I've been following the thread Serge started for a while now, but it doesn't seem like many people actually do VC. I'm curious about how many of you actually cycle vehicularly or plan to, and why.
I just got a road bike a few weeks ago and plan on cycling to places where I won't have to carry much cargo back. Recently, I find that I don't like driving anymore. For some reason, every time I drive, I become frustrated and disappointed. It could be all the gases I see rising from cars on a hot day or the smell of oil and tires when I open my window or just the fact that all I see is a bunch of lifeless and impatient metal. This is why I want to bike; it feels much more fresh, healthy, open, and unconfined. Of course, the problem is: cyclists are a very small minority, and the fact is, not many people even know cyclists' rights. Heck, I didn't even know that cyclists are allowed to ride vehicularly until I read these forums. If I saw one a year ago on the streets, I would be pissed off or think he's stupid and crazy, to tell the truth. So here comes the problem:
Even though San Jose has bike lanes on almost every major road, I don't feel very safe riding in bike lanes, especially when approaching an intersection where there is a right turn lane. There is a sense of being trapped on the right. When I get close to the intersection, I can't all of a sudden move out of the bike lane to go straight because there are cars to my left who want to turn right and are most likely not going to yield to me. The solution is, of course, riding vehicularly so that everyone sees me and has to slow down regardless of my intentions. However, when I ride vehicularly, I always feel guilty about being an inconvenience to cars (yes, I've read all the posts about being an inconvenience and such but still can't get over it). So here I am, stuck in the VC dilemma: if I drive, I feel bad, but if I bike in the bike lanes, I don't feel safe.
The BikeForums Team
-adv-
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content here.
...
So here I am, stuck in the VC dilemma: if I drive, I feel bad, but if I bike in the bike lanes, I don't feel safe.
There is no dilemma. Use common sense and the experience that you gain over time. VC, in general, is the best approach.
Don't the purists ruin it for you, however. Don't do things that make you uncomfortable just because some VC bully said it was "the right thing" to do.
As for bike lanes, it is fully possible to use and enjoy many bike lanes safely. Yes, you are right that intersections + BL are problematic, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to solve that problem when it is in front of you. Be careful and use your wits.
patc
That poll option "Yes, only where there are no bike lanes." implies that using bike lanes is somehow mutually exclusive with behaving as a "vehicular cyclist", a fallacy common with the VC extremists who, it seems, see it as their life mission to pontificate in various forums (and sometimes impose their views on all of us during municipal policy reviews).
My bike is a vehicle: it is defined as such under law (Ontario Highway Traffic Act, in my case), I use it as such, and it is on the road. Roadways have many types of lanes- from general use, to turn lanes, to special use (bus/car-pooling/bike/taxi/etc.). My bike is no less a vehicle because it happens to be located on a bike lane, pathway, or "normal" lane.
I "drive" my bike as a vehicle at all times and in all places, but also adapt my speed and behaviour to take into account surface conditions, laws, safety concerns, traffic density and types. Having gone a few rounds with the VC extremists here, I now realize that talking with them or reading their posts is, at best, a waste of time. People, roads, cities, laws, and driving habits all differ from place to place and time to time. Old grandmothers who can barely cycle at walking speeds; young couples towing child trailers; people with physical disabilities; and hardcore VC advocates all have a right to a reasonably safe, reasonably enjoyable, and reasonably convenient way to cycle from their own points 'A' and 'B'. I am not selfish enough to deny someone else a method I dislike, nor am I deluded enough to think that any one method will serve everyone.
Do educate yourself about the pros and cons of various cycling facilities (and that does include "normal" roads), and do learn to cycle in a manner you feel is as safe, effective, and pleasant as possible for your circumstances. Don't believe any one self-proclaimed expert, however. Megalomania does a poor job of advocacy.
Finally, ride your bike! These internet debates are really meaningless, don't waste too much time on them.
Dchiefransom
That's why you don't stay over on the right when there's a right turn lane. I feel just as safe in bike lanes as I do out in the right hand lane, where the exact same things happen as when I'm in the bike lane. Do research on the web and learn as much as you can, and get familiar with the laws for proper bicycle riding in California.
JavaMan
Yes, I ride ve-hic-u-lar-ly 95% of the time...but I don't like that name.
Mrs JavaMan said it made her think of cyclists with pocket protectors on their jersey!
sbhikes
Please don't fall for the falsehood that riding vehicularly means never using bike lanes or bike paths, or being against them.
What it really means is following the rules of the road and using the proper lane for the proper job.
In my book it also means using courtesy, common sense, visible clothing, appropriate lighting and maintaining positive communications with motorists. It also means above all else, enjoying the ride and never forgetting how much better it is to get where you are going without frustration.
JRA
I voted "other". I act as a bicycle driver 95% of the time and I'm quite comfortable doing that, but I don't think that's the only way to bicycle safely.
I agree with previous responses:
H23: "Don't the purists ruin it for you."
And my favorite,
patc: "Don't believe any one self-proclaimed expert, however. Megalomania does a poor job of advocacy."
JavaMan: "Yes, I ride ve-hic-u-lar-ly 95% of the time...but I don't like that name."
I don't like the name, either. It's a gigantic misnomer but I guess we can overlook that.
What bothers me more is that the term has been taken over by people who think VC is the only way to cycle, think that they are God's gifts to cycling and think that anyone who disagrees with them is an idiot.
But, in general, I agree with H23 that there is no dilemma.
VC is a good way to ride but not the only way. Dogma is a poor substitue for common sense. (It's too bad that common sense is not as common as the name implies).
Roody
I think VC is the best. However, JRA, I don't think non-VC riders are idiots and I know that I am far from God's gift to cycling. If I read or hear about a different method that makes sense, I will try it and judge for myself. I do like that VC has rules that make cycling easier. Sometimes I don't feel like thinking too much, so I just relax and follow the rules.
Darren
I practice VC anytime I am on the road, I feel I am much safer when I do so. I will, however, take back roads or a bike path if there is one available often just to avoid the added noise and stress associated with riding in traffic. Though, in Knoxville, there really isn't much in the way of bike paths and since the city is laid out in such a FU'd fashion, it's not easy to get around without taking some main roads.
:)
froze
I stay on bike lanes as much as possible, obviously when there is no bike lane then I VC it.
Powertoold you need counseling dude! "I become frustrated and disappointed. It could be all the gases I see rising from cars on a hot day or the smell of oil and tires when I open my window or just the fact that all I see is a bunch of lifeless and impatient metal"; first all you can't see the gases much anymore these days, that's why places like Los Angeles have more clear air days then they've had in over 30 years because the smog devices and reformatted gasoline are all working. Your also not smelling oil or tires unless you work at a race track! Ant then somehow "IF" you could smell all of that how is cycling going to prevent you from smelling it, when in fact if your cycling you will be exposed to all those "smells" even moreso!
Lifeless and impatient metal? ALL METAL IS LIFELESS, and the person driving the car is impatient not the car. But wait, a lot of bikes are made of metal thus this lifeless metal scenero applies to bikes as well and the impatient metal or actually rider applies here too!
And you don't feel safe riding in bike lanes? I bet you don't feel safe anywhere. How many locks are on your doors at home, bet you have alarm system on your car and home.
Stop freaking out and either drive a car or ride your bike anywhere you please and do it relaxed, the more tense and worried you are the more chance for a problem to occur.
Your paranoia will prevent you from experiencing many wonderful discoveries either on a bike or car or boat etc. You could be hit by a car while walking so why get out of bed? Oh I know why you have to get out of bed, because an airplane could fall out of the sky and hit your house. Just forget about bad things that "might" happen, bad things will happen to everyone sooner or later, it can't be prevented, so don't look forward to it, but rather look forward to good things happening and let the bad come and go, your life will be more enjoyable.
powertoold
I was just trying to make an impression lol. Anyway, if you have your window open next to a F150 or <I waste more gas than normal> car, you will smell gas, oil, whatever the hell it is. When you're biking, the wind is smacking against your face and it just feels more "fresh" or whatever, sure when you stop, you'll smell some of the crap from cars, but it's still better.
Edit: I think you're trying to take it too literally.
lilHinault
A lot of the bike lanes here are designed for VC, for instance the left turn going from Evelyn Avenue onto Sunnyvale Ave is marked bike lane. That's not a high-speed intersection for cars so it's easy to go as fast as they do there, and there are generally a lot of bikes there since it's right near the sunnyvale caltrain station so drivers are used to seeing bikes
"caltrain" sounds like a pocket-protector word to me too!
powertoold
Is it illegal in California to VC when there are bike lanes? Anyone ever get pulled over?
Helmet Head
Riding in bike lanes is not necessarily contrary to VC, though it may be. Please do not fall for the misinformation spread by those who do not understand VC and contend that VC advocates like myself are "VC extremists", and that part of our "dogma" is that "using bike lanes is somehow mutually exclusive with behaving as a 'vehicular cyclist' ". It is true that vehicular cyclists behave as if the bike lane stripe does not exist, and that many of us are opposed to bike lane stripes for various reasons (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bike_lane_debate), but that does not mean we do not ride in (and hence use) bike lanes. It means we treat the bike lane and the adjacent lane as one big wide lane, as if the stripe is not there, and choose the appropriate position within that lane for the given circumstances accordingly.
Diane correctly points out that VC is about choosing the proper lane for the given situation and circumstances, though vehicular cyclists typically do not view a "bike lane" as a separate demarcated lane (we ignore the stripe and ride as if it is not there). VC is also very much about choosing the proper position within a lane according to speed positioning (between intersections) and destination positioning (at intersections and their approaches). The speed and destination positioning rules of the road often guide the vehicular cyclist into riding in a bike lane (particularly between intersections, and at intersections and their approaches where the cyclist is turning right). Therefore, someone cycling in a bike lane may very well be adhering to the vehicular rules of the road, and hence may be a vehicular cyclist. It depends on the situation, factors and conditions at the time.
Your own question, "Is it illegal in California to VC when there are bike lanes?", is based on the assumption that VC and bike lane riding are mutually exclusive. Before we proceed, you must understand that they are not. If you still have any questions about that, please ask. Some people miscontrue "vehicular cycling" to simply mean "using the full lane". It isn't. You may want to refer to the Wikipedia entry on "vehicular cycling" for more information on this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicular_cycling
Now, perhaps you're asking, "is it illegal in CA to ride outside of bike lanes where there are bike lanes". The answer is NO, as long as you have a good reason. And the relevant law in CA, CA CVC 21208, has many exceptions in it for just about any situation a vehicular cyclist may need to leave the bike lane. You should read it, and study it carefully.
21208. (a) Whenever a bicycle lane has been established on a roadway pursuant to Section 21207, any person operating a bicycle upon the roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time shall ride within the bicycle lane, except that the person may move out of the lane under any of the following situations:
(1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle, vehicle, or pedestrian within the lane or about to enter the lane if the overtaking and passing cannot be done safely within the lane.
(2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.
(3) When reasonably necessary to leave the bicycle lane to avoid debris or other hazardous conditions.
(4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.
(b) No person operating a bicycle shall leave a bicycle lane until the movement can be made with reasonable safety and then only after giving an appropriate signal in the manner provided in Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 22100) in the event that any vehicle may be affected by the movement.
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21208.htm
With respect to your original question, note subsection (4), which excepts you from having to stay in the bike lane any time you are approaching a place where a right turn is authorized. Think about the significance of this every time you ride by a driveway, alley, mall entrace, or side street, not to mention any major intersection. What do you think is the purpose of putting this particular exception in the law?
As to your "I always feel guilty about being an inconvenience to cars" comment, please read (or reread) the opening post of my "attitude" thread, http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=106637, because I tried to address this very issue there. Bottom line, in order to act as a vehicular cyclist, you must believe, deep down, that you have the same right to travel on the roads as does any other vehicle driver. You are not a second-class visitor on their territory, only allowed to use whatever they are not using. You have the same right to use whatever part of the roadway you require to reach your destination reasonably and safely. And that often means leaving the bike lane. In fact, I prefer to think of it in terms of mostly riding in the bike lane, and riding that far right on the relatively rare occasions when it is safe and appropriate to do so.
If you study all of the exceptions in 21208 carefully, I think you will find that at least one of them applies most of the time you are cycling on the road. Often, the bike lane is simply too full of debris to safely ride in it. Or you might be going the same speed as traffic. If you're going the same speed as traffic, but down hill and pretty fast, riding in the bike lane is still not safe. If none of that is going on, most likely you're preparing for a left turn, about to pass someone or go around some other obstacle in the bike lane, or are approaching a place where a right turn is authorized. Only when none of that applies, is it safe and reasonable (not to mention legally required) to temporarily ride in the bike lane, and stay there only until one of those exception conditions becomes true again.
Serge
pedex
best teacher is experience plain and simple, most "cyclists" I run into in many ways try to avoid it LOL, for example, in many cities group rides are usually done on the outskirts of town or out in the country, the city I live in is no exception to that,funny how that is isnt it?
some streets/situations arent always suited to bikes unless the rider is strong,fast,brave, and experienced, just the way it is, doesnt mean you shouldnt ride there or act like a car when doing so, but some common sense is always helpful isnt it?
bike lanes, there arent any here, glad too, they are worthless
I dont have a problem with advocacy per se, but this poll is impossible to fit into, I also find many that advocate "advocacy" pretty hypocritical most of the time, Ive spent way too much time on the street not to see that.I dont think the point of advocacy should be claiming one's right to the road, but learning to deal with the situation as its dealt on a case by case basis, and before you jump on someone's case like ive seen too many times(ride of silence for example), might wanna get your own house in order so to speak.This isnt directed at anyone in partitcular, but I think its healthy to recognize that cars will likely be on the streets for a long time, and bike riders too, there will be idiots on both sides of the issue.VC sounds and looks good on paper, but adhering to it 100% may get you killed, there's an old maxim, you can be right and still be dead.
peace
powertoold
So you're saying since you are authorized to turn right pretty much everywhere, you don't have to ride in the bike lane? Isn't that pushing it lol.
I am aware of that law and can always use the excuse of debris or hazardous conditions to not ride in the bike lane, so I'm just wondering if anyone ever got pulled over.
Helmet Head
So you're saying since you are authorized to turn right pretty much everywhere, you don't have to ride in the bike lane?
There's more to it than that, but basically, yes. Let me ask you this: do you think it's safe to stay in a bike lane when approaching any place where a right turn is authorized (assuming you're not turning right)?
Serge
Helmet Head
VC sounds and looks good on paper, but adhering to it 100% may get you killed, there's an old maxim, you can be right and still be dead.
This sounds like the anti-VC rhetoric sprinkled throughout Robert Hurst's book, The Art of Urban Cycling.
Here's the thing, can you provide even one example, real or hypothetical, to illustrate your point? In what situation might adhering to VC 100% get you killed, and violating the vehicular rules of the road (which is what not riding VC means) would save you?
If that's not what you mean, what do you mean by, "adhering to [VC] 100% may get you killed"?
pedex
Well there's situations on the street all the time where even being in a car is dangerous because of blind intersections, poorly designed traffic patterns,and the topography involved, just the way it is, and often times being on a bike in one of those places and acting like a vehicle will put you in danger. Just the fact that a bike rider isnt always as easily seen by motorists in situations like that is enough to add alot to the risk involved.Bottom line, people do stupid things, both bikers and cars, like I said above, experience is the best teacher on both sides of the issue.Sometimes you have to break the law in order to get thru a situation, knowing when that is isnt something that can be taught, it has to be learned.Alot of it is plain old fashioned experience of knowing the area where you ride.
Locally for example in the south end of downtown there are some intersections that have traffic lights that are activated by the presence of cars, but will not be tripped by a bike rider, but also and more importantly, the streets are quite narrow and if one follows the rules of the road as a biker and gets in the left turn lane and waits you expose yourself to being hit when a car makes a turn onto the street where your waiting because drivers have to swing wide around the turn to avoid the curb and come into the turn lane a bit and they arent likely to see you until its too late.They also often almost hit cars sitting there waiting to turn, just a bad situation all the way around, so as a maneuverable biker, why put yourself in danger in that case?Just to be riding VC, gimme a break.
Here's another case, behind our county courthouse on front street, there's parallel parking along the buildings on both sides, which causes drivers to drive in the number 2 lane and 4 lanes plus parking garage exits/entrances, but more often than not, they will be making a right hand turn onto mound street from the the number 2 lane.They arent any "turning" lanes there, its a 5 lane one way, and you can go left or right onto mound street.Now, also more often than not, most folks dont signal, they just turn, and if your following the rules of the road and staying to the right, you risk getting pinched or hit by cars doing this.Its an easily avoidable situation, but its just another case where sometimes you have to blow off the strict interpretation of the law and act accordingly whether you have the ROW or not, survivial is the key.Many of these cases are nothing more than driver ignorance and bad habits, but survival on the street as a biker understanding how to deal with it is part of that isnt it?
like I said, you can be right, and still be dead
powertoold
I can think of some other examples. Can someone maybe help with a solution?
Example 1: You're riding over a pretty steep hill and when you go back down, do you just trust that the drivers behind you will slow down when they get to the top of the hill?
Example 2: You're riding on flat ground and some large vehicle is behind you, pretty far away, and directly behind this large vehicle is another car. They are going at 45mph, as the large car approaches you, about 15 feet away, it quickly changes to the left lane while the car behind it is still in your lane going 45mph and is about 25 feet away from you. At this point, will you just get hit? lol
Helmet Head
Ex 1: depends on how fast you're going. If going considerably slower than normal traffic, keep to the right.
Ex 2: pure fantasy. I will go out on a limb here and claim this has never happened. The large vehicle driver isn't going to just approach you as if you're not there if he's going to have to move left to pass you. Surfers are much more likely to be eaten by sharks than a cyclist is to be eaten by a truck in this type of situation. You shouldn't think about it for the same reason that surfers shouldn't think about sharks - it's too unlikely to happen, and the only solution is to not do your thing (surfing, cycling).
As to your earlier examples, in the first one, what would you do if riding a motorcycle? And what non-VC action are you suggesting a cyclist should do? By the way, it's acceptable to ignore a non-functioning traffic signal, which one that cannot recognize your presence arguably is, as long as you yield the ROW appropriately. In the second, it's non-VC to keep to the right on front street as you cross mound street... you should ride far enough left to be visible and predictable (to make it obvious that you're going straight, not turning right onto mound, to discourage right hooks). What non-VC action are you suggesting should be taken here?
Do you believe that car drivers sometimes have to violate the rules of the road to be safe? Motorcycle drivers? Why only bike riders?
Serge
pedex
I believe all vehicles at one time or the other have to break the law as strictly written at certain times in order to avoid bad situations, and thats the point Im trying to make.
As far as front street goes,its the same situation on both sides of the road, my solution, depends on where im going(im a courier), if Im staying on front street, I usually use my strength and speed to force drivers to heed me being in the middle of one of the lanes until im clear of the situation, and if I have to dodge an idiot motorist then I do so.Its a 25mph zone which I can exceed quite easily.Your average bike rider isnt capable of these things and often will be victimized by situations like this, I see that occasionally too.
As far as the non functioning light goes, thats a play by situation thing, depends on how much traffic there is, as a messenger Im subject to political things that others arent, for example, any moving violation is an automatic bike impoundment, and you will often be arrested as well, whether they have the right or not.Laws are fine, but the parties involved dont always obey them, on either side of the issue.Right or wrong has nothing to do with it, its the way it is like it or not.There isnt a provisionin the ORC for lights not being tripped by a bike rider,or in the columbus civil code, or in the county code.
VC is great, I have no problem with it,most of the time I follow it, but im practical and experienced as well, I live and work in the real world,not on paper.I will not and cannot lie or pretend how things are vs how they are supposed to be, sorry, I dont work that way.If it means Im breaking the law sometimes and "giving cyclists a bad reputation" then so be it."Cyclists" seem to be doing fine on their own with that.
Ever spend much time riding in a downtown situation day in and day out?Im not talking occasionally either, I mean real time, like in excess of 15000miles/yr?Just curious.I want to hear about some of your experiences.
Helmet Head
I'm not questioning your experience. Mine is less, I'm sure. I'm just trying to understand what you mean, and I question whether you understand VC as well as you seem to think you do.
I definitely cannot disagree with this: "I believe all vehicles at one time or the other have to break the law as strictly written at certain times in order to avoid bad situations, and thats the point Im trying to make."
But remember, the vehicular rules of the road that a vehicular cyclist follows are not necessarily those that are "strictly written". For example, in jurisdictions where cyclists are required to keep to the right by law, even when it is unreasonable and unsafe, vehicular cyclists would violate such laws. Vehicular cyclists follow the same laws that apply to all vehicle drivers, and the principles they are based on, period. That's not the same as following the letter of the law all the time.
My issue with what you've been saying is that you seem to be misrepresent VC as following the letter of the law at all times, then take it to task for that, based on what you've learned from experience. I think you are not recognizing the flexibility and adaptability of vehicular cycling to almost any traffic situation, including the examples you have provided.
Serge
Helmet Head
VC is great, I have no problem with it,most of the time I follow it, but im practical and experienced as well,...
This is what I mean by misrepresenting VC.
The implication of this statement is that VC is at least sometimes contrary to what is practical or how experience would lead a cyclist to act. It ignores the practicality of VC and its basis and confirmation by vehicular cyclists with millions of miles of experience.
Roody
best teacher is experience plain and simple, most "cyclists" I run into in many ways try to avoid it LOL, for example, in many cities group rides are usually done on the outskirts of town or out in the country, the city I live in is no exception to that,funny how that is isnt it?
some streets/situations arent always suited to bikes unless the rider is strong,fast,brave, and experienced, just the way it is, doesnt mean you shouldnt ride there or act like a car when doing so, but some common sense is always helpful isnt it?
bike lanes, there arent any here, glad too, they are worthless
I dont have a problem with advocacy per se, but this poll is impossible to fit into, I also find many that advocate "advocacy" pretty hypocritical most of the time, Ive spent way too much time on the street not to see that.I dont think the point of advocacy should be claiming one's right to the road, but learning to deal with the situation as its dealt on a case by case basis, and before you jump on someone's case like ive seen too many times(ride of silence for example), might wanna get your own house in order so to speak.This isnt directed at anyone in partitcular, but I think its healthy to recognize that cars will likely be on the streets for a long time, and bike riders too, there will be idiots on both sides of the issue.VC sounds and looks good on paper, but adhering to it 100% may get you killed, there's an old maxim, you can be right and still be dead.
peace
In other words--everyone should follow the rules, but there are no rules, so just do what you think is best, and if you don't die some day you might be a good (experienced) bike rider but you'll probably be dead before that ever happens because some idiot who won't follow the rules that don't exist will crash into you. And you can't do anything to make it better so why bother.
sbhikes
Here's the thing, can you provide even one example, real or hypothetical, to illustrate your point? In what situation might adhering to VC 100% get you killed, and violating the vehicular rules of the road (which is what not riding VC means) would save you?
I have a situtation.
It is VC that when you make a left turn you don't do it from the right side of the road. I have to make a left turn lane on a two lane road (one lane in each direction.) The road is very twisty and I'm going up hill. The street I turn onto is so steep I have to gear down to my lowest. If I don't time this correctly, I have to get off and walk. If I have to stop because of on-coming traffic I have to get off and walk. If I have to stop because of on-coming traffic the line of sight behind me is so poor I run a real risk of being hit from behind. In other words, I can't stop and wait and be safe. Most people are speeding.
Riding VC doesn't do a whole lot to keep me safe in this condition. When I get into the situation where I'm going to have to stop and walk I usually end up taking a dive into the right shoulder, then running across the street as a pedestrian once it's clear. Running because there is no crosswalk and walking might get me killed, too.
CB HI
I have a situtation.
...
Riding VC doesn't do a whole lot to keep me safe in this condition. When I get into the situation where I'm going to have to stop and walk I usually end up taking a dive into the right shoulder, then running across the street as a pedestrian once it's clear. Running because there is no crosswalk and walking might get me killed, too.
So what other method of riding makes you safer in the situation you describe than VC.
Is the car that stops to make the left turn in less danger of being hit from behind from a car coming around the bend too fast for the sight distance?
Too often, people use poor roadway design or the unlawful driving of others as some sort of reason why VC does not work. When looked at critically, VC still provides the safest means of riding.
In your case, with the unlawful speeding and combined poor line of sight at your turn, I would consider riding past the left turn location to a point with a safe line of sight for you to make a U-turn. Then you will be riding downhill and be able to make a right turn at the roadway you desire without having to stop in an area with a poor line of sight. I suspect, trying to run across the road at this point is also very dangerous.
There are poor roadway design locations that I would not attempt a left turn in a car, motorcycle or bicycle. Does that mean I should avoid vehicular car driving as well as vehicular cycling?
Dchiefransom
Is the car that stops to make the left turn in less danger of being hit from behind from a car coming around the bend too fast for the sight distance?
Yes. It's larger, and people are looking for it. They don't see a pedestrian stopped in the middle of the lane. I say pedestrian because that's the size we are when riding.
Helmet Head
Is the car...
Yes. It's larger...
What about a motorcyclist?
And what are you recommending instead of VC in this situation?
Do you recommend it for Hell Angels too?
If not, why not?
Serge
Dchiefransom
What about a motorcyclist?
And what are you recommending instead of VC in this situation?
Do you recommend it for Hell Angels too?
If not, why not?
Serge
This is why people label you as a zealot about "VC". A question was asked, and an accurate answer was given. Mabye YOU'd like to answer how a person on a bike, or walking, or even a motorcycle as you suggest, would be just as easy to see as something the size of a car. The safe speed for seeing a car would be faster than the safe speed for noticing something smaller.
It's funny that you would bring up Hells Angels on this forum, since the way they respond to not getting respect on the road would be immediately put down by most here.
CB HI
Yes. It's larger, and people are looking for it. They don't see a pedestrian stopped in the middle of the lane. I say pedestrian because that's the size we are when riding.
Boy am I glad you told me that. I had it all backwards. You see, 95% of my transportation needs since 1976 have been taken care of either on a motorcycle or bicycle. I have been hit from behind twice in a car. I have never been hit from behind on a motorcycle or bicycle. My overwhelming personal data indicates you are wrong concerning being hit from behind.
Other data indicates motorcycles are in more accidents either because of their excess speed and/or other motorist do not see them as they approach and pull out in front of the motorcyclist.
The studies I have seen indicate adult VC cycling is much safer than motoring. Most studies that come to a different conclusion include child cyclist and non-VC cyclist.
Dchiefransom
Boy am I glad you told me that. I had it all backwards. You see, 95% of my transportation needs since 1976 have been taken care of either on a motorcycle or bicycle. I have been hit from behind twice in a car. I have never been hit from behind on a motorcycle or bicycle. My overwhelming personal data indicates you are wrong concerning being hit from behind.
Other data indicates motorcycles are in more accidents either because of their excess speed and/or other motorist do not see them as they approach and pull out in front of the motorcyclist.
The studies I have seen indicate adult VC cycling is much safer than motoring. Most studies that come to a different conclusion include child cyclist and non-VC cyclist.
That depends on how the results of those studies are viewed. If you actually look at the stats from another angle, study results can change easily. Is flying on airliners safer than traveling by car? Look at it from the number of deaths/injury per crash, and the results of that study change.
You asked if the chances were greater, and I said yes because on a bike we're smaller, and harder to see.
CB HI
This is why people label you as a zealot about "VC". A question was asked, and an accurate answer was given. Mabye YOU'd like to answer how a person on a bike, or walking, or even a motorcycle as you suggest, would be just as easy to see as something the size of a car. The safe speed for seeing a car would be faster than the safe speed for noticing something smaller.
I beg to differ with your assertion that you accurately answered the question. The question was:
“Is the car that stops to make the left turn in less danger of being hit from behind from a car coming around the bend too fast for the sight distance?”
If a driver is moving at a speed beyond their sight distance, that means that the driver coming around a bend cannot stop in time for any object the see regardless of the object size behind that bend. That includes a bicyclist to semi-truck.
It is also funny that you would rather attack Serge, rather than provide a coherent response as to an alternate method of cycling other than VC which would be safer in this situation.
CB HI
That depends on how the results of those studies are viewed. If you actually look at the stats from another angle, study results can change easily. Is flying on airliners safer than traveling by car? Look at it from the number of deaths/injury per crash, and the results of that study change.
You asked if the chances were greater, and I said yes because on a bike we're smaller, and harder to see.
So your conclusion is that driving is safer than commercial flying? Is this also how you warp your view of cycling?
I-Like-To-Bike
The studies I have seen indicate adult VC cycling is much safer than motoring. Most studies that come to a different conclusion include child cyclist and non-VC cyclist.
Really? What credible studies have YOU seen that EVER measured the use/effects of defined "vehicular cycling" techniques; or EVER identified a distinct group of cyclists that could be accuratly described (by measured behavior) as "vehicular" cyclists and evaluated/measured their so-called safety record as being better/worse/same than any body or anything else?
Dchiefransom
So your conclusion is that driving is safer than commercial flying? Is this also how you warp your view of cycling?
Warp? How is that warped? Do these studies you've seen adjust the risk of cycling vehicularly for the amount of time we actually spend out in the direct travel lane? No, they don't, do they? If we are over to the right on a wide lane, we're not out in the direct travel line. If you put bikes right out into traffic, all the time, the statistics should change.
Like I said, the way statistics in a study are manipulated gives the desired results. People say that commercial airliners fly more miles without accidents. I said if we compare the number of deaths per accident the statistics would change. It depends on what the people doing the study desire for an outcome.
CB HI
Warp? How is that warped? Do these studies you've seen adjust the risk of cycling vehicularly for the amount of time we actually spend out in the direct travel lane? No, they don't, do they? If we are over to the right on a wide lane, we're not out in the direct travel line. If you put bikes right out into traffic, all the time, the statistics should change.
Like I said, the way statistics in a study are manipulated gives the desired results. People say that commercial airliners fly more miles without accidents. I said if we compare the number of deaths per accident the statistics would change. It depends on what the people doing the study desire for an outcome.
A clear display of a lack of understanding of VC.
CB HI
Really? What credible studies have YOU seen that EVER measured the use/effects of defined "vehicular cycling" techniques; or EVER identified a distinct group of cyclists that could be accuratly described (by measured behavior) as "vehicular" cyclists and evaluated/measured their so-called safety record as being better/worse/same than any body or anything else?
Even though I agree there are too few studies; you spent enough time on Chaingaurd and BTI to see the few which were well done. Go back and review the archives Stanley Batt.
I chose "Other" as I ride VC most of the time... VC also includes riding to the right, where you are the slowest traffic... which I often do, and often I am in Bike Lanes.
There are several hills on my commute, where I go about 8 MPH while motor traffic goes about 45+MPH. I enjoy the bike lanes in particular in these areas as they alert drivers that a cyclist will be up ahead... in the Bike Lane, and perhaps around their next blind corner. I notice with Bike Lanes that motorists tend to "stay between the lines."
I pull out of Bike Lanes as I approach intersections, and whenever they may be unsafe (poor designs or other reasons), and of course if I am anywhere near the speed of the motor traffic.
Anywhere a Bike Lane does not exist, I tend to ride in the right tire track of the motor vehicles.
In violation of VC, I do on occasion "bump" some stop signs (treat them as yields).
While some may tout the "fun" of high speed (45MPH+) dense traffic, I do find it stressful, in spite of my long experience and skill... But then I find I am hyper alert to the odd moves (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=1203076&postcount=14) some motorists make.
BTW my commute also takes me onto the Freeway where traffic travels a 65+MPH typically. I go along the shoulder in this area and then have to cross an exit ramp to set up for a left turn. I signal well ahead and make my intentions well known while looking back, while right on the edge of the shoulder... some motorists totally ignore me, but eventually someone slows down and gives way... I am doing about 8MPH at this time... so they have to see me, past tall vegetation, at an exit ramp and make their decisions in scant seconds.
sbhikes
I always start with the intention to take that turn in a VC manner, from the left tire track. It's just that when the conditions are not good, I have to take a dive into the shoulder and then run across the street. A motor vechicle does not have to do that. But I feel I do to keep from behing killed by cars behind me.
Maybe if I had a fancy road bike instead of a recumbent, and I was some super-fit roadie guy, I could feel confident track-standing on the double-yellow line, but I choose to ride a recumbent because of all the benefits recumbents offer. Plus I'm just some lady still recovering from a hysterectomy so give me a break. I really don't think you have to be some kind of macho athelete just to get around on a bicycle. In fact, believing you have to be super fit is just another form of cyclist inferiority complex.
Cars can be seen easier than me on my bike because they are bigger--wider, taller, bullkier. They can be seen sooner around the bend, they have tail lights, they are shiny. And if someone were to hit me in a car, the car would protect me. I don't feel so protected on my bike.
Yes, it's a roadway design issue. It's a "country" road. I ride the same route on my motorscooter and it's just as scary, but unlike on the bike, on my scooter I have power to take these hills at speed.
There is no other solution or suggestion. I'm merely offering a situation where strict, Forestian VC, and attitude an all that other junk just doesn't overcome all the limitations of riding a bicycle. Oh and ride up ahead an pull a u-turn? This road snakes around like a series of hilly S-curves forever. Find another route? This is a detour while the main route is under construction. When the main route opens, there's supposed to be a nice bike lane. If it is better than the quiet detour route, I'll use it. Otherwise, after I make that nasty turn, I rather like the quiet detour and I'll keep doing it.
Seanholio
I'm in San Jose as well. There is a ton of good information in everyone else's replies.
Personally, when it is safe for me to do so, I ride in the bike lanes. I use a mirror to monitor the other vehicles who may try to cross through my lane when I'm approaching an intersection. I leave the bike lane when it is safer for me to do so.
Part of my commute takes me down Lafayette in Santa Clara, between the University and Central Expressway. There is no room to share the rightmost lane, so I take it for myself. Most car drivers understand, and they go around me. I generally don't receive any antagonism for this. The same on Lincoln through Willow Glen.
If you keep your speed up, and behave in a polite manner, the conflicts will be minimal, and your discomfort will fade over time as you realize that you're not inconveniencing that many people by very much. Consider the garbage truck, the backhoe, or the tractor you will occasionally see. Who creates more inconvenience? You, who will pull back into a bikelane when it is safe for you to do so, or the tractor, who has no such option?
AverageCommuter
I'm merely offering a situation where strict, Forestian VC, and attitude an all that other junk just doesn't overcome all the limitations of riding a bicycle. Oh and ride up ahead an pull a u-turn? This road snakes around like a series of hilly S-curves forever.
I would disagree. I can't recall reading anywhere, either in his book or from the "hardcore VC'ers" here, stating that in order to ride VC you HAVE to follow the exact same path in the exact same way that you would in a car. Your route should be vehicle appropriate. For quite some time I drove the largest truck/trailer combination allowed without a CDL. Many times it was necessary to make maneuvers that a car would not have had to (3 lefts = 1 right, vice-versa, etc.). You say that there is nowhere to ride up ahead and do a u-turn? How about a place where you can turn right, do a u-turn on that street, then turn left from it back to the street you were travelling on? Or keep riding to the next left and see if there happens not to be anyone coming toward you there so that you can u-turn on that street? How about the street after that one? Just because you don't want to find a VC way to do something does not mean it does not exist.
As far as not being visible goes, check with the local PD and see if it's a place where an unususally high number of motorcycle accidents are. If the cars can see a motorcycle, they can see you.
genec
As far as not being visible goes, check with the local PD and see if it's a place where an unususally high number of motorcycle accidents are. If the cars can see a motorcycle, they can see you.
Yeah, but are they looking for you?
Sure, you are out there, you are are bright and visible, yet they still pull out in front of you (in particular at right on red stoplights). Why, because the driver is doing a quick glance and looking for only for something large, moving their way. You do not register in their mind.
This puts you on the defensive at every intersection where an auto exists, even if you look right into the eyes of that driver.
CB HI
I always start with the intention to take that turn in a VC manner, from the left tire track. It's just that when the conditions are not good, I have to take a dive into the shoulder and then run across the street. ...Maybe if I had a fancy road bike instead of a recumbent, and I was some super-fit roadie guy, I could feel confident track-standing on the double-yellow line, but I choose to ride a recumbent because of all the benefits recumbents offer.
It is a myth “that to ride VC, you have to be some super fit, super skilled roadie”. All bikes and all riders can ride VC if they are willing to learn, practice and dispose of some of their baseless fears.
My hats off to you, the fact that you are willing to ride uphill and make a left turn from the left tire track on this winding road on a recumbent, tells me that you are an extremely skilled and experienced rider. My travel bike is a folding recumbent. Mostly because I can take it on a plane trip for free (I hate paying airline extortion), but also, a recumbent is fun to drive. We both know that a recumbent reduces the initial speed with which we are able to accelerate from a stop, making the left turn unsafe to perform from a stop. Your choice to change mode to pedestrian in this case is not counter or anti VC, it is what VC would dictate for safety. I was not trying to put you down. Forgive me if you read it as a put down, I will try harder next time to avoid any such misunderstanding.
I grew up in Colorado, and I have a winding gulch in Hawaii I ride on a daily commute. I know what you are talking about with continuous S-curve roads. My suggestion of passing the turn deals with gaining a better line of sight for you before crossing the roadway. For example, you might ride to the apex of the next left hand curve. At this point, you have a longer line of sight both uphill and downhill (over the point you normally make your left turn). That should make for an easier and safer road crossing either by riding or running.
I would never suggest any bicyclist should have to find another route. We deserve to use any route we choose. If engineering problems exist, then it is the engineering problem that should be fixed. If the problem is law breakers, then the cops should be giving tickets for that (rather than this stupid click it or ticket campaign). I have been told too many times that I should choose another route or ride the bus when I have pointed out poor road engineering.
Glad to hear your main route will be back soon. I am still trying to convince the State to fix the gulch road on my main route (so no more drivers have to die because of it’s poor design and the speeders).
I-Like-To-Bike
Even though I agree there are too few studies; you spent enough time on Chaingaurd and BTI to see the few which were well done. Go back and review the archives
A review of archives reveals - Zero studiies of any group of cyclists that have ever been identified as vehicular cyclists as defined by any measured metric.
Zero is not "too few". Zero means NONE.
So the question rermains, WHAT study about vehicular cyclists have YOU seen that measured their behavior, safety record, or even recorded their existance?
genec
A clear display of a lack of understanding of VC.
I think the real myth is the definition of VC cycling... Some think it is driving a bike just like a car, and in the same place as a car. (I used those terms for a reason).
The reality is that VC means going in the same direction as all other traffic, merging, signaling, keeping to the right as any other slow vehicle, and acting just like any other vehicle by using the proper lanes to turn, or to travel across intersections to ultimately arrive at the desired destination. There is no exclusion of the use of Bike Lanes, nor requirement to travel full time in the middle of any other lane. One should simply use that part of the lane and roadway that is optimal for the immediate destination and in doing so, should act like any other user of the roadway, negotiating, acquiring and conceding ROW where appropriate.
Now the "problems" that do arise come from situations where the roads are narrow, and high speed and the traffic is dense... in these situations the cyclist should take a proper position on the road to "protect their space," but the conflicts that sometimes occur between skilled cyclists and selfish motorists can make these moments quite uncomfortable... this is especially true, and is addressed by Forester, et. al. when the speed difference between the cyclist and the motorists are quite high.
powertoold
I think you misunderstood my intentions for this poll Genec. The poll options hint at what I mean. When I say VC, I mean riding as a car, in the middle of the lane. Sure, we usually ride on the right lane, but we don't need any other lanes. Bike lanes separate cyclists from cars; therefore, you are not riding as a car.
DonD
After reading through Forester's book and getting a good understanding of what I'm supposed to be doing, I've been riding vehicularly. I feel pretty comfortable now, though I can't say it was that way when I began.
There's 1 intersection that I dismount and cross as a pedestrian, as the traffic pattern seems a bit dangerous otherwise. It's a 5-way intersection where 2 of the streets are moving at any time. There are 2 lanes, one of which is left-turn only, though people sometimes use the right lane to get into the intersection, then take the 2nd left turn. I'm going straight-ish towards the 2nd right turn, which means I shouldn't be on the right side of the right lane. I shouldn't be on the left side of the right lane. I pretty clearly should be in the center of the right lane, but don't feel visible enough that I won't get hit by an oncoming left-turner if I'm behind an SUV or truck. So I dismount, and cross twice as a pedestrian. It only takes a minute, and seems like the best option.
- Don
powertoold
Yes, I tried to VC during heavy commute hours today. It felt nice not having to ride in the dirt and gravel and not having gardener trucks and trash bins in my way. However, I felt a little bit nervous. People passed me like their 4 seconds of time is worth something. I mean, seriously, they pass by me with 1-2 feet to spare like they're trying to taunt me. Not one, but about 5 cars did this, plus a nice 4-person latino family honked incessantly at me while passing by with 2 feet to spare. This was at an intersection too, where I am supposed to be in the middle of the lane and was to turn right in one block anyway.
Is this just the American society or do people not know the rules of the road or do people have no consideration for cyclists? If I moved left a little bit on each of those passes, they would have hit me or I would have hit them. Clearly, I would not win.
Edit: It wasn't too heavy, moderate, there was plenty of room on the left lane.
DonD
Is this just the American society or do people not know the rules of the road or do people have no consideration for cyclists.
People do know know the rules of the road. This is reinforced by the media.
This being 'Bicycle Safety Month', I heard a broadcast over the radio this morning where some guy (I missed his credentials) advocated things to do to be a safe bicyclist:
- Wear a helmet.
- Ride on the right side of the road, out of the way of traffic.
- Stick to smaller, less travelled roads when possible.
- If there is a shoulder, you should ride there, especially on curves, where cars are less likely to see you.
- If at night, you should have reflectors on your bike and reflective clothing. (ahem..lights?)
- Rather than ride on the roads, it's much better to go to a bike path (MUP I think he meant..we have a couple of the Rails-to-trails paths around).
When the DJ asked if it was OK to bike and talk on your cell phone at the same time, he replied with something along the line of 'As long as you keep 1 hand on your handlebars, it's OK'.
It all 'sounds' like good information, but I certainly feel like he should have left it at Ride on the Right and wear a helmet. But everyone listening hears this and believes that if you are not 'out of the way of traffic' and 'on the shoulder', you are both violating their rights as drivers AND being unsafe.