Google sponsored links
As long as we're quizzing, I'm curious which place would you choose to ride?
My picture isn't all that good. Basically, there is a sidewalk, a bike path (that peds don't walk on), a landscaping strip and a two-way street with bike lanes and no parking or intersections, except for at the top.
The intersection at the top is a 4 way intersection with stop signs, not 3 as it appears. The east-west part of the intersection has a bike lane and cross walk on the left and a regular residential street on the right. The bike path does not empty out into a cross walk. It faces the residential street. Everything to the left of the picture is the ocean and a park.
So, assuming this situation lasts for a significant distance (in other words, my short picture was taller), where would you choose to ride? Why?
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content
here.
Ready to buy? Check out these two online bike stores:
-
http://www.nashbar.com (you can find the latest bike nashbar coupons in
this thread)
-
http://www.performancebike.com (you can find the latest performance bike coupons in
this thread)
Cya on the forums,
- The BikeForums Team
-
http://www.bikeforums.net
Depends.... where do you get the best vantage point for checking out the babes?
Between intersections, and as traffic was present or not at the intersection, you'd find me cruising in the bike lane along the street. As much as I distrust drivers to be aware of things on the road, from edge to edge, I'm less trusting of other cyclists on a two way path. Plus, most paths have a speed limit of 15 mph max, and I usually ride faster than that.
If I were riding towards the top of the picture I would ride in the bike lane on the right, because it would involve crossing fewer lanes of traffic. If I were coming the other way I would probably get on the bike path, provided it had a decent surface and didnt have artistic chicanes incorporated into the design.
Centerish in the traffic lane, unless there was faster traffic that wanted to pass, in which case I would temporarily move into the bike lane. Once there was no faster traffic present, I would move back into the traffic lane.
Left-hand side of the lefthand lane, unless, as you suggested, traffic conditions warrant ceding passage to other traffic. In principle I would happily use the bike lane but as all know the majority of road surface degredation occurs within the first meter and a half from the kerb.
If turning right from this junction I would indicate from my current position before moving to the dead centre of the road no less than 5 metres from the stop line if possible. If not then a cautious but decisive manouver would be taken at the stop line.
Exceptions would occur during rush hour when not commuting. Commuting cyclists tend to travel faster and I wouldn't wish to impede, in which case I would take my more leisurely onto the segregated bike lane. Also if traveling late at night I would consider taking the segregated lane, particularly if I;m in no rush or it's close to pub kicking out time.
HH, is this an arterial road, if so where is the bus lane, complete with ghost cycle lane and more importantly where is the ASL? Very poor road design mate, don't become a city planner.
Seldom Kill, time to cork the bottle, dude. Why are you telling me about the poor design here?
And why would you ride on the LEFT side of the LEFT lane? Are you in England?
And what is a ghost cycle lane? An ASL?
If turning right from this junction I would indicate from my current position before moving to the dead centre of the road no less than 5 metres from the stop line if possible. If not then a cautious but decisive manouver would be taken at the stop line.
Exceptions would occur during rush hour when not commuting. Commuting cyclists tend to travel faster and I wouldn't wish to impede, in which case I would take my more leisurely onto the segregated bike lane. Also if traveling late at night I would consider taking the segregated lane, particularly if I;m in no rush or it's close to pub kicking out time.
HH, is this an arterial road, if so where is the bus lane, complete with ghost cycle lane and more importantly where is the ASL? Very poor road design mate, don't become a city planner.
HH didn't propose the scheme.
if you wanted to turn right, you could also try a hook turn:
http://www.virtualbike.com.au/?Section=1.4.6&show=movie&size=lores&item=hook_turn
In melbourne, we have trams and the tracks can get a bit glassy in the wet. in dry conditions, it is often the safest technique anyway. I often use this technique where there aren't trams.
For those who travel on the right side, you might need to view the video with a mirror...
cheers
marty
Indeed, I am in England.
A ghost cycle lane is one marked out with a broken white lane. It is often used on popular cycling routes where the width of a road doesn't allow a cycle lane and a regular traffic lane. It isn't a mandatory division of right of way but is considered an advisory to motor vehicle drivers.
An ASL is an Advanced Stop Line. It's an area at stop lights that is protected for cyclists in as much that on a red light motorists may not enter it until they are safe to proceed as they would if the ASL were not there. Typically an ASL is at least one car length and even in the absence of a preceding cycle lane at the side of the road has a protected filter section on the left hand side to allow cyclists egress.
Examples can be found here: http://www.londoncyclenetwork.org/html/DynaLink/menu_type/1/menu_id/25/submenu_id/55/main_page.asp
Apologies for the city planning comment, really not serious about that.
This situation exists in reality near Santa Barbara City College on Shoreline drive. I think you can see babes anywhere on the road. You'd probably want to choose the bike path to check the surf.
The speed limit is 30 or 35 and heading toward the top it is a pretty steep hill. No parking, either, I forgot to mention.
The bike path is brand new. Its a bit odd in design in that to enter it from the bottom you either reach it from the end of a parking lot at the beach or else you do like I saw a girl do yesterday: cross the street and go in where it emerges into the street on the left.
It made me wonder. It's too short to be of any use to anybody really (1/4 mile or less), but I think it is nice that there is a choice here. The girl surely prefers the bike path so much that she crossed the street to get into it. Who knows? Maybe she surfs.
That is one thing I like about the advocacy we have in Santa Barbara. We ensure choices for cyclists. We recognize the value of paths but refuse to allow the city to force us to use them. We get noisy about bad design (they could have ended the path at a cross walk but deliberately did not.) We have a lot of bike lanes, yes, but I rarely see any cyclists riding in HH's manner. Are they all untrained? Hardly. We have effective cycling courses here, too. Point is, we have a culture of cycling here. You can't go anywhere without seeing hoards of them. I think that providing choices for cyclists helps create a cycling culture and diminishes the domination of the automobile.
BTW, I choose both the bike lane or path depending on my mood, but I usually avoid the area entirely and choose a flatter, uglier route that has no bike lanes or paths.
Advanced Stop Lines? BWAHAHAHAH! Here in the States, we call 'em "crosswalks", and the motorists still stop in them. You'd have to be on drugs to believe that yet another white line will make any difference.
We have a lot of bike lanes, yes, but I rarely see any cyclists riding in HH's manner. Are they all untrained? Hardly. We have effective cycling courses here, too.
FYI, the primary (centerish) vs. secondary (side) riding position concepts that I use in my riding come from John Franklin (Cyclecraft), and Robert Hurst (The Art of Urban Cycling, though he uses the term "default position" rather than primary), not John Forester. As far as I know this approach is not nor has ever been part of the curriculum in Effective Cycling courses, Road 1, or classes based upon them.
So only readers of those books might be familiar with the approach, unless they came up with it on their own. And even many readers of the books might not necessarily realize the logical application of the primary/secondary riding position concept to a road with traffic lulls and a bike lane. Even Hurst doesn't follow his own advice in at least one example in his book, and misses a great opportunity to illustrate the value of using the "default position". He describes an incident where he is riding in a bike lane through a quiet neighborhood, is distracted when he sees an attractive woman, and does not notice a Mercedes on his right backing out of a driveway right in front of him (into which he crashes). Though he does take the blame for "not paying attention", he misses a great opportunity to illustrate the value of using his recommended "default" "centerish" lane position in situations like this. Had he been outside of the bike lane, positioned centerish, he would have had more time and space to react to the Mercedes. The point at which the driver stopped backing out to check if the road was clear was obviously after the car was in the bike lane, but probably stopped before it blocked the vehicular lane where a "centerish" position would not have been impacted, and, most importantly, the sight line from the driver backing out to the cyclist would have been much better. Anyway, if the author didn't notice the applicability of this approach in this situation, surely most readers missed it too. Franklin is a lot more consistent about applying the approach in his examples, but he too does not make it crystal clear that on a quiet street with a bike lane the primary position is outside of the bike lane during traffic lulls.
In the end, I believe very few cyclists ride this way because it is contrary to the "stay out of the way of cars" mentality that has thoroughly permeated cycling culture. The idea that you would ride outside of a "perfectly good" bike lane during traffic lulls between intersections out in the center of the lane to be more visible and predictable sounds preposterous to the vast majority of cyclists, trained or not.
Reminds me of the situation in Santa Monica with a bike path next to the road filled with dog walkers, joggers, and roller bladers. Then there is the on road bike path that basically sits in the door zone. It kills me how many cyclists plow along in this lane and then yell at every motorist opening their door. There is rarely that much car traffic on this 4 lane road so there is ever opportunity for motorists to pass, yet most cyclists huddle in their bike lane and defend it to their own detriment.
Indeed, I am in England.
A ghost cycle lane is one marked out with a broken white lane. It is often used on popular cycling routes where the width of a road doesn't allow a cycle lane and a regular traffic lane. It isn't a mandatory division of right of way but is considered an advisory to motor vehicle drivers.
An ASL is an Advanced Stop Line. It's an area at stop lights that is protected for cyclists in as much that on a red light motorists may not enter it until they are safe to proceed as they would if the ASL were not there. Typically an ASL is at least one car length and even in the absence of a preceding cycle lane at the side of the road has a protected filter section on the left hand side to allow cyclists egress.
Examples can be found here: http://www.londoncyclenetwork.org/html/DynaLink/menu_type/1/menu_id/25/submenu_id/55/main_page.asp
Apologies for the city planning comment, really not serious about that.
Bah thats it im moving to england. Seriously looks like england has the right idea.
Im not sure i quite understnd the ASL though. Would be helpful if you explained how they are used.
Advanced Stop Lines? BWAHAHAHAH! Here in the States, we call 'em "crosswalks", and the motorists still stop in them. You'd have to be on drugs to believe that yet another white line will make any difference.
Actually while not entirly sure of how they are used im pretty sure the ASLs hes alking about are a fair bit diffrent than cross walks. And enforcement of the law has to be there to obviously.
Ive seen a few tickets given by cops to people who pull through the cross walk before stoping.
FYI, the primary (centerish) vs. secondary (side) riding position concepts that I use in my riding come from John Franklin (Cyclecraft), and Robert Hurst (The Art of Urban Cycling, though he uses the term "default position" rather than primary), not John Forester. As far as I know this approach is not nor has ever been part of the curriculum in Effective Cycling courses, Road 1, or classes based upon them.
I didn't know that these courses, even JF's course, didn't teach riding outside the bike lane as default behavior.
I also wasn't sure what the names of the courses in our city are. They aren't called Effective Cycling, but something else. Possibley Road I but I think there's another one too.
Hurst describes an incident where he is riding in a bike lane through a quiet neighborhood, is distracted when he sees an attractive woman, and does not notice a Mercedes on his right backing out of a driveway right in front of him (into which he crashes). Though he does take the blame for "not paying attention", he misses a great opportunity to illustrate the value of using his recommended "default" "centerish" lane position in situations like this. Had he been outside of the bike lane, positioned centerish, he would have had more time and space to react to the Mercedes.
This is hilarious. If he'd been a straight woman he could have avoided the incident with even more certainty than taking a centerish position. Maybe a default centerish position isn't necessary for straight women, especially since I haven't heard of any crashes being caused by the "distraction" of a generous "package".
Anyway, all this lane positioning stuff is strategy for dealing with an infrastructure that is dominated by the automobile. What about creating an infrastructure that isn't dominated by cars? That creates choices for people and doesn't rely upon alpha dog steely gazes and strategic lane positioning for people to get to work? Why can't we work for a better infrastructure instead of all this aggressive stuff which only substitutes an aggro commute inside a car with an aggro commute on top of a bike?
Im not sure i quite understnd the ASL though. Would be helpful if you explained how they are used.
In essence they are quite simple and becoming effective.
Imagine a junction that is governed by traffic lights. There will be an unbroken painted white line that dictates the absolute stop line. Behind that line is an area typically 3 to five meters long and painted green or red containing a bicycle symbol (see the diagrams under the link). The area will stretch across the entire width of the lanes facing the stop lights. Behind this area is another unbroken painted white line. This line is the motor vehicle stop line.
As with any junction governed by lights the road markings have no application when vehicles are signalled to pass throuh the junction. When vehicles are signalled to stop at the junction, no motor vehicle is allowed to enter the the area containing the bicycle symbol. Bicycles are allowed to enter the area and occupy any position therein (rules regarding obstruction would only apply once the signals changed). The stop line at the head of the junction becomes the Advanced Stop Line.
The philosophy of the ASL is that bicycles are placed ahead of motor traffic and therefore immediately more visible than their usual position at the side of the lead vehicle on the left hand side (incidentally the most likely to turn across the path of the cyclist). Research shows that at junctions where motor vehicle/bicycle collisions were high or common, implementation of ASLs significantly reduced that number. I belive the usual number is in excess of 75%.
The philosophy of the ASL is that bicycles are placed ahead of motor traffic and therefore immediately more visible than their usual position at the side of the lead vehicle on the left hand side...
The idea that the "usual position" is to the side of the lead vehicle is my problem with the philosophy. Unfortunately, many cyclists do stop there, which is consistent with the segregated philosophy of most cyclists. Ironically, this philosophy of separation tends to put cyclists in the way of motor vehicles... hence this "solution". But what it does is reward the wrong behavior - cycling according to the segregated philosophy. So what happens to cyclists at junction with ASLs, and in all other situations where segregated cycling makes them unnecessarily vulnerable to collisions?
In other words, ASLs are a solution to a small part of a bigger problem - the cultural acceptance of segregated cycling in traffic. ASLs actually perpetuate and exacerbates the bigger problem.
You can say ASLs "work" - because they address the smaller problem - cyclists stopping at the side of lead vehicles at junctions. But you can say this only if you're ignoring the bigger picture of overall cycling safety, and in particular the role played by segregationary thinking in making cycling in traffic less safe than it can be. At least I believe cycling would be much safer in traffic if integrated cycling had wider acceptance.
Sometimes it is safer to be off to the side. When I make a left turn I like to be first in line, or if I can't do that my next choice is to the right of the first in line. I have found that if I take my place in line behind other cars I am less visible to oncoming traffic and I've had a few close calls. When I'm to the right of the first in line, it's pretty obvious what I'm about to do and the close calls are reduced.
The idea that the "usual position" is to the side of the lead vehicle is my problem with the philosophy. Unfortunately, many cyclists do stop there, which is consistent with the segregated philosophy of most cyclists. Ironically, this philosophy of separation tends to put cyclists in the way of motor vehicles... hence this "solution". But what it does is reward the wrong behavior - cycling according to the segregated philosophy. So what happens to cyclists at junction with ASLs, and in all other situations where segregated cycling makes them unnecessarily vulnerable to collisions?
In other words, ASLs are a solution to a small part of a bigger problem - the cultural acceptance of segregated cycling in traffic. ASLs actually perpetuate and exacerbates the bigger problem.
You can say ASLs "work" - because they address the smaller problem - cyclists stopping at the side of lead vehicles at junctions. But you can say this only if you're ignoring the bigger picture of overall cycling safety, and in particular the role played by segregationary thinking in making cycling in traffic less safe than it can be. At least I believe cycling would be much safer in traffic if integrated cycling had wider acceptance.
Ty to seldom kill first of all your explantion was perfect.
Secound hh its not as segragating as you seem to think. Its essentialy allowing he bikes the lead and allowing them to take the full lane infrotn of the cars. Its also backed up by laws also good. This should have the effect of makign motorists more acepting of cyclists taking the lane where there is no bike lane. IMO this is a win win for cyclists. So these ASLs will help to make vc and trafic integration more acceptable to motorists. From the links provided by seldomkill what i can see is a well thought out and implemented bike lane system. It mentions they are many places even where there are no bike lanes.
So only readers of those books might be familiar with the approach, unless they came up with it on their own. And even many readers of the books might not necessarily realize the logical application of the primary/secondary riding position concept to a road with traffic lulls and a bike lane. Even Hurst doesn't follow his own advice in at least one example in his book, and misses a great opportunity to illustrate the value of using the "default position". He describes an incident where he is riding in a bike lane through a quiet neighborhood, is distracted when he sees an attractive woman, and does not notice a Mercedes on his right backing out of a driveway right in front of him (into which he crashes). Though he does take the blame for "not paying attention", he misses a great opportunity to illustrate the value of using his recommended "default" "centerish" lane position in situations like this. Had he been outside of the bike lane, positioned centerish, he would have had more time and space to react to the Mercedes. The point at which the driver stopped backing out to check if the road was clear was obviously after the car was in the bike lane, but probably stopped before it blocked the vehicular lane where a "centerish" position would not have been impacted, and, most importantly, the sight line from the driver backing out to the cyclist would have been much better. Anyway, if the author didn't notice the applicability of this approach in this situation, surely most readers missed it too. Franklin is a lot more consistent about applying the approach in his examples, but he too does not make it crystal clear that on a quiet street with a bike lane the primary position is outside of the bike lane during traffic lulls.
In the end, I believe very few cyclists ride this way because it is contrary to the "stay out of the way of cars" mentality that has thoroughly permeated cycling culture. The idea that you would ride outside of a "perfectly good" bike lane during traffic lulls between intersections out in the center of the lane to be more visible and predictable sounds preposterous to the vast majority of cyclists, trained or not.
I guess the fact that it's also illegal in this state has nothing whatsoever to do with the decision by these cyclists.
This is hilarious. If he'd been a straight woman he could have avoided the incident with even more certainty than taking a centerish position.
Unless the attractive woman's stud boyfriend was standing on the lawn next to her, shirtless...
Anyway, all this lane positioning stuff is strategy for dealing with an infrastructure that is dominated by the automobile.
Almost, but not exactly. I would say, "all this lane positioning stuff is strategy for dealing with an infrastructure that is dominated by vehicles being driven according to the vehicular rules of the road".
What about creating an infrastructure that isn't dominated by cars?
Well, I would love to see all motor vehicles pushed onto a separate underground infrastructure, if that's something like what you mean. I'm all for segregation - as long as it is complete segregation. What's problematic is infrastructure that is somewhere in between. In the mean time, with very few exceptions, I believe the less segregation we have, the better off we are as cyclists.
That creates choices for people and doesn't rely upon alpha dog steely gazes and strategic lane positioning for people to get to work?
That's assuming partial segregation - or even providing the "choice" for partial segregation - is better than no segregation. I strongly disagree (for the most part). A bike lane is a great example. Put in a partial segregation facility like a bike lane, and now you are forcing integrated cyclists to use it. Why? Because the appropriate place to ride is often likely to be in the space demarcated by the bike lane stripe.
Another example. Right now cyclists have access on I-15 crossing Lake Hodges in north eastern San Diego. There are plans to put in a bike-ped bridge parrallel to the I-15 bridge. Caltrans wants to remove cyclist access to I15 once that bridge is in. Who cares as long as we can get across, right? Except that the bike-ped bridge is part of a park that will be closed at night. So we lose our 7/24 access. And that's a typical ramification of adding separate cycling infrastructure that ultimately works against cyclists. Why? Because the real motivation behind separate infrastructure is not coming from cyclists, who have very little political power ($$$), but rather from motoring lobbies like the AAA who want to get cyclists out of the way of motorists. You may say fine, who cares as long as I get my separate infrastructure, but you're still making deals with the devil, and it's bound to catch up with you (I don't mean motorists are the evil - the desire to get cyclists off the road is the evil here).
Why can't we work for a better infrastructure instead of all this aggressive stuff which only substitutes an aggro commute inside a car with an aggro commute on top of a bike?
Aggro commute? You mean aggressive? Nothing aggressive about my commute. That's the cool thing about vehicular cycling - once mastered, you can enjoy riding in traffic, even relax most of the time.
The idea that you would ride outside of a "perfectly good" bike lane during traffic lulls between intersections out in the center of the lane to be more visible and predictable sounds preposterous to the vast majority of cyclists, trained or not.
I guess the fact that it's also illegal in this state has nothing whatsoever to do with the decision by these cyclists.
I realize that most cyclists believe it too, but I'm surprised you in particular believe it's illegal for a CA cyclist to leave the bike lane during a lull in traffic.
CVC 21208, the vehicle code section that compells cyclists to ride in bike lanes, only applies in the presence of faster same-direction traffic. It does not apply during traffic lulls (and for very good reason - to legally enable cyclists to exercise the very method I'm advocating above; to be more visible to others, and less prone to being not seen and hit).
21208. (a) Whenever a bicycle lane has been established on a roadway pursuant to Section 21207, any person operating a bicycle upon the roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time shall ride within the bicycle lane, except that the person may move out of the lane under any of the following situations:
(1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle, vehicle, or pedestrian within the lane or about to enter the lane if the overtaking and passing cannot be done safely within the lane.
(2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.
(3) When reasonably necessary to leave the bicycle lane to avoid debris or other hazardous conditions.
(4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.
(b) No person operating a bicycle shall leave a bicycle lane until the movement can be made with reasonable safety and then only after giving an appropriate signal in the manner provided in Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 22100) in the event that any vehicle may be affected by the movement.
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21208.htm
Sometimes it is safer to be off to the side. When I make a left turn I like to be first in line, or if I can't do that my next choice is to the right of the first in line. I have found that if I take my place in line behind other cars I am less visible to oncoming traffic and I've had a few close calls. When I'm to the right of the first in line, it's pretty obvious what I'm about to do and the close calls are reduced.
I've heard you say this before. Let's explore.
Obviously, since you're concerned about oncoming traffic, you're not talking about turning left at an intersection with a dedicated/protected left turn signal.
That means you can't just go when the lead vehicle goes... you have to wait your turn. The lead vehicle goes, and you move up to the front, and signal left. Now you wait until there is gap in the oncoming traffic flow, or they yield to you, then you go left. How could you ever have close calls with oncoming traffic when you're turning left?
I've never thought that that argument on that section of vehicle code would hold up in court, Serge. I don't ride as far out of the lane as you would, but many times with no traffic you'd find me riding a bit to the left of the white line, at times. I just assume it would be making any vehicle behind me "wonder" what I was doing there, while at the same time I figured it would be a ticketable offense. I would not apply this to a "door zone" bike lane, where I believe it would be easy to apply our argument on the danger to a traffic judge, and have him/her understand.
OH MY GOD !!! I said I ride outside the bike lane. Serge has been affecting my riding. When my knee is better, will the club recognize my riding anymore? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. You're sneaky, Serge. :eek:
I've never thought that that argument on that section of vehicle code would hold up in court, Serge. I don't ride as far out of the lane as you would, but many times with no traffic you'd find me riding a bit to the left of the white line, at times. I just assume it would be making any vehicle behind me "wonder" what I was doing there, while at the same time I figured it would be a ticketable offense. I would not apply this to a "door zone" bike lane, where I believe it would be easy to apply our argument on the danger to a traffic judge, and have him/her understand.
OH MY GOD !!! I said I ride outside the bike lane. Serge has been affecting my riding. When my knee is better, will the club recognize my riding anymore? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. You're sneaky, Serge. :eek:
You lost me. "many times with no traffic you'd find me ... it would be making any vehicle behind me ..."
How is there "no traffic" (which would make 21208 N/A) and yet have a vehicle behind you (in which case 21208 does kick in)?
As soon as there is a vehicle approaching from behind you, unless one of the other exceptions in 21208 apply (which are numerous!), you are obligated by 21208 to get back in the bike lane.
Obviously that section will not hold up if you're arguing there was no same-direction traffic when there is a vehicle behind you (you know, like the cop who cited you). But I don't see why it wouldn't hold up when there really is no same-direction traffic. More importantly, who would ever bother citing a cyclist for riding outside of the bike lane on an empty road during a lull in traffic?
I've heard you say this before. Let's explore.
Obviously, since you're concerned about oncoming traffic, you're not talking about turning left at an intersection with a dedicated/protected left turn signal.
That means you can't just go when the lead vehicle goes... you have to wait your turn. The lead vehicle goes, and you move up to the front, and signal left. Now you wait until there is gap in the oncoming traffic flow, or they yield to you, then you go left. How could you ever have close calls with oncoming traffic when you're turning left?
No, I AM talking about a signal and a dedicated left turn lane. The problem is the oncoming traffic that is making right turns. They will often think they see a gap and go for it, when the gap is just me.
Oncoming traffic: I'm in northbound lane, turning west. They are in southbound lane, turning west.
When I am up in front they know I'm there. Sometimes I can go to the front and take the lane, but other times there's only room for me to go next to the first car. Both of these I have found are way safer than getting behind and waiting my turn.
No, I AM talking about a signal and a dedicated left turn lane. The problem is the oncoming traffic that is making right turns. They will often think they see a gap and go for it, when the gap is just me.
Oncoming traffic: I'm in northbound lane, turning west. They are in southbound lane, turning west.
When I am up in front they know I'm there. Sometimes I can go to the front and take the lane, but other times there's only room for me to go next to the first car. Both of these I have found are way safer than getting behind and waiting my turn.
Are there one or two left turn lanes?
Are there one or two westbound lanes?
Regardless, say you show up when two cars are already stopped waiting to turn left. You stop about a half car length behind the 2nd car, in the center of the lane.
The left arrow light turn green.
You're on a recumbent, and, well, you're a girl. No offense, this is probably a similar lack of acceleration situation I find myself in when towing the 60lbs of trailer + kid. Anyway, it takes you a second or two to get going, and, the half car length grows into a full car length+ by the time you begin the turn. So you're taking the turn, positioned like a motorcycle would be, making sure the right turners see you, and they don't? So you slow down and let him go. The next one at least has to make a half-hearted attempt at stopping on red and glancing over to see if anyone else is coming. You've got to be about as visible as a motorcycle. In fact, motorcyclists have the same visibility as you at this intersection, yet they don't stop beside the lead car. Why? What's the difference?
You lost me. "many times with no traffic you'd find me ... it would be making any vehicle behind me ..."
How is there "no traffic" (which would make 21208 N/A) and yet have a vehicle behind you (in which case 21208 does kick in)?
As soon as there is a vehicle approaching from behind you, unless one of the other exceptions in 21208 apply (which are numerous!), you are obligated by 21208 to get back in the bike lane.
Obviously that section will not hold up if you're arguing there was no same-direction traffic when there is a vehicle behind you (you know, like the cop who cited you). But I don't see why it wouldn't hold up when there really is no same-direction traffic. More importantly, who would ever bother citing a cyclist for riding outside of the bike lane on an empty road during a lull in traffic?
Sorry, I meant as a vehicle approaches from behind. Way behind. Since I wear neon yellow jerseys/vest/jacket, they'd see me way up ahead of them on the road. I've ridden up to this point without a mirror, so I would only hear cars approaching from 1/4 mile or so. That's when I'd get back over. I used to just ride in the bike lane in this situation, but after I read what I'd written, I realized that I was now riding a bit to the left of the line if I didn't hear traffic. I have an eyeglass mirror now that I will use when my knee gets better. I still don't ride as far out into a wide lane as you do.
There's a rider in my club that I think rides pretty much the way you do. I don't see him on many rides, haven't for a while, but I've been remembering a few rides, what he did, and evaluating why he did it the way he did.
OK, I'm with you now, Chief. By the way, I don't necessarily ride way out there. I'm adjusting my lane position quite frequently, something like how a sailor adjusts his sail on a blustery day, perhaps. Where I am at any given time is a function of where I'm going and what's going on around me, always.
I think it's a good thing for a driver to wonder what you're doing in his path as he approaches from behind, way behind. That's the point. Get in his path; get on his radar. That way by the time he's passing you, and you've moved aside out of his path before you actually impeded his progress, he's not only aware of you, but perhaps even feeling some gratitude towards you. All of that should significantly reduce the likelihood that he will inadvertently drift into you to just about nil.
I know what Diane is talking about, Serge. Right turn on red has gotten SO bad that cars turning right almost seem to be paying no attention whatsoever to even other cars. I experience this all the time in my Wrangler, watching cars suddenly stop halfway into their right turn because they realize that they are about to be hit by me making my left turn in the left turn lane, and I'm not the first car. It's pretty much gone beyond any point of being visible, to needing to be shielded by an M1 Abrams tank while turning. The advice in my area has turned to splitting the lane up to the red light, which we're allowed to do, and turning outside(to the right) of the first vehicle, making sure the driver knows we're turning left with them on their right. There's usually a lot of room to do this and end up to the right side of the right lane after the turn.
Yes, Dchief, that's exactly the situation and exactly the solution. Don't matter how many lanes this way or that, either. Hell, even the steely alpha dog gaze doesn't work half the time if they've already started going for it.
It's actually a bit better on the recumbent because they might actually stop to see wtf that thing I'm riding is. It's like a space ship to some people.
You're on a recumbent, and, well, you're a girl. No offense...
Well, I might be a girl--or maybe I was a girl 32 years ago--and I might even be slow to accelerate, but I probably could crush your skull with my thighs.
:D
I know what Diane is talking about, too. Some right turners on red don't want to yield to anybody and they certainly don't want to yield to a bicycle making a left turn - even if they see the bicyclist.
And, yes, sometimes it's safer to be to the right of the first car in line at a stoplight than to be in the line (It's often difficult for motorists to see a small vehicle behind a bigger vehicle). But, as Dchief says, it's important to make sure that the driver in the first car in line knows you're there.
I think it's a good thing for a driver to wonder what you're doing in his path as he approaches from behind, way behind. That's the point. Get in his path; get on his radar. That way by the time he's passing you, and you've moved aside out of his path before you actually impeded his progress, he's not only aware of you, but perhaps even feeling some gratitude towards you. All of that should significantly reduce the likelihood that he will inadvertently drift into you to just about nil.Wow, Serge. I agree totally with everything you say in that paragragh. Somebody pinch me; I must be dreaming.
It seems that the way you ride (at least in this case) is somewhat like the way I ride. Did you read my book?
On lightly-traveled roads, I check back over my shoulder frequently so I know a car is approaching me from behind well before they get to me. If there is a BL, I ride fairly near the BL stripe. When a car is approaching, I want to be out in their path and get on their radar, as you say. I move to the center of the lane and generally 'tip my wings' (weave a little) so I'm noticed - (I only tip my wings once; I just want to get their attention; I don't want them to think I'm totally crazy).
If I'm going to share the lane, I gradually move to the side as they approach. If I'm not going to share, I stay in the center of the lane until there's a good place to let them pass. Then I make a pretty definitive move to the shoulder, BL or whatever. The vast majority of motorists seem to understand these signals quite well.
As the car passes me, I check over my shoulder to see what's behind it, if anything. If nothing is behind it, I swing back into the center of the lane once the car has passed and, presto, I'm in their rear view mirror, which is exactly where I want to be - back on their radar. I'm also not in a place where I can be right-hooked. If they slow, I stay behind them and slow with them (I generally do not pass moving vehicles on the right).
-----------
What was the question?
Oh, yea: Which would you choose?
Well, that's hard to say without actually being there. My decision would depend on several factors including the condition of the roadway, the condition of the BL, the amount of traffic, the width of the BL, the width of the bike path, the weather, how big a hurry I'm in, the phase of the moon and, as Diane says, my mood.
If the road surface is satisfactory (there are many roads where I live where that wouldn't be the case), I'd probably ride somewhere near the BL stripe.
If the pedestrian walk really is adjacent to the BL with no separation, I'd avoid that like the plague. That's a horrible design and any engineer who approved it should be immediatly fired. I'm serious. That design sets up wrong-way passing. Consider a cyclist riding from the top of the picture down and a pedestrain walking the opposite direction - bzzt! that's just wrong - they are passing each other on the wrong side (like driving on the left side of the road). Worse, a cyclist riding from the top of the picture down could be sandwiched between two path users going the opposite direction (a pedestrian on the right and a bicyclist on the left). That is a recipe for disaster. We have a few places around here where there's a BL adjacent to a walking path and I absolutely hate it.
If the bike path had a reasonable design (which it doesn't) and I wasn't in a great hurry, I might ride on the bike path, especially if the scenery is good.
I think it's a good thing for a driver to wonder what you're doing in his path as he approaches from behind, way behind. That's the point. Get in his path; get on his radar. That way by the time he's passing you, and you've moved aside out of his path before you actually impeded his progress, he's not only aware of you, but perhaps even feeling some gratitude towards you. All of that should significantly reduce the likelihood that he will inadvertently drift into you to just about nil.
Wow, Serge. I agree totally with everything you say in that paragragh. Somebody pinch me; I must be dreaming.
It seems that the way you ride (at least in this case) is somewhat like the way I ride. Did you read my book?
On lightly-traveled roads, I check back over my shoulder frequently so I know a car is approaching me from behind well before they get to me. If there is a BL, I ride fairly near the BL stripe. When a car is approaching, I want to be out in their path and get on their radar, as you say. I move to the center of the lane and generally 'tip my wings' (weave a little) so I'm noticed - (I only tip my wings once; I just want to get their attention; I don't want them to think I'm totally crazy).
If I'm going to share the lane, I gradually move to the side as they approach. If I'm not going to share, I stay in the center of the lane until there's a good place to let them pass. Then I make a pretty definitive move to the shoulder, BL or whatever. The vast majority of motorists seem to understand these signals quite well.
As the car passes me, I check over my shoulder to see what's behind it, if anything. If nothing is behind it, I swing back into the center of the lane once the car has passed and, presto, I'm in their rear view mirror, which is exactly where I want to be - back on their radar. I'm also not in a place where I can be right-hooked. If they slow, I stay behind them and slow with them (I generally do not pass moving vehicles on the right).
Wow, indeed. This is best description I've seen on this forum of what I dubbed "dynamic lateral lane positioning" about a year ago.
Of course, I got drummed for it, but probably mostly for contending that BLs discourage and inhibit cyclists from learning DLLP.
The idea that the "usual position" is to the side of the lead vehicle is my problem with the philosophy.
The philosophy addresses the "usual position" which is dictated not by the traffic laws but by the cyclists themselves. At stop lights it is a natural reaction to a queue to bypass it where possible. Admittedly this is a reactionary measure to the status quo but compared with the gargantuan task of mass re-education of cyclists, and to a lesser degree motorists it is a cheaper, more reliable, and more immediately effective safety measure.
Unfortunately, many cyclists do stop there, which is consistent with the segregated philosophy of most cyclists.
A philosophy that has very much been created by the authorities and motorists far more than it has been created by cyclists themselves, the perpetuation of which is very difficult to end. I think it should properly be refered to as the segregated philosophy of most "road users".
Ironically, this philosophy of separation tends to put cyclists in the way of motor vehicles... hence this "solution". But what it does is reward the wrong behavior - cycling according to the segregated philosophy. So what happens to cyclists at junction with ASLs, and in all other situations where segregated cycling makes them unnecessarily vulnerable to collisions?
In short, at ASLs where a stop light is signalling to stop, cyclists will come up on the lefthand side of any queued motor vehicles and enter the ASL in front of the other vehicles. At the change of the lights all vehicles will pull off normally. The difference is that the motorist will have a far better view of what a cyclist is doing or planning to do. Previously a cyclist cold have been in a blind spot without realising it. The ASL also provides an opportune location for a cyclist to place themselves for a right turn without having to cross potentially multiple lanes of moving motor vehicles or wait long periods in heavy/gridlocked traffic for a legal chance to obtain a safe right turn position.
In other words, ASLs are a solution to a small part of a bigger problem - the cultural acceptance of segregated cycling in traffic. ASLs actually perpetuate and exacerbates the bigger problem.
And so far is saving lives. What is the more important issue here? However the issue of workable models of full segregation is the subject for another topic.
You can say ASLs "work" - because they address the smaller problem - cyclists stopping at the side of lead vehicles at junctions. But you can say this only if you're ignoring the bigger picture of overall cycling safety, and in particular the role played by segregationary thinking in making cycling in traffic less safe than it can be.
Over the past five years, and even longer really, the city of London has invested very large amounts of money in what you, judging by your posted position on such things as ASLs and cycle lanes etc, would refer to as segregated cycling. Year on year the numbers of people cycling has increased with polls citing people taking up cycling as they feel that the roads are safer due to the provisions being made. Year on year the gross numbers (i.e. not a per capita amount) of accident related cyclist deaths have gone down. Last year the number was 8.
At least I believe cycling would be much safer in traffic if integrated cycling had wider acceptance.
You may well be right on this matter and I would certainly support measures that would increase acceptance of integrated cycling for many reasons.
Interesting issue. Holland has a policy of combined integrated and segregated cycling that is regarded internationally as very successful and very safe.
Seldom Kill - thanks for you thoughtful and well-written response. It's a refreshing contrast to the usual rebuttals I get, bogged down in semantic arguments about whether "segregation" is the right word.
My main point is based on the belief that "mass re-education of cyclists" regarding integrated cycling would make cycling much safer (perhaps by reducing by as much as 10 times the number of bike-car collisions and fatalities) and more popular (perhaps by as much as 100 times), and that integrated cycling facilities take us in the opposite direction, entrenching us more and more into the segregated cycling philosophy and making cultural acceptance of integregated cycling that much more difficult to achieve, and for what? At best, segregated facilities can only achieve relatively marginal improvements in cycling safety and popularity.
How would the cost of implementing ASLs at every junction in London, for example, compare to the cost of dropping off a copy of John Franklin's Cyclecraft on every doorstep in the city?
... Even Hurst doesn't follow his own advice in at least one example in his book, and misses a great opportunity to illustrate the value of using the "default position". He describes an incident where he is riding in a bike lane through a quiet neighborhood, is distracted when he sees an attractive woman, and does not notice a Mercedes on his right backing out of a driveway right in front of him (into which he crashes). Though he does take the blame for "not paying attention", he misses a great opportunity to illustrate the value of using his recommended "default" "centerish" lane position in situations like this. Had he been outside of the bike lane, positioned centerish, he would have had more time and space to react to the Mercedes. The point at which the driver stopped backing out to check if the road was clear was obviously after the car was in the bike lane, but probably stopped before it blocked the vehicular lane where a "centerish" position would not have been impacted, and, most importantly, the sight line from the driver backing out to the cyclist would have been much better. Anyway, if the author didn't notice the applicability of this approach in this situation, surely most readers missed it too. Franklin is a lot more consistent about applying the approach in his examples, but he too does not make it crystal clear that on a quiet street with a bike lane the primary position is outside of the bike lane during traffic lulls.
...
Hello Helmet Head and others,
It is true that I was too far right in that particular incident, and that this faulty positioning was one main reason for the collision. However, that passage was very poorly written and gives the false impression that I was unwilling to ride outside the bike lane. In fact, I had just moved INTO the lane because of a vehicle coming up behind (the occupants of which became important witnesses to the accident). Still, at the critical moment, I was traveling too far to the right for my speed and the conditions at hand. Since
I had to move right to allow the vehicle to pass, I should have adjusted my speed and awareness
accordingly, but there was a 'failure of the cyclist to respect a dangerous alley intersection hidden behind the plumber's van...'
Thanks for letting me get that off my chest. Been bothering me for a while. That's one of the passages that will be changed slightly in a new edition, if there ever is one.
Robert
Wow. Thanks for showing up to clear this up. It's been bugging me, along with some other stuff in your book, for many months. You hammer and nail the cyclist responsibility theme like nobody else. It's a great book for that alone. But the passage discussed here is not the only one that at least appears to me to convey a misunderstanding and/or misrepresentation of vehicular cycling.
Back to the incident... (and thanks for officially acknowledging that you were writing about yourself ;))... so if I understand (and remember) it correctly, you moved aside to facilitate the passing of the car that was approaching from behind, which put you in the more vulnerable position where a car, like the Mercedes, might suddenly pull out of the blind alley in front of you, but not so far out as to stop in the path of the other car. Hmm. Yes, that explains it. I agree that the move yielding the ROW to the passing motorist, by moving closer to the edge of the roadway (in the bike lane), should have been coupled with slowing down and being more alert.
I would sure like to see that concept -- that riding in a bike lane at the edge of the roadway requires slower speeds, more care, and more alertness, or at least a different kind of care and focus, than riding on the same road outside of the bike lane -- emphasized more in a future edition...
I like your wording, false impression that I was unwilling to ride outside the bike lane. I believe the widespread lack of willingness to ride outside of bike lanes regularly puts cyclists in unnecessarily dangerous situations. You should see how much sh!t I get around here from the resident "thinkers" for merely suggesting methods based on moving in and out of bike lanes based on changing factors and conditions.
Serge
Well, I might be a girl--or maybe I was a girl 32 years ago--and I might even be slow to accelerate, but I probably could crush your skull with my thighs.
:D
OK I have to put a stop to this right here and now, because it's obvious that you are just trying to turn me on! :love:
Basically, there is a sidewalk, a bike path (that peds don't walk on), a landscaping strip and a two-way street with bike lanes and no parking or intersections, except for at the top.
The intersection at the top is a 4 way intersection with stop signs, not 3 as it appears. The east-west part of the intersection has a bike lane and cross walk on the left and a regular residential street on the right. The bike path does not empty out into a cross walk. It faces the residential street. Everything to the left of the picture is the ocean and a park.
So, assuming this situation lasts for a significant distance (in other words, my short picture was taller), where would you choose to ride? Why?
What the heck, might as well throw my two cents in.
I'll make a few assumptions here. First I'll assume all the paved areas are in equally good condition, so surface conditions are NOT a factor in my decision (although on most roads with an urban cross-section I find the bile lane to have the fewest cracks and potholes). I will also assume that all traffic loops work properly (even from the bike lane), and that there are no specific concerns in that area affecting my decision. Finally I will assume that the pathway to the left has a start point actually useful to me.
My most common riding position would be in the bike lane (and no, I see no reason to leave the bike lane at intersections.). If the pathway was not crowded at that time of day and I felt like a more pleasant ride, I might use it, but I would have to know from experience with that particular pathway that it was worth using. I normally only use pathways for scenic rides covering longer distances. The exception to all this would be riding very late at night, then I would likely ride down the middle of the general-use lane for extra visibility, and swing out of the way of cars if one came by.
I do not suggest that my choice of riding positions would be good or bad for anyone else, rather I would advise that others educate themselves enough to make their own decisions. The above is what I would feel best for me locally. (And I said best, not safest.)
You lost me. "many times with no traffic you'd find me ... it would be making any vehicle behind me ..."
How is there "no traffic" (which would make 21208 N/A) and yet have a vehicle behind you (in which case 21208 does kick in)?
As soon as there is a vehicle approaching from behind you, unless one of the other exceptions in 21208 apply (which are numerous!), you are obligated by 21208 to get back in the bike lane.
Obviously that section will not hold up if you're arguing there was no same-direction traffic when there is a vehicle behind you (you know, like the cop who cited you). But I don't see why it wouldn't hold up when there really is no same-direction traffic. More importantly, who would ever bother citing a cyclist for riding outside of the bike lane on an empty road during a lull in traffic?
The same idiot that layed on their horn when 2 of three lanes in the same direction were traffic free and I occupied the third (far right) lane... AND there was no BL. Motorist didn't think I was "over to the right far enough" (to satisfy his small brain, no doubt).
I'd love to honestly believe that all motorists are reasonable... and I go zipping down the roads with nary a care in the world, and then this kind of horse pucky happens. Always re-awakens me to the ugly reality that just about anybody can get a driver's license. :eek:
Oh well... back to the discussion at hand.
And BTW Robert Hurst... darn nice book!
More importantly, who would ever bother citing a cyclist for riding outside of the bike lane on an empty road during a lull in traffic?
The same idiot that layed on their horn when 2 of three lanes in the same direction were traffic free and I occupied the third (far right) lane.
That's different. Technically, legally, unless your lane was too narrow to be safely shared, or some other exception in 21202 applied (obstacle in road, approaching a right turn, preparing for a left, etc.), since there was faster same-direction traffic present, 21202 did legally obligate you to keep to the side of your empty wide outside lane.
I'm talking about an empty road, or at least one that is absent of any other same-direction traffic. Even if a cop doesn't know the law, do you think he's going to drop his pastry when he spies you taking the lane as you ride by the window of the donut shop in which he's taking his break?
That's different. Technically, legally, unless your lane was too narrow to be safely shared, or some other exception in 21202 applied (obstacle in road, approaching a right turn, preparing for a left, etc.), since there was faster same-direction traffic present, 21202 did legally obligate you to keep to the side of your empty wide outside lane.
I'm talking about an empty road, or at least one that is absent of any other same-direction traffic. Even if a cop doesn't know the law, do you think he's going to drop his pastry when he spies you taking the lane as you ride by the window of the donut shop in which he's taking his break?
In reality "obstacle in road, approaching a right turn" did both apply, which was why I was near the center of the lane... but my gripe is that 21202 does not specify "lanes," but "the edge of the roadway..." In this case, (and I am sure many others) I can easily occupy a "lane" while not delaying any other traffic, due to the other remaining lanes being completly empty...
21202 does not give me permission to occupy a lane in the absense of exceptions, and when there is light enough traffic to allow me to easily do so.
Bit of a flaw there.
Yes, the changes cyclists tried to get into 21202 a couple of years ago included handling this flaw, but we were shot down by the AAA and CHP. There should be no reason for cyclists to keep to the side when faster traffic has plenty of other lanes to use to pass.
Come to think of it, there is more landscaping between the side walk and the bike path, so the pedestrians and cyclists don't mix there. Also, on the right of the picture there is only a cliff, no driveways or anything like that until the intersection. The street's in ok condition, but it's starting to get bad because somebody on the cliff waters too much. There's a little swamp starting to grow, even with cattails.
I think the purpose of this new bike path in this particular situation is to connect the beach bike path we already had with Shoreline park, a popular family park overlooking the ocean. The bike path is supposed to continue to the park so people out riding with their families can use the bike path all the way to the park. Before it wasn't possible to get to the park without being involved with traffic, or at least with bike lanes, and even though many people here don't really care, a lot of families with their kids aren't going to do that.
This kind of setup give people choices and provides suitable places to cycle for people of all ages and abilities (well, they might find the hill a bit tough.) There's a path for people who don't want to be out in traffic, bike lanes for people like me who don't want to weave in and out as traffic approaches, and people like Serge can always opt out of it all and ride out in the lane.
The problem with Serge's ideology is that it doesn't offer any choices. There is no opting out of VC if VC is all there is. But when there are multiple types of paths to choose from, you choose the one that is right for you. I want more than just coping skills for aggressive traffic. I want choices.
I want more than just coping skills for aggressive traffic.
But if you have coping skills for aggressive traffic, then you don't need more.
More importantly, if you have more, then you have less incentive to develop the coping skills. Multiply this by millions of cyclists, and you have millions of cyclists who are less and less motivated to develop the coping skills for aggressive traffic by more and more "choices" that appear to alleviate their need to develop those skills.
Every inch of bike lane stripe just digs us that much deeper into our hole as a culture of cyclists lacking the skills to cope with traffic. Every new bike path gives cyclists in that area that much more reason to not even become aware of, much less learn, traffic cycling skills. The irony is that the reasons are false. Whether riding in bike lanes paths or traffic lanes, you still need the skills to cope with traffic. Only people who lack traffic coping skills think you don't need traffic coping skills to ride on bike lanes and paths.
Now, I'm not opposed to ALL bike lanes and paths, I'm just saying that there is a cost to providing these choices to cyclists, and that cost is that it moves us further from developing traffic coping skills, and should be considered every time we decide whether to support or oppose yet another "choice".
The paradox being that by providing us with more choices, they will end up by taking away our best choice, which is to ride on the greatest system of streets and highways ever devised.
I'm fortunate to live in a community that is so "bicycle-unfriendly." Nobody cares enough to try and take my choices away! When Lansing tried to put in a bike lane (paid for by a grant), the cagers got so irate that they stormed the city council meeting, demanding "No Bike Lanes." Ironically, they opposed the bike lane because it would slow down the trucks delivering "just-in-time" car parts to the auto assembly lines! So much for choices in this car town.
The paradox being that by providing us with more choices, they will end up by taking away our best choice, which is to ride on the greatest system of streets and highways ever devised.
As much as it pains me to admit this to a feller from 'that state up north', I totally agree. I think that funds used for bike lanes on public roads would be much better spent on improving the public roads themselves. Of course by saying that I'm now going to be labeled as anti-BL. :(
You guys just don't get it that most people don't want what you're selling--your steely gaze alpha dog experience. It's useful as far as it goes for coping with difficult situations, but it's not anything that makes the world a better place.
I'll bet you I see easily 4 times more cyclists every day on my 8 mile commute in bike lane/bike path infested Santa Barbara than you do in the motor city or San Diego. I probably see 10 times more. Could it be because it is more livable here? We offer more choices for people? It's more inviting? It's not all alpha dog aggro?
Previous -
Top -
Next
Copyright 1999 - 2007
BikeForums.Net - All rights reserved.
Common bike forum topics in clue bicycles, cycling, mountain biking,
cycling jerseys, shorts, socks, shoes and bike equiptment selection.