Originally Posted by
holytrousers
the law should give cyclists the right to use the whole lane. no car can safely overtake a bike on the same lane. vehicular cycling is so obvious i don't understand what are the other approaches.. and bike lanes should simply be considered narrower lanes..
- In many jurisdictions the law *does* give cyclists the right to use the whole lane.
- Lots of cars can safely overtake a bike [in] the same lane (if the lane is wide enough). On yesterday's ride one stretch was marked as a two lane road (one lane each direction) but was literally wider than two lanes each way.
- Vehicular cycling is obvious for some situations, but is only one tool available in the cyclists toolbox. There are lots of other approaches.
- Bike lanes being considered narrower lanes (with all the same rules as motor traffic lanes) can lead to conflicts if they are not properly implemented, especially at intersections.
So, I guess I would have to say I disagree with everything you say.
Maybe that's the point. John Forester and his VC adherents seemed to speak in absolutes. VC is a series of techniques that are useful tools for riding bicycles in traffic. There are other useful tools that do not fall into the category of VC. The fact that they are not VC does not make them any less useful.
Is a bike a car or isn't it? It depends on the situation. Sometimes it's a vehicle. Sometimes it's a pedestrian. Sometimes it's a scofflaw that rolls through Stop signs and red lights. Sometimes it's none of the above.
In a short stretch I commonly ride (probably less than a mile), I am a bicycle on a multi-use path, then I'm a car in the traffic lane, then I'm a pedestrian on a sidewalk until I can connect to an adjacent neighborhood when I become a car again. I'm sure John Forester would roll over in his grave if he saw the way I ride, but it's very safe, very sensible and very logical in the context of the situation.