Interesting, so a BL is provided, well isolated (by description) from the door zone, and far enough out in the overall road to be well visible from any auto travel lanes, cross streets, and intersections, and yet you still choose to be in the "auto travel lane," using "default position" as your reasoning?
Gene, as a Road 2 Scholar you should know that riding further left is not simply about being "visible". We all know how a motorist can look right at us and not see us. We want to be in a lane position that appears relevant to them so that they are more likely to not only "see" us, but also to actually notice us and become aware of our presence. An "out of the way" position in the bike lane does not accomplish this nearly as effectively, I have found, as does a position further left in the traffic lane. I believe this is because motorists pay relatively good (but not perfect!) attention to what is going on in a traffic lane, and consider that relevant to them, while they tend to consider "out of the way" cyclists in the bike lane as being irrelevant to them, because, perhaps, they're "out of the way".

Make sense?

Also, maybe you could say something that would allow Brad to know that I actually ride a bicycle.

I'm convinced that you don't actually ride a bicycle.

As much as HH and I clash from time to time, I will now stand up and cite with confidence that he does ride a bike, and in fact owns at least 3. I have ridden with him on several occasions and have seen at least three different bikes.

I will also testify that on his bike with CF forks and stays, he can maintain a pretty fast pace.

Gene, as a Road 2 Scholar you should know that riding further left is not simply about being "visible". We all know how a motorist can look right at us and not see us. We want to be in a lane position that appears relevant to them so that they are more likely to not only "see" us, but also to actually notice us and become aware of our presence. An "out of the way" position in the bike lane does not accomplish this nearly as effectively, I have found, as does a position further left in the traffic lane. I believe this is because motorists pay relatively good (but not perfect!) attention to what is going on in a traffic lane, and consider that relevant to them, while they tend to consider "out of the way" cyclists in the bike lane as being irrelevant to them, because, perhaps, they're "out of the way".

Make sense?

Also, maybe you could say something that would allow Brad to know that I actually ride a bicycle.


Makes sense, I just don't buy it in this case... I believe that this road, by description, gives the cyclists a good, well visible position in the street that would be darn hard to be overlooked. The BL is in a position perhaps 1/3 of the width of the road out from the curb; it is not "hidden" in the gutter. Most likely the BL is clean too as drivers have to cross it to park. Further, as the speed of the traffic is only 35MPH and there is only one lane either way, a cyclist should be quite visible, therefore there is little reason to avoid the BL in this case.

BTW I already "testified" that you do indeed ride. Wrench no, ride... yes. ;)

Now perhaps I misunderstood the street layout, but I am picturing (from right to left) a wide street, with parking along the right curb, a buffer zone, then a BL, then an auto travel lane, then the center turn lane, then the other direction auto travel lane, then a BL, another buffer zone and then at last, more parked cars along the curb on the left curb side of the street.

In that picture, with the parked cars, and the buffer zones pushing the Bike Lane out quite a bit into the actual roadway (gotta be careful of terms here)... the Bike Lane should be well out enough to allow a good view of cross traffic and intersections. About the only time one might consider leaving the BL is to avoid any hazards in the street (such as potholes) and to be well visible at intersections and to prevent right hooks... Thus my "default position" would tend to be toward the left side of the BL... I would only go into the auto lane to make left turns or for hazards and to prevent right hooks, as mentioned.

By the sounds of the layout of the road, and the prevailing speeds, this road should be quite usable with the BL as the "default position" or "primary position."

Now I am not a VC expert and I do like Bike lanes where they work and make sense (sociological arguments aside)... and this layout does make sense to me... provided that the BL was a decent width and the door zone buffer was really wide enough. Certainly the 35MPH speed limit of this road barely qualifies for a BL in my mind, but what the heck, if done right, the BL could easily help the flow of all traffic on that road... especially during a rush hour when the motor traffic might be bumper to bumper.
Gene I share your understanding of the situation. I still think you are more visible - assuming visible means not only that they can "see" you, but that they actually take notice and become aware of your presence - in a position further left in the normal traffic lane than in the bike lane.

I will add that moving further left than even this relatively far left bike lane will still improve your sight lines and buffer zone to traffic entering the roadway.

Of course, as I managed to emphasize even within the 50 word answer to which I was limited by Beck, I would temporarily merge into the bike lane to allow faster traffic to pass when not doing so would mean unnecessarily impeding traffic.

I also might use the bike lane to pass slow or stopped traffic on the right, but only with heightened vigilance and at a greatly reduced speed.

You may indeed be more visible right in front of the other drivers out in the center of the lane, but is it necessary to be so visible? In other words, in the street situation being described, it would seem to me you are plenty visible enough without having to go to such an extreme. There isn't a danger viable enough to justify your position.

Gene I share your understanding of the situation. I still think you are more visible - assuming visible means not only that they can "see" you, but that they actually take notice and become aware of your presence - in a position further left in the normal traffic lane than in the bike lane.

I will add that moving further left than even this relatively far left bike lane will still improve your sight lines and buffer zone to traffic entering the roadway.

Of course, as I managed to emphasize even within the 50 word answer to which I was limited by Beck, I would temporarily merge into the bike lane to allow faster traffic to pass when not doing so would mean unnecessarily impeding traffic.

I also might use the bike lane to pass slow or stopped traffic on the right, but only with heightened vigilance and at a greatly reduced speed.

I think the prominence of the Bike Lane in this case, being so far out in the roadway, gives cyclists a pretty good "heads up" position... a position of both good sight lines and of good visiblity to other traffic. I also feel that the BL helps make cyclists quite predictable, whereas moving from the MV lane to the BL "just in time" may actually confuse motorists as to your intent.

Daily commute, let me applaud how you ride your bike generally.

However, I don't think Mr Hurst is joining in so much as attempting to set the record straight.
I meant joining in the discussion. I didn't mean to imply he was joining one side or the other. I enjoy the common sense of his book, and I'm glad he drops by now and then.

Edit: Please don't restart the old argument, but as long as we're on the topic of misunderstandings, in the closed thread, I did not say that only HH and I were "bicycling advocates." That term applies equally to every one arguing what they think is best for cycling, whether that's bike lanes on 25 mph roads or bans on bike lanes on 25 mph roads.

Yesterday on my ride I went along Rainier Ave S in Seattle towards Renton. 2 lanes of traffic, center turn lane, bike lanes, buffer zone, parking strip. Not a lot of cars parked on the road, it was saturday.

Where do i position my bike? Do I ride like an artful dodger, riding in the center of the lane with traffic, and only ceding my position seconds before they have to pass me?

Or, does a person riding VC ride in the bike lane?

I wound up riding in the parking strip %70 of the time, with the double white lines of the bike lane and buffer to my left between me and traffic. Took the bike lane when there was parked cars ahead, and never once rode like the artful dodger except at a couple of intersections where I was pulling around turning traffic etc. I came late to this thread, so I will give an opinion on the question posed in the OP, then bow out. I don't qualify as an expert, but I do try to ride VC most of the time, so here goes:

On the road described here, I would ride in the bike lane if traffic were heavy or steady. But I would merge into the center of the traffic lane at intersections, or if I saw cagers edging up to turn into the street. My reason: if traffic is heavy, the main danger is faster vehicles from the rear, so I feel safer if I am a bit out of their way. Also, I would find it tiresome to be constantly moving between lanes in steady traffic. At intersections, however, the main danger now comes from turning traffic, so I feel safer if I command a lane.

If traffic were light or sporadic, I would ride in the center of the traffic lane most of the time, but merge into the bike lane if faster vehicles were attempting to overtake me. My reason: If traffic is light, the main danger is turning traffic from sidestreets and driveways. They are aware of the many gaps in the sparse motor traffic and eager to complete their turns, so they might not notice a bike to the right. Thus, I am more visible to them (and vice-versa) if I am in the traffic lane, where they expect traffic to be.

You may indeed be more visible right in front of the other drivers out in the center of the lane, but is it necessary to be so visible?
No, it's probably not necessary to be so visible. I'm sure either position is reasonably safe. So if you want to stay in the bike lane, fine. But I would not. Why? Because I would be more visible further left, plus I'm less likely to get a flat (due to the constant debris accumulation in bike lanes), etc., and I see no drawback to riding further left. Because it forces me to be aware of what is going on around me? Uh, that's not a drawback, that's a bonus!


In other words, in the street situation being described, it would seem to me you are plenty visible enough without having to go to such an extreme. There isn't a danger viable enough to justify your position.
Here's the difference between you and me, Diane. I think it also exemplifies a critical element of what I call the "vc attitude". I don't think a cyclist should have to justify (your word) her position out in the traffic lane. What needs to be justified is when a slow moving vehicle driver, including a cyclist, should be required to travel as close as practicable to the right (or, in the case of a cyclist, in a bike lane, which is, after all, just an official designation of the "as far right as practicable" space on the road for cyclists).

In this case, the only reason to justify (by law, in CA at least) that a cyclist be in the bike lane is if faster same-direction traffic is present, and none of the exceptions in 21208 apply. But it's more than a legal issue. More important, I think, is that a cyclist should not ever feel that she has to justify, for any reason, her position in the lane to anyone. A requirement to keep to the right... that's the only thing that should ever need justification with regard to this issue. The difference might seem subtle, but it makes all the difference in terms of how you feel when you're out in the road, and whether you really feel you have the same rights as other vehicle drivers. And how you feel about all this stuff, plays an important part in how safely you position yourself on the roadway, so it's important... perhaps not in this particular instance, but important in general.

On the road described here, I would ride in the bike lane if traffic were heavy or steady. But I would merge into the center of the traffic lane at intersections, or if I saw cagers edging up to turn into the street. My reason: if traffic is heavy, the main danger is faster vehicles from the rear, so I feel safer if I am a bit out of their way. Also, I would find it tiresome to be constantly moving between lanes in steady traffic. At intersections, however, the main danger now comes from turning traffic, so I feel safer if I command a lane.
As usual, I probably failed to make clear (because it seems so obvious to me, but also because Beck asked me to answer within 50 words or less) that I too would of course remain in the bike lane between interesections to the right of faster traffic should such fast and steady traffic be present. In fact, a few miles of my commute (along Torrey Pines Rd) is along a 35 mph 4 lane road with bike lanes at the curb, and one section has onstreet parking but the bike lane is mostly outside of the door zone (section of TP Rd north of the fire station that is at the base of LJ Parkway). I'm in the bike lane much of the time on this road, which resembles the OP description at least somewhat, due to the presence of faster traffic.

The fact that I would move out into a centerish position in the lane when there is no faster traffic present is simply moot in the presence of fast and steady faster traffic.

Just clarifying...

If you think something in the post is BS, please specify exactly what, and why you think it's BS.

The key to programming is attention to detail and naming conventions. A method is an OO term that is exclusively associated with a class or an object, while a subroutine is a more generic term used in the bad old days of procedural programming paradigms.

OO has become popular because it allows us to more closely simulate the real world. I'd prefer to create a 'Cycling' object and inherit from it to create a 'VC' child object that shares the base methods and properties of the parent Cycling object, but also has it's own unique methods and properties, then we could also create other child objects that more closely mirror the riding techniques of Bek, Noisebeam, ILTB, genec, myself and everyone else. Then we could all be happy with our own objects and they could not only share the same methods and properties of the parent class, but through polymorphism they could all share some common methods.

Would you disagree that VC is merely a child of the parent Cycling object?

Edit: sorry for the late reply, but I do have work to do and riding home in the wind and snow tonight was an adventure. :eek:

As usual, I probably failed to make clear (because it seems so obvious to me, but also because Beck asked me to answer within 50 words or less) that I too would of course remain in the bike lane between interesections to the right of faster traffic should such fast and steady traffic be present. In fact, a few miles of my commute (along Torrey Pines Rd) is along a 35 mph 4 lane road with bike lanes at the curb, and one section has onstreet parking but the bike lane is mostly outside of the door zone (section of TP Rd north of the fire station that is at the base of LJ Parkway). I'm in the bike lane much of the time on this road, which resembles the OP description at least somewhat, due to the presence of faster traffic.

The fact that I would move out into a centerish position in the lane when there is no faster traffic present is simply moot in the presence of fast and steady faster traffic.

Just clarifying...


So doesn't that make your "default position" in the BL, and your "secondary position" in the lane center?

You may indeed be more visible right in front of the other drivers out in the center of the lane, but is it necessary to be so visible? In other words, in the street situation being described, it would seem to me you are plenty visible enough without having to go to such an extreme. There isn't a danger viable enough to justify your position.

To play the devil's advocate, are we necessarily more visible in the center of the lane in all cases? For example, in areas where bicycles are regularly seen riding to the right in the WOL, BL etc., isn't it logical to assume that motorists who also regularly travel the route are used to and expect to see bicycles riding to the right, while seeing one right smack in the lane might be a surprise?

Just wanted to say,I'm almost finished with your book. Good on yer. It's nice to know that at least someone writing lives in the real world where daily situations don't fall into well defined pigeonholes. Keep up the good work.

I'll second that, and add that the book is refreshingly honest, free of the know-it-all attitude found in other similar volumes, and its nice to see an author who doesn't take himself too seriously.

I described my reasoning above - which boils down to having a commanding view and space to deal with all possible side, rear and front situations. But Bek has a point when he writes above "Do you guys really have to belabor issues with such minuatae?" Its really a simple situation and frankly it doesn't matter that much where one rides as long at its not in a door zone and as long as one has time to react to side front and rear situations. Basically ride wherever you want, move over (or already be moved over) when traffic is behind you and its safe to do so. There are far more complex situations a cyclist needs to deal with than this road.

Al

Al, I think you make a great point (as did bek). I feel the best we can ever do is list pros and cons for a particular cycling position/style/action. In the real world there too many variables at play for any one "correct" answer, the best we can do is make a "best fit" decision on a case-by-case basis.

Would you disagree that VC is merely a child of the parent Cycling object?
That's certainly a reasonable way to design a system.
So is defining a class vehicle of which cars, trucks, buses, horses and buggies, motorcycles and bicycles are all subclasses.

This is not a computer programming forum, Chipcom. But even in a generic computer science forum, the assertion that a method is a type of subroutine would be valid - that a method call eventually generates a jsr (jump to subroutine machine instruction) is not BS. Your argument that my post was BS is purely semantic (and a poor one at that).

To play the devil's advocate, are we necessarily more visible in the center of the lane in all cases? For example, in areas where bicycles are regularly seen riding to the right in the WOL, BL etc., isn't it logical to assume that motorists who also regularly travel the route are used to and expect to see bicycles riding to the right, while seeing one right smack in the lane might be a surprise?
The surprise element, to the extent that it exists, works to our advantage in terms of being visible, not disadvantage.

Because they "expect" us off to the side and in the bike lane, they tend to ignore us when we are. It's nothing that needs their attention. Now a cyclist IN THE MIDDLE OF ***MY*** LANE... WTF!!!! ... that's how you get their attention, and, as you so eloquently put it, how we achieve -- darn I always forget the term you used -- points, if you will, for moving aside to let them pass.

To play the devil's advocate, are we necessarily more visible in the center of the lane in all cases? For example, in areas where bicycles are regularly seen riding to the right in the WOL, BL etc., isn't it logical to assume that motorists who also regularly travel the route are used to and expect to see bicycles riding to the right, while seeing one right smack in the lane might be a surprise?
I would say, living in a town with many roads set up like that which the OP described, that riding down the center of the lane sends a more confusing message than using the BL. The appearance is that you are not sure whether or not to cross over to the other side (unsure because you haven't done so yet and crossing is what it looks like you're doing). And should you return to the bike lane the appearance is that you decided not to. If you go back into the lane again, the appearance is you're going to try again.

I believe sending a confusing message to drivers is dangerous. Confused drivers are unpredictable. In a situation where the reasonabe expectation is to be one place or another you should choose the place to be that is least confusing. In the example described, the least confusing place would be the bike lane.

However, I do not think that moving away from the bike lane at driveways or intersections is too confusing a behavior for cyclists. Many cars stick out too far so it's a common thing to see cyclists and even other drivers do. But it's too uncommon to see cyclists in the center unless they are trying to turn left or get to the other side.

Your region might be different, but that's how it is here.

P.S. I rarely--to the point of almost being able to say never--get flats and I ride in bike lanes most of the time. The fear of flats is highly overstated.

I would say, living in a town with many roads set up like that which the OP described, that riding down the center of the lane sends a more confusing message than using the BL. The appearance is that you are not sure whether or not to cross over to the other side (unsure because you haven't done so yet and crossing is what it looks like you're doing). And should you return to the bike lane the appearance is that you decided not to. If you go back into the lane again, the appearance is you're going to try again.
Holy cow. We've already established that using heroin, I mean using bike lanes in Santa Barbara, can make one believe that cycling in Atlanta is inherently unsafe.

Now we learn that cyclists riding in a lane similarly positioned to where a motor scooter rider would travel, generate confusion in motorists in towns like SB where bike lanes are the rule. No wonder you would not be comfortable in Atlanta's downtown where you must control the lane much of the time. You're simply not accustomed to doing so, and, therefore, would be uncomfortable with it. Not surprising.

Folks, bike lanes are more crippling to cyclists than I thought!

Diane, the only confusion about a cyclist riding straight ahead in the center of a lane, while looking straight ahead, is in your creative imagination. When that cyclist glances back over her right shoulder, obviously long enough to confirm seeing the motorist approaching from the rear, and subsequently moves aside to facilitate their passing, perhaps only when the motorist is just starting to slow down (hence communicating his acknowledgement of the cyclist's presence to the cyclist) her intent is very clear, and appreciated.

As far as what cross traffic is thinking... I don't know. Look back at the VC Puzzler 1 thread for a great example (or was it Puzzler 2?). Remember the cyclists riding in the bike lane and being cut of by the motorist who had stopped at a side street on their left, and then proceeded right in front of them as if they were not even there? If they had merged left out of the bike lane, maybe he would have been confused (I doubt it), but at least he would have noticed them and not cut out right in front of them.


P.S. I rarely--to the point of almost being able to say never--get flats and I ride in bike lanes most of the time. The fear of flats is highly overstated.
A lightweight 700 x 23c at 130 psi is probably more vulnerable to puncture than whatever you're running on your recumbent. Solid rubber? :)

That's certainly a reasonable way to design a system.
So is defining a class vehicle of which cars, trucks, buses, horses and buggies, motorcycles and bicycles are all subclasses.

This is not a computer programming forum, Chipcom. But even in a generic computer science forum, the assertion that a method is a type of subroutine would be valid - that a method call eventually generates a jsr (jump to subroutine machine instruction) is not BS. Your argument that my post was BS is purely semantic (and a poor one at that).

JSRs now...please stop! Let's throw in a ton of Go Tos while we're at it. I get a headache just thinking about debugging that old procedural stuff. A method is not a subroutine - period. But you're right, I should never try to correct you, what was I thinking.

Upon further consideration...


I'd prefer to create a 'Cycling' object and inherit from it to create a 'VC' child object that shares the base methods and properties of the parent Cycling object, but also has it's own unique methods and properties, then we could also create other child objects that more closely mirror the riding techniques of Bek, Noisebeam, ILTB, genec, myself and everyone else. Then we could all be happy with our own objects and they could not only share the same methods and properties of the parent class, but through polymorphism they could all share some common methods.

Would you disagree that VC is merely a child of the parent Cycling object?

Under cycling we could have many subclasses, including "mountain biking", "road racing", etc. One of those classes might be "bicycle transportation".

Under "bicycle transportation" I would expect to find the subclass, "bicycle transportation on roadways".

VehicularCycling would be a subclass of bicycle transportation on roadways.

So let's establish that other subclasses of bicycle transportation, perhaps bicycle transporation on bikepaths, would be irrelevant to vehicular cycling, as vehicular cycling only address bicycle transporation on roadways.

The methods of that subclass VehicularCycling would inherit from superclass Cycling would include the basics: LookAhead(), Start(), Stop(), Slow(), Accelerate(), Left(), Right(), , GlanceBack(), etc.

The additional methods added by subclass bicycle transportation on roadways might be: SignalLeft(), SignalRight(), SignalSlowStop().

Methods that VehicularCycling would add might be: LookBack(), NegotiateForROW(), ControlTheLane(), MergeLeftMultipleLanes(), InstantTurn(), QuickStop().

Of course, each instantiation of an object of class VehicularCycling would have its own strategy() routine, to reflect the individual styles of vehicular cyclists.

There would also be rogue objects of class bicycle transportation on roadways that did not inherit from VehicularCycling. They too would have a strategy() routine, but it would involve behavior in traffic that is generally known to be relatively unsafe to that employed by object of class VehicularCycling.

Something like that.

JSRs now...please stop! Let's throw in a ton of Go Tos while we're at it. I get a headache just thinking about debugging that old procedural stuff. A method is not a subroutine - period. But you're right, I should never try to correct you, what was I thinking.
Dude, if you want to correct me, then correct me. I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with simply saying something I said was BS, without substantiation, especially when it isn't, or is based on some irrelevant pure semantic point.

In OO compilers to be released in 2006, I assure you, that are being developed at this very moment, they will be generating JSR instructions.

I believe sending a confusing message to drivers is dangerous. Confused drivers are unpredictable.

You just put more useful information into two short sentences than many books manage to fit within their entire volume. ;)

Dude, if you want to correct me, then correct me. I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with simply saying something I said was BS, without substantiation, especially when it isn't, or is based on some irrelevant pure semantic point.

In OO compilers to be released in 2006, I assure you, that are being developed [i]at this very moment[/b], they will be generating JSR instructions.

Well so much for the human element of programming... the results are obvious as even Serge messes up... See the section in red above. :D

Serge, when cyclists look back it looks like they are looking for an opening to keep proceeding leftward. Unless you are actually heading leftward your position is confusing unless you hold it. Since you can't hold it because you can't go 40 mph you're sending a confusing message.

By the way, no motorscooters ride in the bike lane. Not even the 50cc 2-cycle ones. I haven't seen it. I haven't even done it myself when I used to have one.

I have ridden with him on several occasions and have seen at least three different bikes.
Oh, I feel sorry for you.

[Moderator removed: Flame Attempt]
http://s94594654.onlinehome.us/HelmetHead.jpg

Unless doing so would impede passing traffic, I would ride in a centerish position in the rightmost traffic lane. When faster traffic approached from the rear, I would temporarily move aside, probably into the bike lane. Once they passed, I would merge back into and continue in the default position.
Same road, but with no bike lane stripes, where would you ride?

Dude, if you want to correct me, then correct me. I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with simply saying something I said was BS, without substantiation, especially when it isn't, or is based on some irrelevant pure semantic point.

In OO compilers to be released in 2006, I assure you, that are being developed [i]at this very moment[/b], they will be generating JSR instructions.

So semantics are irrelevant in programming? Kewl, so I guess mere semantics are not relevant to cycling either and you won't mind me using the term 'Cager Pedalling' instead of 'Vehicular Cycling'? CP, VC, what's the difference?

So doesn't that make your "default position" in the BL, and your "secondary position" in the lane center?


Someone caught Serge [Moderator Removed: Flame attempt].

Do not be afraid, bike lanes can be your friend! Embrace the well placed bike lane. Endorse it.
We caught you leading the group ride, right down [Moderator Removed: Flame attempt].

Serge, when cyclists look back it looks like they are looking for an opening to keep proceeding leftward.
That's true Diane, when the cyclist is looking over his LEFT shoulder. That's why, when I hear or see in my mirror traffic approaching from the rear, I look over my RIGHT shoulder, make sure it's clear, then I move right.


Brad - I appreciate the picture, though even I would be in the bike lane in that particular situation (moving aside after passing an intersection since now it's safe to move aside and let the faster traffic pass). Now, if the picture was taken a few seconds earlier, while the cyclist was about to enter the intersection, then it would be really good.




Unless doing so would impede passing traffic, I would ride in a centerish position in the rightmost traffic lane. When faster traffic approached from the rear, I would temporarily move aside, probably into the bike lane. Once they passed, I would merge back into and continue in the default position.

Same road, but with no bike lane stripes, where would you ride?
Fly ball! Same place, of course... Unless doing so would impede passing traffic, I would ride in a centerish position in the rightmost traffic lane. When faster traffic approached from the rear, I would temporarily move aside, choosing a position about 3 feet to the right of passing traffic. Once they passed, I would merge back into and continue in the default position.

Chipcom, semantics matters in programming. We're not programming. This is way off topic and I'm done with that particular branch of this thread.

That's pretty bizarre.

Same road, but with no bike lane stripes, where would you ride?
Fly ball! Same place, of course... Unless doing so would impede passing traffic, I would ride in a centerish position in the rightmost traffic lane. When faster traffic approached from the rear, I would temporarily move aside, choosing a position about 3 feet to the right of passing traffic. Once they passed, I would merge back into and continue in the default position.
Do you mean the same exact position as before, or in the centerish position of the now wider rightmost traffic lane?

Bek, has your thread been sufficiently hijacked? ;)

As usual, I probably failed to make clear (because it seems so obvious to me, but also because Beck asked me to answer within 50 words or less) that I too would of course remain in the bike lane between interesections to the right of faster traffic should such fast and steady traffic be present. In fact, a few miles of my commute (along Torrey Pines Rd) is along a 35 mph 4 lane road with bike lanes at the curb, and one section has onstreet parking but the bike lane is mostly outside of the door zone (section of TP Rd north of the fire station that is at the base of LJ Parkway). I'm in the bike lane much of the time on this road, which resembles the OP description at least somewhat, due to the presence of faster traffic.

The fact that I would move out into a centerish position in the lane when there is no faster traffic present is simply moot in the presence of fast and steady faster traffic.

Just clarifying...

So doesn't that make your "default position" in the BL, and your "secondary position" in the lane center?
No. Not in the sense intended by John Franklin in Cyclecraft.

Just because one might spend most of his time in his secondary position due to conditions beyond his control, does not change it to be his primary position. The primary riding position, or the default position, is where one tends to ride barring specific reasons that prevent him from riding there. For the bike lane to be the primary or default position, the cyclist would have ride there even when there was no reason not to take a more centerish position. The meaning of primary, secondary and default in this context has nothing to do with how much time one spends in each of the positions, and everything to do with where one tends to ride when given the practical and legal opportunity to choose any lane position.

That was very important. Let's review it. The meaning of primary, secondary and default in this context has nothing to do with how much time one spends in each of the positions, and everything to do with where one tends to ride when given the practical and legal opportunity to choose any lane position.

The last post denies the commonly accepted definitions of 'primary', 'secondary', and 'default'

wow, how obscurist. Actually, just wrong.


Obstructionist use of language. Incorrect. WRONG-O.

Same place, of course... Unless doing so would impede passing traffic, I would ride in a centerish position in the rightmost traffic lane. When faster traffic approached from the rear, I would temporarily move aside, choosing a position about 3 feet to the right of passing traffic. Once they passed, I would merge back into and continue in the default position.
Do you mean the same exact position as before, or in the centerish position of the now wider rightmost traffic lane?
I don't mean the same exact position, because I wouldn't even use the same exact position each time I rode there even without a BL stripe change.

If you're asking whether a BL stripe moves me, I honestly don't know. I guess it at least partially depends on where cars tend to drive there.. where the left and right tire tracks might be, because my "centerish" position in both cases is relative to those tracks. Other factors would determine whether I would be biased left or right of the exact center. Also, in either case, I would probably right at about the same place I would ride a motor scooter. If the probably motor scooter position would change (for whatever reason), my lane position on my bicycle would probably also change (for the same reason).

The last post denies the commonly accepted definitions of 'primary', 'secondary', and 'default'

wow, how obscurist. Actually, just wrong.

Obstructionist use of language. Incorrect. WRONG-O.
Au contraire, mon frere.

In my dictionary the first definition of "primary" is "of chief importance", not "most common".

Just because the default answer on a form is "blue", does not mean that's the answer most commonly picked. So default also does not necessarily mean "most common".

Anyway, take it up with John Franklin, not me. The primary/secondary thing is his term, not mine. Better yet, why don't you read his book and let us know what you think.

this is now an exercise in quantum motor scooter positioning?

It's as if you aren't even communicating in the same language on the same topics, Helmet Head

What a trip! I fell like I've been reading Rene Daumal's Le Grand Beuverie and all this drinking's given me one hell of a hangover. Where's that drink?

I was just trying to describe where I would choose to ride, Bek. What you think of it is immaterial to the fact that where I would ride a motor scooter on a road is about the same place I would position my bicycle, in the absence of faster traffic.

Brad - I appreciate the picture, though even I would be in the bike lane in that particular situation (moving aside after passing an intersection since now it's safe to move aside and let the faster traffic pass). Now, if the picture was taken a few seconds earlier, while the cyclist was about to enter the intersection, then it would be really good.
Those cars have no drivers. HAHA CAUGHT YOU IN THE BIKE LANE!

Jeez, is that a bike lane to the RIGHT of parked cars???

Talk about Danger Will Robinson!

off topic, did you ride today, Serge? I rode 5 hours today, man it was tough! In the lane, on the side, bike lanes, bike paths, sidewalks even! But, I digress.

Okay,Serge, we'll let you lead the next Bike Forums group ride on the bike path.

I'm out of town and bikeless this week. :(

I don't have an objection to bike paths, creating them, supporting them, or using them, by the way. (in case you thought I did).

Jeez, is that a bike lane to the RIGHT of parked cars???

Talk about Danger Will Robinson!

That's just a few parked cars. What if there was a constant line of them? Even Will Robinson never faced anything that bad.

Au contraire, mon frere.


:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:

Have you ever ridden a trike? Now there's an exercise in:
a) visibility: how much is too much? If you are so weird as to not register as a common object in their brains, what do the motorists do? You'd be surprised.
b) invisibility: how do you navigate when you are hidden from others and simultaneously so low you can't see around anybody?
c) width: how do you negotiate lane position when you are almost as wide as two cyclists all by yourself? What if to avoid obstacles you have to think about your left wheel, your right wheel, and your middle wheel (and your rear derailleur which might be as little as 1/4 inch from the asphalt)?
d) preconceived notions: what do you do when everybody assumes you are ******ed, crippled or both?
e) preconceived notions 2: what do you do when people don't want to take their right of way because they want to watch you ride because they want to see what that thing can do?
f) brake steer? Ever had a bike that if you hit the right brake you turn right, the left brake you turn left? What would you do if you had to apply both breaks and couldn't signal?

In other words, you can split hairs all you want, but until you've ridden an HPV that is somehow different from the norm, how can you declare with any certainty what is absolutely correct? How can you know what motorists will do? How can you know whether certain facilities have value or not? You haven't got enough experience.

Everything I say here about what works for me in traffic applies to riding a bicycle in traffic. I would never ride a trike, for some of the reasons Diane outlines above!

Having said that, I'm sure there are some vehicular cyclists who trike and use the centerish lane position as their primary riding position, though probably none on this forum!

Well, the wave of ugliness seems to have passed. But this thread has caught the attention of more than one moderator. You guys know the rules, and you know what happens when they're broken. I'll abstain from posting any comments in this thread.

Thank you,

Expatriate - Forum Moderator

I came late to this thread, so I will give an opinion on the question posed in the OP, then bow out. I don't qualify as an expert, but I do try to ride VC most of the time, so here goes:

On the road described here, I would ride in the bike lane if traffic were heavy or steady. But I would merge into the center of the traffic lane at intersections, or if I saw cagers edging up to turn into the street. My reason: if traffic is heavy, the main danger is faster vehicles from the rear, so I feel safer if I am a bit out of their way. Also, I would find it tiresome to be constantly moving between lanes in steady traffic. At intersections, however, the main danger now comes from turning traffic, so I feel safer if I command a lane.

If traffic were light or sporadic, I would ride in the center of the traffic lane most of the time, but merge into the bike lane if faster vehicles were attempting to overtake me. My reason: If traffic is light, the main danger is turning traffic from sidestreets and driveways. They are aware of the many gaps in the sparse motor traffic and eager to complete their turns, so they might not notice a bike to the right. Thus, I am more visible to them (and vice-versa) if I am in the traffic lane, where they expect traffic to be.
This sounds like what I described. Another point and this assumes the road is flat and it is me that is riding - I'd proably be traveling anywhere from 20-28mph. This means the closing distance of traffic from rear is ~15mph. But my closing distances with obsticals, pedistrians, parked cars, cars parking, turning is 25mph. That is another good reason to be in the primary travel lane - stuff from the rear is closing slower than situations up ahead are developing. It sounds like there are two main travel lanes so being in the right most one and moving over as cars approach from rear seems quite easy to handle safely.

Al