Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Bike Lane deaths

The guy passed me honking within inches from my hand and then tried to block me from passing him on the right on the stop sign (there was a line of cars and he had to wait for his turn). This last movement could result in an accident if I did not foresee it.

Old saying that applies here: 2 wrongs don't make a right.

First wrong was guy close passing you.

Second wrong was you not waiting in line for the stop sign.

Second wrong was you not waiting in line for the stop sign.
Not exactly. The guy was the last in the lane so technically I was not yet passing anyone. But it does not really matter. I provided that as an example of 'unadvertent drift', not as an example how one should ride.

I'm not going to die in the name of the vehicular cycling or anything else. If something makes people safer that is good.

There it is again. The old "Use the CAR lane and die" defense. If you've read this thread and others, you'll see how bike lanes do a pretty piss poor job at keeping cyclists safe. It's been a long time since I've read of any cyclist being involved in a collision riding in the traffic lane.


I'd disagree that making drivers aware of the bicyclst presense and giving a bicycle priority in some cases makes such a bicyclist a pedestrian.

What "priority" do bike lanes give to cyclists on a freeway off ramp? Would you die to defend the impression that a bike lane gave you "priority" over motorists on the off ramp?

There it is again. The old "Use the CAR lane and die" defense. If you've read this thread and others, you'll see how bike lanes do a pretty piss poor job at keeping cyclists safe. It's been a long time since I've read of any cyclist being involved in a collision riding in the traffic lane.

Here you go. The most recent in the same area as in the OP: http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=235507
I'd more interested to see some actual evidence to your statement. In the Bay Area we have reasonably good designed bicycle lane system that makes bicyclsts safer, according with my experience. We have bad bike lanes, too, but most of the lanes are pretty wide, clearly signed, clean, with parking prohibited on such routes. I can imagine that bicycle lanes in your area are crappy lanes.



What "priority" do bike lanes give to cyclists on a freeway off ramp? Would you die to defend the impression that a bike lane gave you "priority" over motorists on the off ramp?
I always turn my head to check the traffic. When there is such a lane marked in 90% cases the motorists is already waiting for me to pass. When there is no markings I have to wait for a gap or force them to slow down. There is no 'legal' priority, but that's what people here do.

For those who have never seen bicycle lane before:
http://aycu04.webshots.com/image/6803/2005637730369513850_rs.jpg

Not exactly. The guy was the last in the lane so technically I was not yet passing anyone. But it does not really matter. I provided that as an example of 'unadvertent drift', not as an example how one should ride.

Do your area has a bus lane? If so, do motorists get angry on bus drivers who always zip by while they are held in a traffic jam?

Do your area has a bus lane? If so, do motorists get angry on bus drivers who always zip by while they are held in a traffic jam?
The guy I mentioned has apparently moved pretty recently from the NorthEast. At least his accent sounded like that. Locals here are very patient and tolerant. That's of no surprise, though. Silicon Valley is not an ordinary place.

There it is again. The old "Use the CAR lane and die" defense. If you've read this thread and others, you'll see how bike lanes do a pretty piss poor job at keeping cyclists safe. It's been a long time since I've read of any cyclist being involved in a collision riding in the traffic lane.

What "priority" do bike lanes give to cyclists on a freeway off ramp? Would you die to defend the impression that a bike lane gave you "priority" over motorists on the off ramp?

I do not understand the mentality here.

A bike lane is just another traffic lane reserved for bicycles, just like a bus lane which is reserved for buses. There isn't any "priority" over anybody else, excep that no other types of vehicles such as cars, wheelchairs, joggers, ricksaws, horsedrawn carts, etc., is allowed.

However, while other vehicles are not allowed on the bike lane, you are allowed to use the regular traffic lane. When you come to a ramp, you have to change lane (since freeways are off-limit to bicycles in Canada) to cross the traffic lane to the straight through bike lane. How to change lane? Check the rear view mirror if any, shoulder check, signal, and change lane when safe to do so. If not safe, then simply yield to the traffic in the next lane. If you are hit, it is your fault (improper lane change). In fact, it does not matter whether you are biking or driving ---- if you want to get out of the exit lane to the ramp, do a proper lane change.

I have mentioned many times (and I myself learned very quickly) that bike lanes are not "get out of the way" type of lane for cyclists. For example, in the bike lane showed by CATC, buses and taxicabs still have the right to pull into the bike lane to the curb to load and unload passegers, but when they do that, the normal lane change rule still applies. If you are hit, it is the bus or cab drivers' fault.

It is not the bike lane that will keep or will not keep cyclist safe. It is the failure to understand and follow the rules of the road that endangers your own life. Here in Canada, I have not heard of any cyclists being killed riding on a bike lane. Rather, they get killed where there are no bike lanes.

I still don't get the whole jihad the Church of VC has against the sanctuaries of my bike lanes.

Yeah, I am a vehicular cyclist...but not a fundie!

CTAC, that looks like some nice quality road!

For those who have never seen bicycle lane before:
http://aycu04.webshots.com/image/6803/2005637730369513850_rs.jpg
See the driveway up ahead on the right? That's known as a "place where a right turn is authorized".
California's bike lane law which requires cyclists to ride in bike lanes, has exceptions. One of the exceptions is 21208(a)(4): When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21208.htm

Now, the vast majority of cyclists just blindly keep riding along in a bike lane this, inches from the curb, thinking that's where they're supposed to be. They're oblivious about 21208(a)(4), or its purpose, or its applicability in the situation we see in this photo, or how it's related to the upcoming driveway and all the other places "where a right turn is authorized". See the oncoming traffic? Say one of those drivers will be turning left into a driveway between the cyclist and him? What is the likelihood such a driver will remember to look in the bike lane as well as the main traffic lane before turning left? Why do you think the law requiring cyclists to ride in bike lanes does not apply here?

For cyclists who continue to ride along obliviously at 15-20+ mph in a bike lane like this, inches from the curb where motorists are rarely looking and expecting vehicular traffic, see this thread.

Edit/clarification: At least two people seem to have interpreted the inches from the curb phrase above to mean something like, "just a few inches, definitely less than 12". That's not what I meant. What I meant was "not about 3 feet to the right of passing traffic (the standard recommended VC position in a WOL), and particularly not a few feet from the curb, but just inches from the curb (less than 2 feet). That's where the vast majority of cyclists ride on such a road. Also, I did not mean to imply, as one person thought, that it was the stripe that was keeping cyclists near the curb and that removal of the stripe would cause these cyclists to ride further left.

For those who have never seen bicycle lane before:
http://aycu04.webshots.com/image/6803/2005637730369513850_rs.jpg
If you are going to show a BL, at least show a well designed one. This one goes right past an intersection, a possible right turn. It looks like judging by tire marks it is a commonly used one too.
I posted images (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=3177148&postcount=106)of very similarly designed BLs in this forum and even BL proponents, like Bek agreed they were all bad (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=3180868&postcount=129) BL and I should not use them.
Al

One problem I see with that bike lane is that it doesn't seem to be designated as a BL... are there any no parking signs anywhere, or is this open to parking too?

Also how fast is trafffic on this road... if only 25MPH, then this is a waste of paint.

For those who have never seen bicycle lane before:
http://aycu04.webshots.com/image/6803/2005637730369513850_rs.jpg

What is so friggin silly about this bike lane is that the travel lane is about 20' wide! My gawd why would you need a 'bike lane'? Remove and re-paint the fog line at the curb (or leave it out all together) and any moron should be able to ride and drive that road unmolested by either party.

And the best part about that photo...it was pilfered from another thread where the OP complained about taking a fall after hitting the settled paving patch in the foreground of the photo! (so much for 'safe' bike lanes....!!!)

I am beginning to think you west-coasters are a bunch of one-step-removed sidewalk cyclists...

Oh, man, now that you mention it, that hole in the foreground is deep!

Show me a cyclist who calls that an example of a good bike lane, and I'll show you a cyclist who is not very good at traffic cycling.

Now, the vast majority of cyclists just blindly keep riding along in a bike lane this, inches from the curb, thinking that's where they're supposed to be.
False. According with my experience and the study, recenlty discussed on this forum, bicyclists ride farther from the curb with bicycle lane marked.

How is that a bike lane? It just looks like a shoulder to me. And a crappy one at that.

-D

Show me a cyclist who calls that an example of a good bike lane, and I'll show you a cyclist who is not very good at traffic cycling.
You mean, yourself?

That's it, that is not a BL... no one so much was missing, that is just a fog line.

How is that a bike lane? It just looks like a shoulder to me. And a crappy one at that.

-D
I was wondering the same thing, the photo strikes me as just being a fairly average paved shoulder. Something I might use from time to time, but deffinitely not something I would make my default road position.

That's it, that is not a BL... no one so much was missing, that is just a fog line.

Not according to the OP who started this thread:

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=237461

Note other photos show 'bike lane' designation.

How do folks who haven't been there know it isn't a sub-standard BL? Sure it doesn't have the cyclist icon and no BL signs are visible, but BL signs may be on this stretch out of view and it also may be noted as a road with a BL on the local bike routes map.
Al

That could be true, but even if it is, it's not a facility that I would use consistently. Note the patch in the foreground of the photo. Indicative of the possibility, or even probability, that this "BL" is not maintained to the same standard as the motor vehicle lane.

Not according to the OP who started this thread:

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=237461

Note other photos show 'bike lane' designation.

I donno, the BL in the first pic was well marked, had stencils in it and was discontinuous. Is it possible that the OP of that thread simply thought it was a BL?

Of course it helps if "faster traffic" knows how to merge... I saw several instances this AM of folks that not only do not seem to know how to merge, they also act as if they are "privileged" and worked hard to try to cut off other drivers as they drove to the "head of the line."

If they are acting that way with motorists, imagine how they would act toward a cyclist "in their way."

At lunch just now, I was seated at a prime location to watch motorists... and one display just floored me... a female motorist that waited for another motorist and then proceeded to chase a ped off the road.

Love to see that kind of "sharing," it reminds me of how wonderful our driving public can be.

I've had much better luck negotiating merges in my usual cycling/driving area while on my bike than in my car. I think a lot of that possibly has to do with the fact that cyclists don't forget to put their arm down or to turn their head forward, unlike motorists who can forget to turn off their turn signal rendering their real use useless. Note that I'm talking about just times when you need to negotiate room and not when you can simply slow down or speed up to change lanes.

Here you go. The most recent in the same area as in the OP: http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=235507
I'd more interested to see some actual evidence to your statement. In the Bay Area we have reasonably good designed bicycle lane system that makes bicyclsts safer, according with my experience. We have bad bike lanes, too, but most of the lanes are pretty wide, clearly signed, clean, with parking prohibited on such routes. I can imagine that bicycle lanes in your area are crappy lanes.

Ok, so you pointed out a cyclist's death which was basically unavoiable and probably would have had the same ending if the cyclist was in a car travelling at the speed limit. Sometimes there is nothing you can do and that's a risk we all take any time we use public roads in any manner. But if you read up on the bike lane deaths in this thread, you'll see how bike lanes and their effect on cyclists (false sense of security and side of the road positioning) contributed to the end result.

Also, you sound like you are confusing the differences between a road with a marked bike lane, a road that's wide enough to have a marked bike lane, and a road that is not wide enough to have a marked bike lane. Wide roads make it easier for faster traffic to pass and can make cycling at slower than normal traffic speed a little less hectic for those who are concerned about the impatience of others behind them. On a road with a marked bike lane, that width would be there regardless of the bike lane stripes. If you are trying to make the point that extra road width makes cyclists safer at some points then be specific about it. Bike lanes don't add road width.

I have some bike lanes/shoulders around me that people of these forums would think were perfect, assuming I took pictures of them at the right time. If I took pictures of them today, I don't think too many on this forum would dare ride in them as they are mostly filled with wet leaves. I use the extra width on those roads to allow faster same direction traffic to pass without leaving their lane but that's about it. And that's all I'm required to do by law too.


I always turn my head to check the traffic. When there is such a lane marked in 90% cases the motorists is already waiting for me to pass. When there is no markings I have to wait for a gap or force them to slow down. There is no 'legal' priority, but that's what people here do.

How do you know they are actually yielding for you when the lane markings are there if you didn't negotiate the gap at all? What do you do in the 10% of the time where motorists don't slow down for you? Do you "force" them to slow? Or do you negotiate a gap in traffic? How is that any different from negotiating (or "forcing") you way through traffic without the marking?

I've had much better luck negotiating merges in my usual cycling/driving area while on my bike than in my car. I think a lot of that possibly has to do with the fact that cyclists don't forget to put their arm down or to turn their head forward, unlike motorists who can forget to turn off their turn signal rendering their real use useless. Note that I'm talking about just times when you need to negotiate room and not when you can simply slow down or speed up to change lanes.

Turn signal... what's a turn signal? :rolleyes:

Motorists here don't use those things. Especially newer vehicles... it must be an expensive option. :eek:

Some motorist perceive that a turn signal has the unfortunately effect of reducing a gap that one could squeeze into in dense traffic vs. being a signal for negotiating more space or letting the driver in adjanent lane behind know you will be merging.

I find, especially in entering a busy freeway, other drivers will speed up to prevent me from merging smoothly.

Al

Here in Canada, I have not heard of any cyclists being killed riding on a bike lane. Rather, they get killed where there are no bike lanes.
Sorry for bringing this up. A couple of days ago, a Chinese new immigrant was killed when he was riding in the bike lane around 8AM, in Richmond, BC. The car hit him from the behind. He died in head injury. I am not sure but he probably didn't wear a helmet at that time. He just landed in Canada about 20 days ago so he might not be aware how important a helmet is. In China, few people wear helmet while commuting on bicycles.

As of my own experience, I feel much more comfortable riding in a bike lane than in a car lane, especially when I feel a little tired on my way home. I just hate to make people wait for me.

How do you know they are actually yielding for you when the lane markings are there if you didn't negotiate the gap at all? What do you do in the 10% of the time where motorists don't slow down for you? Do you "force" them to slow? Or do you negotiate a gap in traffic? How is that any different from negotiating (or "forcing") you way through traffic without the marking?
I think this might be useful for you: http://www.svbcbikes.org/roadrules.php
They have all your questions answered.

Some motorist perceive that a turn signal has the unfortunately effect of reducing a gap that one could squeeze into in dense traffic vs. being a signal for negotiating more space or letting the driver in adjanent lane behind know you will be merging.

I find, especially in entering a busy freeway, other drivers will speed up to prevent me from merging smoothly.

Al

We could go on and on about motorists' lack of courtesy... and this is the basis for many of the traffic problems we now have either as a cyclist, a motorist, or a pedestrian. This lack of road courtesy is a fundamental problem.

Now, the vast majority of cyclists just blindly keep riding along in a bike lane this, inches from the curb, thinking that's where they're supposed to be.

False. According with my experience and the study, recenlty discussed on this forum, bicyclists ride farther from the curb with bicycle lane marked.

False? I'm beginning to think all bike lane proponents are logic-impaired.

How does the fact that on average bike lanes cause bicyclists to ride a few inches further from the curb then the few inches they ride from the curb when there is no bike lane (which I don't dispute) make my point false?

Most bike lanes are 4-5 feet wide. The tire of a cyclist centered in the bike lane is therefore 24-30 inches from either edge. His 2 foot wide body is therefore 12-18 inches from each edge, and, so, the majority of cyclists ride (12-18) inches from the curb.

We could go on and on about motorists' lack of courtesy... and this is the basis for many of the traffic problems we now have either as a cyclist, a motorist, or a pedestrian. This lack of road courtesy is a fundamental problem.
We could go on and on, in HH's BLDs thread too ;) - I guess it, like so many other threads, had to fall apart at some point. Actually I am surprised it lasted so long.
Al

What is so friggin silly about this bike lane is that the travel lane is about 20' wide! My gawd why would you need a 'bike lane'?

Tell drivers to stay away from that lane. Drivers are trained to look for those lines that divide lanes.

Talking about silly bike lanes. I have seen on one road, there are 2 bike lanes and 1 traffic lane. Of course it is close to a school. :)

Most bike lanes are 4-5 feet wide. The tire of a cyclist centered in the bike lane is therefore 24-30 inches from either edge. His 2 foot wide body is therefore 12-18 inches from each edge, and, so, the majority of cyclists ride (12-18) inches from the curb.

or a foot to a foot and a half.

Funny how the manner in which something is said, can paint an entirely different picture even though the data is exactly the same.

Somehow you make "a foot" and "a few inches" sound just the same.

I wrote inches from the curb because I meant inches from the curb, as opposed to several (i.e. two or more) feet from the curb.

If you or anyone else chose to interpret "inches from the curb" as "just a few inches, definitely less than 12", then you would be reading into what I wrote and what I intended to convey. If one wasn't sure what I meant, it would be appropriate to ask, not to insist on one's own interpretation and declare my statement to be false based on that.

Somehow you make "a foot" and "a few inches" sound just the same.
I consider 12-18" to be a few in the context of a ~220" wide lane with a stripe painted 36" into it.

I regulary observe other cyclists riding about 1" outside the concrete gutter on roads with BLs that look like the one pictured, so close I fear their cranks will hit the vertical part of the curb. Want pictures, I can pull dozens from my video stills. ;)

Al

Most bike lanes are 4-5 feet wide.
False. 5 feet is the design minimum and the usual width is 6-8'
http://www.ci.fremont.ca.us/NR/rdonlyres/eraluwuibeou4nmnvmhpvmnwgg5nintnlztxrkswaxk42sry6ncfch7mscwynibsn7dgmn47l7dbv3uq7zgp2zn3t7f/Appendices.pdf


The tire of a cyclist centered in the bike lane
False again. According with my observations cyclists are riding closer to the left edge.

Another illustration to the bike lane design from the link above:

I think this might be useful for you: http://www.svbcbikes.org/roadrules.php
They have all your questions answered.

I didn't read what was on that page because I asked what you do, not what the rules of the road are. Do you do exactly what that page says?

I consider 12-18" to be a few in the context of a ~220" wide lane with a stripe painted 36" into it.

I regulary observe other cyclists riding about 1" outside the concrete gutter on roads with BLs that look like the one pictured, so close I fear their cranks will hit the vertical part of the curb. Want pictures, I can pull dozens from my video stills. ;)

Al

Interesting... when I use BL, I ride inches from the stripe. And I mean inches... as in 2-3, not as in "a dozen." Of course, I also willingly leave the BL as the need arises too.

False. 5 feet is the design minimum and the usual width is 6-8'

Read the source you linked a bit more carefully. 4' is minimum if no gutter pan. 5' if a gutter pan. (leaving 3' min of useable pavement!)
Fremont preferred min width is 6-8'
Recommended min adjacent to parking is 5'

Al

Most bike lanes are 4-5 feet wide. The tire of a cyclist centered in the bike lane is therefore 24-30 inches from either edge. His 2 foot wide body is therefore 12-18 inches from each edge, and, so, the majority of cyclists ride (12-18) inches from the curb.
Somehow you make "a foot" and "a few inches" sound just the same.

WTF?

Where did you get "a few inches"? I never wrote a few!

For some reason you seem to equate "inches" with "a few inches" in your mind.

Read the source you linked a bit more carefully. 4' is minimum if no gutter pan. 5' if a gutter pan.
Recommened min width is 6-8'
Recommened min adjacent to parking is 5'

Al

Good point, Al. And since extra road width costs money, let's take bets on many bike lanes are 8 feet wide when the design minimum that engineers can get away with is 4 feet. I've seen 8 ft. wide traffic lanes but never 8 ft. wide bike lanes that aren't just shoulders with bike stencils.

False. 5 feet is the design minimum and the usual width is 6-8'
http://www.ci.fremont.ca.us/NR/rdonlyres/eraluwuibeou4nmnvmhpvmnwgg5nintnlztxrkswaxk42sry6ncfch7mscwynibsn7dgmn47l7dbv3uq7zgp2zn3t7f/Appendices.pdf


False again. According with my observations cyclists are riding closer to the left edge.

Another illustration to the bike lane design from the link above:

I don't know who's bike lanes you have. Thanking my lucky stars, we have few bike lanes here around Baltimore or anywhere in Maryland. I have seen (but not ridden) a few. They can be as narrow as 2'!

Here is a link to the Baltimore City Bicycle Master Plan:
http://www.liveearnplaylearn.com/Portals/0/Section1.pdf

Looks like 5' to me....bike lane partially in the door zone... all very well engineered... to get you out of the way of cars and maybe get you severely injured...

Looks like everybody is now agreeing that BL is a good thing, we only need to figure out how wide it should be :)

Since we are talking about bad/narrow BLs, check out this one. A few inches wide and officially marked as one.

Most bike lanes are 4-5 feet wide.

False. 5 feet is the design minimum and the usual width is 6-8'
http://www.ci.fremont.ca.us/NR/rdonlyres/eraluwuibeou4nmnvmhpvmnwgg5nintnlztxrkswaxk42sry6ncfch7mscwynibsn7dgmn47l7dbv3uq7zgp2zn3t7f/Appendices.pdf

Now you're displaying illiteracy and reason impairment, and perhaps a touch of delusion, more prerequisities for defending bike lanes, I suppose.

First, what relevance do ideals specified in a design document have with my statement, which was referring to actual bike lanes in the real world? In the real world, most bike lanes are 4-5 feet wide. In fact, many bike lanes are less than 4 feet wide. I can't think of a single bike lane in all of San Diego County that is 6 or more feet wide. 8 feet is unheard of. Gene, can you? Do you think the bike lane in the picture you shared with us is a "usual" 6-8'??? No, it's more of a usual 4 feet (if that). :rolleyes:.





The tire of a cyclist centered in the bike lane

False again.

The statement you excerpted from and labeled as false, the tire of a cyclist centered in the [4-5' wide] bike lane is therefore 24-30 inches from either edge, is true. Calling it false is more display of logic impairment on your part.


According with my observations cyclists are riding closer to the left edge.
Well, then, those cyclists are further from the curb, aren't they? My statement was about cyclists who ride centered in bike lanes.

Besides, with the tire only 12 inches to the right of the bike lane stripe, the cyclist's 2' wide body is on the verge of encroaching into the adjacent traffic lane, and, even then, the right edge of his body is at most 2' from the curb in a 4' foot wide bike lane. On the bike lane pictured, that's hardly a conspicuous roadway position.

Looks like everybody is now agreeing that BL is a good thing, we only need to figure out how wide it should be :)

Definitely illiterate....

the majority of cyclists ride (12-18) inches from the curb.
Do you have numbers telling how far it should be?

Do you have numbers telling how far it should be?

My personal minimum as derived from several definitive sources as well as my own 20 years of experience cycling on the open road is 3' left of the curb or fog line or, left side of the right tire track on a 12' wide lane. I move left further for narrower lanes.

Riding near the curb insures that your only bailout option should you be put in danger by a vehicle passing too close (weather you are riding in a bike lane or not) is over the curb. Give yourself some maneuvering room!