WWJR #1? Where would John ride #1?

[Bekologist]

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?

[natelutkjohn]

I wish we had roads like that where I live :(
But they always tend to end after one block...

And since my middle name is John, I can only assume you are asking where I would drive -
That's a perfect example of a good bike lane in my opinion - I'd stay to the right side in that lane, outside of the car doors.

[John Forester]

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?

You appear not to have been reading the VC lists, bekologist. I repeat my standard instruction. That is, ride in the proper place for whatever you are doing, regardless of the presence or absence of a bike-lane stripe.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

here's a photo of a road. where would John ride? What would John do?
Who cares?:rolleyes:

[Bekologist]

reading the VC lists? huh? didn't realize I had to keep up on 'lists' to ride a bike on the streets....

and that 'instruction' places you physically where, john, for riding straight ahead on this road?

[deputyjones]

reading the VC lists? huh? didn't realize I had to keep up on 'lists' to ride a bike on the streets....

and that 'instruction' places you physically where, john, for riding straight ahead on this road?

+1 Bek. With all due respect Mr. Forester that was one of those Buddhist master "answer a question without answering it" answers. All due respect to Buddhist masters on the board.

[LittleBigMan]

Part of that "bike lane" is in the door zone.

I guess I'm waiting to hear why the line is so close to on-street parking, which is an answer I'll never get.

[Helmet Head]

You appear not to have been reading the VC lists, bekologist. I repeat my standard instruction. That is, ride in the proper place for whatever you are doing, regardless of the presence or absence of a bike-lane stripe. Trust me, John, he's heard it repeated many times before here on this forum.

He can't seem to accept that means you sometimes ride in the bike lane, you sometimes don't, it just depends on the normal factors and conditions, and has nothing to do with the presence of the stripe.

My answer to the question is : it depends. It depends on the current factors and conditions, which include:

the presence or absence of same-direction traffic, and how fast it's moving and with what volumes.
If same direction traffic is present that is faster than me, whether 5' from the edge of the cars puts me in or outside of the bike lane (hard to tell from the photo).
Whether there is debris in the bike lane.
Whether I'm riding into the sun or not.
How wide the adjacent lane is.
If faster traffic is present, where 3' to the right of them puts me. If it puts me outside of the bike lane, that's probably where I ride. If it puts me near the stripe, that probably where I ride. If it puts me in the door zone, I take control of the lane by riding further left, well outside of the bike lane.
etc.

[Bekologist]

helmet, I can accept the typical spiel against riding in facilities from you, that's for sure.

That's a bike lane that's buffered, away from the door zone, and five feet wide. the majority of of the bike lane is MOST DEFINETLY not in the door zone, it is clean and free of debris. there is PLENTY of room to ride outside the door zone and still be to the right of the left white stripe.

I beleive even the dogmaticly addled VC would be riding in the bike lane, according to vehicular operation of their bike and following the rules of the road.

I predict even John Forester would be riding there, although he's going to pretend he's ignoring the stripes on the road.

the vehemently anti-facilties VC are rich in humor and denial.

[chipcom]

I'll answer your question Bek. I'd probably be riding at the left edge of the bike lane, but with that intersection coming up, if there was any traffic coming behind me I'd probably be getting out in the lane so they would have room to turn right behind me, rather than through me. ;)

[Helmet Head]

helmet, I can accept the typical spiel against riding in facilities from you, that's for sure.

That's a bike lane that's buffered, away from the door zone, and five feet wide. the majority of of the bike lane is MOST DEFINETLY not in the door zone, it is clean and free of debris. there is PLENTY of room to ride outside the door zone and still be to the right of the left white stripe.

I beleive even the dogmaticly addled VC would be riding in the bike lane, according to vehicular operation of their bike and following the rules of the road.
If faster traffic is present, the "dogmaticly addled VC" would ride about 3' to the right of passing traffic, whether that happened to put him in the bike lane or not, as long as it kept him outside of the door zone.

I predict even John Forester would be riding there, although he's going to pretend he's ignoring the stripes on the road.

A cyclist who happens to be riding in a bike lane does not mean he's not ignoring the stripe.

[Helmet Head]

I'll answer your question Bek. I'd probably be riding at the left edge of the bike lane, but with that intersection coming up, if there was any traffic coming behind me I'd probably be getting out in the lane so they would have room to turn right behind me, rather than through me. ;) Yes, the upcoming intersection is reason to move left and out of the bike lane, but so are all the parked cars. If there is a no motor traffic, someone, or a dog, could suddenly jump out from between those cars thinking it was a quiet empty street. Better to increase your buffer to the right if there is no good reason not to.

[galen_52657]

I would ride 5' left of the parked vehicles regardless of which side of the line that put me on.

[LittleBigMan]

That's a bike lane that's buffered, away from the door zone, and five feet wide. the majority of of the bike lane is MOST DEFINETLY not in the door zone, it is clean and free of debris. there is PLENTY of room to ride outside the door zone and still be to the right of the left white stripe.
1) "Away from the door zone," no.

3) "...five feet wide," YES! :)

3) "Clean and free of debris," YES! :)

4) "PLENTY of room to ride outside the door zone and still be to the right of the left white stripe," no.

I get more room from passing motorists in a standard lane, unless passing motorists ignore the stripe.

[Bekologist]

double negative hilarity.


" A cyclist who happens to be riding in a bike lane does not mean he's not ignoring the stripe." edited... "a cyclist riding in a bike lane means he is ignoring the stripe." actually, no, helemt head. I sometimes recommend riding as if the stripes are not there, but that STILL doesn't mean i'm ignoring the bike lane stripes OR riding outside of the bike lane.

I find all this banter about ignoring the bike lane, of avoiding dogs jumping out into the road, hilarious.

On this stretch of road, a rider out of the door zone, 3 feet to the right of passing traffic, is IN THE BIKE LANE.

Galen, riding 5 FEET away from the parked cars, would be riding in the bike lane.

A vehicular cyclist CAN RIDE in the bike lane, fellas. despite the protestations seen in this thread.

[sbhikes]

I would ride smack dab in the middle of that bike lane, and quite happily. But then nobody cares what li'l ol' me would do.

[chipcom]

Yes, the upcoming intersection is reason to move left and out of the bike lane, but so are all the parked cars. If there is a no motor traffic, someone, or a dog, could suddenly jump out from between those cars thinking it was a quiet empty street. Better to increase your buffer to the right if there is no good reason not to.

Left edge of that bike lane is plenty of space to accomplish both keeping out of the door zone and to see what might come from between the cars, especially if you are looking ahead, rather than what is right in front of or to the side of you. You just have a line phobia me thinks.

[LittleBigMan]

Door zone bike lanes...

:rolleyes:

What'll they think of next? Nicotine-free cigarettes?

[Helmet Head]

Left edge of that bike lane is plenty of space to accomplish both keeping out of the door zone and to see what might come from between the cars, especially if you are looking ahead, rather than what is right in front of or to the side of you. You just have a line phobia me thinks. It has nothing to do with the line - it's just a useful frame of reference in the photo.

5' away from the cars is out of the door zone, but I'd rather be further if I could. That improves my sight lines looking ahead too.

That's just as true whether or not there happens to be a line there.

[sbhikes]

That bike lane isn't in the door zone. You could open the door all the way and still have tons of room leftover. Sure, the door might encroach on the right edge of the bike lane, but only if someone opened the door all the way. People don't normally open the door all the way. That bike lane delineates more space than most cyclists would ever claim for themselves.

[Helmet Head]

double negative hilarity.

" A cyclist who happens to be riding in a bike lane does not mean he's not ignoring the stripe." edited... "a cyclist riding in a bike lane means he is ignoring the stripe." .
Learn to parse English and study some basic logic, Beck. My original statement and your edited version are not equivalent in meaning.

[chipcom]

It has nothing to do with the line - it's just a useful frame of reference in the photo.

5' away from the cars is out of the door zone, but I'd rather be further if I could. That improves my sight lines looking ahead too.

That's just as true whether or not there happens to be a line there.

In this case, you'd have to be doing your peek-a-boo shenanagins when traffic approaches from the rear...rather than holding a predictable line in a marked lane like MOST traffic does - non-vehicular IMO. If it is safe enough without going out of the lane, as it seems to be in this case, your druthers are just an exercise in dogma rather than sharing the road courteously with other traffic. I don't care about the line either, but you seem to be going out of your way to insist that you should be outside it...sure sounds like a line phobia to me.

[Bekologist]

hehehehe.

whatever, mr. head. your spiel is hilarious. what are you trying to say? you think MY 'parsing' your sentence isn't good enough for your intent?

whatever.

since he hasn't anwsered since his 'stripes aren't there' koan, I predict john forester would be riding (if he still rides a bike) in the space demarcated by the bike lane in that photo, just like Galen or the rest of the realistic vehicular cyclists. out of the door zone, destination positioned. in the bike lane.

like chip, I also consider Helemt's power dodge, peek-a-boo 'technique' to be complicating riding according to the rules of the road, and to even be non vehicular in the face of this quality of accomodation. perfectly acceptable to ride in as a vehicle, according to the vehicular rules of the road, in a lane on the road like this one- the bike lane.

[deputyjones]

I would ride smack dab in the middle of that bike lane, and quite happily. But then nobody cares what li'l ol' me would do.

I care SB, especially considering you have a slightly different insight in that you ride a 'bent.

[John Forester]

helmet, I can accept the typical spiel against riding in facilities from you, that's for sure.

That's a bike lane that's buffered, away from the door zone, and five feet wide. the majority of of the bike lane is MOST DEFINETLY not in the door zone, it is clean and free of debris. there is PLENTY of room to ride outside the door zone and still be to the right of the left white stripe.

I beleive even the dogmaticly addled VC would be riding in the bike lane, according to vehicular operation of their bike and following the rules of the road.

I predict even John Forester would be riding there, although he's going to pretend he's ignoring the stripes on the road.

the vehemently anti-facilties VC are rich in humor and denial.

The previous remarks demonstrate the extent to which your emotions have overtaken your reasoning power. Just take me at my word when I say that I would ride in the proper lateral location for the circumstances, regardless of the presence or absence of the bike-lane stripe. And there's no political point in doing so, because it is what is rationally required regardless of politics. That is, I suppose, unless one was making a political advertisement, or some such.

[Bekologist]

john, more dodging doesn't make you look too bright. kind of in denial actually.

where are you riding this road again to travel straight? (again, assuming you still ride) Destination positioned, out of the door zone, which puts you riding in the bike lane. of course, if you still ride a bike.

[John Forester]

hehehehe.

whatever, mr. head. your spiel is hilarious. what are you trying to say? you think MY 'parsing' your sentence isn't good enough for your intent?

whatever.

since he hasn't anwsered since his 'stripes aren't there' koan, I predict john forester would be riding (if he still rides a bike) in the space demarcated by the bike lane in that photo, just like Galen or the rest of the realistic vehicular cyclists. out of the door zone, destination positioned. in the bike lane.

like chip, I also consider Helemt's power dodge, peek-a-boo 'technique' to be complicating riding according to the rules of the road, and to even be non vehicular in the face of this quality of accomodation. perfectly acceptable to ride in as a vehicle, according to the vehicular rules of the road, in a lane on the road like this one- the bike lane.


I don't know whether you think you are being humorous, or brilliant, or lawyerly, but it is all foolishness based on verbal misuse and semantic misundestanding. When riding according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, one is not constrained to stay out of bike lanes, or within bike lanes; they just don't matter, not even in law. If you think otherwise, then please quote the law.

[Bekologist]

john, just stick to the original premise of the thread- where would you be riding this road to go straight on this road?

I agree, a vehicular cyclist CAN ride vehicularily in the bike lanes, true.

[N_C]

He just can't give a straight answer can he? Forester I mean. He dodges the questions very effectivley, you got to give him that. I wonder why this is. Tell us John, why no straight answers.

The way I see it you only have 2 choices if you're going straight, in or out of the BL. If you're turning left you only have one choice, you change lanes to the left within a safe distance of the intersection before your turn. If you're turning right & because of the parking lane you also have 2 choices. You can turn right from the BL, or change lanes to the right out of the BL to make your turn. Of course depending on your intnetions you need to be aware of all other traffic, if any around you as you approach the intersection.

I'll ask you then. Where in the on the roadway Bek posted the pic. of would you ride? Dont' think about it, just answer. Never mind if there is a law or ordinance saying you have to ride in the BL, but let's say you're going straight through the intersection. Does that make it easier for you to answer? So where would you ride?

[Bekologist]

I think even john Forester recognizes a vehicular cyclist can ride vehicularly in a bike lane, but can't bring himself to say so, NC.

what a dodger.

[randya]

That's 19th Ave NW, isn't it? A relatively new bike lane, and it meets the current state and federal standards for width (I think it's six feet wide). A motor vehicle travel lane was removed to install it, based on traffic counts which indicated that the extra lane wasn't needed for MV capacity. If my memory serves me, further to the north, this bike lane transitions to sharrows, one of the test installations of sharrows in PDX.

What's your community doing to improve the conditions for cyclists?

[chipcom]

The previous remarks demonstrate the extent to which your emotions have overtaken your reasoning power. Just take me at my word when I say that I would ride in the proper lateral location for the circumstances, regardless of the presence or absence of the bike-lane stripe. And there's no political point in doing so, because it is what is rationally required regardless of politics. That is, I suppose, unless one was making a political advertisement, or some such.

I agree that the stripe makes no difference and I am not saying that you would ride outside the stripe for some political statement, John. But many who reply to threads like this will go out of their way to find a reason to say they would not ride within the line, despite where they would ride in reality, because of some political view, ironically contradicting any claims they've made that the line makes no difference to them - if it didn't make any difference they would not be so fixated on it's existence. Cyclist Line Inferiority Phobia, if you will. ;)

While the line makes no difference to me from a safety standpoint, it does have some significance from a vehicular standpoint - vehicles expect other vehicles to maintain a predictable line within marked lane boundaries, when they exist, and do not appreciate those who constantly change lanes in an effort to weave through traffic. Maintaining a predictable line within the lane boundaries, if safe to do so, is common vehicular courtesy.

[joejack951]

I'd probably be riding at the left edge of the bike lane, but with that intersection coming up, if there was any traffic coming behind me I'd probably be getting out in the lane so they would have room to turn right behind me, rather than through me.

In this case, you'd have to be doing your peek-a-boo shenanagins when traffic approaches from the rear...rather than holding a predictable line in a marked lane like MOST traffic does - non-vehicular IMO. If it is safe enough without going out of the lane, as it seems to be in this case, your druthers are just an exercise in dogma rather than sharing the road courteously with other traffic. I don't care about the line either, but you seem to be going out of your way to insist that you should be outside it...sure sounds like a line phobia to me.

What's the difference between changing lanes/lane position midblock to allow faster traffic to pass or to block traffic from passing and doing it as you are approaching an intersection, like you said you would be doing? If there's no traffic coming from behind, who's there to care about your lateral position on the road?

[joejack951]

That's 19th Ave NW, isn't it? A relatively new bike lane, and it meets the current state and federal standards for width (I think it's six feet wide). A motor vehicle travel lane was removed to install it, based on traffic counts which indicated that the extra lane wasn't needed for MV capacity. If my memory serves me, further to the north, this bike lane transitions to sharrows, one of the test installations of sharrows in PDX.

What's your community doing to improve the conditions for cyclists?

My community has never taken a full width traffic lane on a low volume street, reduced it down to a 5 foot door zone bike lane, and labeled that as an improvement for cyclists, or anybody for that matter.

[Jalopy]

That's 19th Ave NW, isn't it? A relatively new bike lane, and it meets the current state and federal standards for width (I think it's six feet wide). A motor vehicle travel lane was removed to install it, based on traffic counts which indicated that the extra lane wasn't needed for MV capacity. If my memory serves me, further to the north, this bike lane transitions to sharrows, one of the test installations of sharrows in PDX.

What's your community doing to improve the conditions for cyclists?Hopefully not painting bike lanes like this. Honestly, judging solely from the photo since I don't know the area, I can't see any good reason to have a bike lane on this street. If I were riding there I would most likely be in the bike lane more often than not but, if given the choice, would certainly prefer to have none.

Jalopy

edit - joejack got it in before me... I agree completely with his comments

[LittleBigMan]

That bike lane isn't in the door zone. You could open the door all the way and still have tons of room leftover. Sure, the door might encroach on the right edge of the bike lane, but only if someone opened the door all the way. People don't normally open the door all the way. That bike lane delineates more space than most cyclists would ever claim for themselves.
Diane, when I'm riding, I visualize the doors opening all the way, and believe me, some doors are extremely long.

I just personally don't see the point in painting the right stripe of the bike lane in a place where a door will swing out over it into the bike lane at all. The stripe should start where fully-open doors of the largest vehicles reach.

The fact that part of the bike lane space is "shared" by vehicle doors communicates to me that the limited road space available is allocated to parking vehicles first, then cyclists. I don't buy into that priority.

I say that, but I'm not a traffic engineer, just a regular commuting cyclist who would be a "customer" who uses that facility. I say all this respectfully, because I don't want to take a position that communicates total opposition to all bike facilities, or even to a bike lane in this particular location, had it been painted more to the left.

[LittleBigMan]

...considering you have a slightly different insight in that you ride a 'bent.
I ride a bent, and let me tell you, I need even more lateral space.

[joejack951]

I agree that the stripe makes no difference and I am not saying that you would ride outside the stripe for some political statement, John. But many who reply to threads like this will go out of their way to find a reason to say they would not ride within the line, despite where they would ride in reality, because of some political view, ironically contradicting any claims they've made that the line makes no difference to them - if it didn't make any difference they would not be so fixated on it's existence. Cyclist Line Inferiority Phobia, if you will. ;)

Are you trying to say that those here who say they default to the center of the lane even when a useable bike lane is present are lying? I'm not completely clear on what you are getting at here.

While the line makes no difference to me from a safety standpoint, it does have some significance from a vehicular standpoint - vehicles expect other vehicles to maintain a predictable line within marked lane boundaries, when they exist, and do not appreciate those who constantly change lanes in an effort to weave through traffic. Maintaining a predictable line within the lane boundaries, if safe to do so, is common vehicular courtesy.

Weaving through traffic, presumably to get ahead of others is much different than changing lanes/lane position to allow faster traffic to pass. The former is an annoying habit of aggressive motorists (and cyclists when traffic is congested enough) and the latter is standard vehicular practice when there are gaps in faster same direction traffic. I can post the related laws if you'd like.

[LittleBigMan]

john, more dodging doesn't make you look too bright. kind of in denial actually.


I hate to say it, but once again, Bekologist is not even reading the responses. It's as if he's invited John to participate in a discussion, which instead turns out to be a monologue.

It's clear John is repeating his original, clear and appropriate response to Bek's question, but Bek never was interested in actually reading and understanding his answer.

[Bekologist]

:roflmao: in disbelief at some of you riders' positions on this....


Sorry, littlebigman, john HASN'T answered where he'd be riding in this picture, just his gobbledygook about destination positioning. IF I extrapolate standard VC practices, that puts him riding vehicluarily in the bike lane.....

WWJR #2 will be forthcoming.

I'm still wondering where John would be positioned on this road. VC predicates riding out of the door zone, destination positioned, would put a rider in the bike lane, riding vehicularily.

[LittleBigMan]

I'm still wondering where John would be positioned on this road.
Why? Is it rocket science?

Do we need a WWJR #3 to help us figure it out?

[Bekologist]

Why? Because John is the high zealot of the VC movement.


let's face it, little big man. Despite the best efforts of the rabid VC dogmatists in Bike forums, and the mischaracterization of vehicular riding by some of the foresterites,

VEHICULAR CYCLISTS CAN RIDE VEHICULARILY IN A BIKE LANE. it's really pretty basic. john doesn't want to admit it, helemt head and joejack are in vehement denial, but it's true:

you can ride vehicularily in a bike lane.

[LittleBigMan]

Why? Because John is the high zealot of the VC movement.


let's face it, little big man. Despite the best efforts of the rabid VC dogmatists in Bike forums, and the mischaracterization of vehicular riding by some of the foresterites,

VEHICULAR CYCLISTS CAN RIDE VEHICULARILY IN A BIKE LANE. it's really pretty basic. john doesn't want to admit it, helemt head and joejack are in vehement denial, but it's true:

you can ride vehicularily in a bike lane.
This pretty much sums up your straw-man argument. Nobody said you can't ride vehicularly in a bike lane.

Can we move on to a less circular discussion?

[sbhikes]

You can always tell what the real answer is when it takes more than 3 dodges to get to it. So the answer is, yes, John Forester came to Santa Barbara to speak on behalf of a pro-car organization and John Forester would ride inside that bike lane.

[sbhikes]

And again, that bike lane carves out more space than any cyclist would carve out for himself, with the exception of Helmet Head who would be doing his darndest to manage control over two lanes with his constant weaving about and glancing nervously behind him.

[chipcom]

What's the difference between changing lanes/lane position midblock to allow faster traffic to pass or to block traffic from passing and doing it as you are approaching an intersection, like you said you would be doing? If there's no traffic coming from behind, who's there to care about your lateral position on the road?

If there is no traffic coming from behind, I have no reason to take the lane at the intersection. The difference is maintaining a predictable position within the lane markings, unless I have reason to move out of it, as any other vehicle would do, rather than jumping into and out of different lanes like a bunny wabbit everytime traffic is approaching from the rear.

[LittleBigMan]

This thread seems to be more about discrediting John Forester than actually discussing anything of substance that can't be answered in the most simple terms.

[RobertHurst]

you can ride vehicularily in a bike lane.

You are all correct. People can and do ride vehicularly in bike lanes. Also, this lane is partially in the door zone. And there will be legit reasons to ride left of the bike lane, especially if one is riding fast.

Some thoughts: Just because this is partially in the DZ doesn't mean people wouldn't ride in the DZ if there were no bike lane... This would be a good street for riding with or without the lane, because there is plenty of space to safely share the road with faster vehicles... New bike lanes in Seattle and Denver and elsewhere perhaps are being painted outside of the DZ in their entirety... None of this really matters very much.

Robert

[chipcom]

Are you trying to say that those here who say they default to the center of the lane even when a useable bike lane is present are lying? I'm not completely clear on what you are getting at here.


Yes, I am saying that some do lie about where they would ride when posting in this forum, in order not to contradict their political views.


Weaving through traffic, presumably to get ahead of others is much different than changing lanes/lane position to allow faster traffic to pass. The former is an annoying habit of aggressive motorists (and cyclists when traffic is congested enough) and the latter is standard vehicular practice when there are gaps in faster same direction traffic. I can post the related laws if you'd like.

It's got nothing to do with the law, it has to do with common courtesy and acting like a vehicle. Do you not believe their is value in holding a predictable line within lane markings unless there is a good reason not to? Remember, the subject is the road in Bek's pic, not some hypothetical...address the road in question, where I see no reason not to be out in the lane unless positioning at an intersection.

Of course, now I expect to hear from all the vehicular cyclists that operating like a vehicle isn't important...once again proving that some versions of VC are nothing more than dogma and politics.

[galen_52657]

JF's answer is perfectly logical and consise. Yet some just won't take it at face value or simply have reading & comprehension issues.

As stated before, I would ride 5' left of the parked cars. This may indeed be 'in the bike lane' but it's hard to say based on the photo. It might be that my tires were 'in the bike lane' but my left shoulders were not. So what? Unfortunately for those who don't know better, the bike lane looks ominously like the one in which the woman was doored and then run over by a bus...