Bike lanes

[RocketsRedglare]

I know what you mean, there is a section of PCH (the miracle mile in Newport) where the Bike lane is there, but worthless. They tried to cram 4 lanes into a minimal space (harbor on oneside, hill on the other) Most of the time there are cars parked in it. Cyclists have no choice than to be in traffic in this case its probably best not to have a bike lane.

[Helmet Head]

It would have been a totally different scenario had there been a more effectife bike alne or no bike lane at all. Sadly (and I'm not trying to sound condescending) but I think one needs to be part of an accident to really understand that.
Maybe it's a personality thing. My parents say that I was the type of kid who, when told not to touch the stove because it's hot and will burn me, did not have to actually touch it to learn this firsthand. Similarly, I don't need to see my wife run into by a car in order to understand the dangerous problems with bike lanes. Sadly, too many people need to touch the stove and burn themselves, or actually experience a bike lane-caused collision, to begin to appreciate their respective dangers.

[larue]

Glad to hear your wife is doing good and that the situation with the driver is moving along.
As far as bike lanes go, I don't understand how people can be so extreme in either all bike lanes should go or all roads should have bike lanes. I think both bike lanes and wide lanes have appropriate uses.
In places where traffic speeds are high and where there are a large volume of cyclists I think bike lanes are more appropriate.
In places where traffic speeds are lower and general bicycle use is low then I think wide lanes work just fine.

Someone said bicycle lanes give a false sense of security, I disagree. Bike lanes CAN give a false sense of security but so can helmets, this doesn't mean all cyclists who wear helmets think they are immune to head injury. If anything it should be said that bike lanes attract new cyclists whereas wider lanes do not.

Bike lanes of course do have negative qualities as well. Such as with places where sidewalk riding is legal, drivers often assume you are supposed to stay in bike lanes only. Many bike lanes are badly designed and can make turning at intersections difficult.

In the end the only thing that keeps you safe is yourself. There are unsafe drivers and unsafe cyclists, neither of us are superior to the other.

[Helmet Head]

I like the idea of bike lanes.
What is "the idea of bike lanes" that you like? Seriously. Try to put it in words. if you manage to do so coherently, you'll be the first as far as I know.


I would rather take a chance in a bike line with lower risks than riding "vehicularly" and thrown in with a den of lions in the regularly flow of traffic, frustrating not only myself, but other motorists.
Well, if you see that as your only two choices, I can understand why you feel the way you do. A few points of clarification...


There is no evidence that shows there are lower risks riding in bike lanes than riding vehicularly.
The fact that you put "vehicularly" in quotes makes me wonder what you mean by it. What riding a bike vehicularly means is, riding on roadways in accordance with the vehicular rules of the road. Those rules dicates that between intersections, drivers of slower vehicles should keep to the side, and, that when a lane is wide enough to be safely shared side-by-side, it can be.
Picture any road with a bike lane. Now imagine that same road with the bike lane stripe erased. That's what we're talking about... so you have just as much room with or without the stripe.



The minute you get in any vehicle (car, boat, truck, bike) you assess and accept risks. It is up to the driver/rider/pilot to stay alert and anticipate that somebody is going to do something stupid, (such as pass you, and then cut you off, or open a door in front of you)
True enough.


in California we are lucky enough to have well defined bike lanes, that are essentially part of the street, and provide cyclist a safer alternative than riding in the street itself.
What makes you think the bike lanes "provide cyclist a safer alternative than riding in the street itself"? Specifically, what type of collisions do you think are prevented?


But like I mentioned above, a jackhole cyclist riding outside the bike lane, impeding the flow of motor traffic, is just as bad as the motorist that rides in a bike lane
Did you know that in CA motorists are legally required to merge into bike lanes before making right turns, and are allowed to do so up to two hundred feet prior to the turn? I suspect you didn't know that. As I said before, the rules for dealing with bike lanes are so complicated no one (except for a few geeks like me) really know and understand them. So, effectively, there are no rules, and that makes it very dangerous.

Anyway, I agree that a cyclist needlessly impeding the flow of traffic is not doing what he should be doing. In fact, such a cyclist would be violating the vehicular rules of the road, and, hence, would not be riding vehicularly (that's assuming the impeding of traffic is necessarily needless).

Serge

[Roody]

You're right. to an extent, it was the motorist fault. But I can't see gow the bike lane contributed to this. Sadly, he would have probably been hit anyway.

As I've mentioned before, there are a lot of very self absorbed people in SoCal. Santa Monica has some real gems. Last year a car ran through a few barricades and into a farmers market killing a vew people.I don't think you read the OP very carefully. For one thing, the he was a she! Also, the poster made it clear in the OP and in followup posts that his wife ("she") was clearly, obviously, patently not at fault. "She" was riding safely and legally in the bike lane. The motorist drifted into the bike lane twice, hitting the poor "woman" the second time.

C'mon man (or woman). Read the posts before you develop an opinion! Unless you are too self-absorbed, being from SoCal and all.

[CB HI]

Coming over a hill we had to decelerate and swerve into the left lane to avoid him, If there was another car in the left kane, It would have been the cyclist fault if we were involved in an accident. I should have said something, but that would have startled him and made the situation worse.

He just went on his own merry way, travelling outside the (once again) clearly defined, well maintained bike lane, oblivious to all.

I don't know what this guy's agenda was, but in my book, he is an *****.

So you were over-driving (driving too fast for) your ability to see conditions ahead. That is your fault and not the bicyclist.

Did you actually stop to inspect the bike lane and make sure there was no glass in it? I doubt it. Your anger at the bicyclist is not warranted.

[RocketsRedglare]

So you were over-driving (driving too fast for) your ability to see conditions ahead. That is your fault and not the bicyclist.
.

No I was doing the legal/posted speed limit. You don't really expect to see a cyclist 4 FEET into the highway


Did you actually stop to inspect the bike lane and make sure there was no glass in it? I doubt it. Your anger at the bicyclist is not warranted.

stop making excuses for the idiot. If there was glass on the BIKE LANE, i would have accepted that he had to avoid it. But as I said, he continues on his merry way three or 4 feet into the rode.

[RocketsRedglare]

I don't think you read the OP very carefully. For one thing, the he was a she! Also, the poster made it clear in the OP and in followup posts that his wife ("she") was clearly, obviously, patently not at fault. "She" was riding safely and legally in the bike lane. The motorist drifted into the bike lane twice, hitting the poor "woman" the second time.

C'mon man (or woman). Read the posts before you develop an opinion! Unless you are too self-absorbed, being from SoCal and all.

I read it, I tend to make lots of typos. If any one was self absorbed it was the cyclist riding like his SHE-at don't stink.

[RocketsRedglare]

What is "the idea of bike lanes" that you like? Seriously. Try to put it in words. if you manage to do so coherently, you'll be the first as far as I know.



Well, if you see that as your only two choices, I can understand why you feel the way you do. A few points of clarification...


There is no evidence that shows there are lower risks riding in bike lanes than riding vehicularly.
The fact that you put "vehicularly" in quotes makes me wonder what you mean by it. What riding a bike vehicularly means is, riding on roadways in accordance with the vehicular rules of the road. Those rules dicates that between intersections, drivers of slower vehicles should keep to the side, and, that when a lane is wide enough to be safely shared side-by-side, it can be.
Picture any road with a bike lane. Now imagine that same road with the bike lane stripe erased. That's what we're talking about... so you have just as much room with or without the stripe.




True enough.



What makes you think the bike lanes "provide cyclist a safer alternative than riding in the street itself"? Specifically, what type of collisions do you think are prevented?



Did you know that in CA motorists are legally required to merge into bike lanes before making right turns, and are allowed to do so up to two hundred feet prior to the turn? I suspect you didn't know that. As I said before, the rules for dealing with bike lanes are so complicated no one (except for a few geeks like me) really know and understand them. So, effectively, there are no rules, and that makes it very dangerous.

Anyway, I agree that a cyclist needlessly impeding the flow of traffic is not doing what he should be doing. In fact, such a cyclist would be violating the vehicular rules of the road, and, hence, would not be riding vehicularly (that's assuming the impeding of traffic is necessarily needless).

Serge

Were do I start with you. yes I knew that about bike lanes and cars. found out the hard way when I got that answer wrong on my written drivers test (that's a whole other story, some of those questions are so awkwardly phrase you have to read it 7 or eight times)

I like bike lanes. Aas I said I like the idea of even a nominal separation. And I hope the zealots out there don't screw that up. I would rather have a least a small amount of space between me and motor traffic. I can deal with cars merging. Is about being aware.

I've been in 2 major accidents. Both were on roads with no bike lanes (and I probaby wouldn't matter, anyway). One accident I clipped a car parked around a blind curve at 5 am in the morning. (DUI, the police failed to have the car impounded). The second accident occurred when my front wheel got caught in a storm grate that was installed in the wrong direction.

Cyclists get a bad rep from doing things that frustrate motorists. picture it this way: there is road with a 50 mph speed limit. 4 feet into that road is a cyclist doing 22 mph. Now all traffic has to slow down to accomoate this jackhole that should be in a bike lane most of which havet he same road surface and conditions. Its dangerous and It just doesn't make sense. Like I said its territorial pissing.

I'll give that urban riding is a little different. In most urban environments, a bike is better way of getting around than a car, and definately the place to advocate your vehicular cycling. Long stretches of high-speed highway isn't.

If there is a bike lane, there is simply no need to enter motor traffic unless you are making a turn or crossing an intersection to avoid motor traffic turning right. I can't say I've ever been lulled into a sence of false security. Ever since my friend's siste was killed by a drunk driver while cycling in a parking lot, I totally respect any environment that I'm in.

[CB HI]

Originally Posted by RocketsRedglare
I've been in 2 major accidents. Both were on roads with no bike lanes (and I probaby wouldn't matter, anyway). One accident I clipped a car parked around a blind curve at 5 am in the morning. (DUI, the police failed to have the car impounded). The second accident occurred when my front wheel got caught in a storm grate that was installed in the wrong direction.



Then why do you bring them up as examples of how bike lanes prevent accidents.

This time, you are riding your bicycle beyond your line of sight and safe distance.

With your attitude, I am glad I bicycle in another state than you drive and bicycle.

[RocketsRedglare]

Attitude, schmattitude. Merely bonding to reflect that I was in an accident. They are called that because the happen when You let your guard down for half a second and WHAM!

Cyclist can do their part from getting hurt by staying out of fast moving traffic WHEN THERE IS A CLEARLY DEFINED AND WELL MAINTAIN BIKE LANE. Christ, I learned my lessons, and I don't need some hardass to tell me otherwise.

I haven't been in an type of accident since 1988. I clipped a bouy with my racing shell (you want to talk about no sight lines) but no harm no foul.

[Roody]

Avatar, schmavatar. That blinking eyeball is freaking me out! I'm having an aura!

[Dchiefransom]

My concern about the bike lane is that this driver (who seems decent enough) had no "prompts" and the only time she would have been reminded that her practice was wrong was if she hit someone (which she unfortuantely did.

Does plain inattantiveness come into play, sure, but if you're speeding in a resedeintial area, there's speed bumps, pedestrain lanes are clearly marked, schools have cross walking guards, bike lanes have the words painted on them which I'm not even sure the averagedriver can read...

As far as charging the driver, well I'm off to get a police report but am really not sure what my options are from here outside getting coverage from whatever damages and that seriously doesn't seem enough after the scare that gave us.

Did the cops even write her a ticket? You might have left for the ER before you saw that, though. That's the question the poster was asking. My bet is she will never get a ticket for this if one wasn't already issued.

[Helmet Head]

RocketsRedGlare... I recommend you read at least two of the following three books, then we will be able to have a coherent conversation:


Effective Cycling by John Forester
Cyclecraft by John Franklin
Street Smarts (http://www.bikexprt.com/streetsmarts/index.htm) by John S. Allen.

[Daily Commute]

What about the "italiano" idiot I saw while I was driving on PCH in Newport Beach.

For some reason, he was riding well to the outside of a clearly defined and well maintained bike lane. Jackholes like this are the ones that frustrate motorists, and give cyclists a bad rep.
I think it's the cyclists who argue that we're all too incompetent to ride in traffic without special-needs lanes who give cyclists a bad name. If the bike lane were so great, why wasn't he in it? I'd ride in a well-designed, well-maintained bike lane on a street where it was needed. Seeing cyclists riding outside the lane is a sign that the lane failed one of those tests. We should all refuse to ride in any given bike lane unless it actually makes the road more cyclist-friendly.

And exactly how long did this cyclist slow you down? 10 seconds? 20 seconds? Or, Heaven forbid, an entire minute?

[bluejack]

Among the things that annoy me about the debate (that the title of this topic regrettably resurfaces) are the categorical statements that people tend to make about bike lanes.


The bike lane is not at fault it was the lady drivers actions of not staying allert which is very common with cagers
Well, this instance sounds like a poorly designed bike lane. Not all bike lanes are poorly designed, but the ones that are, can be hazardous. In Seattle we have several bike lanes which are lanes between traffic and a line of parked cars. I treat these very cautiously, because the space seems to invite insanity. People in parked cars throw their doors wide open without any caution; drivers eager for a rare spot swerve into the lane on impulse, without checking for cyclists, jaywalkers and people returning to their cars leap into the zone with less-than-usual alertness. Sure, these are all the consequence of poor choices on the part of non-cyclists, but as bluebottle1 said (very smart!) "The one who needs to be the most alert is the one most likely to get hurt." Nice rhyme, too. If a poorly designed bike lane leads to more careless behavior on the part of non-cyclists, which in turn puts cyclists at risk, then that bike lane is a hazard, whether it should be, in theory, or not.

On the other hand, there's good old Serge.


Bike lanes must go because there are no consistent/reasonable/rational rules governing their use. Somes states (like CA) make a valiant effort, but the result is so complicated that even law enforcement officers, judges and traffic school instructors generally do not understand them, much less the average motorist and cyclist.
The folks who hate bike lanes, appear to hate all bike lanes. They use the examples of bad bike lanes, unnecessary lanes on low-volume streets, improperly designed bike lanes on high volume streets, and a number of rather dubious references, as well as a basic theory that personally I find unconvincing to argue that all bike lanes are dangerous. They use this alleged confusion on the part of officials and the public to make the case that they should be banned -- rather than fixed.

My experience is that some bike lanes are well designed: they give cyclists space, right of way, and navigational choices that would otherwise be mere chaos, while the bad bike lanes merely add to the chaos. Rather than insisting that bike lanes are evil (or great), I would be most interested in a survey of what makes some bike lanes good, and some bad; and then a press for standardization of all bike lanes based on the improved knowledge.

So, to properly sit on the fence, I agree with the original poster that this is not a good bike lane (if it allows cars to drive on one side and park on the other); AND I agree with those who say the driver was at fault. Even bad bike lanes offer a little added protection to cyclists from considerate, alert, attentive drivers. Obviously, though, they are not the problem.

[noisebeam]

No I was doing the legal/posted speed limit. You don't really expect to see a cyclist 4 FEET into the highway

Speed limits are exactly that - a limit. Many folks don't realize that one should not drive faster than the conditions allow for and in some circumstances can be cited for excessive speed even if traveling below the speed limit (i.e. going 55mph in an ice storm on a 55mph posted road, traveling 30mph on a 30mph road that is very busy with pedestrian and car traffic due to say an event) This also means slowing down at intersections and even on curves or blind hills even when not posted.

One thing I don't quite understand is that if you crested a hill then saw the cyclist, it sounds like they were going downhill. Maybe they were going fast enough (for them) that traveling at that speed in the BL was not safe (in their mind).

But like you said they could have been an idiot - you have the best knowledge of the incident.

Al

[RocketsRedglare]

You know, I'm tired of defending myself, and having you guys defending somebody that was obviously greating a hazard. I ride that section of PCH almost every other day. The bike lane is about 8 feet wide and is the exact same surface as the motor lanes, and generally clear of hazards. When I ride it I tend to stay to the right, and I still have seven feet in case of hazards.

I've been on these boards for about a month, And I learn alot, but what really bothers me is that half of you guys are so perfect, that you can't comprehend that cyclists do anything wrong. Yet all I hear are stories about being called names, and confrontations with motorists. Its one thing to stand up for your rights. Its another thing to be wrong.

I haven't had a motorist yell at me in over 15 years. No even a "******" from passing rednecks. The last "confrontation" I had was with a 8 year old's mom whose kid threw a skateboard in front of me (and she was very polite). Or a punkass who intentionaly step in front of me to force a confrontation.

You wonder why cyclists get such a bad rep. Its because SOME of you guys have a my SH!T can't possible stink attitude. What a bunch of tools.

[Helmet Head]

On the other hand, there's good old Serge.

...

The folks who hate bike lanes, appear to hate all bike lanes. They use the examples of bad bike lanes, unnecessary lanes on low-volume streets, improperly designed bike lanes on high volume streets, and a number of rather dubious references, as well as a basic theory that personally I find unconvincing to argue that all bike lanes are dangerous. They use this alleged confusion on the part of officials and the public to make the case that they should be banned -- rather than fixed.
You're ignoring my point. Regardless of what "fixing" bike lanes means, let's assume it's possible, just for a moment. Okay (hold breath) so you "fix" all the "poorly designed" bike lanes but you still haven't even addressed, much less resolved, the problem I raised: the rules governing bike lane use are so complicated and confusing that almost no one understands what they are (exhale). No matter how "good" the design of some bike lane, if cyclists and motorists do not understand the rules governing its use, particularly at intersections, can it really be good?


My experience is that some bike lanes are well designed: they give cyclists space, right of way, and navigational choices that would otherwise be mere chaos, ...
The implication here is that there are some roads without bike lanes where instead of "space, right of way, and navigational choices" all cyclists have are "mere chaos". I'm sorry my friend, but I've never seen such a road, find it impossible to imagine, and I've even been to Seattle (albeit it was a short visit many years ago, and I didn't ride my bike). Giving you the benefit of the doubt, perhaps you could describe such a road?


Rather than insisting that bike lanes are evil (or great), I would be most interested in a survey of what makes some bike lanes good, and some bad; and then a press for standardization of all bike lanes based on the improved knowledge.
I've been asking this question (what makes some bike lanes good, not just better than others, but really good?) for over a year now, and I'm still waiting for even one reasonable answer. I have yet to hear of even one "good" bike lane description, real or hypothetical, where the situation would not be at least as good for cycling, if not better, if the bike lane stripe was erased. The inability of anyone to come up with even one such description, much less a reasonable number of real world examples, is perhaps the most compelling reason I have come down so strongly against all bike lanes.

Consider a rating system for bike lanes, 1-10, where 1 is clearly a bad design, 10 is a wonderful design, and 5 is neutral (don't really need it, but doesn't really hurt). I don't deny that there are bike lanes that are not as bad as the ones that are clearly 1s (say a door zone bike lane). The best ones I think are the short segments to the left of right turn only lanes, but even they are 4.5s at best, because they collect debris and inhibit cyclists from lining up with others stopped at the light. In other words, even erasing the stripe of one of these bike lanes would be an improvement for cyclists - the space would still be there for those who prefer to line up alongside motorists, but it wouldn't be full of debris... So, in short, I'm looking for bike lanes that rate above a 5, and have not encountered or heard of one...


Even bad bike lanes offer a little added protection to cyclists from considerate, alert, attentive drivers.
What?

Serge

[Roody]

You know, I'm tired of defending myself, and having you guys defending somebody that was obviously greating a hazard. I ride that section of PCH almost every other day. The bike lane is about 8 feet wide and is the exact same surface as the motor lanes, and generally clear of hazards. When I ride it I tend to stay to the right, and I still have seven feet in case of hazards.

I've been on these boards for about a month, And I learn alot, but what really bothers me is that half of you guys are so perfect, that you can't comprehend that cyclists do anything wrong. Yet all I hear are stories about being called names, and confrontations with motorists. Its one thing to stand up for your rights. Its another thing to be wrong.

I haven't had a motorist yell at me in over 15 years. No even a "******" from passing rednecks. The last "confrontation" I had was with a 8 year old's mom whose kid threw a skateboard in front of me (and she was very polite). Or a punkass who intentionaly step in front of me to force a confrontation.

You wonder why cyclists get such a bad rep. Its because SOME of you guys have a my SH!T can't possible stink attitude. What a bunch of tools.
It's not the information super highway--it's the mean streets of the web! :) I'm sorry if I or others made you feel like you were flamed. But how do you think jslopez felt when some posters suggested that his wife was to blame--even when he made it very clear that she was not to blame?

[Matt Gaunt]

I never ride in cycle lanes no matter what their condition. Here's why:
- often they contain glass and other debris, and with 110psi tires, that's a puncture waiting to happen.
- motorists just ignore you and put you in such dangerous situations if you're in a cycle lane. If you're on the road proper, they have to take notice of you.
So I would abolish cycle lanes and get some decent road surfaces instead with no potholes or chunks missing.

[Helmet Head]

I never ride in cycle lanes no matter what their condition. Here's why:
- often they contain glass and other debris, and with 110psi tires, that's a puncture waiting to happen.
- motorists just ignore you and put you in such dangerous situations if you're in a cycle lane. If you're on the road proper, they have to take notice of you.
So I would abolish cycle lanes and get some decent road surfaces instead with no potholes or chunks missing.

Here is yet another cyclists who clearly does just fine without bike/cycle lanes. He obviously does not find roads without bike lanes to be "mere chaos".

How is it that for some cyclists, cycling is perfectly safe and reasonable without special lanes, and others find "mere chaos" without them (on some roads)? What's different about the two groups of cyclists?

[Matt Gaunt]

Here is yet another cyclists who clearly does just fine without bike/cycle lanes. He obviously does not find roads without bike lanes to be "mere chaos".

How is it that for some cyclists, cycling is perfectly safe and reasonable without special lanes, and others find "mere chaos" without them (on some roads)? What's different about the two groups of cyclists?

I love roads with no cycle lanes. More room, generally a better surface to cycle on, safer for the reasons I gave above. Certainly, cycle lanes should be scrapped. I have another argument against them. They just stop. No warning, just end. Where do you go then? Back onto the main road where motorists are once again not aware of you. Chief outcome of this: accident with cyclist tending to come off worse than car bumper. What you have to remember is that when we drive, we drive with a cyclist's perspective in the subconscious. 90%+ of motorists do not even acknowledge our presence. Seems simple to me.

[Daily Commute]

RocketsRedglare, sometimes you get what you ask for. Your initial post was hostile and you got hostile responses. Go figure. Calling another cyclists a "jackhole" and and "idiot" for riding in a way you disagreed with is not a way to begin a civil conversation.

And you still didn't answer my question: How many seconds did that "idiot, jackhole" cyclist delay you?

[RocketsRedglare]

Sigh. It doesn't matter how much it delayed me (it didn't)

My last post on this thread. Flame away.

[noisebeam]

How is it that for some cyclists, cycling is perfectly safe and reasonable without special lanes, and others find "mere chaos" without them (on some roads)? What's different about the two groups of cyclists?
I think it is because that when there are higher speed (45mph+) dense traffic roads that have no bike lane, they often have no shoulder or wide outside lane either. These are abolutely terrible to ride on and franky dangerous no matter how VC one rides. Any cyclist who has to endure these kind of roads would immediately and reasonablely draw the conclusion that bike lanes are needed.

I am at a point in my bike commuting days where I must deal with 4 miles of such nasty road and would glady support bike lanes, even if it means living with some poorly designed ones as a side effect, if these 4mi of road could have a bike lane installed. Of course I'd very much rather have a WOL on these roads, but if using the word 'bike lane' gets me there then great. (By the way my city has a master plan to have bike lanes installed on this 4mi stretch by 2030)

Al

[Daily Commute]

Sigh. It doesn't matter how much it delayed me (it didn't)

My last post on this thread. Flame away.
And in the end, the "jackhole idiot" cyclist didn't even cause a delay. So why would he cause a bad rep? It's funny how some of the anti-VC people criticize the VC'ers for hostility, but then use rhetoric that makes Forester look like the nicest old man out there.

[Brian Ratliff]

Among the things that annoy me about the debate (that the title of this topic regrettably resurfaces) are the categorical statements that people tend to make about bike lanes.



Well, this instance sounds like a poorly designed bike lane. Not all bike lanes are poorly designed, but the ones that are, can be hazardous. In Seattle we have several bike lanes which are lanes between traffic and a line of parked cars. I treat these very cautiously, because the space seems to invite insanity. People in parked cars throw their doors wide open without any caution; drivers eager for a rare spot swerve into the lane on impulse, without checking for cyclists, jaywalkers and people returning to their cars leap into the zone with less-than-usual alertness. Sure, these are all the consequence of poor choices on the part of non-cyclists, but as bluebottle1 said (very smart!) "The one who needs to be the most alert is the one most likely to get hurt." Nice rhyme, too. If a poorly designed bike lane leads to more careless behavior on the part of non-cyclists, which in turn puts cyclists at risk, then that bike lane is a hazard, whether it should be, in theory, or not.

On the other hand, there's good old Serge.



The folks who hate bike lanes, appear to hate all bike lanes. They use the examples of bad bike lanes, unnecessary lanes on low-volume streets, improperly designed bike lanes on high volume streets, and a number of rather dubious references, as well as a basic theory that personally I find unconvincing to argue that all bike lanes are dangerous. They use this alleged confusion on the part of officials and the public to make the case that they should be banned -- rather than fixed.

My experience is that some bike lanes are well designed: they give cyclists space, right of way, and navigational choices that would otherwise be mere chaos, while the bad bike lanes merely add to the chaos. Rather than insisting that bike lanes are evil (or great), I would be most interested in a survey of what makes some bike lanes good, and some bad; and then a press for standardization of all bike lanes based on the improved knowledge.

So, to properly sit on the fence, I agree with the original poster that this is not a good bike lane (if it allows cars to drive on one side and park on the other); AND I agree with those who say the driver was at fault. Even bad bike lanes offer a little added protection to cyclists from considerate, alert, attentive drivers. Obviously, though, they are not the problem.

I think we in the Northwest tend to take for granted that some cities are very bad to cyclists. I have lived in Seattle, and I live now in Portland. Both cities are very good to cyclists. Bike lanes are actually designed here in Portland, to be part of the traffic system. We are given right of way in bike lanes, and a large proportion of drivers respect that right of way.

And one special message to Serge:

While it is correct to say that a painted strip does not keep a car out of the bike lane, the fact that you say that debris tends to pile up in the bike lane seems to indicate the a vast majority of cars do not travel in the bike lane. Hence, with a well designed lane, a bike lane is a refuge of sorts. Like other refuges, one has to be wary, but not as wary as when out in a traffic lane. I say this because I made this point before and you shot it down while contradicting yourself with the debris issue.

Special message over.

What is misunderstood in some cities is that bike lanes are part of the traffic system. Just as a badly designed on-ramp to a freeway can cause accidents or the potential for accidents, a badly designed bike lane can also cause accidents. Unfortunately, people like Serge and John Forrester only have experienced bike lanes which are not part of the traffic system -- just an ill-thought add-on by the city so it can claim to be bike friendly, and so they are categorically against all bike lanes, no matter how well designed. Here, in the Northwest, there are good examples of both bike lanes and MUP's, which are well designed and are useful as bike facilities. They are not defacto dangerous, and they make cycling less stressful than it would otherwise be.

Serge, you challenged one of us to come up with a good purpose for bike lanes. On a road where bike lanes are a well designed part of the traffic flow, bike lanes can limit the interactions between cars and cyclists in the same way traffic lanes limit the interactions between cars in adjacent lanes. On a road with no special bike lane, but simply a WOL, who is at fault when a car drifts over when passing a cyclist in his lane which the driver did not see? Normal rules would suggest that the car is at fault because the cyclist owns the piece of lane and the car has to yield when passing. However the whole premise of a WOL is that a car can safely pass a cyclist without changing lanes. Now there is no clear person at fault. Even if the cyclist is given right of way explicity, the driver can claim that they did not see the cyclist, and the traffic pattern suggests it is up to the cyclist to keep out of the way of cars. With a bike lane which gives bicyclists right of way, the right of way is enforced by charging that the car drifting into the bike lane and interfering with the cyclist is at fault. This is how all right of way conflicts are resolved, with any vehicle. Because there is a clear line between the bike lane and the traffic lane, there is a clear right of way violation on the part of the car.

I suggest that cyclists from California take a look up here to see what a well designed bike lane should look like and what it can offer them.

[Brian Ratliff]

I think it is because that when there are higher speed (45mph+) dense traffic roads that have no bike lane, they often have no shoulder or wide outside lane either. These are abolutely terrible to ride on and franky dangerous no matter how VC one rides. Any cyclist who has to endure these kind of roads would immediately and reasonablely draw the conclusion that bike lanes are needed.

I am at a point in my bike commuting days where I must deal with 4 miles of such nasty road and would glady support bike lanes, even if it means living with some poorly designed ones as a side effect, if these 4mi of road could have a bike lane installed. Of course I'd very much rather have a WOL on these roads, but if using the word 'bike lane' gets me there then great. (By the way my city has a master plan to have bike lanes installed on this 4mi stretch by 2030)

Al

Maybe this is why I tend to like bike lanes. Over half of my 21 mile commute (or 24 miles the other way) is on roads like this. And when we are talking no shoulder, there is literally no shoulder. The painted line is right on the physical edge of the pavement. The one thing that makes these roads passable is that the traffic, while being fast (well over 50 mph), is not that dense.

[bluejack]

Another case where a bike lane is a blessing is on a steep uphill incline where a cyclist such as myself will probably be chugging away at 3-5 mph. Giving me space to chug is critical to my being able to use that road at all. Erase the white line and the vehicles will alter their center-of-lane putting me at greater risk.

Another is a poorly lit curvy road at night. With a well marked, spacious bicycle lane, cars will generally not cut the curves nearly as tight as if there is no marked lane. No driver *wants* to mow down cyclists. At least, I hope not.

And then there are high-volume 30mph+ arterials. In Seattle there are some roads like this that have bike lanes, and which I will happily ride. There are others that have no bike lane, and which I will not ride. (For you locals, consider 23rd through the central district. I road that once. Never again.)

I've had plenty of debates with Serge before, we even ended up agreeing to disagree once, but the moment of rationality usually passes and his religious fervor about the evils of bike lanes returns full force, as though the prior discussion never happened. Basically, this debate is unlikely to be any more fruitful than if we were discussion abortion, the death penalty, or religion. If Serge wanted to lead the charge against poorly designed bike lanes or poorly designed laws, I'd be with him. As it is, these discussions just increase my irritation level, and remind me why the three months I *don't* read bikeforums.net are better than the one week I do. I guess I should learn not to rise to flamebait, but for some reason, I just can't.

[Helmet Head]

Any cyclist who has to endure these kind of roads would immediately and reasonablely draw the conclusion that bike lanes are needed.
I don't see that as a reasonable conclusion.
A need for widening, perhaps. But a need for bike lanes? I don't see how that's a reasonable conclusion from riding on these roads. I do understand how it could be an emotional conclusion. But reasonable? I don't see it. I mean, a reasonable conclusion should be based on reason, no? So what's the reason?

[Roody]

See ya Rocket Man.

(but not before you see me with that spooky blinky eye thing. I'm a little paranoid so eyes tend to bother me. :))

[Brian Ratliff]

I don't see that as a reasonable conclusion.
A need for widening, perhaps. But a need for bike lanes? I don't see how that's a reasonable conclusion from riding on these roads. I do understand how it could be an emotional conclusion. But reasonable? I don't see it. I mean, a reasonable conclusion should be based on reason, no? So what's the reason?

You won't like this answer, but the reason is because bike lanes provide a refuge of sorts. Even though there is nothing physically keeping cars from crossing the bike lane line, nevertheless, they don't that often. You pointed this out yourself when arguing that debris builds up in the lane. On fast, narrow roads, refuge is nice. When I ride, I am comfortable enough on any road, but on these fast, narrow roads where I am constantly negotiating with cars passing me, I get a bit high strung. My neck muscles tighten. My teeth grind. It is natural. I have to be very alert, both to the cars behind and to the cars ahead to ensure that the cars behind have enough room to pass in the adjacent lane and not be tempted to move me off the road in an emergancy manuver.

Bike lanes provide a clear delineation for myself and cars passing me. It provides me and the cars passing me with a reference point for each of us to position ourselves. A wide lane does nothing more than give drivers space to pass without changing lanes. I still have to worry that the driver behind sees me. I have no reference for positioning myself in the road to limit interactions between me and cars but still be in the driver's line of sight, so I probably will be further out of the driver's sight line than if I was on a bike lane. I fully believe that riding on top of the fog line of a normally spaced lane is the best road position for a bike, if there is room to move further to the right in an emergancy. If there is no shoulder, I ride about a foot to the left of the lane line.

And there is the issue of right of way I discussed earlier. So, yes, wishing for a bike lane is a reasonable response to riding on a narrow, high speed road.

[Roody]

Brian--Reread the OP. Quite clearly, the bike lane was not a safe refuge in this case. Do you really think that a white stripe can create a refuge?

[noisebeam]

I don't see that as a reasonable conclusion.
A need for widening, perhaps. But a need for bike lanes? I don't see how that's a reasonable conclusion from riding on these roads. I do understand how it could be an emotional conclusion. But reasonable? I don't see it. I mean, a reasonable conclusion should be based on reason, no? So what's the reason?
What I was getting at is that many intelligent cyclists skip the most reasonable option of a WOL based on lack of knowledge about the different options that would improve the situation - so if their knowledge is limited (which is it even more so outside of these forums), it is reasonable for them to think the choice is only between narrow shared lane or bike lane. That is reason or decision with lack of sufficient information is still reason or still a valid decision, even if it is not the best informed one.

Al

[Brian Ratliff]

Roody,

Obviously the bike lane is not a completely safe refuge, the OP makes that clear enough. A white line does not do anything physically to stop a car. I did say you have to keep aware. But yes, in general, a white strip can be a refuge since cars tend not to cross it. Like any lane painted on the road, drivers are expected to cross it only in a controlled fashion, yielding right of way to the original occupant. When a car does not do this, they can cause an accident. The fault of the accident is the car which did not yield right of way. If bike lanes are treated as another lane on the road with restricted access, why is this different than a bus lane or a HOV lane? Are you against these too?

When you drive, do you worry constantly that the driver in the adjacent lane is going to interfer with you? Do you wish that there were no lane dividers so that roads are just a strip of pavement? I have seen roads like this in Cambodia. It can work, but it is not the system that we have and it requires much different driving skills. There are also many more accidents, though most of them are at lesser speed and, subsequently, there are probably less fatalities.

My point is that a bike lane is a good system if it is integrated into the traffic engineering of the road as a whole. At best, a WOL is a half way solution which is better than putting in a bike lane haphazardly into a road for which it was not designed.

[Roody]

A Tale of Two Cities:My own experiences with bike lanes have been less positive. Actually, there are almost no bike lanes in my city (Lansing, MI). I almost always take the lane, even in heavy traffic, because lanes here in the inner city are often too narrow to share. I hate to admit it here:), but motorists give me wide berth whether I take or share the lane. When sharing, they always pull partway into the lefthand lane, and usually all the way. In 19 months of full-time commuting, I have never been brushed by a car in Lansing.

It's another world in the next city over (East Lansing). This is a progressive city and almost every street has a bike lane. While riding in these bike lanes, I am frequently being brushed by cars (meaning they overtake within a foot of me). It seems that cagers here think, "We have already given up 3 feet of our street--let's not give them an extra inch."

Honestly, I am not a "VC advocate," but these are the experiences that I have had. Based on this, I feel much safer sharing or taking the lane than riding "alone" in a bike lane. I do not doubt that you have had the opposite experience where you ride.

[noisebeam]

A Tale of Two Cities:My own experiences with bike lanes have been less positive. Actually, there are almost no bike lanes in my city (Lansing, MI). I almost always take the lane, even in heavy traffic, because lanes here in the inner city are often too narrow to share. I hate to admit it here:), but motorists give me wide berth whether I take or share the lane. When sharing, they always pull partway into the lefthand lane, and usually all the way. In 19 months of full-time commuting, I have never been brushed by a car in Lansing.

It's another world in the next city over (East Lansing). This is a progressive city and almost every street has a bike lane. While riding in these bike lanes, I am frequently being brushed by cars (meaning they overtake within a foot of me). It seems that cagers here think, "We have already given up 3 feet of our street--let's not give them an extra inch."

Honestly, I am not a "VC advocate," but these are the experiences that I have had. Based on this, I feel much safer sharing or taking the lane than riding "alone" in a bike lane. I do not doubt that you have had the opposite experience where you ride.
How fast are the narrow roads where you ride fully in the lane? My experince is similar, but not exactly the same.

For the same type of multilane high speed (>45mph) roads with same traffic density:
With very narrow outside lane: Whether I ride in the center of lane or on the path the right wheel of a car would travel (which because the lane is so narrow is about 2-3' from curb) I find that most cars give me fine passing room but there are always 1 of every 100 cars that do not and pass dangerously close, 6-12" from my shoulder (even when I am in center of lane) These drivers are clearly being agressive as they did not like being held up by me. The close pass is often accompanied by a honk or yell. These are the roads that sometime make me want to give up on bike commuting. On 1 (bad) -10 rate comfort as 2-3.
With Bike Lane: Cars ignore me and often pass quite close, but not as close as the 1/100 do in above scenario. It is like I don't exist and whether I am left or right biased in BL, most drivers just plow ahead in their lane. I rate comfort as a 5-8 depending on where I am in BL. Comfort goes down to 3 when I must leave the BL so I don't get stuck in it when I am going straigh thru an intersection.
With Wide Outside Lane (15ft+) : Here drivers consistently give me the most passing room. Never a close call or scary passing encounter on these roads. I rate comfort as an 7-9.

Al

[Helmet Head]

You won't like this answer, but the reason is because bike lanes provide a refuge of sorts. Even though there is nothing physically keeping cars from crossing the bike lane line, nevertheless, they don't that often. You pointed this out yourself when arguing that debris builds up in the lane. On fast, narrow roads, refuge is nice. When I ride, I am comfortable enough on any road, but on these fast, narrow roads where I am constantly negotiating with cars passing me, I get a bit high strung. My neck muscles tighten. My teeth grind. It is natural. I have to be very alert, both to the cars behind and to the cars ahead to ensure that the cars behind have enough room to pass in the adjacent lane and not be tempted to move me off the road in an emergancy manuver.

Bike lanes provide a clear delineation for myself and cars passing me. It provides me and the cars passing me with a reference point for each of us to position ourselves. A wide lane does nothing more than give drivers space to pass without changing lanes. I still have to worry that the driver behind sees me. I have no reference for positioning myself in the road to limit interactions between me and cars but still be in the driver's line of sight, so I probably will be further out of the driver's sight line than if I was on a bike lane. I fully believe that riding on top of the fog line of a normally spaced lane is the best road position for a bike, if there is room to move further to the right in an emergancy. If there is no shoulder, I ride about a foot to the left of the lane line.

And there is the issue of right of way I discussed earlier. So, yes, wishing for a bike lane is a reasonable response to riding on a narrow, high speed road.
Congratulations. This is perphaps the most lucid descriptions of "fear from the rear" I have read on this forum.

There is no evidence that bike lanes make cyclists safer. None. Nada. Zip. And it's not for trying: many studies have been done trying to show that they do. The fact is, contrary to popular myth, drivers do look where they are going, particularly at what is right in front of them up ahead in their path. I think the myth comes from incidents where someone or something suddenly appears in the driver's path, and the driver hits it before he has a chance to see it. But something like a cyclist up ahead in the driver's path for more than just an instant is seen, particularly if he is IN the motorist's lane (ironically, if he is not in the motorist's lane, like on the other side of a bike lane or shoulder stripe, then the motorist is likely to not be aware of the cyclist's presence).

By the way, I agree motorists tend to not drive in bike lanes, and debris collection in bike lanes is evidence of that. So, yeah, if you remove the stripe, some motorists will drive on that part of the roadway, when cyclists are not present, thus sweeping aside the debris on that part of the road.

You fear motorists not seeing up ahead in a wide lane and hitting you from the rear. That type of accident is basically unheard of, except at night in areas with no street lights and for cyclists riding without lights and reflectors. What does happen is motorists drifting aside, including drifting into cyclists whose presence they are not aware of. So what's key for me is making passing motorists aware of my presence. Riding in shoulders and bike lanes works against us in this respect.

Anyway, you're right. I don't like your answer. I think it's a huge cost to pay, not just in dollars but in a long list of disbenefits to cyclists created by bike lanes, for such a tiny inconsequential alleged benefit of bike lanes.

[noisebeam]

Evidence of collisions aside I believe there is a real hazard of traffic from the rear with narrow travel lanes
1. Angry drivers. I encounter those at least once a week who intentionally pass me close while honking. All it takes it one who goes over the limit and actually bumps me. Folks shoot each other due to road rage, it is not unreasonable to imagine bumping a cyclist with this type of rage. I was followed by a jacked up truck for 1mi in a narrow lane who honked near continuously and followed so close (actually accerlated close, let up and repeated) at times that I could see their grill in my peripheral vision
2. Drivers who do not know the physical boundaries of their car - it is not a rare incident for folks to scrape the right side of their car accidentally, mostly while parking and in parking lots, but clearly not everyone 'knows' their car.
3. Driver following car ahead of them in the zone, car ahead makes sudden merge left to avoid cyclist. Car behind doesn't react in time. I watched a right turning car get rear ended because of this exact scenario.

Al

[Helmet Head]

1. What are you doing (where are you riding) when passed closely while honking? I find that when I'm riding in a narrow lane, if I ride in the middle of the lane passing motorists move completely into the adjacent lane. Here is a Wayne Pein photo that illustrates this:

http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/wawa42p/my_photos

(the leftmost one)

2. Again, when riding in the center of a lane too narrow to be safely shared, since they move completely into the adjacent lane to pass, why do they need to know the physical boundaries of their car?

3. Bicycles are not the only types of slow vehicles that can cause this to happen. So what?

[Crashtest]

1. What are you doing (where are you riding) when passed closely while honking? I find that when I'm riding in a narrow lane, if I ride in the middle of the lane passing motorists move completely into the adjacent lane. Here is a Wayne Pein photo that illustrates this:

http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/wawa42p/my_photos

(the leftmost one)

2. Again, when riding in the center of a lane too narrow to be safely shared, since they move completely into the adjacent lane to pass, why do they need to know the physical boundaries of their car?

3. Bicycles are not the only types of slow vehicles that can cause this to happen. So what?

Helmet Head, it's clear that you feel strongly about this, and have put a lot of thought into it. I wish I had the guts to ride this way. I think if I do like that guy in the picture, taking the lane, that I'm going to get killed by some pissed off driver in a fit of road rage. Then my tombstone will probably say something like "He had the right of way. R.I.P"

I find drivers rarely slow down when passing or pull very far into the next lane to go around me. It's like they'd rather I just died than make them 12 seconds late for work.

I'm NOT saying you're wrong - I guess maybe I'm just chicken to ride like this. I commute to work, 35 miles round trip, but only after I went through a lot of trouble to find a route using quiet roads. Needless to say my commute path does not follow a straight line.

[jslopez]

Helmet Head, it's clear that you feel strongly about this, and have put a lot of thought into it. I wish I had the guts to ride this way. I think if I do like that guy in the picture, taking the lane, that I'm going to get killed by some pissed off driver in a fit of road rage. Then my tombstone will probably say something like "He had the right of way. R.I.P"

I find drivers rarely slow down when passing or pull very far into the next lane to go around me. It's like they'd rather I just died than make them 12 seconds late for work.

I'm NOT saying you're wrong - I guess maybe I'm just chicken to ride like this. I commute to work, 35 miles round trip, but only after I went through a lot of trouble to find a route using quiet roads. Needless to say my commute path does not follow a straight line.

I find that cars tend to be more daring to try and squeeze by more if you take too defensive a position on the road. So now you fall victim to people who don't know any better or who misjudged distance versus someone who was trying to intentionally hurt you. I would like to think that there are way more of the former than the latter.

[Brian Ratliff]

Congratulations. This is perphaps the most lucid descriptions of "fear from the rear" I have read on this forum.


Careful what you say. Them's fight'n words! :D

Noisebeam has a point. Measuring collisions may not be the best way to judge the importance of cars approaching from the rear. Face it. You force drivers to move over into the adjacent lane when they are fast approaching you from the rear, some people are going to get mad. They may try to brush you. They may shout or honk. I've had a guy get out of his car and lecture me at a stoplight for having the gall to take the lane across a narrow bridge without a shoulder.

So while there are few collisions from the rear, it is from the rear where negotiations about space, right of way, and passing occur. From the rear is where most bike-driver communication occur, so it is from the rear where I frame my arguments about lane positioning and bike lanes. Just as it is frustrating for the cyclist to deal with cars passing too close, it is frustrating for drivers to have to halve or quarter their speed in a short space to clear their way to pass. As more bicyclists start taking to the streets, simply sharing a lane is not enough. Except in the inner city, bikes travel at half or a quarter of the speed of everyone else. How arrogant of us to expect, as we become greater in numbers, that cars still handle bikes on a one by one basis. The real solution is to integrate bicyclists into traffic in ways that penalizes no one. That means limited-use lanes for cyclists (a.k.a. bike lanes) which are designed into the traffic pattern, and well designed laws and education programs to explain the rules, and laws that allow cyclists to leave the bike lane for any reason and bike in a vehicular manner. Everything else is just stop-gap.

In the Northwest and especially Portland, we are moving in this direction, and it shows. My first major commute was about 5 years ago in the Portland/Beaverton area. I took a lot of abuse from ignorant drivers. Now, 5 years later, there are many more cyclists out on the street, and many more drivers who respect the rights of those cyclists. That amounts to far fewer horror stories.

As a cycling community, we have to change as we grow up. When we advocate for cycling facilities, we need to take into account both our needs and the needs of drivers because, face it, the drivers far out-number us, and they control our funding. Our roads are premised on the concept that every user stays in their lane. They own their portion of the lane, and any person wanting to encroach on their space has to yield right of way. Vehicles with special needs are given special lanes to 1) cater to the special needs and 2) keep them out of the way of the majority of vehicles to make traffic flow as smoothly as possible.

Cyclists have special needs. How many here can do like Cippolini and cruse at 45 mph? We have the special need to be able to go slow safely, with as little disruption to faster traffic as possible. As our numbers increase, we should expect to be catered to by being explicitly integrated into traffic planning. Simply providing a WOL is little better than simply putting a line on the side of the road and calling it a bike lane. Being integrated into traffic planning means having the bike lane terminate at intersections properly. It means establishing and enforcing laws to protect the right of way in the bike lane. It means making sure that laws don't restrict bicyclists to the bike lane, and making sure drivers are aware of the rights of cyclists.

WOL's make sense when cyclists are left out of the traffic planning process. They are better than bike lanes which are afterthoughts. I used to think that WOL's were a good idea. Now, I have seen what well designed bike lanes are capable of doing for traffic flow of both cyclists and cars and how they can establish cyclists as being part of the traffic system.

[Roody]

Helmet Head, it's clear that you feel strongly about this, and have put a lot of thought into it. I wish I had the guts to ride this way. I think if I do like that guy in the picture, taking the lane, that I'm going to get killed by some pissed off driver in a fit of road rage. Then my tombstone will probably say something like "He had the right of way. R.I.P"

I find drivers rarely slow down when passing or pull very far into the next lane to go around me. It's like they'd rather I just died than make them 12 seconds late for work.

I'm NOT saying you're wrong - I guess maybe I'm just chicken to ride like this. I commute to work, 35 miles round trip, but only after I went through a lot of trouble to find a route using quiet roads. Needless to say my commute path does not follow a straight line.
Helmet Head's photo is exactly the kind of street I ride on every day and every night (I work until 23:30). And I ride just like the cyclist in the pic--right in the center of the righthand lane, or just right of center if I think it's safe to partially share the lane with cars. To answer noisebeam's question, the traffic is not real fast--30 to 40 mph for the most part. But I would not hesitate to ride like this in faster traffic.

You have a whole lane to ride in. That should be enough for anybody. Motorists don't get upset because they never have much of a delay. If there are two lanes, they can just merge quickly into the other one. If there is only one lane, they may have to wait a little longer (if there is is oncoming traffic) before they can pass me. Once in a while a cager yells or honks at me. Of course this upsets me a bit, but I firmly believe that I have as much right to be there as they do, so I hold my ground. I don't remember anybody ever really frightening me while I am riding like this, and I honestly do it every day.

Again, I am not a "VC advocate". I figured out how to ride like this all on my own when I first started commuting a couple years ago. It was easy to figure out because it's really the only way you can ride on these streets that makes any sense. The only alternative is to ride on the sidewalk and that is a poor choice. Since I'm not an advocate, I am not suggesting that you ride like I do. I don't care how you ride. Just ride in the way that makes sense to you.

[Crashtest]

I find that cars tend to be more daring to try and squeeze by more if you take too defensive a position on the road. So now you fall victim to people who don't know any better or who misjudged distance versus someone who was trying to intentionally hurt you. I would like to think that there are way more of the former than the latter.

So then I really don't know what to do except avoid certain roads I guess. The other day I was riding in the right hand lane of a 4 lane road. There was no shoulder - just a curb, and the speed limit was 60km. Traffic was moving at about 80km (approx 50 mph I guess). I was riding about a foot and a half from the curb, and one of these monster sized gravel hauling dump trucks went past me with about 6 inches to spare. I believe the driver's hand didn't even twitch on the wheel to give me hair's breadth more room, and if he had hit me I would be under his wheels and he wouldn't even feel a bump.

What should I do here? Take the lane at one quarter the speed of the traffic and piss off a hundred angry drivers? Stay where I was, and almost get killed by someone who doesn't give a crap? I really don't know - I'm asking here.

The truck looked something like the attached picture. Imagine this guy passing 6 inches away at 4 times your speed. Then imagine him behind you... I don't like either situation, and I guess I'll just avoid that section of road if there's a lot of traffic. What is the correct answer?

[Helmet Head]

Helmet Head, it's clear that you feel strongly about this, and have put a lot of thought into it. I wish I had the guts to ride this way. I think if I do like that guy in the picture, taking the lane, that I'm going to get killed by some pissed off driver in a fit of road rage. Then my tombstone will probably say something like "He had the right of way. R.I.P"

I find drivers rarely slow down when passing or pull very far into the next lane to go around me. It's like they'd rather I just died than make them 12 seconds late for work.

I'm NOT saying you're wrong - I guess maybe I'm just chicken to ride like this. I commute to work, 35 miles round trip, but only after I went through a lot of trouble to find a route using quiet roads. Needless to say my commute path does not follow a straight line.

I find that cars tend to be more daring to try and squeeze by more if you take too defensive a position on the road. So now you fall victim to people who don't know any better or who misjudged distance versus someone who was trying to intentionally hurt you. I would like to think that there are way more of the former than the latter.
Exactly. It's interesting that the same person who says, "I wish I had the guts to ride this way." (implying that he doesn't take the lane (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taking_the_lane) even when the lane is too narrow to be safely shared) is also the one who insists, "I find drivers rarely slow down when passing or pull very far into the next lane to go around me." I wonder if the two are connected?

I can't remember who, but somebody quipped a few months ago here, "Drivers are like dogs, act like the Alpha and they'll treat you like the Alpha". This was obviously written by someone who did "have the guts" to take the lane like the woman in the image (http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/wawa42p/my_photos) I posted a link to earlier.

Perhaps the biggest secret about vehicular cycling is that when you do act like a vehicle driver, you are treated as one; and when you don't, you aren't. This is but one of the reasons so many vehicular cyclists are opposed to bike lanes: bike lanes make it all too easy for motorists to dismiss cyclists and NOT treat us as vehicle drivers. People hate it when I draw this analogy, but arguing that bike lanes are special treatment for cyclists - supposedly a good thing for cyclists - reminds me of arguing that reserving the back seats of the bus was special treatment for blacks in the segregationist South - supposedly a good thing for blacks. Perhaps they hate it because the truth hurts? It's easy to say that's an unfair comparison because segregation based on race was so much more serious. True, but experiments have been done where teachers would segregate based on eye color, and within days (hours?) kids would start treating each other differently based on eye color. That is how profound and effective any kind of segregation is, and why segregationist bike lanes have such a profound effect on not only how motorists treat cyclists, but how cyclists view themselves relative to motorists. Let's just say bike lanes do not foster high cyclist self-esteem. And the result is attitudes that are exemplified in posts written here today by crashtest and Brian Ratliff.

[Helmet Head]

So then I really don't know what to do except avoid certain roads I guess. The other day I was riding in the right hand lane of a 4 lane road. There was no shoulder - just a curb, and the speed limit was 60km. Traffic was moving at about 80km (approx 50 mph I guess). I was riding about a foot and a half from the curb, and one of these monster sized gravel hauling dump trucks went past me with about 6 inches to spare. I believe the driver's hand didn't even twitch on the wheel to give me hair's breadth more room, and if he had hit me I would be under his wheels and he wouldn't even feel a bump.

What should I do here? Take the lane at one quarter the speed of the traffic and piss off a hundred angry drivers? Stay where I was, and almost get killed by someone who doesn't give a crap? I really don't know - I'm asking here.

The truck looked something like the attached picture. Imagine this guy passing 6 inches away at 4 times your speed. Then imagine him behind you... I don't like either situation, and I guess I'll just avoid that section of road if there's a lot of traffic. What is the correct answer?


How wide was the lane? Riding 1.5 feet from the edge, was there enough room for the truck to fit into the lane with you, with ample safety margin between you and the truck? If not, then you should have been further out in the lane, willing to "risk" pissing off "a hundred angry drivers". Again, the secret is it's not nearly all that bad. If the lane is too narrow to be safely shared, and you're riding 4 feet from the edge, then, from behind, it appears that you know what you're doing and the motorists are forced to slow down and change lanes. Vehicular cyclists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicular_cycling) ride like this every day, and the picture of the woman I posted earlier is but one example. Your reaction to it was telling.

I think you would benefit from reading books like Effective Cycling and Cyclecraft. You could start by checking out Street Smarts, which is available online here (www.bikexprt.com/streetsmarts). link is fixed now

[Helmet Head]

here's a quote from Street Smarts that I find to be relevant to this discussion.

It may seem dangerous to make a motorist slow for you, but it's not. The usual reason that bicyclists feel unsafe on narrow roads is that they do not take control of the situation. Remember, the drivers behind you don't have room to pass you safely anyway. If you ride all the way over at the right, you're inviting them to pass you where the road is too narrow and, too often, you will get squeezed off the road. If you show clearly that it's not safe for drivers to pass you, they're unlikely to try.

http://www.bikexprt.com/streetsmarts/usa/chapter2a.htm

[Crashtest]

I think you would benefit from reading books like Effective Cycling and Cyclecraft. You could start by checking out Street Smarts, which is available online here (www.bikexpert.com/streetsmarts).

OK, I'm interested in checking it out, but that link didn't work. Can you check it again? Thanks.

EDIT: Got it now. Thanks.