Shouldn't bicyclists ALWAYS have the right to use a full lane, like other drivers?
08-10-13, 02:36 PM
#1
Bicycle traffic engineer
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Seaside, California
Posts: 55
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Shouldn't bicyclists ALWAYS have the right to use a full lane, like other drivers?
Traffic law says (1) bicyclists on public roads have the rights and duties of drivers of vehicles, (2) bicyclists have to ride as far right as practicable, and (3) bicyclists don't have to ride AFRAP if one of several exceptions is met (going at the speed of traffic, making a left turn, passing other traffic, lane is too narrow to share side by side, etc.) What a mess!
What actually happens in practice is that most people either don't know about the exceptions, or do know about the exceptions but don't believe them. They think that the victory won by motordom in the 1920's (that roads are "motor thoroughfares") is still intact, as embodied by the original AFRAP laws, which had no exceptions. (See Peter Norton's book, Fighting Traffic: The Dawn of the Motor Age in the American City.)
The problem is that requiring bicyclists to ride at the right edge both marginalizes them physically and denies them the right to use full lanes like other drivers, turns bicyclists into second class road users (See the article that Dan Gutierrez and I wrote entitled The Marginalization of Bicyclists- How the car lane paradigm eroded our lane rights and what we can do to restore them.
Then there are the people who read the exceptions but don't understand them. such as the law enforcement officers who think that even though one of the exceptions is met, the AFRAP law still applies. For instance, the California Highway Patrol teaches that bicyclists can never ride two abreast because the bicyclist on the left is not riding AFRAP. But when one of the exceptions to the AFRAP law applies, such as when the lane is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side, the entire AFRAP law does not apply. What the CHP should be teaching is that two abreast riding is lawful whenever one of the exceptions to the AFRAP law applies. (If you live in another state, YMMV.)
And even when people do understand when the AFRAP law does not apply, many don't understand how the rest of traffic law applies to bicyclists. A prime example is the law regarding drivers of vehicles that are traveling slower than other traffic. Everyone knows that a fully loaded truck on an upgrade, say, is required to drive in the right-hand lane. But does anybody think that a truck is required to drive at the right edge of the right-hand lane in order to facilitate passing by faster traffic in the same lane? No, of course not. But the same people think it's only right for bicyclists, because they are slow and narrow, to be required to ride at the right edge, the same as if the road had no lane lines. After all, it's only logical, right?
Trying to write into law when a bicyclist is not required to ride AFRAP hasn't worked. Wouldn't it be better if bicyclists ALWAYS had the right to use a full lane, the same as other drivers? That doesn't mean bicyclists would always want to EXERCISE that right, since being a safe and cooperative road user means moving right to allow faster traffic to pass when it is safe. But isn't it better to leave that decision up to the bicyclist than to try to write it into law, which is the way it is now?
What actually happens in practice is that most people either don't know about the exceptions, or do know about the exceptions but don't believe them. They think that the victory won by motordom in the 1920's (that roads are "motor thoroughfares") is still intact, as embodied by the original AFRAP laws, which had no exceptions. (See Peter Norton's book, Fighting Traffic: The Dawn of the Motor Age in the American City.)
The problem is that requiring bicyclists to ride at the right edge both marginalizes them physically and denies them the right to use full lanes like other drivers, turns bicyclists into second class road users (See the article that Dan Gutierrez and I wrote entitled The Marginalization of Bicyclists- How the car lane paradigm eroded our lane rights and what we can do to restore them.
Then there are the people who read the exceptions but don't understand them. such as the law enforcement officers who think that even though one of the exceptions is met, the AFRAP law still applies. For instance, the California Highway Patrol teaches that bicyclists can never ride two abreast because the bicyclist on the left is not riding AFRAP. But when one of the exceptions to the AFRAP law applies, such as when the lane is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side, the entire AFRAP law does not apply. What the CHP should be teaching is that two abreast riding is lawful whenever one of the exceptions to the AFRAP law applies. (If you live in another state, YMMV.)
And even when people do understand when the AFRAP law does not apply, many don't understand how the rest of traffic law applies to bicyclists. A prime example is the law regarding drivers of vehicles that are traveling slower than other traffic. Everyone knows that a fully loaded truck on an upgrade, say, is required to drive in the right-hand lane. But does anybody think that a truck is required to drive at the right edge of the right-hand lane in order to facilitate passing by faster traffic in the same lane? No, of course not. But the same people think it's only right for bicyclists, because they are slow and narrow, to be required to ride at the right edge, the same as if the road had no lane lines. After all, it's only logical, right?
Trying to write into law when a bicyclist is not required to ride AFRAP hasn't worked. Wouldn't it be better if bicyclists ALWAYS had the right to use a full lane, the same as other drivers? That doesn't mean bicyclists would always want to EXERCISE that right, since being a safe and cooperative road user means moving right to allow faster traffic to pass when it is safe. But isn't it better to leave that decision up to the bicyclist than to try to write it into law, which is the way it is now?
Last edited by bshanteau; 08-10-13 at 02:45 PM. Reason: Add "of vehicles" after drivers to accurately paraphrase traffic law.
08-10-13, 02:52 PM
#2
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Encinitas CA
Posts: 865
Bikes: Scott CR1 Team
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Rancho Santa Fe, in north county San Diego, is home to some of the worst offenders as far as law enforcement. Most of the roads there have no bicycle lanes at all and are in very poor condition. The residents of RSF, who seem to detest cyclists, often hire the sheriff's department to harass cyclists for not riding AFRAP in RSF. They even do this on group rides, where there can be up to 50 or 60 cyclists, going downhill at close to 30 mph.
What you are describing is basically a sharrows lane. They've put some these in Oceanside, Encinitas, and Solana Beach. It seems to me, though I have no proof of this, that there has been considerably less harassment of cyclists by drivers since they did this.
What you are describing is basically a sharrows lane. They've put some these in Oceanside, Encinitas, and Solana Beach. It seems to me, though I have no proof of this, that there has been considerably less harassment of cyclists by drivers since they did this.
08-10-13, 04:29 PM
#3
Senior Member
I've had the opposite experience. I'm treated very well in RSF, whether alone or in a group. I've been yelled at, had stuff thrown at me, had someone hit a golf ball toward us and been hit twice in the other cities. IME, Encinitas is the worst.
08-10-13, 05:14 PM
#4
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,788
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
OP makes a valid point; even under FRAP rules, unless you're in a WOL (Wide Outside lane), a car has to move over at least PARTIALLY into the next lane to pass you. So what WOULD be the difference? Additionally, there are numerous places around the country where signage is posted, "Bicyclists May Use Full Lane". I fail to see ANY real reason why ALL roads should not carry this right for 2-wheelers. (I KNOW the basic reason, motorist entitlement....)
Vehicle width/weight/acceleration curve/top speed should NEVER be the qualifying factors for rights to the road, or a lane. "Slower Traffic Keep Right" is reasonable enough without further restrictions for slower vehicles.
Vehicle width/weight/acceleration curve/top speed should NEVER be the qualifying factors for rights to the road, or a lane. "Slower Traffic Keep Right" is reasonable enough without further restrictions for slower vehicles.
08-10-13, 05:39 PM
#5
genec
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
OK so now you have to indicate to motorists those roads that are too narrow to share. The motorists are not going to measure them, they need to be told everything. So when a lane is wide enough to share, it should always be marked for that possibility.
08-10-13, 06:02 PM
#6
Senior Member
"(2) bicyclists have to ride as far right as practicable" is subject to interpretation. So if you ride in the middle of the lane or left of centre for the purpose of forcing vehicles to properly change lanes because lane-sharing is dangerous, then riding in the middle or on the left is AFRAP.
All Traffic Acts should illegalize lane-sharing. Motorcycles don't share lanes, they ride scattered. They ride in the block position to block motorist from entering their lane in a dangerous position. Why should a motorist share lanes with a cyclist?
All Traffic Acts should illegalize lane-sharing. Motorcycles don't share lanes, they ride scattered. They ride in the block position to block motorist from entering their lane in a dangerous position. Why should a motorist share lanes with a cyclist?
08-10-13, 06:04 PM
#7
24-Speed Machine
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Wash. Grove, MD
Posts: 6,058
Bikes: 2003 Specialized Allez 24-Speed Road Bike
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
The problem with AFRAP, is that it is a judgment call on the part of the cyclist. But motorists' and law enforcement like to think otherwise. So when a motorist is about to pull a bonehead move just because they feel a cyclist has no right to be on the road, I will go all the way out to the white/yellow line and 'force' them to pass me in the passing lane, or cross over the double-yellow line into oncoming traffic.
Because drivers like the maniac about two weeks ago, who tried to cause me to rear-end him, are not 'few and far between'.
Because drivers like the maniac about two weeks ago, who tried to cause me to rear-end him, are not 'few and far between'.
08-10-13, 06:09 PM
#8
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 85
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Here is the FRAP subsection for NYS.
If the shoulder is rideable, use it. If there's a vehicle approaching and you're 2-abreast, single-up. Yes, there are exceptions where taking the lane is needed or warranted. I know some will argue that the shoulder is not the "road", but one could argue that the "road" is the continuous paved surface, shoulders included, as many laws (in NY and not specifically related to cycling) specify "lane" as indicated by the painted stripe.
§ 1234. Riding on roadways, shoulders, bicycle or in-line skate lanes
and bicycle or in-line skate paths. (a) Upon all roadways, any bicycle or in-line skate shall be driven either on a usable bicycle or in-line skate lane or, if a usable bicycle or in-line skate lane has not been provided, near the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway or upon a usable right-hand shoulder in such a manner as to prevent undue interference with the flow of traffic except when preparing for a left turn or when reasonably necessary to avoid conditions that would make it unsafe to continue along near the right-hand curb or edge. Conditions to be taken into consideration include, but are not limited to, fixed or moving objects, vehicles, bicycles, in-line skates, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards or traffic lanes too narrow for a bicycle or person on in-line skates and a vehicle to travel safely side-by-side within the lane. (b) Persons riding bicycles or skating or gliding on in-line skates upon a roadway shall not ride more than two abreast. Persons riding bicycles or skating or gliding on in-line skates upon a shoulder, bicycle or in-line skate lane, or bicycle or in-line skates path, intended for the use of bicycles or in-line skates may ride two or more abreast if sufficient space is available, except that when passing a vehicle, bicycle or person on in-line skates, or pedestrian, standing or proceeding along such shoulder, lane or path, persons riding bicycles or skating or gliding on in-line skates shall ride, skate, or glide single file. Persons riding bicycles or skating or gliding on in-line skates upon a roadway shall ride, skate, or glide single file when being overtaken by a vehicle. (c) Any person operating a bicycle or skating or gliding on in-line skates who is entering the roadway from a private road, driveway, alley or over a curb shall come to a full stop before entering the roadway.
and bicycle or in-line skate paths. (a) Upon all roadways, any bicycle or in-line skate shall be driven either on a usable bicycle or in-line skate lane or, if a usable bicycle or in-line skate lane has not been provided, near the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway or upon a usable right-hand shoulder in such a manner as to prevent undue interference with the flow of traffic except when preparing for a left turn or when reasonably necessary to avoid conditions that would make it unsafe to continue along near the right-hand curb or edge. Conditions to be taken into consideration include, but are not limited to, fixed or moving objects, vehicles, bicycles, in-line skates, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards or traffic lanes too narrow for a bicycle or person on in-line skates and a vehicle to travel safely side-by-side within the lane. (b) Persons riding bicycles or skating or gliding on in-line skates upon a roadway shall not ride more than two abreast. Persons riding bicycles or skating or gliding on in-line skates upon a shoulder, bicycle or in-line skate lane, or bicycle or in-line skates path, intended for the use of bicycles or in-line skates may ride two or more abreast if sufficient space is available, except that when passing a vehicle, bicycle or person on in-line skates, or pedestrian, standing or proceeding along such shoulder, lane or path, persons riding bicycles or skating or gliding on in-line skates shall ride, skate, or glide single file. Persons riding bicycles or skating or gliding on in-line skates upon a roadway shall ride, skate, or glide single file when being overtaken by a vehicle. (c) Any person operating a bicycle or skating or gliding on in-line skates who is entering the roadway from a private road, driveway, alley or over a curb shall come to a full stop before entering the roadway.
08-10-13, 06:12 PM
#9
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 85
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
"(2) bicyclists have to ride as far right as practicable" is subject to interpretation. So if you ride in the middle of the lane or left of centre for the purpose of forcing vehicles to properly change lanes because lane-sharing is dangerous, then riding in the middle or on the left is AFRAP.
All Traffic Acts should illegalize lane-sharing. Motorcycles don't share lanes, they ride scattered. They ride in the block position to block motorist from entering their lane in a dangerous position. Why should a motorist share lanes with a cyclist?
All Traffic Acts should illegalize lane-sharing. Motorcycles don't share lanes, they ride scattered. They ride in the block position to block motorist from entering their lane in a dangerous position. Why should a motorist share lanes with a cyclist?
08-10-13, 06:45 PM
#10
Bicycle traffic engineer
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Seaside, California
Posts: 55
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
08-10-13, 06:55 PM
#11
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 85
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
No. As I wrote, you move over when it is safe. For more guidance, see Mighk Wilson's article, Give and Take; Control and Release
08-10-13, 07:24 PM
#12
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Eugene, Oregon
Posts: 7,048
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 509 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 9 Times
in
8 Posts
Here is the FRAP subsection for NYS.
If the shoulder is rideable, use it. If there's a vehicle approaching and you're 2-abreast, single-up. Yes, there are exceptions where taking the lane is needed or warranted. I know some will argue that the shoulder is not the "road", but one could argue that the "road" is the continuous paved surface, shoulders included, as many laws (in NY and not specifically related to cycling) specify "lane" as indicated by the painted stripe.
If the shoulder is rideable, use it. If there's a vehicle approaching and you're 2-abreast, single-up. Yes, there are exceptions where taking the lane is needed or warranted. I know some will argue that the shoulder is not the "road", but one could argue that the "road" is the continuous paved surface, shoulders included, as many laws (in NY and not specifically related to cycling) specify "lane" as indicated by the painted stripe.
08-10-13, 08:19 PM
#13
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,788
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
It's not as universal thing (though it should be), but many areas waive the "no passing on a double yellow" when a cyclist is being passed. So your point, in many places, is moot.
08-10-13, 08:41 PM
#14
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Eugene, Oregon
Posts: 7,048
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 509 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 9 Times
in
8 Posts
Then again, our vehicle code is pretty loose. It is not incumbent on motorists to stay on the right side of the road, they simply don't have any right of way on the left side. This is enough of a problem that on heavily traveled two-lane highways with blind curves, "No Passing" signs are pretty normal, particularly where the double yellow has worn off from all the passing.
08-11-13, 12:41 AM
#15
Transportation Cyclist
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Montana U.S.A.
Posts: 1,206
Bikes: Too many to list, some I built myself including the frame. I "do" ~ Human-Only-Pedal-Powered-Cycles, Human-Electric-Hybrid-Cycles, Human-IC-Hybrid-Cycles, and one Human-IC-Electric-3way-Hybrid-Cycle
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
As to the original point the OP was trying to make. In principle I would agree but one does need to realize that motorists are not unique in selfish "road hog" behavior without the slightest regard for others.
This is my states current FRAP law:
If I could write the laws to be whatever I wanted this is what I would write as a replacement for that (my states FRAP) law:
Writing the law that way stresses not that bicycles are second class vehicles but rather encourages them to to ride to the right of significantly faster moving traffic out of consideration for other road users when it is practicable to do so. Thus bicyclists still retain the same road privileges as other vehicles and their choice to ride to the right is not seen as an obligation but rather a choice based on consideration for other road users. We have no responsibility to "get out of the way" but we are encouraged to do other road users a favor out of consideration for them when we can practicably do so without significantly endangering ourselves or reducing our ability to effectively and efficiently travel.
It is made very clear that on roadways with 25-mph or lower speed limits bicycles not only are not required to ride FRAP they are actually encouraged to "take the lane". I personally always take the lane in such situations except for the very limited exception where sometimes when I'm climbing a big hill that slows me down to below 15-mph I will FRAP out of consideration for other road users. Otherwise on 25-mph or slower speed limit roads I see absolutely no reason to FRAP and think it is far safer for me not to do so and instead ride like I was riding a motorcycle and I generally get much better respect and equal treatment from other road users by doing so.
It is very important to protect the road privileges of cyclists when they do choose to by considerate to other road users and do them a favor by riding FRAP by ensuring that if they do choose to ride to the right of the white line on the shoulder edge that shoulder edge becomes a legal bicycle lane just by their choice to use it as such and because it is now a legal travel lane they have legal protection and recourse from other road users trying to side-swipe, right-hook, or otherwise fail to respect the right of way of another legal travel lane. This is how I personally ride on high speed roadways where there is a shoulder edge to the right of the white fog line that is of sufficient width and surface condition to be a safe, effective, and efficient place for me to travel without unnecessary aggravating other faster road users. I really wish that there was a "if he is using the shoulder edge as a bicycle lane, then legally that is what it is" provision in the law to make my legal standing clear when I ride that way out of consideration for other road users. There is no reason why I should be put in legal limbo by trying to be nice.
Since a law worded as I have suggested does allow cyclists to make an @$$ out of themselves if they don't have any consideration for other road users some provision for dealing with that potential needs to be in place. That is the only reason section (9) is in there. Long story short, if you decide to make a total @$$ out of yourself and never FRAP even when you can safely and effectively do so on high speed roadways and insist on aggravating other road users for no good reason then they can make you take safe cycling classes. The same being true if you insist on riding FRAP and curb hugging and riding in the door zone on low speed roads where doing so endangers yourself and pedestrians and creates unnecessary conflicts with other road users.
This is my states current FRAP law:
Originally Posted by Montana State Law Code
61-8-605. Riding on roadways.
(1) As used in this section: (a) "laned roadway" means a roadway that is divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for vehicular traffic; and
(b) "roadway" means that portion of a highway improved, designed, or ordinarily used for vehicular travel, including the paved shoulder.
(2) A person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable except when:
(a) overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction;
(b) preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway; or
(c) necessary to avoid a condition that makes it unsafe to continue along the right side of the roadway, including but not limited to a fixed or moving object, parked or moving vehicle, pedestrian, animal, surface hazard, or a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and another vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.
(3) A person operating a bicycle upon a one-way highway with two or more marked traffic lanes may ride as close to the left side of the roadway as practicable.
(4) Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway shall ride in single file except when:
(a) riding on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles;
(b) overtaking and passing another bicycle;
(c) riding on a paved shoulder or in a parking lane, in which case the persons may ride two abreast; or
(d) riding within a single lane on a laned roadway with at least two lanes in each direction, in which case the persons may ride two abreast if they do not impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic more than they would otherwise impede traffic by riding single file and in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.
(5) A bicycle, as defined in 61-8-102(2)(b)(ii), is excluded from the provisions of subsections (2) and (3).
(1) As used in this section: (a) "laned roadway" means a roadway that is divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for vehicular traffic; and
(b) "roadway" means that portion of a highway improved, designed, or ordinarily used for vehicular travel, including the paved shoulder.
(2) A person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable except when:
(a) overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction;
(b) preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway; or
(c) necessary to avoid a condition that makes it unsafe to continue along the right side of the roadway, including but not limited to a fixed or moving object, parked or moving vehicle, pedestrian, animal, surface hazard, or a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and another vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.
(3) A person operating a bicycle upon a one-way highway with two or more marked traffic lanes may ride as close to the left side of the roadway as practicable.
(4) Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway shall ride in single file except when:
(a) riding on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles;
(b) overtaking and passing another bicycle;
(c) riding on a paved shoulder or in a parking lane, in which case the persons may ride two abreast; or
(d) riding within a single lane on a laned roadway with at least two lanes in each direction, in which case the persons may ride two abreast if they do not impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic more than they would otherwise impede traffic by riding single file and in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.
(5) A bicycle, as defined in 61-8-102(2)(b)(ii), is excluded from the provisions of subsections (2) and (3).
Riding on roadways.
(1) As used in this section: (a) "laned roadway" means a roadway that is divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for vehicular traffic; and
(b) "roadway" means that portion of a highway improved, designed, or ordinarily used for vehicular travel, including the parking lane and paved shoulder.
(2) A person operating a bicycle upon a laned roadway with a speed limit of 25-mph or less is strongly encouraged to make full use of the right most traffic lane and ride such that:
(a) they do not ride to the far right inside the lane where their travel line may intersect with the opening of doors on the street side of parked cars or may tempt another vehicle besides another bicycle to attempt to pass them within the same lane;
(b) they are riding in the the main lane not the parking lane or paved shoulder;
(c) they do not attempt to share the lane with another vehicle side by side except another bicycle;
(d) they do if practical leave sufficient room for another bicycle to safely pass them within the same lane;
(e) this strong encouragement for a person operating a bicycle to make full use of the the right most traffic lane in the manner indicated upon a roadway with a speed limit of 25-mph or less shall not be construed to make liable a person riding a bicycle as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable if doing so is a contributing factor to a collision, but does strongly encourage against such on roadways with a speed limit of 25-mph or less for that specific reason.
(3) A person operating a bicycle upon a roadway with a posted speed limit of greater then 25-mph at less than 75% the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing is not required to ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable but is strongly encouraged to do so when practicable in consideration for other road users.
(4) A person operating a bicycle upon a one-way highway may alternately if they so choose ride as close to the left side of the roadway as practicable instead of the right side when practicable in consideration for other road users.
(5) Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway shall ride in single file except when passing another bicycle or when riding within a single lane on a laned roadway where two bicycles may riding side by side within the single marked lane.
(6) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to indicate that a person operating bicycles on a roadway is required to share a marked lane side by side with any other vehicle except another bicycle.
(7) Where a person operating a bicycle on a roadway chooses to ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable out of consideration for other road users as strongly encouraged in the provision of subsection (3) they are strongly encouraged to ride to the right of the main traffic lane or to the right of the white fog line in the parking lane or paved shoulder so they are not sharing a lane side by side with other vehicles except another bicycle.
(8) Where a person operating a bicycle on a roadway chooses to ride to the right of the main traffic lane or to the right of the white fog line in the parking lane or paved shoulder where they are riding shall be legally deemed to be a bicycle lane while they are using it by their choice to use it as such and they shall be have all the responsibilities and privileges of a marked traffic lane including the same yielding responsibilities and right of way privileges as adjacent marked travel lanes.
(9) A person operating a bicycle on the the roadway in such a manner as to be habitually and repeatably in conflict with the portions of this chapter that are strongly encouraged but not mandated may be required by court order to attend cycling classes that are in accordance with the provisions of this section and all other traffic laws but cannot be subjected to any other penalties criminal or civil for such conflicts, and such court orders shall be reserved by judicial prudence only for the worst offenders who have an attitude of not caring about anyone but themselves and having no consideration for others.
(1) As used in this section: (a) "laned roadway" means a roadway that is divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for vehicular traffic; and
(b) "roadway" means that portion of a highway improved, designed, or ordinarily used for vehicular travel, including the parking lane and paved shoulder.
(2) A person operating a bicycle upon a laned roadway with a speed limit of 25-mph or less is strongly encouraged to make full use of the right most traffic lane and ride such that:
(a) they do not ride to the far right inside the lane where their travel line may intersect with the opening of doors on the street side of parked cars or may tempt another vehicle besides another bicycle to attempt to pass them within the same lane;
(b) they are riding in the the main lane not the parking lane or paved shoulder;
(c) they do not attempt to share the lane with another vehicle side by side except another bicycle;
(d) they do if practical leave sufficient room for another bicycle to safely pass them within the same lane;
(e) this strong encouragement for a person operating a bicycle to make full use of the the right most traffic lane in the manner indicated upon a roadway with a speed limit of 25-mph or less shall not be construed to make liable a person riding a bicycle as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable if doing so is a contributing factor to a collision, but does strongly encourage against such on roadways with a speed limit of 25-mph or less for that specific reason.
(3) A person operating a bicycle upon a roadway with a posted speed limit of greater then 25-mph at less than 75% the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing is not required to ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable but is strongly encouraged to do so when practicable in consideration for other road users.
(4) A person operating a bicycle upon a one-way highway may alternately if they so choose ride as close to the left side of the roadway as practicable instead of the right side when practicable in consideration for other road users.
(5) Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway shall ride in single file except when passing another bicycle or when riding within a single lane on a laned roadway where two bicycles may riding side by side within the single marked lane.
(6) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to indicate that a person operating bicycles on a roadway is required to share a marked lane side by side with any other vehicle except another bicycle.
(7) Where a person operating a bicycle on a roadway chooses to ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable out of consideration for other road users as strongly encouraged in the provision of subsection (3) they are strongly encouraged to ride to the right of the main traffic lane or to the right of the white fog line in the parking lane or paved shoulder so they are not sharing a lane side by side with other vehicles except another bicycle.
(8) Where a person operating a bicycle on a roadway chooses to ride to the right of the main traffic lane or to the right of the white fog line in the parking lane or paved shoulder where they are riding shall be legally deemed to be a bicycle lane while they are using it by their choice to use it as such and they shall be have all the responsibilities and privileges of a marked traffic lane including the same yielding responsibilities and right of way privileges as adjacent marked travel lanes.
(9) A person operating a bicycle on the the roadway in such a manner as to be habitually and repeatably in conflict with the portions of this chapter that are strongly encouraged but not mandated may be required by court order to attend cycling classes that are in accordance with the provisions of this section and all other traffic laws but cannot be subjected to any other penalties criminal or civil for such conflicts, and such court orders shall be reserved by judicial prudence only for the worst offenders who have an attitude of not caring about anyone but themselves and having no consideration for others.
It is made very clear that on roadways with 25-mph or lower speed limits bicycles not only are not required to ride FRAP they are actually encouraged to "take the lane". I personally always take the lane in such situations except for the very limited exception where sometimes when I'm climbing a big hill that slows me down to below 15-mph I will FRAP out of consideration for other road users. Otherwise on 25-mph or slower speed limit roads I see absolutely no reason to FRAP and think it is far safer for me not to do so and instead ride like I was riding a motorcycle and I generally get much better respect and equal treatment from other road users by doing so.
It is very important to protect the road privileges of cyclists when they do choose to by considerate to other road users and do them a favor by riding FRAP by ensuring that if they do choose to ride to the right of the white line on the shoulder edge that shoulder edge becomes a legal bicycle lane just by their choice to use it as such and because it is now a legal travel lane they have legal protection and recourse from other road users trying to side-swipe, right-hook, or otherwise fail to respect the right of way of another legal travel lane. This is how I personally ride on high speed roadways where there is a shoulder edge to the right of the white fog line that is of sufficient width and surface condition to be a safe, effective, and efficient place for me to travel without unnecessary aggravating other faster road users. I really wish that there was a "if he is using the shoulder edge as a bicycle lane, then legally that is what it is" provision in the law to make my legal standing clear when I ride that way out of consideration for other road users. There is no reason why I should be put in legal limbo by trying to be nice.
Since a law worded as I have suggested does allow cyclists to make an @$$ out of themselves if they don't have any consideration for other road users some provision for dealing with that potential needs to be in place. That is the only reason section (9) is in there. Long story short, if you decide to make a total @$$ out of yourself and never FRAP even when you can safely and effectively do so on high speed roadways and insist on aggravating other road users for no good reason then they can make you take safe cycling classes. The same being true if you insist on riding FRAP and curb hugging and riding in the door zone on low speed roads where doing so endangers yourself and pedestrians and creates unnecessary conflicts with other road users.
Last edited by turbo1889; 08-11-13 at 03:28 AM.
08-11-13, 03:37 AM
#16
Transportation Cyclist
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Montana U.S.A.
Posts: 1,206
Bikes: Too many to list, some I built myself including the frame. I "do" ~ Human-Only-Pedal-Powered-Cycles, Human-Electric-Hybrid-Cycles, Human-IC-Hybrid-Cycles, and one Human-IC-Electric-3way-Hybrid-Cycle
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
As to passing over the double yellow line. In my state there is already a law in the main motor vehicle section that allows for passing bicycles, slow moving vehicles (defined as vehicles other then bicycle that are not capable of traveling more then 35-mph) and farm machinery over a double yellow line when safe to do so without conflicting with oncoming traffic and with extra care and caution by the person passing being required. I understand that some states don't have a provision for that but that isn't a problem with the bicycle laws its a problem with not having such a provision in the main vehicular law code.
08-11-13, 06:49 AM
#17
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Nashville TN
Posts: 794
Bikes: Trek 7.3FX, Diamondback Edgewood hybrid, KHS Montana
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Page 105 of the Tennessee Driver's Handbook (study guide for those wanting to acquire a TN driver's License) states our FRAP law about as cleanly as I've seen.
Lane Positions for Bicycles
Bicyclists are required to ride as far right in the lane as possible only when a car and a bicycle, side by side, can safely
share the lane. Even then, there are certain times when a bicycle can take the full lane.
That's not the way the law is written. It's written the opposite way, stating bicycles must ride FRAP then lists a laundry list of exceptions. IMHO, stating a position, then burdening it down with a long list of exceptions is the main source of the confusion, particularly when it could be stated much more simply.
Lane Positions for Bicycles
Bicyclists are required to ride as far right in the lane as possible only when a car and a bicycle, side by side, can safely
share the lane. Even then, there are certain times when a bicycle can take the full lane.
That's not the way the law is written. It's written the opposite way, stating bicycles must ride FRAP then lists a laundry list of exceptions. IMHO, stating a position, then burdening it down with a long list of exceptions is the main source of the confusion, particularly when it could be stated much more simply.
Last edited by FenderTL5; 08-11-13 at 06:54 AM.
08-11-13, 07:58 AM
#18
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 477
Bikes: 2010 Trek FX 7.5, 2011 Trek 2.1
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Ohio has a similar law that states it is legal to pass slow moving vehicles in a no passing zone as long as it is safe to do so.
08-11-13, 08:53 AM
#19
genec
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
"(2) bicyclists have to ride as far right as practicable" is subject to interpretation. So if you ride in the middle of the lane or left of centre for the purpose of forcing vehicles to properly change lanes because lane-sharing is dangerous, then riding in the middle or on the left is AFRAP.
All Traffic Acts should illegalize lane-sharing. Motorcycles don't share lanes, they ride scattered. They ride in the block position to block motorist from entering their lane in a dangerous position. Why should a motorist share lanes with a cyclist?
All Traffic Acts should illegalize lane-sharing. Motorcycles don't share lanes, they ride scattered. They ride in the block position to block motorist from entering their lane in a dangerous position. Why should a motorist share lanes with a cyclist?
08-11-13, 09:00 AM
#20
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Nashville TN
Posts: 794
Bikes: Trek 7.3FX, Diamondback Edgewood hybrid, KHS Montana
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I've wondered if the lane sharing, 'share the road' language coupled with the language that bicycles have the same rights and responsibilities would actually legitimize lane splitting for a cyclist. Every time a car passes a bicycle, in the same lane, they are lane splitting. To me, that could open the door that a bicycle can pass, the slower moving (or stopped) car in legal pass to the left of the slower moving vehicle, within the lane. Why not?
08-11-13, 09:03 AM
#21
genec
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
As to the original point the OP was trying to make. In principle I would agree but one does need to realize that motorists are not unique in selfish "road hog" behavior without the slightest regard for others.
This is my states current FRAP law:
If I could write the laws to be whatever I wanted this is what I would write as a replacement for that (my states FRAP) law:
Writing the law that way stresses not that bicycles are second class vehicles but rather encourages them to to ride to the right of significantly faster moving traffic out of consideration for other road users when it is practicable to do so. Thus bicyclists still retain the same road privileges as other vehicles and their choice to ride to the right is not seen as an obligation but rather a choice based on consideration for other road users. We have no responsibility to "get out of the way" but we are encouraged to do other road users a favor out of consideration for them when we can practicably do so without significantly endangering ourselves or reducing our ability to effectively and efficiently travel.
It is made very clear that on roadways with 25-mph or lower speed limits bicycles not only are not required to ride FRAP they are actually encouraged to "take the lane". I personally always take the lane in such situations except for the very limited exception where sometimes when I'm climbing a big hill that slows me down to below 15-mph I will FRAP out of consideration for other road users. Otherwise on 25-mph or slower speed limit roads I see absolutely no reason to FRAP and think it is far safer for me not to do so and instead ride like I was riding a motorcycle and I generally get much better respect and equal treatment from other road users by doing so.
It is very important to protect the road privileges of cyclists when they do choose to by considerate to other road users and do them a favor by riding FRAP by ensuring that if they do choose to ride to the right of the white line on the shoulder edge that shoulder edge becomes a legal bicycle lane just by their choice to use it as such and because it is now a legal travel lane they have legal protection and recourse from other road users trying to side-swipe, right-hook, or otherwise fail to respect the right of way of another legal travel lane. This is how I personally ride on high speed roadways where there is a shoulder edge to the right of the white fog line that is of sufficient width and surface condition to be a safe, effective, and efficient place for me to travel without unnecessary aggravating other faster road users. I really wish that there was a "if he is using the shoulder edge as a bicycle lane, then legally that is what it is" provision in the law to make my legal standing clear when I ride that way out of consideration for other road users. There is no reason why I should be put in legal limbo by trying to be nice.
Since a law worded as I have suggested does allow cyclists to make an @$$ out of themselves if they don't have any consideration for other road users some provision for dealing with that potential needs to be in place. That is the only reason section (9) is in there. Long story short, if you decide to make a total @$$ out of yourself and never FRAP even when you can safely and effectively do so on high speed roadways and insist on aggravating other road users for no good reason then they can make you take safe cycling classes. The same being true if you insist on riding FRAP and curb hugging and riding in the door zone on low speed roads where doing so endangers yourself and pedestrians and creates unnecessary conflicts with other road users.
This is my states current FRAP law:
If I could write the laws to be whatever I wanted this is what I would write as a replacement for that (my states FRAP) law:
Writing the law that way stresses not that bicycles are second class vehicles but rather encourages them to to ride to the right of significantly faster moving traffic out of consideration for other road users when it is practicable to do so. Thus bicyclists still retain the same road privileges as other vehicles and their choice to ride to the right is not seen as an obligation but rather a choice based on consideration for other road users. We have no responsibility to "get out of the way" but we are encouraged to do other road users a favor out of consideration for them when we can practicably do so without significantly endangering ourselves or reducing our ability to effectively and efficiently travel.
It is made very clear that on roadways with 25-mph or lower speed limits bicycles not only are not required to ride FRAP they are actually encouraged to "take the lane". I personally always take the lane in such situations except for the very limited exception where sometimes when I'm climbing a big hill that slows me down to below 15-mph I will FRAP out of consideration for other road users. Otherwise on 25-mph or slower speed limit roads I see absolutely no reason to FRAP and think it is far safer for me not to do so and instead ride like I was riding a motorcycle and I generally get much better respect and equal treatment from other road users by doing so.
It is very important to protect the road privileges of cyclists when they do choose to by considerate to other road users and do them a favor by riding FRAP by ensuring that if they do choose to ride to the right of the white line on the shoulder edge that shoulder edge becomes a legal bicycle lane just by their choice to use it as such and because it is now a legal travel lane they have legal protection and recourse from other road users trying to side-swipe, right-hook, or otherwise fail to respect the right of way of another legal travel lane. This is how I personally ride on high speed roadways where there is a shoulder edge to the right of the white fog line that is of sufficient width and surface condition to be a safe, effective, and efficient place for me to travel without unnecessary aggravating other faster road users. I really wish that there was a "if he is using the shoulder edge as a bicycle lane, then legally that is what it is" provision in the law to make my legal standing clear when I ride that way out of consideration for other road users. There is no reason why I should be put in legal limbo by trying to be nice.
Since a law worded as I have suggested does allow cyclists to make an @$$ out of themselves if they don't have any consideration for other road users some provision for dealing with that potential needs to be in place. That is the only reason section (9) is in there. Long story short, if you decide to make a total @$$ out of yourself and never FRAP even when you can safely and effectively do so on high speed roadways and insist on aggravating other road users for no good reason then they can make you take safe cycling classes. The same being true if you insist on riding FRAP and curb hugging and riding in the door zone on low speed roads where doing so endangers yourself and pedestrians and creates unnecessary conflicts with other road users.
In some states, motorists are not even required to take driving classes... and only have to pass the easiest tests to get a license.
So change the laws... now how do you convince the driving public that they are wrong and need to adhere to new laws?
I have yet to see anyone come up with a proposal to answer that "education" issue. Forester has been harping about this same stuff for years... to take away the AFRAP laws to give cyclists the same rights as motorists... of course Forester believes motorists know the laws and obey them. But no one has figured out how to tell the driving public... the same public that believes they pay "road taxes" and own the road, that in fact they they do not own the road.
08-11-13, 10:00 AM
#22
Transportation Cyclist
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Montana U.S.A.
Posts: 1,206
Bikes: Too many to list, some I built myself including the frame. I "do" ~ Human-Only-Pedal-Powered-Cycles, Human-Electric-Hybrid-Cycles, Human-IC-Hybrid-Cycles, and one Human-IC-Electric-3way-Hybrid-Cycle
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
@ genec
Willful ignorance of the rules of the road is not unique to motorists alone, based on their actions the majority of cyclists in my area at least also need some rather drastic education. The only solution I can see is to make it much harder to get a drivers license and require extensive knowledge of the rules of the road via SAT type test (mainly online but for those who have no computer offer written versions as well) for both initial application and all renewals (don't grandfather in any existing non-commercial drivers licenses). Make it an open book type test with the indexed vehicular code available without a search function and use randomly sparsed questions (so that every test has different questions and you can't get cheat sheets) making sure to cover key topics (such a cyclists equal right to the road and driving on the right side of the road and not hitting stuff right in front of you and the speed limit actually is as fast as you are supposed to drive and no you can't cut a blind left corner tight by going into the oncoming lane to save yourself a half second of driving time and risk a head on collision at speed and someone else life in the process) so that in order to pass the test they end up having to actually manually search through at least most of it to find the answers. Put radio, TV, and net. advertisements out warning that the standards have been tightened up and people need to go online and start working on the test well before their drivers license is up for renewal because it might take them a while as in many days of study.
At least then they wouldn't be able to claim ignorance which although most certainly not get us where we need to go would certainly make a good initial dent in what needs to be done. With the license renewal time spans that would take about four years to work through the back-log of current drivers on the roads and get them up to the point where they really couldn't claim ignorance. Then you can work on every tightening enforcement and you might be able to clean up our roads and cut the blood shed down to 10% of what it is today in 10 years (4+ years of dealing with the ignorance problem and then 6+ years of ever tightening enforcement with some overlap between the two). Yes, it would be a big thing to tackle and in the short run it would make for a lot of temper tantrums but in the long run it would be more then worth it. Just like raising kids, if you go through the younger years and stay strong and discipline them and don't let them be spoiled little brats then it pays out in the long run once they are teens and then adults but if you don't stay strong in the younger years and do let them be spoiled selfish brats then you got really big problems once they are as big or bigger then you are. Same kind of principle, think long term, dealing with the spoiled brats throwing tantrums in the short run is worth the potential culture change possible in the long run.
Once you spend at least part of that first decade setting the ground work for a culture change and getting the ball rolling then I suggest that all new drivers should have to start out with vehicles that have the least potential danger to others if operated recklessly and negligently and that operators must prove significant safe driving experience before they can get their drivers license upgraded to cover the operation of faster, larger, and heavier and thus potentially more dangerous to others if misused vehicles. Everyone should have to start out with slow, small, light weight vehicle and prove they can handle that without endangering others before they can operate anything worse. Take that out to its logical conclusion and eventually you come to a point where anyone driving a car started out riding a bike and know what its like to be on the other end of the equation because they lived it. That drastic of a culture change would probably take a couple decades at least to accomplish by no reason why we can't get started today.
Willful ignorance of the rules of the road is not unique to motorists alone, based on their actions the majority of cyclists in my area at least also need some rather drastic education. The only solution I can see is to make it much harder to get a drivers license and require extensive knowledge of the rules of the road via SAT type test (mainly online but for those who have no computer offer written versions as well) for both initial application and all renewals (don't grandfather in any existing non-commercial drivers licenses). Make it an open book type test with the indexed vehicular code available without a search function and use randomly sparsed questions (so that every test has different questions and you can't get cheat sheets) making sure to cover key topics (such a cyclists equal right to the road and driving on the right side of the road and not hitting stuff right in front of you and the speed limit actually is as fast as you are supposed to drive and no you can't cut a blind left corner tight by going into the oncoming lane to save yourself a half second of driving time and risk a head on collision at speed and someone else life in the process) so that in order to pass the test they end up having to actually manually search through at least most of it to find the answers. Put radio, TV, and net. advertisements out warning that the standards have been tightened up and people need to go online and start working on the test well before their drivers license is up for renewal because it might take them a while as in many days of study.
At least then they wouldn't be able to claim ignorance which although most certainly not get us where we need to go would certainly make a good initial dent in what needs to be done. With the license renewal time spans that would take about four years to work through the back-log of current drivers on the roads and get them up to the point where they really couldn't claim ignorance. Then you can work on every tightening enforcement and you might be able to clean up our roads and cut the blood shed down to 10% of what it is today in 10 years (4+ years of dealing with the ignorance problem and then 6+ years of ever tightening enforcement with some overlap between the two). Yes, it would be a big thing to tackle and in the short run it would make for a lot of temper tantrums but in the long run it would be more then worth it. Just like raising kids, if you go through the younger years and stay strong and discipline them and don't let them be spoiled little brats then it pays out in the long run once they are teens and then adults but if you don't stay strong in the younger years and do let them be spoiled selfish brats then you got really big problems once they are as big or bigger then you are. Same kind of principle, think long term, dealing with the spoiled brats throwing tantrums in the short run is worth the potential culture change possible in the long run.
Once you spend at least part of that first decade setting the ground work for a culture change and getting the ball rolling then I suggest that all new drivers should have to start out with vehicles that have the least potential danger to others if operated recklessly and negligently and that operators must prove significant safe driving experience before they can get their drivers license upgraded to cover the operation of faster, larger, and heavier and thus potentially more dangerous to others if misused vehicles. Everyone should have to start out with slow, small, light weight vehicle and prove they can handle that without endangering others before they can operate anything worse. Take that out to its logical conclusion and eventually you come to a point where anyone driving a car started out riding a bike and know what its like to be on the other end of the equation because they lived it. That drastic of a culture change would probably take a couple decades at least to accomplish by no reason why we can't get started today.
Last edited by turbo1889; 08-11-13 at 10:26 AM.
08-11-13, 10:25 AM
#23
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 775
Bikes: 2019 KonaLibre- 2003 Litespeed Vortex -2016 Intense Spider Factory Build -2008 Wilier Mortorolio- Specialized Stumpjumper Hardtail converted to bafang 750 mid drive -1986 Paramount 2014 - --- Pivot Mach 429c
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 43 Post(s)
Liked 15 Times
in
11 Posts
no
08-11-13, 10:31 AM
#24
Transportation Cyclist
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Montana U.S.A.
Posts: 1,206
Bikes: Too many to list, some I built myself including the frame. I "do" ~ Human-Only-Pedal-Powered-Cycles, Human-Electric-Hybrid-Cycles, Human-IC-Hybrid-Cycles, and one Human-IC-Electric-3way-Hybrid-Cycle
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
In addition there is such a thing as "Present tense active advocacy just by how you act right now while other people are watching (and even when you think they aren't watching)" a lot of cyclists especially don't seem to understand this concept. When you as a cyclist ride correctly in traffic and respect the rules of the road and other road users while also refusing to be intimidated or treated as a second class citizen that does have an effect over time. Cyclists acting like @$$es and being as bad or much worse then motorists also has an effect as well ~ in the opposite direction !!!
08-11-13, 10:58 AM
#25
Transportation Cyclist
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Montana U.S.A.
Posts: 1,206
Bikes: Too many to list, some I built myself including the frame. I "do" ~ Human-Only-Pedal-Powered-Cycles, Human-Electric-Hybrid-Cycles, Human-IC-Hybrid-Cycles, and one Human-IC-Electric-3way-Hybrid-Cycle
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Please understand I'm not against FRAP or bike lanes. I'm against their mis-use as a means of getting cyclists "the hell off the road and out of our way". Personally I do not foresee anytime reasonably soon in the future (as in, within a half century or less) where dedicated bicycle infrastructure could exist giving as much or more freedom of travel as the main vehicle roadways while being separate from them, not going to happen. If you want to ride a bike as actual transportation then your going to have to use the main vehicular roadways at least part if not the majority of the time.
Dedicated bicycle lanes can certainly be useful and even highly desirable if installed correctly on the kind of roadways that actually need them. They can also be extremely dangerous and inconvenient and aggrivate and reinforce motorists territorial hostility towards cyclists if installed incorrectly and/or on the wrong roadways. The exact same thing is true of FRAP. Unless you have all straight roads where you never need to take a left turn and vehicles will never be taking a right turn across your path absolute adherence to FRAP is never even possible much less practical or advisable. As to when and where both FRAP and correctly set up bicycle lanes are useful I've already made many posts about my thoughts on that and I'll just re-quote them here:
Dedicated bicycle lanes can certainly be useful and even highly desirable if installed correctly on the kind of roadways that actually need them. They can also be extremely dangerous and inconvenient and aggrivate and reinforce motorists territorial hostility towards cyclists if installed incorrectly and/or on the wrong roadways. The exact same thing is true of FRAP. Unless you have all straight roads where you never need to take a left turn and vehicles will never be taking a right turn across your path absolute adherence to FRAP is never even possible much less practical or advisable. As to when and where both FRAP and correctly set up bicycle lanes are useful I've already made many posts about my thoughts on that and I'll just re-quote them here:
Bike lanes do have a time and a place where they are appropriate if set up correctly, that is by no means everywhere or anyway:
#1 ~ When there is NOT "on street parking" to the right of the main traffic lane of any type or form.
----- ----- Bike lanes should never be built on roads with on street parking. On such roads bikes should use the main lanes and "take the lane."
----- ----- Any road with on street parking should never have a speed limit greater then 25mph for safety reasons regardless of bike presence or not.
#2 ~ On roadways where both the legal speed limit and the speed of heavy vehicle traffic normally exceeds 25mph cycle lanes do become appropriate in some situations.
----- ----- Bike lanes should never be built on roads with speeds of 25mph. or less. Bikes should use the main lanes and "take the lane" on such roads.
#3 ~ When both the legal speed limit and the speed of heavy vehicle traffic exceeds 45mph at sufficient traffic density properly set up bike lanes become highly desirable. Extra Especially on even higher speed roads or when the road has heavy full size vehicle traffic volumes and/or is windy enough or passing through hilly enough country that visibility is significantly reduced such that at the large speed differential between cycle traffic and heavy vehicle traffic, said heavy vehicles may not physically be able to see a cyclist ahead in the main traffic lane until they are so close that it would be difficult or impossible to slow down in time to avoid hitting the cyclist from the rear when rounding a curve or cresting the top of a hill.
In such cases where a bike lane is provided:
----- The bike lane(s) should NOT be the gutter.
----- The bike lane(s) should be paved and in no worse condition then any other travel lane.
----- The bike lane(s) should be at least 4-feet wide; preferably wider for a single bike lane.
----- The bike lane(s) should have a dividing zone between the bicycle lane and the main vehicle lanes consisting of two white fog lines at least a foot apart from each other to provide a little "elbow room" between the main lanes and the cycle lane. Not just a single white fog line as normal. Preferably shallow rounded edge rumble strips set down in twenty foot or so lengths with twenty foot lengths of empty space in-between them to allow cyclists to merge in and out of the cycle lane without having to ride on the rumble strips should be cut into the divider space between the two white lines. As I said these rumble strips should be cut shallow and with rounded edges so they can be ridden over without trouble by cyclists if need be, but they should be there to wake up wandering motorists who drift to the right into the cycle lane.
----- Should have a shoulder edge (does not have to be paved) to the right of the bike lane of sufficient width for stalled or wrecked heavy vehicles to be moved to without blocking the bike lane.
----- Like This (assume major high traffic 5-lane 45+mph highway + single bicycle lanes + gravel shoulder on each side):
When the bike lane is routed through a high speed U.S. type intersection:
----- The bike lane(s) should be properly routed through intersections so that straight through cycle traffic is NOT to the right of right turn only lanes and should be set up such that heavy vehicle traffic attempting to merge over into the right hand turn only lane has sufficient distance to do so safely without "right hooking" or side-swiping cyclists and pavement markings and signage should be clearly provided indicating that through traffic cyclist have right of way and right turning heavy vehicles must merge over safely and respectfully across the straight through cycle lane.
----- The bike lane(s) should be properly set up so that left turning cycle traffic may "double step, two straights with a loop in the middle on the island" a left hand turn if heavy vehicle traffic is too heavy to allow them to safely merge over into the main vehicular left hand turn lane of the intersection.
----- Like This (assume traffic light controlled intersection of two major high traffic 45+mph highways):
#1 ~ When there is NOT "on street parking" to the right of the main traffic lane of any type or form.
----- ----- Bike lanes should never be built on roads with on street parking. On such roads bikes should use the main lanes and "take the lane."
----- ----- Any road with on street parking should never have a speed limit greater then 25mph for safety reasons regardless of bike presence or not.
#2 ~ On roadways where both the legal speed limit and the speed of heavy vehicle traffic normally exceeds 25mph cycle lanes do become appropriate in some situations.
----- ----- Bike lanes should never be built on roads with speeds of 25mph. or less. Bikes should use the main lanes and "take the lane" on such roads.
#3 ~ When both the legal speed limit and the speed of heavy vehicle traffic exceeds 45mph at sufficient traffic density properly set up bike lanes become highly desirable. Extra Especially on even higher speed roads or when the road has heavy full size vehicle traffic volumes and/or is windy enough or passing through hilly enough country that visibility is significantly reduced such that at the large speed differential between cycle traffic and heavy vehicle traffic, said heavy vehicles may not physically be able to see a cyclist ahead in the main traffic lane until they are so close that it would be difficult or impossible to slow down in time to avoid hitting the cyclist from the rear when rounding a curve or cresting the top of a hill.
In such cases where a bike lane is provided:
----- The bike lane(s) should NOT be the gutter.
----- The bike lane(s) should be paved and in no worse condition then any other travel lane.
----- The bike lane(s) should be at least 4-feet wide; preferably wider for a single bike lane.
----- The bike lane(s) should have a dividing zone between the bicycle lane and the main vehicle lanes consisting of two white fog lines at least a foot apart from each other to provide a little "elbow room" between the main lanes and the cycle lane. Not just a single white fog line as normal. Preferably shallow rounded edge rumble strips set down in twenty foot or so lengths with twenty foot lengths of empty space in-between them to allow cyclists to merge in and out of the cycle lane without having to ride on the rumble strips should be cut into the divider space between the two white lines. As I said these rumble strips should be cut shallow and with rounded edges so they can be ridden over without trouble by cyclists if need be, but they should be there to wake up wandering motorists who drift to the right into the cycle lane.
----- Should have a shoulder edge (does not have to be paved) to the right of the bike lane of sufficient width for stalled or wrecked heavy vehicles to be moved to without blocking the bike lane.
----- Like This (assume major high traffic 5-lane 45+mph highway + single bicycle lanes + gravel shoulder on each side):
When the bike lane is routed through a high speed U.S. type intersection:
----- The bike lane(s) should be properly routed through intersections so that straight through cycle traffic is NOT to the right of right turn only lanes and should be set up such that heavy vehicle traffic attempting to merge over into the right hand turn only lane has sufficient distance to do so safely without "right hooking" or side-swiping cyclists and pavement markings and signage should be clearly provided indicating that through traffic cyclist have right of way and right turning heavy vehicles must merge over safely and respectfully across the straight through cycle lane.
----- The bike lane(s) should be properly set up so that left turning cycle traffic may "double step, two straights with a loop in the middle on the island" a left hand turn if heavy vehicle traffic is too heavy to allow them to safely merge over into the main vehicular left hand turn lane of the intersection.
----- Like This (assume traffic light controlled intersection of two major high traffic 45+mph highways):
Depends on conditions. Having the option to use either method and having the intersection deliberately set-up to accommodate either method so that the cyclist depending on conditions and skill level can use whichever of the two methods they choose is the ideal situation in my opinion.
What you call a "pedestrian style left" is what I refer to as a "double step, two straights with a stop-&-rotate or a loop in the middle left turn technique". When there is sufficient room to allow me to glide over to the left hand turn lane without impeding the flow of other traffic or putting myself in undue danger I most certainly do so and use the left hand turn lane like any other vehicle. But when its a double thick wall of high speed 45+ mph heavy vehicle traffic packed together like sardines in a can I don't dare try it and will go straight through the intersection and if there is no right hand turn lane I pop up on the curve and "off road ba-ha" a tight loop to put me into position to cross again with the other flow of traffic when the light changes and go straight through again and complete my left. Or in the case where there is a right hand turn lane on the opposite corner of the cross road I stop on the line between the right most straight through lane and the right hand turn lane and put my feet down and lift the bike between my legs and twist it 90-degrees and roll back slightly to put myself into position to cross as soon as the light changes. In fact there is one intersection where I have worn a loop path in the weeds on one corner because I have "off road ba-ha-ed" a loop on that corner so many times to make a left hand turn like that and I've seen a couple other cyclists use the path I wore into that corner to make the same kind of left hand turn there once I formed the path for that purpose by repeat use.
My proposed intersection layout accommodates this style of making a left hand turn by building a small loop into the right hand turn island on each corner of the intersection. If you noticed the through lines show both options available on that intersection at the cyclists discretion. Here they are separated out:
I'm not saying I've got all the answers or that anything I come up with is close to perfect but I think I could do a lot better for combined accommodation than most of the stuff I've seen them implement as supposed bicycle infrastructure. More often then not where they do build bicycle lanes is where you don't need them (low speed in town traffic areas) and using them is more dangerous then using the regular traffic lanes and where they are needed (high speed roadways where we don't have a prayer of keeping up with heavy vehicle traffic) they don't implement them or they are very poorly set-up especially as to how they are routed through the intersections.
What you call a "pedestrian style left" is what I refer to as a "double step, two straights with a stop-&-rotate or a loop in the middle left turn technique". When there is sufficient room to allow me to glide over to the left hand turn lane without impeding the flow of other traffic or putting myself in undue danger I most certainly do so and use the left hand turn lane like any other vehicle. But when its a double thick wall of high speed 45+ mph heavy vehicle traffic packed together like sardines in a can I don't dare try it and will go straight through the intersection and if there is no right hand turn lane I pop up on the curve and "off road ba-ha" a tight loop to put me into position to cross again with the other flow of traffic when the light changes and go straight through again and complete my left. Or in the case where there is a right hand turn lane on the opposite corner of the cross road I stop on the line between the right most straight through lane and the right hand turn lane and put my feet down and lift the bike between my legs and twist it 90-degrees and roll back slightly to put myself into position to cross as soon as the light changes. In fact there is one intersection where I have worn a loop path in the weeds on one corner because I have "off road ba-ha-ed" a loop on that corner so many times to make a left hand turn like that and I've seen a couple other cyclists use the path I wore into that corner to make the same kind of left hand turn there once I formed the path for that purpose by repeat use.
My proposed intersection layout accommodates this style of making a left hand turn by building a small loop into the right hand turn island on each corner of the intersection. If you noticed the through lines show both options available on that intersection at the cyclists discretion. Here they are separated out:
I'm not saying I've got all the answers or that anything I come up with is close to perfect but I think I could do a lot better for combined accommodation than most of the stuff I've seen them implement as supposed bicycle infrastructure. More often then not where they do build bicycle lanes is where you don't need them (low speed in town traffic areas) and using them is more dangerous then using the regular traffic lanes and where they are needed (high speed roadways where we don't have a prayer of keeping up with heavy vehicle traffic) they don't implement them or they are very poorly set-up especially as to how they are routed through the intersections.