Advocacy & Safety - Riding on roads with bike lanes

Definitions
Primary riding position: A "centerish" "lane controlling" position in the traffic lane somewhere between the left and right tracks.

Seconary riding position: About 3 feet to the right of faster overtaking traffic.

This is one method for riding on roads with bike lanes:

Even on roads with bike "lanes", ride out in the traffic lane in the primary riding position EXCEPT when faster traffic is present or is approaching (monitoring for which a mirror is very useful). When faster traffic is approaching, right shoulder check and merge right to a lateral position approximately 3' to the right of passing traffic (which may or may not be in the bike lane), until they have passed, and then left shoulder check and merge left back into the traffic lane again.

The behavior that results from doing this is similar to that practiced by other drivers of slow moving vehicles. For example, when riding my 1972 Honda Trail 70 at under 20 mph on steep streets, I generally ride in a visible/predictable/centerish position, but merge right to allow 35+ mph car drivers to pass when they're behind me, then merge back left when they've passed. This behavior is also consistent with how truck, tractor and other heavy equipment drivers sometimes temporarily merge right into shoulders to allow faster traffic to pass under certain conditions.

Obviously, on roads with constant busy traffic, a cyclist using this method would spend much of his time in the secondary riding position, which often means being in the bike lane. But, the entire time, monitoring to the rear periodically and frequently, looking for significantly large gaps in traffic. When (if) there is a gap, left shoulder check and merge left, until another need arises to merge right to allow approaching faster traffic to pass.

Surprisingly, most roads at most times don't have sufficiently constant traffic to render this technique moot, as some may think, even during commuting times (largely thanks to traffic signals). If one starts looking for significantly long gaps in same-direction traffic and using them, one may find they are much more prevalent and longer in duration than many might realize. So using the primary position per this method occurs quite regularly, even on relatively busy roads. The (huge) bonus of this method is that it automatically puts you in or near an excellent lateral position in terms of sight lines and conspicuity any time you encounter any kind of intersection, or if the lane narrows, or if you're on a 2-lane road to discourage oncoming traffic to pass in your lane, etc. A secondary bonus is that being in the primary rather than secondary position makes you more conspicuous to those approaching from behind, which in turns makes it less likely they they will be unaware of your presence as they overtake you (by which time you would be out of their path in the secondary position, if it's safe and reasonable to be there). Another secondary bonus for using this method is that you spend less time riding in rubble and debris.

When riding on roads with bike lanes, do you use the method above described in blue? If so, for the reasons specified, or for other reasons?

If not, what method do you use instead, and why?

From the "Using DLLP to avoid inadvertent drifts" thread...





If the reason you ride [in the bike lane even in the absence of same direction faster traffic] is not because of an irrational fear "from the rear", then why don't you ride further left for all the benefits of doing so (which have little to do with overtaking traffic, and much to do with cross-traffic, avoiding debris, etc.)?

Because I believe that there are no "benefits of doing so".

Specifically:

1) It's clear to me from the behavior of overtaking drivers that with my current technique I'm both conspicuous and relevant to them. The vast majority shift left in the lane and/or cross over the centerline.

2) I already avoid the vast majority of road debris by riding where I do (based on my low rate of flats).

3) I think it's more important for my safety to be seen as "predictable". Weaving back and forth over the line makes me, IMO, less predictable to drivers.
No one is advocating weaving back and forth.


4) The vast majority of cycling authorities, and the laws on the books in most states, recommend riding "as far right as practicable". Until you can change this body of common sense and law (something you're not even close to achieving despite thousands of words and hundreds of posts), I'll stick with the traditional techniques that have worked for decades.
Have you read the book Cyclecraft by John Franklin?


5) The chances of an "inadvertent drift" overtaking collision are vanishingly small with or without DLLP. Since I use both a mirror, and a daylight flasher, I think my odds are even less...thus, your silly technique would be both more work, and superflous to my safety.
That's only a secondary reason. See the OP of this thread for primary reasons.

From the "Using DLLP to avoid inadvertent drifts" thread...

No one is advocating weaving back and forth.

Have you read the book Cyclecraft by John Franklin?

That's only a secondary reason. See the OP of this thread for primary reasons.

With respect to the line demarcating the WOL/BL, your technique involves crossing it repeatedly. This can logically be noted as "weaving", and would certainly appear that way to the overtaking motorist.

re: secondary reasons
My safety is the primary reason I ride like I do...I'm every bit as safe as if I used DLLP, and feel no need to test your silly theories while I'm out on the road in traffic.

HH appears to have a deep-seated fear of not being noticed, both when he's out on the road, and here in BF. Thus his continual "weaving" and prolific posting (and here we have yet another "look at me" Wall of Words...sigh).

HH appears to have a deep-seated fear of not being noticed, both when he's out on the road, and here in BF. Thus his continual "weaving" and prolific posting (and here we have yet another "look at me" Wall of Words...sigh).

He does seem to need attention, now that you mention it. Hmmm...

This can logically be noted as "weaving", and would certainly appear that way to the overtaking motorist.
I don't think so. To the overtaking motorist it look like:
1. Oh, A cyclist in the lane ahead
2. Cool, cyclist (perhaps) saw me and moved over.

All they see is one merge to the right.

Al

I don't think so. To the overtaking motorist it look like:
1. Oh, A cyclist in the lane ahead
2. Cool, cyclist (perhaps) saw me and moved over.

All they see is one merge to the right.

Al

And then in their rearview mirror they'll see the cyclist moving back over into the primary travel lane.

And they'll shake their head and assume the cyclist is a weaving drunk because he's "all over the road" when there's a perfectly good WOL/BL available. :rolleyes:

And then in their rearview mirror they'll see the cyclist moving back over into the primary travel lane.

And they'll shake their head and assume the cyclist is a weaving drunk because he's "all over the road" when there's a perfectly good WOL/BL available. :rolleyes:

From the OP:


This behavior is also consistent with how truck, tractor and other heavy equipment drivers sometimes temporarily merge right into shoulders to allow faster traffic to pass under certain conditions.
When someone sees a tractor or heavy equipment driver up ahead pull over into the shoulder to let him pass, and then sees in his rearview mirror the heavy equipment driver moving back over into the primary lane, do you think he'll shake his head and assume the heavy equipment driver is a weaving drunk because he's "all over the road" when there's a perfectly good WOL/shoulder available?

Do you have any experience operating slow moving vehicles other than bicycles?

From the OP:


When someone sees a tractor or heavy equipment driver up ahead pull over into the shoulder to let him pass, and then sees in his rearview mirror the heavy equipment driver moving back over into the primary lane, do you think he'll shake his head and assume the heavy equipment driver is a weaving drunk because he's "all over the road" when there's a perfectly good WOL/shoulder available?

Do you have any experience operating slow moving vehicles other than bicycles?

A better analogy would be a little old lady who persists in driving in the fast lane on a freeway at 5 mph below the limit, and who only moves right when she notices a vehicle behind her, and then moves back over to the fast lane after that vehicle passes. :rolleyes:

FWIW, I have seen farm equipment using WOL's when they're available and not weaving back and forth into the primary traffic lane.

The general rule of the road is travel in the rightmost lane unless passing slower moving or stopped vehicles.

As a cyclist, if there's a bike lane to the right, it's the rightmost lane available to me. Just because the lane isn't available to car drivers doesn't mean I shouldn't be using it.

I take the lane when there isn't safe room to pass, sightlines from intersections/laneways are poor for cross traffic, or if the edge of the road is otherwise dangerous/too rough to travel on.

Taking the middle of the lane when there's a perfectly usable lane to your right is just like people who pull onto a freeway and take the innermost lane just to avoid worrying about traffic from onramps and offramps, even though they're going 10 or 20 below the limit. It's aggravating to other drivers, which can cause dangerous situations.

Your suggestion that you pull to the right every time a car comes up behind means you've put yourself in a situation where you have to pay EXTRA attention to what's going on behind you, even though that's really only a danger at night when riding with no lights.

Drivers of farm equipment avoid the shoulder because of the rough ride, not so that they'll get noticed.

If you're that afraid of being missed, put on some extra blinky lights.

A better analogy would be a little old lady who persists in driving in the fast lane on a freeway at 5 mph below the limit, and who only moves right when she notices a vehicle behind her, and then moves back over to the fast lane after that vehicle passes. :rolleyes:
No, that would not be a better analogy, because the alternative space she is using is part of the roadway where vehicular travel is expected, and where most cyclists ride to be out of the way is not.


FWIW, I have seen farm equipment using WOL's when they're available and not weaving back and forth into the primary traffic lane.
It's not worth much. I too have seen farm equipment drivers using WOL's when they're available and not weaving back and forth into the primary traffic lane. Typically it's when there is a lot of traffic and there is no point in moving out of the shoulder. Same as per the OP for bicyclists:


Obviously, on roads with constant busy traffic, a cyclist using this method would spend much of his time in the secondary riding position, which often means being in the bike lane.

Or on busy roads with WOLS or shoulders, it often means being in the shoulder or outside space of the WOL.

But, I've also seen farm equipment drivers and other slow moving vehicle drivers using WOL outside space on roads with lighter traffic, only when required to allow faster traffic to pass, and then moving left closer to the left stripe of the lane when that space is available again after faster traffic has passed.

I learned to drive in the mid 1970s in a 1971 VW van. My father taught me on coastal and hilly Highway 1 how to use the shoulder, temporarily, to allow faster traffic to pass on long grades where the van just couldn't maintain normal speeds. But, when they passed, I would move out of the shoulder and back into the lane. That's standard vehicular rules of the road for drivers of slow moving vehicles.

I've used similar methods when driving other slow moving vehicles, like rented moving vans, and the 1972 Honda Trail 70 I described in the OP.

Do you have any experience operating slow moving vehicles other than bicycles?

No, that would not be a better analogy, because the alternative space she is using is part of the roadway where vehicular travel is expected, and where most cyclists ride to be out of the way is not.

For cyclists, the WOL/BL is part of the roadway, and is where cyclists are expected to travel (both by law and tradition).

The general rule of the road is travel in the rightmost lane unless passing slower moving or stopped vehicles.
Agreed.


As a cyclist, if there's a bike lane to the right, it's the rightmost lane available to me. Just because the lane isn't available to car drivers doesn't mean I shouldn't be using it.
That's assuming the bike "lane" is a true lane, and treated as such by all users of the road. I don't want to get bogged down on that topic, it's probably worth a thread of it's own, but let's just say we'll have to agree to disagree on that point.


I take the lane when there isn't safe room to pass, sightlines from intersections/laneways are poor for cross traffic, or if the edge of the road is otherwise dangerous/too rough to travel on.
I'll just note that your choice of language here reveals how you yourself distinguish a real lane, which you describe riding in as "take the lane", from a bike "lane".


Taking the middle of the lane when there's a perfectly usable lane to your right is just like people who pull onto a freeway and take the innermost lane just to avoid worrying about traffic from onramps and offramps, even though they're going 10 or 20 below the limit. It's aggravating to other drivers, which can cause dangerous situations.
Only when doing so while other same direction traffic is present, which the method described in the OP specifically avoids:



When faster traffic is approaching, right shoulder check and merge right to a lateral position approximately 3' to the right of passing traffic (which may or may not be in the bike lane), until they have passed, and then left shoulder check and merge left back into the traffic lane again.




Your suggestion that you pull to the right every time a car comes up behind means you've put yourself in a situation where you have to pay EXTRA attention to what's going on behind you, even though that's really only a danger at night when riding with no lights.
The danger is not from the cars behind you, but from cross traffic. Most car-bike collisions involve crossing behavior, and riding further left makes you less prone to such crashes:



The (huge) bonus of this method is that it automatically puts you in or near an excellent lateral position in terms of sight lines and conspicuity any time you encounter any kind of intersection, or if the lane narrows, or if you're on a 2-lane road to discourage oncoming traffic to pass in your lane, etc.



Drivers of farm equipment avoid the shoulder because of the rough ride, not so that they'll get noticed.
I don't eschew the shoulder or bike lane in order to get noticed either (though that is a secondary benefit).


If you're that afraid of being missed, put on some extra blinky lights.
I'm not afraid of being missed, and certainly not by traffic from the rear, so the blinky light suggest is irrelevant. I simply seek to be treated like a vehicle driver, which requires me to act like one.

For cyclists, the WOL/BL is part of the roadway, and is where cyclists are expected to travel (both by law and tradition).
If cyclists are expected to travel there, then why is the factor of a driver NOT expecting the cyclist to be there and "not seeing the cyclist" so common in bike-car crashes?

I ride outside of the bike lane by default because most of the bike lanes here have more debris than the travel lane.

I will use a clean-looking bike lane when there is substantial traffic overtaking, and them move back into the travel lane whent traffic clears, to avoid potentially unseen glass and avoid last-second swerving for visible hazards.

If the bike lane contains visible debris, I don't move into the bike lane when traffic arrives behind me, but ride on the line.

I ride outside of the bike lane by default because most of the bike lanes here have more debris than the travel lane.

I will use a clean-looking bike lane when there is substantial traffic overtaking, and them move back into the travel lane whent traffic clears, to avoid potentially unseen glass and avoid last-second swerving for visible hazards.

If the bike lane contains visible debris, I don't move into the bike lane when traffic arrives behind me, but ride on the line.
Ya, my tires aren't for "sweeping," either.

If cyclists are expected to travel there, then why is the factor of a driver NOT expecting the cyclist to be there and "not seeing the cyclist" so common in bike-car crashes?

I don't think it is...you've cherry-picked a few incidents in which the motorist claimed that.

Accidents happen for a variety of reasons (distraction, drugs, alcohol, sleep deprivation, etc.). In most all cases, the driver will assert that "I didn't see the cyclist"...all that means is that they f*cked up and weren't able to react in time.

And there's nothing to indicate that your DLLP techniques will improve cycling safety any more than standard, assertive VC riding techniques, mirrors, daylight flashers, etc.

I ride outside of the bike lane by default because most of the bike lanes here have more debris than the travel lane.

I will use a clean-looking bike lane when there is substantial traffic overtaking, and them move back into the travel lane whent traffic clears, to avoid potentially unseen glass and avoid last-second swerving for visible hazards.

If the bike lane contains visible debris, I don't move into the bike lane when traffic arrives behind me, but ride on the line.

Avoiding road hazards is a legitimate reason for riding outside of the BL. But HH's DLLP theory would have cyclists riding in the primary travel lane even if there's a perfectly clean 12' wide BL available. :rolleyes:

Oooh goody! Another HH snit with a silly poll as a result.

If cyclists are expected to travel there, then why is the factor of a driver NOT expecting the cyclist to be there and "not seeing the cyclist" so common in bike-car crashes?

I don't think it is...you've cherry-picked a few incidents in which the motorist claimed that.

The incidents I "cherry-picked" in the "bike lane deaths" thread, if that's what you're talking about, are all overtaking collisions, which is a very rare type of car-bike crash. The vast majority of car-bike crashes are due to crossing movements where the motorist not noticing the cyclist, or the motorist not noticing the cyclist until it's too late to avoid collision, is almost always a factor (because, if the motorist does notice the cyclist soon enough to avoid collision, then, unless he's a homocidal maniac, the collision is avoided).

That's why I say, the driver NOT expecting the cyclist to be there and "not seeing the cyclist" is so common a contributory factor in car-bike crashes. And that's why I disagree with your assertion that cyclists are expected to be in the bike lane or the outside part of a WOL. Maybe that's where many people want us to be, because that gets us out of their way, but they don't really expect us to be there - which is why they so often overlook us when we are there.

I ride outside of the bike lane by default because most of the bike lanes here have more debris than the travel lane.

I will use a clean-looking bike lane when there is substantial traffic overtaking, and them move back into the travel lane whent traffic clears, to avoid potentially unseen glass and avoid last-second swerving for visible hazards.

If the bike lane contains visible debris, I don't move into the bike lane when traffic arrives behind me, but ride on the line.

Avoiding road hazards is a legitimate reason for riding outside of the BL. But HH's DLLP theory would have cyclists riding in the primary travel lane even if there's a perfectly clean 12' wide BL available. :rolleyes:
Note that Dr. Goodrich wrote, and then move back into the travel lane when traffic clears, to avoid potentially unseen glass and avoid last-second swerving for visible hazards.

That's DLLP. From the OP:



[ride in the bike lane] until [faster traffic has] passed, and then left shoulder check and merge left back into the traffic lane again.



Same thing.

That's why I say, the driver NOT expecting the cyclist to be there and "not seeing the cyclist" is so common a contributory factor in car-bike crashes. And that's why I disagree with your assertion that cyclists are expected to be in the bike lane or the outside part of a WOL. Maybe that's where many people want us to be, because that gets us out of their way, but they don't really expect us to be there - which is why they so often overlook us when we are there.

Are you on crack?

Are you saying that drivers "expect" us to be in the middle of the road?

FWIW, drivers often don't "expect" to encounter bikes because there's just not very many of us in this country.

That's why I say, the driver NOT expecting the cyclist to be there and "not seeing the cyclist" is so common a contributory factor in car-bike crashes. And that's why I disagree with your assertion that cyclists are expected to be in the bike lane or the outside part of a WOL. Maybe that's where many people want us to be, because that gets us out of their way, but they don't really expect us to be there - which is why they so often overlook us when we are there.
Are you on crack?

Are you saying that drivers "expect" us to be in the middle of the road?
Are YOU on crack?

You asserted that drivers expect to see us in bike lanes. I explained (above) why they don't.
So you think that means I'm saying they do "expect" us to be in the middle of the road? Why would you leap to such an absurd conclusion simply because I countered YOUR assertion that they "expect" us to be in the bike lane?


FWIW, drivers often don't "expect" to encounter bikes because there's just not very many of us in this country.
That's right. Now you're catching on. Most drivers don't expect us to be anywhere (note that if that's true, your previous assertion that they expect us to be in the bike lane cannot be true).

But when we are in the middle of the road, they are much more likely to notice us (even though, or perhaps even because, they don't expect us to be there), because that's where they tend to be paying most of their attention (including when they are about to turn into or across a road, which is when most car-bike collisions occur). They certainly pay much more attention to the middle of the road than the shoulder or bike lane.

With a true dedicated and marked bike lane I stay in it, barring debris. I think that is where cars expect to see me. I also don't ride with a mirror.

The general rule of the road is travel in the rightmost lane unless passing slower moving or stopped vehicles.

As a cyclist, if there's a bike lane to the right, it's the rightmost lane available to me. Just because the lane isn't available to car drivers doesn't mean I shouldn't be using it.

I take the lane when there isn't safe room to pass, sightlines from intersections/laneways are poor for cross traffic, or if the edge of the road is otherwise dangerous/too rough to travel on.

Taking the middle of the lane when there's a perfectly usable lane to your right is just like people who pull onto a freeway and take the innermost lane just to avoid worrying about traffic from onramps and offramps, even though they're going 10 or 20 below the limit. It's aggravating to other drivers, which can cause dangerous situations.

Your suggestion that you pull to the right every time a car comes up behind means you've put yourself in a situation where you have to pay EXTRA attention to what's going on behind you, even though that's really only a danger at night when riding with no lights.

Drivers of farm equipment avoid the shoulder because of the rough ride, not so that they'll get noticed.

If you're that afraid of being missed, put on some extra blinky lights.

Note that HH didn't even bother to respond...he hates it when common sense blows away his pet wacky theories!

But when we are in the middle of the road, they are much more likely to notice us...

a) you have no evidence to back this claim up

b) even if true, you have no evidence that DLLP will enhance cyclist safety

No vote; what's a bike lane?

a) you have no evidence to back this claim up

b) even if true, you have no evidence that DLLP will enhance cyclist safety
a) true there may not be data on this, but common sense, logic and most important to me, my own experience as a driver, supports that objects in the planned path of a driver are more likely to be noticed than objects outside of that path.
b) there is no evidence that DLLP degrades safety

Al

I ride wherever I am comfortable, feel safest and have the least interference. I do not ride with a constant conscious compulsion to be in a lane commonly used by motor vehicles though there are times when that is where I ride.

I perceive significant, size, weight and propulsion system differences between my bicycle and the slower moving vehicles you mention. I respect those differences no matter the relative positioning of either vehicle when I am riding, as I also do when they are not so slow.

a) true there may not be data on this, but common sense, logic and most important to me, my own experience as a driver, supports that objects in the planned path of a driver are more likely to be noticed than objects outside of that path.
b) there is no evidence that DLLP degrades safety

In other words, there is plenty of reason to believe that anything in the driver's intended path is more likely to be noticed by the driver than the same thing outside of the drivers intended path, and there is no reason this does not apply to bicyclists.

At the same time, there is no reason to believe that DLLP reduces safety.

Note that HH didn't even bother to respond...he hates it when common sense blows away his pet wacky theories!
Uh, see post #13.

Even on roads with bike "lanes", ride out in the traffic lane in the primary riding position EXCEPT when faster traffic is present or is approaching (monitoring for which a mirror is very useful). When faster traffic is approaching, right shoulder check and merge right to a lateral position approximately 3' to the right of passing traffic (which may or may not be in the bike lane), until they have passed, and then left shoulder check and merge left back into the traffic lane again.
Yeah, I do this, pretty much for the reasons specified. But the road I do it on has a paved shoulder, vice a bike lane, and 60 mph speed limit.

I have found that when I'm on the paved shoulder, drivers tend to pass much more closely than when I'm in the traffic lane of an NOL with no paved shoulder. When I'm in the traffic lane nearly all passing drivers will completely change lanes on a two-lane road.


FWIW, I have seen farm equipment using WOL's when they're available and not weaving back and forth into the primary traffic lane.
I might do this too, if I had a WOL around here to ride, that was on one of my regular routes.

I even actually got a "get-out-of-the-way" horn on the NOL today. Strange because it's so rare in these parts.
Sorry, Buddy, but the only way I'm moving off the road for you, is if you have lights and siren and are running code. You'll just have to wait until the on-coming lane is clear.
And he did.

Uh, see post #13.

When are you going to learn to quote properly?

In other words, there is plenty of reason to believe that anything in the driver's intended path is more likely to be noticed by the driver than the same thing outside of the drivers intended path, and there is no reason this does not apply to bicyclists.

There are many techniques for geting drivers to notice cyclists...you seem to discount the more traditional ones (e.g., high-viz clothing, flashers, etc.) in favor of your DLLP theory.


At the same time, there is no reason to believe that DLLP reduces safety.

I think it has the potential to reduce safety, especially for novice cyclists, because it involves much more vigilance and monitoring of overtaking traffic and moving left and right in the traffic lane.

Note that HH didn't even bother to respond...he hates it when common sense blows away his pet wacky theories!


I'll side with Jinker and Chipcom. I knew there was a reason I had Helmet Head on my ignore list. Well, back on you go!

There are many techniques for geting drivers to notice cyclists...you seem to discount the more traditional ones (e.g., high-viz clothing, flashers, etc.) in favor of your DLLP theory.

Because cyclists using the high-viz clothing are getting killed. Rear flashers are not relevant to most crashes which involve crossing movements, except for right hooks.


I think it has the potential to reduce safety, especially for novice cyclists, because it involves much more vigilance and monitoring of overtaking traffic and moving left and right in the traffic lane.
It requires no more vigilance and monitoring that every driver, and every cyclist in traffic, should be doing anyway.

As a cyclist, if there's a bike lane to the right, it's the rightmost lane available to me. Just because the lane isn't available to car drivers doesn't mean I shouldn't be using it.
That's assuming the bike "lane" is a true lane, and treated as such by all users of the road. I don't want to get bogged down on that topic, it's probably worth a thread of it's own, but let's just say we'll have to agree to disagree on that point.


Here's a comment relevant to this topic of whether a bike lane is treated by others as a lane from forum member jisho that was made in post #35 of the "Motorists in bike lanes" thread:



In SF the bike lanes are used by everyone. Parents dropping kids off for school; double parking in them is rampant. The meter maids drive in them as their own personal highway. I've encountered a few mopeds using them some of which I've passed. Lot's of clueless and don't give a damn people in the world.
I don't think anyone would argue that the behavior and treatment of bike lanes described by Jisho here is specific to San Francisco.

Yes, bike lanes have the word "lane" in them, but they are not really lanes. They certainly are not treated as lanes by most drivers. At best, they are treated like shoulders - much of the time they avoid driving in them, but if that space happens to be useful, the 6" wide stripe is not going to stop them. Where the "lane" paradigm completely falls apart for bike lanes is at any type of intersection.

This is why John Forester and many other vehicular cycling advocates reject the notion that bike "lanes" are lanes, and that they should be treated as such by cyclists despite the fact that no one else treats or looks at them that way. This is why Forester and others recommend choosing lateral position on roads with bike lanes by ignoring the stripe: choose where you're going to ride as if it's WOL (Wide Outside Lane), as if the stripe is not there.

This flies in the face of how most cyclists seem to treat bike lanes: mindlessly riding in them, as if they are real lanes, unless they have a specific reason to not ride there.

What you talking about?

Bike lanes are really lanes, reserved for cyclists, with the force of the law, just like any other traffic lanes such as bus lanes and high occupancy vehicle lanes. They are treated as lanes by all drivers here in Ottawa. Ignoring them such as squeezing through a bike lane to pass everybody in a traffic jam (not a SUV, but a small car such as Smart Car or Echo can easily do so) will cost you $150.00. Parking and stopping on a bike lane (except for transit buses and taxicabs) will cost you $35.00.

Bike lanes are not necessary located to the far right of a multi-lane highway. It can be anywhere in the traffic, to the far left or in the between two traffic lanes, or next to the bus lane. Many bike lanes here are between the curb (ie, sidewalk) and the bus lane, I guarenttee you would not want to ride in the manner as proposed by HH. The the bus lane is reserved for 30 ton articulated transit buses at 80 km/hr.

Sometimes, the bike lane and regular traffic lanes are mixed, as in downtown Rideau Centre. Here, the curb lane is a bus lane, exclusively for transit buses. The outer lane is a mixed car and bike lane --- a cyclist is required to take the whole lane as if it is a car. In some very busy intersections, there are even left turn lanes, straight through lanes and right turn lanes for bicycles.

What is interesting in Ottawa are the traffic signs directed towards both motorists and cyclists. One of it is the "no straight through except for bicycles" OR, even better, "no right turn except for bicyles" in a number of intersections, put up brilliantly right next to the traffic lights. Some of these are even lighted up as traffic lights at night. And, in the inter-provincial bridge to Quebec, each of the lanes, including the bike lanes, has its own traffic signal - which is really incredible.

So, in a well designed traffic system, bike lanes are an integral part of the traffic, not soemthing to put cyclists out of the way of the motorists.

So, in a well designed traffic system, bike lanes are an integral part of the traffic, not soemthing to put cyclists out of the way of the motorists.

We live in the real world, not a twilight-zone in which bike lanes have supernatural powers of death.

PS- my avatar is from O'Connor at the Queesway, where a short bike lane (aka bike box) and signal head exist just for cyclists.

I had a new encounter on my ride tonight. I take a recently repaved and widened semi-rural road that has a nice bike lane running both ways. It is clearly stripped and marked with the bike only logo, there are signs evey few hundred yards indicating it is a bike lane. I'm headed north when I notice something dark in the lane at the edge of my headlight beam. Quickly I realize it is two joggers, one is pushing a three wheel baby carriage, they are headed south in the northbound bike lane. I'm stumped, do I take the car traffic lane headed north, or stay in the bike lane? Before I completely decide they move into the traffic lane and I pass them to the right.

http://img241.imageshack.us/img241/2189/ntsafa2.jpg

...somebody's making this stuff up.....

What do you reccomend when the street is one way for cars (or bikes going in the same direction), but has a bike lane going in the opposite direction (only bikes are going that way). Would you advocate running directly into a car's hood in this case?

I'm asking because Calgary's single bike lane is contra-directional (about 100m worth). And yes - before there was a bike lane I felt it neccesary to go against traffic on this street (better than going two blocks in the wrong direction)?????

there are LOTS of valid reasons the 'drunken sailor lane swerve' i.e. D.S.L.S, sometimes called "DLLP", reduces safety.

not placing the bicyclist in the path of overtaking traffic when there is a perfectly safe position, to the right to ride in, being one of them.



In a well designed traffic system, bike lanes are an integral part of the traffic, not something to put cyclists out of the way of the motorists.

i'm with yuhoo on this one.

First riding outside a bicycle L is Illegal in AZ. Yes avoiding things are ok.

Second our bicycle lanes are swept regularly.

Why wouldn't you when you can ride the left white line, and do some controlled weaving.

Check that out

When riding on narrow neighborhood roads with low traffic, I am in the primary position. Most of the time, I am on busy roads with a steady flow of cars and am in the secondary position. I would suppose that the primary is my default, but 95% of the time, I am in the secondary. What do you think?

Paul

First of there are a lot of different conditions on the road, from urban to rural, straight to curvy, lots of intersecting drives to limited accesses, extra width for cyclists and no extra width for cyclists, heavy traffic to light traffic, fast traffic speeds to slow traffic speeds, slow cyclists to fast cyclists, courteous on the watch out for cyclists drivers and discourteous drivers. I strongly feel that there is no one way to ride safely through all possible combination of variables.

Just as driver’s ed teaches drivers to stay in the middle lane of a freeway which does has some validity but when that is practiced under a wide variety of conditions some of those conditions are unsafe or just down right irritating to other divers. Driving like a zombie with one rule fits all situations is not a good thing, similarly riding with one rule fits all is not good. Driving/riding is complex and no amount of wishful thinking or simplification of the rules is going to make it any less complex. DLLP is in my tool box and nothing more.

Right now my position (theory) is that bike lanes are designed around a cyclist traveling at 10mph. When a cyclist is traveling above that speed, bike lanes can get increasingly dicey. Poorly designed bike lanes are hazardous even at 10mph. These are the prominent factors that influence me to pull DLLP out of my tool box when a bike lane is present.

I do a lot of riding with another cycling advocate whose average speed is 8mph (vs. mine at 16mph) and my perception of road conditions and my resulting lane position is a lot different riding with him then when riding by myself.

What you talking about?

Bike lanes are really lanes, reserved for cyclists, with the force of the law, just like any other traffic lanes such as bus lanes and high occupancy vehicle lanes. They are treated as lanes by all drivers here in Ottawa. Ignoring them such as squeezing through a bike lane to pass everybody in a traffic jam (not a SUV, but a small car such as Smart Car or Echo can easily do so) will cost you $150.00. Parking and stopping on a bike lane (except for transit buses and taxicabs) will cost you $35.00.

Bike lanes are not necessary located to the far right of a multi-lane highway. It can be anywhere in the traffic, to the far left or in the between two traffic lanes, or next to the bus lane. Many bike lanes here are between the curb (ie, sidewalk) and the bus lane, I guarenttee you would not want to ride in the manner as proposed by HH. The the bus lane is reserved for 30 ton articulated transit buses at 80 km/hr.

Sometimes, the bike lane and regular traffic lanes are mixed, as in downtown Rideau Centre. Here, the curb lane is a bus lane, exclusively for transit buses. The outer lane is a mixed car and bike lane --- a cyclist is required to take the whole lane as if it is a car. In some very busy intersections, there are even left turn lanes, straight through lanes and right turn lanes for bicycles.

What is interesting in Ottawa are the traffic signs directed towards both motorists and cyclists. One of it is the "no straight through except for bicycles" OR, even better, "no right turn except for bicyles" in a number of intersections, put up brilliantly right next to the traffic lights. Some of these are even lighted up as traffic lights at night. And, in the inter-provincial bridge to Quebec, each of the lanes, including the bike lanes, has its own traffic signal - which is really incredible.

So, in a well designed traffic system, bike lanes are an integral part of the traffic, not soemthing to put cyclists out of the way of the motorists.

That's just daffy. Bikes can't be an integral part of traffic unless you abolish all bike lanes. You should know that by now. It's been hammered into our heads almost 10,000 times now.

is that what we've got to do then, Sb? abolish all bike lanes? it sure sounds like there's this holdout group, the fosterites that are sooo living in the 20th century when it comes to velotransit integrated into a regional transportation network.

these fosterites confound their method of riding a bike with ignoring roadway design appropriate to bicycling.

so dated, its like these are the 'flat earth society' among bicyclists. out of touch.


Advocating to ignore properly laid velotransit accomodations is a hazard on many levels.

First riding outside a bicycle L is Illegal in AZ. Yes avoiding things are ok.

Second our bicycle lanes are swept regularly.

Why wouldn't you when you can ride the left white line, and do some controlled weaving.

Check that out
First riding outside a BL is not at all illegal in AZ. As a CM proponent, you should know these laws.Check Law. (http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/28/00815.htm&Title=28&DocType=ARS)
Second, the BL are not swept regulary. Definitely not regularly enough to prevent debris build up. I have video evidence of debris staying in BLs for many weeks at a time.
The photo you post is classic Tempe bad BL design, with multiple right turns immedately across intersection into gas station, Thai resturaunt, Kinkos, etc. (see attachment) When you are starting up you are in blind spot of some drivers, at near same speed and some will turn right. This is a place where I stay out of BL.

Al