this designation changed?

BTW, In Iowa a bicycle is not designated as a vehicle. I do not know when this changed, if it ever was designated as a vehicle or if it has always been designated as something other then a vehicle. If it was 1944 so be it.

Here is the direct quote in the Iowa code:
Link: https://www.iowabicyclecoalition.org/node/100

Laserman

Thanks for your reply. This is very close to the way that I ride, the way that I have ridden since I got my first 26" bike at age 10, some 47 years ago now.
I believe, rightfully or not, one of the reasons that I have survived those 47 years is that have never challenged a multi-ton motor vehicle for the right of way.
A bike is a bike and a car is a car, I use both in a manner appropriate to the vehicles design capabilities and the conditions I find myself in.

Square & Compas

If it can include riding in and out of bike lanes bike lanes, etc. also known as Adaptive Cycling then why are there claims that doing so is unvehicular?