Advocacy & Safety - A&S Photo Puzzler Summer Series #2

Seeing Gene's photo puzzler of Wildcat Canyon this last week inspired me to add some quality discussion topics to the A&S threads...

Over the last year I presented a series of photo puzzlers in the Advocacy and Safety forum. I got the idea from Mr. Head. (thanks head!)

In the interests in stimulating more quality discussion in A&S, I have decided to continue the 2006 A&S Summer Photo Puzzler Series with PUZZLER #2. I will give inagural credit to Genec for kicking off the 2006 Summer photo puzzler series with his Wildcat Canyon quizzler.


The Q&A usually goes like this. There are no correct anwsers to the question "Where would you ride this road?" just personal comments and opinion. there are no door prizes or VC medals handed out afterwards, unfortunately.

Below are a couple of photos and a description of the roadway.

Suburban shopping developments ajacent to large swaths of suburban bedroom communities and within a 1/2 mile of the interstate. high volumes of traffic moving 35-45 MPH in between lights on 4 lane undivided roadways with center double yellow and some adaptive center turn lanes, and limited egresses from a right turn only lane into shopping mall type developments.

Velotransit lane to the left of right turn only lane, broken line for areas of likely vehicular transits. I believe i saw a series of sharrows for left merging bikes across a section of this roadway. I will get photos of those sometime. I ran a stale yellow to get enough slack in traffic behind me to shoot these shots; otherwise the traffic was heavier than the opposing lanes, the interstate is behind my point of view.

Question is, where would YOU ride this road?

Unless there were a reason to do otherwise (such as left or right turns), I'd ride in the middle of the bikes-only lane (probably at 150-190 watts ;) with daytime-visible blinkie, HID headlight, and neon-yellow jacket), and I'd keep an eye out for potential developing right-hook situations using my helmet mirror and my forward vision. I would pull to the right edge of the bike lane if I saw another cyclist overtaking me and needing the room to pass, and probably try to adjust speed so there's no overtaking traffic when he/she does pass.

How much bike traffic do you see on those roads, out of curiosity? Here in Spokane, we mostly can only dream of dedicated bike-only lanes :(

Bike Lane...
I am accomplished and aware enuff to handle any potential
situation that might require deviation of forward motion and course
that might be visited upon me in the BL.
The 35-40 mph really means 55mph. Not a desirable situation for a
rider.

The overcast sky reminds me of Santa Barbara.

Looks like an effective and easy-to-use system. I doubt you would lack any visibility in the cycle lane. I would ride my trike there with complete confidence. And being so flat, I could probably manage 18 to 20mph, and maybe even a little more with a tailwind.

Even if those lanes were photographed with spewing diesel trucks, that looks like a much better system than a recent photo of NOLs.

I would use the bike lane. But I would totally take that lane in an assertive manner.

I always ride in the bike lane. These can be interesting situations especailly around high speed traffic.

This is not a merely hypothetical question for me, since I encounter a few very similar roadway configurations in my normal home-to-work commute. I use the bike lane, generally a bit left-of-center, but I watch for (and anticipate) cars right-hooking across it.

For those familiar with Carlsbad CA, as southbound El Camino Real approaches La Costa Av., the bike lane widens and eventually becomes the right-turn-only lane. At the intersection, a narrow bike lane is carved out of the left side of the right-turn-only lane. Throught the transition stretch, I try to hold a straight line near the left boundary of the lane. I do watch for cars merging rightward into this lane. I have never been closely or dangerously right-hooked, but I often get long right-hooked, i.e., a motor vehicle accelerates to cross my path a safe distance ahead.

This is not a merely hypothetical question for me, since I encounter a few very similar roadway configurations in my normal home-to-work commute. I use the bike lane, generally a bit left-of-center, but I watch for (and anticipate) cars right-hooking across it.

For those familiar with Carlsbad CA, as southbound El Camino Real approaches La Costa Av., the bike lane widens and eventually becomes the right-turn-only lane. At the intersection, a narrow bike lane is carved out of the left side of the right-turn-only lane. Throught the transition stretch, I try to hold a straight line near the left boundary of the lane. I do watch for cars merging rightward into this lane. I have never been closely or dangerously right-hooked, but I often get long right-hooked, i.e., a motor vehicle accelerates to cross my path a safe distance ahead.

It is amazing how many motorists simply do not understand the term "merge." I have seen motorists do exactly what you mention, or stop to the left of the ROTL after passing me, to then get into the lane. I have seen motorists stop to the left of a BL and then make a turn across the dashed lines when the light turns green.

It all comes down to one thing... teaching motorists.

We spend so little time teaching motorists how to drive and expect them to gain all their road knowledge, plus the actual physical skills in a lowly 6 week period... I wouldn't be surprised if thousands of motorists died trying to drive every year...

Oh, they do!

Question is, where would YOU ride this road?
Depends where I was going and the traffic conditions.
Al

would you use the bike lane if you were going forward, AL? Just checking....

would you use the bike lane if you were going forward, AL? Just checking....
Somedays I'd use the pavement that has been marked as as a BL, somedays no. In either case, the closer I got to the intersection and the less traffic, the less likely I'd be in the BL.

Al

I would ride in the lane for restricting second-class vehicles, since that is (coincidentally) where I would be riding if the stripes hadn't been provided. However, I don't need or even much appreciate some car driving engineer to tell me where to place my bike.

Destination dependant, I would use this bike lane as long as it stayed as clear of debris and intersections as the photos indicate.

I would ride in the lane for restricting second-class vehicles, since that is (coincidentally) where I would be riding if the stripes hadn't been provided. However, I don't need or even much appreciate some car driving engineer to tell me where to place my bike.Interesting that you look at the glass as half-empty like that :) I lean towards viewing it as the engineer telling the motorists where they may not place their motor vehicle, just like carpool lanes aren't for single-occupancy vehicles. In my state (which is where those roads are located), we can use the bike-only lane or we can use the "regular" traffic lane at our discretion, so it's certainly not mandatory.

When does a castle become a cage? It's when you can't leave. I feel sorry for you Roody, that you are intimidated into feeling like you cannot leave your abode.

Its like a bus shelter. Having one at your bus stop doesn't dictate where you should stand when you are waiting for the bus, but it sure is nice that an engineer put it there for you when it is raining. Perhaps in your experience, in your locale, people put bus shelters where it is inconvenient or hazardous to stand, but in my experience, in my locale, they don't. Perhaps our engineers are better than yours. Just a thought...

Incidentally, you define this bike lane as a priori bad, yet you admit it is well placed (i.e. the place you would be riding anyway). I would have thought that a well placed bike lane was an engineering success, maximizing a bike lane's advantages and minimizing its shortcomings (though we can argue, and indeed have, about what those advantages and shortcomings are and how important until we are blue in the fingers). Perhaps it is just me... But perhaps, just perhaps, it is simply that you are so tied to the ideological opinion that BL=bad that you cannot even bring yourself to admit when one is, even, not so bad.

Interesting that you look at the glass as half-empty like that :) I lean towards viewing it as the engineer telling the motorists where they may not place their motor vehicle, just like carpool lanes aren't for single-occupancy vehicles. In my state (which is where those roads are located), we can use the bike-only lane or we can use the "regular" traffic lane at our discretion, so it's certainly not mandatory.

Preconceptions colour many people's thinking.

I would ride in the lane for restricting second-class vehicles, since that is (coincidentally) where I would be riding if the stripes hadn't been provided. However, I don't need or even much appreciate some car driving engineer to tell me where to place my bike.

In contrast, I DO appreciate this particular bike lane demarcation because, as others have mentioned, it tells MOTORISTS where they should be and where they should expect me to be. Yes, Roody, the stripes do not affect where either you or I would ride, since the bike lane coincides with our most sensible trajectory.

Roody: just to harp just a little more; I love your parenthetical statement (coincidently) when talking about bike lane placement. Believe it or not, but well designed bike lanes are not randomly distributed around the road. It should not be a surprise that a bit of good design work results in a bike lane which is properly placed.

http://www.azdot.gov/CCPartnerships/Roundabouts/images/ctoon_lane.gif

Al: Just out of curiosity, what are the options, other than:

BL (or other two lanes, if you need to be exposed to the hassle) - going straight
RTOL - right turn
LTOL - left turn

I don't understand what your confusion is. Sometimes it really is that simple.

I don't understand what your confusion is. Sometimes it really is that simple.
I already posted my 'serious' answer in posts #9 and #11. The cartoon was just for a bit of humor.
Al

Interesting that you look at the glass as half-empty like that :) I lean towards viewing it as the engineer telling the motorists where they may not place their motor vehicle, just like carpool lanes aren't for single-occupancy vehicles. In my state (which is where those roads are located), we can use the bike-only lane or we can use the "regular" traffic lane at our discretion, so it's certainly not mandatory.I don't know what the rules are where Roody lives, but here its codified that cyclists are supposed to be in the BL except under special conditions. Really, I would be fine with BL's if they made their usage here optional like it is apparently where you live. Then BLs would become a tool for controlling cars and not a tool for encaging cyclists.

I feel sorry for you Roody, that you are intimidated into feeling like you cannot leave your abode....

Perhaps it is just me... But perhaps, just perhaps, it is simply that you are so tied to the ideological opinion that BL=bad that you cannot even bring yourself to admit when one is, even, not so bad.
It isn't just you, Brian. Roody obviously has issues; inflexible opinion rooted in ideological belief is one of them.

I see bike lanes like those as an indication to cars to stay outta my way. I do not see them as a prison from which I cannot escape. Or a statement of my credentials as a cyclist.

Sometimes I see cars trying to drive in my bike lane and when they do I ride by (because they're always stuck in traffic jams while there ain't no traffic jam in the bike lane), give an annoyed look and tell them move over and drive in their own lane.

It isn't just you, Brian. Roody obviously has issues; inflexible opinion rooted in ideological belief is one of them.Not as many as I-like-to-whine and his troll-like nastygrams. When you have to resort to personal insult it means you you lost the argument, and are now grasping at straws.

Not as many as I-like-to-whine and his troll-like nastygrams. When you have to resort to personal insult it means you you lost the argument, and are now grasping at straws.
Ya think so? What argument has been "lost" around here and by whom?

Not very puzzling really. I'd ride in the bike lane if it was clear.

Any comments from the resident car trainer on how to ride this roadway? Any compelling reasons to ignore the velotransit lane in favor of 'educating' the motorists?

a freewheeling seminar of hand waving, nod-and-a-wink, steely eyed "advancedbiking401" sessioning while riding?

I curious to hear from bicyclists that feel compelled to generally ignore this lane- is it a political statement about vehicular parity?

I'm confused how a bicyclist would choose NOT to ride in this lane as the default roadway position if their travel direction was forward on this road. I believe most of us are aware enough to realize that to make a turn out of a bike lane, you leave the lane.

I'd ride toward the left-hand side of the bike lane, except that I might move further left by a couple of feet when approaching an intersection, so as to discourage what a previous poster termed a "long right hook".

The bike lane appears to occupy exactly the space I would ordinarily occupy. Indeed, if anything, the bike lane probably would encourage me to ride slightly more to the left than I would without a striped lane, simply because I prefer to have as wide a buffer zone on my right as I can, even if that means being physically closer to cars on my left; I'd rather get brushed by a car from the left and thus knocked into an empty space (or a relatively-low-traffic turn lane) than brushed from the right and knocked into a heavy-traffic lane.

Around here, the laws are written such that riding in the bike lane appears at first blush to be mandatory. However, that "when safely practicable" phrase is an important out, and if I'm ever ticketed, I'll be happy to tell a judge the truth: after thousands of miles of riding in this city, it's my experience that drivers don't see bike lane markings - they only see bikes, and that cyclists who fall from a bike lane into traffic (as when being doored from the right) get their heads smashed under wheel and die, while cyclists who fall toward the edge of the road (as when being brushed or struck from the left) tend to live. In my view, those two factors, taken together, would indicate that any bike lane that's narrower than my total height when on the bike or that runs closer to parked cars than the width of a car door plus my width is an unsafely constricting bike lane, which I therefore feel free to leave (or ignore) as necessary.* I haven't been ticketed yet, so I don't know if that argument will convince a judge, but it's sure convinced me!


*I know that was a convoluted sentence. Short summary: I'd rather get hit and live than get doored and die.