To be VC means riding in bike lanes.

[chipcom]

Yes, you read it correctly. Those who claim to be Vehicular Cyclists who do not ride in a bike lane, when one is available and safe, are NOT riding VC.

Many VC advocates in this forum like to rail against bike lanes and go out of their way NOT to ride in a bike lane if one is available and safe. This goes against the most basic premise of vehicular cycling - riding according to the rules of the road.

In the US, the roadways are seperated into lanes and vehicles are expected to travel within those lanes. It's not acceptable to straddle the lane stripe and the it should only be crossed when merging into another lane, making a turn, passing, or avoiding an obstacle. In some cases, special lanes are designated for special uses, car pool lanes being one example, truck lanes being another, and yes, our own favorite bike lanes being another. When a bike lane is present, the rules of the road dictate that cyclists use them, unless a reason exists not to - obstacles or other unsafe conditions, passing, merging to another lane to make a turn, etc. Note that this does NOT mean that bicycles are limited to bike lanes only, it merely means that if one is present and there is not a good reason not to use it, the bike lane should be used.

Conclusion: Riding in a bike lane when one is available and safe to use is following the vehicular rules of the road.

NOTE: Claiming that bike lanes are unsafe because they make the cyclist 'irrelevant' to other traffic is NOT a valid argument unless authorative studies can be cited that support this notion. As a driver, any traffic in any adjacent lane is relevant to me, so if you want to show me that my experience is not valid, you best have some facts to back up your argument.

[Bekologist]

I concur. A vehicular cyclist will use the bike lane when available and safe for use. A vehicular cyclist would predominantly use the vehicular lane provided for bikes.

[webist]

No argument here.

However, we won't really know if you are correct until HH instructs us. ;)

[buzzman]

Conclusion: Riding in a bike lane when one is available and safe to use is following the vehicular rules of the road.

A conclusion any sane, reasonable, logical and responsible cyclist might make.

[Dogbait]

Bumper sticker? Why not.


http://www.pbase.com/billd9/image/55842553.jpg

D :D

[cyclezealot]

Thanks been out of the country for awhile. Never heard that term used before. Appreciate the definition.
Never would I move out of my safety zone if I did not have to.

[Jalopy]

Unfortunately, the opinions of you folks are invalid. You see, HH did a poll. Not a scientific poll, mind you, but one that showed that a least 57 people in the universe agree with him. Therefore, he is right.

Sorry.

Jalopy

[CommuterRun]

I agree that to ride using vehicular cycling techniques does not exclude the use of bike lanes and paved shoulders. However, I have found that all of this stuff


........no one seems to see you, no one gives you the right of way, everyone passes you too close, bus drivers are abusing, SUV drivers are being absolutely obnoxious, cars are constantly cutting you off, and you've come too close to being hit far too many times for comfort........
increases the further I am from the center of the right most traffic lane.


As a driver, any traffic in any adjacent lane is relevant to me........
I do this too, but I consider that irrelevant, because I am a cyclist I actively look for pedestrians and other cyclists while I'm driving. In my experience most drivers who are not cyclists, don't do this and are more likely to look at the cyclist without seeing him/her, unless the cyclist is directly in their line of travel.

All other down sides to bike lanes aside.

[galen_52657]

I can only think of one bike lane in the Baltimore metro area, which is (was) part of an old 'Bike Route' system from a zillion years ago that mixed lanes and sidewalks as 'routes' which thankfully died a proper death from benign neglect. The lane part of the 'route' can be seen along Lake Avenue in Baltimore City between Charles Street and Roland Ave. but at rush hour cars going east trying to move up to the right turn lane encroach on the bike lane even when stopped and waiting for the light. So, if you were on your bike trying to use the lane at that time, you would have a hard time passing stopped cars in your 'designated' lane.

But, using a bike lane is no different than riding on the shoulder of a high-speed road where a shoulder is provided. I do it all the time. But, all traffic including the occasional slow-moving farm implement seem to get along without the shoulder being designated as a dedicated 'lane' for anybody in particular. The particular heavily-traveled rural state road I am thinking of has a speed limit of 50 MPH, one lane each way and the shoulder is variable from 10' to 3' wide. In some instances I have been forced to merge in with traffic which has never been difficult. I look back for an opening, I signal and move into the travel lane - to go around something in the shoulder or to make a left turn.

Does that count as being VC? does anybody care? I don't.

[koine2002]

I would tend to agree, assuming your state or locality dictates that a lane MUST be used when available. Not all states and localities have this code.

[sggoodri]

How much debris in the bike lane should I be expected to tolerate before readers here think it's appropriate for me to ride on the stripe or to its left in order to stay out of it?

My threshold is as follows: If I can see debris (sand, glass fragments, leaves, pine needles, gravel, nails, etc.), or I can hear it under the tires or spitting against my fenders or frame, I move left.

To some extent, this is about safety, since debris can cause loss of traction during maneuvering or destabilize the bike. But I also want to avoid flats from glass and metal. There's a lot less of that debris where the cars tend to sweep the roadway. I prefer to ride where I am unlikely to flat. I've never, in over 20 years of riding narrow-tire road bikes, puncture flatted while riding in a normal travel lane. I've had lots of puncture flats riding to the right of a stripe, usually a paved shoulder.

So isn't it VC to ride where the pavement surface looks good? If the bike lane really seems as clean as the travel lane then I ride there, otherwise I'm on the stripe or to its left.

Here are some pictures of the bike lanes where I live:

http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/carystripes/debris3.jpg

http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/carystripes/debris10.jpg

http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/carystripes/debris7.jpg

[galen_52657]

Great pics sqqoodri!

They typify the stupidity of the 'white stripe' mentality. If the fog line where moved right or removed completely, the 'bike lane' area currently covered with sand and debris would be cleaner due to motor vehicle traffic occasionally driving there to pass left-turning vehicles or to use driveways. Therefore, the actual width of paving available to the cyclist and motorist would be wider and thus, the cyclist would be able to position themselves further right as necessary to facilitate passing motor vehicles or to use as a safety margin. Additionally, a bike lane on a 25 MPH road seems totally unnecessary to me especially with what appears to be at least 14' of consistent paving width.

[Bekologist]

look good to me! good lines in all of them. of course, feel free to leave the bike lane when safety dictates.

a maxim for street bicycles, "when the going gets rough, the tough get bigger tires." a road bike is not a street bike in my opinion but that's the subject of a different thread.

[genec]

How much debris in the bike lane should I be expected to tolerate before readers here think it's appropriate for me to ride on the stripe or to its left in order to stay out of it?

My threshold is as follows: If I can see debris (sand, glass fragments, leaves, pine needles, gravel, nails, etc.), or I can hear it under the tires or spitting against my fenders or frame, I move left.

To some extent, this is about safety, since debris can cause loss of traction during maneuvering or destabilize the bike. But I also want to avoid flats from glass and metal. There's a lot less of that debris where the cars tend to sweep the roadway. I prefer to ride where I am unlikely to flat. I've never, in over 20 years of riding narrow-tire road bikes, puncture flatted while riding in a normal travel lane. I've had lots of puncture flats riding to the right of a stripe, usually a paved shoulder.

So isn't it VC to ride where the pavement surface looks good? If the bike lane really seems as clean as the travel lane then I ride there, otherwise I'm on the stripe or to its left.

Here are some pictures of the bike lanes where I live:

http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/carystripes/debris3.jpg

http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/carystripes/debris10.jpg

http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/carystripes/debris7.jpg

Two things... sadly a bike lane exists where the traffic is only 25MPH... there really is no need for that. Second, you need to give notice to the city that you too are a tax payer and that they should do something to keep all the roadways clean.

[cyclezealot]

Do need encourage motorists to realize that bike lane maintenance can be shotty. Recall being to the left side of a bike lane and having an angry motorist giving me the bird and acting like a jerk. IT was so full of potholes.
I was riding on the white line and the road was ride and still acted jerkish. Some days can't win. But if available and in good condition, I will usually ride in the center of the bike lane. It is my safety zone.I hope.

[genec]

While I have no problem using bike lanes, I do leave them if safe to do so and their is a reason to do so... such as the kind of dirt and junk shown or if there are parked cars alongside, or if I am moving at the speed of other traffic, or if there are intersections ahead... and I don't wait for the dashed lines either.

The way that some bike lanes are drawn on the road, it is quite obvious that the designer thought cyclists were rolling pedestrians... not human powered vehicles easily moving at 20+MPH.

[sbhikes]

Yes, you read it correctly. Those who claim to be Vehicular Cyclists who do not ride in a bike lane, when one is available and safe, are NOT riding VC.

Many VC advocates in this forum like to rail against bike lanes and go out of their way NOT to ride in a bike lane if one is available and safe. This goes against the most basic premise of vehicular cycling - riding according to the rules of the road.

In the US, the roadways are seperated into lanes and vehicles are expected to travel within those lanes. It's not acceptable to straddle the lane stripe and the it should only be crossed when merging into another lane, making a turn, passing, or avoiding an obstacle. In some cases, special lanes are designated for special uses, car pool lanes being one example, truck lanes being another, and yes, our own favorite bike lanes being another. When a bike lane is present, the rules of the road dictate that cyclists use them, unless a reason exists not to - obstacles or other unsafe conditions, passing, merging to another lane to make a turn, etc. Note that this does NOT mean that bicycles are limited to bike lanes only, it merely means that if one is present and there is not a good reason not to use it, the bike lane should be used.

Conclusion: Riding in a bike lane when one is available and safe to use is following the vehicular rules of the road.

NOTE: Claiming that bike lanes are unsafe because they make the cyclist 'irrelevant' to other traffic is NOT a valid argument unless authorative studies can be cited that support this notion. As a driver, any traffic in any adjacent lane is relevant to me, so if you want to show me that my experience is not valid, you best have some facts to back up your argument.

Chipcom when will you ever learn that reason and sanity are not allowed here.

Bits of metal are what always get me, and I always pick that up on residential roads because that's where the construction workers live and that's where the go to work.

[patc]

Here are some pictures of the bike lanes where I live:

Your city council should be tarred and feathered.

[LittleBigMan]

look good to me! good lines in all of them. of course, feel free to leave the bike lane when safety dictates.

a maxim for street bicycles, "when the going gets rough, the tough get bigger tires." a road bike is not a street bike in my opinion but that's the subject of a different thread.
I couldn't disagree more.

I always avoid debris. Flats are not the only safety hazard. Speaking of flats, the only flats I can even remember in recent years was a sidewall flat because my tires were old and a flat caused by a hole nest to my tire valve.

[Treespeed]

I completely agree and so miss the well thought out bike lanes of Seattle.

What I will not ride in though is the bike lane that runs through West Hollywood and consists of a stripe just outside the door zone. I'll try and get a picture posted soon. It looks like it was designed by a personal injury attorney.

[LittleBigMan]

Treespeed, does this mean you would ride in that sandy debris on the bike lanes shown in Steve's pics? Or does it mean you agree with Chipcom's original post?

[sggoodri]

Two things... sadly a bike lane exists where the traffic is only 25MPH... there really is no need for that. Second, you need to give notice to the city that you too are a tax payer and that they should do something to keep all the roadways clean.

I have gone on record with the city repeatedly stating my opposition to placing bike lane striping on low-volume 25 mph roads. The city planners' justification is that novice cyclists and parents are asking for the striping to make cycling "safe" for novices and children. The planners put the stripes on the low-speed roads instead of the high-speed roads because they fear that bike lanes on the faster roads will encourage novices and cyclists to use the faster roads (instead of staying inside their isolated subdivisions, I guess.)

The city thinks that sweeping the local roads four times a year is adequate. As for the higher speed roads, those are state maintained and never get swept. But there are no bike lane stripes on those, so they are actually cleaner in the places where I ride.

Note that the LAB "Bicycle Friendly Community" qualification process considers miles of striping, not the quality of the roads. That's part of the reason why the city, which won a BFC award from LAB, stripes these low-speed residential streets but doesn't sweep bike lanes as often as needed.

[Roody]

Oh goody. Another thread designed with the express purpose of taunting and provoking a certain person, then getting all upset and pissy when that person responds as you think he will. I very much hope that HH totally ignores this pathetic little exercise in neurotic transference.

As for you riders, ride where it is safest. That might be bike lane, it might not. Walnuts in the bike lane can kill you, as Chipcom posted a few months ago. Bike lanes in my city are not even plowed. I guess not even chipper would think I shoul ride hrough 6 inches of slush, snow and ice, well mixed with gravel, tree limbs and glass shards?

[sggoodri]

look good to me! good lines in all of them. of course, feel free to leave the bike lane when safety dictates.

a maxim for street bicycles, "when the going gets rough, the tough get bigger tires." a road bike is not a street bike in my opinion but that's the subject of a different thread.

Note that these roads were much cleaner in the five feet from the gutter before the stripes were added. That is, the stripes are the cause of the debris collecting there.

I used to commute with slick fat tires. I found it to be slower and more tiring than with my road bikes. So I donated my fat tire bike and added a rack and fenders to my older (1983 Trek) road bike for commuting. In good weather I ride my 2001 Lemond Zurich. These bikes serve me very well.

Note that fat slicks aren't much protection from skids on sand. I avoid these situations when riding my mountain bike to the trailhead just as I do when riding my road bike to work. If I'm riding on the road, I want to use decent pavement.

[Roody]

While I have no problem using bike lanes, I do leave them if safe to do so and their is a reason to do so... such as the kind of dirt and junk shown or if there are parked cars alongside, or if I am moving at the speed of other traffic, or if there are intersections ahead... and I don't wait for the dashed lines either.

The way that some bike lanes are drawn on the road, it is quite obvious that the designer thought cyclists were rolling pedestrians... not human powered vehicles easily moving at 20+MPH.
+1.

Who's going to tell you the best position for riding in ever changing conditions? Some engineer with a paintbrush who hasn't been on a bike since he was 12 years old? Or yourself, a trained and experienced traffic cyclist?

[Roody]

. . . . The planners put the stripes on the low-speed roads instead of the high-speed roads because they fear that bike lanes on the faster roads will encourage novices and cyclists to use the faster roads (instead of staying inside their isolated subdivisions, I guess.) . . . .

Another reason they don't put stripes on busy high speed roads is that they think narrower car lanes, or elimination of car lanes, will slow down motorized traffic. Here in car country, planners and citizens are both very open about this. In other regions they may gloss over this factor.

The city thinks that sweeping the local roads four times a year is adequate. As for the higher speed roads, those are state maintained and never get swept. But there are no bike lane stripes on those, so they are actually cleaner in the places where I ride. As I mentioned, they don't even plow snow off the bike lanes here. In fact, they plow snow from car lanes onto the bike lanes. Thank God I know how to ride without bike lanes, or I wouldn't get anywhere for most of the year!

Note that the LAB "Bicycle Friendly Community" qualification process considers miles of striping, not the quality of the roads. That's part of the reason why the city, which won a BFC award from LAB, stripes these low-speed residential streets but doesn't sweep bike lanes as often as needed.
Further evidence that road designers don't give a damn about cyclists. Getting grant money for false or meaningless "improvements" is a promotion of their own job security.

[genec]

I have gone on record with the city repeatedly stating my opposition to placing bike lane striping on low-volume 25 mph roads. The city planners' justification is that novice cyclists and parents are asking for the striping to make cycling "safe" for novices and children. The planners put the stripes on the low-speed roads instead of the high-speed roads because they fear that bike lanes on the faster roads will encourage novices and cyclists to use the faster roads (instead of staying inside their isolated subdivisions, I guess.)

The city thinks that sweeping the local roads four times a year is adequate. As for the higher speed roads, those are state maintained and never get swept. But there are no bike lane stripes on those, so they are actually cleaner in the places where I ride.

Note that the LAB "Bicycle Friendly Community" qualification process considers miles of striping, not the quality of the roads. That's part of the reason why the city, which won a BFC award from LAB, stripes these low-speed residential streets but doesn't sweep bike lanes as often as needed.


Clearly the LAB needs to set their priorities straight. (one of the reasons I am not a member... and I don't think Forester is going to help either)

The biggest issue with BL on 25MPH roads is that BL do not exist everywhere, so one should learn how to ride with motorvehicles when and where it makes sense. The higher speed roads are less friendly to cyclists, so they need whatever help they can get. Sounds like your city planners need to take some bike rides and see the road from a cyclists' perspective.

[Roody]

Conclusion: Riding in a bike lane when one is available and safe to use is following the vehicular rules of the road.
Not here. Use of bike lanes is optional in many cases.

NOTE: Claiming that bike lanes are unsafe because they make the cyclist 'irrelevant' to other traffic is NOT a valid argument unless authorative studies can be cited that support this notion. As a driver, any traffic in any adjacent lane is relevant to me, so if you want to show me that my experience is not valid, you best have some facts to back up your argument.
Obviously you have the benefit of authorative stuides supporting your claims. Why didn't you cite them here? I'd be interested in reading them. If you don't have these "authorative studies" backing you up, your note makes no sense whatsoever! You are only claiming that your experience is more relevant than somebody else's experience. That's illogical.

[Treespeed]

Treespeed, does this mean you would ride in that sandy debris on the bike lanes shown in Steve's pics? Or does it mean you agree with Chipcom's original post?

Just my opinion, but I wouldn't have a problem riding through same sand and tree debris. Growing up in the PNW I don't have a problem with riding through a little nature. But I won't ride in the door zone of a busy shopping district. I think for the most part I agree with Chip, I might just be a little more particular about what I find to be a "dangerous" bike lane. I don't find most debris dangerous, I find right turners and car doors to be dangerous, which I imagine Chip and most forum members would agree on. When I think about ideal bike lanes I envision the ones that Bekoligist posted pictures of recently. For lanes like that in rainy Seattle where debris are regularly washed away there is no good reason not to use them.

[silversmith]

I use the lanes when available. Its just like I'll use the righthand lane on the interstate in my car and like trucks use the slow lanes up hills.

If there is no bike lane I move out from the curb/dooring area about 3 feet and "*take the lane."


**Disclaimer: "Take the lane" does not necessarily mean that my bottle racks hold molotov cocktails.

[genec]

Not here. Use of bike lanes is optional in many cases.


Obviously you have the benefit of authorative stuides supporting your claims. Why didn't you cite them here? I'd be interested in reading them. If you don't have these "authorative studies" backing you up, your note makes no sense whatsoever! You are only claiming that your experience is more relevant than somebody else's experience. That's illogical.

Why should he have to cite studies if the other guy doesn't... just puts up his own premise and assumptions and then comes to his own wild conclusions.

[Jalopy]

Obviously you have the benefit of authorative stuides supporting your claims. Why didn't you cite them here? I'd be interested in reading them. If you don't have these "authorative studies" backing you up, your note makes no sense whatsoever! You are only claiming that your experience is more relevant than somebody else's experience. That's illogical.
I think Chip was trying to preempt an argument that has been made in the past. The funny thing about reading bike lane debates these days is that all of these arguments have been made before. The debate has been raging for years.

There are many studies out there and tons of websites (pro and con) that site them. Do a google search for yourself. As far as I can tell from what I have read, bike lanes make no discernable difference with regards to cycling safety. Some studies show that there is a decrease in collisions while others show there is actually an increase. The majority, however, show that the effect is minimal one way or the other.

My personal take on this is that, if bike lanes were more carefully designed and more effort was made to educate both cyclists and motorists on how to navigate streets with them, there would be a safety benefit. Unfortunately, as has been pointed out already, too few of the existing bike lanes are actually useful.

Jalopy

[sbhikes]

I think the point chip wanted to make is that using a bike lane doesn't disqualify you as a Vehicular Cyclist. Some people like to make it seem that using bike lanes does disqualify you. Chip showed us that using a bike lane is within the realm of VC.

Whether or not you use them, whether or not you like them, whether or not you think that debris in those picture is to be avoided or of no consequence, using a bike lane doesn't disqualify you as a Vehicular Cyclist.

It's not about debating bike lanes.

[sggoodri]

Just my opinion, but I wouldn't have a problem riding through same sand and tree debris. Growing up in the PNW I don't have a problem with riding through a little nature. But I won't ride in the door zone of a busy shopping district. I think for the most part I agree with Chip, I might just be a little more particular about what I find to be a "dangerous" bike lane. I don't find most debris dangerous, I find right turners and car doors to be dangerous, which I imagine Chip and most forum members would agree on.

My only injury from cycling on public roadways resulted from my front tire sliding out from under me on fine gravel or sand on a curve. That was 15 years ago, but sand and gravel still make me nervous.

I've never been in a collision with an automobile, possibly because I stay away from the curb at intersections and away from parked cars, i.e. riding where bike lanes aren't. But my biggest operational issue with bike lanes elsewhere is debris.

[noisebeam]

While I have no problem using bike lanes, I do leave them if safe to do so and their is a reason to do so... such as the kind of dirt and junk shown or if there are parked cars alongside, or if I am moving at the speed of other traffic, or if there are intersections ahead... and I don't wait for the dashed lines either.

The way that some bike lanes are drawn on the road, it is quite obvious that the designer thought cyclists were rolling pedestrians... not human powered vehicles easily moving at 20+MPH.
This is near exactly what I was gong to write after I saw the first post, but genec already said it well.
The point about intersections is farily significant thought. Some urban and suburban areas have intersections to both roads and driveways very frequently, so one may find oneself riding outside of a BL for very long stretches of time, only pulling right when safe to let faster vehicles pass.

The BL stripe creates a zone that one perhaps should not ride in. It is very often the stripe or very near to it (so ones body is perhaps over it) that is often the safest distance to ride from the curb when the stripe is not there. I ride on a WOL daily that used to have a stripe (you can tell where the pavement has been sandblasted) and I ride on that (missing) line often. Far enough from the curb to avoid debris and to be seen well and reduce right hooks, but still leaving enough room for faster vehicles to pass within the same lane.

As to the taunt to HH to get him to respond (from his several day absense he alluded to recently), no need, he has already supported (or likely written) the response to this in the VC wiki under common misconceptions about VC:
"[It is a misconception that] VC means not riding in bicycle lanes
Another misconception about VC -- that riding in a bicycle lane is contrary to the principles of VC -- probably stems from a misunderstanding of John Forester's teachings about bicycle lanes. Forester has written that Effective Cycling does not train a cyclist to avoid riding in a bicycle lane, but rather to choose their lateral position as if the bicycle lane stripe is not there. Cyclists who end up in a bicycle lane should be extra cautious of the road trash that tends to build up there, and avoid crossing the solid stripe without first yielding to traffic already using the traveled way (the portion of the roadway for the movement of vehicles, exclusive of the shoulders, berms, sidewalks, parking and bicycle lanes)."


Al

[patc]

Another misconception about VC -- that riding in a bicycle lane is contrary to the principles of VC -- probably stems from a misunderstanding of John Forester's teachings about bicycle lanes. Forester has written that Effective Cycling does not train a cyclist to avoid riding in a bicycle lane, but rather to choose their lateral position as if the bicycle lane stripe is not there. Cyclists who end up in a bicycle lane should be extra cautious of the road trash that tends to build up there, and avoid crossing the solid stripe without first yielding to traffic already using the traveled way (the portion of the roadway for the movement of vehicles, exclusive of the shoulders, berms, sidewalks, parking and bicycle lanes).


In in typical style, he includes several misconceptions and potentially dangerous advice! :rolleyes:

[mtn_mojo]

My personal take on this is that, if bike lanes were more carefully designed and more effort was made to educate both cyclists and motorists on how to navigate streets with them, there would be a safety benefit. Unfortunately, as has been pointed out already, too few of the existing bike lanes are actually useful.

Jalopy

I like this assessment. I think it is most fruitful for us, as bicycle advocates, to promote education and good design for traffic systems that include bikes! MUPs, bike lanes, sharrows, WOLs...these can all be effective if done right, or absolutely dismal if poorly implemented. It's up to us to try and show the difference!

[genec]

In in typical style, he includes several misconceptions and potentially dangerous advice! :rolleyes:

Look I am not a Forester fan... but I did not see the "several misconceptions and potentially dangerous advice... "

He say to ride as if the strip is not there... OK, so what. That is probably the only poor advice.

He says to watch out for trash... good idea... I'd do it anyway all over the road... you never know when a hole or can or chunk of tire is in the road.

He says to signal when changing lateral position... works for me... in fact I like bike lanes as they remind me when I am changing lateral position.

So most of the advice is OK.

[Jalopy]

I think the point chip wanted to make is that using a bike lane doesn't disqualify you as a Vehicular Cyclist. Some people like to make it seem that using bike lanes does disqualify you. Chip showed us that using a bike lane is within the realm of VC.

Whether or not you use them, whether or not you like them, whether or not you think that debris in those picture is to be avoided or of no consequence, using a bike lane doesn't disqualify you as a Vehicular Cyclist.

It's not about debating bike lanes.
You're right. My comments about debating the pros and cons of bike lanes was not directed at Chip but rather at his anticipation of a common rebuttal that he mentioned in the postscript. Looking at my post again, it probably would have fit in better in the other thread. Sorry for the confusion.

Jalopy

[patc]

Look I am not a Forester fan... but I did not see the "several misconceptions and potentially dangerous advice... "

He say to ride as if the strip is not there... OK, so what. That is probably the only poor advice.

Actually, I'll take back the "several part", its only one serious misconception. He clearly defines bike lanes as not "part of the travelled way", which is complete BS conceptually, and in most jurisdictions legally wrong as well. This is dangerous thinking, as it biases people to NOT behave vehicularly when using bike lanes. Of course it also a way of using misinformation to manipulate the reader.

I consider the advice to pretend the lane stripe is not there - any lane stripe, not just a bike lane stripe - to be extremely dangerous and fundamentally against the vehicular principles which Forester claims to support. There is a an established ROW, signage, and traffic control system in place. While you can get away with ignoring that system from time to time, pretending it doesn't exist is begging to become road kill.

As I mentioned recently in another post, the whole anti-bike lane stance taken by Forester and some other VCers is built on the premise that bike lanes are not part of the "travelled way", its a fundamentally different frame of reference which they then use to build a whole paradigm of bike lane "dangers". Once you see through that incorrect frame of reference however (I won't call it an outright lie, just a politically convenient stance) most of the claims fall apart.

Bike lanes function, and they function within the established traffic (i.e. vehicular) system. If they didn't function, it would be impossible to use them at all. We can debate whether they are better or worse than other types of lanes, we can debate designs, and we can debate ancillary effects but these debates are only meaningful if we are intellectually honest. If you are going to base your arguments on bike lanes not being part of the travelled way, you might as well start debating Dungeons & Dragons rules - at least that would have more basis in reality.

[chipcom]

Oh goody. Another thread designed with the express purpose of taunting and provoking a certain person, then getting all upset and pissy when that person responds as you think he will. I very much hope that HH totally ignores this pathetic little exercise in neurotic transference.

As for you riders, ride where it is safest. That might be bike lane, it might not. Walnuts in the bike lane can kill you, as Chipcom posted a few months ago. Bike lanes in my city are not even plowed. I guess not even chipper would think I shoul ride hrough 6 inches of slush, snow and ice, well mixed with gravel, tree limbs and glass shards?

How is pointing out what I believe to be VC taunting...unless you think this certain person has some extremist view of VC that does not follow the vehicular rules of the road?

As far as safety, what part of this don't you understand? [emphasis added]
Riding in a bike lane when one is available and safe to use is following the vehicular rules of the road.
If it isn't safe to use, don't use it.

[chipcom]

Why should he have to cite studies if the other guy doesn't... just puts up his own premise and assumptions and then comes to his own wild conclusions.

I added the note to ensure that this thread did not deteriorate into the same old battle of opinions. If one wants to challenge MY experience in MY thread, bring facts. ;)

[genec]

Actually, I'll take back the "several part", its only one serious misconception. He clearly defines bike lanes as not "part of the travelled way", which is complete BS conceptually, and in most jurisdictions legally wrong as well. This is dangerous thinking, as it biases people to NOT behave vehicularly when using bike lanes. Of course it also a way of using misinformation to manipulate the reader.

I consider the advice to pretend the lane stripe is not there - any lane stripe, not just a bike lane stripe - to be extremely dangerous and fundamentally against the vehicular principles which Forester claims to support. There is a an established ROW, signage, and traffic control system in place. While you can get away with ignoring that system from time to time, pretending it doesn't exist is begging to become road kill.

As I mentioned recently in another post, the whole anti-bike lane stance taken by Forester and some other VCers is built on the premise that bike lanes are not part of the "travelled way", its a fundamentally different frame of reference which they then use to build a whole paradigm of bike lane "dangers". Once you see through that incorrect frame of reference however (I won't call it an outright lie, just a politically convenient stance) most of the claims fall apart.

Bike lanes function, and they function within the established traffic (i.e. vehicular) system. If they didn't function, it would be impossible to use them at all. We can debate whether they are better or worse than other types of lanes, we can debate designs, and we can debate ancillary effects but these debates are only meaningful if we are intellectually honest. If you are going to base your arguments on bike lanes not being part of the travelled way, you might as well start debating Dungeons & Dragons rules - at least that would have more basis in reality.


+1

Well put and rather in line with what Brian has been saying about BL and how they fit into the overall road structure.

Works for me.

[chipcom]

He say to ride as if the strip is not there... OK, so what. That is probably the only poor advice.


Such behavior is not vehicular. Motor vehicles are expected to drive within the lines, not define their own lines. If you are in a marked lane, it's perfectly acceptable to change lanes when the need arises, but it is NOT acceptable to disregard the lane markings as if they do not exist. If riding as if the stripe is not there is acceptable to cyclists, then the same goes for motor vehicles, meaning they can straddle the lines into the adjacent lanes, including the bike lane. I don't think any of us would subscribe to such chaos. Would you?

[sbhikes]

If riding as if the stripe is not there is acceptable to cyclists, then the same goes for motor vehicles, meaning they can straddle the lines into the adjacent lanes, including the bike lane. I don't think any of us would subscribe to such chaos. Would you?
Isn't that how it is already?

Sometimes I think so. Why can't these drivers stay in their lanes and on their side of the road? I'm constantly having to wave them back to their own lane or their own side of the road. It really makes me mad.

[edit] And by the way, I mean this from the perspective of a driver, a motorcyclist and a bicyclist (and a triker.)

[chipcom]

Isn't that how it is already?

Sometimes I think so. Why can't these drivers stay in their lanes and on their side of the road? I'm constantly having to wave them back to their own lane or their own side of the road. It really makes me mad.

[edit] And by the way, I mean this from the perspective of a driver, a motorcyclist and a bicyclist (and a triker.)

It's actually fairly orderly here. There is the occasional stay-between-the-lines challenged person and the idiots in such a big hurry that they use the shoulder as a passing lane, but they are the exception and mostly on the freeways. Could Ohio be more civilized than California? naaa, say it ain't so!

[sggoodri]

Such behavior is not vehicular. Motor vehicles are expected to drive within the lines, not define their own lines. If you are in a marked lane, it's perfectly acceptable to change lanes when the need arises, but it is NOT acceptable to disregard the lane markings as if they do not exist. If riding as if the stripe is not there is acceptable to cyclists, then the same goes for motor vehicles, meaning they can straddle the lines into the adjacent lanes, including the bike lane. I don't think any of us would subscribe to such chaos. Would you?

There are three positions I frequently ride WRT bike lane stripes: Left of the line, on the line, and right of the line.

Depending on debris conditions, intersection locations, and overtaking traffic volumes, I find myself changing these positions frequently, even over short segments of road.

When moving from one of these positions to another, I look back and yield as required first. This is especially important when moving from the right side of the line to the left, even if the actual movement is small, because other drivers often assume that it's safe to pass at high speed and close distance as long as my tires are to the right side of the line. This is a bigger problem with striped bike lanes than wide outside lanes, where drivers tend to pass me at greater distance when I'm riding 4' or more from the gutter. So I agree that it's dangerous to ignore the bike lane line.

If road conditions make it look like I'll be moving out of the bike lane frequently, I generally just ride on the bike lane stripe or just to its left, rather than moving into the bike lane whenever an acceptable opportunity arises. Riding in a straight line at a consistent distance from the other side of the travel lane makes me and the available passing width more predictable to drivers behind me, and it's less effort for me. The important point is to not make unpredicted lateral movements. I wish the bike lane line weren't there, but since it is, I'm forced to deal with it.

[Bekologist]

That's great, Soodgridi, you either ride in, or out of, the bike lane, depending on conditions. And sometimes you dice the line. All the line dicing, avoiding a pine needle or riding thru grit, that's all nuance. Sounds like the way a lot of us are doing it.

Some bike lanes are good and usable, some are usable for some and not for others. And some are not very usable.

I think the point of this thread is that vehicular cycling includes riding in the bike lane.

It is a dedicated travel lane. It is designed for vehicular conveyance. When usable and safe, the vehicular cyclist will choose the dedicated bike lane.

[JRA]

There are three positions I frequently ride WRT bike lane stripes: Left of the line, on the line, and right of the line.

Depending on debris conditions, intersection locations, and overtaking traffic volumes, I find myself changing these positions frequently, even over short segments of road.

When moving from one of these positions to another, I look back and yield as required first. This is especially important when moving from the right side of the line to the left, even if the actual movement is small, because other drivers often assume that it's safe to pass at high speed and close distance as long as my tires are to the right side of the line. This is a bigger problem with striped bike lanes than wide outside lanes, where drivers tend to pass me at greater distance when I'm riding 4' or more from the gutter. So I agree that it's dangerous to ignore the bike lane line.

If road conditions make it look like I'll be moving out of the bike lane frequently, I generally just ride on the bike lane stripe or just to its left, rather than moving into the bike lane whenever an acceptable opportunity arises. Riding in a straight line at a consistent distance from the other side of the travel lane makes me and the available passing width more predictable to drivers behind me, and it's less effort for me. The important point is to not make unpredicted lateral movements. I wish the bike lane line weren't there, but since it is, I'm forced to deal with it.

I too sometimes wish that a bike lane stripes weren't there. But it's not a major issue and certainly nothing I lose sleep over. If a stripe is there it's not all that big a problem to, as you say, deal with it.

The way you describe riding on roads with bike lanes seems to be about the way I ride - usually either to the right or to the left of the line. I don't like riding directly on the line because the paint can be slick - plus, in some places, there are reflectors on the line that make a noise when I hit them (Maybe if there were more reflectors, the noise would be like the sound of a motorcycle, like the noise we used to get as kids by attaching a trading card to the frame with a clothes pin so the card would slap against the spokes - ah, to be a kid again and wallow in the "toy bike syndrome" :D).

The pictures that you posted earlier in the thread look like heaven to me - what I see is wide lanes, 25MPH speed limits, no potholes, no broken glass, no cracks in the pavement, no manhole covers 6" below the pavement and no bicycle traps (sewer grates with openings that run parallel to the direction of travel), all things I see almost daily. But I digress. My point is that I wouldn't be complaining a whole lot about roads like the ones in the pictures. Yea, there's a little sand and, yea, there might be more useable pavement if there weren't a bike lane but, all in all, those roads look pretty good to me. I think I could deal with it.

------------

This thread seems to be about two things I consider to be relatively unimportant advocacy / safety issues but about which bicyclists in this forum seem to argue a lot. The two issues are the question of bike lanes and the question of whether a behavior is VC or not. It amuses me that a big deal is made of either of these things.

The existance or non-existance of a bike lane is of little or no importance to me. The only thing that would concern me would be a law defining where I can and, more importantly, cannot ride. It is the laws which are of concern to me (similarly, the existance or non-existance of sidewalks is unimportant to me. But laws requiring me to ride on sidewalks or, conversely, prohibiting me from riding on sidewalks are of concern to me).

The question of whether a behavior is VC or not is also of little or no concern to me. No offense to anybody but
I honestly don't know why anybody cares. VC is just a label and not a particularly useful label, at that. Even VC proponents don't seem to be able to agree on exactly what it is.

So I couldn't care less if a behavior is or isn't VC. I might care if a behavior is safe or not. I might care if it's effective or not. I might care if it's in keeping with the rules of the road or not. I might care if it's legal or not. But I really don't give a rat's behind whether somebody thinks they can slap the VC™ label on it.

This forum would probably be improved if "VC" never appeared in a thread title.

The title of this thread might have been one of the following:


To ride safely means riding in bike lanes.
To ride according to the rules of the road means riding in bike lanes.
To ride legally means riding in bike lanes.
To ride effectively means riding in bike lanes.


all of which are of more interest to me than the question of a "VC™-approved" label (which, in the absence of an officially-recognized VC governing body is pretty much a moot point, anyway).

To ride according to the rules of the road means riding in bike lanes?
I'd argue that that is not necessarily so if surface conditions in the bike lane are bad. One of the rules of the road is that you don't operate where there are unsafe conditions. For example, during a snow storm motorist sometimes operate outside the marked lanes because that is where the pavement is best. One rule of the road is: operate where conditions are safe.

To ride legally means riding in bike lanes?
Regardless of the existance or non-existance of a BL stripe, the laws in most states require slower moving vehicles to keep to the right as much as practical. So even in the absence of a specific bike lane law, riding legally may well require cyclists to ride in a bike lane or, in the absence of a BL, to ride where the BL would be if there were one. The existance of a bike lane, in and of itself, doesn't really change this. Specific bike lane laws are unnecessary, at best and almost certainly not good for cyclists. I suspect that most cyclists, no matter how they feel about bike lanes, would agree on that.

In summary: riding legally may require riding in the bike lane, but not necessarily. Riding according to the rules of the road may allow riding outside a bike lane, but not necessarily. Riding safely and effectively may require riding outside of a bike lane, but not necessarily. I'll leave the question of what being VC means to others.

I'm as free as a breeze
And I ride where I please
Saddle tramp, saddle tramp

[LittleBigMan]

I don't find most debris dangerous, I find right turners and car doors to be dangerous, which I imagine Chip and most forum members would agree on.
This is where I definitely disagree. I remember having a flat at about 25 - 30 mph. on a descent in heavy traffic. It was a front flat, and scary as hell.

Although this was due to a sidewall split, it could just as easily have happened from a tiny piece of glass working it's way into my tube--glass shards can hide very effectively in debris, especially sand.

I also had a very slow speed crash in a small patch of sand.