I-Like-To-Bike
04-20-06, 07:53 AM
Can you be any more inflammatory? HH, you need a quite a bit of Preparation H...:rolleyes:
Or more K-Y.
Or more K-Y.
View Full Version : The Notion... explained.
billh
04-20-06, 08:11 AM
I don't think you have thought about this... but your centerish/moving to the side method also reinforces "the Notion." By moving out of the way like this, you are clearly showing motorists that "bikes are supposed to get outta the way."
You are reinforcing the Notion as much as you believe bike lanes do.
Something to consider.
I never heard of this maneuver. To me, if you are going to take the lane, TAKE THE LANE. If you can move to the right, then you should have been there all along. This swerving out of the way at the last moment is for the birds. Be predictable.
You are reinforcing the Notion as much as you believe bike lanes do.
Something to consider.
I never heard of this maneuver. To me, if you are going to take the lane, TAKE THE LANE. If you can move to the right, then you should have been there all along. This swerving out of the way at the last moment is for the birds. Be predictable.
sbhikes
04-20-06, 08:16 AM
This whole Notion thing and the supposed causes of it takes the cake. If anything will reinforce any notions that bikes should get out of the way it's bike riders who are in the way all defiantly and steely-eyed!
Anybody who rides a bike in the lane when a perfectly usable region to the side is provided only looks like a nut job. Anybody who rides like that then gets out of the way only inspires a sick sort of gratitude: "Thank god that nut job go out of the way. I was worried I would have to figure out how to deal with that nut job."
I see no reason at all to be extra conspicuous while tooling down the boulevard. I'm a Honda Accord of the cycling world. Not interested in generating any kind of excess attention. I know they see me riding in the bike lane. I know they respect me when I need to merge left or use the full lane. I ride almost every day so I know what I'm doing and I know it works.
I gotta tell you I see a lot more value in the New Urbanism and livable community movement than this arms races of steely-eyed, alpha dog, show 'em, we belong defiance crap spewed forth around here.
Anybody who rides a bike in the lane when a perfectly usable region to the side is provided only looks like a nut job. Anybody who rides like that then gets out of the way only inspires a sick sort of gratitude: "Thank god that nut job go out of the way. I was worried I would have to figure out how to deal with that nut job."
I see no reason at all to be extra conspicuous while tooling down the boulevard. I'm a Honda Accord of the cycling world. Not interested in generating any kind of excess attention. I know they see me riding in the bike lane. I know they respect me when I need to merge left or use the full lane. I ride almost every day so I know what I'm doing and I know it works.
I gotta tell you I see a lot more value in the New Urbanism and livable community movement than this arms races of steely-eyed, alpha dog, show 'em, we belong defiance crap spewed forth around here.
billh
04-20-06, 08:16 AM
Actually, for those of us who cycle on narrow two lane roads almost exclusively, being in the way all the time is a fact of life. Sure, if I rode like a cyclist I saw on the way home from lunch today I could possibly be out of the way, but I don't trust my cycling skills enough to balance on a 4" wide section of pavement. Nor do I trust that a wider than average vehicle won't try to pass me. So, I ride in the middle of the road almost exclusively and do not move. No reinforcing of the Notion although there are many examples of the Notion existing when I do this. Actually, going to the LBS yesterday was one of the best. I'm turning left off a two lane each way road onto a three lane each way road (no shoulder, 45 mph speed limit, worst cycling road in the area but it gets me to the bike store ironically). I make my left turn in the right lane and move into the right lane on the new road and stop behind the line of cars at the next light. Driver of BMW SUV passes on my right in the right turning lane and tells me to get on the sidewalk (which doesn't exist).
I agree. Around here, the grid system almost always provides a lower traffic residential street parallel to the main 4-lane high traffic street. The minimal same-direction traffic passes with ease.
I agree. Around here, the grid system almost always provides a lower traffic residential street parallel to the main 4-lane high traffic street. The minimal same-direction traffic passes with ease.
genec
04-20-06, 08:21 AM
Properly engineered velotransit lanes are safe to ride in both the presence or absense of auto traffic.
Bek, where do you ride when making a left turn on a very narrow road without a velotransit lane?
Bek, where do you ride when going straight on a very narrow road without a velotransit lane and where cars want to make right turns?
Bek where do you ride when the road is very narrow and there are cars parked along each side of the road and there is no velotransit lane?
Bek, where do you ride when making a left turn on a very narrow road without a velotransit lane?
Bek, where do you ride when going straight on a very narrow road without a velotransit lane and where cars want to make right turns?
Bek where do you ride when the road is very narrow and there are cars parked along each side of the road and there is no velotransit lane?
billh
04-20-06, 08:22 AM
I think you misunderstand the law. Here is what it actually says:
It explicitly says that if the lane is too narrow to share with another vehicle, you don't have to ride right. Or conversely, the only time you have to keep right is when the lane is wide enough to share. Like almost all keep-right laws, it is written in a manner to make it sound like is supports 'then Notion' on a quick read but upon closer reading the opposite is true.
No, it's written to support The Notion that slow-moving vehicles stay out of the way of faster moving vehicles. That is the plain intent of the law. Paraphrasing, the law says "ride to the right EXCEPT . . ." NOT "ride in the center EXCEPT . . . ." I think you are the one turning it around. However, the authors were wise enough to write in the important exceptions. Thank God for that.
It explicitly says that if the lane is too narrow to share with another vehicle, you don't have to ride right. Or conversely, the only time you have to keep right is when the lane is wide enough to share. Like almost all keep-right laws, it is written in a manner to make it sound like is supports 'then Notion' on a quick read but upon closer reading the opposite is true.
No, it's written to support The Notion that slow-moving vehicles stay out of the way of faster moving vehicles. That is the plain intent of the law. Paraphrasing, the law says "ride to the right EXCEPT . . ." NOT "ride in the center EXCEPT . . . ." I think you are the one turning it around. However, the authors were wise enough to write in the important exceptions. Thank God for that.
joejack951
04-20-06, 08:35 AM
Anybody who rides a bike in the lane when a perfectly usable region to the side is provided only looks like a nut job.
Define "perfectly useable region." I rarely see a section of road to the side that is better than the section in the middle. If the middle is free, I'll use it. Why would you ride to the side where you are more likely to encounter obstacles when the middle of the road is not being used?
Define "perfectly useable region." I rarely see a section of road to the side that is better than the section in the middle. If the middle is free, I'll use it. Why would you ride to the side where you are more likely to encounter obstacles when the middle of the road is not being used?
Bekologist
04-20-06, 08:43 AM
Hey, Gene, I ride like caveman.
I use a modified POWERWEAVE method, with my own insoucient flair; just to show the drivers I am wise to their car driving tricks...
I'm like the Corvair of the bike riding world (You'll like that analogy, Mr. HEAD, eh?) What did Ralph Nader say.... "Unsafe at Any Speed?"
Like yesterday at lunch, I pulled out of a burger stand with a burger clenched in my mouth, right into the traffic flow onto a 30 MPH road with heavy noontime traffic, to grab the lane, then signal a left from the double yellow...pedalling slowly, holding my position until a spot opened up enough for me to execute the turn....I went for a bite of the burger shortly thereafter...
I use a modified POWERWEAVE method, with my own insoucient flair; just to show the drivers I am wise to their car driving tricks...
I'm like the Corvair of the bike riding world (You'll like that analogy, Mr. HEAD, eh?) What did Ralph Nader say.... "Unsafe at Any Speed?"
Like yesterday at lunch, I pulled out of a burger stand with a burger clenched in my mouth, right into the traffic flow onto a 30 MPH road with heavy noontime traffic, to grab the lane, then signal a left from the double yellow...pedalling slowly, holding my position until a spot opened up enough for me to execute the turn....I went for a bite of the burger shortly thereafter...
galen_52657
04-20-06, 08:48 AM
I was thinking about genec's post this week when two interesting things happened - one while driving the other while cycling. For the first one, I was traveling on the Baltimore Beltway. I was getting off, so I moved to the right-hand 'exit only' lane. This lane is very long - over a quarter of a mile - and another lane adjoins it on the right side about half way for cars coming off another interstate. There was a car in front of me and my speed was the same as theirs - 62 MPH (55 zone). But, there was quite a bit of room between my car and the car in front. There was a car behind me tailgating. The tailgating car passed me on the right ramp, cut back into the exit lane only to then be stuck behind the car in front. We all exited the interstate together and once on York Road we were all at the stop light together. In fact, I ended up in front of the car that had just passed me after a couple of lights.
Later that day I was riding my bike on a two-lane suburban road, open section no shoulder with a speed limit of 30 MPH. It was just after 5 PM and this road gets busy. I was coasting down hill at 32 MPH toward a stop light, in the center of the lane. As I start to slow for the cars in front, a woman passes me just to get ahead of me.
What does this mean? People are dumb... and impatient.
Later that day I was riding my bike on a two-lane suburban road, open section no shoulder with a speed limit of 30 MPH. It was just after 5 PM and this road gets busy. I was coasting down hill at 32 MPH toward a stop light, in the center of the lane. As I start to slow for the cars in front, a woman passes me just to get ahead of me.
What does this mean? People are dumb... and impatient.
noisebeam
04-20-06, 09:01 AM
If this happens to anyone every day but almost never happens to me, and I live in a place with lots of bike lanes, how are bike lanes to blame?
Where I live is designated by the LAB as a Silver City Bike Friendly City (http://www.tempe.gov/bikeprogram/Bike%20Friendly%20Award.10.13.05.pdf), primarily due to the number of miles of bikeways including many roads with BLs we have. Take a look at the list of other cities (http://www.bicyclefriendlycommunity.org/list.htm) (inc. SB) given this award.
I only get harrassed when riding on roads with NOLs or when riding on roads with BLs in heavy (i.e. rush hour) traffic when I leave the BL to make turns, etc.
Al
Where I live is designated by the LAB as a Silver City Bike Friendly City (http://www.tempe.gov/bikeprogram/Bike%20Friendly%20Award.10.13.05.pdf), primarily due to the number of miles of bikeways including many roads with BLs we have. Take a look at the list of other cities (http://www.bicyclefriendlycommunity.org/list.htm) (inc. SB) given this award.
I only get harrassed when riding on roads with NOLs or when riding on roads with BLs in heavy (i.e. rush hour) traffic when I leave the BL to make turns, etc.
Al
genec
04-20-06, 09:04 AM
Anybody who rides a bike in the lane when a perfectly usable region to the side is provided only looks like a nut job.
OK so where do we ride when a "perfectly usable region to the side" does not exist?
And what should the reaction of motorists that come up behind us be when we are riding on roads where a "perfectly usable region to the side" does not exist?
This is the area I have the biggest issue with... Not some center biased whatever, but the fact that even in the face of no "perfectly usable region to the side," motorists still continue to believe "Bikes are supposed to get outta the way."
I asked a motorist several months back that yelled at me (while I was actually in the Road 2 class... ) how exactly he expected a cyclist to make a left turn (which is what I was doing). His response: "You figure it out."
Well I had... I was making a left turn at a left turn lane... but apparently that did not conform to his thinking that "Bikes are supposed to get outta the way."
BTW that motorist was going straight to the next left turn... I didn't even impede him (any more than I impeded the motorist in the OP), yet the reaction was still the same... "Bikes are supposed to get outta the way."
That just doesn't work. Bikes are going to get in the way sometimes... all we expect is that motorists should understand this and accept it.
That does not seem to be the mindset... motorists think: "Bikes are supposed to get outta the way."
OK so where do we ride when a "perfectly usable region to the side" does not exist?
And what should the reaction of motorists that come up behind us be when we are riding on roads where a "perfectly usable region to the side" does not exist?
This is the area I have the biggest issue with... Not some center biased whatever, but the fact that even in the face of no "perfectly usable region to the side," motorists still continue to believe "Bikes are supposed to get outta the way."
I asked a motorist several months back that yelled at me (while I was actually in the Road 2 class... ) how exactly he expected a cyclist to make a left turn (which is what I was doing). His response: "You figure it out."
Well I had... I was making a left turn at a left turn lane... but apparently that did not conform to his thinking that "Bikes are supposed to get outta the way."
BTW that motorist was going straight to the next left turn... I didn't even impede him (any more than I impeded the motorist in the OP), yet the reaction was still the same... "Bikes are supposed to get outta the way."
That just doesn't work. Bikes are going to get in the way sometimes... all we expect is that motorists should understand this and accept it.
That does not seem to be the mindset... motorists think: "Bikes are supposed to get outta the way."
sbhikes
04-20-06, 09:24 AM
I think a lot of you confuse inconvenience with danger. By that I mean that while pine needles and grates and little pieces of glass are inconvenient to ride on they are not necessarily dangerous. I've ridden over these things and worse by accident with no ill effects. Pleasant? No. Dangerous? No.
So what you define as obstacles and hazards are often only inconveniences.
But lets say that there are real dangers on the side of the road. Or let's say that inconvenience is a really good reason to never ride to the side. Well, then that means that there is no perfectly usable region to the side, does it?
What I'm talking about is the useless riding down the center for the sole reason of being conspicuous. I see no need for that. It is reliance on a pull method of data input. I must remember to constantly pull data from the system through the use of my mirror or turning my head in order to do this safely and without undo inconvenience to others. Well, my mirror has a small field of view and is jiggly. While the view is pretty good from my mirror it is not as good a field of view as I can see in front of me.
I opt for less dependency on my mirror and put some trust in the fact that as humans we can see nearly 180 degrees in front of us very easily without even turning our heads. So I put some trust in the fact that approaching vehicles from my rear can see me with their eyes before I can see them in my mirror.
Most of you all seem like you do not trust that people can see you unless you are directly in the line of their motion, but I do trust that they can see me when I'm off to the side. If they could not, then they would not even know what a bike lane was or that they existed, and we all know that is hogwash.
So what you define as obstacles and hazards are often only inconveniences.
But lets say that there are real dangers on the side of the road. Or let's say that inconvenience is a really good reason to never ride to the side. Well, then that means that there is no perfectly usable region to the side, does it?
What I'm talking about is the useless riding down the center for the sole reason of being conspicuous. I see no need for that. It is reliance on a pull method of data input. I must remember to constantly pull data from the system through the use of my mirror or turning my head in order to do this safely and without undo inconvenience to others. Well, my mirror has a small field of view and is jiggly. While the view is pretty good from my mirror it is not as good a field of view as I can see in front of me.
I opt for less dependency on my mirror and put some trust in the fact that as humans we can see nearly 180 degrees in front of us very easily without even turning our heads. So I put some trust in the fact that approaching vehicles from my rear can see me with their eyes before I can see them in my mirror.
Most of you all seem like you do not trust that people can see you unless you are directly in the line of their motion, but I do trust that they can see me when I'm off to the side. If they could not, then they would not even know what a bike lane was or that they existed, and we all know that is hogwash.
LittleBigMan
04-20-06, 09:26 AM
A: "Bike lanes are nice, I feel safer in them."
B: "But every lane is a bike lane."
A: " Bike lanes give me my own space."
B: "But you take up that space anyway, why paint a line?"
A: "The line keeps motorists out."
B: "No, it doesn't, and besides, it's filled with debris."
A: "That's because it keeps motorists out."
B: "But you should be treated equally with motorists."
A: "I don't want to be treated like a motorist."
B: "But you don't need a line."
A: "Motorists respect a line."
B: "Motorists should respect a bike."
A: "They do respect me."
B: "But bike lanes don't make you safe."
A: "Bike lanes are nice, I feel safer in them."
B: "But every lane is a bike lane."
:cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:
Why can't we all just let each other alone...
B: "But every lane is a bike lane."
A: " Bike lanes give me my own space."
B: "But you take up that space anyway, why paint a line?"
A: "The line keeps motorists out."
B: "No, it doesn't, and besides, it's filled with debris."
A: "That's because it keeps motorists out."
B: "But you should be treated equally with motorists."
A: "I don't want to be treated like a motorist."
B: "But you don't need a line."
A: "Motorists respect a line."
B: "Motorists should respect a bike."
A: "They do respect me."
B: "But bike lanes don't make you safe."
A: "Bike lanes are nice, I feel safer in them."
B: "But every lane is a bike lane."
:cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:
Why can't we all just let each other alone...
Bekologist
04-20-06, 09:28 AM
Gene, motorists yell at me every day, pretty much, no matter how or where I'm riding. Get over it.
I'm with SB on that one, though- a bicyclist tooling along in the traffic lane, ignoring a proper velotransit lane looks like a pompous adze to the rest of the public. Maybe in their powerswerve-addled minds, they are advancing 'notions' of their own; but these are mostly introspective ego strokes of the alphadawg cyclist within.
I'm with SB on that one, though- a bicyclist tooling along in the traffic lane, ignoring a proper velotransit lane looks like a pompous adze to the rest of the public. Maybe in their powerswerve-addled minds, they are advancing 'notions' of their own; but these are mostly introspective ego strokes of the alphadawg cyclist within.
I-Like-To-Bike
04-20-06, 09:29 AM
What does this mean? People are dumb... and impatient.
What does this mean? Yes, people are dumb and impatient; AND you must not drive very much (or cycle much in traffic if you are shocked!, shocked! at seeing this type of road behavior.
What does this mean? Yes, people are dumb and impatient; AND you must not drive very much (or cycle much in traffic if you are shocked!, shocked! at seeing this type of road behavior.
Helmet Head
04-20-06, 09:30 AM
Anybody who rides a bike in the [traffic] lane when a perfectly usable region to the side is provided only looks like a nut job.
You would think. But when you actually see a cyclist doing this - as long as he is not unnecessarily impeding traffic - it actuallly looks quite normal, or so it is reported to me (by friends and family who have spotted me riding while they were driving).
Besides, I am not going to sacrifice my safety -- and make no mistake, riding near the outside edge of the road makes you more vulnerable to our biggest threat - cross traffic -- just because Diane thinks it makes me look like a "nut job".
Finally, I don't care why they do it, as long as they do it. And by "it" I mean treat me better, which is what they do when I ride this way.
You would think. But when you actually see a cyclist doing this - as long as he is not unnecessarily impeding traffic - it actuallly looks quite normal, or so it is reported to me (by friends and family who have spotted me riding while they were driving).
Besides, I am not going to sacrifice my safety -- and make no mistake, riding near the outside edge of the road makes you more vulnerable to our biggest threat - cross traffic -- just because Diane thinks it makes me look like a "nut job".
Finally, I don't care why they do it, as long as they do it. And by "it" I mean treat me better, which is what they do when I ride this way.
Keith99
04-20-06, 09:32 AM
I think a lot of you confuse inconvenience with danger. By that I mean that while pine needles and grates and little pieces of glass are inconvenient to ride on they are not necessarily dangerous. I've ridden over these things and worse by accident with no ill effects. Pleasant? No. Dangerous? No.
So what you define as obstacles and hazards are often only inconveniences.
Grates just an inconvience? People have died because of a wheel dropping into a grate and the sudden stop. Go back a few years and grates rivaled the worst of drivers as a danger. If one is thinking ONLY about water removal then a grate with the slits running the same direction as the road is the way to go. (Actually thinking only of water removal I guess a hole with no grate is best, but that is going a bit far).
So what you define as obstacles and hazards are often only inconveniences.
Grates just an inconvience? People have died because of a wheel dropping into a grate and the sudden stop. Go back a few years and grates rivaled the worst of drivers as a danger. If one is thinking ONLY about water removal then a grate with the slits running the same direction as the road is the way to go. (Actually thinking only of water removal I guess a hole with no grate is best, but that is going a bit far).
Helmet Head
04-20-06, 09:38 AM
I think a lot of you confuse inconvenience with danger. By that I mean that while pine needles and grates and little pieces of glass are inconvenient to ride on they are not necessarily dangerous. I've ridden over these things and worse by accident with no ill effects. Pleasant? No. Dangerous? No.
So what you define as obstacles and hazards are often only inconveniences.
But lets say that there are real dangers on the side of the road. Or let's say that inconvenience is a really good reason to never ride to the side. Well, then that means that there is no perfectly usable region to the side, does it?
I already addressed this in my response to you in #223. Did you read it?
http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=2424890&postcount=223
So what you define as obstacles and hazards are often only inconveniences.
But lets say that there are real dangers on the side of the road. Or let's say that inconvenience is a really good reason to never ride to the side. Well, then that means that there is no perfectly usable region to the side, does it?
I already addressed this in my response to you in #223. Did you read it?
http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=2424890&postcount=223
billh
04-20-06, 09:38 AM
Define "perfectly useable region." I rarely see a section of road to the side that is better than the section in the middle. If the middle is free, I'll use it. Why would you ride to the side where you are more likely to encounter obstacles when the middle of the road is not being used?
. . . because it's the law? "More likely to encounter obstacles" is different than "There is an obstacle in my way". "Better than" is different than "Safe."
. . . because it's the law? "More likely to encounter obstacles" is different than "There is an obstacle in my way". "Better than" is different than "Safe."
noisebeam
04-20-06, 09:40 AM
Al, I believe this (your harrassement) is because of where you ride. you want to take the most direct route ( for that I don't blame you). BUT you don't want to take an extra 15 minutes for a back route. and then you complain because motorists don't do what they should. guess what?
Well, the back route takes >50% longer travel time. Over the course of a week that is 2.5hrs. more of travel time. If it was all quiet backroads I'd consider it, but its not. It only reduces my distance on NOL from ~3mi to ~1.5mi and increases my time on arterials. It also requires I ride on a MUP thru a playground where yesterday I had to get off my bike and wait for several kids to finish skateboarding and move their metal bar they put in the path. A few days before I courteously waited for two moms with their strollers to become aware of me and move. (I treat pedestrians on the MUP like I want motorists to treat me on the road, I wait and don't yell or holler to get out of my way). Yesterday on the back route home I was in center of lane on a 25mph road slowing for a four way stop with a car approaching from rear. They honked and made a last second pass in front of me, cutting very close to my left. Its not as pleasant on the back roads as one may think.
I also don't find the more direct arterial route more dangerous, just noting that NOLs induce more motorist harrassment.
Finally I've ridden this direct route over 300 times and only rarely do I get over the top harrassment. I often get honks and harmless yells, but the close following, laying on horn and passing as close as possible are relatively rare occurances - these occurances have bunched in a cluster lately and I shared them here. As to the 'complaining' perhaps it comes off as that way, but what I am trying to do is note it happens, relaying my experience to folks like HH and other proponents of VC that even when one does the right things, harrassment occurs - a reality check if you will for some that may need it, but with the unfortunate side effect of making riding on arterials look worse than it actually is for those considering doing it. If I was complaining then there would be no excuse not to take the back way.
Sure its a tough one for me. I love riding the direct route, its quick I get to keep a steady pace for longer periods of time, I spend 50% less time in the 115deg summer sun stopped at lights and starting from multiple stops. Most days the NOL is actually the most fun part of my ride home, when all flows like it should and I don't have to hassle with negotiating in and out of BLs or left/right in WOL thru intersections, etc. Some of my most friendly verbal motorist encounters have been on this stretch too.
Another thought, as I understand your (rando) ride on the sidewalk along Broadway. Why not find a back way that lets you avoid this and instead ride on the street on quiet back roads?
Al
Well, the back route takes >50% longer travel time. Over the course of a week that is 2.5hrs. more of travel time. If it was all quiet backroads I'd consider it, but its not. It only reduces my distance on NOL from ~3mi to ~1.5mi and increases my time on arterials. It also requires I ride on a MUP thru a playground where yesterday I had to get off my bike and wait for several kids to finish skateboarding and move their metal bar they put in the path. A few days before I courteously waited for two moms with their strollers to become aware of me and move. (I treat pedestrians on the MUP like I want motorists to treat me on the road, I wait and don't yell or holler to get out of my way). Yesterday on the back route home I was in center of lane on a 25mph road slowing for a four way stop with a car approaching from rear. They honked and made a last second pass in front of me, cutting very close to my left. Its not as pleasant on the back roads as one may think.
I also don't find the more direct arterial route more dangerous, just noting that NOLs induce more motorist harrassment.
Finally I've ridden this direct route over 300 times and only rarely do I get over the top harrassment. I often get honks and harmless yells, but the close following, laying on horn and passing as close as possible are relatively rare occurances - these occurances have bunched in a cluster lately and I shared them here. As to the 'complaining' perhaps it comes off as that way, but what I am trying to do is note it happens, relaying my experience to folks like HH and other proponents of VC that even when one does the right things, harrassment occurs - a reality check if you will for some that may need it, but with the unfortunate side effect of making riding on arterials look worse than it actually is for those considering doing it. If I was complaining then there would be no excuse not to take the back way.
Sure its a tough one for me. I love riding the direct route, its quick I get to keep a steady pace for longer periods of time, I spend 50% less time in the 115deg summer sun stopped at lights and starting from multiple stops. Most days the NOL is actually the most fun part of my ride home, when all flows like it should and I don't have to hassle with negotiating in and out of BLs or left/right in WOL thru intersections, etc. Some of my most friendly verbal motorist encounters have been on this stretch too.
Another thought, as I understand your (rando) ride on the sidewalk along Broadway. Why not find a back way that lets you avoid this and instead ride on the street on quiet back roads?
Al
billh
04-20-06, 09:40 AM
Like yesterday at lunch, I pulled out of a burger stand with a burger clenched in my mouth, right into the traffic flow onto a 30 MPH road with heavy noontime traffic, to grab the lane, then signal a left from the double yellow...pedalling slowly, holding my position until a spot opened up enough for me to execute the turn....I went for a bite of the burger shortly thereafter...
. . . I actually saw a CYCLIST using a cell phone yesterday on my way home. I rode by him and he was evidently chatting to his wife, "honey, I got in at six so left a little early . . . ." I shoulda slapped him up side the head!
. . . I actually saw a CYCLIST using a cell phone yesterday on my way home. I rode by him and he was evidently chatting to his wife, "honey, I got in at six so left a little early . . . ." I shoulda slapped him up side the head!
Helmet Head
04-20-06, 09:42 AM
. . . because it's the law? "More likely to encounter obstacles" is different than "There is an obstacle in my way". "Better than" is different than "Safe."
The law in question (at least in CA) starts with saying it only applies "when moving slower than the normal speed of same direction traffic at that time". When no other traffic is present, the law does not apply. When faster traffic approaches, it applies, and you move aside. Earlier you said you never heard of this technique. You've never had a SMV move aside to facilitate your passing? Where have you been? It's normal common sense behavior for all drivers of SMVs. And, after they're passed, they move back to their normal centered position in the lane. The fact that your vehicle happens to be of one type or another should have no bearing on this basic rule of the road.
The law in question (at least in CA) starts with saying it only applies "when moving slower than the normal speed of same direction traffic at that time". When no other traffic is present, the law does not apply. When faster traffic approaches, it applies, and you move aside. Earlier you said you never heard of this technique. You've never had a SMV move aside to facilitate your passing? Where have you been? It's normal common sense behavior for all drivers of SMVs. And, after they're passed, they move back to their normal centered position in the lane. The fact that your vehicle happens to be of one type or another should have no bearing on this basic rule of the road.
galen_52657
04-20-06, 09:46 AM
What does this mean? Yes, people are dumb and impatient; AND you must not drive very much (or cycle much in traffic if you are shocked!, shocked! at seeing this type of road behavior.
Who said they were 'shocked'? Did I say I was 'shocked' in my post? NOOOOO... actually, I think my tone was 'matter of fact'. And for the record, I drive about 24,000 miles a year and cycle about 6,000 miles a year.
Who said they were 'shocked'? Did I say I was 'shocked' in my post? NOOOOO... actually, I think my tone was 'matter of fact'. And for the record, I drive about 24,000 miles a year and cycle about 6,000 miles a year.
Bekologist
04-20-06, 10:00 AM
Bill, I WAS on my bicycle at lunch yesterday, with the burger in my mouth - and I don't mean a harley or a vespa or my car as if they WERE a bicycle, like some of the powerswerve alpha dawgs in this forum are sometimes confused about.
I-Like-To-Bike
04-20-06, 10:01 AM
Who said they were 'shocked'? Did I say I was 'shocked' in my post? NOOOOO... actually, I think my tone was 'matter of fact'. And for the record, I drive about 24,000 miles a year and cycle about 6,000 miles a year.
You are correct you did not specifically note that you were shocked. But that you even bother to mention such a common occurance puts you in the same camp as Genec who thinks he has seen a revelation of the "NOTION" when he hasn't seen nuthin' yet. And is writing about nuthin' at all.
You are correct you did not specifically note that you were shocked. But that you even bother to mention such a common occurance puts you in the same camp as Genec who thinks he has seen a revelation of the "NOTION" when he hasn't seen nuthin' yet. And is writing about nuthin' at all.
joejack951
04-20-06, 10:48 AM
. . . because it's the law? "More likely to encounter obstacles" is different than "There is an obstacle in my way". "Better than" is different than "Safe."
There is no law in my area to keep to the right with no faster same direction traffic. I believe that only a very few states have anything like that in the rule books.
There is no law in my area to keep to the right with no faster same direction traffic. I believe that only a very few states have anything like that in the rule books.
billh
04-20-06, 11:52 AM
The law in question (at least in CA) starts with saying it only applies "when moving slower than the normal speed of same direction traffic at that time". When no other traffic is present, the law does not apply. When faster traffic approaches, it applies, and you move aside. Earlier you said you never heard of this technique. You've never had a SMV move aside to facilitate your passing? Where have you been? It's normal common sense behavior for all drivers of SMVs. And, after they're passed, they move back to their normal centered position in the lane. The fact that your vehicle happens to be of one type or another should have no bearing on this basic rule of the road.
Well, the Missouri law is different in that it requires riding to the right if the cyclist is riding slower than the posted speed. Since I live in Missouri, I have to follow the laws of my state. Therefore, I don't have the option to ride in the center whenever I feel like it. I'd imagine even in CA, most cyclists are moving slower than the nomal speed of same-direction traffic at the time.
Again, if an SMV has room to move to the side, ie. it is safe to ride there, then they should have been riding/ driving there in the first place. The center of the lane is NOT the normal position for SMV, at least according to my reading of the law, in MO or CA; assuming that the "normal" condition is that cyclists are riding slower than the posted speed (MO) or slower than the flow of traffic at the time (CA).
307.190. Every person operating a bicycle or motorized bicycle at less than the posted speed or slower than the flow of traffic upon a street or highway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as safe, exercising due care when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction,
EXCEPT
when making a left turn, when avoiding hazardous conditions, when the lane is too narrow to share with another vehicle, or when on a one-way street. Bicyclists may ride abreast when not impeding other vehicles.
Well, the Missouri law is different in that it requires riding to the right if the cyclist is riding slower than the posted speed. Since I live in Missouri, I have to follow the laws of my state. Therefore, I don't have the option to ride in the center whenever I feel like it. I'd imagine even in CA, most cyclists are moving slower than the nomal speed of same-direction traffic at the time.
Again, if an SMV has room to move to the side, ie. it is safe to ride there, then they should have been riding/ driving there in the first place. The center of the lane is NOT the normal position for SMV, at least according to my reading of the law, in MO or CA; assuming that the "normal" condition is that cyclists are riding slower than the posted speed (MO) or slower than the flow of traffic at the time (CA).
307.190. Every person operating a bicycle or motorized bicycle at less than the posted speed or slower than the flow of traffic upon a street or highway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as safe, exercising due care when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction,
EXCEPT
when making a left turn, when avoiding hazardous conditions, when the lane is too narrow to share with another vehicle, or when on a one-way street. Bicyclists may ride abreast when not impeding other vehicles.
sbhikes
04-20-06, 12:29 PM
Well, the back route takes >50% longer travel time. Over the course of a week that is 2.5hrs. more of travel time. If it was all quiet backroads I'd consider it, but its not. It only reduces my distance on NOL from ~3mi to ~1.5mi and increases my time on arterials. It also requires I ride on a MUP thru a playground where yesterday I had to get off my bike and wait for several kids to finish skateboarding and move their metal bar they put in the path. A few days before I courteously waited for two moms with their strollers to become aware of me and move. (I treat pedestrians on the MUP like I want motorists to treat me on the road, I wait and don't yell or holler to get out of my way). Yesterday on the back route home I was in center of lane on a 25mph road slowing for a four way stop with a car approaching from rear. They honked and made a last second pass in front of me, cutting very close to my left. Its not as pleasant on the back roads as one may think.
I also don't find the more direct arterial route more dangerous, just noting that NOLs induce more motorist harrassment.
Finally I've ridden this direct route over 300 times and only rarely do I get over the top harrassment. I often get honks and harmless yells, but the close following, laying on horn and passing as close as possible are relatively rare occurances - these occurances have bunched in a cluster lately and I shared them here. As to the 'complaining' perhaps it comes off as that way, but what I am trying to do is note it happens, relaying my experience to folks like HH and other proponents of VC that even when one does the right things, harrassment occurs - a reality check if you will for some that may need it, but with the unfortunate side effect of making riding on arterials look worse than it actually is for those considering doing it. If I was complaining then there would be no excuse not to take the back way.
Sure its a tough one for me. I love riding the direct route, its quick I get to keep a steady pace for longer periods of time, I spend 50% less time in the 115deg summer sun stopped at lights and starting from multiple stops. Most days the NOL is actually the most fun part of my ride home, when all flows like it should and I don't have to hassle with negotiating in and out of BLs or left/right in WOL thru intersections, etc. Some of my most friendly verbal motorist encounters have been on this stretch too.
Another thought, as I understand your (rando) ride on the sidewalk along Broadway. Why not find a back way that lets you avoid this and instead ride on the street on quiet back roads?
Al
Right. And what are people offering you to deal with this situation? Psy-op counter-actions when what is needed is for cyclists as a group to go to the city and explain that you need to use this road, it is not safe to use, alternatives are not satisfactory, something must be done to accommodate you.
You are taxpayers, you own the roads as citizens of the republic. The daily violence you experience indicates the government is not providing for the common welfare. By accommodation I mean whatever it is you feel will make the situation tenable. A bike lane? A bike path? Widening of the lane or roads? Whatever. If it is not possible to do any of those things, then put it back on them. What are they going to do about it? Step up enforcement? Aggressively punish aggressive driving. Put up signs? It is in their interest to meet the requirements of their constituents and if they do not, use collective power, not individual power which is nearly powerless in the face of system-level problems.
It is unsatisfactory and even destructive to reduce this large, systemic problem to a series of little individual defiant psy-op tactics you can do. It is not going to solve anything.
I also don't find the more direct arterial route more dangerous, just noting that NOLs induce more motorist harrassment.
Finally I've ridden this direct route over 300 times and only rarely do I get over the top harrassment. I often get honks and harmless yells, but the close following, laying on horn and passing as close as possible are relatively rare occurances - these occurances have bunched in a cluster lately and I shared them here. As to the 'complaining' perhaps it comes off as that way, but what I am trying to do is note it happens, relaying my experience to folks like HH and other proponents of VC that even when one does the right things, harrassment occurs - a reality check if you will for some that may need it, but with the unfortunate side effect of making riding on arterials look worse than it actually is for those considering doing it. If I was complaining then there would be no excuse not to take the back way.
Sure its a tough one for me. I love riding the direct route, its quick I get to keep a steady pace for longer periods of time, I spend 50% less time in the 115deg summer sun stopped at lights and starting from multiple stops. Most days the NOL is actually the most fun part of my ride home, when all flows like it should and I don't have to hassle with negotiating in and out of BLs or left/right in WOL thru intersections, etc. Some of my most friendly verbal motorist encounters have been on this stretch too.
Another thought, as I understand your (rando) ride on the sidewalk along Broadway. Why not find a back way that lets you avoid this and instead ride on the street on quiet back roads?
Al
Right. And what are people offering you to deal with this situation? Psy-op counter-actions when what is needed is for cyclists as a group to go to the city and explain that you need to use this road, it is not safe to use, alternatives are not satisfactory, something must be done to accommodate you.
You are taxpayers, you own the roads as citizens of the republic. The daily violence you experience indicates the government is not providing for the common welfare. By accommodation I mean whatever it is you feel will make the situation tenable. A bike lane? A bike path? Widening of the lane or roads? Whatever. If it is not possible to do any of those things, then put it back on them. What are they going to do about it? Step up enforcement? Aggressively punish aggressive driving. Put up signs? It is in their interest to meet the requirements of their constituents and if they do not, use collective power, not individual power which is nearly powerless in the face of system-level problems.
It is unsatisfactory and even destructive to reduce this large, systemic problem to a series of little individual defiant psy-op tactics you can do. It is not going to solve anything.
Helmet Head
04-20-06, 12:29 PM
Helmet head...years ago, in the dark ages when email was state of the art (1983) we had a university on-line discussion board like this. The name of the board was 'graffiti' and ANYTHING could be said, there were no deletions, and of course the constant topic of discussion was abortion. Often on this board there were 250 letters sent per DAY! It was remarkable. Of course no one took it TOO seriously...but still..they took sending letters seriously. My friend, who's nickname was Salamir, said it was the most bizarre thing he'd ever done.
roughstuff, you are probably thinking of a usenet news group like talk.abortion or alt.abortion, or perhaps an abortion newsgroup local to your university, that you read through a net news reader on an Ascii terminal connected to a VAX 11/780 running BSD 4.3 or something. Those were the good ol' days, eh?
Can you be any more inflammatory? HH, you need a quite a bit of Preparation H...:rolleyes:
Now even reminiscing about the good 'ol days is inflammatory? What the heck?
roughstuff, you are probably thinking of a usenet news group like talk.abortion or alt.abortion, or perhaps an abortion newsgroup local to your university, that you read through a net news reader on an Ascii terminal connected to a VAX 11/780 running BSD 4.3 or something. Those were the good ol' days, eh?
Can you be any more inflammatory? HH, you need a quite a bit of Preparation H...:rolleyes:
Now even reminiscing about the good 'ol days is inflammatory? What the heck?
Helmet Head
04-20-06, 12:43 PM
I'd imagine even in CA, most cyclists are moving slower than the nomal speed of same-direction traffic at the time.
More often than not, even in congested suburbia during rush hour, thanks to red lights, I find that there are more gaps than there are periods of constant traffic flow. Much to my surprise, once I started paying attention, I learned that much of the time, if not most of the time, there is no other same-direction traffic at any given moment. If your style is just keep to the right and focus on what's in front of you, you're likely to not notice how often and how long the gaps in same-direction traffic are.
Again, if an SMV has room to move to the side, ie. it is safe to ride there, then they should have been riding/ driving there in the first place.
The classic case is the big slow RV pulling a boat up a long straight stretch of steep hill on a 2 lane highway. Sure, if there are cars behind it, it should move to the side, perhaps even onto the shoulder if safe and reasonable to do so. But if there is no one behind it, it is typically driven normally centered in the lane. The same rule of the road applies to any SMV, including a bicycle. The fact that the lawmakers happened to screw up in your state does not change that fact.
More often than not, even in congested suburbia during rush hour, thanks to red lights, I find that there are more gaps than there are periods of constant traffic flow. Much to my surprise, once I started paying attention, I learned that much of the time, if not most of the time, there is no other same-direction traffic at any given moment. If your style is just keep to the right and focus on what's in front of you, you're likely to not notice how often and how long the gaps in same-direction traffic are.
Again, if an SMV has room to move to the side, ie. it is safe to ride there, then they should have been riding/ driving there in the first place.
The classic case is the big slow RV pulling a boat up a long straight stretch of steep hill on a 2 lane highway. Sure, if there are cars behind it, it should move to the side, perhaps even onto the shoulder if safe and reasonable to do so. But if there is no one behind it, it is typically driven normally centered in the lane. The same rule of the road applies to any SMV, including a bicycle. The fact that the lawmakers happened to screw up in your state does not change that fact.
billh
04-20-06, 12:50 PM
The fact that the lawmakers happened to screw up in your state does not change that fact.
. . . so are you suggesting I break the law?
. . . so are you suggesting I break the law?
noisebeam
04-20-06, 12:56 PM
What are they going to do about it?
There are lots of great plans and vision statements (http://www.tempe.gov/tim/CompPlan/TempeCompTransPlan1.pdf):
It is in plan to have a BL on this very street by 2030:
http://www.tempe.gov/tim/CompPlan/2030BikePedFacilities.tif
Funding has been approved for improvements to the road in question:
http://www.tempe.gov/tim/Overviewofprogram.htm
Specifically "Secured $4.5 million in federal grant funding for pedestrian and bike improvements on Broadway Road, University Drive, Curry Road, Mill and Southern avenues" (although the table with detailed info on the projects I reviewed at a commitee meeting did not include road widening for the stretch I ride on) Details include:
"The City of Tempe will begin a streetscape improvement
project this spring on south Mill and east Southern avenues, including a
traffic signal at Mill Avenue and Broadmor Drive. The purpose of the
project is to provide a safe crossing for pedestrians at Broadmor Drive
and to encourage alternate modes of transportation like bicycling and
walking. Elements of the streetscape project will include:
* Installation of a traffic signal at Mill Avenue and Broadmor
Drive
* Widening sidewalks to eight feet on Mill Avenue between Broadway
Road and Southern Avenue
* Widening sidewalks to eight feet on Southern Avenue between Mill
Avenue and Rural Road
* Improved curb ramps at intersections
* Installation of a bus pullout on the southeast corner of
Southern and Mill avenues"
Al
There are lots of great plans and vision statements (http://www.tempe.gov/tim/CompPlan/TempeCompTransPlan1.pdf):
It is in plan to have a BL on this very street by 2030:
http://www.tempe.gov/tim/CompPlan/2030BikePedFacilities.tif
Funding has been approved for improvements to the road in question:
http://www.tempe.gov/tim/Overviewofprogram.htm
Specifically "Secured $4.5 million in federal grant funding for pedestrian and bike improvements on Broadway Road, University Drive, Curry Road, Mill and Southern avenues" (although the table with detailed info on the projects I reviewed at a commitee meeting did not include road widening for the stretch I ride on) Details include:
"The City of Tempe will begin a streetscape improvement
project this spring on south Mill and east Southern avenues, including a
traffic signal at Mill Avenue and Broadmor Drive. The purpose of the
project is to provide a safe crossing for pedestrians at Broadmor Drive
and to encourage alternate modes of transportation like bicycling and
walking. Elements of the streetscape project will include:
* Installation of a traffic signal at Mill Avenue and Broadmor
Drive
* Widening sidewalks to eight feet on Mill Avenue between Broadway
Road and Southern Avenue
* Widening sidewalks to eight feet on Southern Avenue between Mill
Avenue and Rural Road
* Improved curb ramps at intersections
* Installation of a bus pullout on the southeast corner of
Southern and Mill avenues"
Al
rando
04-20-06, 01:04 PM
Well, the back route takes >50% longer travel time. Over the course of a week that is 2.5hrs. more of travel time. If it was all quiet backroads I'd consider it, but its not. It only reduces my distance on NOL from ~3mi to ~1.5mi and increases my time on arterials. It also requires I ride on a MUP thru a playground where yesterday I had to get off my bike and wait for several kids to finish skateboarding and move their metal bar they put in the path. A few days before I courteously waited for two moms with their strollers to become aware of me and move. (I treat pedestrians on the MUP like I want motorists to treat me on the road, I wait and don't yell or holler to get out of my way). Yesterday on the back route home I was in center of lane on a 25mph road slowing for a four way stop with a car approaching from rear. They honked and made a last second pass in front of me, cutting very close to my left. Its not as pleasant on the back roads as one may think.
I also don't find the more direct arterial route more dangerous, just noting that NOLs induce more motorist harrassment.
Finally I've ridden this direct route over 300 times and only rarely do I get over the top harrassment. I often get honks and harmless yells, but the close following, laying on horn and passing as close as possible are relatively rare occurances - these occurances have bunched in a cluster lately and I shared them here. As to the 'complaining' perhaps it comes off as that way, but what I am trying to do is note it happens, relaying my experience to folks like HH and other proponents of VC that even when one does the right things, harrassment occurs - a reality check if you will for some that may need it, but with the unfortunate side effect of making riding on arterials look worse than it actually is for those considering doing it. If I was complaining then there would be no excuse not to take the back way.
Sure its a tough one for me. I love riding the direct route, its quick I get to keep a steady pace for longer periods of time, I spend 50% less time in the 115deg summer sun stopped at lights and starting from multiple stops. Most days the NOL is actually the most fun part of my ride home, when all flows like it should and I don't have to hassle with negotiating in and out of BLs or left/right in WOL thru intersections, etc. Some of my most friendly verbal motorist encounters have been on this stretch too.
Another thought, as I understand your (rando) ride on the sidewalk along Broadway. Why not find a back way that lets you avoid this and instead ride on the street on quiet back roads?
Al
Al,
I apologize, I guess I misunderstood your post. and... touche, you got me, I use the broadway sidewalk because it is virtually unused and the most direct route!
Randy
I also don't find the more direct arterial route more dangerous, just noting that NOLs induce more motorist harrassment.
Finally I've ridden this direct route over 300 times and only rarely do I get over the top harrassment. I often get honks and harmless yells, but the close following, laying on horn and passing as close as possible are relatively rare occurances - these occurances have bunched in a cluster lately and I shared them here. As to the 'complaining' perhaps it comes off as that way, but what I am trying to do is note it happens, relaying my experience to folks like HH and other proponents of VC that even when one does the right things, harrassment occurs - a reality check if you will for some that may need it, but with the unfortunate side effect of making riding on arterials look worse than it actually is for those considering doing it. If I was complaining then there would be no excuse not to take the back way.
Sure its a tough one for me. I love riding the direct route, its quick I get to keep a steady pace for longer periods of time, I spend 50% less time in the 115deg summer sun stopped at lights and starting from multiple stops. Most days the NOL is actually the most fun part of my ride home, when all flows like it should and I don't have to hassle with negotiating in and out of BLs or left/right in WOL thru intersections, etc. Some of my most friendly verbal motorist encounters have been on this stretch too.
Another thought, as I understand your (rando) ride on the sidewalk along Broadway. Why not find a back way that lets you avoid this and instead ride on the street on quiet back roads?
Al
Al,
I apologize, I guess I misunderstood your post. and... touche, you got me, I use the broadway sidewalk because it is virtually unused and the most direct route!
Randy
noisebeam
04-20-06, 01:20 PM
I apologize, I guess I misunderstood your post. and... touche, you got me, I use the broadway sidewalk because it is virtually unused and the most direct route!
I don't think you truely misunderstood, the points you made are valid. You are right I have alternates, what is left to judgement and personal preference is if they are better or not.
I do partly (and only a very small part) ride on Southern cause I should be able to. Yes (a very small) part of it is getting folks to see more cyclists riding on this particular road, the road that leads me to my home. But I don't ride it because of demonstrating a 'general cycling rights' principle, I do it because I have to at times I ride on this stretch of road when there are no alternative at all, not even a longer more tedious route. For example to get to the grocery store, the LBS, the convieniece store, the barber, the two nearest coffee shops and to the community college. For these the only alternative is riding on the sidewalk. My wife rides this route near daily to a location with no alternate route and she rides on the sidewalk vs. the stretch of road I have shown video and photos of. We have talked about the risks of sidewalk cycling and she knows how to handle them. She does not feel comfortable on this particular road (but has experience and knowledge how to ride on an arterial safely) So yes, I have stated practical reasons why I ride on this road for my commute, but I will acknowledge those practical reasons are boosted by the principle of it as a specific road I do (and others like my wife should) need to ride on when there are no alternatives.
Al
I don't think you truely misunderstood, the points you made are valid. You are right I have alternates, what is left to judgement and personal preference is if they are better or not.
I do partly (and only a very small part) ride on Southern cause I should be able to. Yes (a very small) part of it is getting folks to see more cyclists riding on this particular road, the road that leads me to my home. But I don't ride it because of demonstrating a 'general cycling rights' principle, I do it because I have to at times I ride on this stretch of road when there are no alternative at all, not even a longer more tedious route. For example to get to the grocery store, the LBS, the convieniece store, the barber, the two nearest coffee shops and to the community college. For these the only alternative is riding on the sidewalk. My wife rides this route near daily to a location with no alternate route and she rides on the sidewalk vs. the stretch of road I have shown video and photos of. We have talked about the risks of sidewalk cycling and she knows how to handle them. She does not feel comfortable on this particular road (but has experience and knowledge how to ride on an arterial safely) So yes, I have stated practical reasons why I ride on this road for my commute, but I will acknowledge those practical reasons are boosted by the principle of it as a specific road I do (and others like my wife should) need to ride on when there are no alternatives.
Al
rando
04-20-06, 01:42 PM
[QUOTE=noisebeam]There are lots of great plans and vision statements (http://www.tempe.gov/tim/CompPlan/TempeCompTransPlan1.pdf):
It is in plan to have a BL on this very street by 2030:
http://www.tempe.gov/tim/CompPlan/2030BikePedFacilities.tif
oh, boy! only 24 years away! I'll only be 68!:p
It is in plan to have a BL on this very street by 2030:
http://www.tempe.gov/tim/CompPlan/2030BikePedFacilities.tif
oh, boy! only 24 years away! I'll only be 68!:p
Helmet Head
04-20-06, 02:39 PM
. . . so are you suggesting I break the law?
No. I was just saying that if they legally require cyclists to keep to the right even in the absence of faster same-direction traffic, that is not consistent with the traditional rules of the road governing the behavior of SMVs.
Whether you choose to prioritize the letter of the law over your own safety is up to you.
No. I was just saying that if they legally require cyclists to keep to the right even in the absence of faster same-direction traffic, that is not consistent with the traditional rules of the road governing the behavior of SMVs.
Whether you choose to prioritize the letter of the law over your own safety is up to you.
billh
04-20-06, 02:56 PM
No. I was just saying that if they legally require cyclists to keep to the right even in the absence of faster same-direction traffic, that is not consistent with the traditional rules of the road governing the behavior of SMVs.
Whether you choose to prioritize the letter of the law over your own safety is up to you.
"Letter of the law"! I'd say "spirit" or "intent" of the law. Where do you derive your tradition for SMV driving/ riding in the lane of travel of faster vehicles?
Anyway, my point stands, namely that The Notion is built into the law, at least in Missouri. Under normal conditions, motorists SHOULD expect that cyclists "get outta my way". Unfortunately, the problem is when motorists fail to understand the important exceptions to the norm.
Whether you choose to prioritize the letter of the law over your own safety is up to you.
"Letter of the law"! I'd say "spirit" or "intent" of the law. Where do you derive your tradition for SMV driving/ riding in the lane of travel of faster vehicles?
Anyway, my point stands, namely that The Notion is built into the law, at least in Missouri. Under normal conditions, motorists SHOULD expect that cyclists "get outta my way". Unfortunately, the problem is when motorists fail to understand the important exceptions to the norm.
Helmet Head
04-20-06, 03:05 PM
Where do you derive your tradition for SMV driving/ riding in the lane of travel of faster vehicles?
See #280.
Anyway, my point stands, namely that The Notion is built into the law, ...
This point is not in dispute, Bill. Of course the widespread prevalence of The Notion includes inflitration of the minds of lawmakers. That doesn't make it right.
Under normal conditions, motorists SHOULD expect that cyclists "get outta my way".
No, there is nothing abnormal about lanes too narrow to be shared, using intersections or just trying to be more conspicuous. Seeing these constantly occuring situations as "exceptions" is what leads to unsafe habits exemplified by "Through a construction zone that had narrow lanes than usual. I was right-biased out of habit, ..."
http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=2428854&postcount=10
See #280.
Anyway, my point stands, namely that The Notion is built into the law, ...
This point is not in dispute, Bill. Of course the widespread prevalence of The Notion includes inflitration of the minds of lawmakers. That doesn't make it right.
Under normal conditions, motorists SHOULD expect that cyclists "get outta my way".
No, there is nothing abnormal about lanes too narrow to be shared, using intersections or just trying to be more conspicuous. Seeing these constantly occuring situations as "exceptions" is what leads to unsafe habits exemplified by "Through a construction zone that had narrow lanes than usual. I was right-biased out of habit, ..."
http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=2428854&postcount=10
noisebeam
04-20-06, 03:11 PM
"Through a construction zone that had narrow lanes than usual. "
Just an aside... My AM commute has a construction zone where the BL and right lane are blocked, with early signage and barriers to merge left. Soon after the construction I make a left turn. Every normal morning I negotiate the left turn lane by lane and make my way over in heavy traffic. Now with the construction traffic slows at the merge point and then flows at about 25mph thru the single narrow lane instead of 45mph on multiple lanes and I can fit right in smoothly. I wish every day was a construction day!
Al
Just an aside... My AM commute has a construction zone where the BL and right lane are blocked, with early signage and barriers to merge left. Soon after the construction I make a left turn. Every normal morning I negotiate the left turn lane by lane and make my way over in heavy traffic. Now with the construction traffic slows at the merge point and then flows at about 25mph thru the single narrow lane instead of 45mph on multiple lanes and I can fit right in smoothly. I wish every day was a construction day!
Al
billh
04-20-06, 03:11 PM
See #280.
This point is not in dispute, Bill. Of course the widespread prevalence of The Notion includes inflitration of the minds of lawmakers. That doesn't make it right.
No, there is nothing abnormal about lanes too narrow to be shared, using intersections or just trying to be more conspicuous. Seeing these constantly occuring situations as "exceptions" is what leads to unsafe habits exemplified by "Through a construction zone that had narrow lanes than usual. I was right-biased out of habit, ..."
http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=2428854&postcount=10
. . . that anecdote supports my point that narrow lanes are the exception, given that lane is usually wider. My lane position worked just fine. I was perfectly . . . conspicuous and visible. She honked. I responded with a more center position. What's the problem?
Ah, so The Notion has even infiltrated the law? Now in our velorutionary zeal, we are supposed to go out and break the law, thus furthering the notion that cyclists are scofflaws. Good one, HH.
This point is not in dispute, Bill. Of course the widespread prevalence of The Notion includes inflitration of the minds of lawmakers. That doesn't make it right.
No, there is nothing abnormal about lanes too narrow to be shared, using intersections or just trying to be more conspicuous. Seeing these constantly occuring situations as "exceptions" is what leads to unsafe habits exemplified by "Through a construction zone that had narrow lanes than usual. I was right-biased out of habit, ..."
http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=2428854&postcount=10
. . . that anecdote supports my point that narrow lanes are the exception, given that lane is usually wider. My lane position worked just fine. I was perfectly . . . conspicuous and visible. She honked. I responded with a more center position. What's the problem?
Ah, so The Notion has even infiltrated the law? Now in our velorutionary zeal, we are supposed to go out and break the law, thus furthering the notion that cyclists are scofflaws. Good one, HH.
Helmet Head
04-20-06, 03:15 PM
The Notion is so ingrained in your psyche Bill, it's scary.
noisebeam
04-20-06, 03:32 PM
The Notion is so ingrained in your psyche ....
I wonder if the notion is ingrained in every humans pshche, perhaps every animals.
Whether one is walking, driving, cycling, running and whether one is on a road, a sidewalk, in the woods, isn't the ingrained response to hearing a faster (and often more dangerous) thing from behind to get out of the way, to move aside?
Does an elephant charging down a dusty path except a smaller beast to move out of the way?
Al
I wonder if the notion is ingrained in every humans pshche, perhaps every animals.
Whether one is walking, driving, cycling, running and whether one is on a road, a sidewalk, in the woods, isn't the ingrained response to hearing a faster (and often more dangerous) thing from behind to get out of the way, to move aside?
Does an elephant charging down a dusty path except a smaller beast to move out of the way?
Al
Helmet Head
04-20-06, 03:38 PM
Yes, that's probably a factor Al, but we're supposed to be able to us our rational minds to overcome our visceral responses when they arise in inappropriate contexts.
In that sense, Forester has a point in describing this phenomena as a phobia.
In that sense, Forester has a point in describing this phenomena as a phobia.
noisebeam
04-20-06, 04:16 PM
Yes, that's probably a factor Al, but we're supposed to be able to us our rational minds to overcome our visceral responses when they arise in inappropriate contexts.
But we want the motorist to loose the notion. How do you get the charging elephant motorist to stop using their speed and mass to try and intimidate cyclist to get out of the way? How do you train them to use their rational minds that 'cyclist have every right to be there' vs. the visceral desire to go fast, be first and get there now?
Oh, I know, by training one at a time over the course of millions of motorist interactions with the rare cyclist who doesn't have the notion and therefore doesn't respond viserally to the charging elephant coming from behind. How many thousands of years is this going to take?
Al
But we want the motorist to loose the notion. How do you get the charging elephant motorist to stop using their speed and mass to try and intimidate cyclist to get out of the way? How do you train them to use their rational minds that 'cyclist have every right to be there' vs. the visceral desire to go fast, be first and get there now?
Oh, I know, by training one at a time over the course of millions of motorist interactions with the rare cyclist who doesn't have the notion and therefore doesn't respond viserally to the charging elephant coming from behind. How many thousands of years is this going to take?
Al
Helmet Head
04-20-06, 04:24 PM
But we want the motorist to loose the notion.
We? Got a mouse in your pocket? What I want is to get cycling advocates like Diane, Bill and even Gene to an extent to lose the notion, then other cyclists, then, finally, maybe motorists, if that's even necessary. But #3 (motorists) is long, long way down that list.
How can we expect uninterested motorists to lose the notion with "education" if we can't even convince interested cyclists on this forum to lose it?
We? Got a mouse in your pocket? What I want is to get cycling advocates like Diane, Bill and even Gene to an extent to lose the notion, then other cyclists, then, finally, maybe motorists, if that's even necessary. But #3 (motorists) is long, long way down that list.
How can we expect uninterested motorists to lose the notion with "education" if we can't even convince interested cyclists on this forum to lose it?
noisebeam
04-20-06, 04:33 PM
We? Got a mouse in your pocket? What I want is to get cycling advocates like Diane, Bill and even Gene to an extent to lose the notion, then other cyclists, then, finally, maybe motorists, if that's even necessary. But #3 (motorists) is long, long way down that list.
How can we expect uninterested motorists to lose the notion with "education" if we can't even convince interested cyclists on this forum to lose it?
Sorry, 'we' meaning cyclists who sometimes like to ride just to get a cup of coffee at the local shop in the morning without going into alpha mad dog mode. Save that for after the caffeine fix.
So D, B, and others loose the notion, big deal, and a million other motorist and cyclists still have it. A few others loose it thru the convincing of some self appointed cycling experts and all it will take is a few nasty motorist with a big dose of the notion to give it right back. Its contagious, spread thru the violence virus.
Bottom line is a long way off for notion free cycling is not in my lifetime.
Al
How can we expect uninterested motorists to lose the notion with "education" if we can't even convince interested cyclists on this forum to lose it?
Sorry, 'we' meaning cyclists who sometimes like to ride just to get a cup of coffee at the local shop in the morning without going into alpha mad dog mode. Save that for after the caffeine fix.
So D, B, and others loose the notion, big deal, and a million other motorist and cyclists still have it. A few others loose it thru the convincing of some self appointed cycling experts and all it will take is a few nasty motorist with a big dose of the notion to give it right back. Its contagious, spread thru the violence virus.
Bottom line is a long way off for notion free cycling is not in my lifetime.
Al
chephy
04-20-06, 04:35 PM
Chephy,
First, posts like this one show you are a clear thinker and a very good writer. When you challenge a point, you show that you have read it, understood it, and you address what was actually intended by the person to whom you're responding. Thank you for the kind words, Helmet Head. I try. :) I must say that I quite admire your patience with some of the members of this board.
All I can tell you is that eye contact, waving, smiling, and nodding are a big part of what I do when riding in traffic. I rarely impede anyone who has not explicitly yielded to me. Therefore, I don't give anyone intent on teaching me a lesson about The Notion much of an opportunity to do so, since I naturally do not impede them. I cannot emphasize enough what a big part mirror usage plays in enabling me to do so. A mirror might indeed be one crucial piece of biking equipment I am missing. The more I think about it, the more I realize how useful it is.
Riding in traffic requires a certain amount of assertiveness; there is no way around that. You cannot ride in traffic as if you're on a quiet country road with no one else around, as pleasant as that might be to think about (and many dangerously appear to expect out of bike lane riding). Yes, attention is one thing, assertiveness is another. Monitoring the road as I ride and thinking ahead about possible complications and a way to avoid it is a natural habit for me at this point, bike lane or no bike lane. Unfortunately, it seems much more assertiveness is required of a biker than of just about any other road user. Although perhaps this is just my "biker inferiority complex" and it's mostly in my head. At least partly it's "just in my head" for sure.
I wish I could ride with you; betcha it would be very interesting and I would learn a lot... Well, if I'm ever coming to your parts of the world perhaps I could accompany you on a ride one day. :)
I don't find it to be true that there is a tradeoff between safety and number of confrontations. I think there is a fairly widely held belief, at least on this forum, that riding more assertively might be somewhat safer, but leads to more confrontations. I can't explain why (I can only guess as to the reason), but I find that getting more assertive about my rights reduces the confrontations. This is very interesting. Though I haven't noticed this, I must say there is sense to this. If you respect yourself others will too. And, of course, if you're predictable and look like you know what you are doing - again more respect is due. Now I just gotta learn to exude confidence. :)
First, posts like this one show you are a clear thinker and a very good writer. When you challenge a point, you show that you have read it, understood it, and you address what was actually intended by the person to whom you're responding. Thank you for the kind words, Helmet Head. I try. :) I must say that I quite admire your patience with some of the members of this board.
All I can tell you is that eye contact, waving, smiling, and nodding are a big part of what I do when riding in traffic. I rarely impede anyone who has not explicitly yielded to me. Therefore, I don't give anyone intent on teaching me a lesson about The Notion much of an opportunity to do so, since I naturally do not impede them. I cannot emphasize enough what a big part mirror usage plays in enabling me to do so. A mirror might indeed be one crucial piece of biking equipment I am missing. The more I think about it, the more I realize how useful it is.
Riding in traffic requires a certain amount of assertiveness; there is no way around that. You cannot ride in traffic as if you're on a quiet country road with no one else around, as pleasant as that might be to think about (and many dangerously appear to expect out of bike lane riding). Yes, attention is one thing, assertiveness is another. Monitoring the road as I ride and thinking ahead about possible complications and a way to avoid it is a natural habit for me at this point, bike lane or no bike lane. Unfortunately, it seems much more assertiveness is required of a biker than of just about any other road user. Although perhaps this is just my "biker inferiority complex" and it's mostly in my head. At least partly it's "just in my head" for sure.
I wish I could ride with you; betcha it would be very interesting and I would learn a lot... Well, if I'm ever coming to your parts of the world perhaps I could accompany you on a ride one day. :)
I don't find it to be true that there is a tradeoff between safety and number of confrontations. I think there is a fairly widely held belief, at least on this forum, that riding more assertively might be somewhat safer, but leads to more confrontations. I can't explain why (I can only guess as to the reason), but I find that getting more assertive about my rights reduces the confrontations. This is very interesting. Though I haven't noticed this, I must say there is sense to this. If you respect yourself others will too. And, of course, if you're predictable and look like you know what you are doing - again more respect is due. Now I just gotta learn to exude confidence. :)
chephy
04-20-06, 04:41 PM
But we want the motorist to loose the notion. How do you get the charging elephant motorist to stop using their speed and mass to try and intimidate cyclist to get out of the way? How do you train them to use their rational minds that 'cyclist have every right to be there' vs. the visceral desire to go fast, be first and get there now?
Oh, I know, by training one at a time over the course of millions of motorist interactions with the rare cyclist who doesn't have the notion and therefore doesn't respond viserally to the charging elephant coming from behind. How many thousands of years is this going to take? How many thousands of years did it take to get the motorists to stop at pedestrian crosswalks? Surely big animals don't stop just to let small animals cross their paths!
As I noted before, there are many examples where big and fast cars will yield to smaller and slower things and the drivers of those big and fast cars do not find it in the least unnatural or aggravating. And it couldn't've taken more than a few decades to train them because cars haven't been around for so long after all.;)
Bottom line is a long way off for notion free cycling is not in my lifetime. Sometimes things change faster than one might expect. That's easy for me to remember because my formative years happened to coincide with a period of an extremely drastic change of the country where I used to live (the collapse of the USSR). :) The problem isn't that change is impossible, the problem is that a bunch of individuals can't do it all by themselves. There got to be more powerful forces involved than a few people submitting posts to an online forum...
Oh, I know, by training one at a time over the course of millions of motorist interactions with the rare cyclist who doesn't have the notion and therefore doesn't respond viserally to the charging elephant coming from behind. How many thousands of years is this going to take? How many thousands of years did it take to get the motorists to stop at pedestrian crosswalks? Surely big animals don't stop just to let small animals cross their paths!
As I noted before, there are many examples where big and fast cars will yield to smaller and slower things and the drivers of those big and fast cars do not find it in the least unnatural or aggravating. And it couldn't've taken more than a few decades to train them because cars haven't been around for so long after all.;)
Bottom line is a long way off for notion free cycling is not in my lifetime. Sometimes things change faster than one might expect. That's easy for me to remember because my formative years happened to coincide with a period of an extremely drastic change of the country where I used to live (the collapse of the USSR). :) The problem isn't that change is impossible, the problem is that a bunch of individuals can't do it all by themselves. There got to be more powerful forces involved than a few people submitting posts to an online forum...
Helmet Head
04-20-06, 04:48 PM
So D, B, and others loose the notion, big deal, and a million other motorist and cyclists still have it.
It would be a big deal, because should that happen, we would have discovered a method that works, at least with them. Then, with their help, and perhaps some refinements to the method, we could all work to expand the circle of those who have lost the notion. The key is discover an effective method, then let exponential expansion of repeated application of the method do its magic.
I am optimistic that at least we appear to have achieved general recognition of the existence and widespread prevalence of The Notion (except for the hardest-headed holdouts like Chipcom). That's an important first step. You can't solve a problem until you recognize that it exists!
It would be a big deal, because should that happen, we would have discovered a method that works, at least with them. Then, with their help, and perhaps some refinements to the method, we could all work to expand the circle of those who have lost the notion. The key is discover an effective method, then let exponential expansion of repeated application of the method do its magic.
I am optimistic that at least we appear to have achieved general recognition of the existence and widespread prevalence of The Notion (except for the hardest-headed holdouts like Chipcom). That's an important first step. You can't solve a problem until you recognize that it exists!
noisebeam
04-20-06, 04:51 PM
How many thousands of years did it take to get the motorists to stop at pedestrian crosswalks? Surely big animals don't stop just to let small animals cross their paths!
Motorists (here) do not stop at arterial crosswalks unless there is a red light (i.e at controlled x-walks only). The notion exists at x-walks too. 46.8% of pedestrian accidents in my area occured in x-walks. 37% of x-walk accidents due to motorist not yielding ROW.
I hope you are not suggesting that cycling safety declines to the level of x-walk safety.
Al
Motorists (here) do not stop at arterial crosswalks unless there is a red light (i.e at controlled x-walks only). The notion exists at x-walks too. 46.8% of pedestrian accidents in my area occured in x-walks. 37% of x-walk accidents due to motorist not yielding ROW.
I hope you are not suggesting that cycling safety declines to the level of x-walk safety.
Al
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.