yeah, theres an exception to the rule of using a well accomodated roadway in the manner in which it is designed. what about all the potholes in the travel lanes, that are a result of population denisty too thin to allow regular and frequent pothole filling....


hahaha, what a fallacious position you take mr head!
Actually, there is probably some correlation there. We do have a lot of potholes in San Diego!

how is a lane position that is safe to use in the presence of cars become unsafe in the absence of cars, once again for the crowd, Helmet?

If you determine a bike lane is safe to dart into when traffic is behind you a good distance, there is nothing that makes that lane position unsafe in the absence of traffic.

a vehicular bicyclist will position themselves in a clean and well provided bike lane that is safe to ride. an exception will lead the vehicular bicyclist to leave the bicycle lane, but the default position for a bicyclist on a well accomodated roadway is in the accomodation.

how is a lane position that is safe to use in the presence of cars become unsafe in the absence of cars, once again for the crowd, Helmet?

If you determine a bike lane is safe to dart into when traffic is behind you a good distance, there is nothing that makes that lane position unsafe in the absence of traffic.

a vehicular bicyclist will position themselves in a clean and well provided bike lane that is safe to ride. an exception will lead the vehicular bicyclist to leave the bicycle lane, but the default position for a bicyclist on a well accomodated roadway is in the accomodation.
Bek, must you keep reminding us that about half the population has an IQ below 100?

huh? are you agreeing with me? dodger....

the default position for a vehicular cyclist on a well accomodated roadway is in the accomodation.

I'm not wasting my time presenting arguments that you are incapable of comprehending, rain man.

Bek, must you keep reminding us that about half the population has an IQ below 100?

I'm not wasting my time presenting arguments that you are incapable of comprehending, rain man.

Checkmate, Head. Bek got your king.

Insulting him doesn't jibe as a valid argument.

Checkmate, Head. Bek got your king.

Insulting him doesn't jibe as a valid argument.
Like that's my only argument?

His only argument, on the other hand, is repeating his premise repeatedly, like a mantra. He has no argument (if you disagree, please tell me what it is, because he has proven to be incapable of doing so himself).

His only argument, on the other hand, is repeating his premise repeatedly, like a mantra.

Coming from you, HH, that's hilarious!

There have been many, many specific arguments put forth against the PowerWeave(TM) concept you strive to promote. In your zeal, you have chosen to ignore and/or discount them all.

Clearly, you'll not be dissuaded from using (and promoting, ad nauseum) your DLLP theory. Equally as clearly, many will disagree with you (more, it seems, than support your position).

Thus, we are at an impasse...but, hey, thanks for the (ironic) laugh.

Coming from you, HH, that's hilarious!
Why? I admit I repeat my arguments, but at least they're arguments.

There have been many, many specific arguments put forth against the PowerWeave(TM) concept you strive to promote.
By Bek? In this thread? Where? What post number?


In your zeal, you have chosen to ignore and/or discount them all.
If true you should be easily show me one argument I've chosen to ignore, or discount without explaining why.

Clearly, you'll not be dissuaded from using (and promoting, ad nauseum) your DLLP theory.
Certainly I will not be persuaded by the absence of logical argument.

Equally as clearly, many will disagree with you (more, it seems, than support your position).
And what are the arguments of those who disagree?

Thus, we are at an impasse...but, hey, thanks for the (ironic) laugh.
Yes, an impasse between those whose opinions are based on logic and reason, and present arguments based on this, and those whose opinions are based on irrational emotion, and can do little more other than repeat their premises as mantras, as if that converts them into logical conclusions somehow. Heck, most of these folks can't differentiate a premise from a conclusion, much less think critically at all.

Certainly I will not be persuaded by the absence of logical argument.

Yet another trademarked HH "Wall of Words" in which you proclaim that only your arguments are logical and everyone else is illogical and/or emotional. And this from the guy who insists that we should repeatedly play Chicken with overtaking motorists, even when there's a comfy clean safe bike lane to ride in. :rolleyes:

And this from the guy who insists that we should repeatedly play Chicken with overtaking motorists, ...
Strawman.

i think you lost the argument, head.


the default position for a vehicular cyclist on a well accomodated roadway is in the accomodation.

how is a lane position that is safe to use in the presence of cars become unsafe in the absence of cars, once again for the crowd, Helmet?

If you determine a bike lane is safe to dart into when traffic is behind you a good distance, there is nothing that makes that lane position unsafe in the absence of traffic.

what makes a SAFE bike lane unsafe in the ABSENCE of traffic again, head?


the default position for a vehicular cyclist on a well accomodated roadway is in the accomodation.

the default position for a vehicular cyclist on a well accomodated roadway is in the accomodation.

Agreed - as the accomidation is any part of the road that cyclist can legally use. ;)

Al

My ass was saved staying out of a BL that was to the left of a RTOL. A driver was pulling out of intersection immediately following arterial I was crossing and the nose of their car went into BL as I was passing by using primary lane. There was a car 10' ahead of me and 15' behind me at the time as we were gaining speed from the intersection stop.
Al

what makes a SAFE bike lane unsafe in the ABSENCE of traffic again, head?

The absence of same direction traffic is what makes riding in the bike lane less safe (not unsafe).
When same direction traffic is present, it serves to block cross traffic from entering the roadway into the cyclist's path.

When same direction traffic is not present... well... see the bike lane deaths thread.

My ass was saved staying out of a BL that was to the left of a RTOL. A driver was pulling out of intersection immediately following arterial I was crossing and the nose of their car went into BL as I was passing by using primary lane. There was a car 10' ahead of me and 15' behind me at the time as we were gaining speed from the intersection stop.
Al

That's all good and well. My ass (we can say ass here?) was almost toast from a car which made a crossing left turn in front of me (left turn from the side street on my left) when I was two lanes away from the bike lane, next to the median (preparing for a left turn of my own). I only avoided hitting the side of her car by a foot or two, and only after releasing my brakes in preparation for the collision. Does this mean I should never make use of the left turn lane for turning left?

Let's have one more. My one and only accident involving a car happened when I was cycling in the middle of leftmost lane on a one way street and a car pulled out of a parking spot right in front of me. I went over her (why are they always women?) right fender and trashed my frame, not to mention a good sized bruise on my thigh. Should I stick to the sidewalk (no bike lane here) in the face of this?

A single incident where one party made a blatent error does not a cycling strategy make. All it is is a call for vigilance against another's error.

head, NO TRAFFIC doesn't make a well provided bike lane UNSAFE, silly man.

Agreed - as the accomidation is any part of the road that cyclist can legally use. ;)

Al


and when there is a well provided bike lane that is safe for use, it is the default position. Swerving to and fro, in a 'peek-a-boo' style to get overtaking cars to notice you, in and out of a bike lane that is safe to ride in anyways,

does NOT override using a bike lane.

head, NO TRAFFIC doesn't make a well provided bike lane UNSAFE, silly man.

Ok Bek. I'll concede your point that absolutely zero traffic does not make a wide, clean bike lane unsafe and that with absolutely zero traffic, a wide, clean bike lane is safe. Now, guarantee me that no traffic will appear ever and I'll ride there :rolleyes:

but joejack, those lanes are even safe in the PRESENCE of traffic, and you are deluding yourself into thinking a lane that is safe when there is traffic becomes unsafe in the absnce of traffic?

just take a good look at the photos above on this page. a clean and acceptable bike lane is the default road position for a vehicular bicyclist on a well accomodated roadway.

The absence of same direction traffic is what makes riding in the bike lane less safe (not unsafe).
When same direction traffic is present, it serves to block cross traffic from entering the roadway into the cyclist's path.

When same direction traffic is not present... well... see the bike lane deaths thread.

Forgive me, but aren't most of those incidents mentioned in that thread from same direction traffic? Certainly the ones you love to harp on, from "inadvertent drift," are same direction traffic incidents.

Bek's question is a fair one. Why don't you ride all bike laned roads as if they are NOL roads? There certainly is nothing keeping you from doing it. I do it on many roads with substandard bike lanes. If they serve you no advantage in the absence of same direction traffic, under what conditions do they start making sense to use in the presence of same direction traffic?

I am not trying to trap you with this; it is not a retorical question, simply an open question I'd like to hear your answer to (others are welcome to chime in as well). I just would like to understand how you make the decision to use the bike lane in the face of competing factors.

Myself, I don't have a "default" lane position - on a straight rural highway with no traffic, no intersections, my lane position is wherever I fancy at the moment. My lane position floats in accordance to several factors. One is same direction traffic. Crossing traffic, or potential crossing traffic play a part. The configuration of upcoming stretches of road are also of consideration. Of course, there is destination positioning to consider as well.

My lane position changes with variables in three dimensions. One is space to evade. A left turning car opposite of me would illicit a slight drift to the right. A car creeping out from the right will illicit a more leftward lane position. Another is visibility. A sideroad from the right which is blind will illicit a leftward position, regardless of traffic. The last is destination. Going left, I tend toward the left, right, to the right, and straight, toward the middle (or middle right, depending on other, real time considerations involving the other two variables).

I have found that there are few hard and fast rules because there are too many factors to consider. Timing is of importance as well - I can merge into most any traffic stream short of freeway speeds by utilizing timing and acceleration. Experience - time on the bike - is the best teacher for learning to ride on the road; there is no substitute.

One last thing I've learned. Mistakes on a bike are not penalized nearly as much as one might get the impression from reading threads here. Ultimately, there are people in those cars, and they really aren't out to get you. Or at least, the ones who say they are are only bluffing, and the ones who actually are after you will get you no matter what "rules" you follow. I'm not saying that traffic cycling can be done reliably in the US without thought (the US is such that there really is a need to learn how to cycle in traffic correctly and safely - this is not Copenhagen), I am saying that it is not so unforgiving that experience cannot be the main teacher.

just take a good look at the photos .
Its a photo, a narrow 2d representation of a 3d world snapshot in place and time. It tells one nothing if riding in that bike lane by default is safe. See my post on previous page about the dynamic events and the things out of sight that may make the BL unsafe.

Al

Why don't you ride all bike laned roads as if they are NOL roads?
HH may very likely have a different reasons, but mine is avoidance of a very signficiant increase in hostility from drivers if I do. Far more than one gets using full NOL or even using full WOL. I estimate this is because motorists feel justified in harrassing me as there is a clear and obvious place (to them) I should be instead of in their way.

Now of course I don't ride down center of primary lane with a BL adjacent if it is safe to pull over. The times I do this are when there are potential right turns, especially when there are a series of right turns. Other times are when there is significant debris in BL ahead that I am aware of from previous rides.

Al

Its a photo, a narrow 2d representation of a 3d world snapshot in place and time. It tells one nothing if riding in that bike lane by default is safe. See my post on previous page about the dynamic events and the things out of sight that may make the BL unsafe.

Al

I think what Bek is trying to get people to see, is that the major reasons for blanket refusal of bike lanes, namely, the debris issue and intersection treatment, are not present in the photograph. Yes, there may be traffic concerns which cannot be shown in a picture which may make the bike lane the wrong choice at the moment, but there is nothing intrinsic about the bike lane itself which disqualifies it from consideration.

Furthermore, the point which he is trying to make is that the bike lane is the first place under consideration, afterwhich, modifications are made to lane position based on local and momentary variables. I don't know if I like the language of a "default" position, but his point is close to what I do in practice.

My lane position changes with variables in three dimensions. One is space to evade. A left turning car opposite of me would illicit a slight drift to the right. A car creeping out from the right will illicit a more leftward lane position. Another is visibility. A sideroad from the right which is blind will illicit a leftward position, regardless of traffic. The last is destination. Going left, I tend toward the left, right, to the right, and straight, toward the middle (or middle right, depending on other, real time considerations involving the other two variables).

I have found that there are few hard and fast rules because there are too many factors to consider. Timing is of importance as well - I can merge into most any traffic stream short of freeway speeds by utilizing timing and acceleration. Experience - time on the bike - is the best teacher for learning to ride on the road; there is no substitute.



+100 Very well stated and probably really fits most of us experienced riders...

The entire post was well stated, I just chose this part as the heart of what really works. This also seems very much in line with Robert Hurst's writings.

HH may very likely have a different reasons, but mine is avoidance of a very signficiant increase in hostility from drivers if I do. Far more than one gets using full NOL or even using full WOL. I estimate this is because motorists feel justified in harrassing me as there is a clear and obvious place (to them) I should be instead of in their way.

Now of course I don't ride down center of primary lane with a BL adjacent if it is safe to pull over. The times I do this are when there are potential right turns, especially when there are a series of right turns. Other times are when there is significant debris in BL ahead that I am aware of from previous rides.

Al

I think this is how most people treat the problem of where to ride. But it is contrary to the retoric being thrown around this forum. All the "what if..." and such which gets tossed in the air everytime the subject of bike lanes is brought up.

See, the logical problem with your stance as far as the arguments on the forums go, is it begs the question of why be worried about driver hostility at all? We've all gotten hostile reactions from drivers when taking a lane at an intersection - all of it is just blowing smoke, which is why we aren't all dead from driver hostility. So, if driver hostility is illusionary, and the claimed disadvantages (or even dangers) of bike lanes are real, the question still stands: why not shun bike lanes completely and treat the road as a NOL road.

The argument in the past has gone: "...well, bike lanes are shunned; it is only the extra pavement which is used." But this argument essentially shows that the cyclist is against bike lanes only in abstract. A given real implementation is used "just to gain use of the extra pavement." But the reasons given for not using a bike lane; i.e. visibility concerns, debris, intersections, etc. are not abstract - they are all practical reasons. It follows that the cyclist posing this argument should ignore all bike lanes in practice, not just in abstract. It does not follow that a cyclist must use a bike lane on a road which has one already in place. A perfectly good alternative exists, which is to treat such a road as a NOL road and ride it as such.

...This also seems very much in line with Robert Hurst's writings.

More to the point, if you restrict your reading of even John Forester's book, Effective Cycling, to just that of the chapter on traffic cycling (the only chapter of any worth; the chapter on traffic cycling shines, even while the rest of his book is either dreary tutorial or diatribe), it is also well in line with his statements.

See, the logical problem with your stance as far as the arguments on the forums go, is it begs the question of why be worried about driver hostility at all?
This was not at all intended as a logical arguement against BL, just explaining personal reasons why treating primary lane as NOL is not desired for me.

I can handle lots of driver hostility. I just prefer not to. I find it interesting that in my experience to ride down one major busy arterial with NOL in a safe manner I get a few honks and agressive passes a week. To do the same on a parallel and slightly less busy arterial wtih a BL, only staying out of BL while passing intersections I know drivers occasionally use, but sometimes for 100-150yard stretches, I get far more honking (every day) and on two different occasions driver intentionally to push me into BL with vehicle, window down, adjacent to me yelling.

I just don't get what benefit the BL stripe provides.

Al

Strawman.

How long have you been cycling regularly?

How many miles per year do you ride?

And have you done any substantial riding outside of the confines of suburban San Diego?

Just wonderin'...

This was not at all intended as a logical arguement against BL, just explaining personal reasons why treating primary lane as NOL is not desired for me.

I can handle lots of driver hostility. I just prefer not to. I find it interesting that in my experience to ride down one major busy arterial with NOL in a safe manner I get a few honks and agressive passes a week. To do the same on a parallel and slightly less busy arterial wtih a BL, only staying out of BL while passing intersections I know drivers occasionally use, but sometimes for 100-150yard stretches, I get far more honking (every day) and on two different occasions driver intentionally to push me into BL with vehicle, window down, adjacent to me yelling.

I just don't get what benefit the BL stripe provides.

Al

Didn't you just state it (what benefit the bike lane provides)? If driver hostility is a real factor in lane positioning decisions, then something that counteracts it is beneficial, no? For you, obviously, the equation works out that eliminating driver hostility is of higher importance than any of the stated problems with bike lanes. This is my point.

Now, one could segue into how WOLs would do this better. But this is a statistical thing which can only be sorted out in a general way by a good body of research.

Another argument made is that bike lanes cause this hostility, just by dint of being there. There may be a small effect, but then, would hostility be significantly less if there were no extra pavement and it were, in fact, a NOL road?

I don't intend to badger you; I said I wouldn't so you could feel free to explain how you ride without fear of entrapment. These are just questions to think about. So many times, which talking about this stuff, people lose sight of practical concerns, preferring to stick to being argumentative. This thread was started totally in the argumentative thread; I want to move the discussion away from that so that someone can learn something.

Didn't you just state it (what benefit the bike lane provides)? If driver hostility is a real factor in lane positioning decisions, then something that counteracts it is beneficial, no? For you, obviously, the equation works out that eliminating driver hostility is of higher importance than any of the stated problems with bike lanes. This is my point.

Now, one could segue into how WOLs would do this better. But this is a statistical thing which can only be sorted out in a general way by a good body of research.

Another argument made is that bike lanes cause this hostility, just by dint of being there. There may be a small effect, but then, would hostility be significantly less if there were no extra pavement and it were, in fact, a NOL road?

I don't intend to badger you; I said I wouldn't so you could feel free to explain how you ride without fear of entrapment. These are just questions to think about. So many times, which talking about this stuff, people lose sight of practical concerns, preferring to stick to being argumentative. This thread was started totally in the argumentative thread; I want to move the discussion away from that so that someone can learn something.
First I want to thank your for writing clear thought out discussion points.
Second, I want to let you know my responses are quick fingered and don't (yet) fully encompass your points.

That said:
It is the stripe that I find so often problematic, not the lane width. Thinking about it more I can't recall the last time I was harrassed riding (anywhere) in a WOL in fact. In order of harassment on scale of 1-10
1. Riding outside 'Bad' BL (meaning avoiding area designated by striping approaching all intersections) - 7
2. Left merge from BL in prep for left turn ahead (again leaving BL) - 5 (probably a bit less as my arm is outstreched and I keep looking back)
3. NOL centerish position - 4
4. WOL left merge to adjacent lane - 1
5. WOL - 0

Al

Forgive me, but aren't most of those incidents mentioned in that thread from same direction traffic? Certainly the ones you love to harp on, from "inadvertent drift," are same direction traffic incidents.
Yes, but there are several examples of non-inadvertent drift types of collisions, like left hooks, that arguably would have been prevented had the cyclist been more visibly positioned and more vigilant.

Bek's question is a fair one.
Which is why I answered it.

Why don't you ride all bike laned roads as if they are NOL roads?
Because when faster same direction traffic (FSDT) is present, as a driver of a slow moving vehicle, I'm obligated to faciliate their passing me by moving right if it's safe and reasonable to do so.

There certainly is nothing keeping you from doing it.
Nothing except FSDT.

I do it on many roads with substandard bike lanes. If they serve you no advantage in the absence of same direction traffic, under what conditions do they start making sense to use in the presence of same direction traffic?
That was my answer to Bek. When FSDT is present, they happen to demarcate the space I can use to let the FSDT pass. When FSDT is not present, I feel I'm safer further left where I'm more conspicuous.

I am not trying to trap you with this; it is not a retorical question, simply an open question I'd like to hear your answer to (others are welcome to chime in as well). I just would like to understand how you make the decision to use the bike lane in the face of competing factors.
Why not? I've answered it dozens of times before. It's not rocket science.

Myself, I don't have a "default" lane position - on a straight rural highway with no traffic, no intersections, my lane position is wherever I fancy at the moment. My lane position floats in accordance to several factors. One is same direction traffic. Crossing traffic, or potential crossing traffic play a part. The configuration of upcoming stretches of road are also of consideration. Of course, there is destination positioning to consider as well.
Default lane position only comes into play when there are no known compelling factors to keep left or right. Absence of FSDT, no visible cross traffic, etc. In that case, I prefer moving further left to improve my sight lines (so that if cross traffic appears from the right I'll see them sooner), and so that I'm already positioned near optimally for most potential conflicts before I notice them, so I don't have to rely on noticing them, and then moving into position, to get into the best position. It's called being prepared.

My lane position changes with variables in three dimensions. One is space to evade. A left turning car opposite of me would illicit a slight drift to the right.
Before it moves? Not me, i hold my position and increase my cadence. Sometimes I stand up to be mor conspicuous. I don't want them to think I'm yielding. But yeah, if I see the wheels start to turn, I'm moving right to evade. But I've never had to do that.

A car creeping out from the right will illicit a more leftward lane position.
But not until you notice the car creeping out from the right. And the further right you are, the closer you'll be to it before you notice it. Why wait? Why not already be left?

Another is visibility. A sideroad from the right which is blind will illicit a leftward position, regardless of traffic.
Again, not until you notice the sideroad. Why not already be left?

The last is destination. Going left, I tend toward the left, right, to the right, and straight, toward the middle (or middle right, depending on other, real time considerations involving the other two variables).
Right. VC 101.

I have found that there are few hard and fast rules because there are too many factors to consider. Timing is of importance as well - I can merge into most any traffic stream short of freeway speeds by utilizing timing and acceleration. Experience - time on the bike - is the best teacher for learning to ride on the road; there is no substitute.
I won't disagree with this except for what I already said above: Default lane position only comes into play when ...

One last thing I've learned. Mistakes on a bike are not penalized nearly as much as one might get the impression from reading threads here. Ultimately, there are people in those cars, and they really aren't out to get you. Or at least, the ones who say they are are only bluffing, and the ones who actually are after you will get you no matter what "rules" you follow. I'm not saying that traffic cycling can be done reliably in the US without thought (the US is such that there really is a need to learn how to cycle in traffic correctly and safely - this is not Copenhagen), I am saying that it is not so unforgiving that experience cannot be the main teacher.
Totally agree. :beer:

I think this is how most people treat the problem of where to ride. But it is contrary to the retoric being thrown around this forum. All the "what if..." and such which gets tossed in the air everytime the subject of bike lanes is brought up.

See, the logical problem with your stance as far as the arguments on the forums go, is it begs the question of why be worried about driver hostility at all? We've all gotten hostile reactions from drivers when taking a lane at an intersection - all of it is just blowing smoke, which is why we aren't all dead from driver hostility. So, if driver hostility is illusionary, and the claimed disadvantages (or even dangers) of bike lanes are real, the question still stands: why not shun bike lanes completely and treat the road as a NOL road.

The argument in the past has gone: "...well, bike lanes are shunned; it is only the extra pavement which is used." But this argument essentially shows that the cyclist is against bike lanes only in abstract. A given real implementation is used "just to gain use of the extra pavement." But the reasons given for not using a bike lane; i.e. visibility concerns, debris, intersections, etc. are not abstract - they are all practical reasons. It follows that the cyclist posing this argument should ignore all bike lanes in practice, not just in abstract. It does not follow that a cyclist must use a bike lane on a road which has one already in place. A perfectly good alternative exists, which is to treat such a road as a NOL road and ride it as such.
What you're missing is that so-called good bike lanes -- clean, between intersections, not substandard width, etc. -- position the cyclist relatively far to the right where sight lines between him and potential cross-traffic are shortened, and where he's riding where those in cross traffic are less likely to be paying attention. The shorter sight lines and inconspicuous positioning are irrelevant (or certainly much less relevant) in the presence of FSDT which is blocking the cross traffic from being a threat.

You yourself admitted, "My lane position floats in accordance to several factors. One is same direction traffic. " How? In basically the same way I'm describing here? If not, how?

The other thing is that even "clean" bike lanes are not as clean as the pavement in the traffic lanes which is constantly being swept clean by traffic. The pavement might look clean, but impossible to see shards of metal and glass are still being swept from the traffic lanes into the bike lanes. The more time you spend riding in that crap, the more likely you are to get a flat. Why not try to minimize the exposure your tires must endure by staying out of the debris lanes whenever it's safe and reasonable to do so?

How long have you been cycling regularly?
More or less 40 years.

How many miles per year do you ride?
5,000 give or take depending on the year.

And have you done any substantial riding outside of the confines of suburban San Diego?
Mostly only where I've lived in central and southern California, but also some in Europe.

Just wonderin'...
Whatever. Nothing I write is based on asking anyone to take my word for anything, so I don't see the relevance.

but joejack, those lanes are even safe in the PRESENCE of traffic, and you are deluding yourself into thinking a lane that is safe when there is traffic becomes unsafe in the absnce of traffic?

just take a good look at the photos above on this page. a clean and acceptable bike lane is the default road position for a vehicular bicyclist on a well accomodated roadway.

You are missing the point when you assume that "the presence of traffic" is only referring to faster same direction traffic. I would not consider those lanes to be safer than the traffic lane in the presence of oncoming or cross traffic that I can see and certainly not oncoming or cross traffic that I cannot see.

Let's break down traffic into 6 categories: oncoming, cross, and faster same direction traffic that we can and do see, and oncoming, cross, and faster same direction traffic that we cannot see. Of these 6 categories of traffic, which concerns you the most? Which of these categories of traffic has the longest reaction time once they have seen you? Which of these categories of traffic do you have the longest reaction time for once you have seen them? If you place a higher priority of a category of traffic that has a longer reaction time once they have seen you or you see them over a category of traffic that has a shorter reaction time once they have seen you or you see them, why do you do it?

NONE of helmet heads' blatherings change the FACT that, on a well accomodated roadway with a clean and a safe bike lane, the DEFAULT position for a vehicular bicyclist will be using that road as it is designed; defaulting to the bike lane, and leaving the bike lane in the presence of actual roadway hazards that necessitate leaving the lane.

IF a bike lane is safe enough for helmet head to use in the presence of traffic there is NOTHING that makes that lane any less safe in the absence of traffic. the bike lane safe when there is traffic is also safe, if not safer, in the ABSENCE of traffic.


a vehicular bicyclist does NOT weave back and forth between two safe lane positions just to make themselves noticable to traffic; a safe lane position doesn't predicate moving back and forth when traffic is still some distance behind you. in fact, weaving back and forth in front of traffic, when there is a safe and acceptable bike lane to ride in, would be considered UNSAFE and FAULTY biking method.

bikes DON'T swerve in front of every overtaking car to make them safer.

that is a less safe bicycling method.

when a bike lane is deemed safe and acceptable for use, a vehicular bicyclist will default to the bike lane. when it becomes unsafe, the vehicular bicyclist then leaves the lane. a vehicular bicyclist will have no compelling rationale to weave a peek-a-boo in front of every car when a safe and accpetable lane position to the right is acceptable for use.

what a jokester head is to delude even himself with his illogic.

when it becomes unsafe, the vehicular bicyclist then leaves the lane.

Can you take some video of this instantaneous movement?

Mostly only where I've lived in central and southern California, but also some in Europe.
Can you be a little more precise than "some in Europe"? I believe you wrote previously it was one day in Munich or Friedrichshafen (maybe it was looking at bicyclists from your rental car/train window), and a day or two in France, no?

He rode in Santa Barbara---in the back seat of somebody's car.

why, joejack? you know how bikes lateral, dontchya?

but a vehicular bicyclist will position them selves by default in a safe and well provided bike lane, using the road as it was designed for vehicles including bicycles.

in the actual need to leave that position, they do so.

vehicular bicyclists do NOT ignore proper lane positions and safe, well accomodated roadway stripes, to illogically weave back and forth in front of every car on the roadway that is overtaking them.

there is nothing but paranoia in the techniques of helmet head and his 'weave in front of the cars and slow them down noticably' before yielding the road position for another safe position to the right.

as if you can even tell if cars closing on a bicyclist are even slowing....brake lights are NOT visible from the front....how does a powerweaver determine the cars have 'noticed' them again, head? what if there's low light conditions, fog, or other visibility minimizers?

and how does a lane position that is safe, determined some distance in front of passing cars, become safe when those cars are still behind the bicyclist, but unsafe when no cars are present? can you explain that idiocy again, cause it sure isn't making much sense, head.....


helemt head, i think i've distilled your insanity about riding well accomodated roads into these simple equasions:

cars behind me a good distance=safe bike lane.

and no cars behind me= unsafe bike lane??????

huh??? why is that again? why is the lane in the photo below (as an example) unsafe when there aren't any cars on the road? is it the bike lane putting the rider in the gutter? or is this lane full of debris? is it not conspicious enough? can helmet head's armchair fit in the lane, is the real question I guess....

in the actual need to leave that position, they do so.
Only if they recognize the "need to leave" sufficiently early. Too many cyclists have died who did not recognize the need to leave sufficiently early. Do you care about them?

i think i've distilled your insanity about riding well accomodated roads into these simple equasions:

cars behind me a good distance=safe bike lane.

and no cars behind me= unsafe bike lane??????


Did you have trouble in school, Bek? You still don't get it.


Bike lane is not safe or unreasonable to use... stay out of the bike lane.
Faster same direction traffic is not present - stay out of the bike lane to improve your sight lines (see cross traffic hazards sooner), improve sight line distances to you (cross traffic will see you sooner), and to improve conspicuity (those who see you are more likely to notice you because you are riding where they are most likely to be paying attention).
Faster same direction traffic is present and bike lane is safe and reasonable to use... use the bike lane.

"too many cyclists have died"...is that some kind of lame emotional appeal? using hysteria to cover your lack of credible advice about powerweaving in front of cars from a safe and acceptable bike lane on a well accomodated road, helmet head?

a vehicular bicyclist doesn't default to the travel lanes when there is a safe position in an acceptable bike lane integrated into the road striping.

a vehicular bicyclist uses the road as it is designed for vehicles, including bicycles.
a default position for a vehicular bicyclist on a well accomodated road is in the accomodation.

you are predicating your not using the bike lane when it is not acceptable for use. fair enough. if a bike lane gives you effective conspicuity and lane position in the presence of cars, it will not fail to do so in the absence of cars.

weaving back and forth from the bike lane, in and out of the bike lane, just because cars aren't behind you is foolish, unsafe, and illogical.

there is no good rationale to weave back and forth from a safe and acceptable bike lane just because traffic isn't present. helmet heads faulty method has him weaving back and forth all the time in and out of the travel lane just because there isn't any traffic behind him. pshaw. lets throw some twelve foot shoulders, rain, and a few logging trucks into the equasion if it it's still too difficult for you to figure out, helemt head-

a vehicular bicyclist DOESN'T default to the travel lanes when there is a safe and acceptable lane position in a bike lane on a well accomodated road.

the position for a vehicular bicyclist in this picture would be squarely in the accomodation. A vehicular bicyclist is NOT in the travel lane, waiting for traffic to pull up to some arbitrary closing distance before weaving into the bike lane.

simpler still, helmet head....

Bike lane is not safe or unreasonable to use... stay out of the bike lane.
Bike lane IS safe and reasonable for use... use the bike lane.


Faster same direction traffic is not present and bike lane is safe and reasonable to use - no threat to biker, stay in the bike lane, maximisizing consistency, visibility, and predictability.

Faster same direction traffic is present and bike lane is safe and reasonable to use... use the bike lane.

simple stuff, eh?


what makes the lane safe when cars are present,

NOT safe when cars AREN'T present again, head?

if a bike lane gives you effective conspicuity and lane position in the presence of cars, it will not fail to do so in the absence of cars.
This is true only if you assume the requirements for effective conspicuity are the same regardless of the presence faster same direction traffic (FSDT). But it's not true.

When FSDT is present, they block cross traffic from being a threat to you, so your requirement for conspicuity to the the cross traffic is not nearly as important as it is when FSDT is not present.

Furthermore, when FSDT is present, they tend to follow each other and not take their eyes off the road nearly as long as they do when there is no traffic in front of them. Therefore, the requirement for establishing conspicuity to traffic approaching from behind is higher during the period of FSDT absence - to get and keep the attention of the driver of the car that approaches from behind with nobody in front of him. Once conspicuity has been established, you can move aside to let him pass. Others following him are not nearly as likely to not be paying attention for as long, so they are less of a threat. The requirements for establishing effective conspicuity vary depending various factors and conditions, particularly the presence of FSDT.

Therefore, riding in a bike lane may give you sufficient conspicuity while FSDT is present, but riding in the same bike lane while FSDT is not present may not give you as much conspicuity as you would like... move left!

Capiche?

what makes the lane safe when cars are present, ...
Their presence blocks cross traffic up ahead; drivers following other cars keep each other alert.

NOT safe when cars AREN'T present again, head?
Their absence makes it less safe... no more blocking of cross traffic, driver of first car arriving after absence of cars is likely to not be paying as much attention as when he is following other cars.

hhahahahaha. i'm suprised you believe that blather yourself, head.

absense of traffic makes a bicycle less conspicious.

and what is this new acrynom, faster same direction traffic? how about this one....STFU!



been riding much head? its getting dark early and staying dark late, how much of your commute is done in the dark now, helemt head? improved your blinkies any or still clueless on what your're doing out there after dark?

do you really ride in the winter, helemt head? how many days a week? when you plan on riding at night, do you take your other bike 'down from the rafters,' dust it off, pump up the tires, and go? that's the bike with the blinikies, right, that earlier this year you hadn't ridden for months?

riding much of your winter commute, head? or is it all the armchair? how is your visibiltiy scenario going? know the types of blinkies you're using yet?


as an example, a vehicular bicyclist will default ride in this accomodation, head. if you think not, there are probably a few riding classes around san diego that might help you understand how to ride on well accomodated roads, head. check with the advocacy group.

hhahahahaha. i'm suprised you believe that blather yourself, head.

+1! Actually, I'm not sure if he even reads the stuff he writes. To wit:

Others following him are not nearly as likely to not be paying attention for as long, so they are less of a threat.

...drivers following other cars keep each other alert.

Riiiight! And cars never run into other cars because they're "keeping each other alert". :rolleyes:

Riiiight! And cars never run into other cars because they're "keeping each other alert".
Never? Another straw man!

Are you denying that drivers are more likely to drive off a road due to inattention when they are the only ones on the road then when there are others they are following?

Just because something is less likely doesn't mean it will NEVER happen. Of course drivers run into others due to brief-but-long-enough periods of inattention. But how often does someone who is following someone else look away from the road long enough to attend to a distraction to drive off the road? And how often does that happen when there is no one in front of that driver (except for the cyclist up ahead in the bike lane he has not noticed)?

how about this one....STFU!
Congratualtions. You're on ignore for one week.

why, joejack? you know how bikes lateral, dontchya?

Do you not want to answer my questions in my previous post? Maybe SSP would like to since he loves to blindly defend bike lanes as the default position as well.

Reprint of my post:

You are missing the point when you assume that "the presence of traffic" is only referring to faster same direction traffic. I would not consider those lanes to be safer than the traffic lane in the presence of oncoming or cross traffic that I can see and certainly not oncoming or cross traffic that I cannot see.

Let's break down traffic into 6 categories: oncoming, cross, and faster same direction traffic that we can and do see, and oncoming, cross, and faster same direction traffic that we cannot see. Of these 6 categories of traffic, which concerns you the most? Which of these categories of traffic has the longest reaction time once they have seen you? Which of these categories of traffic do you have the longest reaction time for once you have seen them? If you place a higher priority of a category of traffic that has a longer reaction time once they have seen you or you see them over a category of traffic that has a shorter reaction time once they have seen you or you see them, why do you do it?