Lane Position Puzzler #1 (Serge's cycling puzzler 2)

[Bekologist]

....Here's a bike positioning puzzler for Monday ...

I was riding last week and came across this bicycle accomodation. Edges of suburbia, traffic moving at 45 m.p.h. 2 lanes of traffic and a 5 foot bike lane, lanes filtering to one thru lane for the light, a 4 foot bike lane, and a right turn only lane.

Traffic looks deceptively light but cars passed in heavy, steady spurts moderated by a couple traffic lights further behind the bicyclist.

1)Where do you position yourself in this integrated bicycle accomodation?

2) As you approach this intersection, what is your lane choice if the light is turning red?

[sbhikes]

(I assume that I'm a cyclist who is going straight, not turning right?)

It's better when the road builders carve the right turn lanes out rather than just move the stripes around. That's what they do here so the bike lane is a continuous straight path all the way up the street.

There's one spot in my town where they do what you show there, or something similar. It's a bit confusing for most people. But what I do is look behind me and if somebody's back there, signal my intentions and move over. (If nobody's back there I just move over without signalling.)

I'm sure there will likely be a lot of comments about not using the bike lane yadda yadda, which you're all free to do if you want. But he asked how do you use this facility, not how do you avoid it.

And to answer number 2, if the light's turning red I wait for it in the bike lane.

P.S. I think it would be good for bike safety advocates to teach cyclists how to use bike lanes better (which they probably do, but not the ones around here it sounds like). A lot of riders just follow the lines without looking back and signalling.

[DogBoy]

(I assume that I'm a cyclist who is going straight, not turning right?)
...
But what I do is look behind me and if somebody's back there, signal my intentions and move over.
...
And to answer number 2, if the light's turning red I wait for it in the bike lane. ...


What she said.

[Jalopy]

I have yet to perfect my bike lane technique but, as of now, I would navigate similarly to sbhikes. The only point I would make is that, depending on traffic conditions, I might do the shoulder check, signal and lane change a bit before the dashed line. I would want any turning traffic to know what my intentions were as early as possible.

Jalopy

[Roody]

Not sure what you mean by "steady spurts". Traffic can be steady, meaning a continuous flow of vehicles. To me "spurts" would indicate the opposite circumstance, a discontinuous flow of vehicles that is alternately heavier or lighter.

If the traffic was "steady"--meaning no gaps, I would try to get over into the regular lane, but if unable to, I wouldn't feel too unsafe about staying in the bike lane rather than fiddle around with getting into the car lane.

If the traffic was "spurts"--meaning frequent large gaps, I'd get into the center of the righthand car lane as I approached the intersection.

May I ask what the purpose of this seies of puzzlers is? They seem a little repetitious. You're obviously finding idyllic segregated facilities, then more or less daring anybody to say that they wouldn't use them. Well, such wonderful bike lanes sure don't exist around here, nor in most parts of the world. You spend time in Michigan, so you probably know that here, the bike lane would be 2 feet wide and it would go to the right of the right turn lane, or at best end before the intersection.

[Bekologist]

Roody, why would you not ride in the bike lane as you approach the intersection?

I'm trying to flesh out what posesses some bike method advocates to endorse ignoring bicycle facilities, wide paved highway shoulders, etc....

This is an example of an integrated bicycling facility, integrated within the roadway. Bikes are free to leave the lane at any time, and not required to ride in the lane provided for bikes. This is not a 'segregated' bike facility, seperate and cordoned off seperate from traffic. Examples of segregated facilities are rails to trails or a MUP path independant of the roadway.

Remember, the Hood Canal Bridge bike puzzler was NOT about idyllic bike riding, nor was the Highway 99/Aurora bridge puzzler.

However, the bike as lane threat 'theorist's have widely failed to comment on these roadway puzzlers. It will be interesting to see if there is any comment in this thread by the vehemently anti-facilities crowd.

[noisebeam]

As I pointed out elsewhere:
http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=2092065&postcount=1521
To repeat:
1. BL ends after intersection. I'd much rather merge with traffic before intersection, not after with limited space and accerating line of vehicles.
2. Where the RTOL breaks away, the BL path going left over it starts way too late. I'd want to merge left into go straight lane well before the RTOL break away, otherwise there is a right hook potential.
3. They are narrow (same width as here in AZ). The furthest right I'd want to ride in it is about so my tire would bisect the left wheel of the painted cyclist icon. Doing this would encourage close passes by motorists staying in the lines.

I bolded 2 as it is the primary concern with this BL design. I would merge left much earlier.
Al

[Bekologist]

Actually, Al, the bike lane continues at the opposite side of the intersection, as another 4-5 foot wide accomodation to the right of the traffic lane.

I don't see how those could be miscategorized as 'narrow'. If you include the stripes, the BL at the light is almost %80 of the travel lanes.

[noisebeam]

Actually, Al, the bike lane continues at the opposite side of the intersection, as another 4-5 foot wide accomodation to the right of the traffic lane.

I really don't see the BL opposite the intersection. In the right side picture, I see the lane starting as a wide one with a shoulder that gradually widens as the lane narrows, then there is some blob in the shoulder which looks like it could be a narrowing for a bridge or a concrete barrier, like the ones seen on the opposite side of the street. Does anyone else see this?
Al

[noisebeam]

I don't see how those could be miscategorized as 'narrow'. If you include the stripes, the BL at the light is almost %80 of the travel lanes.
In the left side picture the BL before it merges left is comprised of pavement and partly the concrete curb. If I was to ride in this lane I would be left biased so my wheels would bisect the front tire of the painted cyclist icon - basically the center of the asphault portion. This would result in close passes by vehicles who did not adjust their lane position when passing me. It is no doubt too narrow a lane as the 4-5ft includes the concrete gutter which is not rideable.
I am not miscatagorizing it, but repeating what I learned on this forum, when I showed video of me riding right biased the BL with close passing autos some forum members said it was because the BL was too narrow (compared to Canada) This lane you picture is of the same width.
In the right pic where the BL is between RTOL and straight lane I would ride in the center of it if I choose to use the BL. There it is not too narrow.

al

[Bekologist]

I think that was a pile of dirt or leaves in the bike lane past the intersection. But 4-5 foot bike accomodation it is. Looks like the line stripers made the corner of the bike lane past the intersection rounded off at the start.

I'm not defending this as an 'ideal' intersection, I'm trying to get some input from various riders their choices of lane position if they came across this on one of their rides. You can choose to ride in the traffic lanes, sidewalk, the left side of the road if you want.

I believe there is a 'ideal' positioning here that tends to stay within the bike lane at the intersection, but that is my interpretation of a WOL with 4-5 foot bike lane approaching an intersection like the picture.

[noisebeam]

I think that was a pile of dirt or leaves in the bike lane past the intersection. But 4-5 foot bike accomodation it is. ... I'm trying to get some input from various riders their choices of lane position if they came across this on one of their rides.
If that is the questions I'd ride in the primary lane or on the BL stripe well ahead of intersection, move right to let cars pass, but as approaching intersection hold my position in primary lane before bike lane moves left (to prevent right hook) then proceed in BL or in primary lane depending on traffic volume and future abilty to merge left to avoid the unknown obstical in what looks like the shoulder ahead past the intersection.

Al

[Helmet Head]

I really don't see the BL opposite the intersection. In the right side picture, I see the lane starting as a wide one with a shoulder that gradually widens as the lane narrows, then there is some blob in the shoulder which looks like it could be a narrowing for a bridge or a concrete barrier, like the ones seen on the opposite side of the street. Does anyone else see this?
Al
Yes, and what I don't see is a bike lane sign or emblem past the intersection.
It's probably below standards, so they couldn't designate the shoulder as a bike lane, but they're hoping to fool most cyclists into thinking that's what it is. Apparently, they've succeeded.

To answer the OP (exception to generally ignoring Bekologist's posts) how I would position myself on this roadway, as with most roadways, would be depend on various current factors and conditions, and would not be solely dictated by the static factors that can be gleaned from this photo.

If there was no same-direction traffic, I would not be in the bike lane in the first place, and would never get in it. While there is no visible debris in any of the bike lanes, I know that motor traffic sweeps fine puncture-causing particles (pieces of staples, glass, etc) out of the vehicular travel lanes and onto pavement which is not regularly and continuously swept by motor traffic, including bike lanes, so I avoid that pavement whenever I have no specific reason to ride there.

If there was same-direction traffic at the time, I would be in the bike lane but would start the negotation process to merge left into the right lane of through traffic well before the point where the bike lane stripe breaks into dashes. Once integrated into the right lane of traffic , I would proceed in the left track of the right lane (to encourage right turners headed for the RTOL to merge into the bike lane and pass me on my right), and negotiate where the left and right lanes merge into one. So, for the section where the angled dashed stripe connecting to the two bike lanes is, my line of travel would be about where the line separating the right and left lanes would be if it had continued straight (and not ended) through that section. If I was traveling substantially slower than the car in front of me (it is pulling away quickly), and there were cars behind me, then I would move right/aside into the BL to the left of the RTOL when I reached it. Otherwise, I would maintain a centerish position in the through lane.

If the light was red as I approached the intersection, I would stop in a centerish position in the vehicular lane, behind other cars that might already be stopped there. If cars approached and stopped behind me, as soon as the light turned green and I started going, I would shoulder check and move right to accomodate their passing of me.

[Bekologist]

Yes, and what I don't see is a bike lane sign or emblem past the intersection.
It's probably below standards, so they couldn't designate the shoulder as a bike lane, but they're hoping to fool most cyclists into thinking that's what it is. Apparently, they've succeeded......

If the light was red as I approached the intersection, I would stop in a centerish position in the vehicular lane, behind other cars that might already be stopped there. If cars approached and stopped behind me, as soon as the light turned green and I started going, I would shoulder check and move right to accomodate their passing of me.

Well, the bike lane does continue, for several miles, with signage, bike stencils and the like. Not clear in the picture as the road curves past the intersection. Not substandard unless you're looking for criticism of the facilities. Sometimes road restriping isn't perfect, but an obvious, wide bike lane continues past the intersection.

However, interesting positioning choices, Helmet. You've ignored the bike lane, in favor of stopping behind a line of cars. What happens if you're so far back in the lineup, yielding right for the cars behind you as traffic starts up requires you to yield right into the bike lane? Or would you 'hold your own' in the traffic lane and not use the bike lane to yield to faster traffic?

[noisebeam]

Well, the bike lane does continue, for several miles, with signage, bike stencils and the like.
Maybe it does, but it is totally unclear where to end up on the other side of the intersection if one desires to stay in the bike lane. I edited the attached picture.
If you wanted to stay in BL, would you aim for:
Yellow dot?
Green dot?
Red dot?

Al

[Helmet Head]

Well, the bike lane does continue, for several miles, with signage, bike stencils and the like. Not clear in the picture as the road curves past the intersection. Not substandard unless you're looking for criticism of the facilities. Sometimes road restriping isn't perfect, but an obvious, wide bike lane continues past the intersection.
Maybe it's there after the curve, but it appears it's not there for at least the beginning part after the intersection.


However, interesting positioning choices, Helmet.
These "interesting choices" fall out automatically from basic principles of VC and defensive driving.


You've ignored the bike lane, in favor of stopping behind a line of cars. What happens if you're so far back in the lineup, yielding right for the cars behind you as traffic starts up requires you to yield right into the bike lane? Or would you 'hold your own' in the traffic lane and not use the bike lane to yield to faster traffic?
Again, if the car in front of me started pulling away quickly, and, thus, I was impeding those behind me, then I would move into the bike lane (assuming it was reasonably clean of debris, etc.).

[Bekologist]

...very interesting, Helmet. Odd, actually. But, it's your perrogative. I just hope you don't start 'educating' bicyclists with that technique. This bike lane is provided to make the intersection easier to negotiate for both bicyclists and drivers.

It is a demarcation of a WOL traffic lane, to the left of the right turn only lane. Helmet Head has chosen to ignore the WOL with stripe, in favor of getting stuck behind stopped cars.

Choosing to ignore the bike lane pulling up to the stop, behind stopped traffic, then moving into the bike lane to allow cars to pass. Curiouser and curiouser.....

[Daily Commute]

1)Where do you position yourself in this segregrated bicycle accomodation?

I would pull out of the bike lane well before the solid line turns dotted. Otherwise, I'd be forced to move across traffic at the last minute, which is generally a bad idea. It's like making a left turn in the middle of the road.


2) As you approach this intersection, what is your lane choice if the light is turning red?

I would integrate with the slowing down traffic at the earliest opportunity. The bike lane disappears at the other side of the intersection, so I'd take a position so that would let me maintain a constant distance from the left side of the lane on both sides of the intersection. That way, cars will have a consistent space in which to pass me.

Of course, this depends on the bike lane being in as good a shape as the road. If there is any of the debris that HH mentions might be there, I might be in the road to begin with.

[Bekologist]

Daily, that's an integrated bicycle lane. Interesting to find a couple of posters willing to get stuck in traffic when there's a perfectly acceptable bike lane to use.

of course, some armchair quarterbikers ride no logical course.

[FastFreddy]

I would ride in the bike lane until I got close to that transition area – where I potentially have to cross paths with cars turning right. I would make my transition into the bike lane to the left of the right-only-lane as soon as I saw a good enough gap among approaching cars – in making that transition, I would yield to the cars – even though I may have the legal right of way. I’d stay in the bike lane up to the intersection and then aim for the yellow dot (see noisebeam’s attachment) – it looks like that’s where the bike lane continues.

Also, I differ with the posters who would move into a traffic lane because of light debris in the bike lane – if I decide that the bike lane is the best way to go, a little glass and/or gravel won’t make me move into a traffic lane. By the way, the entire road surface looks absolutely clean – they don’t make them like that in Georgia!

Slightly Off-Topic Comment: Roads like this scare me. I’m not saying that I’d avoid them in all cases, but I’d prefer a road without all the little cues that hint to motorists to that it’s all right to put the pedal to the metal: (a) concrete barriers on the side of the road; (b) raised curb in the center of the road; (c) tall overhead street lights that scream “freeway!” Is 45 the posted limit or their actual speed? I can’t believe that people would actually go that slow on a road like this. The traffic on roads like this in suburban Atlanta would be traveling at 70mph – minimum -- regardless of what’s posted.

[Dogbait]

I would proceed as shown by the green lines. Just before reaching the broken line, I would check behind me for right turning traffic and adjust accordingly. For the red light, I would stop in the bike lane.

We have similar facilities here on Hwy 30 where the speed limit is 35/45/55 and most cyclists have no trouble figuring it out.... works for me.

Dogbait

[Daily Commute]

Daily, that's an integrated bicycle lane. . . .
You say ta-may-to. . . , I say "segregated."

Do you really want to turn this thread into an argument about whether bike lanes are "segregated" facilities? It's your thread, your choice. Just don't blame Helmet Head for your decision to change the subject.

[Bekologist]

No, Daily, but I resent your changing the puzzlers' wording to serve your personal agenda regarding bike lanes. Helmet Head's diatribes about bike riding are humorous at best, misinformed for sure, and downright WRONG if he calls bike accomodations like pictured above a term fraught with prejudice.

INTEGRATED.... integral with the existing roadway.

SEGREGATED...seperate from the existing roadway.

Semantics, shemantics. You say trinidadian-tobagan, I say integrated bike facilities.

[galen_52657]

I agree with Helmet with the exception of my lane position should I have to stop for the red light. I would stop in the right-hand tire mark of the right-hand travel lane. When the light turned green, if I could not keep up with the car ahead, I would then move right to allow cars to pass.

[patc]

You say ta-may-to. . . , I say "segregated."

Do you really want to turn this thread into an argument about whether bike lanes are "segregated" facilities? It's your thread, your choice. Just don't blame Helmet Head for your decision to change the subject.

I'm with Bek on this one. You changed the wording, pretending innocence is intellectual dishonesty. If you didn't like the wording you had other options - such as not quoting it at all - which could have been done without starting a debate. Or you could have posted an honest complaint about the wording.

[Helmet Head]

You say ta-may-to. . . , I say "segregated."

Do you really want to turn this thread into an argument about whether bike lanes are "segregated" facilities? It's your thread, your choice. Just don't blame Helmet Head for your decision to change the subject.
Don't worry, I'm not biting. In this case, what Bek meant by the term, contrary to conventional usage as it is, was made clear in the OP (albeit through implication by example, not an explicit definition, but clear enough).

My issue isn't about what specific terms mean. My issue is about consistency and clarity in meaning. Where I get bent out of shape is when I clearly mean something by some term, then someone else uses that same term to mean something else in the context of interpreting my words, thus twisting my intent.

[noisebeam]

Bek,
Next time your in the area can you take and post a picture of the BL where it starts beyond the intersection?
Al

[Bekologist]

Sure.

[Helmet Head]

...very interesting, Helmet. Odd, actually. But, it's your perrogative. I just hope you don't start 'educating' bicyclists with that technique. This bike lane is provided to make the intersection easier to negotiate for both bicyclists and drivers.

It is a demarcation of a WOL traffic lane, to the left of the right turn only lane. Helmet Head has chosen to ignore the WOL with stripe, in favor of getting stuck behind stopped cars.

Choosing to ignore the bike lane pulling up to the stop, behind stopped traffic, then moving into the bike lane to allow cars to pass. Curiouser and curiouser.....
What's so curious about it? It's all based on one simple principle: Only use the bike lane/side-of-the-road when required to allow faster traffic to pass and it's safe and reasonable to do so (e.g., it's not reasonable to stay in the bike lane when one needs to merge left - that would be a time to start negotiating for the merge left); otherwise, maintain a centerish position in the regular traffic lane to increase the likelihood that others will be aware of your presence.

My other two posts on Page 1 of this thread clarified in great detail how this principle would apply in this particular situation. It might seem complex at first read, but it's all based on this one simple principle. Go back and see.

Try it, you might like it.

[Brian Ratliff]

Try it, you might like it.

...says the man in the dark alley with the drugs. :D

[noisebeam]

Try it, you might like it.
I think every cyclist uses vc techniques including using the full lane to some degree, perhaps not all the time, but in certain situations. For example if one was to make a right turn in the RTOL in this photo, I would guess the majority of cyclists would ride in the center of it before turning right. Similarly most cyclist have encountered narrow lanes where the only safe option is to ride in the center of them.

The difference is they are not practicing "VC", but just common sense.

Opposing vc is to me like being against defensive driving, you just can't argue against the basics of it. I think most folks who are opposed to vc are opposed to the way the need for VC is hammered on them day in day out, some of the perceived 'extreme' VC techniques (like riding center of WOL when there is no same direction traffic and no intersections) and even more so opposed to the sometimes far fetched theories of why VC is the only safe way.

Al

[Daily Commute]

No, Daily, but I resent your changing the puzzlers' wording to serve your personal agenda regarding bike lanes. Helmet Head's diatribes about bike riding are humorous at best, misinformed for sure, and downright WRONG if he calls bike accomodations like pictured above a term fraught with prejudice.

INTEGRATED.... integral with the existing roadway.

SEGREGATED...seperate from the existing roadway.

Semantics, shemantics. You say trinidadian-tobagan, I say integrated bike facilities.
You worded it to make a point, and then bolded the word to make the point stronger. If you didn't want to make that part of the thread, you could have not mentioned it. But you did. So, since you want to discuss it in your thread:

INTEGRATED.... integral with other traffic.

SEGREGATED...separate from other traffic.

You use your word in your posts. I'll use my word in my posts. If you "resent" someone using different terminology than you use then maybe your resentment threshold is too low.

Now, back to the topic. You say the road on the other side of the intersection isn't what it appears in the picture. OK. We need to know that information to answer how we would position ourselves to pull straight through the intersection.

[Helmet Head]

As long as everyone is clear on what they mean when they say "vc", or "integrated" or "segregated" or "facility" etc. etc., and as long as we interpret other people's posts in accordance with their intended meanings, we should be fine.

The problems start when A insists on using his definition when interpreting B's words, thus twisting B's intended meaning.

[Daily Commute]

As long as everyone is clear on what they mean when they say "vc", or "integrated" or "segregated" or "facility" etc. etc., and as long as we interpret other people's posts in accordance with their intended meanings, we should be fine.

The problems start when A insists on using his definition when interpreting B's words, thus twisting B's intended meaning.
Fair point. Bek, how about a truce? I know what you mean, and I won't "correct" you. You know what I mean, and you won't "correct" me.

[marqueemoon]

I'd take the center of the bike lane unless I was turning right, in which case I would use the right turn lane.

[budster]

I'm on Dogbait's green lines. Shoulder check before entering the dashed-line zone. Only exceptions would be due to obstacles (debris, joggers, wrong-way invisible cyclists...) in the BL.

I'd prefer WOL without a bike lane in this situation (I'd still ride pretty much the same line), but this looks like ideal BL design. I hope if they ever make bike lanes here that they do them just like this.

[natelutkjohn]

I hit something just lke that averyday on the way home from work. I definitly would and do take the car lane, otherwise they just try and squeeze you out when you have to get there anyways after the light.

[buzzman]

I'm with the crowd that rides the bike lane to the broken line or just before or after depending on the oncoming traffic if there is any (I'd check over the left shoulder and probably hand signal the change). I'd stay in the bike lane to the traffic light. I do tend to ride to the extreme left in a bike lane like this just to give myself some flexibility to the right if I sense a rogue driver. But the clean clear pavement of the lane seems good to me I see no reason to stay out of the bike lane as it is pictured here.

By the way Bek I'm finding these puzzlers informative and useful. good pics, interesting facilities and, despite the occasional semantical wrangling, certainly worthy of intelligent discourse. So, far as I'm concerned, keep 'em coming.

[Helmet Head]

But the clean clear pavement of the lane seems good to me I see no reason to stay out of the bike lane as it is pictured here.
Not to criticize, but just pointing out, that some cyclists stay in the bike lane unless they see a good reason to stay out, and others stay out unless they see a good reason to stay in. I used to be the first type, and now I'm the second, and cycling in traffic has become much more comfortable, less problematic, more enjoyable and safer than it ever was before. Most surprisingly, the "idiot" drivers have all but disappeared.

YMMV.