Now we're talkin'! IMO, 'Share the Road' doesn't quite cut it, though. The message needs to be less vague and more explicit. I personally like the San Francisco signage: Bicycles Allowed Full Lane - Change Lanes to Pass.
I agree and think there are pros/cons to different signage approaches and application may differ depending on the road.
For example I think "Bicycles Allowed Full Lane" is great, but has the downside of the implication that where it is not posted that bicycles are not. "StR" is less likely to have this implication, although it is possible.
I also see it may be more difficult to convince city planners to put "BAFL" on roads with WOLs and especially ones with BLs. In fact outside of NOLs places I most wish there were BAFL signs is on roads with BLs especially at intersection approaches where cyclists are most likely to merge across lanes to make turns.
So "StR" on WOLs and "BAFL" on NOLs, but what happens for the NOL that doesn't have a sign at all? Do conditions deteriorate even more for cyclist that use that signness NOL? But this comes down to funding. Speed limit signs are posted regularly on streets, "StR" and "BAFL" could be put on those signposts below the SL sign.
Al
The BikeForums Team
-adv-
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content here.
HH, this was an exaggeration. :) I don't actually ride in the gutter. It's just that I do not always do what I feel I am entitled to do and what would've been the safe thing to do had the cagers been reasonable. I would allow passes that are a bit too close, for example...
Despite the widespread prevalence of The Notion, the number of people who are actually willing to intentionally run us down to teach us the lesson of The Notion is miniscule. I agree, but the number who are willing to teach us a lesson - and miscalculate things in process and kill us accidentally is considerably higher. Even higher is the number of people who will not miscalculate but do exactly what they wanted to do: squeeze me off the road, make me slow down unnecessarily and abruptly, perhaps even cause me to crash (w/o fatal consequences). This will not kill me but it will make my ride very unpleasant and slow/inefficient.
I also wrote about psychological differences before, I think. I am introverted, shy, hate conflict and do feel vulnerable on the bike. So, silly as it might be, I would prefer a slightly more dangerous ride w/o confrontations to a slightly safer ride with lots of harrassing. Just because this harrassing and hatred and conflict destroy the pleasure of biking for me - and why would I do something I don't enjoy?
noisebeam
I agree, but the number who are willing to teach us a lesson - and miscalculate things in process and kill us accidentally is considerably higher. Even higher is the number of people who will not miscalculate but do exactly what they wanted to do: squeeze me off the road, make me slow down unnecessarily and abruptly, perhaps even cause me to crash (w/o fatal consequences). This will not kill me but it will make my ride very unpleasant and slow/inefficient.
Thank you. This is a point I have made before. People in rage mode can do stupid things without the forethought of the consequences.
Even something as seemingly harmless to an ignorant motorist as throwing an empty soda bottle at a cyclist could cause an accident that kills (especially in heavy traffic). Seeing how close they can get when passing at 45mph can result in a misjudgement resulting in death too.
And get away with it when they claim "the cyclist swerved into me"
Al
DCCommuter
.....Anyway, so there's a 'notion' that bikes should keep out of the way of faster vehicles. This is simple traffic engineering dynamics, and codified in every state in the union with some form of "slower vehicles keep right" rules in their State legal codes.
But "slower vehicles keep right" is not the same as "slower vehicles get off the road." If there is a choice about where to position yourself on the road, I don't think anyone disagrees that a slower vehicle should choose the spot where it impacts other traffic the least. I would say that the overwhelming majority of cyclists make an effort to avoid impeding traffic unnecessarily, and do so only when there is no other choice. But if you subscribe to "the notion" -- if your view is that cyclists shouldn't be in the travel lanes at all -- then any delay is considered unnecessary.
billh
ROTFLOL! You're telling ME to start thinking about bicycles as SMVs? What the heck do you think I've been doing here for almost two years?
And here's a snippet from the OP of the May 2005 The role of attitude in traffic cycling thread with a reference to the concept:
Per his advice, I stopped worrying about being out of the way, and gave the highest priority to riding visibly and predictably. I stay out of gutters, islands and even bike lanes as much as possible. I started riding more assertively, and not worrying so much about inconvenciencing drivers or interrupting traffic flow.
"Worrying about being in the way" is part of common courtesy. Sure, stay out of the gutters and off the islands islands, but why the bike lanes, don't see how you lump them together? I think you went overboard with Forrester and just need to come back to the middle. I used to ride like a velorutionary as well. It doesn't work for me.
As far as The Notion (dun, dun, duuuuunh), I think we have to remember the seed of truth, namely that as SMV's, motorists should have the expectation that we ride to the right, out of their way. That is the DEFAULT position, at least according to the law in Missouri. The EXCEPTION is riding in the middle of the lane. The misunderstanding of the exceptions is where The Notion causes trouble.
Then going beyond the law, we have common sense and common courtesy. If there is friction between motorists and SMV's, commone sense tells me to plan my route to minimize that friction. That doesn't mean riding around scared out of my wits. It means planning a sensible route, compromising a little time for a safer route. When I absolutely have to mix with fast traffic, then VC comes into play, and cyclists should not hesitate to assert themselves in the lane, but only when absolutely necessary. I'm concerned that in your zeal for riding vehicularly, you have lost sight of common courtesy.
sbhikes
The only problem with your imagery is that it doesn't fit all cyclists... so cannot be the source of the Notion. While that sort of thing can be triggered... and seems to be the root cause of a lot of teen male taunting that may happen to some cyclists, it is not likely to be a huge contributing factor.
I know that the evening I had the encounter with that motorist, I was anything but a lycra clad cyclist on a skinny bike... I was wearing a sweatshirt, and khaki shorts, and riding a fat tire cruiser. Hardly fitting the image you painted. I had also earlier seen two other locals riding about looking virtually the same.
If anything, at that moment, I looked like either your typical beach bum, or DUI. :D The former which is a pretty common sight here in San Diego.
Now I do understand what you are saying... and the typical taunt to lycra covered cyclists is something along the lines of "hey, Lance wannabe... "
I'm sure spandex was nearby, just like bike lanes may have been. That's all it takes from what I hear.
noisebeam
...in your zeal for riding vehicularly, you have lost sight of common courtesy.
I pretty much agree with what you said, but I understand that HH and others who ride more centerish as default move over to let faster vehicles pass when (but only when) safe.
Al
Helmet Head
If there is a choice about where to position yourself on the road, I don't think anyone disagrees that a slower vehicle should choose the spot where it impacts other traffic the least.
I do. For example, often there is a choice when approaching intersections. I often see through cyclists who should be centered and blocking faster traffic from passing them as they approach and enter an intersection (once you're halfway through, it's often safe to pull aside and let them pass), but instead choose to keep to the side and let the traffic pass them on the left (as they are encouraged to do by bike lanes to the left of right turn only lanes, which I don't like for that reason, among others).
billh
If there is a choice about where to position yourself on the road, I don't think anyone disagrees that a slower vehicle should choose the spot where it impacts other traffic the least.
. . . uh, you better ask HH about that.
But if you subscribe to "the notion" -- if your view is that cyclists shouldn't be in the travel lanes at all -- then any delay is considered unnecessary.
It's the "at all" part of The Notion (dun, dun, duuuuunh) that is the problem and the failure of motorists to know the difference. But as we all know, there is a lot of judgment that goes into when to ride in the travel lane. Often it's a matter of degree. I'm saying less riding in the lane is better when it comes to common courtesy.
sbhikes
Someone should write a letter to the editor and point this out, as a rebuttal - that the bicycle bypass is actually being built for the benefit of motorists.
That's not technically true. Currently on that portion of the bike route, bikes are actually routed on to the freeway (highway 101) in both directions. Most cyclists don't opt for the freeway, but some do.
Ortega Hill Road is steep and the freeway is less steep. The bypass will be less steep still. So the benefit is ours as much as anybody else's. And it won't keep bikes off Ortega Hill Road because a) some like the workout and b) some have to go to work at the top of the hill so the bypass won't do any good (me!).
They do not intend to shut off traffic on Ortega Hill to bikes, nor do they intend to remove the share the road signs on Ortega Hill.
The only explicit benefit to cars is that it is part of a highway widening project, and part of making the on ramp in Summerland easier for cars (lots of accidents and slowdowns due to the configuration).
chipcom
It is The Notion. And the notion isn't "everything should get outta the way". It's "bicycles should get outta the way". Don't try to overgeneralize it, it doesn't work.
Motorists willingly accept considerable delays without blowing up at anybody like this jerk did. They patiently wait for the little old lady to cross the street while the traffic light goes through three cycles. They do not yell obscenities at tractor drivers on rural roads. In short, they can be generally made to obey the rules of the road even if they inconvenience them.
Horsepucky. I've been to a lot of cities in the US. One thing that is very common IS little old ladies and tractor drivers getting yelled at, passed unsafely, buzzed, hit and even run down. Lord help the poor construction zone flagmen, who routinely get H&D for doing their jobs. The notion IS that 'everything should get out of the way', at least to those of us who actually drive.
noisebeam
some have to go to work at the top of the hill so the bypass won't do any good (me!).
I really hope the bypass doesn't have the unintended consquence of motorists treating you worse on your climb up to the top. Hopefully the pro-bike culture where you live is strong enough that even after motorists learn there is a bypass, that its still 'acceptable' for cyclists to slow them up the hill while they wait for gap to pass.
Al
Helmet Head
I think you went overboard with Forrester and just need to come back to the middle.
That's right, and I was convinced by a little well-written book called Cyclecraft by John Franklin.
I think we have to remember the seed of truth, namely that as SMV's, motorists should have the expectation that we ride to the right, out of their way. That is the DEFAULT position, at least according to the law in Missouri.
I think you're confusing "as right as practicable (safe, reasonable) when faster traffic is present" with "out of their way, period". In other words, you've swallowed The Notion, hook, line and sinker.
but why the bike lanes,
Read what I wrote: "I stay out of gutters, islands and even bike lanes as much as possible. ".
Bike lanes position us near the outside edge of the road. Riding near the outside edge of the road makes us less visible to cross traffic, and reduces our safety margin on the edge side of the road. That's why I choose to ride futher left (which often means outside of the bike lane, as much as possible). This is why I use a mirror: to know when faster traffic is approaching so that I can temporarily use my secondary riding position (John Franklin's term) at the outside edge of the road (in the bike lane if one is there), whose sole purpose is to allow faster traffic to pass, and then know when it's safe and reasonable to move back to my primary riding position (Franklin's term) in my centerish default position (Robert Hurst's term).
Edit: You may ask: If the outside edge/bike lane is less safe, why is it safe to use when being passed by faster traffic?. Answer: the outside edge is much safer in the presence of large vehicles just to my left who are essentially "blocking" for the cyclist. The whole point of riding further left is to be more likely to be noticed by someone contemplating pulling out into or across the road. If I'm on the outside edge, and there is no other same-direction traffic, I'm likely to be missed, and they're likely to treat it the same as an empty road ("I didn't see him"). But if I'm centerish, they're much more likely to notice me, and, if they don't notice me, I have more space to work with in case I need to make an emergency maneuver. But, if there is other traffic in my lane, then I don't need the potential cross traffic to notice me - they won't be entering or crossing the road anyway because of the same-direction traffic that is passing me.
chephy
But "slower vehicles keep right" is not the same as "slower vehicles get off the road." If there is a choice about where to position yourself on the road, I don't think anyone disagrees that a slower vehicle should choose the spot where it impacts other traffic the least. Well, I do. First comes personal safety. Then common courtesy. The gutter is where we "impact other traffic the least" but it doesn't mean we should ride there. If you add "as long is it is safe and practicable" to your statement, then we agree.
I think we have to remember the seed of truth, namely that as SMV's, motorists should have the expectation that we ride to the right, out of their way No. SMVs ride "to the right" - yes, SMVs ride "out of the way" - no. Because the vast majority of all roads I've ever seen in North America do not have a WOL. So riding out of the way just cannot be done (safely). I have nothing against keeping out of cars' way when the road allows it. But it just happens far too rarely to say that it's the default. The default for me is riding with cars, not out of their way.
It means planning a sensible route, compromising a little time for a safer route. Here is a question: why do YOU have to spend more time to get where you want to get and not the motorists? It's not as though they'll be stuck behind you for a hundred miles: high speed roads usually have more than one lane in one direction after all. (When they don't, and the lanes are narrow - it's a nightmare, especially if in addition to that no passing is allowed. I seriously doubt there is a way to ride a bike on those roads, except for very short stretches.)
noisebeam
Here is a question: why do YOU have to spend more time to get where you want to get and not the motorists? It's not as though they'll be stuck behind you for a hundred miles: high speed roads usually have more than one lane in one direction after all. (When they don't, and the lanes are narrow - it's a nightmare, especially if in addition to that no passing is allowed. I seriously doubt there is a way to ride a bike on those roads, except for very short stretches.)
ding, ding, ding!
I have a route that uses a NOL for ~3mi. I slow down ~3-4 cars by 30sec or so each. The alternate route I have reduces NOL use by ~1.5mi. It takes me 15min longer.
Who am I benefiting by taking the alternate route? While I get 1.5mi less of occasional harassment, I can't say its safer vs. the winding residential streets with lots of driveways, many more intersections (the most dangerous place) and kids running and cycling around every which way.
Al
randya
"Worrying about being in the way" is part of common courtesy. Sure, stay out of the gutters and off the islands islands, but why the bike lanes, don't see how you lump them together? I think you went overboard with Forrester and just need to come back to the middle. I used to ride like a velorutionary as well. It doesn't work for me.
As far as The Notion (dun, dun, duuuuunh), I think we have to remember the seed of truth, namely that as SMV's, motorists should have the expectation that we ride to the right, out of their way. That is the DEFAULT position, at least according to the law in Missouri. The EXCEPTION is riding in the middle of the lane. The misunderstanding of the exceptions is where The Notion causes trouble.
Then going beyond the law, we have common sense and common courtesy. If there is friction between motorists and SMV's, commone sense tells me to plan my route to minimize that friction. That doesn't mean riding around scared out of my wits. It means planning a sensible route, compromising a little time for a safer route. When I absolutely have to mix with fast traffic, then VC comes into play, and cyclists should not hesitate to assert themselves in the lane, but only when absolutely necessary. I'm concerned that in your zeal for riding vehicularly, you have lost sight of common courtesy.
This is almost exactly Robert Hurst's position as stated in The Art of Urban Cycling.
Helmet Head
Earlier, in #146, I asked billh:
How do you think we should respond to The Notion? Acquiesce? If you can't beat 'em, join 'em? Is that your position? (if not, I've misunderstood - please help me).
Bill, I haven't seen your answer.
Do I understand you correctly that you are advocating acquiesing to The Notion that cyclists should stay out of the way of faster traffic?
chephy
Horsepucky. I've been to a lot of cities in the US. One thing that is very common IS little old ladies and tractor drivers getting yelled at, passed unsafely, buzzed, hit and even run down. Lord help the poor construction zone flagmen, who routinely get H&D for doing their jobs. The notion IS that 'everything should get out of the way', at least to those of us who actually drive. How about cross traffic at intersections? Do the drivers stop for the red light to let other cars and pedestrians through? I bet they do most of the time. So you see, it's not that they resent EVERY delay.
Where I live the drivers yield to pedestrians, obey construction workers' signals and do not curse at farmers riding their tractors. BUT they still routinely buzz cyclists. So in my area it's "cyclists ought to get out of the way". In your area it's not "everyone should get outta the way" (the motorists do obey SOME laws, don't they?) It's simply more than one item:
- cyclists ought to get outta the way
- little old ladies ought to get outta the way
- farm equipment ought to get outta the way
- Vespas ought to get outta the way
etc...
I bet they don't feel that ambulances or police cars ought to get outta the way even if they slow the traffic down or make it halt completely.
My point is that you can and should eliminate these attitudes item-by-item. There are areas where drivers show lots of respect and courtesy to pedestrians (who slow them down considerably) and zero for cyclists (even if those slow them down very little). This contradicts your assertion that motorists will just resent everything that slows them down. No, they will only resent the slow-downs that in their mind are unacceptable. Moreover, they will resent behaviour they consider unacceptable even if it DOESN'T slow them down (see the example of cagers passing you unsafely just to stop at a red light immediately after passing you). It's not so much about their convenience, it's about who they feel has the right to be on the road and who doesn't. They feel that cyclists don't and that is The Notion. It may or may not be accompanied by similar notions about construction workers and tractors, but that's somewhat irrelevant in this discussion.
Brian Ratliff
Here is a question: why do YOU have to spend more time to get where you want to get and not the motorists? It's not as though they'll be stuck behind you for a hundred miles: high speed roads usually have more than one lane in one direction after all. (When they don't, and the lanes are narrow - it's a nightmare, especially if in addition to that no passing is allowed. I seriously doubt there is a way to ride a bike on those roads, except for very short stretches.)
The bolded passage is exactly what 15 of my 22 mile door to door commute looks like. It is here where the strict vehicular cycling principle breaks down (and even Forester's Effective Cycling agrees with me on this point). It is very stressful for all involved to cork a long line of cars through a 5 mile passage. So I ride a more conservative style. Having cars pile up with no legal opportunity to pass is like a pressure bottle. I started out by keeping the valve closed except for a few short sections where I thought I could open it. The result: an explosion of cars passing, close and fast; not to mention cars taking wildly unnecessary risks to get around me with the valve closed. Now I keep the valve ajar a little except for the few areas where it is truly dangerous for a car to pass. The result is that there are fewer cars passing. They pass closer to me at times, a by-product of keeping to the side, but they also pass slower and with fewer risks to themselves, other road users, and myself.
As for the ridability. These roads are certainly rideable. Just less so with a strict vehicular cycling approach, since, by some of your definitions here, the entire 15 mile stretch of winding, single lane highway might be unsuitable for lane sharing.
Helmet Head
"Worrying about being in the way" is part of common courtesy. Sure, stay out of the gutters and off the islands islands, but why the bike lanes, don't see how you lump them together? I think you went overboard with Forrester and just need to come back to the middle. I used to ride like a velorutionary as well. It doesn't work for me.
As far as The Notion (dun, dun, duuuuunh), I think we have to remember the seed of truth, namely that as SMV's, motorists should have the expectation that we ride to the right, out of their way. That is the DEFAULT position, at least according to the law in Missouri. The EXCEPTION is riding in the middle of the lane. The misunderstanding of the exceptions is where The Notion causes trouble.
Then going beyond the law, we have common sense and common courtesy. If there is friction between motorists and SMV's, commone sense tells me to plan my route to minimize that friction. That doesn't mean riding around scared out of my wits. It means planning a sensible route, compromising a little time for a safer route. When I absolutely have to mix with fast traffic, then VC comes into play, and cyclists should not hesitate to assert themselves in the lane, but only when absolutely necessary. I'm concerned that in your zeal for riding vehicularly, you have lost sight of common courtesy.
And I'm concerned that in their zeal for riding courteously, almost all cyclists don't see how they are sacrificing their safety in the name of courtesy.
This is really getting at the core issue.
We all agree that when there is no other choice, using the full lane is appropriate, even if it impedes others.
And we also all agree that when there is no reason to impede others, one shouldn't.
The difference seems to be in cases where a more centerish lane position is generally the more visible and predictable position (particularly at intersection approaches and crossings, including approaches and crossings with relatively minor intersections, like driveways), but doing so will impede others.
I feel that I'm a very courteous cyclist. However, I will not sacrifice my safety in order to be courteous. I think the big difference is that most cyclists don't realize they are at greater risk, when, for example, they choose to ride on the sidewalk or in the gutter, or keep to the right as they make a left turn in an intersection (which I saw a cyclist do yesterday). Most cyclists are obsessed with being courtious and out of the way. That's the problem. Not cyclists being jerks.
Brian Ratliff
Just to add to the above: there is no alternative route. The nearest thing to an alternative takes me 5 to 10 miles out of my way, and I will still have to deal with single lane highways with no shoulder. Good for exercise, but 22 miles is already a lot for a single direction commute.
noisebeam
Just to add to the above: there is no alternative route. The nearest thing to an alternative takes me 5 to 10 miles out of my way, and I will still have to deal with single lane highways with no shoulder. Good for exercise, but 22 miles is already a lot for a single direction commute.
Thats tough. I'd not like riding on a single lane NOL, espeically for such a long stretch.
Does state law require you to pull over if a line of cars develops? AZ law does. (http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/28/00704.htm&Title=28&DocType=ARS) But there is a grey area with interpretation of "sufficient area for safe turnout"
"C. If a person is driving a vehicle at a speed less than the normal flow of traffic at the particular time and place on a two-lane highway where passing is unsafe, and if five or more vehicles are formed in a line behind the vehicle, the person shall turn the vehicle off the roadway at the nearest place designated as a turnout by signs erected by the director or a local authority, or wherever sufficient area for a safe turnout exists, in order to permit the vehicles following to proceed. "
Do you think advocating for widening roads like this should be a priority?
Al
randya
My point is that you can and should eliminate these attitudes item-by-item. There are areas where drivers show lots of respect and courtesy to pedestrians (who slow them down considerably) and zero for cyclists (even if those slow them down very little). This contradicts your assertion that motorists will just resent everything that slows them down. No, they will only resent the slow-downs that in their mind are unacceptable. Moreover, they will resent behaviour they consider unacceptable even if it DOESN'T slow them down (see the example of cagers passing you unsafely just to stop at a red light immediately after passing you). It's not so much about their convenience, it's about who they feel has the right to be on the road and who doesn't. They feel that cyclists don't and that is The Notion. It may or may not be accompanied by similar notions about construction workers and tractors, but that's somewhat irrelevant in this discussion.
In Portland, the police have conducted numerous well-publicized crosswalk 'stings', messaging to motorists that pedestrians have the ROW in crosswalks. The result has been much better driver behavior w/r/t pedestrians.
OTOH, rather than conducting similar bike lane or vehicular cycling stings (despite their repeated promises to do so), which would message to motorists that bicyclists also have permission to be in the ROW, the police have chosen instead to conduct enforcement actions directed against bicyclists (primarily for running stop signs on well-estabished off-arterial bike 'boulevards'). The publicity these latter police actions have garnered in the press just serves to reinforce the Notion, rather than disabusing it.
IMO, a significant part of the problem is that the police continue to self-identify with motorists - i.e. to some extent they believe in the Notion - and therefore fail to put public safety (their true charge) above rote, by-the-book enforcement (i.e. cyclists running stop signs on low traffic volume side streets designated and designed for cycling is not a big safety issue).
chipcom
How about cross traffic at intersections? Do the drivers stop for the red light to let other cars and pedestrians through? I bet they do most of the time. So you see, it's not that they resent EVERY delay.
Where I live the drivers yield to pedestrians, obey construction workers' signals and do not curse at farmers riding their tractors. BUT they still routinely buzz cyclists. So in my area it's "cyclists ought to get out of the way". In your area it's not "everyone should get outta the way" (the motorists do obey SOME laws, don't they?) It's simply more than one item:
- cyclists ought to get outta the way
- little old ladies ought to get outta the way
- farm equipment ought to get outta the way
- Vespas ought to get outta the way
etc...
I bet they don't feel that ambulances or police cars ought to get outta the way even if they slow the traffic down or make it halt completely.
My point is that you can and should eliminate these attitudes item-by-item. There are areas where drivers show lots of respect and courtesy to pedestrians (who slow them down considerably) and zero for cyclists (even if those slow them down very little). This contradicts your assertion that motorists will just resent everything that slows them down. No, they will only resent the slow-downs that in their mind are unacceptable. Moreover, they will resent behaviour they consider unacceptable even if it DOESN'T slow them down (see the example of cagers passing you unsafely just to stop at a red light immediately after passing you). It's not so much about their convenience, it's about who they feel has the right to be on the road and who doesn't. They feel that cyclists don't and that is The Notion. It may or may not be accompanied by similar notions about construction workers and tractors, but that's somewhat irrelevant in this discussion.
In Ohio motorists don't much like anything that gets in their way, including other motorists with the gall to actually drive at or under the posted speed limit.
Obviously not ALL motorists are idiots...I'll go back to the old 10% rule - 10 percent of any group just don't get with the program. That 10% is the group that cyclists and other users of the road have a problem with - everywhere. I'm interested where you live, and how much you have to deal with rush hour traffic...whether it be on a bike, in a car or on foot.
The Notion is bullsh_t...it tries to take a general problem and make it cycling specific...a usual tactic of zealots, politicians and others who usually end up with their hand in your wallet or trying to modify your behavior to their perception of what is 'right'.
chephy
As for the ridability. These roads are certainly rideable. Just less so with a strict vehicular cycling approach, since, by some of your definitions here, the entire 15 mile stretch of winding, single lane highway might be unsuitable for lane sharing.Such roads are clearly poorly designed. Any rule of the road can be made impossible to follow if the design is poor enough. Such roads just shouldn't exist. Alas, they do... Most of them, I agree, are in principle rideable. About as rideable as sidewalks in Chinatown, I would say. :D You can ride on them, it's just not safe and not fun.
Actually this road you're talking about is not as poorly designed as some I've seen. Because there is actually room to pass you, even if closely. I once was on a road where anything wider than, say, a compact Japanese car had no room to pass you unless you got off the road period.... Or, let's say, the car would have to slow down to essentially your speed and the driver would still run the risk of brushing your handlebars especially if you moved sideways just a little bit (which you have to on hill, for example). And the traffic was really heavy on that road. I just had to get off and ride on a dirt road...
chipcom
Bill, I haven't seen your answer.
Do I understand you correctly that you are advocating acquiesing to The Notion that cyclists should stay out of the way of faster traffic?
To answer would be admitting that your Notion is vaild, which it isn't, it's just another of your wacky theories designed to support your anti-bike lane jihad.
Helmet Head
To answer would be admitting that your Notion is vaild, which it isn't, ....
I guess that's why the gang of geniuses (you, Beck, and ILTB) are about the only ones who are denying the existence, and widespread prevalance of The Notion. :rolleyes:
And I never said The Notion is valid, for crying out loud!
chipcom
And I never said The Notion is valid, for crying out loud!
Thanks for admiting that it's BS.
chephy
In Ohio motorists don't much like anything that gets in their way, including other motorists with the gall to actually drive at or under the posted speed limit. Do they stop at traffic lights? Four-way stops? To let ambulance pass?
Obviously not ALL motorists are idiots...I'll go back to the old 10% rule - 10 percent of any group just don't get with the program. That 10% is the group that cyclists and other users of the road have a problem with - everywhere. Bullroar. There are areas where nearly 100% of drivers will be hostily towards you because they honestly believe it's illegal to cycle on roads. And there are areas where you will encounter very little driver aggression because the drivers've been taught that cyclists belong on the road and accepted it. I'd put it that way: given any social norm, in any population there will be about 10% (or 20%, the actual number doesn't matter so much) who will violate it. The problem in North America is that "bikes ought to stay outta the way" is the norm. And that's what we call The Notion.
They problem isn't just that a small percentage of drivers are a**holes. It's a problem, but a different from the one we are discussing. Most motorists do adhere to a certain code of behaviour, it's just that it often contradicts the written laws. IN PARTICULAR, this unwritten code in most parts of North America prohibits bikers from appearing on the road, and this is where the problem becomes cycling-specific. Driving at the speed limit is another instance of where this code differs from the law but that's not what we are discussing at the moment. A**holeness of some individual motorists is an entirely different matter.
I'm interested where you live, and how much you have to deal with rush hour traffic...whether it be on a bike, in a car or on foot. Toronto. And here is an interesting observation: I never have a problem with cagers as a pedestrian. As long as I obey the law, they are NEVER angry, they NEVER honk, they NEARLY ALWAYS (99.99% of the time) yield at intersections when I have the right-of-way. I also notice they stop at a red light even if the way is clear. Always. They've been conditioned to obey those laws. The Highway Act and this "unwritten code of motorist behaviour" coincide at this point. However, they disagree where cyclists are concerned... :(
Helmet Head
The bolded passage is exactly what 15 of my 22 mile door to door commute looks like. It is here where the strict vehicular cycling principle breaks down (and even Forester's Effective Cycling agrees with me on this point). It is very stressful for all involved to cork a long line of cars through a 5 mile passage. So I ride a more conservative style. Having cars pile up with no legal opportunity to pass is like a pressure bottle. I started out by keeping the valve closed except for a few short sections where I thought I could open it. The result: an explosion of cars passing, close and fast; not to mention cars taking wildly unnecessary risks to get around me with the valve closed. Now I keep the valve ajar a little except for the few areas where it is truly dangerous for a car to pass. The result is that there are fewer cars passing. They pass closer to me at times, a by-product of keeping to the side, but they also pass slower and with fewer risks to themselves, other road users, and myself.
As for the ridability. These roads are certainly rideable. Just less so with a strict vehicular cycling approach, since, by some of your definitions here, the entire 15 mile stretch of winding, single lane highway might be unsuitable for lane sharing.
Brian,
I don't understand a few things about this (including what you've written about your commute in the past).
What exactly do you mean by "keeping the valve closed" versus keeping it open (where do you ride to close it, where do you ride to open it?). And what do you believe would be a "strict vehicular cycling approach" here? How does where you ride differ from this "strict vehicular cycling approach" , and how doeseach differ from where you might ride a 25 mph street legal mini-bike on this road?
I also don't understand how it can be that "there are fewer cars passing.", regardless of what you're doing, unless your average speed is changing. If your average speed is about the same, the number of cars passing you should be the same. The only issue is whether they are constantly passing you, or whether they are passing you in spurts. So I don't get the "fewer cars" thing.
chephy
Thanks for admiting that it's BS. It's not BS. It's not VALID but it is HELD by many people.
Just like racist attitudes aren't valid (i.e., illegal, illogical and violating all justice and reason) but nevertheless existing.
Brian Ratliff
Thats tough. I'd not like riding on a single lane NOL, espeically for such a long stretch.
Does state law require you to pull over if a line of cars develops? AZ law does. (http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/28/00704.htm&Title=28&DocType=ARS) But there is a grey area with interpretation of "sufficient area for safe turnout"
"C. If a person is driving a vehicle at a speed less than the normal flow of traffic at the particular time and place on a two-lane highway where passing is unsafe, and if five or more vehicles are formed in a line behind the vehicle, the person shall turn the vehicle off the roadway at the nearest place designated as a turnout by signs erected by the director or a local authority, or wherever sufficient area for a safe turnout exists, in order to permit the vehicles following to proceed. "
Do you think advocating for widening roads like this should be a priority?
Al
Such roads are clearly poorly designed. Any rule of the road can be made impossible to follow if the design is poor enough. Such roads just shouldn't exist. Alas, they do... Most of them, I agree, are in principle rideable. About as rideable as sidewalks in Chinatown, I would say. You can ride on them, it's just not safe and not fun.
Actually this road you're talking about is not as poorly designed as some I've seen. Because there is actually room to pass you, even if closely. I once was on a road where anything wider than, say, a compact Japanese car had no room to pass you unless you got off the road period.... Or, let's say, the car would have to slow down to essentially your speed and the driver would still run the risk of brushing your handlebars especially if you moved sideways just a little bit (which you have to on hill, for example). And the traffic was really heavy on that road. I just had to get off and ride on a dirt road...
They are designed for different things. Advocating for a shoulder would be nice, but would be incredibly expensive, in addition to being an unforgivable in terms of limiting access to rural areas during the construction period. Every once in a while (like once a decade), these roads are redone. Recently, this usually results in a cycleable shoulder, if not a bike lane.
It is not that bad, but I bring it out because it illustrates a point where the strict vehicular method breaks down. (I'll get to that in another post)
chephy
They are designed for different things. Any road that doesn't accommodate the needs of any legal user of this road is poorly designed. By definition.
Advocating for a shoulder would be nice, but would be incredibly expensive, in addition to being an unforgivable in terms of limiting access to rural areas during the construction period. Every once in a while (like once a decade), these roads are redone. Recently, this usually results in a cycleable shoulder, if not a bike lane. This is good, of course.
It is not that bad, but I bring it out because it illustrates a point where the strict vehicular method breaks down. (I'll get to that in another post) Yep, the same way they would have to break down on a sidewalk. I will repeat myself: given any rule of the road, there exists a sufficiently poor design can make following this rule of the road an impossibility.
Brian Ratliff
Brian,
I don't understand a few things about this (including what you've written about your commute in the past).
What exactly do you mean by "keeping the valve closed" versus keeping it open (where do you ride to close it, where do you ride to open it?). And what do you believe would be a "strict vehicular cycling approach" here? How does where you ride differ from this "strict vehicular cycling approach" , and how doeseach differ from where you might ride a 25 mph street legal mini-bike on this road?
1) Strict vehicular cycling is where one only lets cars pass when there is no danger to a cyclist; when the lane cannot be safely shared. I believe this is what you advocate.
2) Keeping the valve "closed" is to ride in the middle of the lane when the lane cannot be safely shared. To open it, I invite cars to pass, even in somewhat risky areas, to avoid a greater risk of them passing out of frustration in a patently dangerous manner. I've seen cars almost head on other cars trying to pass me out of frustration. Their problem, I know, but chances are that I will recieve an unhealthy dose of inconvenience if an accident did occur. More than once in my area have there been three cars involved because a car head-on'ed another car and the passed car got the brunt of the accident.
3) There are no 25 mph, street legal mini-bikes in this area. Never have seen one. I'd imagine they'd ride much like I ride my bike, since I am also traveling at around 20-25 mph.
I also don't understand how it can be that "there are fewer cars passing.", regardless of what you're doing, unless your average speed is changing. If your average speed is about the same, the number of cars passing you should be the same. The only issue is whether they are constantly passing you, or whether they are passing you in spurts. So I don't get the "fewer cars" thing.
bad wording on my part. Fewer cars pass at one time. Obviously, the same total number of cars pass me. When I crack the valve though, they don't get backed up and I don't have a dozen cars passing me all in a string on a short stretch of road.
Brian Ratliff
Any road that doesn't accommodate the needs of any legal user of this road is poorly designed. By definition.
You are right, of course. I am a legal user, so the road should accomodate me. And it does, in its own way. However, while it it could be better, I can see why it is and am understandable of the situation. Traffic density is light relative to an in-city multilane arterial, and the roads are, likewise, single lane and sparse. The stretch will be rebuilt in the next decade or so; perhaps I will mention a shoulder at that point.
Helmet Head
Brian - ever bring a measuring tape on your commute, and, during a long obvious lull, run out there and measure the actual width of the lane? That would be interesting.
Brian Ratliff
Brian - ever bring a measuring tape on your commute, and, during a long obvious lull, run out there and measure the actual width of the lane? That would be interesting.
I've been meaning to. However, I either have the thought and no measuring tape, or have the tape and not the thought.
Anyway; part of it is exactly the width of the widest trailer. I'd say 9 feet (I followed one in my car one day and both its wheels were just touching the line to either side). The rest is a foot or two wider, I think. Maybe next Monday, when I next ride the route.
noisebeam
2) Keeping the valve "closed" is to ride in the middle of the lane when the lane cannot be safely shared. To open it, I invite cars to pass, even in somewhat risky areas, to avoid a greater risk of them passing out of frustration in a patently dangerous manner. I've seen cars almost head on other cars trying to pass me out of frustration. Their problem, I know, but chances are that I will recieve an unhealthy dose of inconvenience if an accident did occur. More than once in my area have there been three cars involved because a car head-on'ed another car and the passed car got the brunt of the accident.
I understand and practice a form of this approach, but on a different type of road (two same direction lane with NOL)
I ride centerish when there is no car immediately behind, this gets most drivers to merge left into adjacent lane sooner - they see me and well in advance can tell they can't squeeze by. But not everyone does or can merge early.
But if a car is respectfully following (i.e. not dangerously tailgating or honking) I will move right to make the pass easier. It is easier for a car to slip into and out of a smallish gap in adjacent lane when I am right biased than center. The risk to this approach of course is how the 2nd driver following the first responds, so if there is a car close following the first I may not do this.
Your situation sounds much more difficult. Do you often get driver harrassment before you invite cars to pas with the move right routine?
Al
noisebeam
Traffic density is light relative to an in-city multilane arterial,
Ahhh, that helps me understand a bit better. For some reasons I was under the impression from your description that traffic was heavy, that is a long string of 10-20 cars quickly developed behind you if you didn't let them pass.
Al
Helmet Head
I could have sworn that a rural highway we have was only 9 feet, because a full-width (8.5') "desert toy" trailer appeared to go from edge to edge. I was surprised to find that the lane was a full 11' when I actually measured it (which is still too narrow to safely share).
BTW, just because a lane is too narrow to safely share side by side, doesn't mean a VC should take a centerish position, particularly when there is faster traffic approaching from behind. There is nothing non-VC about moving right to facilitate their passing, as long as it is not so far right as to invite them to try to fully squeeze into the lane with you.
chephy
You are right, of course. I am a legal user, so the road should accomodate me. And it does, in its own way. Yeah, in its own very special little way. :p I'd feel threatened on such a road, not "accommodated".
However, while it it could be better, I can see why it is and am understandable of the situation. Traffic density is light relative to an in-city multilane arterial, and the roads are, likewise, single lane and sparse. But if it's so light, then there should be no problem with cars' going at least partially into the oncoming traffic lane to pass you. If there is a problem, I guess traffic is not so light after all.
Now, I do understand why the road was built this way, but cannot justify it. Apparently the government can't either because, as you say yourself, when such stretches are rebuilt, the road does get widened. So it's not as though everyone thinks this design is optimal.
Brian Ratliff
I understand and practice a form of this approach, but on a different type of road (two same direction lane with NOL)
I ride centerish when there is no car immediately behind, this gets most drivers to merge left into adjacent lane sooner - they see me and well in advance can tell they can't squeeze by. But not everyone does or can merge early.
But if a car is respectfully following (i.e. not dangerously tailgating or honking) I will move right to make the pass easier. It is easier for a car to slip into and out of a smallish gap in adjacent lane when I am right biased than center. The risk to this approach of course is how the 2nd driver following the first responds, so if there is a car close following the first I may not do this.
Your situation sounds much more difficult. Do you often get driver harrassment before you invite cars to pas with the move right routine?
Al
I try not to allow cars to follow for any amount of time and I keep to the right at all times, since, at 55-70 mph, they are approaching fast. Most are respectful and give me space and/or pass slowly. Around sharp curves, I take the lane and motion cars to keep from passing, then immediately give it back and allow them to pass.
BTW, when I mean "to the right," I mean, riding about 3-6 inches to the left of the fog line. My idea is to give a car the most confidence I can in passing me. Since these are rural highways though, there is no cross traffic. The reduction in sight line between me staying to the right vs. in the middle is neglegiable. In general, I have to accept closer passes, and I do this gladly as long as they choose their moments well. The last thing I want is for them to make a wild, ill-timed pass into oncoming traffic out of frustation (and indeed this happens) where closing speeds are in excess of 100 mph around a blind corner.
Brian Ratliff
But if it's so light, then there should be no problem with cars' going at least partially into the oncoming traffic lane to pass you. If there is a problem, I guess traffic is not so light after all.
This is the problem. The road was built for light traffic. Most of the time it is light traffic. On commute hours though, it is not as light and, while cars can still pass partially in the other lane (and they have to), they cannot do this consistently and only on short sections between curves. By taking the lane and not yielding (which I have never done), I can easily create a mile long stretch of cars within a few minutes.
I should add that these are the quintessential rural cycling roads on the weekends, where traffic is very light.
noisebeam
IBTW, when I mean "to the right," I mean, riding about 3-6 inches to the left of the fog line. My idea is to give a car the most confidence I can in passing me.
Pehaps what I don't understand if if you are far right as you describe, can a motorist pass you safely while an oncoming car is present? Or do they still need to merge left across center line? (it sounds like the answers are no, yes, if lane is 9' wide)
If my (no, yes) assumption is right what benefit does being right provide? Does it allow a passing motorist to be able to use a slightly smaller gap in opposing traffic? Or do they still need to wait as long for a gap in traffic as if you were center biased?
Al
Helmet Head
Since you take the lane around sharp curves, Brian, why not take the lane whenever you have no one approaching from behind? Do you use a mirror? With 55-70 mph traffic, the sight lines must be good enough to be able to notice approaching traffic far before it is necessary to move aside to facilitate their passing, if you're monitoring to the rear every 4-6 seconds or so.
The benefit of taking the lane, and, yet, moving aside before they reach you, is that you are more conspicuous to them as they are approaching you. What's the downside?
sbhikes
Pehaps what I don't understand if if you are far right as you describe, can a motorist pass you safely while an oncoming car is present?
Al
Being a user of narrow roads quite often I will tell you how they do it. One guy crosses the yellow line to pass, the oncoming car squeezes over as far to his right as he can to allow it. I see this every single day.
Brian Ratliff
Pehaps what I don't understand if if you are far right as you describe, can a motorist pass you safely while an oncoming car is present? Or do they still need to merge left across center line? (it sounds like the answers are no, yes, if lane is 9' wide)
If my (no, yes) assumption is right what benefit does being right provide? Does it allow a passing motorist to be able to use a slightly smaller gap in opposing traffic? Or do they still need to wait as long for a gap in traffic as if you were center biased?
Al
Sort of. Car back moves across the line a foot or two, car up moves a bit to his right. Otherwise the car back needs to wait for a gap, or at least a smallish car up. Passing in the full oncoming lane is only possible with absolute confidence on short sections. Also, by requiring that the car back only merge a few feet into the oncoming lane, they can clear the oncoming lane much more quickly as the car up approaches.
I'm not sure why it works, but keeping to the extreme right makes the whole passing process easier for the car back. Perhaps it is simply confidence; if there turns out to be a car up, the car back can move over knowing they are not going to drift into me. It may be because they don't need to slow as much as they search for an opening since less of an opening is necessary to pass me. Perhaps it is simply that the whole maneuver simply requires less lateral movement, making it less disruptive.
Brian Ratliff
Since you take the lane around sharp curves, Brian, why not take the lane whenever you have no one approaching from behind? Do you use a mirror? With 55-70 mph traffic, the sight lines must be good enough to be able to notice approaching traffic far before it is necessary to move aside to facilitate their passing, if you're monitoring to the rear every 4-6 seconds or so.
The benefit of taking the lane, and, yet, moving aside before they reach you, is that you are more conspicuous to them as they are approaching you. What's the downside?
First, the sight lines are very short, much shorter than you are probably used to; a couple hundred feet possibly, shorter in many areas.
Second, I don't have a mirror; never needed one. I use my ears and a look back if needed. I might rethink this, but it wouldn't change my riding behavior, nor the behavior of the cars. It is not a matter of visibility or awareness; it is a matter of sight lines, closing speeds, and passing opportunities.
Third, I do do this sometimes (keeping to the center), when there are breaks in the traffic and I have sufficient speed. Since I am in the lane and directly in the way of the motorist anywhere I place myself, most of the time it is simply more expedient to keep to the side. This is not a problem with visibility or having the drivers take notice. This is a problem of space, or lack thereof.
Brian Ratliff
Being a user of narrow roads quite often I will tell you how they do it. One guy crosses the yellow line to pass, the oncoming car squeezes over as far to his right as he can to allow it. I see this every single day.
Yea, what she said.
sbhikes
Since you take the lane around sharp curves, Brian, why not take the lane whenever you have no one approaching from behind? Do you use a mirror? With 55-70 mph traffic, the sight lines must be good enough to be able to notice approaching traffic far before it is necessary to move aside to facilitate their passing, if you're monitoring to the rear every 4-6 seconds or so.
The benefit of taking the lane, and, yet, moving aside before they reach you, is that you are more conspicuous to them as they are approaching you. What's the downside?
Why the heck would it even be necessary to ride down the center pulling over for people approaching from behind. That's an awful lot of unnecessary lateral movement for no possible gain. If you're going to have to move over you may as well just stay there. On a road like that a motorist can't miss a cyclist in their path even if he's off to the side as far as possible. He's still in their path either way. At least, like Brian said, it's less disruptive. Less disruptive is also safer.