Bike lanes

[Helmet Head]

A slowing action, while safe for me, could induce an accident by making that point a "pinch" point in busy traffic...
Freeway mentality alert!

SLOWING action in urban and suburban traffic on regular roads should not be an issue. Traffic must slow and even stop to get in and out of parking spots, traffic has to stop to allow pedestrians to cross at uncontrolled intersections, traffic has to slow for entering and exiting traffic, traffic has to slow and stop for signals, traffic has to slow, stop and maneuver around various types of obstructions including road work zones and pulled-over buses, and, yes, sometimes traffic has to slow for slower traffic, including cyclists. That's all normal.

Avoiding SLOWING traffic is given way too high a priority by too many cyclists, in my view.

Serge

[noisebeam]

Freeway mentality alert!

SLOWING action in urban and suburban traffic on regular roads should not be an issue. Traffic must slow and even stop to get in and out of parking spots, traffic has to stop to allow pedestrians to cross at uncontrolled intersections, traffic has to slow for entering and exiting traffic, traffic has to slow and stop for signals, traffic has to slow, stop and maneuver around various types of obstructions including road work zones and pulled-over buses, and, yes, sometimes traffic has to slow for slower traffic, including cyclists. That's all normal.

Avoiding SLOWING traffic is given way too high a priority by too many cyclists, in my view.

Serge
I agree the concern over slowing traffic is given too high a priority. But the reality is slowing is a last resort response, hardly normal.
The arterial roads here do have a freeway mentality. It is the driving culture that has been established due to infrastructure design. There are basically no peds crossing at uncontrolled intersections (the few that do are 100% on their own, no car will slow for them.) If a car slows to exit, enter the road, the typical and immediate response of traffic is to quickly swerve in the adjacent lane for the purpose of avoiding any slowing. People merge out of the right lane as soon as they see a bus ahead, stopped or not. Slowing is the last response to an obstical. As to lights, they are dealt with with very hard braking and unneccessariliy hard acceleration. Try and coast into a red light (I do it) and you will get honked at and quite commonly passed with a very agressive swerve around and hard braking for the passer to avoid rear ending the line of stopped cars.

Al

[genec]

Freeway mentality alert!

SLOWING action in urban and suburban traffic on regular roads should not be an issue. Traffic must slow and even stop to get in and out of parking spots, traffic has to stop to allow pedestrians to cross at uncontrolled intersections, traffic has to slow for entering and exiting traffic, traffic has to slow and stop for signals, traffic has to slow, stop and maneuver around various types of obstructions including road work zones and pulled-over buses, and, yes, sometimes traffic has to slow for slower traffic, including cyclists. That's all normal.

Avoiding SLOWING traffic is given way too high a priority by too many cyclists, in my view.

Serge


Hey, I was simply reporting the motorists' actions... and franky this is what I see happens, especially on busy, dense traffic roads.

I frankly don't give a rat's ***** if they do slow down and all crash... (as long as it is behind me) however, CalTrans reports that the "pinch" issue of "point slowing" is a major cause of accidents... saw this on a traffic reporter's interview years ago... so cannot post a link.

Also "urban and suburban traffic" is vastly different from 50MPH+ boulevard "zimmmm, zimmm, zimmm, as cars pass" traffic.

Frankly, some cyclists give way too high a priority to being human speed bumps, (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=95202&highlight=human+speed+bumps) in my view.

[LittleBigMan]

Essentially, if the passee has moved over enough to cede the right-of-way in the remainder of the lane, then the passer has just as much ROW as he passes the passee as he would in in the case of two explicit same-direction lanes.
What law supports this claim?

[Helmet Head]

What law supports this claim?
The CA version:



21750. The driver of a vehicle overtaking another vehicle or a bicycle proceeding in the same direction shall pass to the left at a safe distance without interfering with the safe operation of the overtaken vehicle or bicycle, subject to the limitations and exceptions hereinafter stated.


It's legal to pass a bicycle within the same lane, as long as it is done "at a safe distance without interfering with the safe operation...", therefore the passer must have the right-of-way when he's doing it.

[LittleBigMan]

It's legal to pass a bicycle within the same lane, as long as it is done "at a safe distance without interfering with the safe operation...", therefore the passer must have the right-of-way when he's doing it.
In a nutshell, legality does not determine right-of-way. It's also perfectly legal for me to turn right on a red light after stopping, but I must always yield right-of-way to all other traffic in that lane before doing so. It's legal for me, but I don't have right-of-way.

It's always the passer's responsibility to yield right-of-way to any vehicle he/she is attempting to pass in the same lane. If a passer changes lanes, he/she must yield right-of-way to all traffic in the passing lane before entering it.

[genec]

In a nutshell, legality does not determine right-of-way. It's also perfectly legal for me to turn right on a red light after stopping, but I must always yield right-of-way to all other traffic in that lane before doing so. It's legal for me, but I don't have right-of-way.

It's always the passer's responsibility to yield right-of-way to any vehicle he/she is attempting to pass.

Tend to agree and will give an example where "lanes" do not exist. When boats pass boats... the one that came from behind is the "give way" boat... has no ROW until the boat being passed is clear of the stern of the boat doing the passing.

[noisebeam]

I'm still waiting ;)

Al

[genec]

I'm still waiting ;)

Al

Looks like someone has posed a similar question at
http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=104730

[Helmet Head]

In a nutshell, legality does not determine right-of-way. It's also perfectly legal for me to turn right on a red light after stopping, but I must always yield right-of-way to all other traffic in that lane before doing so. It's legal for me, but I don't have right-of-way.
No, it's not legal to turn right on red when doing that would violate the right-of-way of someone else.
Right-of-way IS determined by the rules that govern travel on the public way, especially by those codified in law.

Al - sorry for making you wait and not getting to it yet.

[Helmet Head]

And finally another example yesterday of agressive drivers. At one point further up this road it changes from 3 lanes to 2. I prepare in advance and as I ride from the center, to the left of the right lane. I stick out arm assertively during this merge, I give a steely look over my shoulder to the driver of the car behind to my left in the next lane. I keep my arm out and keep the look as I merge into the next lane. So, yesterday the driver did slow down per my request and let me merge, but just as I was merging the car (a white Mustang) directly behind me (who also had to merge) hit the accerator hard and slipped into the gap that the slowing car had created, this mustang brushed me in the process as we were both merging to the same spot. It was not pleasant and would glady like to know, Serge, what I could have done differently. As far as I know it was a by the book VC maneuver.

This is very interesting. I've never had this happen to me, but can see how it could. I can see how the Mustang driver was tempted to move into the gap. The only thing I can think of to prevent something like this is to be prepared for it, and defend against it by merging left as soon as the gap develops, before it is big enough to be available for the motorist behind you to accelerate into it. It also can help to discourage a close follower like the Mustang driver must have been to accomplish this by using the slow/stop signal to get them to back off.

But yeah, you definitely didn't do anything wrong (and the Mustang driver did). It's only a question of whether there are some defensive techniques that could have been applied. The two I mentioned above are all I can think of for now. Anyone else?

Serge

[sbhikes]

Regarding Al's Mustang encounter...How many of you have seen signs in your area that say "Slow Down (insert name of town here)"? It seems to me that riding more confidently and more VC-ly (if that's a word) is all fine and dandy, but the problem out there is far larger than anything like lane positioning. Not to dismiss it outright, but really something larger needs to be done.

[Helmet Head]

I don't have an issue with motorists generally driving too fast, if that's your point.

[Helmet Head]

It has been suggested that I use the term "Cyclist Operating Zone" rather than "Implicit Bike Lane" for various reasons. Fine.


Cyclist's Operating Zone

The Cyclist's Operating Zone, or COZ, is the area of the roadway that a cyclist traveling on the roadway needs to continue safely traveling on it. Generally, it is the space he occupies and its immediate surroundings: approximately 3 feet on the sides, the area in front of him required to make a safe stop, and some space behind him.

Normally, the COZ moves forward along with the cyclist in the direction he is traveling, but a cyclist often also has to move the COZ laterally in the roadway. A cyclist has some ability to alter the width of his COZ as well. Traveling slowly near the curb establishes a very narrow COZ; using the full lane by riding in the center of a lane at the speed of traffic establishes a COZ as wide as the full travel lane; lane positions in between those two affect the COZ width accordingly. Similarly, the COZ length is a function of the cyclist's speed. The faster the cyclist is traveling, the more COZ he needs, particularly in front of him.

Bike lanes interfere with normal establishment of the COZ, since the bike lane stripe effectively truncates the COZ at the all critical cyclist's left side, even if he is riding right next to the bike lane stripe (thus chopping the COZ to having no space on the cyclist's left).

Bike lanes interfere with a cyclist learning to properly establish, move and manipulate the COZ, because bike lanes guide cyclists into, well, riding in the bike lane, where the COZ is effectively fixed by the dimensions of the bike lane. Bike lanes inhibit cyclists from learning proper COZ cycling in traffic, which inhibits their ability to learn to ride comfortably in traffic.

Serge

[genec]

While I agree with your comment that a BL may interfere with a COZ, it does not truncate it... and this is easily shown by a cyclist moving out of the BL.

The stripe does not make you invisible, it just sets a minimal boundry... motorists will normally center within the space between any two parallel lines. But you as a cyclist can move that COZ beyond the BL and this is easily proven when making a left turn.

[Helmet Head]

While I agree with your comment that a BL may interfere with a COZ, it does not truncate it... and this is easily shown by a cyclist moving out of the BL.
Yes, when the cyclist moves out of the BL, the COZ is extended. But while he is in the BL, regardless of whether he is next to the curb or next to the stripe, the COZ is truncated at the stripe.


motorists will normally center within the space between any two parallel lines.
Normally, yes, all too often, not. And, because the COZ of the BL cyclist is truncated at the BL stripe, motorists who are driving right of center in their lanes feel no obligation to move left prior or during the passing of the cyclist, despite encroaching on the space where the COZ would be had the BL stripe not truncated it.

Speaking of BL stripes... to the argument that bike lanes are just like other lanes, except narrow... consider that normal lane lines are striped between intersections, and solid at intersection approaches. They are solid at intersections for a reason - to discourage lateral motion at intersection, because lateral motion at intersections and their approaches is dangerous.

Now consider bike lanes... just the opposite: solid between intersections, and dashed at intersection approaches.

Bike lanes are very different from normal travel lanes, to the detriment of cyclists.

[LittleBigMan]

It's legal to pass a bicycle within the same lane, as long as it is done "at a safe distance without interfering with the safe operation...", therefore the passer must have the right-of-way when he's doing it.
Serge, this statement is just plain wrong.

Just because you don't interfere with someone else's right-of-way, that does not give you right-of-way. It simply gives you permission to proceed with caution.

[sbhikes]

I don't have an issue with motorists generally driving too fast, if that's your point.
You certainly do if they are passing you closely. You've said so yourself.

My point is that arguing about bike lanes is silly when the real problem is traffic. It's making our cities unlivable for everyone, for people in their neighborhoods, for kids going to school, for pedestrians, for cyclists and for other drivers.

Most people could ride the VC way, even your purist VC way, if the traffic wasn't so frenetic, frenzied, distracted, aggressive and fast. A significant quantity of people out there are driving at the limit of their capabilities and at the limit of what their vehicles can do under the conditions of the road, all the time. Meanwhile they're distracted by all kinds of things, cell phones being one of the latest distractions, but not the only one.

For people to take your purist VC seriously they have to deny the actual traffic conditions I've described above. Whether it "works" or not. They have to put their flesh and bones out there under these unmanageable conditions. Conditions that are unmanageable even for other car drivers.

The problem is bigger than this silly argument over bike lanes and COZs and whatever other terminology will be thunk up next.

[LittleBigMan]

[Traffic is] making our cities unlivable for everyone, for people in their neighborhoods, for kids going to school, for pedestrians, for cyclists and for other drivers.
I agree!


Most people could ride the VC way, even your purist VC way, if the traffic wasn't so frenetic, frenzied, distracted, aggressive and fast.
Diane, how is riding in a bike lane "not riding in traffic?"

[LittleBigMan]

The problem is bigger than this silly argument over bike lanes and COZs and whatever other terminology will be thunk up next.
Nothing silly about visualizing where you belong as a cyclist. Without paint to tell me where to ride, I can still visualize it.

Sometimes, I visualize a place to ride that does not correspond to the painted bike lane. You have to do that to be safe, sometimes.

[genec]

Normally, yes, all too often, not. And, because the COZ of the BL cyclist is truncated at the BL stripe, motorists who are driving right of center in their lanes feel no obligation to move left prior or during the passing of the cyclist, despite encroaching on the space where the COZ would be had the BL stripe not truncated it.



That's very interesting, I've never had this happen to me... when I ride toward the left edge of the BL, I have noticed the motorists simply also move over... it is quite obvious that they are nearer to the stripe on their left side... the vehicle is not centered between the lines. I don't notice any truncating effect at all.

The only problems I experience are when all the lanes are too narrow... then the autos try to remain within their confined space and the cyclists do too... but again in a smaller space. The result is every one is closer.

The only interference effect of the COZ is that the cyclist must signal and negotiate to move across the BL stripe.

[Dchiefransom]

Yes, when the cyclist moves out of the BL, the COZ is extended. But while he is in the BL, regardless of whether he is next to the curb or next to the stripe, the COZ is truncated at the stripe.



Normally, yes, all too often, not. And, because the COZ of the BL cyclist is truncated at the BL stripe, motorists who are driving right of center in their lanes feel no obligation to move left prior or during the passing of the cyclist, despite encroaching on the space where the COZ would be had the BL stripe not truncated it.

Speaking of BL stripes... to the argument that bike lanes are just like other lanes, except narrow... consider that normal lane lines are striped between intersections, and solid at intersection approaches. They are solid at intersections for a reason - to discourage lateral motion at intersection, because lateral motion at intersections and their approaches is dangerous.

Now consider bike lanes... just the opposite: solid between intersections, and dashed at intersection approaches.

Bike lanes are very different from normal travel lanes, to the detriment of cyclists.


There are no solid lines between the regular straight through lanes at intersections in the San Francisco Bay Area, only dividing the left and right turn lanes from the straight through lanes.

[Dchiefransom]

This is very interesting. I've never had this happen to me, but can see how it could. I can see how the Mustang driver was tempted to move into the gap. The only thing I can think of to prevent something like this is to be prepared for it, and defend against it by merging left as soon as the gap develops, before it is big enough to be available for the motorist behind you to accelerate into it. It also can help to discourage a close follower like the Mustang driver must have been to accomplish this by using the slow/stop signal to get them to back off.

But yeah, you definitely didn't do anything wrong (and the Mustang driver did). It's only a question of whether there are some defensive techniques that could have been applied. The two I mentioned above are all I can think of for now. Anyone else?

Serge

In some situations, it doesn't matter what you do. They just convicted that nanny that ran up on the sidewalk and killed two kids. The only thing that would have prevented that would be a concrete wall, or the kids staying home in bed.

[John C. Ratliff]

Picture.. taken yesterday at 5:45 pm

http://www.optionnz.com/users/afs/i1/IMG_8531w.jpg

I know, I know, it would be a pleasure to ride on. Actually I've ridden it hundreds of times and my complaints are not that it is terrible, etc - in fact I've had some great rides down this road. But my point is that it could be made more pleasant and perhaps safer if it had a WOL.

Keep in mind...
-Traffic flow you see here when photo is taken is 45-50mph (posted limit is 45mph)
-There are very few gaps in traffic. Note line of cars goes all the way to the freeway intersection in the far distance. Note the green light at the x-street you see is rarely triggered by x-traffic as it is a minor street.
-1 of every 100 or so cyclists uses this road. Cars do not expect nor want cyclist on this road. Note there are no pedestrians during late rush hour. The sidewalk is terrible to ride on.

Actually it came to me yesterday riding home why I like a WOL vs. NOL. (as I have a chance to ride on both types). It has to do with control. With a NOL you must ride in the center and you can never give the opportunity for cars to pass you in the shared lane, instead they all must squeeze by you on your left which creates agression. However with a WOL you are in control. You decide when it is safe to share the lane let a car pass in the same lane. This is key as it gives you some control over traffic flow. Remember, just because it is a WOL does not mean you can not ride in the center of it, just like a narrow lane. Instead you have more options.

And finally another example yesterday of agressive drivers. At one point further up this road it changes from 3 lanes to 2. I prepare in advance and as I ride from the center, to the left of the right lane. I stick out arm assertively during this merge, I give a steely look over my shoulder to the driver of the car behind to my left in the next lane. I keep my arm out and keep the look as I merge into the next lane. So, yesterday the driver did slow down per my request and let me merge, but just as I was merging the car (a white Mustang) directly behind me (who also had to merge) hit the accerator hard and slipped into the gap that the slowing car had created, this mustang brushed me in the process as we were both merging to the same spot. It was not pleasant and would glady like to know, Serge, what I could have done differently. As far as I know it was a by the book VC maneuver.

Al

I have stayed away from these discussions over the last two weeks as it has been very busy at work and at home, and I have not had the time to devote to reading through all these entries. Serge, I especially will not spend the enormous amount of time it takes to follow some of your posts, as they quote a line then comment a paragraph, over and over again. It is one thing to present coherent thoughts, and quite another to present attacks on someone's post out of context (which is what quoting line by line is). I made this comment in another forum, one with Vietnam Veterans and Protestors discussing issues of the Vietnam War. A common technique is to quote out of context, then attack the pieces of a thought, and not the entire thought. I have decided long ago simple not to read through all that mess.

Concerning the quote above, I do have some comments about the technique of riding. It is the technique Al uses of giving the "steely look" over the shoulder at the car behind and to the left. This technique landed me in the hospital here in Beaverton, on a similar road but one with good bike lanes. I was doing exactly what the Vehicular Cyclist (VC) would do, signaling a left turn about a block and a half from the stop light so I could move into the left side of the middle lane (three lanes here, plus the bike lane) for a left turn at a signal light (two lanes turning). I was looking over my shoulder, behind me as I signaled, ensuring that it was safe to make the transition out of the bike lane into the traffic lane. The next thing I know it's an hour later, and I'm in the ER on a gerny just out of an MRI. What happened? The best I can tell (no memory of the event) is that a car entered the traffic in front of me from my right (a parking lot with a "road" to a stop sign), where I was blind. I apparently saw this, as I tried to brake (sprained left thumb doing it), probably touched the vehicle's tire with my front tire, and was thrown violently into the air and onto my head.

The VC approach failed me for this situation, and failed miserably. It is similar to the situation Al has above, but with a cross street entering traffic thrown in. I now advocate using mirrors to see those people behind me, so I can nearly simultaniously keep track of traffic in front and to the left (there are focusing problems with helmet and glasses mirrors, but at least there is an image on the retina). The VC approach does not advocate mirrors, yet there are mirrors on every motor vehicle and it is illegal for them to operate without mirrors. If you want to be a vehicle with equal rights to other vehicles, you need to equip yourselves with the same types of equipment the other vehicles take for granted. Because they will drive assuming that you see like they do, but you don't without mirrors. In this case, it would have made no difference whether I started out in a bike lane or roadway. The driver would have pulled out in front of me anyway, and since I did not see that driver in time, there was no way to negotiate. I had an e-mail exchange with John Forrester about this, and he continued to advocate not using mirrors. He basically dismissed my complaint against this aspect of VC. This I found disturbing, and has led me to look at all the assumptions about VC, and come to my own conclusions about paths around congested areas, about riding on sidewalks (see the other thread on this), as well as how to cycle in traffic.

John

[noisebeam]

I actually knew the Mustang was there behind me. The last thing I expected was that the driver would accelerate very hard to squeeze in the gap the slowing car opened up for me. The driver was clearly racing me to the spot. I was already to the very right side of the next lane over when the Mustang brushed me, meaning I actually did merge slightly ahead of them, but hadn't yet moved into my final position. Imagine if you will the Mustang squeezing into the gap between me and the car behind me. Also I can not full time watch both the car behind me and the car to my left and the road in front of me all at the same time, even with a mirror. I do use a rear mirror, but always rely on a head turn before I merge.

It is common when a road loses one lane that many drivers not wanting to deal with a last minute merge will merge early when a gap is open. As a result the right lane becomes more open and agressive drivers use this as a right side passing lane. In fact this Mustang was originally in the middle lane, moved into the right lane to pass slower traffic, then gunned it back into the same opening I was taking.

sbbikes has it right - Something more needs to be done about speeding and agressive driving in cities/suburbia. It is basically an accepted way of driving and those who don't do it end up getting pushed around my those who do (i.e. folks using the right lane to pass as in example above). It is not only hazardous to cyclist, but to all vehicle and pedestrians. My wife does not like to walk on the sidewalk of this road pictured during rush hour (to get bus) because the passing traffic is so fast and constant and loud and at controlled x-walks find that many driver right turn right into her path without even looking when she has the WALK light.

Al

[genec]

Well I won't quote you as the message was so long, and I don't want to take it out of context, but the fact that you contacted John Forester and discussed this and he still advocated not using a mirror lends credibility to my belief that Forester's theories, formed in the mid 70's, have not been updated to reflect the current trends in automobiles, motorists or traffic.

At the time he presented his theories, there was a rise in cycling popularity in the US due to the first gas crisis. Further such items as cell phones, auto GPS, CD players and other assorted distractions did not exist in the automobile. Fewer autos in the 70s had air conditioning and road noise reducing features. Road speeds were generally lower and were more enforced as a source of revenue for some jurisdictions (which later was found to be a form of entrapment, which lead to current speed increasing policies). Population density was lower, thus there were fewer cars on the roads.

The latter two items... increased speeds and increased road use density, both fall into "difficult areas" as discussed by Forester on both his web page and his book. There is no mention of increased distraction of the motorist, nor of the fact that most motorists today drive about with their windows rolled up and their only connection with their driving environment is through sight.

While VC techniques may indeed work a lower speeds... busy arterial roads with speeds approaching 50MPH with high density, potentially distrated motorists (and the distractions can be as simple as concentrating on not hitting that auto in front due to the manner the roads are used) require that some other method be used...

It is foolish to think that all cyclists can merge and maneuver on these densely traveled fast roadways.

[sbhikes]

It is foolish to think that all cyclists can merge and maneuver on these densely traveled fast roadways.

Or want to.

As for that photograph a few posts ago on that street. If those cars are really going 45-50 I would either be riding on the sidewalk, as bad as it is, or I'd be in the gutter riding only on the concrete part, not the asphalt.

I wouldn't fit at all in the street with my recumbent as it seems wider (I don't think it really is wider) than a regular bike. I would definitely not attempt to take up a full lane. That would be asking for it, steely gazes and looks of confidence or no. All it would take is someone like my grandma who couldn't see over the dashboard to come along.

[noisebeam]

... As for that photograph a few posts ago on that street. If those cars are really going 45-50 I would either be riding on the sidewalk, as bad as it is, or I'd be in the gutter riding only on the concrete part, not the asphalt.
... I would definitely not attempt to take up a full lane.
1. The sidewalk is actually a terrible surface, much worse than it looks in the photo, it has bumps, uneven pavement edges, steep rounded curbs for alleys. The only time I have ever crashed was a couple of years ago on that very sidewalk when I hit a sharp edge that wasn't obviously visible and was thrown from the bike and landed on the curb half on the street. Also I normally ride 25-30mph down this road (traffic generated wind helps) and on the sidewalk find that 15mph is top reasonable speed (The speed I was going when I wrecked)
2. The gutter is by far the worst place to ride. Cars ignore you, not shown in picture, but there are these 2-3" drops for concrete drainages that cut into the gutter as well. Also if you actually had a wheel on the concrete part of the gutter your pedal would hit the curb.
3. I find that 3ft from curb ends up being best. Cars on average give more passing room compared to when I ride in the center of the lane. When I ride in the center they get quite agressive when passing and often squeeze by tightly, contrary to what the 'VC experts' would tell you. Riding in the right side of the lane however lets them slide a bit to the left to pass.

I get honked and yelled at on this stretch of road about every other day. Its the part of my commute I like the least, but there is no other choice as it is the only road that leads to home.

Al

[genec]

And the pic shows the road as flat... so perhaps you are doing 20MPH on this... now imagine putting similar density on a hilly road... with the cyclist doing maybe 6-8MPH... oh yeah, that would work well.

Uh, lemme just take a lane here... hello... anybody... hello...

[noisebeam]

And the pic shows the road as flat... so perhaps you are doing 20MPH on this... now imagine putting similar density on a hilly road... with the cyclist doing maybe 6-8MPH... oh yeah, that would work well.

Uh, lemme just take a lane here... hello... anybody... hello...
Often well above 20mph even with a natural slightheadwind - all those passing cars create a sucking that eliminates any minor headwind and pulls ya along. I often hit 28-30mph, fastest on this stretch is 35.2mph. And faster is better in terms of how traffic deals with you.

A hill would make this so much worse. No one should have to subject themselves to becoming the human speed bump riding 8mph uphill in dense 45mph traffic. Folks who advocate against any form of lane widening on roads like that are doing the cyclist population a dissservice.

It is absurd frankly to say that VC is the solution to high speed dense traffic roads. You would not believe how happy I would be if this road was widened to create a WOL. (Notice there is room to take it out of the never used sidewalk ;) ) I'll let everyone else argue about BL vs. WOL, but please just do something, I'll settle for the less good solution of a BL if it means something is done. Even as a stop gap a sign that says "Share the Road" would help, but unfortunately it seems these signs can only put on streets that already have a WOL, not on these narrow streets where they are much more needed.

Al

[genec]

Often well above 20mph even with a natural slightheadwind - all those passing cars create a sucking that eliminates any minor headwind and pulls ya along. I often hit 28-30mph, fastest on this stretch is 35.2mph. And faster is better in terms of how traffic deals with you.

A hill would make this so much worse. No one should have to subject themselves to becoming the human speed bump riding 8mph uphill in dense 45mph traffic. Folks who advocate against any form of lane widening on roads like that are doing the cyclist population a dissservice.

It is absurd frankly to say that VC is the solution to high speed dense traffic roads. You would not believe how happy I would be if this road was widened to create a WOL. (Notice there is room to take it out of the never used sidewalk ;) ) I'll let everyone else argue about BL vs. WOL, but please just do something, I'll settle for the less good solution of a BL if it means something is done. Even as a stop gap a sign that says "Share the Road" would help, but unfortunately it seems these signs can only put on streets that already have a WOL, not on these narrow streets where they are much more needed.

Al


Actually you need a "Cyclist may take full lane" on that road... "Share the Road" only works where there is road to share.

[Helmet Head]

Just because you don't interfere with someone else's right-of-way, that does not give you right-of-way. It simply gives you permission to proceed with caution.
What's the difference between having the ROW and having "permission to proceed with caution"?

For what it's worth (which can be zilch to everything consider the horse whose mouth this comes from), here's what was just posted regarding this issue on a VC advocacy list I'm on.


Serge then asks about the right of way in lane sharing situations. There is no problem there; the standard driving rules apply. Each driver has the right to continue straight, but must yield if he intends to deviate from straight.
The vehicular rules of the road are that in any given situation, each driver either has the ROW, or he doesn't. There are no in between ambiguous areas. Or there shouldn't be in any. The fact that bike lanes create ambiguous situations with respect to ROW is one the arguments agains them. Proceeding along your ROW with caution is assumed.

You even can have the ROW in an oncoming lane, but only when you are passing someone on a two-lane highway, and it's safe to do so. Once you have completely passed the passee, and you can safely move back into your lane, you lose the ROW in the oncoming lane. In other words, you do not continue to have the ROW in the oncoming lane.

I don't see how traffic rules could work any other way.

Serge

[Helmet Head]

That's very interesting, I've never had this happen to me... when I ride toward the left edge of the BL, I have noticed the motorists simply also move over... it is quite obvious that they are nearer to the stripe on their left side... the vehicle is not centered between the lines. I don't notice any truncating effect at all.
That's very interesting, because I see it all the time. Not only when I'm riding in a bike lane, but also when I'm driving ... seeing motorists pass cyclists very closely who are riding in the bike lanes. I've caught myself doing it, in fact. I've even had a police car (on Regents Rd) buzz me very closely while riding along the left edge of a BL. I must say, the cyclists don't seem to be perturbed by it, and I suspect they too would say they don't notice any truncating effect either. The stripe seems to make cyclists as comfortable with close passes as it does the motorists. I have no reason to believe you are any less susceptible to this effect than is anyone else, and am inclined to believe that that's what's going on. I'm not saying motorists never move aside to increase the passing distance when the cyclist is in his own separate bike lane, I'm saying they do it less often than they do when sharing a WOL with a cyclist.


The only problems I experience are when all the lanes are too narrow... then the autos try to remain within their confined space and the cyclists do too... but again in a smaller space. The result is every one is closer.
Yes, this is very common when the cyclist does not use the full lane (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_the_full_lane) as he should in a narrow lane situation. I find that I have much more room in a narrow lane (the whole lane) than in a WOL (just some space to the right), and actually sometimes prefer narrow lanes over wide lanes because of this.


The only interference effect of the COZ is that the cyclist must signal and negotiate to move across the BL stripe.
Actually, he must do this in a WOL also, when moving laterally, even within the WOL, unless there is no other traffic to signal to and negotiate with.

Serge

[genec]

The fact that bike lanes create ambiguous situations with respect to ROW is one the arguments agains them. Proceeding along your ROW with caution is assumed.

Serge

What is this ambiguous situation of which you speak?

If I leave a BL, I must signal and get clearance before I move, just as if I am in an auto and changing lanes. A motorist should also signal and ensure clearance before moving into a BL.

Nothing ambiguous about it. Now the signaling part and the motorist actually looking may be issues... but both are due to poor driving habits, like many other such displays, such as failing to merge, failing to yield ROW, speeding... all signs of poor driving habits.

[Helmet Head]

Serge, I especially will not spend the enormous amount of time it takes to follow some of your posts, as they quote a line then comment a paragraph, over and over again. It is one thing to present coherent thoughts, and quite another to present attacks on someone's post out of context (which is what quoting line by line is). I made this comment in another forum, one with Vietnam Veterans and Protestors discussing issues of the Vietnam War. A common technique is to quote out of context, then attack the pieces of a thought, and not the entire thought. I have decided long ago simple not to read through all that mess.
I understand the concern very well, and have been the victim of it myself, all too often. But just because I quote words and respond to them, does not necessarily mean I am taking them out of context, which you imply I am doing, and I strongly resent. Is it possible that I may misunderstand the intended meaning of the quote, and respond to my misunderstanding instead? Of course. But that's very different from intentionally taking words out of context and intentionally twising their meaning. I try very, very hard to understand what others are saying, and respond to that, otherwise there would be no point in these discussions.

The fact that you admit to not even taking the minutes to read and think about what took me hours to think through and write, is very revealing.
Serge

[Helmet Head]

The VC approach failed me for this situation, and failed miserably. It is similar to the situation Al has above, but with a cross street entering traffic thrown in. I now advocate using mirrors to see those people behind me, so I can nearly simultaniously keep track of traffic in front and to the left (there are focusing problems with helmet and glasses mirrors, but at least there is an image on the retina). The VC approach does not advocate mirrors, yet there are mirrors on every motor vehicle and it is illegal for them to operate without mirrors. If you want to be a vehicle with equal rights to other vehicles, you need to equip yourselves with the same types of equipment the other vehicles take for granted. Because they will drive assuming that you see like they do, but you don't without mirrors. In this case, it would have made no difference whether I started out in a bike lane or roadway. The driver would have pulled out in front of me anyway, and since I did not see that driver in time, there was no way to negotiate. I had an e-mail exchange with John Forrester about this, and he continued to advocate not using mirrors. He basically dismissed my complaint against this aspect of VC. This I found disturbing, and has led me to look at all the assumptions about VC, and come to my own conclusions about paths around congested areas, about riding on sidewalks (see the other thread on this), as well as how to cycle in traffic.

I'm sorry to hear about your collision and visit to the hospital, but am of course happy you survived and are here to tell us about it.

What you describe, however, is not a failure of the VC approach, but looking back for too long. In the situation that you describe, you were no more vulnerable than would be a motorcyclist.

As far as your contention about VC and mirrors, you're wrong. Vehicular Cycling is acting like a vehicle driver. Vehicle drivers use mirrors. Therefore, using mirrors (properly) is consistent with VC.

Regarding your email exchange with Forester - you are confusing Forester's opinion about what VC is with VC itself. Some might say you are confusing his trademarked EC with VC. You might be interested to know that in the last few years Forester has finally come around, and uses a mirror himself. He remains concerned, however, as do I and most VC advocates, with the misuse of mirrors by cyclists (in particular, a mirror check should never substitute a real look back prior to a lateral move). Further, it appears that you are yet another victim of his nastiness, which has probably been a bigger detriment to VC growing in popularity than anything else. For a great example of the negative attitudes about VC that stem from Forester's nasty tendencies, see Robert Hurst's irrational tirades and jabs at VC subtly sprinkled through his book, The Art of Urban Cycling. I cannot tell you how dissappointed I am that Forester did that to you, Hurst, and the countless others. He is indeed his own worst enemy.

Serge

[genec]

I'm sorry to hear about your collision and visit to the hospital, but am of course happy you survived and are here to tell us about it.

What you describe, however, is not a failure of the VC approach, but looking back for too long. In the situation that you describe, you were no more vulnerable than would be a motorcyclist.

As far as your contention about VC and mirrors, you're wrong. Vehicular Cycling is acting like a vehicle driver. Vehicle drivers use mirrors. Therefore, using mirrors (properly) is consistent with VC.

Regarding your email exchange with Forester - you are confusing Forester's opinion about what VC is with VC itself. Some might say you are confusing his trademarked EC with VC. You might be interested to know that in the last few years Forester has finally come around, and uses a mirror himself. He remains concerned, however, as do I and most VC advocates, with the misuse of mirrors by cyclists (in particular, a mirror check should never substitute a real look back prior to a lateral move). Further, it appears that you are yet another victim of his nastiness, which has probably been a bigger detriment to VC growing in popularity than anything else. For a great example of the negative attitudes about VC that stem from Forester's nasty tendencies, see Robert Hurst's irrational tirades and jabs at VC subtly sprinkled through his book, The Art of Urban Cycling. I cannot tell you how dissappointed I am that Forester did that to you, Hurst, and the countless others. He is indeed his own worst enemy.

Serge


Hear Here! Forester is not a god!

Good, because the whole non-use of mirrors thing is just frankly dumb.

Autos today are required to have two mirrors... cyclists hoping to even begin to act as "vehicle users of the road" need to have a mirror just to begin to work the same dymanics as motorists.

(I really had to refrain from saying "compete on the roads." But dammit sometimes that is just the way it feels)

[Helmet Head]

It is absurd frankly to say that VC is the solution to high speed dense traffic roads. You would not believe how happy I would be if this road was widened to create a WOL.

Al, you seem to be saying here that you think putting in a WOL on this road would enable non VC riding.
You do realize that sharing a WOL with motorists is VC, do you not?

Are you using "VC" to mean "using the full lane"? If so, that can be very misleading. Using the full lane, but only when it is safe and appropriate to do so is but one aspect of VC. In particular, using the full lane when you would be unnecessarily holding up traffic and there is safe and reasonable alternative (like in a lane wide enough to be safely shared, and no obstacles, not preparing for a left turn, etc.) is violating the vehicular rules of the road, and, hence, is most certainly not VC.

Serge

[Helmet Head]

Actually you need a "Cyclist may take full lane" on that road... "Share the Road" only works where there is road to share.

I think you meant to say, "'Share the Road' only works there is a lane wide enough to be safely shared by a vehicle and a bicycle traveling side-by-side within the lane".

The ambiguity of the meaning of the "Share the Road" sign is why I oppose their usage.
"Cyclist may take a full lane" is much better, but such a sign should be posted on every road everywhere, for there is no road where it does not apply at least sometimes (except limited access roads, of course).

Serge

[cyclezealot]

Even w/o bike lanes, motorists are told in the CA drivers manual bikes are vehicles and need be yielded to....I like to think that solid white line is our demarcation line that makes us safe..? I know naive...
No excuses here...The police need be involved and she need pay for your bikes ' damage..Glad your wife is ok...
the whole bike rights thing...w/o bike lanes we are totally out there in the traffic..I see no other means of guaranting our rights to the road without these lanes, unless the car lanes are super wide...
those big bikes painted on the road surface here in California..Is that symbol to difficult to comprehend...plus, many signs are obvious at to their intent....
Police should be called in and she need be ticketed just as if she had hit another car..

[Helmet Head]

What is this ambiguous situation of which you speak?

One example: cyclist traveling 20 mph in bike lane, motorist traveling at 35 mph, passes the cyclist, then slows to turn right into a mall entrance... 30, 25, 20, 15, 10, 5... Cyclist catches up with motorist and starts to pass on the right side... Motorist turns right... Who has the right-of-way?

[Helmet Head]

Hear Here! Forester is not a god!

Good, because the whole non-use of mirrors thing is just frankly dumb.

Autos today are required to have two mirrors... cyclists hoping to even begin to act as "vehicle users of the road" need to have a mirror just to begin to work the same dymanics as motorists.

(I really had to refrain from saying "compete on the roads." But dammit sometimes that is just the way it feels)

Reminds me of a joke I made up after I first started using a mirror, and learned how useful they were...

Q: How do you recognize a vehicular cyclist?
A: He has mirrors on both stems of his glasses.

[cyclezealot]

Basically, in urban riding..Expect stops at every intersection..They come at you in intersections even when you have the ok for a pedesterian cross walk and from every direction.... Bright yellow jerseys and all..That ok to walk signal means nothing to them..almost got creamed just two days ago..and this happens frequently...watch the drivers actions..Is the wheel being turned.then they are about to lunge at you...
anyone thinks urban commuting is race oriented is heading for injuries... ubran riding...you gotta slow down and look for the unexpected at every intersection, even when you are legally in the right...those motorists will hit anything that moves or doesn't move.. In urban situations, I get my average speed only over about 12 mph on highways where there is little congestion and the roads are straight and without intersections..
I know cyclists can act irresponsbily too..but, motorists..why do we hate them..watch their behavior..a game I play...after the green arrow turns red..when will the cars stop making illegal lefts..sometimes , you might loose your access to your green light...and miss your turn at crossing an intersection..
the game I play..count the number of cars that make illegal lefts..usually less than 5...

[Helmet Head]

Basically, in urban riding..Expect stops at every intersection..They come at you in intersections even when you have the ok for a pedesterian cross walk and from every direction.... Bright yellow jerseys and all..That ok to walk signal means nothing to them..almost got creamed just two days ago..and this happens frequently...watch the drivers actions..Is the wheel being turned.then they are about to lunge at you...
anyone thinks urban commuting is race oriented is heading for injuries... ubran riding...you gotta slow down and look for the unexpected at every intersection, even when you are legally in the right...those motorists will hit anything that moves or doesn't move.. In urban situations, I get my average speed only over about 12 mph on highways where there is little congestion and the roads are straight and without intersections..
I know cyclists can act irresponsbily too..but, motorists..why do we hate them..watch their behavior..a game I play...after the green arrow turns red..when will the cars stop making illegal lefts..sometimes , you might loose your access to your green light...and miss your turn at crossing an intersection..
the game I play..count the number of cars that make illegal lefts..usually less than 5...

Cyclezealot, learning vehicular cycling helped me more than anything else to ride safely in traffic, not that I wasn't already pretty safe after almost 30 years of doing it (without a single mishap, knock on wood). Some of your advice sounds similar to what Robert Hurst talks about in his book, The Art of Urban Cycling. I thought it had some good advice, but also a lot of bad and confusing advice.

In particular, he seems to advocate an attitude of constant fear that I find makes it impossible to enjoy riding safely in traffic. The vehicular cycling approach of teaching your "autopilot" (using Hurst's language) to avoid hazards by riding predictably and visibly seems much more workable for me. And the collision/accident rates that VC advocates report are much lower than those Hurst teaches us to expect, even riding in accordance to his advice.

But even Hurst recognizes the vast majority of problems that cyclists have in traffic are caused by the cyclists themselves (even when you cull out the child statistics).

You write with respect to motorists that "we hate them"... speak for yourself. Vehicular cyclists like myself do not hate motorists at all... we have learned to cooperate with them, and to travel afely and enjoyably among them, even in fast and busy traffic. Those who claim this is not possible have not yet learned to think and feel like vehicle drivers while cycling in traffic, hence cannot truly act like vehicle drivers, and so of course are not treated like vehicle drivers. Since they are not treated as vehicle drivers by motorists, it's understandably difficult for them to believe that other cyclists would be, and so have difficulty thinking and feeling like vehicle drivers. It's a vicious circle that's very difficult to break, because it is commonly believed that doing so is unnecessarily dangerous and risking one's life.

Serge

[genec]

One example: cyclist traveling 20 mph in bike lane, motorist traveling at 35 mph, passes the cyclist, then slows to turn right into a mall entrance... 30, 25, 20, 15, 10, 5... Cyclist catches up with motorist and starts to pass on the right side... Motorist turns right... Who has the right-of-way?

Do the same thinking in your head with two autos and two lanes (hey... think like a vehicle driver).

The vehicle in front is actually changing lanes before a turn and "as the vehicle in front" must signal and check for clearance before changing lanes to then excecute the turn. If it is clear, and the motorist can then change lanes, the cyclist now as "the vehicle behind" has the duty to watch for the motorist.

The problems arise when the motorist decides to either try to "beat the train" and does not allocate enough clearance, or does not check for clearance first before changing lanes. This latter problem is due to either lack of training or bad driving habits.

[genec]

Basically, in urban riding..Expect stops at every intersection..They come at you in intersections even when you have the ok for a pedesterian cross walk and from every direction.... Bright yellow jerseys and all..That ok to walk signal means nothing to them..almost got creamed just two days ago..and this happens frequently...watch the drivers actions..Is the wheel being turned.then they are about to lunge at you...
anyone thinks urban commuting is race oriented is heading for injuries... ubran riding...you gotta slow down and look for the unexpected at every intersection, even when you are legally in the right...those motorists will hit anything that moves or doesn't move.. In urban situations, I get my average speed only over about 12 mph on highways where there is little congestion and the roads are straight and without intersections..
I know cyclists can act irresponsbily too..but, motorists..why do we hate them..watch their behavior..a game I play...after the green arrow turns red..when will the cars stop making illegal lefts..sometimes , you might loose your access to your green light...and miss your turn at crossing an intersection..
the game I play..count the number of cars that make illegal lefts..usually less than 5...


Right, that is exactly the issue... the motorists are NOT following the rules, they are generally trying to get away with as much as possible... Right on red is another example... You are supposed to stop and look first. How many times do you see autos just rolling through with a driver "quick glancing?"

[genec]

Vehicular cyclists like myself do not hate motorists at all... we have learned to cooperate with them, and to travel afely and enjoyably among them, even in fast and busy traffic.

LOL the predictability you have learned is that drivers are generally going to push the limits...

That does not make it right. And yes, you can take advantage of that situation by assuming that all motorists will push the reds, will speed, will do rolling stops... etc.

The Chinese drive in exactly that manner... negotiation for each instance... so much for our ROW system.

[noisebeam]

Al, you seem to be saying here that you think putting in a WOL on this road would enable non VC riding.
You do realize that sharing a WOL with motorists is VC, do you not?

Are you using "VC" to mean "using the full lane"? If so, that can be very misleading. Using the full lane, but only when it is safe and appropriate to do so is but one aspect of VC. In particular, using the full lane when you would be unnecessarily holding up traffic and there is safe and reasonable alternative (like in a lane wide enough to be safely shared, and no obstacles, not preparing for a left turn, etc.) is violating the vehicular rules of the road, and, hence, is most certainly not VC.

Serge
Serge - A misunderstanding due to my senctence flow and poor stucture/missing words/thoughts in my message.
I should have said "It is absurd frankly to say that VC is the sole solution to high speed dense traffic roads with NOLs. You would not believe how happy I would be if this road was widened to create a WOL. (with the unstated thought that I still could and would ride VC, but with have the option to ride in center of WOL lane or to the right in the IBL to allow traffic to pass with me under control depending on specifics situation)

Al

[cyclezealot]

Right, that is exactly the issue... the motorists are NOT following the rules, they are generally trying to get away with as much as possible... Right on red is another example... You are supposed to stop and look first. How many times do you see autos just rolling through with a driver "quick glancing?"
Yeap..I have been almost creamed that way too...right on red, I mean...

[noisebeam]

I think you meant to say, "'Share the Road' only works there is a lane wide enough to be safely shared by a vehicle and a bicycle traveling side-by-side within the lane".

The ambiguity of the meaning of the "Share the Road" sign is why I oppose their usage.
"Cyclist may take a full lane" is much better, but such a sign should be posted on every road everywhere, for there is no road where it does not apply at least sometimes (except limited access roads, of course).

Serge
Gene - you are right - "Cyclists ride in center of lane" is more appropriate. But I doubt that the city would ever have the guts to put up such a sign on this and other similar roads. It would be far to controversial.

Serge - I think there are some specfic roads like this, with dense fast traffic, where the signs are much more important compared to other narrow lane roads, so the use is warranted in some case. For example this particular roads bring out the rage in motorists when you ride in the center of it, especially when there is that nice open sidewalk that you are not using.

Al