Talk:Vehicular cycling

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Cycling, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to cycling on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Contents 1 What is "international law"? 2 Looking Back 3 Tone 4 He, She, It? 5 Weasel words 6 This article is stating the obvious 7 POV Q

[edit] What is "international law"?

Under "international law" bicycles are defined as vehicles? What exactly is "international law"? I think the source of this needs to be specified or linked. --Serge 29 June 2005 23:34 (UTC)

In this situation we are talking about the Vienna convention(s) of the United Nations on Road Traffic

http://www.international-licences.com/includes/1968.pdf

Chapter I GENERAL PROVISIONS ARTICLE 1 Definitions

(l) "Cycle" means any vehicle which has at least two wheels and is propelled solely by the muscular energy of the persons on that vehicle, in particular by means of pedals or hand-cranks;

(v) "Driver" means any person who drives a motor vehicle or other vehicle (including a cycle), or who guides cattle, singly or in herds, or flocks, or draught, pack or saddle animals on a road;

Under international law a cyclist is a driver and a bicycle is a vehicle. Jurisdictions which attempt to define these things differently would appear to do so in defiance of international convention.

--Sf 30 June 2005 10:05 (UTC)

[edit] Looking Back

"Cycling experts contend that simply looking back often suffices as a signal to others that a cyclist wishes to move laterally in the direction he turned his head, and that a hand signal is often not required (this is important because using hand signals requires the cyclist to remove one hand from the handlebars, which is not desireable in many situations)." I know that in Michigan it is illegal not to signal your intentions with your hands.

My understanding of vehicular cycling is that it is more concerned with obeying the practical rules under which vehicle drivers actually operate, rather than obeying the strict letter of every local law. In this case, the underlying principle/rule is clear communication of intent to move laterally. Whether that is done by a hand signal, an electronic turn signal, or a look back, so as long as that is accomplished, it is vehicular cycling, even though it may not technically fulfill the letter of the law. --Serge 01:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Agree with Serge that the description of the 'technique' is appropriate to a discussion on 'Vehicular Cycling', and his expression of the underlying philosophy (the communication of intent) is spot on. It may indeed become the case that in some (bizarre) jurisdicition that legislators one day decide that bicycles must be fitted with pivoting 'flags' (such as vehicles used to have) that would 'pop out' on either side to signal a turning intention. For the moment though, it might be prudent to mention the situation that applies in the majority of jurisdictions, and that is (as Serge acknowledges) that the 'look back only' method might not 'technically fulfill the letter of the law', which usually calls for a hand signal. Cheers, Tban 03:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tone

Although mostly not the case, in parts this article is a little POV -- it just comes across as a little bit evangelical at times. For example, the paragraph that was just added about cyclists who "think they're VC but they're not" could be read as being fairly derisive. I'm sure people who try to "stay out of the way" have good reasons, for example not wanting to get run over by car drivers who resent cyclists taking the lane, however the tone of this paragraph could be seen as dismissive of any valid justification for riding in this way. Some discussion about the pros and cons and preferably corresponding articles for other styles of cycling in traffic would be good. --Russell E 22:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

There's also some weasel words in this article (i.e. "Many people who advocate vehicular cycling"). It's not heavy enough for me to want to put a warning template on it, but it probably does need some clean up. PsYoP78 14:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] He, She, It?

Do we have any concensus about 'how' we refer to riders/cyclists/motorists/truck drivers/etc etc. Noting the section on 'International Law', the cyclist is strictly speaking the 'driver of a bicycle' or the 'bicycle driver'. I think we agree that 'cyclist' is a satisfactory equivalent. When referring to drivers of other vehicles on the road (when we talk about sharing the road with other vehicles) would it simply be sufficient to refer to 'drivers of other vehicles'. This has the 'happy' effect of including other cyclists - who are essentially just part of the mix of 'other traffic' that the cyclist has to contend with. Do we then have to include gender specific references, such as 'he' or 'she' in that case?

Our person - the perspective from which we speak - can always be 'the cyclist', and 'he' or 'she' will interact with 'other drivers' or 'drivers of other vehicles'. I admit that I used to say 'other vehicles', but when we are talking about 'engaging the attention' of other vehicles' we really mean to say 'the drivers of other vehicles'. The only effective interaction cyclists can have (at the moment) with other vehicles (as opposed to other drivers) is of the 'impact' variety, and that's not the sort of interaction we want to encourage.Tban 02:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• I don't agree that 'cyclist' is a satisfactory equivalent. I'd like to suggest, at least when the topic is vehicle operation on public roads, that we use the same terminology which the core (i.e., common, shared) rules typically use; each person who is subject to the provisions of the rules applicable to the driver of a vehicle is referred to as a driver. --Wiley 04:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Gday Wiley, I don't disagree with you. My major 'bugbear' was the appearance (and reappearance after copyedits) of 'he' and 'she' where we'd previously had 'driver' or 'cyclist'. I couldn't work out the motivation of the editor (not you), but it seemed worth trying to 'stamp out'. If we've seen the last of that then I'm happy to go with whatever you say.

Having said that though.. As for 'driver' I acknowledge that it applies to cyclists. It also applies to people who drive cars (motorists) and trucks (truck drivers) and buses (bus driver) and sheep (shepherd). My argument is that while driver is the correct generic term, 'cyclist' is a valid term to describe 'drivers of bicycles', a sub-category of 'driver'. The other folk on the road in that case are 'drivers of other vehicles' or (less confusingly) 'drivers of motor vehicles'. The point is not to make a point about whether cyclists are motorists (because the 'international law' section clearly affirms that fundamental truth at the start of the Article) but to make the article 'easy to read' while not compromising the fundamental truth. If 'cyclist' is a sub-category of 'drivers', then talking about cyclists does not deny (in fact it affirms) that they are 'drivers' as much as all the other sub-categories (such as motorist, truck driver etc). Essentially 'driver of the bicycle' is going to use more electrons than 'cyclist'. But I'll not die in a ditch over it, just no more 'he' and 'she' please.. Cheers Tban 08:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weasel words

For anyone who feels there are weasel words on this article... please cite the exact section and words that you feel are problematic. --Serge 18:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

All these have citation or weasel problems, this list is not complete, just a first glance:

"Some cycling experts contend that simply looking back often suffices as a signal" (which experts?)

"Most Effective Cycling students confirm" (Really? You've asked most of them?)

"However, a mirror is regarded by some cyclists" (which?)

"There is considerable confusion expressed" (there is?)

"Some people mistakenly describe VC as, "cycling as if you're a car"." (who are these people?)

"Many cyclists use a combination of vehicular and pedestrian cycling." (really?)

This entire section is pretty bad:

"In the end, VC is as much about attitude as anything else." (this entire section reads like an editorial) Gigs 14:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article is stating the obvious

Maybe I am missing the point. The only way I have ever heard of riding a bike (legally) is as a vehicle. A bicycle is legally a vehicle, you must ride on the road, and obey the rules of the road the same as other road users. In all the countries I have ever ridden a bike, it is illegal to ride on the pavement/sidewalk, ride on the wrong side of the road or ride the wrong way up a one-way street. The bike must have brakes and lights etc. In Switzerland third party insurance is compulsary for bicycles.

At school I took my Cycling Proficiency Test, which taught that a bike should follow the same rules (and has the same rights) as any other vehicle on the road. For eaxmple, when doing a left turn (right turn in the UK), I should signal, and move out to the middle off the road. If the vehicle behind me has to stop, so be it, I have as much right to the road as he has, and this is the only safe way to turn.

This article reads as if this is something new and revolutionary, what would be new would be not to ride this way. Or is this because I have only ever cycled in European countries, and this article refers to US practice only? TiffaF 15:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it is okay for some articles to state the obvious. What is obvious now may not be so obvious in a few hundred years' time.

Anyway, not everyone understands that bicycles share the same road rules as all other vehicles on the road. There are also some other recreational cyclists whose experience is mostly limited to cycling on dedicated bike paths (or shared bike/pedestrian paths), where if you put them on the road they don't know how to properly interact with other traffic, so they avoid doing that altogether, to their detriment. Having said all that though, I think the article needs to be trimmed back a lot, mostly because it reads more like an detailed 'how-to' rather than a simple factual description of what VC is. The details belong on a page/wiki somewhere else on the web. --ozzmosis 04:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Then maybe Wiki should have an article Vehicular driving for the benefit of car drivers who only ever drive off-road in 4x4s, or who always drive on the pavement/sidewalk; in order to explain to them that they too should drive on the road, in accordance with the Highway Code. :-)

Seriously, the opening paragraph perhaps needs attention:

• Explain that in many/most countries bicycles are considered road vehicles, but in some places (is it just in the USA?) this is not currently the case and cyclists mostly do not ride on the road.
• Vehicular cycling is a name for the advocacy of cycling as a road vehicle.
• The last sentence "for example, only motor vehicle operators are required to have a driver's license and, in some localities, carry liability insurance.". is misleading. Bicycles are covered by many regulations, and in at least one country do require insurance.
• There is also overlap between this article and Utility cycling.

I do not have enough experience to do this myself, having "only" cycled in 6 countries. TiffaF 06:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Some points of clarification:

• It is not true that cyclists mostly do not ride on the road in the USA.
• Vehicular cycling is not a name for the advocacy of cycling as a road vehicle. "Vehicular cycling advocacy" is a name for the advocacy of cycling on roads as a vehicle driver. Vehicular cycling is the name for the activity of riding on roads in accordance to the rules of the road for vehicle drivers.
• The last sentence does not address the issue of bicycles and bicyclists being covered by regulations, and so is not misleading about that. The fact that in some countries insurance is required for cyclists is reflected in the current language.
• Of course there is overlap, since vehicular cycling can be used while cycling for utility purposes, but they are far from the same thing (I know an 85 year old woman who is a utility cyclist but is most certainly not a vehicular cyclist!).

--Serge 17:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV Q

This following section sounds more like someones opinion, espically since it is given in the first person. I'm not saying they're wrong, but it should be neutrally written

"Some people mistakenly describe VC as, "cycling as if you're a car". But bicycles are not cars, and the vehicular rules of the road apply to not just cars, but all kinds of vehicles, from horse and buggies to tractor trailers, and everything in between, including bicycles. Some rules have more relevance to drivers of some vehicles than to others because of unique physical and operational characteristics of some vehicles. For example, because of the narrow nature of motorcycles, motorcyclists can often share (split) lanes that are too narrow for two standard width vehicles to share. This is also true for bicyclists, whose vehicles also have the narrow characteristic. Truck drivers require special training, as do bus and taxi drivers, and motorcyclists. Some people advocate special training for cyclists to learn vehicular cycling, such as the Effective Cycling program. One of the main vehicular rules that has special application to cyclists riding on roadways is that drivers of slower vehicles should keep to the side (when safe and reasonable) between intersections, though many people forget that at intersections and their approaches lane position should be selected according to destination."

67.150.63.28 20:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)!