Are WOLs VC in Arizona?

[Paul L.]

Seeing as lane filtering and passing within the same lane are not legal in Arizona except for motorcycles with each other and not cars are WOLs really VC in Arizona? This seems to be a bit of a paradox I thought about recently when people talked about WOLs being VC. It occured to me that the "Same Road Same Rules" philosophy does not apply to WOLs. Any thoughts?

[Bekologist]

one thought:

when a cyclist attempts to 'control' a wide outside lane, drivers will pass on either side of cyclist. this ambiguity comes into play approaching an intersection, where a cyclist moves left to prempt right hooks. some thru drivers will pass on the right.

[Brian Ratliff]

Personally, I don't think so; I cannot see how lane sharing is strictly vehicular, as no other vehicle on the road is permitted to share lanes on an ongoing basis. See my "working definition of VC" thread for my reasoning on that. It is an interesting question though. Those members here who favor WOLs, do you all filter up in traffic using the full lane width, or do you stay sitting in traffic?

[Paul L.]

The whole reason for a WOL is to encourage lane filtering by faster moving motorized vehicles. In the case of Motorcycles this is arguably VC but in all other cases I see a bit of hypocracy.

[JRA]

It's a paradox.

The existance of a WOL may mean that is illegal for a bicyclist to take the lane. This may set a precedent that could be applied to all lanes.

WOL's support the notion that bicyclists should be treated by different rules from the rules that apply to drivers of other vehicles.

Drivers of other vehicles are generally not required to share a lane while bicyclists, in any state that has a "ride right" law with a "lane too narrow to share" exception, are required to share a WOL.

It's discrimination, I tell ya. Why do VC-ists support something that encourages discrimination against bicyclists? It's a puzzlement.

It could be argued that, on a laned roadway, lane sharing is not vehicular (based on the special legal definition of "vehicular").

[Bekologist]

there is also greater ambuiguity in clear passing distances in a WOL.

[Helmet Head]

Seeing as lane filtering and passing within the same lane are not legal in Arizona except for motorcycles with each other and not cars are WOLs really VC in Arizona? This seems to be a bit of a paradox I thought about recently when people talked about WOLs being VC. It occured to me that the "Same Road Same Rules" philosophy does not apply to WOLs. Any thoughts?
What AZ law specifically allows motorcyclists to share lanes with each other?

What AZ law specifically disallows vehicle drivers from sharing lanes with each other (it's rare, but some lanes are wide enough to fit 2 cars side-by-side, particularly at intersection approaches)?

[Paul L.]

It's in the drivers license manual and also the motorcycle manual supplied by ADOT.

[Paul L.]

What AZ law specifically allows motorcyclists to share lanes with each other?

What AZ law specifically disallows vehicle drivers from sharing lanes with each other (it's rare, but some lanes are wide enough to fit 2 cars side-by-side, particularly at intersection approaches)?

http://www.azdot.gov/mvd/driver/mcmanual/documents/99-0129part4.pdf

The last page references lane sharing. Although the point is moot unless one witnesses cars sharing lanes constantly as they drive down the road.

[chipcom]

IMO lane sharing is something unique to two-wheeled vehicles and not 'vehicular' in general. But as we already know, most vehicular cyclists don't really obey all of the vehicular rules of the road, just as they don't obey all the laws of the road...so they are pretty much just like most other cyclists, except that they have a thing against bikeways, which is when they like to yank out their mythical rulebooks.

[Helmet Head]

IMO lane sharing is something unique to two-wheeled vehicles and not 'vehicular' in general.
This statement seems to assume that "vehicular" some how implies that which applies to standard width 4-wheeled vehicles. With respect to the meaning of "vehicular" in "vehicular cycling", which applies to narrow 2 wheeled vehicles, this assumption makes no sense.

Anyway, drivers of all vehicles share lanes whenever it's possible and it suits their purpose. It just so happens that it's very rarely practical for drivers of standard width 4-wheeled vehicles to do so. That doesn't mean it's not vehicular.

But as we already know, most vehicular cyclists don't really obey all of the vehicular rules of the road, just as they don't obey all the laws of the road...so they are pretty much just like most other cyclists, except that they have a thing against bikeways, which is when they like to yank out their mythical rulebooks.
Explain to us, as best as you can, chipcom, who you think "has a thing against bikeways", and why you think they have a "thing against bikeways". Thanks.

[Helmet Head]

What AZ law specifically allows motorcyclists to share lanes with each other?

What AZ law specifically disallows vehicle drivers from sharing lanes with each other (it's rare, but some lanes are wide enough to fit 2 cars side-by-side, particularly at intersection approaches)?

http://www.azdot.gov/mvd/driver/mcmanual/documents/99-0129part4.pdf

The last page references lane sharing. Although the point is moot unless one witnesses cars sharing lanes constantly as they drive down the road.
That's a reference to a motorcycle manual, and does not answer either of my questions.
Here's all it says:

Cars and motorcycles need a full alne to operate safely. Lane sharing is usually prohibited.

"Usually" is pretty vague. If a law prohibited lane sharing, then when would it be allowed?

[Paul L.]

Well I believe that the manual posted before said something about it being dangerous for Motorcycles to share lanes with other vehicles and that they need the full lane. I still haven't seen cars driving down the road trying to share lanes. Usually they change lanes to pass or a slower moving vehicle switches lanes to the right and onto the shoulder to let a faster moving vehicle pass. Rarely to they share lanes except at turns or stoplights. We are talking about the whole road here, not just intersections.

[Helmet Head]

Well I believe that the manual posted before said something about it being dangerous for Motorcycles to share lanes with other vehicles and that they need the full lane. I still haven't seen cars driving down the road trying to share lanes. Usually they change lanes to pass or a slower moving vehicle switches lanes to the right and onto the shoulder to let a faster moving vehicle pass. Rarely to they share lanes except at turns or stoplights. We are talking about the whole road here, not just intersections.
Have you ever driven on a multilane road shortly after it was resurfaced, but before lane stripes were painted?

[bbunk]

http://www.azdot.gov/mvd/driver/mcmanual/documents/99-0129part4.pdf

The last page references lane sharing. Although the point is moot unless one witnesses cars sharing lanes constantly as they drive down the road.

I found this on the City of Mesa website. It is ARS 28-815.
their nature can have no application.
28-815. RIDING ON ROADWAY AND BICYCLE PATH; BICYCLE PATH USAGE
A. A person riding a bicycle on a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under
the conditions then existing shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway,
except under any of the following situations:
1. If overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction.
2. If preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.
3. If reasonably necessary to avoid conditions, including fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles,
bicycles, pedestrians, animals or surface hazards.
4. If the lane in which the person is operating the bicycle is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel
safely side by side within the lane.
B. Persons riding bicycles on a roadway shall not ride more than two abreast except on paths or parts of roadways
set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles.
C. A path or lane that is designated as a bicycle path or lane by state or local authorities is for the exclusive use of
bicycles even though other uses are permitted pursuant to subsection D or are otherwise permitted by state or
local authorities.
D. A person shall not operate, stop, park or leave standing a vehicle in a path or lane designated as a bicycle path
or lane by a state or local authority except in the case of emergency or for crossing the path or lane to gain
access to a public or private road or driveway.
E. Subsection D does not prohibit the use of the path or lane by the appropriate local authority.


So from this I would say it is legal in AZ to share a lane with a car.

[chipcom]

This statement seems to assume that "vehicular" some how implies that which applies to standard width 4-wheeled vehicles. With respect to the meaning of "vehicular" in "vehicular cycling", which applies to narrow 2 wheeled vehicles, this assumption makes no sense.

Anyway, drivers of all vehicles share lanes whenever it's possible and it suits their purpose. It just so happens that it's very rarely practical for drivers of standard width 4-wheeled vehicles to do so. That doesn't mean it's not vehicular.

Give me an example of non two-wheeled vehicles sharing lanes legally.

Vehicular, means vehicles in general. Different types of vehicles have specific features that allow them to do certain things...but those are characteristics of the vehicle, not a characteristic of being vehicular.

IMO, for something to be vehicular, it must apply to all vehicles, not just certain types of vehicles. All vehicles do not share lanes.

[Paul L.]

That's a reference to a motorcycle manual, and does not answer either of my questions.
Here's all it says:

"Usually" is pretty vague. If a law prohibited lane sharing, then when would it be allowed?

Here's your stinkin statute as it applies to motorcycles. :) One could also infer that if cars can't lane share with motorcycles that they cannot also lane share with each other.

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/28/00903.htm

[chipcom]

Have you ever driven on a multilane road shortly after it was resurfaced, but before lane stripes were painted?

Here we go, the wacky scenarios to support wacky theories. Honest debate my eye. :rolleyes:

[Paul L.]

I found this on the City of Mesa website. It is ARS 28-815.
their nature can have no application.
28-815. RIDING ON ROADWAY AND BICYCLE PATH; BICYCLE PATH USAGE
A. A person riding a bicycle on a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under
the conditions then existing shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway,
except under any of the following situations:
1. If overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction.
2. If preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.
3. If reasonably necessary to avoid conditions, including fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles,
bicycles, pedestrians, animals or surface hazards.
4. If the lane in which the person is operating the bicycle is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel
safely side by side within the lane.
B. Persons riding bicycles on a roadway shall not ride more than two abreast except on paths or parts of roadways
set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles.
C. A path or lane that is designated as a bicycle path or lane by state or local authorities is for the exclusive use of
bicycles even though other uses are permitted pursuant to subsection D or are otherwise permitted by state or
local authorities.
D. A person shall not operate, stop, park or leave standing a vehicle in a path or lane designated as a bicycle path
or lane by a state or local authority except in the case of emergency or for crossing the path or lane to gain
access to a public or private road or driveway.
E. Subsection D does not prohibit the use of the path or lane by the appropriate local authority.


So from this I would say it is legal in AZ to share a lane with a car.

I guess what I am questioning here is the Same road same rules argument that VC'ers like to say to solve every argument. I do not think that WOLs fulfill this definition.

[JRA]

Whether any specific laws prohibit lane-sharing or not, mandatory lane-sharing laws that apply only to bicyclists are discriminatory, and are as much of a threat to bicyclists' right to the road as any other kind of mandatory law that applies only to bicyclists.

I would argue that lane sharing on a laned roadway violates normal vehicular rules (although, in some cases, special exemptions for certain vehicles apply). Lane sharing is an exception, not the general rule (if I'm not mistaken, Califorinia is one of few states that speciffically allows "lane-splitting" or "white-lining" by motorcyclists. By the way, I have seen a motorist ticketed for splitting a lane-- never seen a motorcyclist or bicyclist ticketed for it).

The implied intent of lane lines is to define areas of the roadway for the use of a single vehicle at a time. Lane-sharing kind of defeats the purpose of defining lanes.

The idea behind WOL's appears to be the notion that bicyclists should stay out of the way of cars. In a paper presented to the 'Preserving the American Dream Conference', 2005, in which he argued against other types of facilities, John Forester implied that one benefit of WOLs is that they keep bicyclists from delaying motorists:

"The appropriate facilities for bicycle transportation are well-designed and well-maintained standard roadways with width adequate for the amount of traffic that chooses to use them. Generally, this means adequate width in the outside through lane for motorists to overtake cyclists without delay." - John Forester

(emphasis mine)

http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/Social/place_of_bicycle_transportation.htm

[Paul L.]

Have you ever driven on a multilane road shortly after it was resurfaced, but before lane stripes were painted?


No helmet I haven't. Usually they put up cones. I have witnessed blue hairs lane sharing with other cars though but I would not want to hold that up as our shining example as most drivers in the vicinity considered it highly dangerous.

[rando]

this is off-topic, but I just read that Phoenix has 500 miles of bikeways. I had no idea there were that many! sorry. Carry on.

[Paul L.]

this is off-topic, but I just read that Phoenix has 500 miles of bikeways. I had no idea there were that many! sorry. Carry on.
And some of them even have tunnels and bridges bypassing intersections. Unfortunately none of them are near where I live so I have to be happy with what I can find which is mostly bike lanes and WOLs and occasionally a narrow lane.

[rando]

what part of Phoenix are you in, Paul?

[Paul L.]

what part of Phoenix are you in, Paul?
I'm out in East Mesa but I commute through Gilbert and on through to the far edge of Chandler (I-10 and Chandler Blvd) most days of the week. I used to commute through Tempe over to Broadway and 52nd street so I can say I am pretty familiar with Mesa, Chandler, Gilbert, Tempe, and even commuted to Jury Duty and a class over in downtown Phoenix once or twice.

[rando]

Broadway and 52nd is where I'm at right now!

that's quite a commute for you...

[Bekologist]

VERY INTERESTING that the great John forester claims wide outside lanes are to keep bikes out of the way of cars. what an anti-cyclist that dude is.

Quoting rando excerpting John Forester at an autocentric conference.....

'Preserving the American Dream Conference', 2005, in which he argued against other types of facilities, John Forester implied that one benefit of WOLs is that they keep bicyclists from delaying motorists:

"The appropriate facilities for bicycle transportation are well-designed and well-maintained standard roadways with width adequate for the amount of traffic that chooses to use them. Generally, this means adequate width in the outside through lane for motorists to overtake cyclists without delay." - John Forester


I think the concept of lane sharing is NOT vehicular and opens up legal and positioning ambiguities for bicyclists. and john forester proclaims they keep us out of the way of delaying cars.

[webist]

Have you ever driven on a multilane road shortly after it was resurfaced, but before lane stripes were painted?

No. The law says you must stop and wait for the lines to be painted and the paint to dry. :D

[Bruce Rosar]

...no other vehicle on the road is permitted to share lanes on an ongoing basis. I wonder exactly which rule of the road forbids that. Can you provide a citiation? I ask because the model (Uniform Vehicle Code) and the NC General Statues don't appear to have such a rule.

[Brian Ratliff]

I wonder exactly which rule of the road forbids that. Can you provide a citiation? I ask because the model (Uniform Vehicle Code) and the NC General Statues don't appear to have such a rule.

That's not the question. The question is, outside a few exceptions involving motorcycles and traffic jams, when is this behavior allowed by design? I have never seen a lane designed to be shared by two cars on a continuous basis (aside from a couple 10s of feet approaching an intersection). I've heard of WOL width being restricted to prevent cars from sharing lanes.

There is no rule, because road design never allows for it. Last I checked, it is illegal to straddle a lane line in a car. There is no rule because such a rule is never needed by design.

So, Bruce, I've never seen a car share a lane with another car on a continuous basis. Have you? Actually, come to think of it, I have. I was in Cambodia a couple years ago for a month, and most of the roads outside the cities don't have lane markings. The result? General chaos and worn out horns. It was pure might makes right, with cars taking precidence over everything, trucks and buses next, motor scooters and motor bikes next, then bicycles, then pedestrians. If a car honks, you get out of the way if you are lower down on the totum pole.

[Bruce Rosar]

...when is this behavior allowed by design? As you may know, lane lines are normally marked far enough apart to accomodate the widest vehicle can legally use the road without a permit.

I have never seen a lane designed to be shared by two cars on a continuous basis...FYI: There are some two-way roads which originally didn't have any lane markings at all, but then bike lane stripes were added. The area between the BLs is still unmarked and used by two-way traffic.

I've heard of WOL width being restricted to prevent cars from sharing lanes. IIRC, the motivation was to reduce the opportunity for folks to pass on the right instead of waiting or passing on the left.

There is no rule, ...Thanks!

...because road design never allows for it. Well, I suppose that depends on exactly what it is. At least in my state, traffic isn't prohibited from sharing a marked lane if they want to. Wide (cars, trucks, etc.) can (sometimes) share with narrow (motorcycle, moped, equistrian, bicyclist, inline skater, pedestrian, etc.) and, of couse, narrow can share with narrow. Although motorcylists are limited to two side by side here, we once had four or five lanes of bicyclists within a marked lane during Cycle North Carolina.

[Paul L.]

Well, I suppose that depends on exactly what it is. At least in my state, traffic isn't prohibited from sharing a marked lane if they want to. Wide (cars, trucks, etc.) can (sometimes) share with narrow (motorcycle, moped, equistrian, bicyclist, inline skater, pedestrian, etc.) and, of couse, narrow can share with narrow. Although motorcylists are limited to two side by side here, we once had four or five lanes of bicyclists within a marked lane during Cycle North Carolina.


So you are saying rules that work for a car and a car do not apply to a car and a bicycle/motorcycle because of vehicle sizes?

[noisebeam]

There are many roads (mostly collector) in Tempe AZ that are unstriped, at intersections the left turn lane may be striped, but the thru and right turn lane (which is wide enough to fit two vehciles side by side) are not separated by a stripe. The thru lanes have inductive sensor, the right turn lane does not.

Here is an example of an arterial that has side by side vehicle sharing of a very wide outside lane. The stripe does not appear until the last few tens of feet:

youtube 7czSIPBB_X4 - Lanes (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7czSIPBB_X4)

Al

[noisebeam]

AZ Traffic laws relevant to lane sharing:

"28-723. Overtaking a vehicle on the left
The following rules govern the overtaking and passing of vehicles proceeding in the same direction:
1. The driver of a vehicle overtaking another vehicle proceeding in the same direction shall pass to the left of the vehicle at a safe distance and shall not again drive to the right side of the roadway until safely clear of the overtaken vehicle.
2. Except when overtaking and passing on the right is permitted, the driver of an overtaken vehicle shall give way to the right in favor of the overtaking vehicle on audible signal or blinking of head lamps at nighttime and shall not increase the speed of the overtaken vehicle until completely passed by the overtaking vehicle."

No where does it state that the overtaking vehicle must merge fully into an adjacent lane.

And... this well known law (or its local variations)
"28-815. Riding on roadway and bicycle path; bicycle path usage
A. A person riding a bicycle on a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, except under any of the following situations:
1. If overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction.
2. If preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.
3. If reasonably necessary to avoid conditions, including fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals or surface hazards.
4. If the lane in which the person is operating the bicycle is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane."
#1 and #4 suggest the principle of lane sharing - granted with a bicycle and a vehicle, not two vehicles.

For motorcycles:
"28-903. Operation of motorcycle on laned roadway; exceptions
A. All motorcycles are entitled to the full use of a lane. A person shall not drive a motor vehicle in such a manner as to deprive any motorcycle of the full use of a lane. This subsection does not apply to motorcycles operated two abreast in a single lane.
B. The operator of a motorcycle shall not overtake and pass in the same lane occupied by the vehicle being overtaken.
C. A person shall not operate a motorcycle between the lanes of traffic or between adjacent rows of vehicles.
D. A person shall not operate a motorcycle more than two abreast in a single lane.
E. Subsections B and C do not apply to peace officers in the performance of their official duties."

(A) suggest that it is the wider vehicle operator who must not deprive full use of lane. I would interpret this to mean that if a narrow vehicle moves right in the presence of fsdt that passing within same lane is not depriving narrow vehicle of full use of lane as the narrow vehicle operator is requesting the sharing. One can not deprive someone of something they are willingly giving.
(B) is requiring that a faster/overtaking narrow vehicle not share a lane with another vehicle. If the opposite was required, wouldn't it be explictly noted vs. the language used in (A)
(C) refers to 'adjacent rows of vehicles.' I read this to mean the law accounts for two vehiciles operating side by side in unstriped lanes.
(D) is two vehicle sharing a lane.

Al

[noisebeam]

PersThose members here who favor WOLs, do you all filter up in traffic using the full lane width, or do you stay sitting in traffic?
I generally stay in line, just as I do when the wide lane has a bike lane stripe added to it.
The exception in both cases is if the traffic is so backed up it will take more than one light signal to get thru the intersection. In that case I filter using the BL or when a WOL I lane split to the left of potential right turning vehicles.
I've rarely encountered insufficient space to filter forward when there is a WOL, similarly, I have cases where the BL is blocked and I can't filter forward, actually the later happens more often as driver entering from side minor intersection before light will often nose their vehicle across BL to push their way in when the light turns green.

Al

[Paul L.]

There are many roads (mostly collector) in Tempe AZ that are unstriped, at intersections the left turn lane may be striped, but the thru and right turn lane (which is wide enough to fit two vehciles side by side) are not separated by a stripe. The thru lanes have inductive sensor, the right turn lane does not.

Here is an example of an arterial that has side by side vehicle sharing of a very wide outside lane. The stripe does not appear until the last few tens of feet:

youtube 7czSIPBB_X4 - Lanes (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7czSIPBB_X4)

Al


Lane sharing at intersections is common practice. I see this everyday. If we go by same rules same road logic though I do not see cars lane sharing when they pass motorcycles, or cars lane sharing when they pass other cars every day between intersections. I do see this with bicycles in WOLs everyday. This is my beef with Same Road Same Rules. Unless you do not use the WOL, if so, why promote it? Further, isn't a WOL in this case just providing an unusual way for a vehicle to pass another vehicle? At least with a bike lane there a cyclist can officially switch lanes to let a faster moving vehicle pass nice and official like. Roads which regularly have slower moving vehicles (steep hills) often have slower vehicle lanes, in my mind a bike lane is just the urban version of this as most motorize vehicles do not have a problem maintaining the speed limit and thus would not need a slower vehicle lane, by necessity since only narrow human powered vehicles have the need, the lane is narrow.

I would prefer to see Same road, similar rules resulting from slower speeds and needs. But that isn't quite as catchy unfortunately.

Personally I use a WOL exactly like I use a bike lane.

[Helmet Head]

Lane sharing at intersections is common practice. I see this everyday. If we go by same rules same road logic though I do not see cars lane sharing when they pass motorcycles, or cars lane sharing when they pass other cars every day between intersections. I do see this with bicycles in WOLs everyday. This is my beef with Same Road Same Rules. Unless you do not use the WOL, if so, why promote it? Further, isn't a WOL in this case just providing an unusual way for a vehicle to pass another vehicle? At least with a bike lane there a cyclist can officially switch lanes to let a faster moving vehicle pass nice and official like. Roads which regularly have slower moving vehicles (steep hills) often have slower vehicle lanes, in my mind a bike lane is just the urban version of this as most motorize vehicles do not have a problem maintaining the speed limit and thus would not need a slower vehicle lane, by necessity since only narrow human powered vehicles have the need, the lane is narrow.

I would prefer to see Same road, similar rules resulting from slower speeds and needs. But that isn't quite as catchy unfortunately.

Personally I use a WOL exactly like I use a bike lane. On narrow rural roads with double-yellow stripes and short sight lines I have seen vehicle drivers yield to faster motorcyclists by adjusting right, perhaps encroaching in on the shoulder if necessary, to allow the motorcyclists to pass within the lane and not have to cross the double-yellow to pass. I do this myself when driving my Camper back from the desert.

Bek likes to make fun of this example, but this is the same vehicular behavior as a bicyclist moving right to allow a motorist to pass him on the left within a WOL. It just happens to be more common with bikes/cars than cars/motorbikes because there are many more situations in which bikes are significantly slower than cars than situations in which cars are significantly slower than motorbikes. But this is a difference in degree, not a difference in kind.

[noisebeam]

Paul, as an aside I wanted to let you know my position on BLs and WOLs to help frame the discussion with us local (metro-Phx, not AZ as a whole) folks.

I am most opposed to BL stripes approaching all intersections (arterials, minor roads and commercial driveways). An exception is that while I don't like but am OK with BLs to left of RTOL. (I don't like as they get filled with debris even more than other BLs in the area)

I strongly prefer 30mph and less roads do not have any bike lane striping. These roads are generally residential and intersection hazards (including residential driveways) and door zones abound.

I have no real issue with BL stripes on longer fully intersectionless roads. By longer this generally means 1/2-1mi stretches or more, depending on specific road design and conditions. However I do want this stripe to end 200' before any and all intersections.

If you look at our suburban road infrastructure/layout with frequent intersections this above preference means there will be very few striped BLs and mostly WOLs. This does not mean I am against BL stripes, just that they don't fit well in our current local environment. If signifcant changes are made (such as collecting all business driveways into one collector driveway) then there may be more places BL stripes are workable.

Al

[Paul L.]

On narrow rural roads with double-yellow stripes and short sight lines I have seen vehicle drivers yield to faster motorcyclists by adjusting right, perhaps encroaching in on the shoulder if necessary, to allow the motorcyclists to pass within the lane and not have to cross the double-yellow to pass. I do this myself when driving my Camper back from the desert.

Bek likes to make fun of this example, but this is the same vehicular behavior as a bicyclist moving right to allow a motorist to pass him on the left within a WOL. It just happens to be more common with bikes/cars than cars/motorbikes because there are many more situations in which bikes are significantly slower than cars than situations in which cars are significantly slower than motorbikes. But this is a difference in degree, not a difference in kind.


Technically the driver is leaving his lane in this instance or at least moving a portion of his vehicle out of the lane.

[Paul L.]

Paul, as an aside I wanted to let you know my position on BLs and WOLs to help frame the discussion with us local (metro-Phx, not AZ as a whole) folks.

I am most opposed to BL stripes approaching all intersections (arterials, minor roads and commercial driveways). An exception is that while I don't like but am OK with BLs to left of RTOL. (I don't like as they get filled with debris even more than other BLs in the area)

I strongly prefer 30mph and less roads do not have any bike lane striping. These roads are generally residential and intersection hazards (including residential driveways) and door zones abound.

I have no real issue with BL stripes on longer fully intersectionless roads. By longer this generally means 1/2-1mi stretches or more, depending on specific road design and conditions. However I do want this stripe to end 200' before any and all intersections.

If you look at our suburban road infrastructure/layout with frequent intersections this above preference means there will be very few striped BLs and mostly WOLs. This does not mean I am against BL stripes, just that they don't fit well in our current local environment. If signifcant changes are made (such as collecting all business driveways into one collector driveway) then there may be more places BL stripes are workable.

Al

Any street with a speed limit of 30 mph or less I really don't care about. I would feel safe riding in any portion of that street as it is residential. I have no problem with keeping bike lanes off of those streets as they always end up being Parking/Bike lanes (at least more often than not). The roads that make up the bulk of my experience are 4 - 6 lane arterials with speed limits in excess of 40 mph and traffic usually flows above that by 5 to 10 mph. I find that it is possible to make a left turn across three lanes to get into the left turn lane at Chandler and 58th but occasionally drivers will not let me through and I need to ride through the intersection and cross with the next light switch. Incidentally if one positions their bike over the sensor that light is very friendly giving a green turn signal every time.
Personally, if traffic is flowing 30 mph or less it is not a big delay for them to find a safe place to pass me or me to find a safe place to let them pass.

For me those kind of streets are not a viable avenue for me to commute on. The amount of stop lights on those kind of roads creates enormous delay over commuting distances of 15 miles or more.

Incidentally I disagree with bike lanes that go to the right of RTOL too. I don't use them unless drivers are making it impossible to do otherwise.

[Helmet Head]

Technically the driver is leaving his lane in this instance or at least moving a portion of his vehicle out of the lane. Only if he has to move into the shoulder in order to give the motorcyclist enough space.

Anyway, a cyclist who moves into a shoulder or bike lane in order to facilitate the passing of him is also leaving his lane.

In both cases, the "vehicularity" of the move (adjusting to the right to provide extra space for, and yield to, faster traffic, whether doing so requires leaving the lane or not) is the same.

[noisebeam]

Any street with a speed limit of 30 mph or less I really don't care about. I would feel safe riding in any portion of that street as it is residential. I have no problem with keeping bike lanes off of those streets as they always end up being Parking/Bike lanes (at least more often than not). The roads that make up the bulk of my experience are 4 - 6 lane arterials with speed limits in excess of 40 mph and traffic usually flows above that by 5 to 10 mph. I find that it is possible to make a left turn across three lanes to get into the left turn lane at Chandler and 58th but occasionally drivers will not let me through and I need to ride through the intersection and cross with the next light switch. Incidentally if one positions their bike over the sensor that light is very friendly giving a green turn signal every time.
Personally, if traffic is flowing 30 mph or less it is not a big delay for them to find a safe place to pass me or me to find a safe place to let them pass.

For me those kind of streets are not a viable avenue for me to commute on. The amount of stop lights on those kind of roads creates enormous delay over commuting distances of 15 miles or more.

Incidentally I disagree with bike lanes that go to the right of RTOL too. I don't use them unless drivers are making it impossible to do otherwise.
Paul, I think there is a good deal of common ground for us.

As we ride in basically the same area (and often the same streets) and as we both have desires to get places over longer distances we tend to ride on the arterials, not the residential streets.

Unfortunately locally (at least Tempe) the focus seem to be on striping 25mph residential streets, not widening the outside lanes of arterials (independent of if stripe is included or not). Of course in cities not yet fully developed out (i.e. Chandler, Gilbert) BLs are added to newly built arterials.

One interesting point you bring up is the difficulty in making vehicular left turns on multilane arterials. It does take practice and confidence to use communication (arm signals and looking back) to negotate across several lanes of 40-50mph traffic. But here I find WOLs without BL stripe to be preferable as I find the most difficult lane change to negotate is the first one: Leaving the BL. Here drivers are far more likely to ignore my requests to negotate leaving the bike lane. Once I am in the 'primary' lanes the response rate is much higher. With a WOL I am already in the lane so the intital 'get out of BL' negotation is not needed. This is another reason why I do not want a BL striped 200' before intersections. Of course 200' is often too short, in heavier traffic I may begin the negotation 400' back, but I think 200' is a good compromise.

Note I realize that most of this above this is off topic on the thread subject you started, but this thread does have the advantage of discussing VC, WOL vs BL stripe in a local context with local inputs.

Al

[noisebeam]

Personally I use a WOL exactly like I use a bike lane.
I tend to as well: Staying center biased in WOL, or if BL -striped in the 'primary' lane that is just left of the BL and only moving right to allow faster same direction traffic to pass if there is no obstical and no intersections immediately ahead.

However AZ law treats this behavior differently if there is a BL stripe or not.

But more importantly motorist treat me differently too.
When riding center biased in WOL on multilane arterials faster same direction vehicles are much more likely to merge left into adjacent lane to pass me and they do it quite far back - this means in most cases I don't even need to merge right to let them pass. When a BL is present I find they come much closer often to the point I merge right to be safe not knowing if they have reacted to me. In the cases I do not want to move right for my safety (generally due to intersction approach) I am much more likely to be honked at or tailgated if a BL is present. The question is, can motorist education address these differences?

Al

[Helmet Head]

I have never seen a lane designed to be shared by two cars on a continuous basis (aside from a couple 10s of feet approaching an intersection).
I'm missing the point here. I've never seen a lane designed to be shared by a car and a bike on a continuous basis. So what?

I have seen lanes that allow for slower traffic to move aside to allow faster traffic to pass. For example, this is why many states have laws that require drivers of slow moving vehicles to drive as far right as practicable on 2 lane roads when faster traffic is present.

[Brian Ratliff]

I'm missing the point here. I've never seen a lane designed to be shared by a car and a bike on a continuous basis. So what?

What's a wide outside lane then? How finely are you parcing language here?

I have seen lanes that allow for slower traffic to move aside to allow faster traffic to pass. For example, this is why many states have laws that require drivers of slow moving vehicles to drive as far right as practicable on 2 lane roads when faster traffic is present.

What do these lanes look like, and where are they used? Are you saying that there are places (not leading up to intersections, mind you) that have >20' wide lanes so a slow moving car can stay on the right side of the lane and the faster moving car on the left? Usually, they put a lane line down the center of this 20' lane, don't they?... and make it into two, separate lanes?...

[Paul L.]

Paul, I think there is a good deal of common ground for us.

As we ride in basically the same area (and often the same streets) and as we both have desires to get places over longer distances we tend to ride on the arterials, not the residential streets.

Unfortunately locally (at least Tempe) the focus seem to be on striping 25mph residential streets, not widening the outside lanes of arterials (independent of if stripe is included or not). Of course in cities not yet fully developed out (i.e. Chandler, Gilbert) BLs are added to newly built arterials.

One interesting point you bring up is the difficulty in making vehicular left turns on multilane arterials. It does take practice and confidence to use communication (arm signals and looking back) to negotate across several lanes of 40-50mph traffic. But here I find WOLs without BL stripe to be preferable as I find the most difficult lane change to negotate is the first one: Leaving the BL. Here drivers are far more likely to ignore my requests to negotate leaving the bike lane. Once I am in the 'primary' lanes the response rate is much higher. With a WOL I am already in the lane so the intital 'get out of BL' negotation is not needed. This is another reason why I do not want a BL striped 200' before intersections. Of course 200' is often too short, in heavier traffic I may begin the negotation 400' back, but I think 200' is a good compromise.

Note I realize that most of this above this is off topic on the thread subject you started, but this thread does have the advantage of discussing VC, WOL vs BL stripe in a local context with local inputs.

Al

I may have to alter my route to test this out for a few days (most of my left turns include either bike lanes, or two lane roads).

[Helmet Head]

I'm missing the point here. I've never seen a lane designed to be shared by a car and a bike on a continuous basis. So what?
What's a wide outside lane then? How finely are you parcing language here? I'm trying to parse as much as necessary in order to understand what you mean.

A WOL is not designed to be shared by a car and a bike on a continuous basis. If a bike and car are sharing on a continuous basis, then the cyclist is traveling at the same speed as the car, and there is no reason to yield/share. Speed differential is a key characteristic in typical car/bike lane sharing (notably, as it is in car/motorcycle lane sharing, but not in motorcycle/motorcycle lane sharing).

Perhaps you meant to say you've never seen a lane designed to be used by a slow moving car using a lane-sharing position continuously, while faster traffic is passing it within that same lane?

If so, again, I don't see that WOLs are designed to be used by a slow moving cyclist using a lane-sharing position continuously. I see them as simply happening to be wide enough to allow cyclists and drivers of other slow moving vehicles to use the extra space to allow faster traffic to pass.

Besides clarifying that, I hope you would explain why you are so quick to discount the "special case" of motorcycle/motorcycle and motorcycle/car lane sharing in your argument against the "vehicularity" of bike/car lane sharing?

The problem is that, in general, slow moving vehicles are relatively rare, and narrow vehicles are relatively rare. So the vehicular behavior that the operational and physical characteristcs of being slow moving and/or narrow allow and require are relatively rare; those that combine both characteristics are that much more rare. But untypical does not mean non-existent, and, in this case, it does not mean nonvehicular.

[Brian Ratliff]

Besides clarifying that, I hope you would explain why you are so quick to discount the "special case" of motorcycle/motorcycle and motorcycle/car lane sharing in your argument against the "vehicularity" of bike/car lane sharing?


motorcycle/motorcycle is irrelevent and doesn't concern me because the two motorcycles in effect act as one vehicle when they are traveling side by side insofar as other vehicles around them are concerned. A car passing a cyclist in a WOL is hardly an example of the car and bike driving in concert and effectively acting as a single vehicle.

motorcycle/car (i.e. lanesplitting) is not generally done (i.e. it is an exception to normal traffic operating rules), and I don't even think it is legal in Oregon. In CA, it is my understanding that this is only legal during traffic jams, the consideration being to motorcycles with aircooled engines which have to keep moving to keep from overheating.

Answer me the question of the 20' lanes (on arterials, mind you) in which slow cars share a lane with faster moving cars. Is this ever done? Or is it as I suspect, and the "20' lane" is subdivided into two 10 foot lanes so that the slow car and the fast car can each have their own lane? Would it be advantageous for a slower car to be biased to the right side of a 20' WOL so that faster cars can pass within the same lane rather than the current situation of having two 10' lanes?

(BTW, by "continuous", I meant in the manner that WOLs are used with faster cars passing slower bicyclists. Bad terminology perhaps, but I was trying to differentiate between this situation and the 30 feet leading up to intersections where right turning cars sometimes share a lane with cars going straight; not the same situation, as both cars are coming to a stop. I was kind of hoping that you would take my useage from context and in good faith instead of running off on some irrelevent tangent. Bikes in same speed traffic are hardly of any concern, as the main driver of needing a WOL or bike lane is the speed differential between bikes and other vehicles.)

[Helmet Head]

motorcycle/motorcycle is irrelevent and doesn't concern me because the two motorcycles in effect act as one vehicle when they are traveling side by side insofar as other vehicles around them are concerned. A car passing a cyclist in a WOL is hardly an example of the car and bike driving in concert and effectively acting as a single vehicle. OK... but what about a faster motorcycle in the left tire track passing a slower motorcycle in the right tire track of the same lane?

motorcycle/car (i.e. lanesplitting) is not generally done (i.e. it is an exception to normal traffic operating rules), and I don't even think it is legal in Oregon. In CA, it is my understanding that this is only legal during traffic jams, the consideration being to motorcycles with aircooled engines which have to keep moving to keep from overheating.
There is no law that disallows lanesharing (both vehicles are fully within the shared lane). There is a law that disallows lanesplitting (see below). When people say lanesplitting is legal in CA, they actually mean (though they may not realize it) that lanesharing is allowed.

Laned Roadways
21658. (http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21658.htm) Whenever any roadway has been divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for traffic in one direction, the following rules apply:

(a) A vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practical entirely within a single lane and shall not be moved from the lane until such movement can be made with reasonable safety.

Note that this law makes riding between lanes (lanesplitting, or lane straddling) illegal. What the CHP website used to say, though I can't find it any more, is that it is legal to pass between lanes of cars, as long as the driver stays fully within one marked lane or the other, because no law explicitly prohibited that. It also said that if he's encroaching into the adjacent lane, that's illegal, because it violates 21658. You can find websites that talk about this by googling for 21658 and "lane splitting". So, the only time it is legal to leave a lane is when you're actually changing lanes, or if it is not possible to stay within the lane, and even then, only when "such movement can be made with reasonable safety".

Note that this is the same law that allows two cars to share lanes, though in practice the opportunities to do so happen to be very rare.

It is also the same law that effectively allows (or doesn't disallow) a car and bike to share the same lane, or 2 motorcycles to share the same lane, or multiple bicycles to share the same lane, or a motorcycle and a bicycle to share the same lane, all of which of course happen much more often.

Answer me the question of the 20' lanes (on arterials, mind you) in which slow cars share a lane with faster moving cars. Is this ever done? No. Not intentionally. Not that I know of.

Or is it as I suspect, and the "20' lane" is subdivided into two 10 foot lanes so that the slow car and the fast car can each have their own lane? Yes.

Would it be advantageous for a slower car to be biased to the right side of a 20' WOL so that faster cars can pass within the same lane rather than the current situation of having two 10' lanes?
No.

But this situation is not analogous to bike lanes because lane usage rules are clear for the case of turning movements with two (or more) adjacent 10' lanes regular traffic lanes (where the rightmost lane is straight-or-right), and they are not clear when it's a bike lane adjacent to a regular traffic lane (where the bike lane is right-or-straight, and so is the lane adjacent to it to the left).

Again, I'm okay with (but not excited by) bike lanes on long intersectionless stretches of roadway. It's the intersections (including intersections with minor driveways/alleys) where it all falls apart).

(BTW, by "continuous", I meant in the manner that WOLs are used with faster cars passing slower bicyclists. Bad terminology perhaps, but I was trying to differentiate between this situation and the 30 feet leading up to intersections where right turning cars sometimes share a lane with cars going straight; not the same situation, as both cars are coming to a stop. I was kind of hoping that you would take my useage from context and in good faith instead of running off on some irrelevent tangent. Bikes in same speed traffic are hardly of any concern, as the main driver of needing a WOL or bike lane is the speed differential between bikes and other vehicles.) Oh! I get it now. Makes sense. That's what I wasn't getting and why I was parsing as closely as I was.

[wheel]

this is off-topic, but I just read that Phoenix has 500 miles of bikeways. I had no idea there were that many! sorry. Carry on.
Yea but remember it is 515 sq miles in size I can only think of one busy road having a BL Union Hills. Tempe is what 70 sq miles and has what 100 miles of BLs?


Well WOL are considered a bicycle facility so I would think WOLs are not VC.
WOL are way much eaiser to turn left on.
I want one lane one vehicle when two or more lanes are present until drivers get a clue and become responsible to allow no stripping at all just road.

I am like AL, for the most part in lane positioning. After all it is my life and a few second to them. I find residental roads with out stripping tend to allow a motor more leway and they take advantage of it.

I was riding down Priest near washington no stripping, cars had no problems they even went slower. Since riding north bound provides a transitioning wide shoulder I found this absent shoulder a blessing. Since the whole road was one bike lane I didn't take the lane like I normally do since I didn't have to merge back into traffic if there was a shoulder.