Advocacy & Safety - Another misinformed editorial

While both of those names are currently accepted by highway engineering standards, that doesn't mean that they should be.
Bruce, I'm asking about whether it is acceptable to YOU, not to highway engineering standards. Are you saying that you strongly oppose truck lanes being called truck lanes? Or are you just saying it's not ideal, but understandable why they're called truck lanes instead of slow moving vehicle lanes? Or something else?

Whatever your answer, now consider a world mostly without bike lanes, except a few isolated exceptions here and there that meet the same characteristics of truck lanes (intersectionless stretches of relatively high-speed roadway), except that they are narrow, 5', and are labeled BIKE LANE instead of TRUCK LANE. Would you be strongly opposed to these lanes being called bike lanes? Or would you just say it's not ideal, but understandable why they're called bike lanes instead of slow moving narrow vehicle lanes? Or something else?

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.


Come to norton ohio and make 3 trips a day up jhonson road and take the lane at the bridge and the turn on to hametown or just go strait. You will have drivers tare by you at 45 mph with less than 18 inches to spare then turn right infront of you from the wrong lane. Youll find your self barly avoid coliding with many cars over the period of 2 weeks. Im not a fast cyclist and dont realy try to be. So i can avoid the crash. Pluss going up hill tends to shorten your stoping distance by a huge ammount. Theres plenty of other areas that are identical to jhonson road and hame town intersection like medinaline and jhonson to name one other.

So your lucky and live in a area wherethe standard tricks of the road work like taking the lane but thats not the case for every one.

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.
I hear what both of you are saying.

On the first part of my commute, on Torrey Pines Road, other cyclists are fairly common, but there is a bike lane, and, so, we are largely ignored anyway. There is one major intersection, call "the throat", where we have to turn left (going straight takes you to a freeway and no where else to go), but I'm aware of only one other cyclist, Ron, who does it vehicularly, as I described a few days ago. Most other cyclists wait for a gap to cross over to the left turn lanes, or do a 2-part left turn. That's the first part. At the top of the hill, when I hit UCSD, I have to turn right onto La Jolla Village Drive. Now on that part of the commute other cyclists are very rare, in the sense that Al means rare. Weeks go by without ever seeing another cyclist - and, believe me, I'm looking for them. The only other cyclist that I know rides it regularly is the same Ron who makes a vehicular left turn at "the throat". This second part of the commute is 6 lanes of 45 mph (posted, 50 actual) traffic. The outside lane alternates from narrow to wide-with-parking to wide-without-parking. There is a freeway crossing along the way, which means I have to deal with freeway onramp and offramp traffic that is crossing my path. There is a long and narrow right turn only lane I need to avoid by riding in the center of the rightmost through lane. Then I need to cross all three lanes to get into a left turn lane.

I've been doing this commute for five years, the last two more assertively using vc techniques. In that time, I can count on one hand how many incidents I've had with motorists being confused with what I'm doing. The first three years that can be attributed to my mostly just trying to stay out of the way so that they need not be concerned (those were the days I waited for gaps, hung out in the right only lane when going straight, hugged the curb to let others pass me, etc.).

I cannot stress enough how important it is to be sensitive to their potential confusion, and to defuse it with various types of communication as soon as possible. The mirror I've been using for most of the last year has helped quite a bit in this endeavor. When I'm riding in the center of a WOL because there is a door zone, and riding just outside of the door zone invites motorists to try to squeeze into the lane next to me, too close, I convey to motorists approaching from the rear that I know they're there, and I'm not budging, for whatever reason, by issueing the slow/stop signal with my left arm. Sometimes adjusting my lateral position by just 6 inches - in the more assertive direction, usually left - does the trick too.

Al said one out of 10 right turners pass him on his left to turn right from to his left. 1 out of 10! I can't understand that. I wouldn't allow it. If I feel someone approaching from the rear on my left, I'm going to move left, perhaps first issuing a right turn signal, followed immediately with a slow/stop signal, not to mention turning around and giving them a, "excuse me, what do you think you're doing?" look... That's all well before we reach the turn. Banging on the window after they cut the corner tight is too late. Maybe it's what you're wearing, or the type of bike you're riding. What are you wearing and riding?

Al, from the way you describe these scenarios, I get the impression that there isn't a whole lot of interaction going on between you and others. This is of course impossible to know, but, fwiw, that's the impression I get from reading your posts. It's almost like you're concentrating on doing the right thing, independent of others. I get the impression that you take the same right turn in the same position every day, as opposed to choosing your position based on the current factors and conditions, including the presence, actions and intent of other drivers around you. I probably do something significantly different every day at almost every intersection of my commute, based on what else is going on. Do you?

You will have drivers tare by you at 45 mph with less than 18 inches to spare then turn right infront of you from the wrong lane.
Nova, if you think car drivers are taking 90 degree turns at 45 mph, you're making my point - you don't understand the nature and causes of right hooks.

All right turning car drivers slow down at right turns to a speed slower than any cyclist continuing to go straight. They have to slow down to that slow of a speed to make the turn. That's why you catch up with them after they pass you. It is with those drivers, the ones traveling at your speed and slower, than you need to deal with at right turns where you are going straight. And if you stay to the right of all this SLOW right-turning traffic, you're asking for trouble.

Al said one out of 10 right turners pass him on his left to turn right from to his left. 1 out of 10! I can't understand that. I wouldn't allow it. If I feel someone approaching from the rear on my left, I'm going to move left, perhaps first issuing a right turn signal, followed immediately with a slow/stop signal, not to mention turning around and giving them a, "excuse me, what do you think you're doing?" look... That's all well before we reach the turn. Banging on the window after they cut the corner tight is too late. Maybe it's what you're wearing, or the type of bike you're riding. What are you wearing and riding?
Firstly I am wearing a hi-vis ANSI lime T-shirt and black cycling shorts. Riding a fixed gear or multigear road bike, same thing (I am certain that drivers are not aware of difference) Why should my bike make a difference anyway?
It is only this right turn I get this on - cars quickly decelerate from 50mph to make this turn hard, many squeal tires on turn.
When cars come up from my left its hard to know if they are going straight or going to make a sudden right turn, only a few put on signal., the right turn only lane is quite short, a car on my left in the go straight lane seems like they are going straight, until the sudden decel, by then I've got both hands on the bars prepping for a turn myself.
Sure I can ride to the very far left of the lane - but is that really the position one should be in to execute a right turn? Sure I can signal tiny bit more (I do make right turn signal always) But I also like to have both hands on the bars before I turn for better control. It all boils down to balance, how much I look ahead vs. behind, how much I keep best control of cycle for turn, etc.

Al

I wouldn't allow it. If I feel someone approaching from the rear on my left, I'm going to move left, perhaps first issuing a right turn signal, followed immediately with a slow/stop signal, not to mention turning around and giving them a, "excuse me, what do you think you're doing?" look... That's all well before we reach the turn. Banging on the window after they cut the corner tight is too late. Maybe it's what you're wearing, or the type of bike you're riding. What are you wearing and riding?


I love that... "I wouldn't allow it."

OK sure, your outstreched arm is really going to stop someone from whipping around you.

But I do know what you mean... when moving, and their eyes are on you, you can really generally effect what traffic is doing, even individual drivers... those folks that are looking right at you while trying to figure out what to do. You give them guidance... and they will follow.

Now go back and read what happened to both Al and I... both were already stopped, both of us where already "static" in our positions, when drivers then moved in unexpected ways. By his description, Al had eye contact with the driver and the passengers and they still pulled their bone head move. I would bet that "I wouldn't allow it" would not have worked at all.

In my case, the motorists did their thing as the light turned green, after they had slipped into position during the red... with no other indication that they were going to do something odd. "I wouldn't allow it" worked for one... I gave him a big huge open STOP hand right in the windshield. The other guy simply drove around me like I was nothing more then a trash bag in the way. No big outstretched hand was going to stop him. I had no choice but to lock up brakes or meet the side of his truck.

"I wouldn't allow it." Right!

Let's all review basic physics again... 200 pound rider and cycle, meet 4000 pound metal object...

LIME T-shirt? Oh now I understand... I'd try to run you down too! :)

Seriously, pick up a European team jersey at your LBS, and see if that gets you some respect out there...

You shouldn't need both hands on the bars until you're just a few feet from the turn and are starting the lean. By then who is going when and where should all be sorted out. If people are cutting in from the through lane that late in the game, that is insane.

If people are regularly turning right from the through lane, across the right turn only lane flow, I would call the police and have them observe that some morning.

LIME T-shirt? Oh now I understand... I'd try to run you down too! :)

Seriously, pick up a European team jersey at your LBS, and see if that gets you some respect out there...

You shouldn't need both hands on the bars until you're just a few feet from the turn and are starting the lean. By then who is going when and where should all be sorted out. If people are cutting in from the through lane that late in the game, that is insane.
Well, its called ANSI lime - most would describe it as very bright yellow.
Yeah, I put hands on bars about 10ft before turn. Cars slow sudden to my left and turn hard from the thru lane. Its not insane, pretty common. Most who do this drive high end sports cars and peformance sedans.

Al

If people are regularly turning right from the through lane, across the right turn only lane flow, I would call the police and have them observe that some morning.
I said 1 of 10 right turners cut me like this. In 5 day work week about 50% of the time someone else is also turning right behind me = 2.5 cars average per week turning when I am. So that means that over four weeks one person will turn hard like this from the thru lane into my intended path. Really 1 of 10 turners is not that common an occurance. Certainly not enough for an officer to wait to see it happen.

Edit: I estimated 1 in 10 occurance, which equals about once per month. Actually the occurance is probably a bit higher or more than 50% of the time someone else is turning as this happens to me at this turn about 2x per month, maybe somewere in between those numbers.

Al

I want to make a comment about riding in Phx-metro area. I often comment on the bad spots, a mile or two here and there of aggressive drivers unwilling to pass safely with me in center of lane during peak rush hour, a specific turn, an ignorant driver. But I rarely comment on the great.
Every weekend morning ride I've been on in and around the city has been fantastic, uneventful, peaceful and sometimes heavenly. I see lots of road cyclists out on the weekends, sometimes hundreds on some of the more popular areas. (where there are hills and some scenery ;) )
Also during the rush hour commute I do encounter friendly and outwardly courteous drivers. Sometimes we even chat thru open windows when the weather is nice. Many folks respect cyclist. Most folks understand sharing the road.
I just really wanted to get this said as I put a laser focus on specific bad things/areas and felt it important that folks reading this know there is a lot more good than bad. That said, these bad areas/events/drivers can ruin a single commute.

Al

I said 1 of 10 right turners cut me like this. In 5 day work week about 50% of the time someone else is also turning right behind me = 2.5 cars average per week turning when I am. So that means that over four weeks one person will turn hard like this from the thru lane into my intended path. Really 1 of 10 turners is not that common an occurance. Certainly not enough for an officer to wait to see it happen.

Edit: I estimated 1 in 10 occurance, which equals about once per month. Actually the occurance is probably a bit higher or more than 50% of the time someone else is turning as this happens to me at this turn about 2x per month, maybe somewere in between those numbers.

Al
You never answered my A, B, C question I asked earlier today, and now I'm confused again.

Are you saying that a car being driven in the through lane, and never entering the right turn lane, cuts hard right in front of you to make the turn? Or are you talking about a car behind you, being driven left partially into the through lane to pass you, and then cutting right in front of you?

Also, are you saying that 1/10 drivers turns right from the through lane, or are you saying that 1/10 times that you make the turn, a drivers makes a right from the through lane because of you, and would have probably made the turn correctly if you weren't there?

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.
The second scenario (car behind driven forward and left, then hit me) is how is occured and how I described it originally.

Is this the ABC test?

Al

You never answered my A, B, C question I asked earlier today, and now I'm confused again.

Are you saying that a car being driven in the through lane, and never entering the right turn lane, cuts hard right in front of you to make the turn? Or are you talking about a car behind you, being driven left partially into the through lane to pass you, and then cutting right in front of you?
Not sure where the ABC questions are.

In this scenario (which is a completely different place and issue than the 'bump' scenario I described earlier) I am using the center of the right turn only lane and a driver seeing me there instead of pulling in behind me decides to not even pull into right turn lane and instead make a turn from the thru lane (sometimes cutting the far left corner of what is the right turn lane. They apparently try and beat me to the turn, under estimate my speed, and yes they see me and yes they know I am turning, but they assume they can make a slightly wider turn than me as they wrongly assume I will be turning tight from the center of the right turn lane into the debris strewn bike lane that this side street has.

Al

Al said one out of 10 right turners pass him on his left to turn right from to his left. 1 out of 10!

Also, are you saying that 1/10 drivers turns right from the through lane, or are you saying that 1/10 times that you make the turn, a drivers makes a right from the through lane because of you, and would have probably made the turn correctly if you weren't there?


You got it right the first time. Why are you now asking me again to clarify?

To repeat and clarify: When I am turning right 1 of 10 every drivers who is turning right, turns from the thru lane and cuts me tight on the corner as I am turning right from the center of the right turn lane.

These drivers never enter the right turn lane, but often cut the left corner of the right turn lane as they are turning right from the thru lane.

Al

For those of you who in anyway justify this man's remarks, have shame. Did you notice that he calls bicyclists "Those people". Humm, where have I heard that before? Second, he compassionately indicates his response to maiming or killing someone should be considered only a mild annoyance! (Honest, I didn't know the gun was loaded). If you happened to miss any of this, reread the article. The person who wrote this is either a troll or a socially ********, self centered sociopath.

The person who wrote this is either a troll or a socially ********, self centered sociopath.
Or a regular paid columist for the Arizona Republic
Link to Dan's other 298 published columns (http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?s_site=azcentral&f_site=azcentral&f_sitename=Arizona+Republic%2C+The+%28Phoenix%2C+AZ%29&p_theme=gannett&p_product=ARPB&p_action=search&p_perpage=10&p_maxdocs=200&p_queryname=700&s_search_type=customized&p_text_base-0=Dan+Durrenberger&p_field_base-0=Author&p_bool_base-1=AND&p_text_base-1=&p_field_base-1=&p_bool_base-2=AND&p_text_base-2=&p_field_base-2=&p_sort=_rank_%3AD&p_text_YMD_date-0=&p_field_YMD_date-0=YMD_date&p_params_YMD_date-0=date%3AB%2CE&Search=Search)

Al

Or a regular paid columist for the Arizona Republic
Link to Dan's other 298 published columns (http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?s_site=azcentral&f_site=azcentral&f_sitename=Arizona+Republic%2C+The+%28Phoenix%2C+AZ%29&p_theme=gannett&p_product=ARPB&p_action=search&p_perpage=10&p_maxdocs=200&p_queryname=700&s_search_type=customized&p_text_base-0=Dan+Durrenberger&p_field_base-0=Author&p_bool_base-1=AND&p_text_base-1=&p_field_base-1=&p_bool_base-2=AND&p_text_base-2=&p_field_base-2=&p_sort=_rank_%3AD&p_text_YMD_date-0=&p_field_YMD_date-0=YMD_date&p_params_YMD_date-0=date%3AB%2CE&Search=Search)

Al

Makes him no less a bigot just because he gets paid to do it. Rush Limbaugh comes to mind.

Makes him no less a bigot just because he gets paid to do it. Rush Limbaugh comes to mind.
Don't get me wrong. I didn't mean to imply that columist for the A.R. and socially ******** were exclusive.

Al

Don't get me wrong. I didn't mean to imply that columist for the A.R. and socially ******** were exclusive.

Al Quite so. Didn't mean imply differently. I found the article offensive and beyond sensible. I have lost friends to bicycle vs. vehicle encounters so it hits a nerve when I read hatemongering guised as journalism.

Quite so. Didn't mean imply differently. I found the article offensive and beyond sensible. I have lost friends to bicycle vs. vehicle encounters so it hits a nerve when I read hatemongering guised as journalism.
Exactly. That is why I posed it, its just so obscene. Didn't get any reaction if followup letters to the editor (at least so far). Do papers really think they are doing their communities a favor by publishing this drivel?

Al

If he kills someone, he's concerned that he'll have to pay for an attorney? This is a joke, isn't it?

I think he means, "If somene gets killed, an attorney will be needed." I don't think he is suggesting that the driver necessarily "killed" anyone. It depends upon whom fault is placed after all. Someone's dead, but maybe they are responsible for their own passing. Let's not forget that a cyclist might also occasionally take out one of those hapless pedestrians as well.

I thought the piece was balanced. The again, I have also driven in that area on occasion.

The again, I have also driven in that area on occasion.
If you have you probably noted that it has far few cyclists than most college campus areas and far more high speed cars.

Al

If you have you probably noted that it has far few cyclists than most college campus areas and far more high speed cars.

Al

And, wide, multi-laned boulevards.

Bike Lanes exist right in the traveled way...
Since I (and about 290,000,000 other residents) live in the USA, let's start out by reviewing some definitions from the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/HTM/2003/html-index.htm) (MUTCD): Bicycle—a pedal-powered vehicle ...
Traffic—... vehicles, ... and other conveyances ... while using any highway for purposes of travel.
Roadway—that portion of a highway ... used for vehicular travel and parking lanes, ...
Traveled Way—the portion of the roadway for the movement of vehicles, exclusive of the ... parking lanes.
Edge Line Markings—... lines that delineate the ... edge(s) of a traveled way.
Bicycle Lane—a portion of a roadway ... for ... use by bicyclists

The traveled way is where vehicular traffic is supposed to be when traveling from one destination to another. Travel lanes are lanes marked within the traveled way, but there are other lanes (such as parking lanes) which are outside. Notice that a Bicycle Lane is not defined as a lane (as one might expect, given the naming) but rather as another roadway portion.

The MUTCD goes on to state in Chapter 3 that:Edge line markings may be excluded ... if the traveled way edges are delineated by curbs, parking, bicycle lanes ...In order for bicycle lanes to mark the edge of the traveled way like curbs and parking, they must lie side by side. In other words, a bicycle lane is no more part of the traveled way than is a curb or parking (or a shoulder, for that matter).

Sometimes bicycle lanes in the USA are now positioned to the left of right turn lanes, but only because the following patch was later applied to the MUTCD:A through bicycle lane shall not be positioned to the right of a right turn only lane.
To summarize: the roadway can have multiple portions the traveled way is the portion for travel by vehicular traffic pedal vehicles are vehicular traffic Travel Lanes (of any width) lie within the traveled way bicycle lanes, by definition, lie outside of the traveled way (but do lie within the Clear Zone)
What's the Clear Zone? Here's the definition (from the MUTCD, of course :) ) :Clear Zone—the total roadside border area, starting at the edge of the traveled way, that is available for an errant driver to stop or regain control of a vehicle.

The only limitation to the type of vehicle allowed in a Bike Lane is that the vehicle must be narrow... For the almost 300 million folks in the USA, the following definitions from the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) apply Bicycle - a pedal-powered vehicle upon which the human operator sits.
Bicycle Lane - a portion of a roadway that has been designated by signs and pavement markings for preferential or exclusive use by bicyclists.Nothing about width in either of those definitions. Now I don't expect that everyone is going to believe me, so here's the URL for those who prefer to look for themselves (hint: the definitions are in Chapter 1):
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/HTM/2003/html-index.htm

Bruce "Would you like fries with your portion?" Rosar

Anal retentive, pedantic...

Anal retentive, pedantic...Ah, that's a fancy set of labels to slap on those who have delivered a disagreeable message! Much less risky than daring to honestly discuss the message itself (unless other readers of this thread happen to recognize the use of disinformation tactic (http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html) #5 when they see it ;)

#5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule.
This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'fanatics', 'deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with the issues.

It has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with any message. Nor is it a disinformation tactic. And I stopped caring about whatever issue you've been going on about several pages ago. Every time I check this thread, there's more blather about what we should call some bit of asphalt. Path, lane, portion, who cares at this point? It has nothing to do with the thread anymore, it's just a couple of guys wasting time arguing semantics.

Please, is there anyone reading this with interest, or have you too given up? If you've been lurking, now is the time to comment.

OK... back on task here....

I have been emailing the authored the of the original editorial. I can assure you he uses dissinformation tactic # 5 with much gusto!

He has informed me that he is going to issue a second editorial this Friday which I gather will include a responce to all the emails he has received.

I am sure it will sink to a new low...

Nice try Bruce... the only problem with the poor definitions from the MUTCD is that the document itself is quite flawed.

So essentially you are simply quoting a government approved document regarding road design that serves cyclists quite poorly.

Within the precious MUTCD they show how one can put bike lanes right next to parked cars... so if that is what you are going to use for a resource, I suggest you contact them and work on their definitions.

Meanwhile, the rest of us know full well that the whole road is the traveled way... and that BL are simply a stripe. To further empasize the futility of this word game... note how we insist that motorists travel in the BL to make right hand turns, and how we insist that motorists merge with cyclists in the BL...

All indicators that the BL is part of the traveled way... or just another part of the roadway... or just another lane!

In fact I'll go you one further... what if the MUTCD were changed to say that the bike lanes were part of the traveled way and the laws that govern the roads in all 50 states then stated that cyclists could use any part of the road at any time and that BL were only there for the convenience of cyclist and to promote the use of bikes and the saving of gas. What if every objectionable "segregationist" term were removed or changed to favor cyclists...

Would any of this word game change the driving habits of any motorist?

Heck no... motorists don't read the laws, they have no idea what the MUTCD is... they simply push on the gas, look for the green lights and stay between the lines.

So in essense, all these word games may statisfy your head and feelings, but they don't really reflect the actions of the road using public.

Bruce... I don't see an answer the question I posed to you at the top of Page 5...

Meanwhile, the rest of us know full well that the whole road is the traveled way... and that BL are simply a stripe.
It is my observation that people treat bike lanes consistently with the MUTCD definitions provided by Bruce. In particular, motor vehicle drivers do not treat bike lanes as part of the traveled way, and that's why cyclists like them so much (and also why BLs tend to collect debris).

They do cross them when needed, and merge into them when turning, sometimes. Essentially, they treat them much like they treat other non-traveled portions of the roadway, like shoulders and parking lanes.

I don't understand your objection to Bruce's point.

It is my observation that people treat bike lanes consistently with the MUTCD definitions provided by Bruce. In particular, motor vehicle drivers do not treat bike lanes as part of the traveled way, and that's why cyclists like them so much (and also why BLs tend to collect debris).

They do cross them when needed, and merge into them when turning, sometimes. Essentially, they treat them much like they treat other non-traveled portions of the roadway, like shoulders and parking lanes.

I don't understand your objection to Bruce's point.

Bike lanes are part of the road. They are not some addition to the road that has some special power to include or exclude motorists or cyclists, they are simply another lane.

Bruce is attempting to use word definitions given in the MUTCD to "prove" the segregation of the roadway.

Take away those definitions from the MUTCD or any existing law and would the actions of motorists change... No way.

Now train the motorists how to properly accept cyclists and train cyclists how to be traffic, and the result may be that we get the actions that Forester claims... "cyclists fare best... when acting like and are treated as drivers of vehicles."

Bruce and yourself spend lots of time making sure that we here all know the "proper words" in the laws and in other documents... however, the reality is few if any motorists know these words, or better, their meaning.

Until motorists understand that a BL is just another lane, they will not look to the right to see if they are cutting someone off, just as they do when they move from a left most lane to a right most lane... they will not properly merge and they will expect cyclists to only be in BL.

Of course your reaction will be "get rid of all BL." Well earlier, I asked why we cannot just ride in the right most lane on a multi laned road just like any motorist and you countered with a need to monitor a mirror and move... yet this is NOT what motorists do... therefore we are not on an equal footing with motorists.... so much for Forester.

There is a dichotomy that exists... either we are just like motorists and can travel and hold any right most lane with out resorting to "mirror paranoia," or motorists must accept that we are in the BL and treat it as any other lane... by looking before moving and moving before turning.

Why can't bike lanes along their entire length used a dashed white line as is now standard for same direction lane separation markings?

(perhaps we discussed this in the now unweildy BL thread?)

Al

Why can't bike lanes along their entire length used a dashed white line as is now standard for same direction lane separation markings?

(perhaps we discussed this in the now unweildy BL thread?)

Al

It has been discussed and it is a good idea... Gee, too bad it isn't in the MUTCD... but then neither are "Cyclists May Use Full Lane" signs.

The idea is good except for the fact that some motorists will then deprive us of the BL during rush hour and turn it into an extra lane. Now of course it could be argued that this already happens (it does) and so what... to this latter statement I can only argue having open lanes during rush hour is one of the few "privileges" cyclists have... much like motorists being able to car pool in their "special lanes" if they have 2 passengers or more.

Beyond that minor objection, I see no reason why BL shouldn't just be dashed all the way.

The idea is good except for the fact that some motorists will then deprive us of the BL during rush hour and turn it into an extra lane. Now of course it could be argued that this already happens (it does) and so what...

....

Beyond that minor objection, I see no reason why BL shouldn't just be dashed all the way.
How can motorist use it unless it is wide enough for a vehicle to fit it. I am not aware of any BL here where I live that is this wide. But like you said, a minor objection, solid or dashed doesn't stop an impatient driver.

Al

Bruce is attempting to use word definitions given in the MUTCD to "prove" the segregation of the roadway.

Take away those definitions from the MUTCD or any existing law and would the actions of motorists change... No way.
Gene, your point that if you take away the MUTCD definitions and existing law the actions of motorists with regards of BL treatment would not change is well taken. What you seem to be ignoring is that that treatment that wil not change is consistent with motorists viewing the BL as "segregation" of the roadway. They treat it like a shoulder or parking lane, not a part of the traveled way, not like any other lane. And until you widen it, and allow them to drive in it, which would defeat the point of having a BL for all those who want it, they are going to continue treating it the way they do. Thus, all bike lanes are inherently problematic; it stems from the fundamental concept all of them are based on.


Well earlier, I asked why we cannot just ride in the right most lane on a multi laned road just like any motorist and you countered with a need to monitor a mirror and move... yet this is NOT what motorists do... therefore we are not on an equal footing with motorists.... so much for Forester.
Why don't you address my response to your making this (lame) point the first time? That is, what you describe, monitoring a mirror and moving aside when safe and reasonable, even on multi-lane roads, IS what motorists do... motorists that are drivers of other SLOW vehicles, that is. It is, for example, what I do when driving my Honda Trail 70. It is what I did when I used to drive a 1971 VW bus, the one I learned to drive on. It is what bulldozer drivers do on Torrey Pines Road (a multi-lane road).

I can't believe, after all this time, you're still confusing "act/be treated as a vehicle driver" with "act/be treated as a car driver". The term vehicle is not necessarily a car. VC is not about equating cyclists with CAR drivers... it is about equating cyclists with VEHICLE drivers. Can you appreciate the difference? With posts like this one, you make it appear that you are unable to do so. Vehicle is a very generic term, and applies to all kinds of things, from horse and buggies and antique cars that can't operate faster than 25 mph and can only go up steep hills in reverse, to
Ferraris and bulldozers, buses and moving vans, parking patrol cars and farm tractors, etc. etc. The point is that the vehicular rules of the road apply the same to all drivers of all vehicles, including the rule that says slower vehicular traffic should keep to the right.

So, yeah, we're NOT on equal footing with motorists who are driving standard modern cars and don't have to worry about being slower traffic (unless, perhaps, they're out for a Sunday drive). But Forester nor no other VC advocate has every claimed we WERE on equal footing with motorists in that sense. Don't you understand that? If you do, why do you point out the obvious (that we're not on such equal footing) and say, "So much for Forester"?

There IS a dichotomy, but it is no different than the dichotomy that exists for other drivers of (slow/low-power) vehicles, except perhaps that we also have the narrow characteristic, and how that affects us as drivers of vehicles. Jeez, we've been over this countless times. I can't believe you're still stuck on it.

Please stop arguing against your strawman misrepresentation of the VC principle as being, "Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as CAR drivers". If you're going to criticize something, criticize it as is, not your strawman misprepresentation of it, please.

The idea [change BL stripe from solid to striped] is good except for the fact that some motorists will then deprive us of the BL during rush hour and turn it into an extra lane.
In other words, they'll start treating it like it's part of the roadway. And you don't want that. Or do you?

Earlier you said you want to train motorists that BLs are just another lane, part of the roadway, but now you're saying you don't want them to treat it like part of the roadway.

Which is it?

The truth is, you want them to treat it like part of the roadway, and you don't. You want it both ways. This is another way of stating the problem fundamental to the very concept of a "bike lane", which applies to ALL bike lanes.

Why don't you address my response to your making this (lame) point the first time? That is, what you describe, monitoring a mirror and moving aside when safe and reasonable, even on multi-lane roads, IS what motorists do... motorists that are drivers of other SLOW vehicles, that is. It is, for example, what I do when driving my Honda Trail 70. It is what I did when I used to drive a 1971 VW bus, the one I learned to drive on. It is what bulldozer drivers do on Torrey Pines Road (a multi-lane road).

I can't believe, after all this time, you're still confusing "act/be treated as a vehicle driver" with "act/be treated as a car driver". The term vehicle is not necessarily a car. VC is not about equating cyclists with CAR drivers... it is about equating cyclists with VEHICLE drivers. Can you appreciate the difference? With posts like this one, you make it appear that you are unable to do so. Vehicle is a very generic term, and applies to all kinds of things, from horse and buggies and antique cars that can't operate faster than 25 mph and can only go up steep hills in reverse, to
Ferraris and bulldozers, buses and moving vans, parking patrol cars and farm tractors, etc. etc. The point is that the vehicular rules of the road apply the same to all drivers of all vehicles, including the rule that says slower vehicular traffic should keep to the right.

So, yeah, we're NOT on equal footing with motorists who are driving standard modern cars and don't have to worry about being slower traffic (unless, perhaps, they're out for a Sunday drive). But Forester nor no other VC advocate has every claimed we WERE on equal footing with motorists in that sense. Don't you understand that? If you do, why do you point out the obvious (that we're not on such equal footing) and say, "So much for Forester"?

There IS a dichotomy, but it is no different than the dichotomy that exists for other drivers of (slow/low-power) vehicles, except perhaps that we also have the narrow characteristic, and how that affects us as drivers of vehicles. Jeez, we've been over this countless times. I can't believe you're still stuck on it.

Please stop arguing against your strawman misrepresentation of the VC principle as being, "Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as CAR drivers". If you're going to criticize something, criticize it as is, not your strawman misprepresentation of it, please.

Sorry, don't know what your question is/was.

I am NOT equating bicycles (vehicles) with cars... I want to know why I cannot hold a lane as long as I want while I am not blocking the only route along that road. I want to ride in the middle of the lane (to avoid dooring) without having to glance at my mirror and play the "after you, Alphonse game." If there are two lanes and no BL or WOL, I want my right lane. If there are three lanes and no BL or WOL, I want that right lane. This is especially true of there are parked cars along the road. And I want to be treated just like the driver of any other vehicle that might also use that same right lane...

Regarding this particular issue of pulling over... in all the cases you sited, the driver of those vehicles are responsible for the decision of when or where to pull over... as is legally the cyclist... but cyclists are constantly pressured by the motoring public to pull over before they feel it is safe to do so... the other vehicle operators are not. Also the incidents of a daily driver having to follow farm/construction equipment is far less then having to deal with daily cycle commuters... for whom the motoring public choses to NOT give the same the same respect as they would the driver of any other vehicle. THAT IS THE POINT!

BTW I never pulled my 1978 VW Camper van over on the freeway... which is a multi laned road... drivers went around me... and I expected them to do so. I never pulled it over on any multilaned road... I expected drivers to go around... they had room, there should have been no problem.

Single lane roads are different class of road and you are expected (by law) to give way to following vehicles.

In other words, they'll start treating it like it's part of the roadway. And you don't want that. Or do you?

Earlier you said you want to train motorists that BLs are just another lane, part of the roadway, but now you're saying you don't want them to treat it like part of the roadway.

Which is it?

The truth is, you want them to treat it like part of the roadway, and you don't. You want it both ways. This is another way of stating the problem fundamental to the very concept of a "bike lane", which applies to ALL bike lanes.


That's right... I really want it to remain a special lane... and for motorists to recognize it and deal with it in the proper way... just like car pool lanes are "special lanes." I want them to treat it just like any other lane in that they will look for traffic in that lane before moving over into it... that is all I want and really expect from them. Pretty minor in the overall scheme of things actually.

Now if it takes dashed stripes to do that... so be it... but then I expect bus lanes, taxi lanes and car pool lanes to also be so striped. Motorist don't seem to have a hard time glancing at the bus lanes et. al. before slipping into them to make legal right turns. The same consideration should be made for BL.

Why can't bike lanes along their entire length used a dashed white line as is now standard for same direction lane separation markings?
Al

Al, I have no clue what standard is in use in most US states. In Ontario the status quo is that any lane with any movement or usage limitations gets a solid stripe. Bus lanes, HOV lanes, taxis lanes, bike lanes - they all get a solid lane stripe. In some cases - such as near schools - all lanes may have solid stripes. The only common exceptions are near intersection where a merger is allowed (e.g. for a right turn). Unfortunately there is some inconsistency here in Ottawa about bike lanes and right-turn mergers: I believe this dates back before the amalgamation in 2000 when the five large cities (and several small ones) got forcibly combined.

So, from where I stand, the US debates over bike lanes are sometimes hard to relate to, particularly when they are accompanied by VCer conspiracy theories. I grew up surrounded with special-use lanes and intersections with a plethora of signs stating what type of vehicles can go where and when. This fanatical obsession with "segregation" is not something I can relate to when it comes to roadways.

I want to know why I cannot hold a lane as long as I want while I am not blocking the only route along that road.
Who says you can't?? I mean, yeah, if it's a WOL with or without a BL stripe, you should pull over to let faster traffic pass. But if it's a NOL, who says you cannot hold the lane?


I want to ride in the middle of the lane (to avoid dooring) without having to glance at my mirror and play the "after you, Alphonse game."
Who says you can't? What is the, "after you, Alphonse game" anyway? One example: Every morning, on LJVD when I'm riding along parked cars between Lebon and Regents (eastbound), I hold the lane. Busses, taxis, motorcycles... everyone has to change lanes to pass me. What Alphonse game? What's the problem?


If there are two lanes and no BL or WOL, I want my right lane.
You got it. See 21202. What's the problem?


If there are three lanes and no BL or WOL, I want that right lane.
You got it. See 21202. What's the problem?


This is especially true of there are parked cars along the road. And I want to be treated just like the driver of any other vehicle that might also use that same right lane...
I find I occasionally have to pull the slow/stop signal to get proper treatment in such a situation, but usually not, and that's not much different from having to flash my brake lights to get a tailgater to back off when driving a car. What's the big problem?


Regarding this particular issue of pulling over... in all the cases you sited, the driver of those vehicles are responsible for the decision of when or where to pull over... as is legally the cyclist... but cyclists are constantly pressured by the motoring public to pull over before they feel it is safe to do so... the other vehicle operators are not.
How are cyclists pressured? As one example, a couple of weeks ago I had to take a couple of pickup loads from our yard to the dump. Driving there I had a heavy load and had to drive relatively slow. Whatever insignificant pressure I feel from others when cycling, I felt the same driving up LJ Parkway and along 52. I ignored it, just like I do when I'm cycling. What's the big problem?

Yesterday I heard that guy who cut off his arm in the Utah desert a couple of years ago on the radio (plugging his book). What struck me was his attitude. Turns out his biggest problem wasn't deciding to cut off his arm, it was figuring out how to do it. For days he had decided that he had to do it, but he had technical difficulties with his tools (how do you get through bone with a pocket knife?). Finally, on Day 5, he had an epiphany: use the boulder that had his armed pinned to leverage off of, and simply break the bone, then cut through the soft tissue with his knife. He was ecstatic. The inevitable pain was irrelevant. He ignored it. If he can ignore that, why can't you ignore the "pressure" from motorists when you're cycling in traffic? Jeez, get a little perspective. It is about attitude.


Also the incidents of a daily driver having to follow farm/construction equipment is far less then having to deal with daily cycle commuters... for whom the motoring public choses to NOT give the same the same respect as they would the driver of any other vehicle. THAT IS THE POINT!
I am more convinced than ever that the whole problem is a figment of your wild imagination about what is going on in the minds of drivers, and how that imagination affects your attitude.


BTW I never pulled my 1978 VW Camper van over on the freeway... which is a multi laned road... drivers went around me... and I expected them to do so. I never pulled it over on any multilaned road... I expected drivers to go around... they had room, there should have been no problem.
I'm thinking about hills, for one, and where there is a wide shoulder that makes it safe and reasonable. Those factors do not apply on freeways, where the safe and reasonable thing for a 1978 VW Camper is to drive in the slow lane.

On a multi-lane road with a WOL and heavy traffic and no onstreet parking, the safe and reasonable thing for the cyclist to do is to ride about 3 feet to the right of faster traffic. Same rule, just applies differently because the characteristics of a bicycle are different.

What's the big problem?


Two fold... this isn't what you are touting... you are touting looking behind every 2-3 seconds and moving over... you do not mention that there are/maybe exceptions. That is the "after you, Alphonse game..." Motorists do not do this... period. (there are rare construction/heavy equipment exceptions, as noted)

The other issue is that while doing what is noted as legal, the motorists seem to become upset... so I am not getting the reaction from motorists that I expect "when I act like the driver of a vehicle." I should be faring better.

Now some cyclists can apparently just ignore honking and yelling... but I cannot. I hear honks and assume that some warning is being given... Since I am following all the laws and vc principals, why is that motorists seem to get upset with me... what is it they just don't seem to understand?

Is it possible that motorists simply don't know that I have every right to be there? Could it be they have not read the CVC and the MUTCD? Is it possible that they are missing the big picture?

Perhaps someone should tell them.

Is it possible that motorists simply don't know that I have every right to be there? Could it be they have not read the CVC and the MUTCD? Is it possible that they are missing the big picture?

Perhaps someone should tell them.

Well, at least one of you understands. I don't know if we've butted heads before, but I certainly agree with you on this one. Now you just need to get certain other people to understand this concept.

Two fold... this isn't what you are touting... you are touting looking behind every 2-3 seconds and moving over... you do not mention that there are/maybe exceptions. That is the "after you, Alphonse game..." Motorists do not do this... period. (there are rare construction/heavy equipment exceptions, as noted)
Fine, Gene, don't do it. I'm just saying what works for me. I feel I have a visibility/speed disadvantage compared to most of the rest of traffic, and this is how I learned to make up for it, really just a strict application of Franklin's primary riding position approach. No one says you have to do it too. You wish you didn't have to do it, and I wish I could fly free as a bird. Life does not work like that.

I don't just ignore honks. Like that lady that honked at me last week. I figured out why she was honking, as best as I could, and I acted accordingly. Not letting it bother me is not the same as ignoring it. I don't ignore honking and yellow, but I also choose not to be bothered by it. Why you choose to let it bother you is beyond me.


Since I am following all the laws and vc principals...
I don't know of any teacher who practice vc, much less any principals... ;)


...why is that motorists seem to get upset with me... what is it they just don't seem to understand?
Could be any number of things, and each case is different. So what?


Is it possible that motorists simply don't know that I have every right to be there? Could it be they have not read the CVC and the MUTCD? Is it possible that they are missing the big picture?
Maybe.


Perhaps someone should tell them.
Perhaps. And I can think of no one better to tell them than you, by showing them, as you ride vehicularly among them.

I don't know of any teacher who practice vc, much less any principals... ;)



In the spirit in which it was stated... Really... not one single teacher or principal. ;)

Nova, if you think car drivers are taking 90 degree turns at 45 mph, you're making my point - you don't understand the nature and causes of right hooks.

All right turning car drivers slow down at right turns to a speed slower than any cyclist continuing to go straight. They have to slow down to that slow of a speed to make the turn. That's why you catch up with them after they pass you. It is with those drivers, the ones traveling at your speed and slower, than you need to deal with at right turns where you are going straight. And if you stay to the right of all this SLOW right-turning traffic, you're asking for trouble.

Agan come to my area in ohio youll see exactly what i mean. . Did i say 45 mph turning no i said blow by me at 45 to get to the intersection. At wich point they obviously slam on the breaks. If the pavement is ever dry enough ill take some pics of the pavement at the corner in question. It has multiple black skid marks. You can tell where i ride on each instance by the fact the drivers always pass with in 2 feet of me. So mesure 2 feet off the skid mark to the right and you have my tire position. Fact is its not possible to stay left or infront of what you with no first hand knowlage call slow right turning. Im lucky that this turn is on a hill where i can stop on a dime and not on a flat or down hill run. If it was flat or down hill id have plastered a few cars already.

You need to learn that your not always right. Im not trying to be mean or flame you here. But fact is you dont know my area or the areas i or others ride in. You seem to be lucky and live in a area where you have some ammount of control over how drivers act around you. Here takeing the lane means nothing in some cases. Drivers will simply pass you still dangerously close just further over in the other lane.

Here there are motorists who beleive that we have no right to be on the road and those who seem to think its their duty to harrass and indanger us any chance they get. Such as the person who drives a white delivery van who has ran me of the road once tried 2 other times. He also has ran 1 other cyclist off the road and caused another to go down hard enough to crack his helmet and ruin is fron rim and break a look pedal front right off. Total damages 200 for front rim 95 for the pedals bar tape and ends and seat replacement at 45 dolors. The driver in the white van laughed as he pealed away. No lic plate number was able to be gotten.

So please untill you have first hand experiance in my area or other posters areas dont post like you know what its like. Instead say here in my area and areas i ride in this is how it is.

Heres a fact of my area well some areas i ride in. Cleaveland massilon road from ries street on down to center road enter road and south main street all very bike friendly all motorists ive dealt with are friendly and respectiful of my space. I had stoped at a light in the right/strait lane a lady in a very nice newer model suv (quiet as a mouse pulled up behind me. I did not see here right away so she ever so gently reved her engine to make just enough noise to alert me that she was there. I turned seen her signal and she smiled i slid over far left to let her by. Many drivers waved as they drove by giving me plenty of room and then some and waited till it was safe to pass. Even though the posted speed limit was 35 mph i would start to gain ground on cars at the blind turns as they slowed way down. They knew a cyclist could be right around the corner and drove at a speed they beleived most cyclist would travel with some head room. I spoke to one such driver he told me most every car in the area slows to a modest 17 or 18 mph at the corners down hill and around 12 up hill.

Hame town road is also a great road to ride on as a cyclist motorist again make way for bikes give up right of ways and pass only when safe with more than enough room. Turning right on to jhonson road most motorist will stop behind my rear wheel even if im on the far right shoulder and they have room to pull along side with 3 or so feet to spare.

In canal fulton clinton and start massilon drivers even on old 21 are very aware of cyclist and give us plenty of room when they pass us. Its only the one road in my area that is very bad for bikes. But that one single road is one i must travel to get to hame town and one i must cross to get to cleve. mass. where riding is much safer.

This is what my area is truely like. Dont want to take my word for it. Im planing a fairly large ride (century pluss) for early next spring that will be a tour of the summit county metro parts and stark parks. I invite you to come to ohio and start with me from my street wich is where ill start. Then you can see exactly what im talking about. unless its just a good day youll be grittign your teeth as some of these people tare by you with little room to spare and youll be thankfull when were off the .4 mile stretch of jhonson road and makeing the turn on to hametown.

I don't just ignore honks. Like that lady that honked at me last week. I figured out why she was honking, as best as I could, and I acted accordingly. Not letting it bother me is not the same as ignoring it. I don't ignore honking and yelling, but I also choose not to be bothered by it. Why you choose to let it bother you is beyond me.


Right exactly... it is not a matter of "bother" but simply a matter of attention... something to be dealt with. Not something that can be immediately ignored.

If I were driving a car in the same situation... even quite slow, I would not encounter that same "attention." (try it... it is amusing... espcially amusing is the number of people that just continue to follow you even at very slow speeds... as if they cannot determine for themselves what to do)

This all comes back to the same point that I have been making: We are not treated as drivers of vehicles... We are simply tolerated as obstructions. Forester's equation never balances. "Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles."