Talk:Vehicular cycling/Archive 1

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)

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)

Look-back technique

Vehicular cycling/Archive 1#The view to the rear says:

The trivial sounding skill of looking back over one's shoulder is critical to vehicular cycling. It's not as easy to perform as it may sound because it requires traveling in a straight line while looking behind for up to a few seconds, and requires some practice to master. The natural tendency is to not continue in a straight line, but to swerve in the direction one is looking. ... The tendency to swerve can be countered by learning to look back through the armpit rather than over the shoulder.

I have these observations about the above passage:

• It seems that looking through one's armpit rather than over the shoulder would tend to obscure the cyclist's head from following traffic, thereby reducing the signaling aspect of the look back.

• There is a practical technique for looking back over one's shoulder without swerving. Push (not turn!) the handlebars slightly in the direction of the look, before turning one's head. A little practice teaches the correct amount of pre-emptive push.

Even so, I regard riding without a rear-view mirror as contrary to vehicular cycling. Why? Because real vehicles provide mirrors for their operators, even motor vehicles which provide a stable platform and upright seating posture to the operator, making the look-back far easier than for the bicyclist. The motorist also has less need to look back, because the motorist is usually traveling as fast as any other road user, and thus is not constantly being overtaken from behind as the slower cyclist is. It's easier for the motorist to look back, the motorist does not need to look back as often, and yet the law where I live requires the motorist to have rear-view mirrors, but not the cyclist.

A common situation in traffic is for the cyclist to be surprised by the sudden appearance of a pothole or debris in his/her path, necessitating an abrupt swerve. There often isn't time for a look back, because the cyclist has to watch the hazard ahead. Only a mirror allows for a sufficiently quick glance to the rear to see whether it is safe to swerve away from the road edge.

It is simple to verify empirically that the majority of cyclists who ride without mirrors for the most part have little awareness of what is behind them. To see this, simply ride up behind some mirror-less bicyclists quietly on your own bicycle, and see how closely you can approach before they become aware of your presence. In most cases, it is easy to sneak up behind other cyclists on the road and ride along behind them for some time undetected. Their first realization of your presence may come from your chain noise, rather than their look back. Riders with mirrors are not automatically more aware---sometimes you can sneak up behind them too, since they must remember to scan back with their mirrors periodically. But a larger fraction of riders with mirrors will see you approaching.

On group rides, a situation I have seen routinely is for a group to be blocking the lane, with a motorist following behind slowly for a considerable time before the group becomes aware of the following motorist and assumes single-file to allow the motorist to pass. The situation is different when the trailing cyclist(s) (those who have a view to the rear unobstructed by following cyclists) have mirrors. Then they will typically call out a warning of "Car back!" while the overtaking car is still some seconds away. When cyclists ride in groups, drafting closely behind each other, looking back over the shoulder risks touching wheels with the rider ahead, and crashing. Cyclists who ride in groups have even more need of mirrors than cyclists who ride alone, if they want to see behind them.

My comments are, of course, very POV, so I mentioned them here rather than try to work them into Vehicular cycling/Archive 1 (which itself is a bit on the POV side). Perhaps we can think of an NPOV way to work them in. --Teratornis 22:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

POV they may be Teratornis, but your comments do provide a platform for a quick note on mirrors and looking back - even with mirrors a look back should be performed several times per minute to ensure you have a clear picture of exactly what is going on behind. Mirrors are useful but are not useful enough for this.

Potholes - these should be taken in as you constantly scan the road ahead and any traffic from behind that may need to be dealt with you will know about well in advance as you are regularly looking back to see what is approaching.

Group rides - since these take place on public roads the cyclists involved still have to ride within the law and still practice vehicular cycling. I'm not going to get into the legal side of things but vehicular cycling means knowing what is coming up from behind at all times.

Maybe my stuff is slightly influenced by my POV too but it is what is taught as part of Bikeability.

Cheers.Jawj uk 15:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the material that advocates the use of mirrors because of the lack of conformance with Neutral point of view combined with the lack of Attribution. --Wiley 06:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)!

I'm adding the POV tag to the entire section "Common misconceptions about vehicular cycling". Some of the content may be salvageable, but it needs to be rewritten without the advocacy "common myths" format. Neitherday (talk) 10:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Why the cleanup tag

This article seems to be rather POV, has way too many external links, and lacks citations to reliable sources for most of its assertions. The form and style and tone also need to be addressed. See the manual of style for more info. Note that the {{cleanup}} tag is not a commentary (pro or con) on the subject matter itself and that it should not be removed without a good explanation. Katr67 (talk) 20:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Need help saving the California Vehicle Code - Bicycle Relevant Sections article

I discovered the stub article California Vehicle Code - Bicycle Relevant Sections about a week ago and decided to make it into a real article. This is the stub condition it was in when I started.

It has come a long way since then. Because the topic of this article is bicycling relevant sections of the California Vehicle Code, my approach (which was started by someone else with CVC 21202 in the stub) has been to quote the law being discussed, and then discuss it (with will sourced citations, of course). Well, I've put a lot of work into it. Please take a look at it. I still have it marked "under constructions" because I have a lot to do (see the todo list on its talk page), but I think it's pretty good for what is in it so far.

Here is where I need help, however. Someone decided it has too many quotes and should therefore be moved to Wikisource, and has nominated it for deletion! That makes no sense to me since Wikisource has no articles, only sources. Your comments with respect to that nomination for deletion are welcome here. Thanks! --Born2cycle (talk) 00:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Acronym "VC" as neologism

I've removed "VC" as an acronym because it appears to be a neologism, per WP:NEO. There are 91 hits in Google for "vehicular cycling" "VC". (Google reports a much larger number until you read past the first page of results and the search engine actually has to do a full join). The same search in Google News for all dates turns up only one reference.[1]. Of the 91 references in web search, almost all are to Wikipedia, blogs, sites mirroring Wikipedia, or John Forrester's site. --John Nagle (talk) 22:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:NEO states, "The use of neologisms should be avoided in Wikipedia articles because they are not well understood, are not clearly definable, and will have different meanings to different people.". Yeah, that's all well and good, but "Vehicular Cycling, or VC" is hardly "not well understood", "not clearly definable", or has "different meanings to different people" in that context. There is no reference to the term acronym in WP:NEO. I don't see how this is an example of the problem WP:NEO is trying to address. Let's be reasonable and apply common sense. Even if you insist on interpreting WP:NEO so strictly, a dash of WP:IAR would be appropriate here. In many references to "vehicular cycling", the writer often naturally abbreviates it to "VC". Reflecting that reality in the article can only be an improvement to Wikipedia, not a hinderance. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Much more applicable here is the acronym section of the chapter on abbreviations in the MOS, which states: "The full name should always be the first reference in an article, and thereafter acronyms are acceptable, as long as the acronym is given as an explicit alternative early (usually in parentheses). If used, acronyms should be used consistently throughout the article.". Per this clearly much more applicable guideline, I'm restoring the original wording. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The usage of accepted acronyms is not the issue. The issue is the use of an acronym which lacks reliable sources. "VC" isn't even in marginal sources like Acronym Finder [2], the Free Dictionary.[3], or Urban Dictionary.[4]. It's in KeyWen [5], but that's because KeyWen scraped it from BookRags which scraped it from Wikipedia. Part of the point of WP:NEO is that using Wikipedia to popularize a term is considered inappropriate, to prevent things like that happening. --John Nagle (talk) 22:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Just because usage of the acronym is mostly limited to non-general contexts in which the topic of the given article is being discussed, and thus not listed in general sources, does not mean it should not be mentioned here.

Results 1 - 10 of about 56,600 for +vc "vehicular cycling".

Results 1 - 6 of 6 for +zc "vehicular cycling".

Results 1 - 10 of about 1,100 for +pc +"vehicular cycling".

Results 1 - 10 of about 301,000 for +vc +"vehicular cycling" -wikipedia.

There are countless examples of sources written and read by people likely to make up the general audience that use "VC" to refer to vehicular cycling. They may not be the type of third-party reliable sources that we need to back up the veracity of factual content in Wikipedia, but the bar for acronym usage has to be much lower than that, and usage within the blogs, websites and various forum posts should more than suffice to establish what is needed here. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Vehicular Cycling Best Practices...

Quote FTA: "Some non-vehicular cycling actions commonly taken by bicyclists include" Commonly taken, huh? I'm going to need a citation on that, please :) (86.161.50.183 (talk) 16:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC))