Yep, we had a dooring incident just yesterday. A 66 year old guy was riding with his groceries (how fast could he have been going? ) when he crashed into or crashed dodging a door opening in front of him. Then he was run over by a Suburban.

EDIT: The potential dangers of door zones, and the size of door zones, seem to be often underestimated by cyclists, even "experienced" cyclists, probably because of all their luck and positive experience gathered while riding in door zones. Once someone told me about how his wife was doored, to which I responded with a remark about that being a reminder of how important it is to avoid door zones, and he replied with a flat-out assertion that they weren't riding in the door zone. He didn't even blink. He was in complete denial.

Actually I believe the reverse is true...that the danger of door zones is overblown by armchair cyclists with little experience riding - or driving - on busy, narrow, urban streets. When driving in these areas, as long as I am in the right lane I am in the door zone, yet I don't straddle the lane line and hog both lanes...on a bike I can keep an even safer distance from the door zone than I can in a motor vehicle.

I guess it's just another phobia...door zone phobia, that drives your fear...and also the fact that you can't stand to slow down and don't have the ability to monitor more than one thing at a time in your environment.

I'll borrow one of your favorite phrases from Hurst...if you get doored, no matter what your lane position is, it's your fault, nobody elses.

Which all goes back to the topic/thought I've been bringing up here and thre, which is:

The most important change pro-bike-lane-facility advocates could do for cycling and for gaining stronger support for the striping agenda would be to advocate for improved standards.

For example:
No more DZ BLs
No more 4' BLs
No more striping approaching both minor and major intersections.
Standardized sharrows

Al

I agree with all of those...but stripe or no stripe, people will and do drive/ride in the door zone. I liked your idea of, if there is a stripe, also adding markings to designate the door zone.

the existence of bike lanes makes people think that there is one static "correct" location for
cyclists to ride in any given location. That's a foolish and dangerous
concept. It is not true on any street, whether it has a bike lane or not.

That's not entirely true. I know of several communities with ordinances stating that if a bike lane or bike path is available then cyclists must use those facilities.

When driving in these areas, as long as I am in the right lane I am in the door zone, yet I don't straddle the lane line and hog both lanes...on a bike I can keep an even safer distance from the door zone than I can in a motor vehicle.

In a motor vehicle, if I crash in someone's open door, how much am I hurt? If their door opens into the side of my car, how far into the next lane does it push me? How much easier is it to spot an oncoming car driving next to parked cars than a cyclist riding in the door zone?

That's not entirely true. I know of several communities with ordinances stating that if a bike lane or bike path is available then cyclists must use those facilities.

There are no states laws barring a cyclist from leaving a bike lane if a dangerous condition exists. The problem is that certain LEO's might not interpret this law to mean a cyclist can leave a bike lane simply because it is in the door zone. Some Portland LEO's (and to be fair, one Delaware LEO) believe that if a solid stripe exists on the pavement, cyclists must be to the right of it, no matter what. This is not a correct interpretation of the law though.

You are starting to sound like Bek now. Moving over to allow some faster same direction traffic to pass then moving back out into the center of the lane (or wherever I deem the best spot at the time) is hardly similar to your "bunny wabbit" comparison. Here's a question, what's the less predictable style:

1. riding outside of the door zone but trying to use the bike lane and ending up somewhere on top of or just inside/outside the bike lane line

2. treating the bike lane like a shoulder and riding fully inside of the traffic lane but moving over to allow faster traffic to pass between intersections, signalling each change of position.

3. Treating the bike lane for what it is...another traffic lane, and staying within it's confines riding a straight, predictable line unless there is reason to merge into the next lane...like any motor vehicle does.

Riding just to the right of the line in this case puts me out of the door zone, but as much in the lane as any motor vehicle. I don't get concerned when another car is only a foot or so away from mine, why would I worry about it on a bike or if the other vehicle were a bike?




What's more courteous than acknowledging a faster driver while riding in a predictable location (not on top of a lane line) and moving over to allow them to pass? What's more courteous than being destination positioned at intersections for cross and opposite direction traffic so that they know exactly where you intend to go? I do believe in the value of holding a predictable line within lane markings which is exactly why I'd prefer to ride in the middle of the traffic lane rather than on the outside edge of that bike lane. And even if a 5 foot gap put me outside of the door zone but still in the bike lane, why would I only want to be barely outside of the reach of a car door? Why not give myself some extra wiggle room? It's the same concept for riding on narrow laned roads. You don't ride right near the edge (even though it's easy enough to do so) because in situations where you happen to not get as much room on your left as you'd like, you have space to move further right. If someone opens a car door on your right at the same time that you are getting close passed on the left, you run the risk of a serious injury. It's slightly far fetched but why even risk it if it's not necessary?

Operating like a vehicle is important to me which is why I'm not going to be in the bike lane at intersections going straight from a lane to the right of a lane from which right turns are allowed. It's important to me which is why I'd prefer that the road have been left as two full traffic lanes allowing for much less ambiguity and effort on my part (For me, it's less effort to ride a two lane road than a road with one lane and a shoulder as traffic lanes are more consistent in marking, width, and treatment by other road users.)

Staying out of the way of faster traffic by being in the right-most travel lane...which is the bike lane in this case, is more courteous that sitting out in the faster traffic lane. I don't expect cars to keep over 5 ft between themselves and the door zone, why should I do so on a bike that gives me more manuverabilty faster reaction time?

This door-zone and painted line phobia you are exhibiting is decidedly not vehicular.

In a motor vehicle, if I crash in someone's open door, how much am I hurt? If their door opens into the side of my car, how far into the next lane does it push me? How much easier is it to spot an oncoming car driving next to parked cars than a cyclist riding in the door zone?

Ahh, so you do have John's cyclist inferiority phobia. You feel that if you ride in the same manner as other vehicles operate you are exposing yourself to greater risk of injury. You're making it sound like being truly vehicular isn't so safe. So which is it...do you follow all the vehicular rules of the road and operate the same as other vehicles, or do you only do so when you feel safer doing so and break those rules when you feel like they are unsafe? By George, that sounds more like Adaptive Cycling! :eek:

Ahh, so you do have John's cyclist inferiority phobia. You feel that if you ride in the same manner as other vehicles operate you are exposing yourself to greater risk of injury. You're making it sound like being truly vehicular isn't so safe. So which is it...do you follow all the vehicular rules of the road and operate the same as other vehicles, or do you only do so when you feel safer doing so and break those rules when you feel like they are unsafe? By George, that sounds more like Adaptive Cycling! :eek:

What a terrible attempt at an argument. Do you ride through big potholes on your bike just because it's possible to do so safely in a car? Would you try to ride with your tires on top of parallel trolley tracks just because you can do so in a car? Do you ever drive your car through a 3 foot gap between two objects? Do you ever attempt to lift your car up over a barrier in your path? A bicycle is not a car.

Believe me, I understand the door zone, the only crashes with motor vehicles I've ever had bicycling (3) have all been doorings. But the worst of them happened many, many years ago and I learned my lesson. It would not stop me from riding in the bike lane pictured, and I can assure you I've ridden in it (it's in Portland) and it can be done safely.

Of course, you could still get doored in that bike lane if you weren't paying attention, one of my coworkers was last year. But the bike lane stripe has nothing to do with the dooring risk, and, as someone else pointed out earlier in another thread, many less experienced cyclists would probably ride closer to the door zone in the absence of the bike lane. Three crashes to learn just one lesson of countless others that many of us learned simply by reading a book. To each his (or her) own, i guess.

And despite those lessons, you still don't seem to get it:

The only car doors I know that are even close to 5' wide are on two door detroit muscle cars/coupes from the 60s, 70s and perhaps early 80s, and there aren't too many of them on the street anymore, thank god. The door zone is the area you need to avoid to be safe from sudden door openings. By "safe", I mean, if the door suddenly opens, not only will you not hit it, but it will not clip your bars, and it will not even be close enough to cause you to instinctively flinch and swerve in front of the bus about to pass you.

Put your tire about 5' (your right side about 4') from the left edge of parked cars, and that leaves you 6" of error margin from a 3.5' wide open door.

That's where the 5' comes from.

3. Treating the bike lane for what it is...another traffic lane, and staying within it's confines riding a straight, predictable line unless there is reason to merge into the next lane...like any motor vehicle does.

Riding just to the right of the line in this case puts me out of the door zone, but as much in the lane as any motor vehicle. I don't get concerned when another car is only a foot or so away from mine, why would I worry about it on a bike or if the other vehicle were a bike?

No thru traffic lanes are ever striped to the right of another traffic lane from which vehicles can make a right hand turn.

Riding assertively out of the door zone (not just right at the edge of it) would have you on the stripe or into the traffic lane. 5 feet is a minimum gap.

You wouldn't worry about another car a foot away from yours? Really? REALLY? Should I start calling you Nascar Chip? :p

You may think this is courteous behavior, but I can assure you that many overtaking motorists do not. Also, you may be a strong rider but what about someone going 5mph on a cruiser? Only about 1% of cyclists or potential cyclists are going to feel comfortable riding in heavy traffic, the purpose of facilities is to make it safer and more comfortable for the other 99% of the cyclists that don't ride at 15+mph and don't want to play chicken with deadly two ton metal boxes on wheels with unpredictable, potentially aggressive and distracted operators at the wheel. Stop thinking of yourself all the time.

How can you assure me of this? Have you ever tried it?

For the record, I've often found myself at 5mph in heavy traffic. It's something you learn to deal with when operating a slow moving vehicle. Being a bike lane with motor vehicles whizzing by with inches of clearance because they are to the right of their stripe and you are just outside the door zone right next to the stripe to your left certainly isn't going to be any more comfortable. I'd rather be out in the lane, getting them to slow down and notice me than flying by like I don't exist. And I have to add, it's pretty difficult to only maintain 5mph on flat ground on a bicycle; you have to be trying to go that slow. And the difference between 10mph and 15mph is hardly noticeable to a motorist. In either case, they are just about stopping if you are in their way.

There are no states laws barring a cyclist from leaving a bike lane if a dangerous condition exists. The problem is that certain LEO's might not interpret this law to mean a cyclist can leave a bike lane simply because it is in the door zone. Some Portland LEO's (and to be fair, one Delaware LEO) believe that if a solid stripe exists on the pavement, cyclists must be to the right of it, no matter what. This is not a correct interpretation of the law though.
And I agree with you.
My post however was correcting a rather unoquivocal statement made by Helmet Head... possibly made by him without thoroughly thinking it thru first, and I'm sure that when he reads my post he'll see where the correction stands.

the existence of bike lanes makes people think that there is one static "correct" location for
cyclists to ride in any given location. That's a foolish and dangerous
concept. It is not true on any street, whether it has a bike lane or not.

And I agree with you.
My post however was correcting a rather unoquivocal statement made by Helmet Head... possibly made by him without thoroughly thinking it thru first, and I'm sure that when he reads my post he'll see where the correction stands.

HH was speaking about a concept of traffic cycling, not any specific laws regarding traffic cycling. Many traffic laws specific to cycling are not based on the same vehicular principles as the rest of the traffic laws. Mandatory bike lane laws are one good example. The exceptions do usually agree with vehicular principles but the effect on law enforcement and the interpretation by most cyclists does not.

What a terrible attempt at an argument. Do you ride through big potholes on your bike just because it's possible to do so safely in a car? Would you try to ride with your tires on top of parallel trolley tracks just because you can do so in a car? Do you ever drive your car through a 3 foot gap between two objects? Do you ever attempt to lift your car up over a barrier in your path? A bicycle is not a car.

No, but now you are taking things to extremes...we are talking about a nice little bike lane that doesn't seem to have any potholes or debris and allows you to ride outside of the door zone. Your reason for being outside of that little stripe seems to be an irrational fear of the door zone, making it seem much larger and more dangerous than it is.

But I think I made my point...being truly vehicular is only applicable if you feel safer doing so and you do things that are non-vehicular, specific to a bike, otherwise...so you are an adaptive cyclist who uses vehicular cycling as just one tool in the toolkit...like most people...which is nothing to be ashamed of, despite the rhetoric of the rabid vc zealots.

No thru traffic lanes are ever striped to the right of another traffic lane from which vehicles can make a right hand turn.

Riding assertively out of the door zone (not just right at the edge of it) would have you on the stripe or into the traffic lane. 5 feet is a minimum gap.

You wouldn't worry about another car a foot away from yours? Really? REALLY? Should I start calling you Nascar Chip? :p

5 feet is a theoretical margin of safety that is seldom reality in city traffic, for cars or bikes. Sometimes I truly wonder if any of you have done any riding in an eastern urban business/downtown district. If one foot in city traffic bothers you, I advise you to stay out of city traffic.

Back to the subject at hand, the bike lane in question, riding that line is much farther away from the door zone than I usually get on the roads in downtown Akron or Cleveland where there are no bike lanes...so, to me, there is no door zone threat by riding the outer edge of this bike lane. If you have a phobia about the distance you must keep between you, traffic and parked cars, that is something you need to work out yourself.

HH was speaking about a concept of traffic cycling, not any specific laws regarding traffic cycling. Many traffic laws specific to cycling are not based on the same vehicular principles as the rest of the traffic laws. Mandatory bike lane laws are one good example. The exceptions do usually agree with vehicular principles but the effect on law enforcement and the interpretation by most cyclists does not.
I wouldn't have taken an issue with the statement if he had not tossed in
It is not true on any street, whether it has a bike lane or not.
To me, he is going from "concept" to stated fact there.
But in regarding his concept part of it, I also agree. Some cyclists think that if a lane is present that it is the "correct" and "laweful" place to ride. (In some situations that *might* be true though.) But people also think alot of stupid crap too.

Three crashes to learn just one lesson of countless others that many of us learned simply by reading a book. To each his (or her) own, i guess.

And despite those lessons, you still don't seem to get it:

The door zone is the area you need to avoid to be safe from sudden door openings. By "safe", I mean, if the door suddenly opens, not only will you not hit it, but it will not clip your bars, and it will not even be close enough to cause you to instinctively flinch and swerve in front of the bus about to pass you.

Put your tire about 5' (your right side about 4') from the left edge of parked cars, and that leaves you 6" of error margin from a 3.5' wide open door.

That's where the 5' comes from.
Hey Serge, I don't think EC had been published yet in 1969, nor would I have read it at 12 years old, so quit being a pretentious* ass, I know all about what and where the door zone is, and I don't need JF's book, or you, to lecture me about it.

*pretentious |priˈten ch əs| adjective: attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc., than is actually possessed

Back to the subject at hand, the bike lane in question, riding that line is much farther away from the door zone than I usually get on the roads in downtown Akron or Cleveland where there are no bike lanes...so, to me, there is no door zone threat by riding the outer edge of this bike lane. If you have a phobia about the distance you must keep between you, traffic and parked cars, that is something you need to work out yourself.
Exactly.

:beer:

That bike lane positions a bicyclist further from the parked cars than 99% of the main traffic lanes on bike lane-less streets I've seen. I drive closer to parked cars than that bike lane.

That bike lane positions a bicyclist further from the parked cars than 99% of the main traffic lanes on bike lane-less streets I've seen. I drive closer to parked cars than that bike lane.

you have a point there. good one, Diane!

No, but now you are taking things to extremes...we are talking about a nice little bike lane that doesn't seem to have any potholes or debris and allows you to ride outside of the door zone. Your reason for being outside of that little stripe seems to be an irrational fear of the door zone, making it seem much larger and more dangerous than it is.

I have more reasons than just the door zone for being outside of that stripe.

But I think I made my point...being truly vehicular is only applicable if you feel safer doing so and you do things that are non-vehicular, specific to a bike, otherwise...so you are an adaptive cyclist who uses vehicular cycling as just one tool in the toolkit...like most people...which is nothing to be ashamed of, despite the rhetoric of the rabid vc zealots.

A bike is a vehicle. A car is a vehicle. A bike is not a car. Riding a bike like I'm riding a bike is being a cyclist, not an adaptive cyclist. What part of allowing clearance for a potential threat to my safety (not just my paint job and insurance bill) is not vehicular?

That bike lane positions a bicyclist further from the parked cars than 99% of the main traffic lanes on bike lane-less streets I've seen. I drive closer to parked cars than that bike lane.

There are three important reasons why a cyclist (motor or pedal) should operate farther from parked cars than a car driver. First, the width of a car makes it far more visible to persons about to disembark from parked cars; the far side of the overtaking car is much more visible than the near side. Second, the car driver is unlikely to completely lose control of his vehicle in the event of a glancing blow. Third, the car driver is unlikely to be injured even in a direct collision with an unlawfully opened door.

I have never been doored; however, I have struck a pedestrian who stepped out into the roadway in front of me from behind a van. The minimum distance I give to parked cars is a function of many variables; fortunately a bike lane stripe is rarely present to complicate the matter.

5 feet is a theoretical margin of safety that is seldom reality in city traffic, for cars or bikes. Sometimes I truly wonder if any of you have done any riding in an eastern urban business/downtown district. If one foot in city traffic bothers you, I advise you to stay out of city traffic.

The speed at which I'm travelling has a lot to do with how much lack of space I'm willing to tolerate. If you regularly drive at normal motoring traffic speeds (not gridlocked city street speeds) with less than one foot of clearance then you are a braver (or insert many other applicable adjectives not quite so complimentary) driver than me. Where again did I state that I always require 5 feet of clearance from everything as you have implied?

Back to the subject at hand, the bike lane in question, riding that line is much farther away from the door zone than I usually get on the roads in downtown Akron or Cleveland where there are no bike lanes...so, to me, there is no door zone threat by riding the outer edge of this bike lane. If you have a phobia about the distance you must keep between you, traffic and parked cars, that is something you need to work out yourself.

I'm thankful that you have never been doored riding in the door zone. I'd rather not take that chance when it's so easy to avoid.

That bike lane positions a bicyclist further from the parked cars than 99% of the main traffic lanes on bike lane-less streets I've seen.

You have traffic lanes in SB that are less than 5 feet in width?

False dichotomy alert.

Your argument is based on the assumption that if one "ignores the paint" he is "moving willy-nilly". That's a false assumption.

Either you don't understand what Mr. Forester means when he says "ignore the stripe", or you're being disingenuous.
No I am, and have been, had you been paying attention, YOUR peek-a-boo, DLLP garbage that YOU claim to do as a matter of routine. As usual, the lack of understanding is on your part because you don't read before shooting from the hip.

Or do you deny that you would ride, as you claim, farther out in the motor-vehicle traffic lane, move back into the bike lane when you spy traffic approaching from your rear, then pop out again like a mad jackrabbit?
If you ever saw what I did, or if you genuinely tried to understand what I did, you would not characterize it as "willy nilly" or "pop out again like a mad jackrabbit".

I do not deny that I normally ride in what John Franklin calls the "primary riding position" (centerish in the rightmost traffic lane), or what Dan Guttierrez calls "the integrated riding position", which, compared to the "secondary (Franklin)/segregated (Dan) riding position" (riding in the margin, about 3' to the right of passing traffic) gives me better vision to hazards ahead, improved buffer/safety space on my right, and more conspicuity to traffic potentially crossing my path ahead, as well as to traffic coming from behind. I also find that when I'm riding "out there" my mind is better engaged in what is going on. My "situational awareness" is sharper. I much prefer the primary/integrated riding position to the secondary/segregated position in the margins, and ride there whenever I can.

Like all vehicle drivers in traffic, particularly drivers of slow moving vehicles, I regularly and periodically check my rear view mirror. When I notice faster traffic approaching from behind, I prepare, as required. When they are close enough, and it is safe and reasonable to do so, I look back over my right shoulder and move aside temporarily into the shoulder/bike lane/margin/whatever to make it easier for them to pass me. When the 1, 2, 3, ..., 20, ... 50 cars have passed, I look back over my left shoulder, and, if there is a gap of, say, at least 10 seconds, I move back to the primary riding position.

There is nothing "willy nilly" or "mad jackrabbit" about it. It's very smooth, orderly, predictable and vehicular, similar to how you move left when approaching an intersection if you have traffic approaching from behind. I prefer being left already in that case, if possible, and primarily to improve vision, sightlines, buffers, conspicuity with respect to potential hazards ahead, as well as those behind. Every time you move left for these reasons, consider that I probably would not have to, for I would probably already be out there, and would just have to maintain course.

You are also the person I speak of with the paint/line phobia, that Mr. Forrester mistook for himself...going out of your way to make excuses why you would not be on the right side of that painted line because it might go against your purist anti-BL rhetoric. I don't understand why you say such crazy stuff. I can't imagine that you really believe this, yet I it's hard to understand why you would be so disingenuous. I ride to the right of bike lane stripes every time I ride, whenever that demarcated space happens to be the appropriate place to ride for the circumstances, and have never said otherwise.

You are Mr. Willy-Nilly here, not Mr. Forrester...unless he chooses to join your club. The least you could to is pay enough attention to learn how to spell Mr. Forester's name correctly.

I agree with all of those...but stripe or no stripe, people will and do drive/ride in the door zone. I liked your idea of, if there is a stripe, also adding markings to designate the door zone.
For a 5' bike lane that starts at the edge of parked cars, that would mean the entire bike lane would have to be designated as a door zone - pavement where cyclists should not place their tires.

so, head, riding in this bike lane is safe in the presence of traffic but unsafe in the absence of traffic?


buaghahahaha.

this thread showcases the illogical stance of the rabidly anti-facilties VC.

I agree with Randya....

The real answer, Bek, is that despite all the rhetoric, most likely every single respondent to this thread would be riding in the bike lane on this street.

the existence of bike lanes makes people think that there is one static "correct" location for
cyclists to ride in any given location. That's a foolish and dangerous
concept. It is not true on any street, whether it has a bike lane or not.
That's not entirely true. I know of several communities with ordinances stating that if a bike lane or bike path is available then cyclists must use those facilities. I don't understand what you think you're correcting.

Regardless of what a foolish law may say, it's still a foolish and dangerous concept to think that there is one static "correct" location for cyclists to ride in any given location.

You later wrote, in response to JJ:


I wouldn't have taken an issue with the statement if he had not tossed in
It is not true on any street, whether it has a bike lane or not. To me, he is going from "concept" to stated fact there. You don't agree that the concept "that there is one static 'correct' location for cyclists to ride in any given location" is false?

On which road where is there a location for which "there is one static 'correct' location for cyclists to ride". Regardless of where that location is, what if it's full of glass, nails and spilled oil? What if there is a slower cyclist riding in that "one static 'correct' location" that you need to pass? What if you're preparing for a left turn? What if there is no faster same-direction traffic present and you want to improve your vision and conspicuity by moving left? How is this "concept" not false?

But in regarding his concept part of it, I also agree. You agree the concept is false, but not with the statement that it is a false concept?
Or do you agree with the concept that I say is false?

Some cyclists think that if a lane is present that it is the "correct" and "laweful" place to ride. (In some situations that *might* be true though.) But people also think alot of stupid crap too.
I agree that in some situations the bike lane may be the "correct" place to ride. But in another situation in the same location (at another time), that is likely to not be the case. The "correct" place to ride may very well be somewhere to the left or right of the demarcated space. Not to mention that at any given time, there are often multiple appropriate "correct" locations in which to ride.

The notion that there is one static "correct" location for cyclists to ride in any given location is a foolish and dangerous
concept. It is not true on any street, whether it has a bike lane or not.

regardless of foolish statements in this thread, riding vehicularly to ride straight ahead on this road places a rider outside the door zone and riding vehicularily in the bike lane.

so, head, riding in this bike lane is safe in the presence of traffic but unsafe in the absence of traffic?

I didn't say that.

"Safe" is a relative term. More safe is generally better than less safe, don't you agree?

As we've covered countless times before... by the way, why is every post with you like starting all over again from where we were 2 years ago? it's one thing to not agree with me, that's fine, but can't you remember my position and what it is based on? How many dozens of times do I have to spell it out for you?

Can you try to remember the answer that follows so you don't have to ask this question again as if you've never heard the answer before?

Anyway, I believe being further left, out of the margin (whether it is demarcated as a bike lane or not), in general, is safer than riding in the margin. However, the presence of faster same direction traffic mitigates these differences in several respects. Most importantly, the primary threat - crossing traffic ahead - is much less of a threat to a cyclist when adjacent faster same direction traffic is present. A cyclist is most vulnerable to cross traffic hazards up ahead when he is the only one on the road traveling in his direction. He may still be overlooked when adjacent traffic is present, but that adjacent traffic effectively "blocks" for him, and keeps him "safe" (to a degree) from this threat, safer than he would be in the absence of adjacent traffic.

For those reasons, I believe being in the bike lane when faster same direction traffic is present is safe; when faster same direction traffic is not present, I believe being further left, outside of the bike lane, is safer.

Can you try to remember this answer?

regardless of foolish statements in this thread, riding vehicularly to ride straight ahead on this road places a rider outside the door zone and riding vehicularily in the bike lane. Depending on the situation.

It's not vehicular if:
- The cyclist is planning on turning left.
- The cyclist is planning on going straight.
- The cyclist is not riding further right than the bike lane stripe (assuming a 5' lane).
- The cyclist is passing another slower cyclist.
- The cyclist is approaching someone stopped to back into a parallel parking spot.
- Etc.

Anyway, I believe being further left, out of the margin (whether it is demarcated as a bike lane or not), in general, is safer than riding in the margin. However, the presence of faster same direction traffic mitigates these differences in several respects. Most importantly, the primary threat - crossing traffic ahead - is much less of a threat to a cyclist when adjacent faster same direction traffic is present. A cyclist is most vulnerable to cross traffic hazards up ahead when he is the only one on the road traveling in his direction. He may still be overlooked when adjacent traffic is present, but that adjacent traffic effectively "blocks" for him, and keeps him "safe" (to a degree) from this threat, safer than he would be in the absence of adjacent traffic.

For those reasons, I believe being in the bike lane when faster same direction traffic is present is safe; when faster same direction traffic is not present, I believe being further left, outside of the bike lane, is safer.


I generally agree. There are complications however. You know, the Reality thing. For instance, for the same-direction traffic to act as a block the crossing drivers and pedestrians actually have to be looking that direction. The entire concept of visibility is dogged by the fact that some people aren't even going to look before making their move. This is especially common with people backing up into traffic lanes and for pedestrians stepping into the street in urban areas -- right into that 'secondary position.' Today I watched a guy with a toddler on his shoulders walk right out into the street without looking, it was a one-way, he looked the wrong way and walked right out. Happens all the time with peds. Another thing to consider is lag-time. We can't just pop right out into the middle of the street after cars pass, there is a transition before and after arriving at the lane-sharing position. that's the rhythm of the city, it's rightfully smooth rather than herky-jerky. It takes a little time to affect a smooth transition; the cooperative cyclist will be right-side longer than traffic can act as a block. Remember that those crossing drivers are looking for minimum gaps in the traffic, the types of gaps that are probably too small to allow riders to move satisfyingly left but just big enough to invite a stomp on the accelerator. The reality is that left-loving cyclists in urban areas (like myself) are not going to be able to stay left through all intersections (too many intersections when counting the alleys and driveways). There will inevitably be some hazards too close for comfort, which means adjust speed and direct attention accordingly.

Robert

I think the blocking concept works best on multi-lane roads where the cyclist can occupy all or part of the right lane and left (or center and left) lane traffic can block cross-traffic for him/her. Robert does have a valid point regarding left-turners looking for any hole to squeak through.

The good point about taking the right lane on multi-lane roads at intersections is that cars in your lane will invariably merge left filling all the gaps and effectively making the left lane a continuous line of cars until you get through the intersection.

For a 5' bike lane that starts at the edge of parked cars, that would mean the entire bike lane would have to be designated as a door zone - pavement where cyclists should not place their tires.

You are so full of your door zone phobia. Go ahead, tell me that you always ride a good 5 feet from parked cars...and I'll tell you that either you don't ride much or you are just plain lying. The bike lane in question has a good two feet out of the door zone, for anyone who doesn't have your phobia, pays attention when they are riding and knows when it's prudent to slow down.

It's not vehicular if:

- The cyclist is planning on going straight.



BZZZ! INCORRECT, Mr. Head. This lane IS vehicular to ride in to ride straight down that road. out of the door zone ,destination positioned to ride straight, to the right of the road, puts a vehicular cyclist riding in the bike lane on this street.

I believe being in the bike lane when faster same direction traffic is present is safe. Yes, exactly. don't talk down to me like YOU'RE the teacher, head. you've just admitted that yes, riding in the bike lane in the presence of traffic is 'safe'. but when there's no traffic, it's not as safe so you move left. :roflmao: so, it IS a safe bike lane only sometimes?

You don't have the foundation to go all 'smarty pants' and holier than thou on me, mr. head- you're a part time commuter and weekend club fred, aren't you?
That pontificating side of you is sooooo unflattering- I put a lot more miles, a lot more often than you, head, riding vehicularly on days you're driving a car around, thinking about bicycling....

A vehicular cyclist CAN ride vehicularily in a bike lane.

You are so full of your door zone phobia. Go ahead, tell me that you always ride a good 5 feet from parked cars...and I'll tell you that either you don't ride much or you are just plain lying. The bike lane in question has a good two feet out of the door zone, for anyone who doesn't have your phobia, pays attention when they are riding and knows when it's prudent to slow down.

I gotta agree with HH here. If for instance I was cruising down that road at maybe the leisurely pace of say 10-12 MPH, I might ride just within the outer line of the Bike Lane... provided the glare of the windows was such that I could see inside the cars. But if I were on my way to work, or out for a hard training ride, and I was hitting 18-22MPH, my concentration would be on my cycling and any other traffic, and not on trying to determine which if any car might be occupied and suddenly open a door; in that case I would be well out of the Bike Lane and probably in the right tire track.

In the neighborhood where I live, the main through road (the only road that connects the various mesas that make up the geography where I live) is lined with cars on either side of the road. The road is not a stately low key residentlal road as the one Bek has posted, appears, but a 35MPH 4 lane boulevard without Bike Lanes. Not a single bike lane exists on this street. The only safe way to ride it is in the right tire track, more than 5 feet away from the car doors. You have no idea, at any time when door is going to swing open. People come and go all hours of the day.

The choices are simple, you can cruise down the sidewalk, or ride fast, wide, in the street.

gene, we're not discussing a 35mph boulevard with no bike lane, dude.

5 feet from the car doors (out of the door zone) riding vehicularily on the street in the picture, to travel straight, puts a rider riding vehicularily in the bike lane.

a vehicular cyclist can ride vehicularily in a bike lane. I believe even john forester hinted to that earlier in the thread.

gene, we're not discussing a 35mph boulevard with no bike lane, dude.

5 feet from the car doors (out of the door zone) riding vehicularily on the street in the picture, to travel straight, puts a rider riding vehicularily in the bike lane.

a vehicular cyclist can ride vehicularily in a bike lane. I believe even john forester hinted to that earlier in the thread.

So what you are saying is that is a 6 foot wide bike lane?

Go a put your bike across the lane and take another pic.

What I am saying is that that I would ride in the same place whether on the road you pictured, or on a 35MPH road without such accomodations. It is the cars that make the difference, not the presence of a Bike Lane.

It honestly looks like I would ride right on the outer stripe of the lane you pictured. But for clarity, I would probably stay outside the actual stripe.

Now take away the cars, I would be right in the bike lane. You have posted other bike lanes that looked quite fine to me. This particular bike lane with the parked cars is not "quite fine." I avoid similar bike lanes in this town on much faster roads where the issue of overtaking is a greater threat.

I have experience of being nearly caught in a door... no thanks.

But Gene, if you were 5 feet from the parked cars on a road with no bike lane, you'd be in the bike lane if the lines on the road pictured were plunked down on top of your road.

gene, if you're imagining you'd have problems piloting your bike down this street, riding vehicularily in the bike lane, I feel for you, buddy :)

Assuming that this is a serious question, you need to understand traffic surveys and the 85th percentile. That's your explanation.

I understand the 85th percentile just fine... it means that a steady stream of motorists regularly violated the posted speed limit enough that some engineer determined that people driving poorly could continue to do so.

What the 85th percentile doesn't take into account are the other users of the roadway. The pedestrians trying to cross, the cyclists trying to merge and exit the flow of traffic, and the sight lines that did not change in spite of there now being less time to react to any issues at the higher speed.

Do you understand that?

gene, if you're imagining you'd have problems piloting your bike down this street, riding vehicularily in the bike lane, I feel for you, buddy :)

Bek, I honestly stated what I would do. Now I don't think what I stated would be a problem at all. It looks like a 25MPH street. So if I were charging down that road at about 22MPH, I doubt it would cause any one any grief, except for the guy wanting to speed down it at 30MPH, and tough cookies to him.

Edit. Bek, I have three different bikes... and I ride in all kinds of modes. Say I was riding my fast bike through this area on what appears to be flat streets. I would likely ride in the right tire track and do 22-25MPH and push myself all the way. It looks like a nice quiet place to ride, so I would probably sprint from stop sign to stop sign doing a track stand at each one.

Now say I was riding my commuter touring bike and I was fully loaded. I would be doing 13-15MPH, and probably ride right on the BL stripe, that bike doesn't maneuver well so I would work to maintain a single straight track.

But say I was in a real cruising mood... and headed down two blocks on my fat tire bike to the local pub to partake in a couple of pints... Well I would probably be a rolling pedestrian on the sidewalk moving at about 6-10 MPH depending on the peds on the walk with me.

In no case however, would I be in the middle of that bike lane.

But Gene, if you were 5 feet from the parked cars on a road with no bike lane, you'd be in the bike lane if the lines on the road pictured were plunked down on top of your road.

I can't tell Diane, it looks like I might be right on the edge of that outer line. But I would certainly be nowhere in the middle of that Bike Lane.

I ride daily down a street similar to this (although two way) and often there are long sections with no parked cars. I still ride down the right tire track of the wider lane, even when there are no cars parked. I usually ride 20-25mph, as SL is 25mph it takes some time for faster (35mph) vehicles to approach me.

Its not just about the door zone, its also bout driveways (not in Beks example), drivers pulling suddenly from/into parking, peds between cars, intersections. Just as important thought is it being centerish is a comfortable position with the most freedom to manuever and best way too see as much as possible (if not only for safety, but for joy as well)

So a vehicle is rear approaching. I pull onto BL stripe if clear, drivers merge a bit left and pass me with ease.

Or a cyclist is in BL riding ther other way. A truck is passing them, even with no need to switch lanes . Me coming the other way, I also move right toward BL stripe. I open the space up for truck driver. I center myself in remaining other space.

What is the concern with riding centerish in widest lane when there is no faster same direction traffic?

Al

Bek,

Is it possible that the reason JF & maybe even HH is dodging this question is because they want people to read their diatribe & rhetoric so we become convinced their way is the only way of riding? JF's comment telling you to go back & read his writtings & posts tells me that. What do you think?

I think that is correct & they believe the more people that read that crap will be convinced it is the only way to ride instead of making an informed decision & adapting their riding to the conditions as they occur while on the roadways.

Your pic. shows a very nice looking BL on approach to an intersection with at least a 2-way stop & parking on the right & no traffic on the left. You mentioned the BL is 6' wide. From what the pic shows I would be riding in the BL & stay in it if I was going straight, if I were to turn left I would merge into the left lane well before the intersection, signalling my intention to do so, if I were to turn right I could probably do so from the BL or merge to the right then turn. I would be aware of possible traffic behind me that may want to turn right as well as traffic that may want to turn left or go straight.

I agree, NC. the misleading, dodging spiel by some of the posters does reflect their anti-facilities political views, and in no way reflects how a vehicular cyclist would ride this stretch of roadway.

If we can extrapolate standard vehicular riding practice of riding outside of the door zone, destination positioned to ride straight on this road, this places a vehicular cyclist riding in the bike lane. vehicularily.

john dodges the question, stating back in the thread that YES, of course vehicular cyclists can ride in a bike lane, but in no way will he commit to an answer; helmet pretends he dodges the cars behind him into the bike lane; galen would be riding in the bike lane; al thinks its a bike lane he needs to avoid at all costs....

what a hysterical bunch, internet posturing to damnify facilites enhancements on public rights of way.

...and wow, gene. most vehicular cyclists, including the ones on pub crawl, would be riding vehicularily in the bike lane on this street, despite your mistaken impressions or misleading commentary.....

haven't you heard, riding on sidewalks is more dangerous than riding on the road ;)?

al thinks its a bike lane he needs to avoid at all costs....

I see it differently. I chose to avoid the right most section of pavement at no costs.

Why is it so hard to believe that I just ride how I do for joy, the joy of being able to see as much as possible, the joy of having the most space to flow thru.

Al

I agree, NC. the misleading, dodging spiel by some of the posters does reflect their anti-facilities political views, and in no way reflects how a vehicular cyclist would ride this stretch of roadway.

If we can extrapolate standard vehicular riding practice of riding outside of the door zone, destination positioned to ride straight on this road, this places a vehicular cyclist riding in the bike lane. vehicularily.

john dodges the question, stating back in the thread that YES, of course vehicular cyclists can ride in a bike lane, but in no way will he commit to an answer; helmet pretends he dodges the cars behind him into the bike lane; galen would be riding in the bike lane; al thinks its a bike lane he needs to avoid at all costs....

what a hysterical bunch, internet posturing to damnify facilites enhancements on public rights of way.

...and wow, gene. most vehicular cyclists, including the ones on pub crawl, would be riding vehicularily in the bike lane on this street, despite your mistaken impressions or misleading commentary.....

haven't you heard, riding on sidewalks is more dangerous than riding on the road ;)?

Let's see how to start here. I am not anti BL at all. I like them and use them where they work. Multi laned fast boulevards in particular are a good location for BL. Along beside parked cars is a poor location. On roads with 25-30 MPH speed limits is also generally a poor location for BL... they are just not needed there.

I think that this is a poor Bike Lane. To begin with, I doubt this street even needs a bike lane. It appears to be a quiet 25 or 30MPH street... and such a street can be quite easily used without any extra stripes, including one down the middle. The bike lane invites unwary cyclists to ride right down the middle of the BL, in which case they might easily be hit by a swinging car door.

I just read that this is 6 feet wide. I find that hard to believe, looking at the cars for scale, but if that is the case, I would likely be riding right along the outer stripe. In no case would I ride down the middle. The only thing I would expect in the middle of that bike lane are folks unloading groceries from their car.

As far as the pub crawl... in CA riding a bike in the streets after a few pints is a DUI. Riding on the sidewalk is no more than "public drunk." You decide. Besides I wear clothes best suited for standing and drinking, not riding a bike, when I go to the pub. Believe me, at best I am a rolling pedestrian. (at worst, I don't roll) :D

I think John Forester can't say "I'd be riding in the bike lane"

Why do you so urgently need him to say it? He's stated he would ignore the stripe. That means he might ride inside or outside the bike lane as he saw fit. Wouldn't you do the same?

I think the difficult question about that picture is not where John Forester or any of us would ride. The difficult question is where does a right-turning car drive?