Advocacy & Safety - Another misinformed editorial

But, for the most part, bicycle segregation causes more problems for cyclists than it solves. The same cannot be said for bus, truck and taxi lanes.
CONJECTURE. MALFORMED OPINION. BS.

Special use and restricted use lanes both identify a wide variety of special uses, including (but not limited to) High Occupancy Vehicle use, public transit by bus use, public transit by taxi use, and public transit by tram use. Bicycles, on the other hand, are not a use; they're a type (aka class) of vehicle which can have many different uses (including public transit).

Yeah, sure, whatever.
:rolleyes:

Special use and restricted use lanes both identify a wide variety of special uses, including (but not limited to) High Occupancy Vehicle use, public transit by bus use, public transit by taxi use, and public transit by tram use. Bicycles, on the other hand, are not a use; they're a type (aka class) of vehicle which can have many different uses (including public transit).

Bikelanes don't separate a person from others because of what they are accomplishing (i.e., what they're using the public highway for); BLs separate a person just because they are a member of a class/group/type (i.e., "bicyclist"). That's segregation.

Yep, trams are just like cars, they're just "used" differently :rolleyes:

You'd better cut down on the brown acid, sporto.

Originally Posted by Helmet Head:
But, for the most part, bicycle segregation causes more problems for cyclists than it solves. The same cannot be said for bus, truck and taxi lanes.

CONJECTURE. MALFORMED OPINION. BS.

Bruce Rosar wrote: [sic] Some sort of stuff that makes sense to him.

Yeah, sure, whatever. :rolleyes:

Careful boys; to the self appointed advocacy forum policemen/gatekeepers (i.e. We VCers) "Conjecture, Malformed Opinion and BS" is NOT "whatever". Guesswork and speculation and unsupported theories of human behavior are sacred scripture and the mother's milk of self righteous ideologues, and are not subject to criticism nor unbiased evaluation from non-True Believers.

self appointed . . . forum policemen/gatekeepers . . .Conjecture . . . Malformed Opinion . . . BS . . . Guesswork . . speculation . . . unsupported theories of human behavior . . . sacred scripture . . . mother's milk of self righteous ideologues. . . non-True Believers.
Good job in keeping up your insult to substance ratio! I guess we should take it as a compliment that you almost never say much of anything substantive.

I can't believe you guys are willing to piss away so much time arguing about some sarcastic drivel. Perhaps someone local to the area could contact the writer, and provide him with some insight as to how cyclists view the situation. Or you can continue to post here, to no effect.

Good job in keeping up your insult to substance ratio! I guess we should take it as a compliment that you almost never say much of anything substantive.
Can I call 'em or not? The self appointed gatekeeper just cannot restrain his crying that anything he disagrees with is without substance and is an insult.

BTW what has the gatekeeper got to say about any advocacy/safety issue besides badgering and crybaby critiques of my trenchant observation of the lack of credible substantiation for many, if not most of the We VCer's precious theories, beliefs, and conjured claims?

... trams are just like cars ...A tram (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetcar) (aka tramcar, trolley, or streetcar) is a railborne (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_tracks) vehicle. Rail lines for public transit tram use are wholly or partly laid down in streets.

Can I call 'em or not? The self appointed gatekeeper just cannot restrain his crying that anything he disagrees with is without substance and is an insult.

BTW what has the gatekeeper got to say about any advocacy/safety issue besides badgering and crybaby critiques of my trenchant observation of the lack of credible substantiation for many, if not most of the We VCer's precious theories, beliefs, and conjured claims?
Thank you for making my point.


He correctly identifies the problem as "too many thoughtless people (drivers, bicyclists and pedestrians) in too big a hurry in too small a space." Although he does not propose a solution, it is pretty clear where his sympathies lie. . . .
The writer is fair to criticize illegal driving/riding. As a lot of others have pointed out, we cyclists generally get ourselves into trouble only when we break traffic laws. That said, I would guess that drivers of cars are at least as lawless as cyclists, especially if you count speeding and rolling stop-sign stops.


Here are my observations for this specific area:

Roads with BL on them around campus tend to be 25mph or so and relatively low volume traffic, or more dense but slow easy to negotiate traffic. Because these roads suit cyclists there are more of them and with the lower speed of cars they can 'bend' the rules with much less consequence of a real accident. Wrong way cycling, stop sign running, etc. are more common with slow traffic, good sightlines and very wide pavement space. There are also roads like this with no BL, but easy and common to cycle on.

Roads without BL in the campus area tend to be 45mph multilane with narrow outside lanes. Here cyclists stick to the sidewalk instead of negotiating/taking their space in the lane. Here the accident prone areas are sidewalk to x-walk transitions, etc. Here cyclists 'jay walk' to cross these roads to avoid them.

Now advocacy efforts are for more BLs, but unfortunately the results always seem to address theses slower roads that already are used by cyclists because, well they are easy to cycle on. Adding BLs (on these types of roads) just compounds the problem of wrong way cycling and cycle chaos. Meanwhile, folks are still cycling on the sidewalk on the main arterials (that take one somewhere outside of campus) because of the narrow outside lanes.

So advocating for BL gets the wrong results of putting them on the 'easy' streets while the ones that need wide outside lanes continue to be ignored.

We have a similar problem here. We have one bicycle "advocate" who is pushing hard to put bike lanes on 25 mph streets all over town. Part of the reason is that the engineering is easier. You have to plan ahead for a bike lane on a 45-55 mph street (where it could actually be useful), but you can get away with a far less thoughtful design on 25 mph roads. That's unfortunate. If bike lanes are useful anywhere, it's on 45-55 mph roads and on certain "barrier intersections" (usually bridges over freeways or rivers).

I emailed the jack *** if he replies ill post my email to him and his replies.

Please, no need to tell me that I "just don't understand" or whatnot.
No need, indeed. You establish your inability to understand on your own quite effectively, Pat.




Special use and restricted use lanes both identify a wide variety of special uses, including (but not limited to)
High Occupancy Vehicle use,
public transit by bus use,
public transit by taxi use, and
public transit by tram use.
Bicycles, on the other hand, are not a use; they're a type (aka class) of vehicle which can have many different uses (including public transit).
Yeah, sure, whatever.

On a long straight intersectionless uphill, one could argue that a bike lane is more of a "use" lane than a "vehicle type" facility, because, like 99% of all trucks are so slow on climbs that the usage of a "truck" lane on a 65 mph freeway is warranted "use-based" segregation, a similar principle applies on long straight intersectionless uphills where traffic is normally 55 mph or faster, and cyclists generally travel under 10 mph. But if you have traffic crossing that bike lane because of driveways, or the potential need for cyclists to leave the side of the road to make a left turn, etc., then the whole "use like a truck lane" analogy falls down, because you'd never have exceptions like that for a truck lane (and for good reason - these exceptions cause confusion, collisions, injuries and death).

He's no more of a tool than most of the populace.

Problem is three things:

1) bicyclists not riding to the law

2) drivers not driving to the law

3) people don't care for anything but themselves....humanity is pretty much something people talk about but rarely do anymore.

Number 1) matters since a large amount of chaotic riders means that drivers have no idea how to behave around them, or what to expect.

number 2) matters since it's the car hitting the cyclist in a good part of these cases, not the other way around

3 matters since it shows the average level of responsibility of your average person anymore..."how does it affect me?" is not a good policy "how does this affect those around me" is the right policy to have...IMO the guy making this article needs his license revoked, based purely on the extreme level of irresponsibility displayed in his priorities displayed in this article.

On a long straight intersectionless uphill, one could argue that a bike lane is more of a "use" lane than a "vehicle type" facility, ...A BL is, by definition, always "a portion of a roadway ... for ... use by bicyclists" and so is always segregated. Now if the government removed the discriminatory bike signs and symbols, and also changed the solid line to the same broken line used for marking ordinary travel lanes, then that argument might "hold water".

Bruce, how is a truck lane on a hill, put there because trucks are generally slower than the rest of traffic, any different from a bike lane on a hill, put there because bikes are generally slower than the rest of traffic?

(again, assuming no intersections - no place to turn right across or left from the truck/bike lane)

as promised my email to him and all replies

my first email to him

Ill be qouteing sections of the artical and commenting and questioning it.

"How often have you, as a driver, made a legal right-hand turn and
come within inches of clipping one of these road hazards? "
We cyclists commonly refer to this as the right hook. What the right
hook is is the motorist makeing a ilegal turn cutting us off in many
many cases. Most often done right after a high speed and far to close
passing of us. Bikes are vehicals and should be treated as such. If we
are coming to a intersection as a driver you need to wait for us to
make our turn or go strait etc. I personaly more often than not will
wave a driver by or make room for them if they are going to be makeing
a right hand turn in a strait/right hand turn lane if they dont act
like a jerk/jerkess and honk yell etc. Do that and ill hold the lane
and they can wait. Give me a nice friendly double tap if i dont see
you there and a smile ill slide over and give you room.

Now of course their are those amoung us who dont follow trafic laws
because we think its safe to break them (in some cases this might be
true a bike is much smaller width wise than a car and is able to go
place a car can not but laws are laws and all should follow them).


"The prospect of running one over, while unfortunate for them, isn't
my primary concern. It's the inconvenience it will cause me."

This tells me you have little to no respect for any cyclist. Were
nothing more than a pot hole to you it seems. We are a person and
should be treated like a person. From that single line my guess based
on available information is you treat every one like this and are
simply out for your self and to hell with every one else.

"Let's say you accidentally slam into one of them. Obviously, you've
got to stop and render aid. That will take time. Then once they show
up with sirens blaring, you're going to have to explain to all manner
of officialdom why some hapless fool is wedged under your right front
tire. There will be forms to complete and accusations to refute.
Again, more time wasted (and you did nothing wrong).

Worse, if someone ends up dead, you'll need to hire an attorney,
because innocence is an expensive proposition to prove. After all, it
was the driver's fault, don't ya know?"

Again this shows you have zero repect for us. You kill one of us and
you will refuse to take the blaim even when its 100% your fault. You
would fight it and use every resource you have to win just to prove a
point.

Fact is more often than not car v bike accidents are the fault of the
driver. Drivers dont seem to een know we are there.

Im a avid cyclist and ive seen to many drivers who pay little to no
atention to a person on a bike. Ive seenn punk kids fighting with
their girlfriend or them and their friend playing steering wheel keep
away. Ive personaly had a person in a delivery fan try to run me off
the road not once but 3 times and later found out hes tried it with at
least 2 other riders both 2 or more times. But acording to your way of
thinking this guy also has done nothign wrong. You seem to think bikes
do not belong on the roads. We have as much right to the roads as you
do in you 2 tons chunk of metal. In fact after reading your artical we
probably have more right to the road than you do. My advice to you is
to read up on your local laws and learn them you will find you are
very very wrong.

his reply to this one

DJDurrenberger@aol.com
to me
More options 1:01 pm (7 hours ago)
Everything you're referring to in my column was related to pedestrians, not cyclists.

READ IT AGAIN.

My reply to that

nova
to DJDurrenberger
More options 3:55 pm (5 hours ago)
qouting from your artical

Still, the fellow on the ground was lucky. His helmet-free head missed
the asphalt. He sat up, stood up and wobbled to the curb where he sat
back down. His bike was bent and so was he.

like so many other drivers, is forced to navigate the maze of
bicyclists who routinely converge on ASU.

The closer you get to the ASU campus the more out of control the
situation becomes. Irresponsible drivers are traveling at speeds too
high for the crowded conditions on the ground. Last week, another
bicyclist got creamed at College Avenue and Broadway Road, a place
where they're routinely flattened like pancakes.

you mentioned pedestrians a couple times but its primarly cyclists.

his reply

DJDurrenberger@aol.com
to me
You're wrong.

He mentioned pedestians in his artical as well but it was more about cyclists imo as it was mentioned more times in the artical. Basically hes spliting a few hairs and saying im wrong that pedestrians were mentioned a couple times big deal maybe they were mentioned a hand full of times. But only as a side note to the cyclists portion.

We could have used a more literate spokesperson.

We could have used a more literate spokesperson.
I agree. I winced at the poor grammar and spelling errors. However, I was ticked at the cavalier responses. I hope the writer isn't representative of Tempe. It's apparent the writer has completely lost his mind and his editor needs to fire him.

I took the whole thing as nothing more than a sarcastic bit of nothing from some low-rent word jockey that had to meet his deadline, and suffered severe writer's block.

... how is a truck lane on a hill, put there because trucks are generally slower than the rest of traffic, any different from a bike lane on a hill, put there because bikes are generally slower than the rest of traffic?From the MUTCD: (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/HTM/2003/part2/part2b2.htm)Section 2B.32 Slow Moving Traffic Lane Signs (R4-5, R4-6)
If an extra lane has been provided for slow-moving traffic, a SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT (R4-3) sign, TRUCKS USE RIGHT LANE (R4-5) sign, or other appropriate sign should be installed at the beginning of the lane. A TRUCK LANE (R4-6) sign ... should be installed in advance of the lane.In other words, "TRUCK LANE" is just a conveniently short name (which fits nicely on the sign) for a Slow Moving Traffic use lane. This may have seemed very reasonable to the folks who chose that name for the sign, as what other traffic would go so slowly up such a hill within the traveled way? ;)

In contrast, a bicycle lane is always just for a class/type/group of people (those who are bicycling) no matter what the grade or speed. In the given example, removing the discriminatory bike signs & symbols and also changing the solid line to the same broken line used for marking ordinary traffic lanes would then result in a lane for use by any Slow Moving Traffic (as long as that traffic isn't too wide, too heavy, too tall, or otherwise poses more than an ordinary danger to the person or property of others).

Did anybody else notice this part of the editorial?

"As someone who drives in and around Tiny Town's downtown several times each day (emphasis added), allow me to assert that the arterial and neighborhood streets surrounding ASU are comparatively dangerous and becoming more so."

Several times each day? And he's bothered by the congestion and danger? Gee, I wonder why it's increasingly congested and dangerous. Must be, hmm, let's see, the cyclists...yeah, that's it, the cyclists!

From the MUTCD: (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/HTM/2003/part2/part2b2.htm)In other words, "TRUCK LANE" is just a conveniently short name (which fits nicely on the sign) for a Slow Moving Traffic use lane. This may have seemed very reasonable to the folks who chose that name for the sign, as what other traffic would go so slowly up such a hill within the traveled way? ;)

In contrast, a bicycle lane is always just for a class/type/group of people (those who are bicycling) no matter what the grade or speed. In the given example, removing the discriminatory bike signs & symbols and also changing the solid line to the same broken line used for marking ordinary traffic lanes would then result in a lane for use by any Slow Moving Traffic (as long as that traffic isn't too wide, too heavy, too tall, or otherwise poses more than an ordinary danger to the person or property of others).

It always cracks me up when folks quote the MUTCD as a source of "gospel" about road design, and BL in particular... the MUTCD endorses bike lane placement right next to auto parking... so that document is about as helpful to cyclists as cats are to mice.

Frankly, the proposed change of BL to Slow Traffic Lanes, makes sense to me, and it perfectly emphasizes the actual desired use of that part of the road.

The current thinking tends to lump cyclists as rolling pedestrians, which in fact we are not.

But by the same token, bicycles are not motor vehicles; they have vastly different operating charateristics than an automobile... charateristics that so many cycling advocates seem to have a failure to recognize. This does in fact make a bicycle a different class of vehicle... a class that has somewhat different use requirements than a motor vehicle.

Frankly, the proposed change of BL to Slow Traffic Lanes, makes sense to me, and it perfectly emphasizes the actual desired use of that part of the road.

I'm not sure that I would find those more, or less, useful than bike lanes, but I do suspect they wouldn't fly with our city council. There are many cases here where a bike lane was justified because it could help cyclists without adding additional motor-vehicle capacity to the road. Besides, most drivers wouldn't respect the "slow" part and use the new lane as just another driving-over-the-limit vehicle lane.

From the MUTCD: (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/HTM/2003/part2/part2b2.htm)In other words, "TRUCK LANE" is just a conveniently short name (which fits nicely on the sign) for a Slow Moving Traffic use lane. This may have seemed very reasonable to the folks who chose that name for the sign, as what other traffic would go so slowly up such a hill within the traveled way? ;)

In contrast, a bicycle lane is always just for a class/type/group of people (those who are bicycling) no matter what the grade or speed. In the given example, removing the discriminatory bike signs & symbols and also changing the solid line to the same broken line used for marking ordinary traffic lanes would then result in a lane for use by any Slow Moving Traffic (as long as that traffic isn't too wide, too heavy, too tall, or otherwise poses more than an ordinary danger to the person or property of others).
Bruce, I'm on your side and your argument just is not compelling.

If "TRUCK LANE" is acceptable as a conveniently short name (which fits nicely on the sign) for a Slow Moving Traffic use lane, why isn't "BIKE LANE" acceptable as a conveniently short name for a Slow/Narrow Moving Traffic use lane?

By the way, I've seen TRUCK LANEs separated from the regular vehicular lanes by a solid stripe too.

To me, the significant difference between TRUCK LANEs and BIKE LANEs is that TRUCK LANEs are used in only very specific locations. In particular, there is never any cross traffic across a TRUCK LANE, and they are never built anywhere on a roadway where left turns exist. If BIKE LANEs were limited to locations with the same kind of characteristics as are TRUCK LANEs, I wouldn't have a problem with them. Would you?

MY email to Mr. Durrenberger:

"Your editorial caught my eye. Thwe [sic] one about the
motorist who ht a cyclist

"Let's review...she ran a stopsign, hit a cyclist who,
for all you know,was riding legally, and she avoided
sanction because she took off before police arrived,
and she has your "sympathies" because (poor thing)
she's FORCED to drive near a congested campus? Give me
a break! No one is "forced" to drive anywhere. If she
can't handle the road conditions, and doesn't stop at
stop signs, she shouldn't be driving at all, and if
you don't get it, maybe it's time your own license was
retested.

"Oh yeah, and you wrote: "As someone who drives in and
around Tiny Town's downtown several times each day,
allow me to assert that the arterial and neighborhood
streets surrounding ASU are comparatively dangerous
and becoming more so."

Wonderful irony, doncha know?"

RGC, MD

Durrenberger replies:

Spare me. Take your meds and you'll feel better, Dr. MD. You guys are a complete joke.

We cyclists commonly refer to this as the right hook. What the right
hook is is the motorist makeing a ilegal turn cutting us off in many
many cases. Most often done right after a high speed and far to close
passing of us. Bikes are vehicals and should be treated as such. If we
are coming to a intersection as a driver you need to wait for us to
make our turn or go strait etc. I personaly more often than not will
wave a driver by or make room for them if they are going to be makeing
a right hand turn in a strait/right hand turn lane if they dont act
like a jerk/jerkess and honk yell etc. Do that and ill hold the lane
and they can wait. Give me a nice friendly double tap if i dont see
you there and a smile ill slide over and give you room.
This is why I believe a good book on traffic cycling needs an entire chapter devoting to going straight at intersections.

Nova's (mis) understanding of the nature and causes of right hooks are all too common among cyclists.

Yes, a bicycle should be treated like a vehicle in traffic, but it needs to be treated like a vehicle by the cyclist before he can expect motorists to treat him like a driver of a vehicle. If a cyclist is right hooked, almost always the cyclist was not obeying the vehicular rules of the road (I did not say always, Al, I said almost always). In particular, the rules of the road say that you should position yourself according to destination at intersection. When a motorist approaches an intersection where he needs to turn right, and sees a cyclist up ahead who is riding off to the right, what is he supposed to think? That the cyclist is turning right? Going straight? Who knows? Is it unreasonable to think that the cyclist is turning right, and passing him on the left, and then turning right, is a perfectly safe thing to do? Why is it the motorist's fault when he does this, and it turns out the cyclist is going straight? The motorist, because he is turning right, slows down, the cyclist, who is not turning, does not need to slow down, so he catches up with the motorist who just passed him, and he's passing him on the right. Passing someone on the right who is turning right is almost as crazy as then blaming the person who you were passing on the right for the resulting right hook!

Almost all right hook are very easy to avoid, if the cyclist obeys the vehicular rules of the road. All you have to do is prepare properly before you get to the intersection. As you approach an intersection where you are going straight, look behind you. If it's clear, merge left. If it's not clear, negotiate with the traffic to merge left. The point is, get left, so it's clear to anyone approaching from the rear that you are not turning right. Ideally, get far enough left to leave room for those approaching from the rear, and turning right, to have room to pass you on your right. Waiting for a "friendly double tap" before you move left is evidence you're waiting way too long to merge left. It's also assuming the motorist has the ability to read your mind and know whether you're turning right or going straight. He would have to know you're not turning right to know to do the "friendly double tap" to get you to make room for him.

RE the issue of right hooks... HH you are basically right... but there is another type of motorist on the road that creates right hooks due to their shear stupidity.

In spite of the cyclists position on the road, this motorist will chose to zoom ahead of the cyclist and then make a right turn, no matter how close the cyclist is. The motorist does this "because they can."

This is a rare event, but difficult for cyclists to defend against, due to the sudden ackward moves by the motorist.

I know this never happens to HH. But it does occur.

okay.. they're not supposed to stop and render aid because of the inconvenience it causes them?

No point to start a new thread...

I was pushed into by a small pickup truck today on the commute home.

Was in middle of right side of a narrow outside lane of a three lane (same direction) road. Placed between center and right taillight of car in front of me. I was going to make a right turn. Two cars were stopped ahead of me. Car behind me stopped. I was stationairy about 1min waiting for light to turn. Suddenly without warning I was pushed off seat of bike, I felt the warm smooth metal on my left thigh, hood jammed under my bars and as I was pushed forward and bike not my inner right groin was jammed up against my stem. I was taken by huge surprised and looked right thru windshield of mini pick up noted that driver wasn't even looking ahead (they were looking to left) and yelled, more like screamed "What the F is wrong with you?" I was enranged, but startled. They (with three occupants jamed on front bench seat) just said 'sorry, sorry, sorry' I didn't fall and as I was yelling light turned green and I went on ahead of them. I noted they stayed way back. Apparently they just tried to jam up forward not even paying attention. I imagine (not giving benefit of doubt to driver here, just imagining most likely scenario) drivers peripheral vision noted a big gap ahead (where I was taking my place in line) and just started to roll forward. They were over the dashed line to their left, maybe they were trying to go around me, or acutally intentionally 'shove' me

Yikes, my inner thigh is throbbing bad now. Ouch.

As I waw leaving scene I was temped to get plate numbers, temped to hold back and beat the crap out of the car, etc. But I also just wanted to get home.

Al

RE the issue of right hooks... HH you are basically right... but there is another type of motorist on the road that creates right hooks due to their shear stupidity.

In spite of the cyclists position on the road, this motorist will chose to zoom ahead of the cyclist and then make a right turn, no matter how close the cyclist is. The motorist does this "because they can."

This is a rare event, but difficult for cyclists to defend against, due to the sudden ackward moves by the motorist.

I know this never happens to HH. But it does occur.
I've never had a right hook from a car from the same lane as I ride like Serge explained.
But twice I've been cut off my a driver who just passed me in lane to my left (while I was in center of right lane) and then made a sharp right turn completely across my lane. Drivers in both cases were being outwardly agressive and fully aware of my presence (they were behind me swerved around into adjacent lane and turned hard righ across my path) I was traveling at 25mph+ in both cases in a 40mph zone. Only hard evasive actions (braking and swerving) avoided collision.
Al

RE the issue of right hooks... HH you are basically right... but there is another type of motorist on the road that creates right hooks due to their shear stupidity.

In spite of the cyclists position on the road, this motorist will chose to zoom ahead of the cyclist and then make a right turn, no matter how close the cyclist is. The motorist does this "because they can."

This is a rare event, but difficult for cyclists to defend against, due to the sudden ackward moves by the motorist.

I know this never happens to HH. But it does occur.
I've never had a right hook from a car from the same lane as I ride like Serge explained.
But twice I've been cut off my a driver who just passed me in lane to my left (while I was in center of right lane) and then made a sharp right turn completely across my lane. Drivers in both cases were being outwardly agressive and fully aware of my presence (they were behind me swerved around into adjacent lane and turned hard righ across my path) I was traveling at 25mph+ in both cases in a 40mph zone. Only hard evasive actions (braking and swerving) avoided collision.
Al

RE the issue of right hooks... HH you are basically right... but there is another type of motorist on the road that creates right hooks due to their shear stupidity.

In spite of the cyclists position on the road, this motorist will chose to zoom ahead of the cyclist and then make a right turn, no matter how close the cyclist is. The motorist does this "because they can."

This is a rare event, but difficult for cyclists to defend against, due to the sudden ackward moves by the motorist.

I know this never happens to HH. But it does occur.

This is why I said almost every time a cyclist is right hooked he could have prevented it, rather than every time, so I'm not sure why you felt the need to point this out.

No point to start a new thread...

I was pushed into by a small pickup truck today on the commute home.



Yikes, my inner thigh is throbbing bad now. Ouch.

As I waw leaving scene I was temped to get plate numbers, temped to hold back and beat the crap out of the car, etc. But I also just wanted to get home.

Al


Yup... traffic is predictable... individual drivers are not. Clearly you were not destination positioned properly. :rolleyes: You should have noticed the gleem in the passengers' eyes just seconds before and known that truck was going to do that. ;)

This is why I said almost every time a cyclist is right hooked he could have prevented it, rather than every time, so I'm not sure why you felt the need to point this out.

I wanted to point out that there is another almost unpredictable scenerio... that a cyclist should not assume that proper positioning in the lane is enough...

Keep your head on a swivel and watch for strange behaviour... it happens.

Traffic is predictable... individual motorists are not.

Placed between center and right taillight of car in front of me. I was going to make a right turn. Two cars were stopped ahead of me.
To the right of center is too far to the right in this situation for precisely the reason all this happened... you are not visible to those looking ahead. Like you said, it looked like a gap. You guys were stopped. There is no reason not to be right behind the LEFT tailight of the car in front of you in this situation, or maybe a foot to the right of it, at most. That's where a motorcyclists should be positioned in this situation, and you too, for the same reasons.

I've never had a right hook from a car from the same lane as I ride like Serge explained.
But twice I've been cut off my a driver who just passed me in lane to my left (while I was in center of right lane) and then made a sharp right turn completely across my lane. Drivers in both cases were being outwardly agressive and fully aware of my presence (they were behind me swerved around into adjacent lane and turned hard righ across my path) I was traveling at 25mph+ in both cases in a 40mph zone. Only hard evasive actions (braking and swerving) avoided collision.
Al
I was commenting about what Nova wrote in her letter, which was clearly talking about typical same lane right hooks, not about the extreme cases you describe here, and the ones I noted I was not talking about by saying almost all.

To the right of center is too far to the right in this situation for precisely the reason all this happened... you are not visible to those looking ahead. Like you said, it looked like a gap. You guys were stopped. There is no reason not to be right behind the LEFT tailight of the car in front of you in this situation, or maybe a foot to the right of it, at most. That's where a motorcyclists should be positioned in this situation, and you too, for the same reasons.

He was positioned for the right turn he was about to make... he was properly "destination positioned." He was two car lengths from the turn, that is about 36 feet in this situation.

The motorist was an idiot!

Traffic is predictable... individual motorists are not!

I think the motorist made a reasonable assumption given the norms of our culture. Thinking to look for a mispositioned bicyclist or motorcyclist where Al was positioned would have been a bonus, but not doing so does not make him an idiot.

This is a classic situation where a cyclist should take his queue by thinking, "where would a motorcyclist be positioned?"

I think the motorist made a reasonable assumption given the norms of our culture. Thinking to look for a mispositioned bicyclist or motorcyclist where Al was positioned would have been a bonus, but not doing so does not make him an idiot.

This is a classic situation where a cyclist should take his queue by thinking, "where would a motorcyclist be positioned?"


Having been one of those (motorcyclist) too... and even a vehicle driver now... if I am preping for a turn I shift over toward the turn. Even on narrow residential streets, when I position for a right, there is room to my left (in a car mind you) for another car.

CVC states that right turns should be made from as close as practicable to the right hand curb or edge of roadway.

To the right of center is too far to the right in this situation for precisely the reason all this happened... you are not visible to those looking ahead. Like you said, it looked like a gap. You guys were stopped. There is no reason not to be right behind the LEFT tailight of the car in front of you in this situation, or maybe a foot to the right of it, at most. That's where a motorcyclists should be positioned in this situation, and you too, for the same reasons.
Blah, blah, I expected better from you Serge. If you divided up the lane into four quadrants. I was in the middle of the one just to the right of center. There is a big crack in the exact middle of the lane from recent construction nd I was to the right of it by a foot or so. This put me between the license plate and right turn light of car in front of me as I noted before. Maybe I should have been to the full left which I what I do when I am going straight, but I was turning right shortly.
Please read and also note that for the car behind me to run into my side, the driver had to cross the white dashed lane dividing line. They had their left wheels completely over the line. They were up to something, either trying to squeeze around me before the light turned green or who knows what.
But go ahead and blame the cyclist, driver are never at fault if us cyclist don't do perfect.

I am absolutely certain that I could have or should have done anything different. Maybe I should watch every car behind me like a hawk to see if they pull some stupid stuntk, but then I would not have any where to go to move out of the way and wouldn't be noticing when the light did turn green.

The driver was not paying attention at all (or intentionally agressive) Face it Serge, this happens.

Al

I think the motorist made a reasonable assumption given the norms of our culture. Thinking to look for a mispositioned bicyclist or motorcyclist where Al was positioned would have been a bonus, but not doing so does not make him an idiot.

This is a classic situation where a cyclist should take his queue by thinking, "where would a motorcyclist be positioned?"
I respect many of your thoughts (perhaps more than most folks on these forums) but in this case your a stubborn ass. I was making a right turn. It would have been just as likely if I was positioned further left that the driver would have tried to squeeze by my right as I was making a right turn. Also note that one of the reasons I am very slightly right biased from center is so I have a full sightline of the x-walk as I approach so I can see pedestrians and sidewalk cyclists enter it, which I need to see so I don't hit them as I turn and also because one crossing can cause the line ahead of right turners to make sudden stops.

Al

I respect many of your thoughts (perhaps more than most folks on these forums) but in this case your a stubborn ass.
FWIW, that means a lot to me.

I know that CVC says as close to the right as practicable.

But for the driver of a narrow vehicle, there are other considerations to be made.

John Franklin, in his book Cyclecraft, brought my attention to the issue of riding too far to the right in making a right turn (too far left for a left turn in his English case).
Before then, I used to go by Forester's "side of the lane that matches your destination" rule, which in this case would be the right side.

BTW you prevent the driver behind you from squeezing in on your right by
a) not being so far left that there is enough room for him to do so,
b) signalling right so he knows you're turning.

I will be taking a motorcycle class in the not too distant future, and I will be curious to see what they teach about positioning for right turns in situations like this.

Also, by staying left while still stopped is one thing. Moving further right once you get going to get the sight lines for the x-walk is another.

If "TRUCK LANE" is acceptable as a conveniently short name (which fits nicely on the sign) for a Slow Moving Traffic use lane, why isn't "BIKE LANE" acceptable as a conveniently short name for a Slow/Narrow Moving Traffic use lane?While both of those names are currently accepted by highway engineering standards, that doesn't mean that they should be.

I've seen TRUCK LANEs separated from the regular vehicular lanes by a solid stripe too.In the USA, solid white lane line markings may be used to separate through traffic lanes from auxiliary lanes, such as slow moving traffic lanes, left- or right-turn lanes, and special use lanes. They may also be used to separate traffic lanes approaching an intersection.

If BIKE LANEs were limited to locations with the same kind of characteristics as are TRUCK LANEs, I wouldn't have a problem with them.
The important difference is not the names themselves, but what those names represent. In the USA, these signs may appear in advance of a portion of the highway which is marked with a line to facilitate passing and overtaking: TRUCK LANE is short for Slow Moving Traffic Lane
lies within traveled way (the portion of the highway for traveling) is integrated (i.e., access is not conditional just on the type of a driver's vehicle) BIKE LANE is short for Bicycle Lane lies outside of the traveled way in another portion of the highway is segregated (i.e., access is conditional just on the type of a driver's vehicle)
These differences would still exist even if a location limitation was added to the definitions.

HH, Now that I've slept on it I feel I have a very good take on what happened.

1. I stopped behind two cars at a red light, nearly directly behind them. Lane was a narrow lane, but opened up wider toward intersection.
2. Car pulled up behind me, driver clearly saw me as they stopped behind me. I had turned just after they stopped and made face contact.
3. We waited for light to turn. Driver became impatient, most likely egged on by the two other young passengers jammed into the small bench seat in front. I can just imagine: "Dude, pass this idiot, what the hell is is doing in the road anyway"
4. Driver notices he can squeeze by me as the cars in line to his left are, well, a bit too far left. He turns wheels to move left over the lane line and turns head to watch cars on his left to get as close as possible to fit in the narrow gap between me and the cars to his left.
5. He is focused on getting thru, watching the 'hard' object to his left and only partially aware of me in his peripheral vision if at all.
6. Passengers must be fully aware of what is happening, but don't give a rats ass, they probably think its funny he is about to push into me. I am certain that there is know way the two extra sets of eyes did not notice me in the path of the vehicle (I wear hi vis and have two sets of very bright flashing lights, it was daylight). They obviously chose not to say anything to the driver. Worse case the driver actually knew he was going to push into me.

No need for me to say any more - all the rest is only additional speculation. Also note this, while solid and substantial physical contact with a vehicle and a tiny bit of bruising in my upper inner thigh, barely constitutes an accident let alone one worth reporting. It is really no big deal to me in the result, but only pointed it out as an example that drivers will do stupid things even if you do you best to anticipate and control a situation. I wrote about it in this thread for two reasons: 1. So as not to start yet another endless discussion and 2. It relates to attitudes of drivers in this areas as expressed by the author of the editorial - that is cyclist are obsticals that cause inconvienience to the mighty vehicle driver.

Al

\ BIKE LANE is short for Bicycle Lane lies outside of the traveled way in another portion of the highway is segregated (i.e., access is conditional just on the type of a driver's vehicle)[/list]
These differences would still exist even if a location limitation was added to the definitions.

Bike Lanes exist right in the traveled way as Helmet Head and others so often point out... take away the stripe and the lanes simply become WOL.

They are no more "segregated" than a white lined Truck Lane.

The only limitation to the type of vehicle allowed in a Bike Lane is that the vehicle must be narrow... such as a moped, Segway, or Bicycle.

In fact regarding the "narrow factor;" if the far right (wide) lanes were made into "slow lanes" as has been discussed before... then during rush hour when all vehicle are moving at 10MPH or less, cyclists would be stuck in the same traffic crush. Right now, due the "narrow lane factor," cyclist can and do avoid the typical stop and go traffic of "rush hour" by simply using the dedicated narrow vehicle lane... which is just as segregated and just as meaningfully used as the car pool lane... which is segregated to certain vehicles having more then one person aboard.

I wrote about it in this thread for two reasons: 1. So as not to start yet another endless discussion and 2. It relates to attitudes of drivers in this areas as expressed by the author of the editorial - that is cyclist are obstacles that cause inconvienience to the mighty vehicle driver.

Al

Al I have also seen similar stupid behaviour from drivers in spite of me doing all the right things. Such as driver making right turn from center "straight only" lane... his right turn was due to me occupying the right turn lane to make a right turn... his turn would have put him right into my lane where I was... he was turning from the center lane to right turn around me. An intentional "right hook."

Similarly a straight through from a dedicated right only lane, again to circumvent being behind a cyclist when the light turned green... again to go around me from right to left... an intentional "left hook."

In both cases, stop lights were involved. In both cases I was at the center of a narrow dedicated lane, so there was no confusion about my intent... and in both cases the drivers came up moments after me.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again... Traffic is predicable... individual drivers are not.

Al - perhaps I totally misunderstood. I originally understood that you were stopped between two cars, say Car A in front of you, and Car B behind you, and, that a driver of a 3rd car, Car C, in the lane to your left, not seeing you because you were right of center, and, so thinking there was a gap between A and B, passed Car B and turned right into you.

But from reading your explanation this morning, it appears that it was Car B that was driven left and forward, and hit you. If that was the case, then yeah, of course, that was totally 100% the fault of the Car B driver, especially after you had made eye contact with him.

, so there was no confusion about my intent... and in both cases the drivers came up moments after me.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again... Traffic is predicable... individual drivers are not.
I've been thinking about individual drivers, why some get so 'difficult' around cyclists on the road. I think it is because in some places where road cyclists are so rare* that it creates anxiety - folks that may be 'normal' otherwise, get agressive as a result of the new situation and the anxiety is creates - what to do around a cyclist.

I make a right turn into work every morning from a right turn only lane, from the exact center of the lane. I find that about 1 in 10 drivers when I am turning don't use the right turn lane and turn right across my path from the thru lane instead, the problem always arises that they turn tighter than I do (I guess they expect me to turn tight into the debris filled shoulder of the street I am turning into) and I end up right up against the side of the turning car, jammed into the debris shoulder - I give gesture, bang on window, etc. (these are possible likely co-workers) Are they being rude and inconsiderate, or just in a 'stupid state' brought on by confusion of bicycle?

*by rare: I have been counting cyclists I see for the past few weeks on my commute. It ranges between 5-15, average of about 8. Of the 8 all 8 are on sidewalk, 3 are riding the wrong way. In the past 8 weeks of my 18mi RT commute I have not seen a single other cyclist on the road. Of course there are other cyclists here that use the road, but not enough to make a daily impression on drivers.

Al

I've been thinking about individual drivers, why some get so 'difficult' around cyclists on the road. I think it is because in some places where road cyclists are so rare* that it creates anxiety - folks that may be 'normal' otherwise, get agressive as a result of the new situation and the anxiety is creates - what to do around a cyclist.

I make a right turn into work every morning from a right turn only lane, from the exact center of the lane. I find that about 1 in 10 drivers when I am turning don't use the right turn lane and turn right across my path from the thru lane instead, the problem always arises that they turn tighter than I do (I guess they expect me to turn tight into the debris filled shoulder of the street I am turning into) and I end up right up against the side of the turning car, jammed into the debris shoulder - I give gesture, bang on window, etc. (these are possible likely co-workers) Are they being rude and inconsiderate, or just in a 'stupid state' brought on by confusion of bicycle?

*by rare: I have been counting cyclists I see for the past few weeks on my commute. It ranges between 5-15, average of about 8. Of the 8 all 8 are on sidewalk, 3 are riding the wrong way. In the past 8 weeks of my 18mi RT commute I have not seen a single other cyclist on the road. Of course there are other cyclists here that use the road, but not enough to make a daily impression on drivers.

Al


The anxity thing may be a factor... I have heard from various non-cyclists "those cyclists frighten me... " Which really makes no sense at all. We are no threat at all, and if they simply treated us just like any other vehicle driver, then the situation would easily work out.

This again is where I believe that motorist education will only yield the results of Forester's statement of cyclists faring best... when they act like and ARE TREATED LIKE drivers of vehicles.

Motorists simply do not know what they are supposed to do, and make up their own responses... that tells me that there is something missing in their education.