Advocacy & Safety - agree or disagree: part 3 of 2

do you agree or disagree with the following statement:

a bicyclist can ride vehicularily in a lane on a road.

please consider your anwser, and vote accordingly.

I say yes. unless saying yes can be used against me later. where's my chocolate?

do you agree or disagree with the following statement:

a bicyclist can ride vehicularily in a lane on a road.

please consider your anwser, and vote accordingly.

Personally I think a Vehicular Cyclist can use ANY lane on a road, and that includes a BL and/or MUP when available.

I trusted you and voted for yes, but also that I want chocolate first. Cough up the chocolate, pal.

Bek, I accuse you of having an ulterior motive with this poll. It's so obvious there's only one right answer.

I'm clarifying all the confusing vehicular cycling nonsense that gets posted in this forum.

the chocolate will be handed out later.

Peppermint has stripes too. I want peppermint.

the chocolate will be handed out later.

Yeah, like I'm gonna trust a used bike salesman! :mad:

all these roads have been only lightly used; the bikes are new old stock once owned by a little old lady in Pasadena.

The question stands; Can a cyclist ride vehicularily in a lane in a road?

do you agree or disagree with the following statement:

a bicyclist can ride vehicularily in a lane on a road.

I voted yes, even though we don't have any bike lanes around here. It doesn't seem like I would have much difficulty using (or avoiding) them as necessary. Then again I don't care much for chocolate so what do I know?

I have no idea who answered "no" to this pointless poll, or what he or she was thinking, but, FWIW, it wasn't me.


I'm clarifying all the confusing vehicular cycling nonsense that gets posted in this forum.
Yeah, right. That's like "clarifying" all the "confusing" wheel count nonsense over at Bicycle Mechanics by having a poll on whether bicycles have one, two or three wheels. :rolleyes:

If the concept of whether a vehicular cyclist can use a striped lane is confusing to you or requires clarification, you must have fallen down on your head at least one too many times.

do you agree or disagree with the following statement:

a bicyclist can ride vehicularily in a lane on a road.

please consider your anwser, and vote accordingly.
I was going to say something, but then I saw "chocolate," and I was gone. :D

...you must have fallen down on your head at least one too many times.
Watch it, I resemble that remark!

Well, I want chocolate before I vote, so I am waiting before I chose that option because, as of yet, I have recieved no chocolate.
But my opinion is, that barring the "vehicular cyclists" stupid principles, asuming he is one of those stupid VCists who refuses to ride on a road just because there is paint on it, any cyclist can ride on any rode he wishes. I would love it if there were lanes like that around here!

I have no idea who answered "no" to this pointless poll, or what he or she was thinking, but, FWIW, it wasn't me.


Yeah, right. That's like "clarifying" all the "confusing" wheel count nonsense over at Bicycle Mechanics by having a poll on whether bicycles have one, two or three wheels. :rolleyes:

If the concept of whether a vehicular cyclist can use a striped lane is confusing to you or requires clarification, you must have fallen down on your head at least one too many times.


I think it does indeed need clarifying. It would seem that a certain feeling is promulgated that states that if a certain person abides by Vehicular Cycling principles that he eschews bike lanes or special use lanes as dangerous and therefore should not ride within them. I think Bek is trying to find out how many people believe in this idea and how many hold a more moderate position on what VC is. I voted Yes by the way but that should be obvious though I may have fallen on my head a few times in my youth suffering through several minor concussions. (by the way, what is it with all these inferences to low intelligence? Can't we just disagree without being stupid too?)

This is ridiculous! Everyone knows that NO vehicles of any type/sort belong on ANY road! So let's be done with ALL nonsense! Well, unless it involves that chocolate or peppermint that was mentioned...but that's not nonsense - this is serious! Oh, wait, I guess that a serious chocolate would align us with the criteria required for that-which-shall-not-be-named style of that-which-shall-not-be-named.

I think it does indeed need clarifying. It would seem that a certain feeling is promulgated that states that if a certain person abides by Vehicular Cycling principles that he eschews bike lanes or special use lanes as dangerous and therefore should not ride within them. Can you truly not comprehend and appreciate the distinction between being opposed to a particular type of demarcation of roadway space from opposition to using it just because it happens to be so demarcated?

Can you truly not comprehend and appreciate the distinction between being opposed to a particular type of demarcation of roadway space because of a belief that such demarcation promotes careless and dangerous behavior by those who do not appreciate the potential of it to do so, from eschewing the appropriate use of such space by those who do understand and appreciate the potential of it to do so?

If not (for either question), the evidence keeps rolling in...

Folks, this isn't rocket science. How often does this need to be clarified? I would think that after all this time, even Bek should be able to grasp this, much less you Paul.

Can you truly not comprehend and appreciate the distinction between being opposed to a particular type of demarcation of roadway space from opposition to using it just because it happens to be so demarcated?


The diffference between being against a bike lane and against it just because it happens to be called a bike lane?
Wouldn't a rose by any other name smell as sweet?

Or perhaps you meant the difference between being against a bike lane and not using it only because you are against it and it is so set aside? Well, anything else would be a little hypocritical wouldn't it?



Can you truly not comprehend and appreciate the distinction between being opposed to a particular type of demarcation of roadway space because of a belief that such demarcation promotes careless and dangerous behavior by those who do not appreciate the potential of it to do so, from eschewing the appropriate use of such space by those who do understand and appreciate the potential of it to do so?


The distinction between opposition to a bike lane because you believe it promotes careless and dangerous behavior by those not in the know and those who hate it because they fully well know?
Seems to me we are talking about the difference between a person who thinks bike lanes are bad because he believes most people are not smart enough to know better or how to use them wisely, and a person who hates them just for his percieved danger of them. I guess there is a bit of difference there. Both folks sound llike they are deciding what is best for the people without their input though.



If not (for either question), the evidence keeps rolling in...

Folks, this isn't rocket science. How often does this need to be clarified? I would think that after all this time, even Bek should be able to grasp this.

The evidence does keep rolling in doesn't it. How clever of you to notice.

I am afraid I still agree with Bek.

Folks, this isn't rocket science. How often does this need to be clarified? I would think that after all this time...
We low IQ folks just can't understand High IQ derived clarifications. Understand?

Okay, this is the last time I'm venturing over, because for all of the discussion, I cannot for the life of me figure out what this argument is all about! Perhaps it's my dismally low IQ, but who is arguing for what???! Helmet Head? Are you for or against bike lanes - cause honestly, from your numerous posts, I can't tell anymore. *sigh* :o

Why don't you guys argue about the golf cart crossings? Do the guys in golf carts have the right to cross in marked crosswalks or should they be required to stop, get out of their carts and push them across (like we are required by law to do if we enter a crosswalk on a bike)? I think we should make the bastards push the carts across or else we shouldn't have to stop to let them cross!

Okay, this is the last time I'm venturing over, because for all of the discussion, I cannot for the life of me figure out what this argument is all about! Perhaps it's my dismally low IQ, but who is arguing for what???! Helmet Head? Are you for or against bike lanes - cause honestly, from your numerous posts, I can't tell anymore. *sigh* :o There are a few low-I.Q. types here who believe that bicycle lanes are a good thing. Everybody else-- i.e., Helmet Head-- has a high I.Q., and therefore realizes that bike lanes are a bad thing, because all car/bike accidents can be attributed to bike lanes.

Okay, this is the last time I'm venturing over, because for all of the discussion, I cannot for the life of me figure out what this argument is all about! Perhaps it's my dismally low IQ, but who is arguing for what???! Helmet Head? Are you for or against bike lanes - cause honestly, from your numerous posts, I can't tell anymore. *sigh* :o


I am arguing for bike lanes, when they make sense, and no bike lanes where they do not. I think both philosophies have their place. I percieve that Helmet Head argues that Bike Lanes are dangerous more often than not and should not be used. So that is what I am arguing against.
Why? I can't say, I have sat out of this for probably a year or more and find it highly entertaining to come back and find I haven't missed a thing. Perhaps I will take another hiatus and come back when things change, but sometimes it is fun to just come in here and be called a neandrathal sometimes by those in the know. :)

Oops, not everything is the same, last time I discussed things with Helmet Head he actually discussed things with me such as lane filtering being facilitated by bike lanes in states where lane filtering was illegal.

Helmet Head argues that Bike Lanes are dangerous more often than notActually, Helmet Head argues that bike lanes cause accidents, period. For Helmet Head, there is no such thing as a safe bike lane.

EDIT: In fact, even where bike lanes DO NOT exist, HH will argue, they lead to harassment of cyclists, because cyclists "belong" in bike lanes.

The diffference between being against a bike lane and against it just because it happens to be called a bike lane?
Wouldn't a rose by any other name smell as sweet?

Or perhaps you meant the difference between being against a bike lane and not using it only because you are against it and it is so set aside? Well, anything else would be a little hypocritical wouldn't it? Holy cow, you really don't get it.



The distinction between opposition to a bike lane because you believe it promotes careless and dangerous behavior by those not in the know and those who hate it because they fully well know?
Seems to me we are talking about the difference between a person who thinks bike lanes are bad because he believes most people are not smart enough to know better or how to use them wisely, and a person who hates them just for his percieved danger of them. I guess there is a bit of difference there. Both folks sound llike they are deciding what is best for the people without their input though.

The evidence does keep rolling in doesn't it. How clever of you to notice.

I am afraid I still agree with Bek. I never said anything about hating bike lanes. I'm opposed to them because think they cause more harm than good for cyclists.

I'm opposed to polluted air. Am I a hypocrite if I breath it anyway?

You don't need to agree with these. But can you accept that I believe the following to be true?
Bike lanes promote inappropriately carefree/careless cycling by those cyclists who are unaware of the much higher risk they are exposed to by traffic crossing movements than from same-direction traffic movements.
Bike lanes encourage inappropriate behavior by motorists at intersections, particularly at right turns where the rightmost lane is straight-or-right by encouraging them to turn right from a too-far-left position.
Bike lanes cause the accumulation of rubble and debris at road edges.
The existence of bike lanes on the roadway reinforces the notion that cyclists should be "out of the way" of people driving cars.
Bike lanes reduce the amount of space cyclists have a legally-protected right to use by making off-limits the foot on either side of the BL stripe (when riding with tires within a foot of the stripe, the 2' wide cyclist is technically encroaching on the adjacent lane, and technically making an illegal lane change, making him legally liable if sideswiped by a passing motorist; with the stripe absent, the legal onus is on the passing motorist to pass with a safe distance, even if the cyclist is riding in the space where the stripe would be if it was there).Again, you don't need to agree or debate with any of these points, but can you see there is no contradiction in being opposed to bike lanes for the above reasons while at the same time never-the-less not necessarily being opposed to using roadway space that happens to be demarcated by a bike lane stripe, particularly between intersections?

There are a few low-I.Q. types here who believe that bicycle lanes are a good thing. Everybody else-- i.e., Helmet Head-- has a high I.Q., and therefore realizes that bike lanes are a bad thing, because all car/bike accidents can be attributed to bike lanes. This is not an accurate or fair characterization of my position (a point of frustration for me is that those who supposedly disagree with me can't even explain my position/argument without exaggerating and mischaracterizing it, which indicates they don't even understand what they're disagreeing with).

I do oppose bike lanes (except in certain exceptional situations with long intersectionless stretches of roadway and very high speed motor traffic, particularly where slow moving vehicles are prohibited - like on freeways, and on certain bridges and tunnels) because I believe they cause more harm than good for cyclists for reasons outlined (but not discussed in detail) above.

This is not an accurate or fair characterization of my position (a point of frustration for me is that those who supposedly disagree with me can't even explain my position/argument without exaggerating and mischaracterizing it, which indicates they don't even understand what they're disagreeing with).

I do oppose bike lanes (except in certain exceptional situations with long intersectionless stretches of roadway and very high speed motor traffic, particularly where slow moving vehicles are prohibited - like on freeways, and on certain bridges and tunnels) because I believe they cause more harm than good for cyclists for reasons outlined (but not discussed in detail) above.Doesn't your exception conflict with this?:


The existence of bike lanes on the roadway reinforces the notion that cyclists should be "out of the way" of people driving cars.

This is not an accurate or fair characterization of my position (a point of frustration for me is that those who supposedly disagree with me can't even explain my position/argument without exaggerating and mischaracterizing it, which indicates they don't even understand what they're disagreeing with).But Helmy, you're the one who argues in every "cyclist dies" thread that it's all the fault of bike lanes.

Even when the cyclist was hit by a drunken escaping felon on his cell who ran three red lights before hitting the hapless cyclist who had the right of way and was nowhere near a bike lane...

But Helmy, you're the one who argues in every "cyclist dies" thread that it's all the fault of bike lanes.

Even when the cyclist was hit by a drunken escaping felon on his cell who ran three red lights before hitting the hapless cyclist who had the right of way and was nowhere near a bike lane...Or was it the cyclist's fault, and not the bike lane?

Or was it both the bike lane AND the cyclist's fault? I can't remember now...

Actually, Helmet Head argues that bike lanes cause accidents, period. For Helmet Head, there is no such thing as a safe bike lane.

EDIT: In fact, even where bike lanes DO NOT exist, HH will argue, they lead to harassment of cyclists, because cyclists "belong" in bike lanes.
Another mischaracterization indicating lack of understanding by someone who supposedly disagrees with my position/argument (I say "supposedly" because one cannot truly disagree a position/argument he does not comprehend).

Bike lanes do not cause accidents.
Bike lanes encourage behavior, particularly at intersections, that can be a contributory factor in car-bike collisions.

"Safe" is too subjective in meaning for me to assert that there is or is not such a thing as a "safe" bike lane.

I have pointed out that in areas where there are enough bike lanes for people to become accustomed to them, there is a tendency for motorists to develop the expectation that cyclists on the road should be in a bike lane, and, therefore, should not be riding on roads without bike lanes.

The term "bike lane" can also take on a meaning that is "that space off to the side that is out of my way (whether it is physically demarcated as a bike lane or not)" as exemplified by motorists yelling at cyclists who are in a lane-controlling position (perhaps because the lane is too narrow to be safely shared) to "get in the bike lane" on roads without bike lanes.

Holy cow, you really don't get it.


I never said anything about hating bike lanes. I'm opposed to them because think they cause more harm than good for cyclists.

I'm opposed to polluted air. Am I a hypocrite if I breath it anyway?

Perhaps I don't get it but then again the way you put it was not stated in the plainest of terms.

If a person doesn't breathe they will die so I think you are Apples and Oranges there. If a person says they think motorcycles are dangerous and then rides one anyway? Well, they would either be hypocritical, or candidates for your bike lane popularity hypothesis.



You don't need to agree with these. But can you accept that I believe the following to be true?
Bike lanes promote inappropriately carefree/careless cycling by those cyclists who are unaware of the much higher risk they are exposed to by traffic crossing movements than from same-direction traffic movements.

I respect your opinion and can you respect mine-
Cyclists in general are a little more intelligent than we give them credit for?
That some people (such as my wife) would never even consider riding on a road without a bike lane?
That occasionaly Crap happens and it isn't necessarily due to any painted lines on the road?


Bike lanes encourage inappropriate behavior by motorists at intersections, particularly at right turns where the rightmost lane is straight-or-right by encouraging them to turn right from a too-far-left position.

I respect your opinion on this. I differ with you if the road has a dedicated right hand turn lane and the bike lane goes to the left of it as do most of the ones I use. Can you respect that opinion?


Bike lanes cause the accumulation of rubble and debris at road edges.

I respect your opinion on this. Can you respect mine that cities should sweep their lanes? Also that the lanes do not have to necessarily be full of debris but the left half of the lane can and often is still swept by cars and their backdraft?


The existence of bike lanes on the roadway reinforces the notion that cyclists should be "out of the way" of people driving cars.

I respect your opinion. Can you respect mine in saying that this sounds a little like the NRAs excuse to allow assualt weapons and such in the hands of youth and every other red blooded american (just making a point here folks, lets not discuss the NRA further please) in the fear that if they give an inch they will lose a yard? Do we need to advocate for a position strictly for fear of what MIGHT happen?


Bike lanes reduce the amount of space cyclists have a legally-protected right to use by making off-limits the foot on either side of the BL stripe (when riding with tires within a foot of the stripe, the 2' wide cyclist is technically encroaching on the adjacent lane, and technically making an illegal lane change, making him legally liable if sideswiped by a passing motorist; with the stripe absent, the legal onus is on the passing motorist to pass with a safe distance, even if the cyclist is riding in the space where the stripe would be if it was there).Again, you don't need to agree or debate with any of these points, but can you see there is no contradiction in being opposed to bike lanes for the above reasons while at the same time never-the-less not necessarily being opposed to using roadway space that happens to be demarcated by a bike lane stripe, particularly between intersections?
I respect your opinion, but differ in mine due to the "as right as is safe" clause in most cycling laws, thus if one is too close to the line because of debris he is still legal due to a hazard in the lane. Can you respect that without implying my low intelligence? Or shall we insult each other and thus prevent further rational discussion?

Technically to ride in the bike lane space is riding in the bike lane but I do understand your point that you would ride there if it wasn't a bike lane. I thought I understood that you preferred to take the center of the lane though which is why I was so presumptuous as to suggest you were opposed to using bike lanes.

Doesn't your exception conflict with this?:
Yes.

Except, on roads with long intersectionless stretches, particularly where slow moving vehicles are prohibit, slow moving vehicles (including bicyclists) do belong "out of the way" of faster traffic.

This is not the case on the vast majority of roads where bike lanes exists and/or are promoted.

Holy cow, you really don't get it....

Bike lanes cause the accumulation of rubble and debris at road edges...Oh, weally?

Seems like you *might* be reaching a bit, even by your standards, don't you think?

Technically to ride in the bike lane space is riding in the bike lane but I do understand your point that you would ride there if it wasn't a bike lane. I thought I understood that you preferred to take the center of the lane though which is why I was so presumptuous as to suggest you were opposed to using bike lanes. I do prefer the center of the lane, but I'm not opposed to using positions further right that compromise my conspicuity, whether that space is demarcated by a bike lane or even a shoulder stripe, in order to allow faster traffic to pass, when faster traffic is present or approaching.

I respect your opinion and can get back to your more specific questions if you would like, but I request that you directly answer my question first, so at least you and I don't need to revisit this issue again.

Can you understand how someone who is generally opposed to bike lanes is not necessarily opposed to using bike lanes, at least from time to time?

By the way, you can buy/create purified air and live your life breathing only that, much like people with extreme allergies must do. It's only a matter of time, money and compromise. But despite having that option, you can be opposed to polluted air and still choose to breath it, because the effort to avoid breathing is not worth it. Same with bike lanes. I can oppose bike lanes, but I can still choose to use them, because the effort to avoid that space, just because it is demarcated by a bike lane stripe, is often not worth it. That doesn't make me a hypocrite. Okay? Can we get passed this? If so, then let me know if you want me to address the rest of your post.

Okay, this is the last time I'm venturing over, because for all of the discussion, I cannot for the life of me figure out what this argument is all about! Perhaps it's my dismally low IQ, but who is arguing for what???! Helmet Head? Are you for or against bike lanes - cause honestly, from your numerous posts, I can't tell anymore. *sigh* :o

Why don't you guys argue about the golf cart crossings? Do the guys in golf carts have the right to cross in marked crosswalks or should they be required to stop, get out of their carts and push them across (like we are required by law to do if we enter a crosswalk on a bike)? I think we should make the bastards push the carts across or else we shouldn't have to stop to let them cross!
Hopefully all your questions are answered now.

If not, please let me know.

There are all sorts of activities that are legal, but bad ideas. I have no idea what sort of traffic this road receives, but I trust the bike lane is there for a reason.



I think it does indeed need clarifying. It would seem that a certain feeling is promulgated that states that if a certain person abides by Vehicular Cycling principles that he eschews bike lanes or special use lanes as dangerous and therefore should not ride within them. I think Bek is trying to find out how many people believe in this idea and how many hold a more moderate position on what VC is. I voted Yes by the way but that should be obvious though I may have fallen on my head a few times in my youth suffering through several minor concussions. (by the way, what is it with all these inferences to low intelligence? Can't we just disagree without being stupid too?)

Holy cow, you really don't get it....
Bike lanes cause the accumulation of rubble and debris at road edges...Oh, weally?

Seems like you *might* be reaching a bit, even by your standards, don't you think?
Fair enough. Bike lanes are the indirect cause of accumulation of rubble and debris at road edges

Bike lane stripes tend to cause most motorists to stay to the left of the stripe. Thus, all the debris on the road that is swept by the motor traffic to the side accumulates to the right of the stripe (in the bike lane).

When the bike lane is not there, the stripe is not there, and motorists travel further right more often, thus contributing to the sweeping of that space as well, leaving cleaner pavement for cyclists to ride at the road edge.

By the way, you can buy/create purified air and live your life breathing only that, much like people with extreme allergies must do. It's only a matter of time, money and compromise. But despite having that option, you can be opposed to polluted air and still choose to breath it, because the effort to avoid breathing is not worth it. Same with bike lanes. I can oppose bike lanes, but I can still choose to use them, because the effort to avoid that space, just because it is demarcated by a bike lane stripe, is often not worth it. That doesn't make me a hypocrite. Okay? Can we get passed this? If so, then let me know if you want me to address the rest of your post.

A medical situation requiring pure air is another thing. Some people have to live in plastic bubbles yet everyone hates germs.

As far as using a bike lane out of necessity even though you thoroughly wished they were otherwise a wide outside lane? I can respect that. Personally I think the chances of getting things passed are greater if you push for something concrete like a bike lane and will likely get more political support from beginning cycling types to call it a bike lane rather than a wide shoulder but that is a matter of speculation and opinion. Personally I would rather have a bike lane than a narrow shoulder and I guess that is really where my passion of argument comes from as I believe there is more support out there for bike lanes than wide outside lanes.

Fair enough. Bike lanes are the indirect cause of accumulation of rubble and debris at road edges

Bike lane stripes tend to cause most motorists to stay to the left of the stripe. Thus, all the debris on the road that is swept by the motor traffic to the side accumulates to the right of the stripe (in the bike lane).

When the bike lane is not there, the stripe is not there, and motorists travel further right more often, thus contributing to the sweeping of that space as well, leaving cleaner pavement for cyclists to ride at the road edge.So if motorists travel further right in the absence of bike lanes, wouldn't that mean that bike lanes create more space on the road for cyclists?

Hopefully all your questions are answered now.

If not, please let me know.

Not really...where are we supposed to ride if we don't have a bike lane? :o The sidewalk or in traffic? (btw, there is a law in CA, I believe, which stipulates that we own the lane we're in IF we are going as fast as traffic. As hard as I try, I just can't get my cadence up enough to hit 35 mph on the flats). Doesn't the marked bike lane signify that bikes have a right to be there (something I suspect far more motorists ignore or disagree with when we are in the lane with them than I'm comfortable knowing). It's kind of like saying slower motorists shouldn't have a lane to ride in, at least not a marked one, right? They don't always drive the speed limit (or if they do, the rest of the cars are speeding by them, so they seem not to be going with the flow of traffic). Don't you think that would be dangerous and a mess if these slower cars couldn't ride safely in the clearly marked right lane where the faster cars can go around them?

Okay, take it away, boys...BUT, wait until I pop some popcorn. :p

So if motorists travel further right in the absence of bike lanes, wouldn't that mean that bike lanes create more space on the road for cyclists?
I would think so. Of course, none of these arguments really take into play the attitudes of individual drivers. I don't care if you are in a bike lane, right lane, turn lane or no lane...a motorist can hit you at any time. I ride bike lane or no bike lane and try to follow all laws that motorists are required to follw, but I take my life into my own hands. I feel a tiny bit safer in a bike lane - call it denial.

Okay, take it away, boys...BUT, wait until I pop some popcorn. :p

Save some for me ME, I might rejoin this little party after I ride home...so maybe we can snuggle up, eat some popcorn and enjoy the show! ;)

Save some for me ME, I might rejoin this little party after I ride home...so maybe we can snuggle up, eat some popcorn and enjoy the show! ;)
I'd love that, Chip Man. ;) Have a safe ride home. Hopefully you have a bike lane...oh, oops...I mean, a lane. :p

HH: I've got to ask, since you've brought this up before. Why don't you treat a bike laned road as one with a NOL to be consistent with your advocacy? Bike lanes are either dangerous or not, and according to your previous statements on record, they are dangerous. If the lesser danger on a bike laned road consists of riding in the bike lane verses riding in the NOL, then that says something about your preference of NOLs over bike lanes.

No need to answer. Just a retorical question and something to think about. Again, I'm done debating.

Save some for me ME, I might rejoin this little party after I ride home...so maybe we can snuggle up, eat some popcorn and enjoy the show! ;)
Chocolate covered popcorn...... Mmmmmmmmmm.

So if motorists travel further right in the absence of bike lanes, wouldn't that mean that bike lanes create more space on the road for cyclists? No, because motorists travel further right in a WOL (than on the same road with a BL stripe) when cyclists are not present.

When cyclists are present in a WOL, motorists drive further left because the cyclists are present. In a WOL, cyclists create whatever space they need with their presence, and they have a legal right to it. But when the BL stripe is there, their right to ride with their tire in the space one foot to the left or right of the stripe is not legally protected, except when in the process of merging to or from the bike lane.

And that's not just a loss of legal right to just any two feet, it's a loss of two feet of space that is usually prime riding space.

But when the BL stripe is there, their right to ride with their tire in the space one foot to the left or right of the stripe is not legally protected, except when in the process of merging to or from the bike lane..

Wha? I've never heard of this. is this a CA law?

Wha? I've never heard of this. is this a CA law?
Not riding 12" to each side of a lane dividing stripe is pretty much the only way to ensure one is riding fully within a lane, which is generally required in most US states. If you get closer part of your body or bike will hang into the next lane.

AZ law:
"1. A person shall drive a vehicle as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane and shall not move the vehicle from that lane until the driver has first ascertained that the movement can be made with safety."

To get more AZ specific since you live here...
"C. Subsection B of this section [which describes the civil penalties for violating 3' law and causing death or injury] does not apply to a bicyclist who is injured in a vehicular traffic lane when a designated bicycle lane or path is present and passable."
In this specific case, if a cyclist is riding in a manner so that their wheels are in the BL, but part of their body hangs over the BL stripe and they are hit, do you think section B applys?

Al

Not really...where are we supposed to ride if we don't have a bike lane? :o The sidewalk or in traffic? (btw, there is a law in CA, I believe, which stipulates that we own the lane we're in IF we are going as fast as traffic. As hard as I try, I just can't get my cadence up enough to hit 35 mph on the flats). Doesn't the marked bike lane signify that bikes have a right to be there (something I suspect far more motorists ignore or disagree with when we are in the lane with them than I'm comfortable knowing). It's kind of like saying slower motorists shouldn't have a lane to ride in, at least not a marked one, right? They don't always drive the speed limit (or if they do, the rest of the cars are speeding by them, so they seem not to be going with the flow of traffic). Don't you think that would be dangerous and a mess if these slower cars couldn't ride safely in the clearly marked right lane where the faster cars can go around them?

Okay, take it away, boys...BUT, wait until I pop some popcorn. :p Your commentary makes a lot of sense and reminds me of the opinions I used to hold before I learned what the laws said, what the best practices are, how well they worked, and listened to all the arguments against bike lanes. Perhaps if you go through all that your opinion will change too, perhaps not. But you might want to start by reading CA CVC 21200, (http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21200.htm) 21202 (http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21202.htm) and 21208, (http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21208.htm) which govern our rights on all roads, roads without bike lanes, and roads with bike lanes, respectively.

Also, remember we're not comparing roads with bike lanes to roads with narrow outside lanes.
The fair comparison is roads with bike lanes to the same road with the bike lane stripe eliminated - the space for us to ride slower off to the side and out of the way of faster passing traffic is still there with or without the stripe.
In WOLS (wide outside lanes), cars tend to track near the stripe to the left anyway, but not always. So those that don't do need to adjust left to not hit us, but, at the same, those that drive further right do the sweeping for "our space" when we're not there, which they don't do if the stripe is there (if the stripe is there, they don't drive in "our space" whether we're there or not, therefore it never gets swept like the rest of the roadway is swept continually by motor traffic).

And no, I don't think it's any more dangerous to ride a bicycle in a WOL than in a BL, and the studies support that.
Also, the primary effect of removing all the lane stripes on the road would be to cause traffic to slow down. Similarly, removing the bike lane stripe causes most motorists to slow down a bit when they encounter cyclists up ahead, which I consider to be a good thing.

Not riding 12" to each side of a lane dividing stripe is pretty much the only way to ensure one is riding fully within a lane, which is generally required in most US states. If you get closer part of your body or bike will hang into the next lane.

AZ law:
"1. A person shall drive a vehicle as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane and shall not move the vehicle from that lane until the driver has first ascertained that the movement can be made with safety."

Al Right. CA has a similar law.

There is no law that explicitly says you can't ride there.
But, if you're riding within 12" of the stripe, then part of your 2' wide self is hanging partially into the adjacent lane, so, you're not fully within your lane. That is illegal, unless you're changing lanes.

I could have sworn you were involved the last time we went over this, Rando.

Forgive me as I don't have the stats, but I thought the law in CA (other states, I don't know) was that cars had to keep a certain distance from cyclists (2 feet?) regardless of whether they are in the bike lane or on a "WOL." I believe it states that motorists should keep the distance as we may have to come farther out into the lane due to car doors being opened and debris, etc.. Am I wrong on this? Perhaps I should go to DMV and look it up, but I don't think I'm far off. Point being, I don't think cyclists are acting illegally to come out of a bike lane. I also don't understand how motorists seeing the white line on the road isn't a small help in the fight for making us visible.

Oh, no...:eek: I've entered the argument! Okay, gotta go slinking back to So Cal...:p :D