Putting the undue burden on cyclists specifically to stay out of the way at all times, regardless of the presence of other traffic, is not vehicular and thus can not be part of vehicular cycling.
No other vehicle has specific "lanes" (due to the solid stripe on the left, a bike lane can hardly be considered a real traffic lane) meant to keep that vehicle and that vehicle only out of the way of faster same direction traffic.
No Specific lanes for other vehicles??? Which city do you live in?
Of course there are things such as bus lane (so call "rapid bus transit") that are reserved for buses.
There are street cars rail (and LRT) that are reserved specifically for street cars and Light Rail Transit.
There are taxi lanes that are reserved for taxies (usually around Airports, Bus Terminals and Resort Areas)
There are so call "High Capacity Lanes" reserved for cars with more than, say three passengers, during rush hours.
And of course, there are bicycle lanes reserved for bicycles.
They are all considered to be normal traffic lanes and painted with with solid white lines. Driving a car on these lanes is a no-no. And in Ontario, $150 fine plus two demerit points if drivers violate these reserved lanes, bicycle lanes included, (unless you are driving emergency vehicles with lights and sirens on). In Ottawa, you may stop on a bike lane only for the purposes of unloading and loading passengers, otherwise the fine is $35.00 for stopping and parking.
Go ahead if people want to fill up Government coffers.
R-Wells
09-19-06, 12:43 PM
I have a qwuestion for the oponents on both sides of this debate.
Are you breathing inbetween posts?
What about fluid intake,carbs & protein?
Recovery posts?
Yes I know I have a odd sense of humour:D
genec
09-19-06, 02:44 PM
Of course. What is the relevance to whether the meanings of "focusing on the issues that directly effect them" and "focus on problems in which they can realistically make a significant improvement" are the same? Are you implying they are different ways to skin the same cat? What would the "cat" be in this case? That's nonsense. More than one way to skin a cat means there is often more than one way to solve the same problem.
What we're talking about is NOT how to skin a cat, but WHICH cat is worth TRYING to skin.
Of course there is. But if you think "focusing on the issues that directly effect them" is another way to say "focus on problems in which they can realistically make a significant improvement", then you're still not understanding what I mean by "focus on problems in which they can realistically make a significant improvement", or I'm not understanding what you mean by, "focusing on the issues that directly effect them".
But your words are not getting the same idea across. In fact, they're getting a very different one across, which is my point.
My words: "focus on problems in which they can realistically make a significant improvement" means when you have many problems to choose to work on and limited resources; choose to focus your resources on the ones in which you can realistically make a significant improvement.
Your words: "focusing on the issues that directly effect them." From the context in which you originally wrote this, you clearly meant something entirely different from the above. I already explained this in #90, most of which you ignored. I'm not going to repeat it.
This is not a semantic argument. It's about whether cyclists using precious resources on trying to improve motorist behavior is a waste of resources or not. And it's about understanding that I'm not arguing it's a waste of resources because I don't think improving motorist behavior is important. I do. Of course I think it would be great if it was 40,000 or 20,000 instead of 45,000 per year. I'm all for reducing that number. But I'm just saying that it doesn't necessarily follow from simply wanting that improvement that we should spend significant resources on it instead of using those resources elsewhere. And what should determine where those resources are spent, is not only whether we're directly affected or not (which of course we are by bad driver behavior), but whether the focus of those resources has any chance whatsover to affect the problem in any significant way. I'm sorry, but I think even if every cyclist hour and dollar was redirected to improving motorist behavior, we'd see NO significant change. None. Why? Well, because the amount of resources already spent on improving motorist behavior overwhelms ALL of the resources at our disposal. What we have total nationally is a drop in the bucket compared to any one state's DMV educational/training budget alone.
So if spending ALL of our resources on improving motorist behavior would produce nothing significant, why spend ANY resources on it? Just to "feel" like we tried? I'm sorry, but when those resources could instead be spent on something where we could make a difference in terms of reducing cyclist injuries and death, it makes much more sense to me to do that. No?
There is no way to do this beyond quoting the whole thing... and I do not want to go through the effort to break it all down.
IT COMES DOWN TO THIS.
Cyclists should first focus on those things that they directly can control and modify.
When that task is done, the only thing left is "everything else."
IF ALL CYCLISTS WERE FULLY TRAINED... what task might be left to further prevent motor vehicle/ cyclists accidents...
That would be retraining all the "other users of the road."
Since I feel that I have been fairly well trained... then to me, the only remaining "problems" are "the other users of the road..." motorists... who still do not treat me as an equal on the road... or to quote Forester: "Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles."
When all motorists treat me as a driver of a vehicle (rather than some obstacle to be avoided or brutally overtaken) then I will know that we are on the right track... but as long as motorists see me as something they must avoid, must pass at all costs, or must "train." Then the problems are larger than the individual cyclist.
While I agree that cyclist training is important, without parallel training to motorists... cyclists will never be treated "as as drivers of vehicles."
This has never been about "redirected to improving motorist behavior," but it is about what happens to the experienced trained cyclist when they have to deal with the selfish, poorly trained, power mad, ego centric motorist, that believes in their heart that they own the road. (OK, I might have gone a bit over the top there... ).
Let me know when motorists are driving with all the effort I put into biking, and into avoiding THEIR errors. Period!
Oh and you are right... this is not about "what is VC." It is about reality.
joejack951
09-19-06, 03:00 PM
Sorry, I don't mean to insult you with this post, but those are weasel words. Motor vehicles have specific lanes that they are required to use, and they are kept out of other areas of the highway: They're prohibited from using the bicycle lanes, the sidewalk, and the "third lane" (except to turn). It's a disingenuous manipulation of language-- probably traceable to Forrester, rather than to you-- to make it seem like bicycles alone bear the burden of staying in their lanes.
In fact, if you want to talk about vehicles being restricted to specific lanes to make way for faster moving vehicles, that restriction applies to motor vehicles as well. Slow-moving vehicles such as farm machinery are required by law to stay in the right lane; many, perhaps even most states, require motor vehicles to use the right lane unless they are passing another vehicle.
You somehow completed misread my post. I didn't say anything about cyclists being prohibited from using any other part of the roadway (although in some places they are). I said that cyclists are the only group of road users given a special "lane" specifically intended to keep them out of the way of faster moving traffic. There's no specific tractor lanes, garbage truck lanes, 18 wheeler lanes, etc.
Note: I know there are bus lanes in cities but there are major differences between how a bus is operated in the city and how a regular vehicle is operated on the roadway.
Helmet Head
09-19-06, 03:10 PM
Okay, Gene. I think that helps.
I think you're talking about what advocacy can do to make cycling even safer for Gene (and other well-behaved cyclists), while at the same time making vehicular travel for everyone even safer - the answer for which is do what you can to improve motorist behavior. So, from that perspective, it's worth trying, even if there is little or no chance of success (success = some significant improvement in motorist behavior brought about by said efforts) because there is nothing else to do.
I'm looking at it differently. I see the problem as approximately 800 cyclist per year are being killed, and thousands being seriously injured. What's the most effective way to spend our resources to get those numbers down by 5, 10, 50 or, dare I say, even 90%? From that perspective, using any of our limited resources to try to improve motorist behavior is a drop-in-the-bucket joke, especially when you consider all the other things we can do to effectively lower those numbers.
Also, to tie this in with cycling advocacy and making the world safer for all cyclists, even the currently "well behaved" ones like you... if we focus our efforts and resources on initatives that have a good chance of being effective at reducing the number of deaths and injuries, then not only do we save cyclist lives, but we also address the number one "elastic" issue that probably keeps people from cycling: their belief that it is inherently dangerous to ride in traffic. If we can show that educating cyclists and changing cyclist behavior makes cycling much safer to more and more people, then we should be able to get more and more people on bikes. And, as several studies have shown, with more and more people on bikes, then we get a safer cycling environment for everyone, including you.
That's why I think we should focus on improving cyclist behavior, and stop wasting our limited resources and spinning our 700c's trying to affect motorist behavior directly. We might as well try to take Venus out of its orbit too.
Blue Order
09-19-06, 03:10 PM
You somehow completed misread my post. I didn't say anything about cyclists being prohibited from using any other part of the roadway (although in some places they are). I said that cyclists are the only group of road users given a special "lane" specifically intended to keep them out of the way of faster moving traffic. There's no specific tractor lanes, garbage truck lanes, 18 wheeler lanes, etc.OK, granted, the lane doesn't say "tractor lane," but tractors are restricted to the right hand lane, nevertheless. I don't see a bike lane as a negative-- as something "they're" doing to harm us. I see bike lanes as something to help us-- to keep us from being injured by collisions with much faster, much larger vehicles. That bike lanes may also have the purpose of keeping traffic flowing smoothly doesn't detract from that purpose of protecting cyclists from those much faster, much larger vehicles.
Blue Order
09-19-06, 03:11 PM
I have a qwuestion for the oponents on both sides of this debate.
Are you breathing inbetween posts?
What about fluid intake,carbs & protein?
Recovery posts?
Yes I know I have a odd sense of humour:D:lol:
Blue Order
09-19-06, 03:13 PM
Considering how often you refer to Forester, you might want to consider actually reading his books.I've heard enough from you to last a lifetime.
Helmet Head
09-19-06, 03:16 PM
joejack - truck lanes are used to keep 18 wheelers out of the way, but only short intersectionless uphill stretches of freeway where they have no business to be anywhere else either.
The problem with bike lanes is that they transfer that kind of "no business" thinking towards trucks in a context where it makes sense to cyclists in a context where it isn't right.
Bike lanes on flat stretches of suburban roadway with intersections lead people to think that cyclists have no business to be anywhere but on the outside edge of the road. That's bad enough, but it gets worse. With that kind of thinking established in situations with bike lanes, in similar situations where there is no bike lane, people think cyclists are doing something wrong if they are anywhere but on the outside edge of the road. Evidence of this cascading thinking effect is the fact that that kind of thinking virtually does not exist in cultures without bike lanes (like Mexico).
Helmet Head
09-19-06, 03:21 PM
I've heard enough from you to last a lifetime.
Hardly. In all seriousness, all I can convey is a very skewed perspective of VC in a forum like this. And we only touch on the information. Even the Wikipedia article on VC is just a summary, and yet still covers much more than we ever get into here.
And by focussing on some of the more controversial stuff, the context gets lost - all the stuff that makes more common sense. As a result, your opinion, formed from reading all this, is very skewed.
SingingSabre
09-19-06, 03:21 PM
joejack - truck lanes are used to keep 18 wheelers out of the way, but only short intersectionless uphill stretches of freeway where they have no business to be anywhere else either.
The problem with bike lanes is that they transfer that kind of "no business" thinking towards trucks in a context where it makes sense to cyclists in a context where it isn't right.
Bike lanes on flat stretches of suburban roadway with intersections lead people to think that cyclists have no business to be anywhere but on the outside edge of the road. That's bad enough, but it gets worse. With that kind of thinking established in situations with bike lanes, in similar situations where there is no bike lane, people think cyclists are doing something wrong if they are anywhere but on the outside edge of the road. Evidence of this cascading thinking effect is the fact that that kind of thinking virtually does not exist in cultures without bike lanes (like Mexico).
No one thinks that semis don't belong anywhere but the few truck lanes on uphill freeways due to those lanes.
Hardly anyone thinks that cyclists don't belong on roads because of the few bike lanes in an area.
What most people do realize is that bike lanes are there to be used, unless there's a problem in the lane. You know, like any normal traffic lane.
The analogy you used is completely flawed.
And I wanted to stay out of this thread...damn me being an Aries!
Blue Order
09-19-06, 03:31 PM
joejack - truck lanes are used to keep 18 wheelers out of the way, but only short intersectionless uphill stretches of freeway where they have no business to be anywhere else either.
The problem with bike lanes is that they transfer that kind of "no business" thinking towards trucks in a context where it makes sense to cyclists in a context where it isn't right.
Bike lanes on flat stretches of suburban roadway with intersections lead people to think that cyclists have no business to be anywhere but on the outside edge of the road. That's bad enough, but it gets worse. With that kind of thinking established in situations with bike lanes, in similar situations where there is no bike lane, people think cyclists are doing something wrong if they are anywhere but on the outside edge of the road. Evidence of this cascading thinking effect is the fact that that kind of thinking virtually does not exist in cultures without bike lanes (like Mexico).An alternate viewpoint would be that the problem with attempting to ride in motor vehicle lanes is that it engenders a desire to get cyclists off the road.
genec
09-19-06, 03:33 PM
Okay, Gene. I think that helps.
HOT damn, we have communication!
I think you're talking about what advocacy can do to make cycling even safer for Gene (and other well-behaved cyclists), while at the same time making vehicular travel for everyone even safer - the answer for which is do what you can to improve motorist behavior. So, from that perspective, it's worth trying, even if there is little or no chance of success (success = some significant improvement in motorist behavior brought about by said efforts) because there is nothing else to do.
This is exactly right. And the only metrics I have for that are what motorists are doing to themselves here in the US... compared to motorists in certain European countries... where training and licensing is stricter.
I'm looking at it differently. I see the problem as approximately 800 cyclist per year are being killed, and thousands being seriously injured. What's the most effective way to spend our resources to get those numbers down by 5, 10, 50 or, dare I say, even 90%? From that perspective, using any of our limited resources to try to improve motorist behavior is a drop-in-the-bucket joke, especially when you consider all the other things we can do to effectively lower those numbers.
I agree... I see that cyclists by far, need improvement... but I do not see that the present methods for that improvement as being effective... that is what bothers me. (it is the herding cats thing... )
Also, to tie this in with cycling advocacy and making the world safer for all cyclists, even the currently "well behaved" ones like you... if we focus our efforts and resources on initatives that have a good chance of being effective at reducing the number of deaths and injuries, then not only do we save cyclist lives, but we also address the number one "elastic" issue that probably keeps people from cycling: their belief that it is inherently dangerous to ride in traffic. If we can show that educating cyclists and changing cyclist behavior to more and more people, then we should be able to get more and more people on bikes. And, as several studies have shown, with more and more people on bikes, then we get a safer cycling environment for everyone, including you.
This is where we disagree... you feel that those trained cyclists will be able to influence other cyclists and even possibly motorists... I see it as a bucket being filled with a trickle and drained through a huge hole...
As soon as you have trained 50 cyclists... 200 or 300 more new untrained cyclists hit the street... thereby undermining your efforts by diluting the pool of trained cyclists...
I think the only way to head this off is to move the effort from LCI based training to a more focused training program, aimed at all potential users, at the school level.
That's why I think we should focus on improving cyclist behavior, and stop wasting our limited resources and spinning our 700c's trying to affect motorist behavior directly. We might as well try to take Venus out of its orbit too.
What I see that needs to be done is akin to the level of effort that has been put out by MADD to reduce drunk driving... or by the Americans with Disabilities in enacting the Americans with Disablilities Act and implementing curb cuts.
Anything less is not even going to be a drop in that "bucket."
Uh, to keep this on track... no, this is not "What is VC." But it does show that there is a problem... "What is VC" should not be a question, if the LAB and others were even able to influence 10% of cyclists on the road today. I doubt 1% of cyclists on the road have any training at all.
sbhikes
09-19-06, 03:36 PM
I would like to remind you all that being pro- or anti-bike lane is not vehicular cycling. Neither is disagreeing whether or not the bike lane constitutes "the roadway", or disagreeing that drivers need more education.
We are all vehicular cyclists.
Helmet Head
09-19-06, 03:38 PM
An alternate viewpoint would be that the problem with attempting to ride in motor vehicle lanes is that it engenders a desire to get cyclists off the road.
Except that there is no evidence for that, and plenty against it.
Consider the U.S. in the early 70s (before bike lanes), or Mexico today.
It wasn't until bike lanes became prevalent that the very idea that cyclists should get and stay out of the way became as strong and prevalent in our culture. In Mexico, neither bike lanes nor that attitude is prevalent. Coincidence? I think not.
Blue Order
09-19-06, 03:43 PM
Except that there is no evidence for that,:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: Evidence? YOU are saying there's no evidence? Everything you post is unsupported opinion,and you're pointing out that I just expressed an opinion? :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:
and plenty against it.
Consider the U.S. in the early 70s (before bike lanes), or Mexico today.
It wasn't until bike lanes became prevalent that the very idea that cyclists should get and stay out of the way became as strong and prevalent in our culture.Or perhaps it's all the POWERWEAVERS out there impeding motor vehicle traffic.
In Mexico, neither bike lanes nor that attitude is prevalent. Coincidence? I think not.Any evidence linking Mexican attitudes to lack of traffic lanes?
Helmet Head
09-19-06, 03:46 PM
but I do not see that the present methods for that improvement as being effective... that is what bothers me. (it is the herding cats thing... )
We agree on that.
But I think the reason the present methods are as ineffective as they are, is because there is so little commitment behind them from cycling advocates. In fact, it's amazing that it has gotten as far as it has. But I can tell you that the interest and excitement seems to be growing. It might not have reached you yet, but it will. There is finally more and more advocates calling for bike ed money, and money is finally showing up. In fact, that's how you and I got trained for free. That is just the beginning. It's just starting, and you've given up and looking to use our precious focus, time, efforts and resources on drop-in-the-bucket ideas instead...
As soon as you have trained 50 cyclists... 200 or 300 more new untrained cyclists hit the street.
Geometric growth Gene. It's slow in the beginning. There is no reason why we eventually couldn't train several hundred cyclists per month in San Diego, for example. Just a lot of other things have to happen first: more instructors, more money, more experienced instructors, more acceptance in our culture. There are initiatives to get into corporations right now.... in fact, that's one of the new things. Using health money and reasons to provide bike ed. The idea is that trained cyclists are more likely to ride to work and get healthy. All this is new new new. Did I mention law enforcement training? Yes, we're still working on the foundation, but there is progress. And we need a lot more focus. Please don't take us offtrack. Be patient.
genec
09-19-06, 03:56 PM
And we need a lot more focus. Please don't take us offtrack. Be patient.
The problem I have is that I first heard about this in about 1996... and here is it some ten years later...
OK I can be patient... I'll check back in another 10 years.
Helmet Head
09-19-06, 04:01 PM
The problem I have is that I first heard about this in about 1996... and here is it some ten years later...
OK I can be patient... I'll check back in another 10 years.
That is the nature of geometric growth.
Because the few studies done on motorcycle accidents show that they have the same problems with visibility in the traffic lanes so riding in the center of the lane will not stop being run over or getting t-boned. Around 70% is losing control with no other vehicle, so 4400 x .70 .. around 1200 deaths minus other factors and we get around 500 death by rear-ended.
" The failure of motorists to detect and recognize motorcycles in traffic is the predominating cause of motorcycle accidents. The driver of the other vehicle involved in collision with the motorcycle did not see the motorcycle before the collision, or did not see the motorcycle until too late to avoid the collision.
Furthermore:
Conspicuity of the motorcycle is a critical factor in the multiple vehicle accidents, and accident involvement is significantly reduced by the use of motorcycle headlamps (on in daylight) and the wearing of high visibility yellow, orange or bright red jackets.
A recent New Zealand study also agreed:
Fluorescent clothing, white or light coloured helmets, and daytime headlights may reduce motorcycle injuries and death. Wells and colleagues (p 857) analysed 463 motorcycle drivers admitted to hospital following a road traffic incident and 1233 other drivers (control group) to evaluate how wearing conspicuous attire affected the risk of having an accident. They found that with reflective or fluorescent clothing the risk of a crash injury was reduced by 37%, with a white helmet by 24%, and with headlights by 27%.[1]
Unfortunately there are other causes too, such as cars losing control, bad driver behaviour and motorists falling asleep/taken ill and unconsious drivers. Deadman's braking and vigilance control can help.
In the UK, road accident investigators discovered that up to 70% of motorcycle accidents were rider error[citation needed], and didn't initially involve another vehicle. The majority of these accidents happened on left hand bends. Riders were found to be travelling beyond their ability going into the corner, and lost their confidence half way through the corner. The result was that they panicked, grabbed the front brake, and this would force the bike to alter course, causing an accident. In the majority of these accidents, it was found that had they not panicked, the bike would have negotiated the corner successfully.
There is also research currently being carried out into the accident style known as "Sorry, mate, I didn't see you!" (a.k.a SMIDSY). This is where cars, usually in a built up area, will pull out in front of bikers. This is most common during times of poor light. Initial findings are that the human eye is unable to see movement while it is coming straight at them. They cannot accurately calculate speed, and so ignore the information collected by their eyes.
Another factor is many motorist's failure to acknowledge road users smaller than themselves, due to the perception they will be better off in a collision. This may be a function of poor attitude, or insufficient training and regard for all road users."
Thanks for the informative post--It confirmed my suspicions, but I didn't have the citations to back it up.
I also can't help but notice that your very well thought-out post got no reply from the resident VC champion.
yuhoo
09-19-06, 06:45 PM
Another factor is many motorist's failure to acknowledge road users smaller than themselves, due to the perception they will be better off in a collision. This may be a function of poor attitude, or insufficient training and regard for all road users."
That is the reason why Americans (and Canadians) love huge cars like Lincoln Towncars or Dodge Durangos or H2's rather than little Smart Cars !! When I drive in one of these huge monsters (I do not own one), it does give me the impression of security and I can treat any other vehicles (a Civic or a Smart Car for example, not to mention bicycles) as nobody. The only other car I have respect for is the police car. And the only required driving skill for these huge monsters is parallel parking.
But, you do not have to wait until gasoline hits $1.50 per liter (about US $3.50 per gallon). Makers of these huge monsters, Ford and GM in particular, are laying of thousands of workers.
joejack951
09-19-06, 07:07 PM
OK, granted, the lane doesn't say "tractor lane," but tractors are restricted to the right hand lane, nevertheless. I don't see a bike lane as a negative-- as something "they're" doing to harm us. I see bike lanes as something to help us-- to keep us from being injured by collisions with much faster, much larger vehicles. That bike lanes may also have the purpose of keeping traffic flowing smoothly doesn't detract from that purpose of protecting cyclists from those much faster, much larger vehicles.
Everyone going straight on a roadway is legally restricted to the right hand lane unless passing. Passenger cars are not banned from truck lanes (at least not the ones I've seen).
sbhikes
09-19-06, 07:47 PM
Vehicular cyclists can and do use bike lanes. There is nothing non-vehicular about using the bike lane. Your opinions about bike lanes are not the same as vehicular cycling. You don't have to be pro- or anti-bike lane to be a vehicular cyclist.
spry
09-19-06, 08:17 PM
Why do you people all refer to Diane,s expensive patio roll-out recliner as a beach chair?Diane is not in a swim suite,and is obviously on a cement patio not the beach.
SingingSabre
09-20-06, 12:44 AM
Vehicular cyclists can and do use bike lanes. There is nothing non-vehicular about using the bike lane. Your opinions about bike lanes are not the same as vehicular cycling. You don't have to be pro- or anti-bike lane to be a vehicular cyclist.
+1
*applauds heartily*
Bruce Rosar
09-20-06, 01:04 AM
Everyone going straight on a roadway is legally restricted to the right hand lane unless passing.In some states (such as N.C.), if you're traveling along at the speed limit then you don't have to be in the right hand lane.
Passenger cars are not banned from truck lanes (at least not the ones I've seen).At least in the USA, a TRUCK LANE (R4-6) sign may be installed (but isn't required) in advance of a "Slow Moving Traffic Lane". The beginning of a SMTL may be marked with a SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT (R4-3) sign.
Looking in the MUTCD (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/HTM/2003r1/part2/part2b2.htm#section2B32), we can see the definition for that lane: The Slow Moving Traffic Lane signs (see Figure 2B-8) are used to direct vehicles into an extra lane that has been provided for slow-moving vehicles.Note that the absense of the word "trucks" in the definition.
mechBgon
09-20-06, 01:30 AM
Interesting to see the bicycle-only lanes being viewed as a negative thing. Do you view the carpool lanes and transit lanes that way?
Personally, I can live with or without bikes-only lanes, but it is fun to be going downhill in my own personal traffic lane at 4 to 5 times the speed of the motor-vehicle traffic on the especially icy mornings. Nokian powars, ACTIVATE!!! :)
Bruce Rosar
09-20-06, 01:43 AM
... there are things such as bus lane ... that are reserved for buses.
There are street cars rail ... that are reserved specifically for street cars ...
There are taxi lanes that are reserved for taxies ...
There are ... "High Capacity Lanes" reserved for cars with more than, say three passengers...In the USA, special use and restricted use lanes identify a variety of special uses, including: public transit by bus use, public transit by tram use, public transportation by taxi use, and High Occupancy Vehicle use Bicycles, on the other hand, are not a use; they're a type (aka class) of vehicle which can have many different uses (just as motor vehicles can), including public transit uses.
... there are bicycle lanes reserved for bicycles.For the USA, the MUTCD definition (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/HTM/2003/part1/part1a.htm#section1A13) of a BL is:
"a portion of a roadway which has been designated ... for ... use by bicyclists."
In contrast, here's the definition for an HOV lane:
"any preferential lane designated for ... use by high-occupancy vehicles...".
As you can see, a BL isn't defined as a lane (preferential or otherwise) in the USA.
In case anyone was wondering, the current BL definition in the USA was derived from the earlier Designated Bicycle Lane (http://www.ncutcd.org/doc/2006January/Attach%20No.%205%20Bike%20Lane%20Signs.doc) definition:A portion of a roadway or shoulder* which has been designated for use by bicyclists …
* shoulder— the roadway portion for accommodation of stopped vehicles for emergency use, and for lateral support of the base and surface courses.
Bekologist
09-20-06, 03:36 AM
so what, bruce?
MUTCD is roadway and traffic code. following the rules is VC.
riding according to the roadway stripes is VC. riding in a bike lane when it is safe and acceptable for use is VC.
if you choose to ignore a bike lane like the one in the picture below, for no good reason, you are making a political statement in your riding method and you are NOT riding VC on this roadway.
BTW the nature of geometric growth is such that each single unit, then doubles. Much like a cell dividing and then making two new cells, and each of those cells then makes two new cells and so on.
The LAB method yields about 10 or so students per instructor, per learning period, during that same time, perhaps about 100 or so new young cyclists take to the sidewalks under the guidance of a parent, an uncle, or some other trusted adult... Who may or may not have the slightest idea of what is right or wrong about how to cycle. And the very first thing taught is how to ride on a sidewalk.
A typical LAB class may not yield even one instructor... so they are hardly "reproducing" like cellular growth... or "geometrically" as you believe.
So you are nowhere close to "about here." Now or ever.
sbhikes
09-20-06, 08:20 AM
Yes, my beach chair is very cool. It's good for watching bike races, too. I was not at the beach in my avatar pic, you are correct. I was on the bike path to Ojai.
I, too, very much enjoy sailing in freedom down the bike lane when all the car traffic is backed up in the next lane over. There's never any congestion in the bike lane!
One more time, it makes no difference what your opinion about bike lanes is. Using or not using, favoring or not favoring, advocating for or against bike lanes has no bearing on your status as a vehicular cyclist.
joejack951
09-20-06, 11:13 AM
In some states (such as N.C.), if you're traveling along at the speed limit then you don't have to be in the right hand lane.
Upon all highways any vehicle proceeding at less than the legal maximum speed limit shall be driven in the right‑hand lane then available for thru traffic, or as close as practicable to the right‑hand curb or edge of the highway, except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left turn.
Can two wrongs about vehicle codes make a right? You and DCC have both corrected my blanket statements lately. What other states have a law similar to NC? Again, my apologies for a misstatement :o
Bruce Rosar
09-20-06, 02:08 PM
What other states have a law similar to NC?
See Table 3. Exceptions to Far Right Rule by State in Dr. Paul Schimek's guide to Bicycles and the Traffic Law (http://www.bicycledriving.com/trafficlaw.htm):
No Far Right Rule: AR, IN, IO, KY, MA, MS, NC, NH, PA
Here's another quote that's relevant to NC law from Paul's guide:
All the general rules for driving vehicles apply to bicycles. There are very few bicycle-specific rules that are necessary. There are only a few sections of the general traffic rules that need to be revised to take bicycles into account. In fact, several states (AR, IN, IA, KY, NC) have hardly any statutes that apply exclusively to bicycles.
BTW, after traveling around in NC for almost two decades, I've observed that having all drivers (cyclists are legally drivers here) share the same general traffic rules while sharing the same roads increases both safety (less confusion about who does what, when they do it, and where they do it) and efficiency (cyclists have the same right of way as the other drivers).
Again, my apologies for a misstatement :oAs Arhnold might say, "No problemo";)
chipcom
09-20-06, 06:13 PM
it's real simple, VC is just a brand attached to the practice of riding according to the laws and customs of the road, which cyclists have been doing since long before the term VC was coined by those obsessed with labels, branding, stature and making a buck.
joejack951
09-20-06, 07:18 PM
Thanks, Bruce. I think I confused the driving in the right lane law (such as DE's) with the law about slow moving traffic using the right lane (such as PA's). I'm reading with too much focus on only what applies to me as a cyclist apparently :)