Considering roads that have no accomodations 'normal' versus roads with accomodations something other than 'normal' is dismissive as well as misleading

Good point.

What is normal anyway? Isn't that kind of the point of AC? That we take what is normal for us and work with it? (While also tolerating people who would improve what is normal and make it better, I hope?)

'Normal' is whatever's out there. My point is that 'normal' could be vastly improved. Bad engineering, simply because it's already been built, does not need to remain forever.

'Normal' is whatever's out there. My point is that 'normal' could be vastly improved. Bad engineering, simply because it's already been built, does not need to remain forever.

That's true, but rebuilding a road, can be an expensive proposition, and you need a good reason to do so,
making a road bike friendly, often isn't a good enough reason to do so. The cheapest is a lower speed limit, a road where the speed limit is an enforced 30km/h is going to be safer then an unenforced 60km/h speed limit, where drivers are often going 80km/h or more. Enforcement could be speed humps, or a frequent radar trap, pinched lanes with a bike through way can also work.

i thought this thread was more about how to adapt to the cycling environment, and not attempting to define the environment.

However, a bicycling instructor calling roads with NO consideration for bikes "normal" and roads that have been engineered with bike traffic in mind something other than "Normal" is misleading and dismissive.

ALL facets to the bicycling environment should be considered "normal" and negoiatable via adaptive cycling techniques.

However, a bicycling instructor calling roads with NO consideration for bikes "normal" and roads that have been engineered with bike traffic in mind something other than "Normal" is misleading and dismissive.

Most roads aren't designed with consideration for bicyclists. So, by definition, roads with no consideration for bicyclists are "normal". Most of us are working to get bicyclists' needs considered in road design (isn't that why many of us are involved in advocacy?), but generally that's not the way things stand today.

For my list, I'm willing to replace "normal" with "no special consideration for bikes", because that's a better way to get my intended point across.

But would you all agree that there's three major riding styles ...

1. Separating oneself from car traffic, by keeping away from the road (using bike paths or sidewalks)
2. Separating oneself from car traffic, but on the road (using a bike lane or shoulder)
3. Riding in lanes shared with car traffic

... and each cyclist is going to choose the amount of time they spend using each of these riding styles based on fitness, trip purpose, speed, distance, traffic volumes, whether the cyclist is alone or in a group, car speeds, whether they need to make a left turn, local infrastructure, etc., etc.? Some cyclists will try to exclusively pick one riding style, but most cyclists will spend their time using varying amounts of each of these riding styles.

I'm not trying to define the cycling environment, I'm trying define different ways that one can ride within it. I'm sure we all know the various ways cyclists can ride, but I'm just trying to say it in a way that can be presented to non-cycling decision makers without being judgmental. That's because I want decision makers to know that they can't plan and design for the HelmetHeads of the world while forgetting about the Dianes, and vice versa. Chip, is this idea in the spirit of your thread?

But would you all agree that there's three major riding styles ...

1. Separating oneself from car traffic, by keeping away from the road (using bike paths or sidewalks)
2. Separating oneself from car traffic, but on the road (using a bike lane or shoulder)
3. Riding in lanes shared with car traffic

Uhm... no.

Bike lanes and shoulders are NOT separate from motor-vehicle traffic: you are still sharing the roadway, still have to deal with intersections, merge lanes, make turns, signal, etc. In terms of riding style, I ride pretty much the same way in a restricted lane (e.g. a bike lane) as I would on any other traffic lane.

This is why your original classification didn't make sense to me. It didn't break down into how facilities are paid for, and it didn't break down into how they are used. I guess you and I just have a fundamentally different concept here.

Uhm... no.

Bike lanes and shoulders are NOT separate from motor-vehicle traffic: you are still sharing the roadway, still have to deal with intersections, merge lanes, make turns, signal, etc. In terms of riding style, I ride pretty much the same way in a restricted lane (e.g. a bike lane) as I would on any other traffic lane.

This is why your original classification didn't make sense to me. It didn't break down into how facilities are paid for, and it didn't break down into how they are used. I guess you and I just have a fundamentally different concept here.
I'm sure you've seen cyclists who will never leave the bike lane for any reason. Those cyclists are always in mode (2). If they need to do a left turn, they'll do it as a pedestrian in mode (1).

I would consider what you're describing above as a combination of mode (2) between intersections and mode (3) at intersections, merging, turning, etc.

I'm sure you've seen cyclists who will never leave the bike lane for any reason.

No, I haven't, I honestly haven't. Maybe because we don't have a full bike lane network - we have bike lanes on several main arterials , and we have short bike lanes in problem areas. It is usually impossible to travel more than a few blocks without leaving the bike lanes. To me using a bike lane is like taking the lane in any other lane, except that motorists don't fight you over it.

Now that I think about it - and I have to think about it, it is contrary to how I cycle - there may well be people out there who stay off all but the smallest residential road unless they can use a bike lane, but I certainly don't see them. Even at this time of year I see cyclists out every day, and they take the bike lane when one is present and take/share the outer lane otherwise. I've only been at this cycling thing for about 3.5 years, and it never occurred to me until I joined BF.net to see bike lanes as anything other than being on the street with traffic.

Following the thought, and putting it in the concept of chipcom's "new paradigm", I can see one key adaptation of "adaptive cycling": do you have to fight with traffic (as opposed to peacefully co-exist), and what sort of traffic are you fighting with? In this light a WOL/WCL is like an MUP - in both cases I feel I am fighting with traffic for space, and that traffic does not always like having me there (in a WOL that would be motor vehicle drivers, on an MUP the pedestrians and homicidal squirrels). A bike lane, on the other hand, I see much like a bikes-only path: you share the traveled way in a smooth, controlled way that does not involve a clash of priorities and capabilities.

I submit a Rule of Adaptive Cycling: a cyclist must adapt to how competitive and cooperative other traveled way users are to cyclists; this is very dependent on the type of traveled way.

Does this make sense, or should I have gone to bed an hour ago as planned?

I also disagree that riding on roads with facilities is in any way 'seperating' you from traffic. it is use of a preferred lane for bicycles, nothing more. a rider still needs to negotiate intersections, turning traffic, hookers, etc.

riders in communities with networks and roads that are engineered with bikes considered via physical infrastructure are hardly 'outside the norm'.

all road use is 'normal' use, brian. calling a facilities enabled road something other than normal is disengenous, misleading, and dismissive.

adaptive cycling. let's not continue to rehash the facilties debate. that is derailing efforts to move past the debate on facilties. your disingenous slant on 'norms', brian, is doing the discussion a disservice.

riding a shoulder is one way to use a road. using a facility is another. both are normal. so is use of the travel lane.

However, I submit that ignoring a bike lane to make a political statement to other road users is NOT normal adaptive cycling.

Adaptive cycling takes advantage and makes the most of the physical environment to the benefit of the cyclist.

Adaptive cycling is a paradigm that encourages one to mix and match methods and tactics from a variety of toolboxes, one of which is operating as a vehicle, to fit a specific cycling environment and/or situation.


Are you in Management?

"Somebody write me a Mission Statement!"

Good thread. Now, about my raise...

^^^^

Worse. Chip used to be a politician!! :eek: ;)

I like the Adaptive Cycling idea. As others have said, many cyclists use AC already. Adaptive Cycling is bicycling devoid of value judgements, accepting what exists and developing ways to deal with it. Since Adaptive Cycling accepts what exists, it does not advocate for or against any facility or facility types. Adaptive Cycling is practical techniques that are based on reality, however imperfect, rather than on an unachievable ideal.

There are more than three modes. For one thing, riding on bike paths and riding on sidewalks are quite different -- because the rules are different (that is, to the extent that accepted rules even exist on bike paths).

On a sidewalk, pedestrians always have the right of way. Riding at bicycle speed is not ever a design use of a sidewalk. If a bicyclist traveling above pedestrian speed collides with a pedestrian, the accident is, by definition, the bicyclist's fault. Also, there is no widely accepted "walk on the right" rule that applies on a sidewalk while there is, at least in theory, on most MUPs.

In contrast, on a bicycle path, riding at above pedestrian speed is, in theory, a design use. Hence the name 'bicycle path' (although I don't know that I've ever seen an actual bicycle path that wasn't intended for other uses as well). I usually call a bike path a MUP or a MUT. There are many types and designs of MUPs but they don't warrant defining different modes.

Simply applying vehicular rules to MUPs sounds reasonable. The problem is that it's unrealistic. Such rules are not univerally accepted and you are sure to encounter MUP users that aren't following vehicular rules. Adaptive Cycling recognizes that there will be situations encountered on a MUP that do not generally arise on the road.

I would define two modes of AC traffic cycling, not based on facilities but on the function of the road:
Bicycling on residential streets or on 'feeders' (which connect residential roads to arterials).
riding on arterials (moderate to high speed, moderate to high volume roads)

That would be 4 modes:
riding on arterial roads
riding on residential roads and/or feeders
riding on MUPs
riding on sidewalks

It might be useful to define another mode for shortcuts that don't fit any of those categories, like riding across an open field or parking lot (I know, I know, nobody has ever done that) or riding down an alley.

Of course, some AC cyclists will, for one reason or another, specialize in one mode or another.

^^^^

Worse. Chip used to be a politician!! :eek: ;)

what do you mean 'used to be' ;) :lol:


I think what everyone is discussing in this thread is just good old common-sense, real world cycling as practiced by the vast majority of cyclists I see out there. Especially high milage riders like regular commuters. It's really just 'A to B' cycling, we use whatever accomodations/facilities we can, however we can, to get from A to B as safely and expediently as we can.

Great thread Chip. I wish I had something more insightfull than just my personal experience to contribute.

I like patc's delineation better than Brians, because YOU CAN RIDE VEHICULARILY IN A BIKE LANE.


You CAN...but then sometimes you might not. Adpative Cycling - do what's right for the situation, caveman. ;)

i thought this thread was more about how to adapt to the cycling environment, and not attempting to define the environment.

Both are applicable. On the one hand we deal with things 'as they are', but that does not prevent us from also seeking improvement or helping ensure that new roadways and/or facilities are designed and implemented better.

Great thread Chip. I wish I had something more insightfull than just my personal experience to contribute.

If I were still a politician I'd say 'your generous donation of cash would do nicely'. :eek: :D

So then, Chip, is the idea that if we want to start a topic and we don't want a bunch of bike lane debate stuff to fill it up, we have to preface our subject line with AC? Wouldn't it be easier if we prefaced it with VC in order to allow the arguing? Or are we talking about starting a new paradigm for the entire forum, that all discussion fits the AC paradigm? Just trying to understand.

a rider still needs to negotiate intersections, turning traffic, hookers, etc.

I've seen some trash in our local bike lanes, but never one of those.

yep, further proof you live in a genteel community, steve ;)

you can understand I implied hooking vehicles, correct? I've taken to calling them 'hookers.' as in left hookers, right hookers...

So then, Chip, is the idea that if we want to start a topic and we don't want a bunch of bike lane debate stuff to fill it up, we have to preface our subject line with AC? Wouldn't it be easier if we prefaced it with VC in order to allow the arguing? Or are we talking about starting a new paradigm for the entire forum, that all discussion fits the AC paradigm? Just trying to understand.

I'm not about to try to dicate rules for this forum. So, to answer your question, if you want a thread that should remain under the guidelines of AC, label it as such and let folks do what they want in the other threads. My understanding is that the mods will try to assist us in at least keeping those threads free of the same old stuff...as long as we request it. Personally, I hope we never have to ask them to intervene...I figure we are all adults and there should be no problems with honoring our wishes in those threads. I think we can pretty much self moderate and maybe set an example. ;)

yep, further proof you live in a genteel community, steve ;)

you can understand I implied hooking vehicles, correct? I've taken to calling them 'hookers.' as in left hookers, right hookers...

Easy Bek, he was just making a funny. This isn't gonna work if we can't relax and have a sense of humor. ;)

However, I submit that ignoring a bike lane to make a political statement to other road users is NOT normal adaptive cycling.



I agree with this statement. One thing that troubles me as a cyclist is that I often make the determination that a bike lane is designed in such a way that I cannot safely travel in it. How does the average cager know if I am making a statement or just trying to get to work safely? What is the answer to this delima? Here are the choices, as I see them.

1) Avoid streets with unsafe bike lanes.
2) Use the traffic lane.
3) Ride in the unsafe bike lane.

3) really isn't an option. 2) can cause some of the problems associated with trying to make a political statement. I really don't want to deal with those issues on an average morning commute. 1) can be tough, because most streets in the downtown area have bikes lanes, and most of the bikes lanes are at least a little unsafe. The streets that don't have a BL are generally not safe for bicycle travel. What is the AC answer?

i think the adaptive anwser, kemmer, is use a lane you deem safe, and leave the lane when safety dictates. some of us obviously have better facilties than others.

This 'political' statement comes up on local advocacy bulletin boards here, with one of the high and mighty 'bicycle drivers' losing respect from other bicyclists on group rides for choosing to pointedly ignore safe accomodations.

I'm not about to try to dicate rules for this forum. So, to answer your question, if you want a thread that should remain under the guidelines of AC, label it as such and let folks do what they want in the other threads. My understanding is that the mods will try to assist us in at least keeping those threads free of the same old stuff...as long as we request it. Personally, I hope we never have to ask them to intervene...I figure we are all adults and there should be no problems with honoring our wishes in those threads. I think we can pretty much self moderate and maybe set an example. ;)

this makes a lot of sense and I, too, wouldn't want to impinge on those threads where the participants want to get into it about bike lanes and VC and facilities as points of endless debate- they can be great fun to read. But if we could have some threads where we respect the wishes of the OP and explore some of the ways cyclists adapt to various circumstances that are not limited by agendas or dogma. (though I've appreciated a little bit more of moderator presence lately)

I'm interested in hearing how cyclists adapt to unfamiliar cycling territory. For instance, I bring a folding bike with me when I'm on the road for work or I'll rent a bike when I get some free time. This can be in a city I've never been to before or even a country where I don't know the language let alone what to expect as far as cycling facilities or how local cyclists interact with drivers.

I did some really fun adaptive cycling in Rome last summer (when in Rome...) riding through city streets and then finding a great bike path along the Tiber. I suddenly realized I was doing the same commute I do here in Boston. A short trip on busy streets pick up the bike path and ride along the river hop off and ride a bit to home- but there were a ton of differences. All those Vespas and motorcycles! :eek: And the cars are tiny and everybody in every kind of vehicle is operating on a kind of adaptive model. Rules were definitely being stretched all over the map. :p

Following the thought, and putting it in the concept of chipcom's "new paradigm", I can see one key adaptation of "adaptive cycling": do you have to fight with traffic (as opposed to peacefully co-exist), and what sort of traffic are you fighting with? In this light a WOL/WCL is like an MUP - in both cases I feel I am fighting with traffic for space, and that traffic does not always like having me there (in a WOL that would be motor vehicle drivers, on an MUP the pedestrians and homicidal squirrels). A bike lane, on the other hand, I see much like a bikes-only path: you share the traveled way in a smooth, controlled way that does not involve a clash of priorities and capabilities.
Wow! That really makes sense. That's the best explanation I think I have ever read about this.

How does the average cager know if I am making a statement or just trying to get to work safely?
What I do hope is that people have enough empathy for me to understand that I can't ride into solid objects or holes in the ground. But in all honesty I don't think they'd know a political statement by some lone bicylist if they saw one. I am not sure I'd know one either.

Even if I saw Helmet Head himself riding down the center of the lane I don't think I'd know it was a political statement. I don't think I'd know what it was he was doing. I'd think maybe he was just enjoying himself or something. I'd hope he'd get out of the way. If he didn't, I think I'd think he was a little wierd and I'd carve a wide path around him. I just don't think if I was some ordinary driver out there I'd understand what a political statment looked like unless it came with picket signs or something.

Following the thought, and putting it in the concept of chipcom's "new paradigm", I can see one key adaptation of "adaptive cycling": do you have to fight with traffic (as opposed to peacefully co-exist), and what sort of traffic are you fighting with? In this light a WOL/WCL is like an MUP - in both cases I feel I am fighting with traffic for space, and that traffic does not always like having me there (in a WOL that would be motor vehicle drivers, on an MUP the pedestrians and homicidal squirrels). A bike lane, on the other hand, I see much like a bikes-only path: you share the traveled way in a smooth, controlled way that does not involve a clash of priorities and capabilities.

Perhaps regional differences are involved, but for me I have exactly the opposite experience. In a wide-enough-outside lane, I have minimal negative interactions with motorists; there is no "fighting" and the only times they cannot pass me are times that I would have left a striped bike lane anyway. I've never had any trouble peacefully coexisting with other traffic mid-block in a lane 14' wide or wider. Rarely has anybody harassed me for operating farther left in a WOL at an intersection.

In striped bike lanes, I have to deal with a lot more pedestrians, joggers, and wrong-way cyclists than I do on roads with WOLs, where these users stick to the sidewalks. Also, I feel a greater social stigma associated with leaving the bike lane for operational reasons than I feel when traveling farther from the curb in a WOL. In the bike lanes, drivers also seem more confused about proper positioning at intersections.

In my own "adaptive cycling," I ride in a striped bike lane mid-block if I don't notice any increased debris in it, there are no pedestrians, wrong-way cyclists, piles of leaves, garbage cans, or parked cars/door zones visible ahead, there are motorists on the road, and I am not going so fast that I feel unsafe traveling that close to the edge of the road. I leave the striped bike lane if these conditions change or if I approach an intersection. As I am preparing to turn left is when the motorists usually yell at me to get in the bike lane, where I presumably belong. Leaving my designated turf and entering theirs is apparently provocation of a fight.

Perhaps regional differences are involved, but for me I have exactly the opposite experience.
Steve's experience as described matches mine indentically. But we shall not talk of that here ;)
Al

Perhaps regional differences are involved, but for me I have exactly the opposite experience. In a wide-enough-outside lane, I have minimal negative interactions with motorists; there is no "fighting"

Take "fitghing" as a relative term, but there certainly is a regional factor: Ottawa drivers don't know what to do with WOLs, and pass just as close is if sharing a narrow lane!

In striped bike lanes, I have to deal with a lot more pedestrians, joggers, and wrong-way cyclists

Sounds like some law enforcement is needed. I think I saw a jogger in the bike lane once last year.


In the bike lanes, drivers also seem more confused about proper positioning at intersections.

How so? One lane per vehicle at the red light seems pretty clear to me. I'm not trying to debate bike lanes or bike lane usage here, but driver confusion (or ignorance) is an issue for cyclists, so I think its to our adavantage to talk about it when/why it happens, and what we can do about it when on the road. I'm a big beleiver in education and law enforcement, but neither of those really helps you while Bubba is aiming his pick-up at you!

As I am preparing to turn left is when the motorists usually yell at me to get in the bike lane, where I presumably belong. Leaving my designated turf and entering theirs is apparently provocation of a fight.

Is this what you meant by "confusion" above? So the AC question, then, is what can you and other cyclists do about that while on the road?

How so? One lane per vehicle at the red light seems pretty clear to me. I'm not trying to debate bike lanes or bike lane usage here, but driver confusion (or ignorance) is an issue for cyclists, so I think its to our adavantage to talk about it when/why it happens, and what we can do about it when on the road.

Scenario: a cyclist on a two-lane road approaches an intersection with either a red light or a stop sign. There is no right-turn-only lane, but there is a bike lane striped all the way to the stop line. If the cyclist wants to go straight, where does the cyclist position him/her self?

Staying in the bike lane is an invitation for right hooks if the cyclist is going straight. The Adaptive Cyclist moves farther left, to near the center of the through lane, so that right-turning traffic will either wait behind the cyclist or, if there is room, pass on the right.

Now what if the cyclist wants to turn left? The cyclist must move closer to the centerline; this allows motorists to overtake on the right where they won't interfere with the left turn.

Both of these situations require the Adaptive Cyclist to operate contrary to the bicycle-specific markings on the roadway. Motorists who wish to use the roadway space that is not occupied by the cylist in order to pass the cylist must also operate contrary to the bicycle-specific markings. If the motoring public believes that the function of bike-specific roadway positioning markings is to keep cyclists out of the way of overtaking traffic, the level of harassment can be greater than if the same pavement width is provided without the bike-specific markings.

Possible approaches to the harassment problem include (1) educating the public that cyclists are allowed to operate where motorists may have to wait behind them, (2) educating cyclists so that more of them use better positioning at intersections and thus condition motorists to expect them outside the bike lane, (3) eliminating bike-specific markings at intersection approaches, or (4) not using bike-specific markings on roads that have intersections, and instead using just wide outside lanes.

Our state DOT refuses to do (1) for fear of backlash from motoring interests; some cyclists reject (2) as some elitist vehicular-cycling promotion of Foresterism, and (3) requires road designers to think more about bicycle operation than they are willing to do. Option (4) is the easiest to accomplish but requires standing up to the bike lane extremists who never saw a bike lane stripe that they didn't like.

A bike lane, on the other hand, I see much like a bikes-only path: you share the traveled way in a smooth, controlled way that does not involve a clash of priorities and capabilities.
Is it off-limits in this thread to suggest that seeing bike lanes in this way can encourage cyclists riding in them to engage in relative mindlessness, which makes them more prone to overlooking potential threats to their safety? If so, oops!

Is it off-limits in this thread to suggest that seeing bike lanes in this way can encourage cyclists riding in them to engage in relative mindlessness, which makes them more prone to overlooking potential threats to their safety? If so, oops!

Don't push your luck.

I think if you are signaling to to merge as you leave the bike lane for a left turn most people will understand what you are doing. And if they don't appear to understand (and I really doubt they actually don't understand, I think it's more like they want to mess with you), I think that speaks more loudly to their ignorance about cyclists' rights in traffic and ignorance about the meaning of hand signals. Probably speaks some to the size of their -- er -- pickup truck, too.

I think if you are signaling to to merge as you leave the bike lane for a left turn most people will understand what you are doing. And if they don't appear to understand (and I really doubt they actually don't understand, I think it's more like they want to mess with you), I think that speaks more loudly to their ignorance about cyclists' rights in traffic and ignorance about the meaning of hand signals. Probably speaks some to the size of their -- er -- pickup truck, too.
There is a distict difference I note when trying to negotiate a merge out of a bike lane vs. left merge within a WOL. The drivers are trained the same and have the same average level of courtesy. There is only one difference, but we can't talk about that here.

Also as much as I fall into the trap myself, you can't reliabily judge a persons attitude by their vehicle.

Al

I think that maybe they give you the right of way more often if there isn't a bike lane and you stick your arm out to signal. But I think it's not a fault of the bike lane exactly. It's kinda like when you are driving down the freeway and the guy in the next lane turns on his signal. A lot of people won't let the guy over. But if he's already in your lane, by golly you'll move over or slow down, won't you!

I think that maybe they give you the right of way more often if there isn't a bike lane and you stick your arm out to signal. But I think it's not a fault of the bike lane exactly. It's kinda like when you are driving down the freeway and the guy in the next lane turns on his signal. A lot of people won't let the guy over. But if he's already in your lane, by golly you'll move over or slow down, won't you!
I think that's a good way of looking at it. Other factors such as the the practicality of using the space in the 'stripe zone' have to do with it too, but thats not appropriate here.

Al

However, I submit that ignoring a bike lane to make a political statement to other road users is NOT normal adaptive cycling.
I agree with this statement. One thing that troubles me as a cyclist is that I often make the determination that a bike lane is designed in such a way that I cannot safely travel in it. How does the average cager know if I am making a statement or just trying to get to work safely? What is the answer to this delima? Here are the choices, as I see them.

1) Avoid streets with unsafe bike lanes.
2) Use the traffic lane.
3) Ride in the unsafe bike lane.

3) really isn't an option. 2) can cause some of the problems associated with trying to make a political statement. I really don't want to deal with those issues on an average morning commute. 1) can be tough, because most streets in the downtown area have bikes lanes, and most of the bikes lanes are at least a little unsafe. The streets that don't have a BL are generally not safe for bicycle travel. What is the AC answer? I don't know anyone who advocates ignoring bike lanes in order to make a political statement. It's nonsense anyway. The only ignoring of bike lanes I've heard of is in the context of Forester's advice to "ignore the stripe when deciding where to ride". But even following that advice, you're often riding in the bike lane (if that's where you would ride if the bike lane stripe weren't there), so there is no way to distinguish a "bike lane ignorer" from someone intentionally "using" the bike lane.

Having said that, the more cyclists that are seen riding outside of bike lanes on roads with bike lanes (whether it's because the bike lane is "bad" or some other reason), the more normal and acceptable that practice will become.

I don't know anyone who advocates ignoring bike lanes in order to make a political statement. It's nonsense anyway.
I don't and I don't personally know anyone, however I know that some(many?) CM rides do this for political reasons. But I suspect that CM is another subject off limits here.

Al

I think that maybe they give you the right of way more often if there isn't a bike lane and you stick your arm out to signal. But I think it's not a fault of the bike lane exactly. It's kinda like when you are driving down the freeway and the guy in the next lane turns on his signal. A lot of people won't let the guy over. But if he's already in your lane, by golly you'll move over or slow down, won't you!
That's exactly right, and I think it has more to do with where you're not (not in his lane) than where you are (in your own lane, in the shoulder, whatever...). As long as you're on the other side of the stripe that demarcates his lane and right of way, he is less likely to accomodate you.

I don't know anyone who advocates ignoring bike lanes in order to make a political statement. It's nonsense anyway. The only ignoring of bike lanes I've heard of is in the context of Forester's advice to "ignore the stripe when deciding where to ride". But even following that advice, you're often riding in the bike lane (if that's where you would ride if the bike lane stripe weren't there), so there is no way to distinguish a "bike lane ignorer" from someone intentionally "using" the bike lane.

Having said that, the more cyclists that are seen riding outside of bike lanes on roads with bike lanes (whether it's because the bike lane is "bad" or some other reason), the more normal and acceptable that practice will become.

I'll ask one more time for you all to refrain from the same old bike lane debate. If you can't control yourselves I will be happy to ask the mods to delete all posts engaged in the debate. Thank you.

I'll ask one more time for you all to refrain from the same old bike lane debate. If you can't control yourselves I will be happy to ask the mods to delete all posts engaged in the debate. Thank you. Bek made his statement, "ignoring a bike lane to make a political statement to other road users is NOT normal adaptive cycling" in post #109, 2 days ago. You did not ask him to "refrain from the same old bike lane debate" when he posted that. Why?

Besides, his assertion implied that "ignoring a bike lane to make a political statement" has been advocated here. That's false, and all I did was correct it, with explanation. It was not engaging "in the same old bike lane debate", by any interpretation that I can understand.

Let's put it IN context, mr. head......

I also disagree that riding on roads with facilities is in any way 'seperating' you from traffic. it is use of a preferred lane for bicycles, nothing more. a rider still needs to negotiate intersections, turning traffic, hookers, etc.

riders in communities with networks and roads that are engineered with bikes considered via physical infrastructure are hardly 'outside the norm'.

all road use is 'normal' use, brian. calling a facilities enabled road something other than normal is disengenous, misleading, and dismissive.

adaptive cycling. let's not continue to rehash the facilties debate. that is derailing efforts to move past the debate on facilties. your disingenous slant on 'norms', brian, is doing the discussion a disservice.

riding a shoulder is one way to use a road. using a facility is another. both are normal. so is use of the travel lane.

However, I submit that ignoring a bike lane to make a political statement to other road users is NOT normal adaptive cycling.

Adaptive cycling takes advantage and makes the most of the physical environment to the benefit of the cyclist.

and in response to Kemmer: i think the adaptive anwser, kemmer, is use a lane you deem safe, and leave the lane when safety dictates. some of us obviously have better facilties than others.

This 'political' statement comes up on local advocacy bulletin boards here, with one of the high and mighty 'bicycle drivers' losing respect from other bicyclists on group rides for choosing to pointedly ignore safe accomodations.

An adaptive cycling maxim....."Adaptive cycling takes advantage and makes the most of the physical environment to the benefit of the cyclist."

i think the adaptive anwser, kemmer, is use a lane you deem safe, and leave the lane when safety dictates. some of us obviously have better facilties than others.



I think so too. I have actually had drivers get angry with me for not riding in the bike lane in such situations. What can riders do about bad bike lanes other than ignore them? Is it better to quietly use what's available and hope things improve, or take a more proactive approach?

- Nice one Chipcom :beer:

I think you have finally got to the root of things and 97.2%* of cyclists are unaflicted by paradigms. They (myself included) ride according to road and traffic conditions with two aims: Safety and expediancy. To this end we develop our riding style by virtue of experience and (perhaps to a lesser degree) information from written sources, the internet etc.

Common themes (I purposely detach them from any particular school of thought) in cycling include awareness, anticipation and experience - these are hard to argue with as virtues. It is only when we venture into lane position/location that everything runs into a brick wall of "debate".

Cheers,

Ed


*Popular UK comedian, Vic Reeves: "97.2% of statistics are made up on the spot"

Bek made his statement, "ignoring a bike lane to make a political statement to other road users is NOT normal adaptive cycling" in post #109, 2 days ago. You did not ask him to "refrain from the same old bike lane debate" when he posted that. Why?

Besides, his assertion implied that "ignoring a bike lane to make a political statement" has been advocated here. That's false, and all I did was correct it, with explanation. It was not engaging "in the same old bike lane debate", by any interpretation that I can understand.

Then Bek's post will be deleted too. I'm asking nicely to not play these childish games, looking for any opportunity to turn a post into a justification to launch into the same old stuff we are trying to avoid here. If you feel the need to respond to a 2 day old post to 'set the record straight', feel free to start a new thread, quoting the post in question.

my statement said little regarding debating "the unspeakable" to kemmer, just that ignoring facilties for political statements is NOT adaptive cycling.

regarding adaptive cycling in ANY lane "use a lane you deem safe, and leave the lane when safety dictates...."

and a maxim....."Adaptive cycling takes advantage and makes the most of the physical environment to the benefit of the cyclist."

- Nice one Chipcom :beer:

I think you have finally got to the root of things and 97.2%* of cyclists are unaflicted by paradigms. They (myself included) ride according to road and traffic conditions with two aims: Safety and expediancy. To this end we develop our riding style by virtue of experience and (perhaps to a lesser degree) information from written sources, the internet etc.

Common themes (I purposely detach them from any particular school of thought) in cycling include awareness, anticipation and experience - these are hard to argue with as virtues. It is only when we venture into lane position/location that everything runs into a brick wall of "debate".

Cheers,

Ed


*Popular UK comedian, Vic Reeves: "97.2% of statistics are made up on the spot"

Thanks Ed, I'm glad to see that so many folks see value in this.

my statement said little regarding debating "the unspeakable" to kemmer, just that ignoring facilties for political statements is NOT adaptive cycling.

regarding adaptive cycling in ANY lane "use a lane you deem safe, and leave the lane when safety dictates...."

and a maxim....."Adaptive cycling takes advantage and makes the most of the physical environment to the benefit of the cyclist."

Don't worry Bek, it's real obvious what is going on here. Try to realize that some people are going to take every opportunity they can to derail this, twisting words to suit their purpose. I hope that, if I have to start asking for the mods to do clean up on aisle 9, that you will see the bigger picture and 'take one for the team' if one of your posts gets deleted in the process because it gave them a loophole to take advantage of. ;)

I really appreciate everyone who is giving this a serious try. :beer:

Sorry, Chip, I promise to refrain from engaging in bike lane debates here, but I cannot refrain from something that I'm not engaged in. Just because it is a post made by me and has the term "bike lane" in it does not mean I'm engaged in the "same old bike lane debate". If you want to debate about whether I was engaged in a bike lane debate, I'd rather not.

Scenario: a cyclist on a two-lane road approaches an intersection with either a red light or a stop sign. There is no right-turn-only lane, but there is a bike lane striped all the way to the stop line. If the cyclist wants to go straight, where does the cyclist position him/her self?

If it has 2 generic lanes plus two restricted lanes of any type, I would call it a 4-lane road.

Staying in the bike lane is an invitation for right hooks if the cyclist is going straight. The Adaptive Cyclist moves farther left, to near the center of the through lane, so that right-turning traffic will either wait behind the cyclist or, if there is room, pass on the right.

OK, thanks for explaining what you meant. I disagree about the risk of right hooks, but won't comment beyond that in this thread. I also don't think there is any reason for confusion there, and don't think I have observed local drivers being confused by that arrangement.

Under the AC principle and giving advice accessible to all, here is what I would tell a cyclist asking me about that situation. First, don't be afraid to signal "straight ahead". While not an official traffic signal, I find it extremely effective, and use it at the many local intersection where a bike is allowed to go straight, but cars are not.

Secondly, since we allow right-on-red turns here, I advise to hang back a bit from the intersection if waiting at a red light. For a cyclist who does not want to leave the bike lane (no judgment, that is a common choice) that makes sure car drivers can turn in front of you.

Finally (and this isn't meant to be comprehensive), I would say that a cyclist should always keep a eye out for how drivers are acting: it varies from place to place and time to time. In some places they let you merge easily, in others not, etc. What may be the safest or easiest options will vary.