spare_wheel

seriously??? those look like standard 12 foot wide lanes with plenty of room for filtering or splitting.

JoeyBike

Same here. Chopped flat or dropped bars (my drop bars are actually slimmer profile than my chopped flats). Good luck blocking me. I can't recall ever being (attempted) blocked on purpose. I think motorists in NOLA are desensitized to cyclists daily actions to a great degree. No one here waits in a line of traffic on a bicycle. Zero to my knowledge. I certainly never see it happen.

spare_wheel

it tends to happen when it's a complete parking lot downtown because there have been accidents, a parade/protest, or when obama is visiting. and it's always some yahoo in a big suv or truck.

Sir Bikesalot

Strange timing of the lights to have this happen--it means there's no point driving faster than the bike anyway. I would just find a parallel street to drive on with better signal light timing.

Also I find it perfectly fine (as a driver and cyclist) to filter up the right side of traffic at stops.

JoeyBike

I would split that without a second thought. A little way up the road from his link and the road gets one of those "3rd Lanes" down the middle for turning traffic to get out of the flow while waiting for a break in oncoming traffic. Should be easy for passing motorists to just put two wheels in the center lane to get past any cyclist if they are nervous about the 3 foot law. When driving a car I use the entire 3rd lane to pass cyclists. When driving a car I prefer giving cyclists 6 to 10 feet and never seem to have a huge problem doing just that without getting all frosted about it. I only have to turn the steering wheel an extra half inch to do so - not much of a bother really.

Northwestrider

My thoughts ? Smile and say nothing or at least very little. He's your co worker. Unless you completely agree with him, he'll not be satisfied.

JoeyBike

+1. Best advice on this thread.

degnaw

Treating reds as stops is legal in Idaho, and 'dead red' laws generally only apply after several minutes. I'm also not aware of anywhere in Europe where Idaho-type laws apply.

spivonious

Leaving aside the red light jumping, it seems there are two schools of thought:

#1 . Don't re-pass unless the road is accommodating (cars can pass safely without waiting for an opening). Pull into traffic at red lights and breathe in exhaust. Risk being rear-ended and/or honked at when starting back up.

#2 . Filter to the front regardless of the road. If cars need to pass again and again, it's a faulty road design, and they should all be on bikes anyway.

work4bike

I'm always playing leap frog with the city buses, but not so much with cars, but I probably could if I also ran red lights, but I never would do that.

However, when the traffic is really heavy it's very easy to make much better time than cars; in that case they'd be lucky to play leap frog with a cyclists. I think they really envy us cyclists in those situations, but if the cyclists is seen running lights or some other blatant traffic violation, then that envy could easily turn to anger.

turbo1889

The only time I leap frog with cars is when I'm edge riding (usually on a decent width and condition shoulder edge to the right of the white line, but sometimes also on extra wide lanes that are wide enough for an automobile and bike to share side by side safely).

If I'm riding in the main traffic lane and not edge riding then I do not leap frog cars and filter up but rather hold my position in the Q.


This is not because I believe is is wrong to take the lane to prevent dangerous too close passes by automobiles and then filter up under the same conditions. It's not illegal (although in most cases not explicitly legal either) and the laws about too close passing and the right of cyclists and other vulnerable users to take the lane to prevent unsafe too close passing is about protecting vulnerable users from aggressive dangerous motorists. It's not about protecting motorists from being passed closely by cyclists (and if you actually go read such laws in the actual black and white wording that is exactly how they are written).

HOWEVER, I do consider it do be an extremely rude and "jerk" thing to do. Making the same motorists have to negotiate a difficult pass around you over and over again in short succession every few blocks if not every block is pretty disrespectful and "jerk" thing to do. It's one thing to hold your line and take the lane to prevent an unsafe pass in a narrow lane and/or a narrow road, something quite different to repeatably leapfrog them and make them do it all over again. Not only that its dangerous to you because that means you are being passed so many more times and thus increasing your odds of something going wrong on one of the passes. If on the other hand you hold your position in the Q once passed and stay behind them then often only a few of them will pass you before you get one behind you who is smarter then average and will hold a respectfully distance and stay behind you because they realize there is no point to racing up to the next red light and a steady pace with the same over all average speed such as a cyclist takes works just fine as well and they then act as a shield behind you for the most part preventing any more passing or ensuring you a full lane change vehicular pass with the passers passing you both together.

Not only that but there is the road rage issue. I don't know how it is where you guys ride but where I ride from a set of experiences I had one summer I found out that there is a 50/50 chance being such a "jerk" cyclist forcing motorists to leapfrog will result in one of the motorists in the group eventually going "nuclear" and engaging in road rage which at the very least consists of aggressive harassment such as belligerent honking, engine revving, attempted blocking and/or "brake check, try to make you run into the back of me" type behavior and can escalate up to attempted side-swiping or ramming. I found this out about a decade ago by riding with a gal who was a highly aggressive "traffic jammer" cyclist for a while who would regularly engage in this kind of "take the lane" blocking motorists and then "filter up" through them at the lights type behavior that resulted in repeated leapfrogging when going through towns. I eventually stopped riding with her despite the side benefits of doing so (which was why I was riding with her pretty much). Just wasn't worth the risk to my life.

JoeyBike

Exactly.

Thirty years ago a coworker was telling me how he was stuck on the Interstate due to an accident. He was parked for a couple of hours. Motorcycles soon started filtering past the mess. He related to me that he wanted so badly to throw his door open. He meant it in a hostile way too. I had to ask him "WTF DUDE!" It's a hundred degrees in the shade out there, exhaust fumes are thick, most motorcycles are air cooled, and that motor between their legs is adding to the insane baking of them just sitting there. Why on earth do you care if someone else is escaping the silly TRAP that you are in because you choose to drive a vehicle is the wrong shape? He felt that if he had to sit there so did they and they were breaking the law (it was illegal to split lanes back then and still is far as I know).

F people like that. Selfish, short sighted, narcissistic, @$$h@t$. If I were on a motorcycle in that situation I would be filtering and letting out a loud devilish laugh the whole while.

(I rode a motorcycle back then, so this is why he was telling me his sad tale)

Mr. Hairy Legs

Back when I was young(er) and (even more) ignorant, I sometimes got annoyed at motorcyclists cutting through jams like that. Now I totally appreciate it... A 2 foot wide vehicle is potentially so much more efficient than a 5-8 seater car/truck/SUV (with one person in it!) that they deserve every possible break, as long as safety is still considered.

Motorcycle filtering in Asian cities (Bangkok comes to mind) seems so perfectly natural and nobody gets worked up about it. North Americans seem to have this funny idea that we should all follow the same rules, which IMO is stupid and a huge waste of road space. Of course, the flipside is all the squids in cities like L.A. Flying between lanes on the I-5 like they really don't care if they live or die.

spare_wheel

In France, cyclists can run red lights legally | Grist

this program has been expanded to other parts of france.

spare_wheel

i leap past motorists but almost never frog. those of you who do not live in larger cities need to understand that by the time i arrive home, stow my bike, and pour a glass of provencal rose, 95% of the vehicles i leaped past are still stuck in traffic miles away.

wphamilton

It's this part that always makes me want to balk. I think I'm mindful of not making them pass me and I'll sometimes let a line of cars go so that I don't have to pass them again. So I'm not emphatic about it either way.

But when this comes up people tend to say that the cars "need to" pass again, or "have to" or we're "forcing cars" to pass again and again. It's just wrong, multiple levels wrong. Why is a car's "need" to pass me any different at all from my "need" to pass the car, over and over again? There is an equivalency here, and to put one over the other is to subjugate the cyclists as a second class road user.

It's no more an inconvenient for the driver than for the cyclist when he "has to" pass the cyclist again. If anything the cyclist has a greater stake there, since he's the one endangered by the pass. There is nothing to break the symmetry here

And it's purely a choice, not a need. There's no actual "need" for the pass to begin with! If at every stop light the cyclist passes him to the line, the driver is literally saving no time with his frequent passing. The only need is a psychological one, and that's more the driver's personal problem than something we need to be sensitive to.

So I always want to rephrase it. If you as the driver want to pass again and again, what is it gaining you and what do you actually lose if you choose to simply not pass? Some other car gets in front of you before you get to the light? I won't be confrontational, but if that's their problem the solution is "get over it."

turbo1889

That is completely understandable, and I've seen that kind of situation myself a time or two where automobile traffic was moving so slowly that a cyclist can get through town from one side to the other in half the time or less always filtering up and leaping but rarely playing the frog that is getting leaped.

I don't have a problem with that at all and certainly wouldn't put it into the "jerk cyclist" category. If motorists get upset with that its just because they are jealous and petty. Where as on the other hand when automobile traffic isn't jammed up that badly and both cyclist and automobile traffic are both moving at about the same pace and leap frogging where both parties are constantly playing both leaper and frog that can get rather aggravating for motorists and potentially dangerous for the cyclist. So, yes, I certainly do agree that the difference in the over all speed between the motorist and the cyclist is a critical factor.

Out on the open highway almost always motorists are the ones doing the leaping and the cyclist almost always plays frog. In heavy jammed up stop and go square block in town traffic then it can certainly work the other way around where unless the cyclist is really laid back and patient s/he is the one almost always doing the leaping and the motorists are the ones playing frog. Both of those situations for the most part work out just fine so long as both parties treat each other with a bare minimum of respect.

It's when both cyclists and automobile drivers are both moving at about the same over all pace in stop and go square grid in town traffic and the cyclist is filtering up and then being passed over and over by the same batch of motorists that things start to take on a full scale "Leap Frog" situation and the situation can rapidly deteriorate.


--------------------------------------------------------------


@ wphamilton

You make some very good points about it being a technical misnomer that motorist "have to pass" and that a slower moving (at least a the moment although over-all pace may be the same) cyclist is somehow forcing motorists to "have to pass" him/her. In a strictly technical sense that is certainly not true and the "Must pass all cyclists immediately !!!" attitude and standard of conduct among some motorists is a significant part of the problem on our roads today and we certainly shouldn't be promoting it.

You are correct that speed is a privilege not a right and should always be secondary to a basic respect for the safety of other innocent people on the public roadways. But at the same time in our culture and to a certain extent in our laws and rules of the road it is a highly respected privilege and is certainly not unique to motorists alone by an means. Most cyclists who consistently filter up and/or pass automobiles that are crawling along in a lane splitting manner and especially those that treat stop signs and even full on red lights as if they were yield signs (and some don't even yield !!!) if they are honest about it will acknowledge that at least in part they are also exercising a privilege of speed and it is not just about the risk issues of potentially being smacked from behind by an automobile if they hold their position in the Q or about the risk of inhaling exhaust fumes. Its at least partially (if not the majority) also about the privilege of speed with the cyclists as well.

Especially in the U.S.A. just about all of us want to get wherever we are going as fast as we possibly can and get annoyed when someone else slows us down. Our culture especially is like a pack of scurrying little ants all rushing around and sometimes clambering over each other. Not saying that such is the best idea, saying that is what it is.

So at least in our culture there is some level of acknowledgement that to be a decent member of our society with some level of respect for others you don't get in the way of other people and unnecessarily slow them down if you don't have too. If you do your labeled as being a jerk. While I don't totally buy into the idea, in a situation where I personally find it unnecessary to annoy others by needlessly getting in their way I do try to not do so. Granted I'm not going to be bullied and on a narrow two lane road which is not wide enough for an automobile to safely pass a cyclist with another automobile in the oncoming lane then I will take the lane and I will go that far into cutting across the cultural norm and may be considered by others as being a "jerk" doing so. But on the other hand in stop and go traffic if I were to continuously play "Leap Frog" with the automobile drivers constantly filtering up past them only to have them pass me over and over again I would consider myself to be being a "jerk" if I were to do that. In a situation like that someone has to be the adult in the room and I can't count on any of the motorist to be the one to do that so its got to be me.

And as I said usually after a half dozen or more motorists pass me I do often end up with one of them who is smarter then the rest who will stick behind me at a respectful distance realizing the futility of trying to pass me just in order to race up to the next red light. Which means that once I cull through the other idiots who just have to pass to find that one who can then serve as my rear shield I'm in pretty much the best and safest situation with them following behind me and sitting behind me when we make it up to the next red light stop serving as a rear shield for me. You have to let the majority population of idiots pass and cull through them in order to find those few smarter then normal motorists who will also realize the futility of racing up to the next red light and will hold pace with you covering your rear for you. They of course may not realize they are doing so but if they are smart enough to realize to futility of passing in order to race up to the next red light in order to sit and wait and maintain a respectful distance and don't try to climb up my rear that is all I ask and all they need to know to fulfill the greater purpose of serving as a rear shield for me in stop and go square grid in town traffic.

ItsJustMe

That's what I do as well. I don't pass cars stopped at a light. I may pull into line or perhaps just wait alongside. It would bug me to have to keep passing the same bike over and over.

PatrickGSR94

If there's tons of traffic in gridlock, you better believe I'm doing whatever I can on my bike to get past it. That's one of the joys of using a bike, being able to go and do things you can't do in cars. If there's just a few cars that wait at a light and it only takes a minute or two to get through, then yeah I'm using the lane and waiting in the lane just like everyone else.

Also someone mentioned bikes passing cars with the 3' clearance. There's a big difference there. When a car is passing a bike at less than 3' or possibly touching the bike, very bad things can happen. If a car is crawling or not moving in traffic, what difference does it make if the car passes with less than 3' of clearance? It makes no difference really.

ModeratedUser150120149

Maybe because in most places that is the law?

mrodgers

All but a half mile stretch of one where I live.