Vehicular Cycling (VC) - WWJR #1? Where would John ride #1?

vehicularily riding and ignoring the stripe, riding outside of the door zone, puts a rider destination positioned to ride straight, riding in the bike lane. as a vehicular rider, cooker.

vehicularily riding and ignoring the stripe, riding outside of the door zone, puts a rider destination positioned to ride straight, riding in the bike lane. as a vehicular rider, cooker.
Why are you so focused on the DZ? There are other considerations too.
Al

Does hh & JF think that a painted line that indicates a BL means you can not ride VC in a BL? That is how I am starting to interprite their rhetoric & diatribe. Or am I mistaken, bek, genec?

Ok, then to answer your question:

"The road did not change one bit, so are we building motorists now with more responsive nervous systems, so they can now react to that same old poor road and a now higher speed?"

The answer is that it's the same motorists, driving the same speeds, with the same nervous systems. The only thing that has changed at this point is the signs.

But interestingly enough, earlier surveys had determined that 45MPH was the right speed. So what has changed that now seems to "allow" motorists more "comfort" at a higher speed? Could it be something as simple as motorists simply driving beyond safe prudent speeds. Bad habits encouraging more bad habits. I notice that rarely does anyone bother with the "2 second rule" anymore, and turn signals must be luxury items the way folks refuse to use them. None of this tells me that motorists are driving wisely.

Just an FYI, depending on congestion and volume, MV traffic would most likely be rolling at somewhere between 25 and 40 mph on that particular street. And it would be crowded during peak hours and relatively lightly traveled at other times. The street has recently been repaved from curb to curb.

If all BL's were like this -- wide, clean, smooth, and away from doors, I'd have no trouble with them. The reality on the ground here is that most of them are cracked, debris-filled, narrow, and right next to cars. Its just to easy for some politician to make himself a hero by applying a 6 inch strip of paint in all sorts of conditions. Then the cyclist looks like the scoff-law simply because he wants to ride on a safe part of the road.

By definition the motorists are currently driving at the safe and prudent speed for that street. Sorry.

If "safe and prudent" includes no turn signals, bumper to bumper driving and fast lane changing, then you and I have different dictionaries.

genec, please pay attention. Key phrase from my post----> "safe and prudent speed"

The 85th percentile relates only to speed, and is the way that traffic engineers determine the safe and prudent speed limits, hence my comments regarding your complaint about the speed limit being increased.

Your hand waving about signaling et al is not relevant to the 85th percentile.

My hand waving is very relevant if the same lack of care toward other driving habits is also being applied toward increased speed.

here's a photo of a road. where would John ride? What would John do?

I'm a vehicular rider, and I would ride this road outside of the door zone, according to the rules of the road. I would be in the right hand side of the road, riding in the bike lane in a vehicular manner.

WWJR? would you ignore the bike lane for political purposes, or would you ride outside the door zone? In effect, riding in the bike lane?

John, waiting to hear from you. We'll assume you still ride a bike. Where would you position yourself riding straight down this road?


First of all you are coming up to a stop sign, so there is no way you should be riding fast enough that a carelessly opened door would be a threat you could not avoid by using your brakes. Second, it appears to me that neither the truck nor the car is occupied...so is the car door gonna open itself...ya know, kind of the way that guns kill people?

I would ride comfortably in the bike lane, in this case.

roughstuff

Who cares?:rolleyes:

:lol:

First of all you are coming up to a stop sign, so there is no way you should be riding fast enough that a carelessly opened door would be a threat you could not avoid by using your brakes. Second, it appears to me that neither the truck nor the car is occupied...so is the car door gonna open itself...ya know, kind of the way that guns kill people?

I would ride comfortably in the bike lane, in this case.

roughstuff


ahhhhh, just as my head was about to explode.... A voice of reason from the dark :)

Here is a video from this past Monday that starting about half way thru is of me riding on a 25mph street with a BL and on street parking. I'm not riding in the BL much.

The video starts on an arterial, then I make a left, then the residential street with parking and a BL.

youtube UlrHNeBDr9M (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlrHNeBDr9M)

Who would not ride it like this? (assume that no faster same direction traffic has come within 100' of me)
Who would stay in BL for the entire stretch?
Where would one choose to use BL and choose not to?.

Al

ahhhhh, just as my head was about to explode.... A voice of reason from the dark :)
I've seen kids whos heads are below seat open doors.
Cyclist speed is irrelevant. A door could be opened in front of you with 1/2sec to spare whether you are traveling 30mph or 10mph. One just covers more distance in the 1/2s if traveling at 30mph.

Al

Here is a video from this past Monday that starting about half way thru is of me riding on a 25mph street with a BL and on street parking. I'm not riding in the BL much.

The video starts on an arterial, then I make a left, then the residential street with parking and a BL.

youtube UlrHNeBDr9M (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlrHNeBDr9M)

Who would not ride it like this? (assume that no faster same direction traffic has come within 100' of me)
Who would stay in BL for the entire stretch?
Where would one choose to use BL and choose not to?.

Al
I would not ride it like you did. IMO, the only times it was necessary to leave the bike lane were (1) to move left in preparation for your left turn, and (2) to avoid some debris in the BL after your turn. It looked to me like there was enough room in the BL to avoid the door zone, as long as you shied left in the lane, and besides, the parking lane was only minimally occupied.

Plus, you did not use the appropriate hand signals for any of your lane changes OR your left turn. Ticketable offenses.

First of all you are coming up to a stop sign, so there is no way you should be riding fast enough that a carelessly opened door would be a threat you could not avoid by using your brakes. Second, it appears to me that neither the truck nor the car is occupied...so is the car door gonna open itself...ya know, kind of the way that guns kill people?

I would ride comfortably in the bike lane, in this case.

roughstuff

Surprise surprise, the truck was occupied by a sleeping student who suddenly woke up and realized they were late for class... they throw that door open so fast and wide not even a highly trained "roughstuff" could react in time.

That was the lesson that was taught to me as I rode to work one morning. The road that lead to my workplace was a quiet narrow road that students from the nearby college would park on so they could avoid the parking fee. Yup, a student sleeping in the vehicle suddenly flung the door open in my path.

I no longer ride close to parked cars. Reality sucks. People do sleep in cars, especially in the shade around noon.

Plus, you did not use the appropriate hand signals for any of your lane changes OR your left turn. Ticketable offenses.
I was curious if anyone noticed this - I was very aware of this before putting the video up. Normally I use hand signals, often need to to negotiate a merge. (here you can see me do this several times http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXfbYDTAgh4) This time I instead noted there was a gap behind the cluster of cars. I saw this in my mirror. So instead of signaling with arm, I gave a look back to be sure what I saw in mirror was accurate and merged once the cluster passed. There was no one close enough really to signal to - except driver of small green SUV in inside lane who I was watching. But I also often say that one should signal anyway as it those others one doesn't see that can benefit from the signal. Not many other drivers I've observed use turn signals to change lanes when there is no one near by - but I agree I should do better thatn average.

Once in the LTL I wouldn't and hardly ever use a hand signal. I use my hands for steering and braking at a turn approach.

As to BL usage after the turn. I wouldn't want to get into it until after passing the minor intersection after the turn (where there are other cars turning in front of me) at about 0:58. Then I'd get out of it to avoid the debris at about 1:05, then later out of it thru the intersection 1:17, then later when passing the few parked cars.

Bottom line is if I had tried to use BL as much as poissible I'd be weaving all across the lanes and only in BL for short bits (7 sec, 10s, etc.) I'd rather ride in straight line which was perfectly fine given there was no same direction traffic.

Al

But the point is, you are already braking... and focused on the surroundings since it is an intersection - if you're not, then you should be on the sidewalk

It doesn't matter how far back the overtaking traffic is or whether or not you are in a LTL, the law says you're supposed to signal, and I didn't see any particular reason not to do so in this case. I understand that you were braking; the signal doesn't need to be constant, but it does need to be shown, if even momentarily. Sounds like just another instance of the VCers bending the rules to suit themselves....

It doesn't matter how far back the overtaking traffic is or whether or not you are in a LTL, the law says you're supposed to signal, and I didn't see any particular reason not to do so in this case. I understand that you were braking; the signal doesn't need to be constant, but it does need to be shown, if even momentarily. Sounds like just another instance of a VCer bending the rules to suit themselves....
I never said otherwise.

No its not a VCer bending rules to suit myself. I am a cyclist/driver bending signalling rules. Note that I couldn't practially fully follow the law (continuous signal for 100' before turn) if I wanted to either, so no matter what some bending will occur. Also note AZ law states: "A person shall not so turn any vehicle without giving an appropriate signal in the manner provided by this article in the event any other traffic may be affected by the movement."

I do understand the benefit of signalling in general, of signaling lane change, signaling turns.

However the extra communication provided by a quick stick out of arm once I am in LTL is very slim. I rarely signal right turns when I am in a RTOL either.

But we are not discussing signalling rules or laws here, but instead BL usage, specifically when adjacent to parking. But if you want to discuss signalling, did you look at the video I posted where I did signal for the same stretch of road? I signal here 80% of the time, the times I don't I feel priority is for bicycle control during quick response to conditions.

Al

It doesn't matter how far back the overtaking traffic is or whether or not you are in a LTL, the law says you're supposed to signal, and I didn't see any particular reason not to do so in this case. I understand that you were braking; the signal doesn't need to be constant, but it does need to be shown, if even momentarily. Sounds like just another instance of the VCers bending the rules to suit themselves....

Hey if this law was enforced for motorists, more than half the drivers out there would have tickets.

Al, I can't load the bike lane video (page says it's not available). I can see the signalling video just fine though.

Al, I can't load the bike lane video (page says it's not available). I can see the signalling video just fine though.
Try it now. It was a YouTube issue, it also said not available to me, then I edited info (but made not changes) and now it works.
Al

Look you guys, any road with parked cars on it presents a hazard. Whether that be door zones, unpredictable passengers, people swerving in and out of parking spots, lessened visibility.

The small amount of inches or feet between the bike lane in the picture and the right tire track or beyond really doesn't change a whole hell of a lot of these variables, if any at all.

The difference certainly is not enough to say that the bike lane in that picture poses a significant hazard compared to the street.

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 LOL. When I see a response from sbhikes, Chipcom, Bek, and quite a few others., I can pretty much count on them to be saying something to disagree with me. But if I see a response from folks like Ratliff (either one), Gene, LBM, Al, Galen, JoeJack, and you, I know it can go either way. I know you guys actually read what I have to say, and let me know what you really think, either way. I appreciate that very much. So when I noticed you replied to me in this thread, I first read my post, which you quoted, to remind myself what the heck I was saying, and then read your , "I generally agree.". :) Glad to hear it. Now let's see if we can get Chippie on board.

As far as, "There are complications however", absolutely. I know I must come across like some kind of automoton or something. I haven't figured out how to write myself out of that style and still convey what I'm trying to convey. But, in truth, I'm not describing how I actually ride verbatim, but what in general I strive to do, and, for the most part, manage to do.

Having said that, when I to choose to ride in the "secondary position" in the margin, I still leave myself a buffer, of course. If I can't leave a safe enough buffer, for the speed I'm going, then I either slow down, or negotiate/merge to move left into the primary position, because, by definition, if I can't safely ride in the margin with a reasonable safety margin to my right, then the lane is not wide enough to be safely shared. In other words, I'm not going to barrel along at 20 mph one or two steps in lateral distance from any pedestrian who blindly decides to step into the road from the sidewalk.

The other thing is pedestrians are generally quite predictable. I remember zooming across campus on my 10 speed in the early 70/late 80s, trying to get to class on time, meandering through hoards of people walking every which way (Chip, what they did was "willy nilly") that I would often clear by mere inches, while riding not 20 mph, but probably 8-15 mph (to this day I distinctly remember spotting gaps to holes which I could use to accelerate back up to speed and then hit the brakes when I came to the next mass of people). I did this daily for 5 years (yes it took me 5 years to graduate) and never hit anyone. These days bicycling on campus is prohibited during weekdays. Too bad.

As far as visibility being dogged by people who are not looking, absolutely, and that's why a big part of what I do when riding (or driving or walking for that matter) in traffic is to be consistently and contually filtering out who matters (to my safety) from the majority of those who do not. At any given moment, those who really matter are a tiny percentage and number (and often numbering zero) of all those in my immediate vicinity. So I'm continually scanning for those few if any whose awareness of me is actually relevant to my safety (they need to see me and be aware of me for me to be safe), and as soon as one of those pops onto my radar, I do what I can to try to verify that they have indeed noticed me. Actually, the idea is to notice those who will potentially be relevant to my safety, so that by the time I have to rely on their awareness of me, I've already verified their awareness of me hopefully for a considerable time already. Being in a conspicuous lane position in the first place makes this process much easier and more efficient. When you're riding in the margins, it's much harder to verify if a given person (driver, ped, another cyclist, etc.) has actually noticed you. I call this the "trust but verify" method, with apologies to Ronald Reagan.

The lag time you speak of is something else I've considered, and another issue for which a rear-view mirror is great. If you don't have a mirror then you probably have to notice that no cars have passed you for a while before it even occurs to you (after all, you're more occupied with what's ahead, as you should be) to look back and notice that there is a gap big enough for you to move left into. That's the primary reason for the lag and transition period, is it not? With a mirror in which you can update your situational awareness to the rear in a few milliseconds every couple of seconds, it's a whole different world. You see and know the gap is coming long before it's there. I'm often looking back over my left shoulder as the last car is passing me, and immediately move left into the primary riding position right behind him. With a mirror the gap and transition can really be practically nil. I love my mirror!

But of course, sometimes you're in the margin and more vulnerable. Sometimes you cross intersections from the right side of the road because you are a cooperative cyclist and have verified that the drivers are going straight, and you have no reason to hold them up (I did this on my way to work this morning several times). There is no guarantee of safety. But I believe there are best practices that greatly improve your odds, and one of those is to be biased towards trying to be further left: to default to a "centerish" primary riding position, and only ride in the margins when necessary because faster same direction traffic is present (or about to be), and it's safe and reasonable to do so.

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. How do you define "door zone"? If you define it terms of the area that a door may swing into, then, yes, it's possible that the left stripe of the bike lane is about two feet out of the door zone, though It might be as little as 6". Again, i can't tell if it's a 4' or 5' bike lane, but, in general, the door zone per your definition is considered to be about 3.5'.

But I don't like that definition, because then "ride outside of the door zone" is not correct, because the 2' wide cyclist would have to track an other foot more (to 4.5'), and that's if he's willing to ride on the outside edge of where doors open, with still a risk of having a door clip his bars, and no margin for error (what if he thinks it's 4.5', but he's really only 4.25'?)

This why I like to think of the door zone is being AT LEAST FIVE FEET, and say that you should be tracking outside of the door zone defined like that.

And, yes, that is how I ride, and I believe Gene, Galen, JJ, Al (who proves it by video) and anyone else who says they do, because I know how easy, efficiant and practical it is once you put your mind to it and decide it's not a negotiable issue.

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.
If your tires are 5' from the left of the parked cars, then your tire would be on the BL stripe of a 5' bike lane, and 1' to the LEFT of the BL stripe of a 4' bike lane. How wide is this bike lane?

For your tires to be in the BL, while your body is not encroaching on the adjacent lane at all, the BL stripe would have to be 6' from the edge of the parked cars.

Here is a video from this past Monday that starting about half way thru is of me riding on a 25mph street with a BL and on street parking. I'm not riding in the BL much.

The video starts on an arterial, then I make a left, then the residential street with parking and a BL.

youtube UlrHNeBDr9M (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlrHNeBDr9M)

Who would not ride it like this? (assume that no faster same direction traffic has come within 100' of me)
Who would stay in BL for the entire stretch?
Where would one choose to use BL and choose not to?.

Al

Thanks for fixing the link so quickly.

Given that you encountered no same direction traffic, I would have biked that stretch exactly as you did, using the more traveled and thus clean part of the pavement. That road surface appears to be in pretty horrible condition and generally when that occurs there's a lot of debris from crushed blacktop which would all end up in the bike lane. Not a hazard for punctures, but an issue if one needs to stop quickly. Might as well avoid it since no one else is going to care. And as you've pointed out, the minor intersections, plus large debris, plus parked cars would have you in and out of the lane anyway.

I need to get a camera like that.

because I know how easy, efficiant and practical it is once you put your mind to it and decide it's not a negotiable issue.
It is only so for situation where the cyclist is on average slower than traffic.
Once one in in a situation where traffic is both dense and slower than the cyclist - the efficiency and praticality factor drop from near top to near bottom. This leads to differnt approaches.
Al

First of all you are coming up to a stop sign, so there is no way you should be riding fast enough that a carelessly opened door would be a threat you could not avoid by using your brakes. Second, it appears to me that neither the truck nor the car is occupied...so is the car door gonna open itself...ya know, kind of the way that guns kill people?

I would ride comfortably in the bike lane, in this case.

roughstuff
ahhhhh, just as my head was about to explode.... A voice of reason from the dark :) Folks, as long as regulars on this forum like roughstuff are making assertions like "there is no way you should be riding fast enough that a carelessly opened door would be a threat you could not avoid by using your brakes.", and folks like natelutkjohn see that as a "voice of reason", we have our work cut out for us.

They are assuming the door will open in front of them with enough time for to react. What if you're within reaction of the door when it suddenly opens? By definition, you will not have enough time to react, much less actually apply the brakes and stop. And that's assuming you're not daydreaming at the moment.

You can be going 5 mph when a suddenly openened door will send you flying under the wheels of a passing 10 mph car. Some of us can learn this lesson by thinking about it, others will have to experience it for themselves, sadly.

If your tires are 5' from the left of the parked cars, then your tire would be on the BL stripe of a 5' bike lane, and 1' to the LEFT of the BL stripe of a 4' bike lane. How wide is this bike lane?

For your tires to be in the BL, while your body is not encroaching on the adjacent lane at all, the BL stripe would have to be 6' from the edge of the parked cars.

Bek states somewhere that this is a 6 foot wide BL. I conceded that then I might in fact be in the BL if that was the case, but I would never be anywhere near the middle of the BL, which indeed is what all those stripes seem to imply. ("ride right here and be happy.")

Bek states somewhere that this is a 6 foot wide BL. I conceded that then I might in fact be in the BL if that was the case, but I would never be anywhere near the middle of the BL, which indeed is what all those stripes seem to imply. ("ride right here and be happy.")
Bek said early on that if 5' from cars in the picture that one would still be in that BL. Randya said a bit later than its a new BL that seems to be about 6' wide.
Al

If your tires are 5' from the left of the parked cars, then your tire would be on the BL stripe of a 5' bike lane, and 1' to the LEFT of the BL stripe of a 4' bike lane. How wide is this bike lane?

For your tires to be in the BL, while your body is not encroaching on the adjacent lane at all, the BL stripe would have to be 6' from the edge of the parked cars.

It's a bit hard to tell from the picture, but that looks like a 6' lane to me. Has anybody actually measured it? I ask because, consistently, folks tend to underestimate the width of bike lanes, sidewalks, MUPs, anything on the ground. I did this myself until I actually started measuring things with a tape. The standard suburban sidewalks from neighborhoods built in the 1950's are six feet wide, for instance. Most people, when asked, think these are five feet at most. MUPs tend to be at least ten feet wide. Most people think they are about eight feet wide. Six feet looks like four, ten feet looks like eight, fifteen looks like ten.

I think six feet to the left of the door handles in this picture puts the rider pretty close to the line but still inside it. [edit: On second glance I think it puts riders unambiguously inside the lane. In any case, this is a luxurious situation that city cyclists can't always count on.]

Robert

It is only so for situation where the cyclist is on average slower than traffic.
Once one in in a situation where traffic is both dense and slower than the cyclist - the efficiency and praticality factor drop from near top to near bottom. This leads to differnt approaches.
Al
From this morning:

I'm northbound on Regents, 4 lanes + bike lanes.
Signal up ahead is red, there are about 7 or 8 cars stopped in the right lane, 2 in the left lane. There are cars behind me, but they have to slow for the light, so I'm in the right lane, not the bike lane. It is tempting to merge into the bike lane and pass on the right. Of course, I don't...

I look back over my left shoulder and merge into the left lane. From that improved vantage point I can see that the first car at the red light in the right lane is positioned to go straight, while the next 4 or 5 cars are all either flashing right or right biased as if they plan to turn right at the light. As I approach the back of the 2nd car in line in the left lane, the light turns green. I'm still rolling, and they're about to go, so I look back over my right shoulder, merge to the right side of the left lane, look back again, and merge to the left side of the left lane, in a lane-sharing position to the left of the right turners. As I pass the 2nd car in line in the right lane (the 1st one turning right), I look back over my right shoulder and merge right, behind the first car who is now accelerating straight through the intersection.

To how many other cyclists (outside of this forum and certain VC and messenger circles) would it even occur to do something like that? I certainly never see anyone else do it.

I signal here 80% of the time, the times I don't I feel priority is for bicycle control during quick response to conditions.
My point is that there was no need for 'prioitizing bicycle control during quick response to conditions' in the video I just watched, so you should have been signalling all of your lane changes and your turn.

This thread is all about ninth degree nitpicking regarding when it's appropriate to be in the bike lane and when it's not, and then you show us a video in which you clearly should have been signalling but you didn't and you're just going to blow my comment about it off?

:rolleyes:

It doesn't matter how far back the overtaking traffic is or whether or not you are in a LTL, the law says you're supposed to signal, and I didn't see any particular reason not to do so in this case. I understand that you were braking; the signal doesn't need to be constant, but it does need to be shown, if even momentarily. Sounds like just another instance of the VCers bending the rules to suit themselves....

Well, no, randya. It is more a matter of motorists bending the rules to suit their equipment. The original version of the signalling law required signalling if the intended movement would affect another driver. It was only long after motor vehicles were required to be equipped with automatic self-cancelling signalling devices that the law was changed, and it was changed because operating the equipment required only one motion early, so that the motorist had no further responsibility for signalling. They just ignored cyclists when making this change. Sometimes there is considerable difference between the principle of the rules of the road and the embodiment into statute law, and this is one of those that was written for the specific type of equipment used by motorists. If you know that there's nobody to signal to, there's no reason to divert your attention and physical ability by signalling. Furthermore, as I have written repeatedly over the years, signalling by looking over one's shoulder frequently does what signalling is supposed to do, which is to alert the other driver, and does it while the cyclist does what he has to in any case, look for or at the traffic, while simultaneously enabling the cyclist to maintain proper control of his bicycle. Remember, the signal never gives one the right to make the lateral movement. The person who intends to make the lateral movement must yield to traffic in the new line of travel, and yielding requires looking to determine that there is no traffic approaching so close as to constitute a danger.

From this morning:

I'm northbound on Regents, 4 lanes + bike lanes.
Signal up ahead is red, there are about 7 or 8 cars stopped in the right lane, 2 in the left lane. There are cars behind me, but they have to slow for the light, so I'm in the right lane, not the bike lane. It is tempting to merge into the bike lane and pass on the right. Of course, I don't...

I look back over my left shoulder and merge into the left lane. From that improved vantage point I can see that the first car at the red light in the right lane is positioned to go straight, while the next 4 or 5 cars are all either flashing right or right biased as if they plan to turn right at the light. As I approach the back of the 2nd car in line in the left lane, the light turns green. I'm still rolling, and they're about to go, so I look back over my right shoulder, merge to the right side of the left lane, look back again, and merge to the left side of the left lane, in a lane-sharing position to the left of the right turners. As I pass the 2nd car in line in the right lane (the 1st one turning right), I look back over my right shoulder and merge right, behind the first car who is now accelerating straight through the intersection.

To how many other cyclists (outside of this forum and certain VC and messenger circles) would it even occur to do something like that? I certainly never see anyone else do it.

It is illegal to change lanes within 100' of an intersection.

R.

It is illegal to change lanes within 100' of an intersection.

R.
:eek:

Can anyone cite that for CA?

Well, no, randya. It is more a matter of motorists bending the rules to suit their equipment. The original version of the signalling law required signalling if the intended movement would affect another driver. It was only long after motor vehicles were required to be equipped with automatic self-cancelling signalling devices that the law was changed, and it was changed because operating the equipment required only one motion early, so that the motorist had no further responsibility for signalling. They just ignored cyclists when making this change. Sometimes there is considerable difference between the principle of the rules of the road and the embodiment into statute law, and this is one of those that was written for the specific type of equipment used by motorists. If you know that there's nobody to signal to, there's no reason to divert your attention and physical ability by signalling. Furthermore, as I have written repeatedly over the years, signalling by looking over one's shoulder frequently does what signalling is supposed to do, which is to alert the other driver, and does it while the cyclist does what he has to in any case, look for or at the traffic, while simultaneously enabling the cyclist to maintain proper control of his bicycle. Remember, the signal never gives one the right to make the lateral movement. The person who intends to make the lateral movement must yield to traffic in the new line of travel, and yielding requires looking to determine that there is no traffic approaching so close as to constitute a danger.
U.F.B.* :rolleyes:

I don't even know where to begin, but certainly, looking over one's shoulder is not signaling. Secondly, this just about makes you the biggest hypocrite on the planet, since "bicyclists fare best when they act like and are treated like motorists" (or however that little ditty goes) apparently also means copying all the motorists bad habits, such as failing to signal. No wonder cyclists run so many stop signs and signals, its all clear to me now! If you could speed on your bicycle, I'm sure you would do that to.

And if you think this post is dripping with sarcasm, you're right, it is!

*unfukinbelievable, in case you were wondering...

AWESOME! HH wants to work to make me a better rider... I'm all of a sudden surprised, I though my 20k miles in 2.5 years meant I was a good rider :((((

From this morning:

I'm northbound on Regents, 4 lanes + bike lanes.
Signal up ahead is red, there are about 7 or 8 cars stopped in the right lane, 2 in the left lane. There are cars behind me, but they have to slow for the light, so I'm in the right lane, not the bike lane. It is tempting to merge into the bike lane and pass on the right. Of course, I don't...

I look back over my left shoulder and merge into the left lane. From that improved vantage point I can see that the first car at the red light in the right lane is positioned to go straight, while the next 4 or 5 cars are all either flashing right or right biased as if they plan to turn right at the light. As I approach the back of the 2nd car in line in the left lane, the light turns green. I'm still rolling, and they're about to go, so I look back over my right shoulder, merge to the right side of the left lane, look back again, and merge to the left side of the left lane, in a lane-sharing position to the left of the right turners. As I pass the 2nd car in line in the right lane (the 1st one turning right), I look back over my right shoulder and merge right, behind the first car who is now accelerating straight through the intersection.

To how many other cyclists (outside of this forum and certain VC and messenger circles) would it even occur to do something like that? I certainly never see anyone else do it.

Wow, you actually found motorists with turn signals on, and even went so far as to trust them... holy toledo batman!!

From this morning:

I'm northbound on Regents, 4 lanes + bike lanes.
Signal up ahead is red, there are about 7 or 8 cars stopped in the right lane, 2 in the left lane. There are cars behind me, but they have to slow for the light, so I'm in the right lane, not the bike lane. It is tempting to merge into the bike lane and pass on the right. Of course, I don't...

I look back over my left shoulder and merge into the left lane. From that improved vantage point I can see that the first car at the red light in the right lane is positioned to go straight, while the next 4 or 5 cars are all either flashing right or right biased as if they plan to turn right at the light. As I approach the back of the 2nd car in line in the left lane, the light turns green. I'm still rolling, and they're about to go, so I look back over my right shoulder, merge to the right side of the left lane, look back again, and merge to the left side of the left lane, in a lane-sharing position to the left of the right turners. As I pass the 2nd car in line in the right lane (the 1st one turning right), I look back over my right shoulder and merge right, behind the first car who is now accelerating straight through the intersection.

To how many other cyclists (outside of this forum and certain VC and messenger circles) would it even occur to do something like that? I certainly never see anyone else do it.

Does it really matter?
The rest of us would use the bike lane to our advantage and get in front of everyone without having to change lanes a bajillion times and get whiplash from looking over our shoulder so much.
But that's... you know... the rest of us. And we're still alive.

AWESOME! HH wants to work to make me a better rider... I'm all of a sudden surprised, I though my 20k miles in 2.5 years meant I was a good rider :((((
Even good riders would could avoid crashes for 100k miles are vulnerable when they ride within 5 feet of parked cars. Sooner or later it will probably catch up with them.

Does it really matter?
The rest of us would use the bike lane to our advantage and get in front of everyone without having to change lanes a bajillion times and get whiplash from looking over our shoulder so much.
But that's... you know... the rest of us. And we're still alive. The bike lane was blocked by at least one of the right-turners - that's one of the reasons I knew they were turning right.

Proceeding in the bike lane would put you in direct conflict with the majority of the right-turners who were not merging into the bike lane.

Even good riders would could avoid crashes for 100k miles are vulnerable when they ride within 5 feet of parked cars. Sooner or later it will probably catch up with them.
And VC riders could get hit by a a motorist not paying attention. So what's your point?

The bike lane was blocked by some of the right-turners - that's one of the reasons I knew they were turning right.
Well you never said that. And that was a key component here to what you did. I'm not a bible waving VC cyclist but in that case I'd get out in the lane myself. So I guess I'm one of the non VC non messenger riders that would do it.
Of course, if there was still room to pass the cars on the right I'd still do it. From the right side of a car I have a better view point of right-turn signals of cars in front of them.

It is illegal to change lanes within 100' of an intersection.

R. I spent 20 minutes looking for such a law in the CA vehicle code. Can't find it. I did find this:



One of the misconceptions that people have about traffic law is that it is illegal to change lanes in an intersection. Quite often, it isn't. (Check what the law actually says in your state). One of the laws here in Arizona requires that a driver not pass another vehicle (left of the center line) either within 100 feet of an intersection, or while passing through one. Over the years, people started remembering this as a prohibition on changing lanes, rather than crossing the center line. These are two separate things.
http://www.roadtripamerica.com/DefensiveDriving/Rule55.htm

It's not illegal, but it IS, however, a definsive driving rule to not change lanes within 100 feet of an intersection.

I abide by that when everyone is moving... But not when they're stopped, or just starting to move...

Well you never said that. That's because I told the story from my perspective, and I didn't know the bike lane was blocked until I got to the front. That fact was never relevant to what I was doing, or to my story.


And that was a key component here to what you did. No it wasn't. I didn't know it was blocked when I decided to merge left. Remember, when I decided to merge left, I was in the middle of the right lane, I couldn't see the bike lane ahead of the car in front of me, and there were six cars in front of it, and I was still a ways back from the car in front of me when I merged left.


I'm not a bible waving VC cyclist but in that case I'd get out in the lane myself. So I guess I'm one of the non VC non messenger riders that would do it.
Of course, if there was still room to pass the cars on the right I'd still do it. From the right side of a car I have a better view point of right-turn signals of cars in front of them. In that case you'd be relying too much, in my view, on all of those who are turning right to be signaling right. Good luck with that.

Also, once you were in the bike lane, you might have been blocked in, because I don't know if there was ever room to squeeze out between any two of the cars, and then you'd have to shoot out perpendicular into the adjacent lane, not a smooth lane change like I was able to make.

Basically, I took the exact same path I would have taken if I were on a motorcycle, which is how I normally ride, especially in low speed situations.

That's because I told the story from my perspective, and I didn't know the bike lane was blocked until I got to the front. That fact was never relevant to what I was doing, or to my story.

No it wasn't. I didn't know it was blocked when I decided to merge left. Remember, when I decided to merge left, I was in the middle of the right lane, I couldn't see the bike lane ahead of the car in front of me.

Then why did you mention the bike lane if it was relevant in this story? And even your summarizing point (question) asked what non-VC riders do in that situation. Well, a non-VC rider would most likely be in the bike lane, so how am I supposed to believe it was irrelevant in your story?



In that case you'd be relying too much, in my view, on all of those who are turning right to be signaling right. Good luck with that.

No sir, I'd be relying on my own wit and judgement in this case. If I were to have made it to the front of the pack you had better believe I'd make sure I was seen before going thru the intersection.



Also, once you were in the bike lane, you might have been blocked in, because I don't know if there was ever room to squeeze out between any two of the cars, and then you'd have to shoot out perpendicular into the adjacent lane, not a smooth lane change like I was able to make.

Might have and maybe here. But then again, you might have been hit by an impatient driver not wanting to wait in line so they "shot out" to a left lane to get ahead of everyone else. We all know that impatient drivers don't think or look before reacting in most cases.



Basically, I took the exact same path I would have taken if I were on a motorcycle, which is how I normally ride, especially in low speed situations.
Well, I DO ride a motorcycle and would not have done all the lane changing. I would have just lined up in the lane I was in and waited likea good little boy.

You seem to want to take all the fun and advantages out of riding a bike, geesh.

Then why did you mention the bike lane if it was relevant in this story? And even your summarizing point (question) asked what non-VC riders do in that situation. Well, a non-VC rider would most likely be in the bike lane, so how am I supposed to believe it was irrelevant in your story? The bike lane was relevant to my story because most cyclists would have chosen to ride in it, and why would not.
The fact that it was blocked up near the light was not relevant to my story.



No sir, I'd be relying on my own wit and judgement in this case. If I were to have made it to the front of the pack you had better believe I'd make sure I was seen before going thru the intersection. Glad to hear it. I was concerned when you mentioned turn signals in the context in which you mentioned them - where it matters.



Might have and maybe here. But then again, you might have been hit by an impatient driver not wanting to wait in line so they "shot out" to a left lane to get ahead of everyone else. We all know that impatient drivers don't think or look before reacting in most cases. As I approached, I was in the middle of the left lane, plenty of buffer. All the cars that were a potential "shot out" hazard were at a complete stopped with their wheels pointed straight ahead. By the time I moved right closer to them, it was obvious the only potential threats were turning right and not moving yet. They were blocked in.



Well, I DO ride a motorcycle and would not have done all the lane changing. I would have just lined up in the lane I was in and waited likea good little boy. Well, you'd be the oddball, because everyone who was going straight seemed to be choosing the road less traveled... the left lane in this case, because the right lane was blocked with drivers waiting to turn right (except the first guy and maybe a couple more mixed into the 7, I don't know, I was long gone before they ever got to the intersection). Any through traffic waiting behind the 7th guy in the right lane would probably have not made through on that green cycle, those right turners were turning so slowly.


You seem to want to take all the fun and advantages out of riding a bike, geesh. Actually, I was having fun and taking advantage of riding a bike... in a VC style. That was the point of my story.

Even good riders would could avoid crashes for 100k miles are vulnerable when they ride within 5 feet of parked cars. Sooner or later it will probably catch up with them.

I take it you don't ride in busy cities with narrow roads on a regular basis, bummer man, it would make you a more diligent and better rider - by the way, you should re-read Roughstuff's post - your response reminds me of my students who don't read the homework assignment fully, even though I make it clear it NEEDS to be read completely before questions are asked..... I can't stand that :(