Vehicular Cycling (VC) - The science of bike lane advocacy.

That's probably not a bad idea, provided it can me made clear to motorists that there is no speed minimum on this route. The only issue that I can think of with this is what I see happen often around my area, where cars don't look ahead, and they suddenly find themselves going uphill behind a slow vehicle, with the traffic whizzing by on the right, making for a dangerous merge scenario. But, then again, I think this is a driver attention problem (combined with busy traffic), and not necessarily a road design issue.

Do you mean, "whizzing by on the left?" If not, please clarify what's going on there. I agree that it's a driver attention/busy traffic problem when someone gets stuck behind a slow moving vehicle on a narrow laned road. It happens often though, and it's not only cyclists who cause the slow downs which is why I don't let it concern me when it happens. It does bother me when that person acts obnoxiously, but if they are simply stuck behind me, I feel no remorse for being there.


I take you for you word. You see a huge difference. I have been "questioned" twice for exiting a bike lane. Once by a driver, who I educated personally (who knows if it stuck), and once by an officer, who I ignored. I also have been "questioned" when taking the lane at places without bike lanes. But that's just my experience. I believe you when you say it makes a huge difference for you.

I can count on at least once a week having a driver rudely comment about me not riding in the shoulder as I'm approaching a right turn lane (where the shoulder is overlaid with the turn lane striping) on a certain stretch of road almost every day. It's 45mph, two lanes in each direction and there are 4 seperate right turn only lanes with short sections of shoulder in between in a distance of maybe 1/3 mile. Using the shoulder would mean making abrupt merges in and out of traffic (completely unsafe and ridiculous to even attempt) yet I've been honked at, close passed, and screamed at (sometimes by people who then turn into my neighborhood :eek: ) for using the through traffic lane in this section. Most cyclists (I'd hazard to say all cyclists aside from me and those riding with me) ride next to the curb through the right turn lanes here.


Now my law says that you can leave bikelanes for several reasons, including approaching intersections. It is similar (with some small differences) to the law I have that says you should keep near to the curb with several exceptions.

Now, the way I see it, if an officer incorrectly assumed I should be in a bike lane, it shows that he didn't know or understand the law. Would he treat me differently on that same stretch of road if there were no bike lane?

Maybe, maybe not. The existence of a law that has the words "mandatory" and "bike lane" in it certainly doesn't help though when there is a bike lane on the road. Neither does the fact that most cyclists don't ever leave a bike lane as long as it continues on the road. Both create expectations for all cyclists.


I guess what I am saying is that we agree on a few things. One is to generally ride vehicularly is a good thing. We probably agree, but to different levels, on how much that affects how we are treated. That doesn't affect our decision on how to ride.

If I'm on a public road, I'm always riding vehicularly, not just generally. To not be vehicular would mean blatantly disregarding the rules of the road and doing such things as riding on the wrong side of the road or not using lights at night. I will use an occasional sidewalk or path but vehicular rules do not apply on those.


We also agree that some drivers will treat you improperly, if you don't ride vehicularly. We probably agree that cyclist education is key (and with the relative small number of cyclists, free classes probably work, although we need to somehow reach the cyclists who for whatever reasons, don't attend these classes).

Definitely agree here. I do my best to set the best example that I can every day that I'm out riding in order to hopefully influence other cyclists to ride more vehicularly. I don't have an answer for how else to reach those cyclists who won't go looking for a class, or take one even if they know it's offered, other than trying to set an example when I encounter them on the road.


All that leaves is the bike lane issue (whether to erase or improve) and the general public/driver education issue. I want some sort of shoulder/bike lane area for high speed differentials. You would rather have narrow lanes (by the way, do your arterials have curbs?). If we have bike lanes, we have to educate drivers to let them know that you don't have to be in them just because they want you to be in them. If we don't have bike lanes, I have to find another route if I want a shoulder/bail out area.

Just to clarify, I would prefer narrow, unshareable lanes on any road with frequent intersections, regardless of speed differential. I would prefer shareable pavement (in order of preference: WCL, shoulder, bike lane as a last resort) on any road with infrequent intersections regardless of speed differential.

Our arterials all have curbs (probably 6-8 inches high and squared off). I create a bail out area by riding left of center in the lane, giving me plenty of space to move right as needed to avoid close passes. I don't consider the lack of a shoulder/bike lane to mean the road lacks a safe amount of room for cycling.

Chip just can't resist slipping in an ad hominem attack on me. It's how he gets his jollies, even if it means pushing all reason aside. It's pathetic.

How is that an ad hominem attack? You really take the cake. Did my post hit too close to home? Am I threatening some facade you seek to maintain? The only thing pathetic so far is seeing you pwn yourself because you got razzed....acting more like you got caught in a lie.

You made that statement that you didn't know of such lines anywhere, meaning you consider them out of the ordinary, yet you didn't notice them on your own commute route?
In chess, we call this a pin.

In chess, we call this a pin.
Wrestling too!

Do you mean, "whizzing by on the left?"
Yes, my bad. Thanks for the correction.


If I'm on a public road, I'm always riding vehicularly, not just generally. To not be vehicular would mean blatantly disregarding the rules of the road and doing such things as riding on the wrong side of the road or not using lights at night. I will use an occasional sidewalk or path but vehicular rules do not apply on those.

I was using the term general to avoid debate on individual definitions of vc, not to advocate occassionally riding against traffic.

I think I understand your position.

I am serious. You mean to tell me that things about your commute route, 'relevant' or not, don't stick in your mind? That goofy looking tree, that house with the pink flamingo out front, the home with the blue lawn, the cherry trees in that park that look so beautiful in the spring, the place where the paint has been worn off the fog line for the last year, the car that passes you every morning with the garfield doll hangning on the side window, etc. etc. etc? If not, I'd have to question your frequency in commuting too.

I commute 5 days a week, all year long. There's a guy who drives a Mercedes (I think it's gray) who waves to me every time he sees me. I have no idea what his license plate number is even though I see him at least twice a week. I know he's a male but if I saw him outside of his car (or if he didn't wave to me) I wouldn't recognize him. Almost all of the details about this guy are irrelevant to me. I also couldn't tell you one distinguishing feature of any yard that I pass on my way to work and I pass quite a few [edit]I take that back. One yard has a lacrosse goal set up somewhere (I played in high school). When I tried to point this out to my girlfriend one day I couldn't recall which house it was. [edit] What's there doesn't interest me more than whether or not the guy behind me is going to try and pass as we approach the stop sign or if he realizes that neither of us knows what's coming over that blind hill crest. What also interests me are where potholes are, where the pavement is wide enough to safely share, where the stop signs are, where the most frequently used hidden driveways are, etc.

The choice between having a bike lane and having narrow lanes is a false statement, because the best is the wide outside lane, which has all the advantages of easy overtaking by motorists without the disadvantages of the bike-lane stripe.
It is certainly not a false statement with regard to already developed dense preautomobile inner cities, where the choice is typically a narrow outside lane or a bike lane. The only places where wide outer lanes are even remotely feasible are in the recently developed or soon-to-be-developed suburbs.

It is certainly not a false statement with regard to already developed dense preautomobile inner cities, where the choice is typically a narrow outside lane or a bike lane. The only places where wide outer lanes are even remotely feasible are in the recently developed or soon-to-be-developed suburbs.

Do you mean to say that the choice is either two narrow outside lanes or a narrow outside lane and a bike lane? This is different from the choice between a narrow outside lane plus bike lane or a single wide outside lane which is what I believe was being discussed.

It was a while ago, but my recollection is that it was all pretty much added at the same time. A bus lane has also been added to the right of the bike lane more recently, replacing a parking lane. Before that it was a nightmare free for all at the locations I'm familiar with, with lots of aggro motorists and bus drivers honking and trying to edge out the few brave cyclists attempting to 'take the lane'.

How did they determine that these intersections needed the blue paint and extra signage? When was the sidewalk added and/or made available to cyclists/made mandatory for cyclists?

I am serious. You mean to tell me that things about your commute route, 'relevant' or not, don't stick in your mind? That goofy looking tree, that house with the pink flamingo out front, the home with the blue lawn, the cherry trees in that park that look so beautiful in the spring, the place where the paint has been worn off the fog line for the last year, the car that passes you every morning with the garfield doll hangning on the side window, etc. etc. etc? If not, I'd have to question your frequency in commuting too.
You should read up on inattentional blindness.

No matter how much you notice, there is much more that you don't, which you don't realize because you don't notice it. Are you in a relationship? If so, ask your SO how good you are at "paying attention to everything".

Now, some people are better at noticing irrelevant than others (in the famous gorilla/basketball experiment, about half did not notice the gorilla, but half did). But even the most observant among us probably miss more than they notice. There is just too much information out there. Our minds are constantly filtering the perceived-to-be-relevant from the perceived-to-be-irrelevant. It's a natural cognitive process evolution has honed for survival.

So if today those dashed lines were now red or blue solid lines, indicating that future construction along the route is likely, you wouldn't notice? How can you notice if something has changed if you never bothered noticing it at all?
I can't tell you how it works, I'm not a cognitive scientist. I suspect it has something to do with there being no reason for bike lane stripes to get my attention - that's what I mean about relevance.

However, a specially colored stripe designed to get my attention probably would be processed as "unusual" and hence perceived to be possibly relevant and brought to the attention of my mind.

You made that statement that you didn't know of such lines anywhere, meaning you consider them out of the ordinary, yet you didn't notice them on your own commute route?
Yes, I didn't know of such lines lines anywhere because I didn't notice them, even on my own commute.

For the record, I did notice how long they were today (though I'm not yet convinced they are the full 100 feet - but I was going too fast to know for sure), but that's because I was specifically looking for them.

No ship Sherlock. You do ride in bike lanes on occasion. How do you know if you're in a bike lane or out of one, if the markings on the road make no difference to you? If you're playing at Captain Vigilant, you're paying attention to lane position and you find yourself on occasion in a bike lane, yet you ignore bike lane stripes. How can you be vigilant yet ignore the road surface? I have no idea, frankly. I can only speculate that when I do notice the stripe, I notice the stripe, but not whether it's solid or dashed. FWIW, I can also tell you that most of the time I cannot tell you what someone is wearing, or what color their car, moments after being in the presence of them or their car. I would be a horrible eye witness.

EDIT: This morning I was home for a few hours before I went to work. I saw, had breakfast with, and interacted with 2 family members (wife and daughter) and 2 friends who came by. I can't tell you what any of them was wearing. No clue, except I think my daughter had a skirt, though I don't know what color or pattern or anything like that. My daughter and wife and the female friend, on the other hand, could probably tell you exactly what everyone was wearing. That stuff it relevant/interesting to them; it is not to me.




Given that admission, what motivated you to make this up then?

""in most places I've measured the solid doesn't go to dashed until just a few car lengths from the intersection"" What makes you think I made it up? Where I've measured the stripe that's what I found. Apparently I only measured in those places where I noticed the stripe seemed short.

EDIT: By the way, if I did make it up, or "lie" about this, why on Earth would I do it? Whether San Diego traffic engineers change bike lane striping from solid to dash 200, 100, 60, 30, 10 or 0 feet from the intersection has no relevance to any bike lane argument, pro or con, that I know of.

The only reason it came up was that I was countering what Zeytoun seemed to be saying - that motorists can only enter bike lanes were they are dashed. That's not true. The law allows it up to 200 feet prior to a right turn, regardless of the nature of the striping. So why would I make up anything about this?

It is certainly not a false statement with regard to already developed dense preautomobile inner cities, where the choice is typically a narrow outside lane or a bike lane. The only places where wide outer lanes are even remotely feasible are in the recently developed or soon-to-be-developed suburbs.

Entirely false. Wherever there is width for a bike lane, there is a motor lane alongside it. Wherever there are these two, they could be combined into a wide outside lane, simply by letting the stripe wear out, if by no other means.

It is certainly not a false statement with regard to already developed dense preautomobile inner cities, where the choice is typically a narrow outside lane or a bike lane. The only places where wide outer lanes are even remotely feasible are in the recently developed or soon-to-be-developed suburbs.
That makes no sense.

If there is room for a bike lane adjacent to the narrow outside lane, then there is room for wide outside lane: just remove the bike lane stripe. In fact, a narrow lane of 11' plus a 5' bike lane takes up more room (16') than a 14' WOL.

But these lines, that you didn't know of anywhere, actually captivated your attention so much so that you actually measured them, in a number of places.

That makes perfect sense!
In the places where I noticed them to be short, I measured them. In the places where I didn't notice them, I didn't measure them.

What and how our subconscious mind chooses to bring to the attention of our conscious mind is only starting to become unraveled by cognitive science. But apparently relevance/interest plays a key role, though it's not guaranteed. There are many examples of people not noticing things that arguably should have been noticed.

Again, what else could be the explanation? Are you suggesting I knew about those long stretches of dashed bike lanes, and deliberately lied about it? Why would I? First, I don't lie (I do make mistakes!). Second, the next time Gene or Zeytoun or some other BF SD member paying attention to this thread came to my 'hood he'd call me on it. Finally, if I was a liar and stupid enough to lie about this, why would I? It makes no sense on any level.

See below for a plausible answer to your question.


The only reason it came up was that I was countering what Zeytoun seemed to be saying
What was being countered was the assertion that striping nature determines where and when motorists may merge into the bike lane. How SD actually stripes their bike lanes is irrelevant to that.

Now, Zeyton also claimed something about bike lanes changing to dash 100 feet prior to intersections, and I questioned that because I honestly had not noticed that. Now, let's say I had noticed it. Why would I question it? What would be the point of acting like I hadn't noticed it? Simply to counter him? Please, I'm busy enough with actual disagreements of substance to bother with artificial ones. What would be the point of that?

So much for your claims of superior vigilance, eh? What claims of superior vigilance?

Anyway, superior vigilance in traffic is about paying attention to that which is relevant and potentially relevant to one's safety, and NOT paying attention that which is the irrelevant, like the solid or dashed nature of bike lane striping.



You numerous contradictory posts.
The contradictory posts are fully and reasonably explained by my NOT noticing the irrelevant nature of bike lane striping.



How did you measure something that is "totally and completely irrelevant" that you claim to "ignore" and that is "irrelevant chaff"? You are taking things out of context. They are "totally and completely irrelevant" to my riding. But I apparently have noticed the seemingly short length of them, in some places, despite their irrelevance to my riding.

It's like I usually don't notice what others are wearing, but sometimes I do.

this thread has degenerated into useleseness.

Head, your spew is pathetic.

Hundreds of studies prove the efficacy of bike infrastructure.

What was being countered was the assertion that striping nature determines where and when motorists may merge into the bike lane.
I never asserted that.
I asserted that while technically still in existence, when approaching intersections, the concurrence of the dashing, the fact that cars are legally allowed to drive in the area, and the fact that the mandatory bike lane law is now void, lead me to see them as "ended".
I never asserted that the stripe dash delineation is what makes that determination.


Now, Zeyton also claimed something about bike lanes changing to dash 100 feet prior to intersections, and I questioned that because I honestly had not noticed that.
I also did not assert that bike lanes change 100 feet prior to intersections. I asserted that a bike lane that dashes 20-60 feet before an intesection would be agianst the the law (which requires the DOT to adopt and follow uniform standards, which were outlined in the those adopted standards I quoted).

Now, Zeyton also claimed something about bike lanes changing to dash 100 feet prior to intersections, and I questioned that because I honestly had not noticed that.
This is also a mischaracterization of the facts. The first assertion about the distance of the "dashing" was yours. I questioned the legality of such lanes by quoting California's uniform standards. You then said that those standards were not the law (I never asserted they were, however, the DOT is under obligation to follow their adopted uniform standards under 21400 of the cvc).

I never asserted that.
I asserted that while technically still in existence, when approaching intersections, the concurrence of the dashing, the fact that cars are legally allowed to drive in the area, and the fact that the mandatory bike lane law is now void, lead me to see them as "ended".
I never asserted that the stripe dash delineation is what makes that determination.
Sorry, but that's what I thought you were saying when you wrote, in #138, "I guess I just see [the bike lanes] as ended since they are dashed, the mandatory bike lane law is now void, and cars can legally enter the space." That implied to me that you were saying the switch to "dashed" is what changes it so that "cars can legally enter the space." I hope you can see how that it is not an unreasonable interpretation for me to make. At any rate, that is the interpretation I made, and why wrote what I wrote.



I also did not assert that bike lanes change 100 feet prior to intersections. I asserted that a bike lane that dashes 20-60 feet before an intesection would be agianst the the law (which requires the DOT to adopt and follow uniform standards, which were outlined in the those adopted standards I quoted).
Sorry. I did not mean to misrepresent anything you said. Again, we weren't really disagreeing about anything significant, and still aren't, so far as I can tell.

How exactly did you measure bike lane stripes/bike lanes that are "totally and completely irrelevant" that you claim to "ignore" and that are "irrelevant chaff"? I guesstimated the length of one dash and one gap, and multiplied the sum of those two lengths by the number of dashes. It was a while ago; I don't remember the details (the individual lengths or the number of dashes). I just remember that the total was well under 100 feet.



Hmmm...so the solid or dashed nature of lane striping doesn't come into play when one is being superiorly vigilant. Got it.

Now then, are there parts of the roadway (LIKE PAINTED LINES) that offer different amounts of traction, depending upon the moisture content (like that San Diego fog or even rain)? I suspect I instinctively avoid paint on wet mornings, but I don't remember consciously thinking about it.


I think it could be attributed to your subconscious desire to "win" every and all "arguments." I understand why my behavior here might cause you to believe that about me. But for me, "winning" is learning the truth, even if I was initially wrong. One of the reasons I make my assertions as strongly as I do, is so that I will be corrected if I am wrong. Thanks again, by the way. I consider it a win that I am now aware there are good examples of long dashed bike lanes stripes along my route.

I guess I just see [the bike lanes] as ended since they are dashed, the mandatory bike lane law is now void, and cars can legally enter the space." That implied to me that you were saying the switch to "dashed" is what changes it so that "cars can legally enter the space." I hope you can see how that it is not an unreasonable interpretation for me to make.
That's fine. As soon as I realized that you inferred something that I did not intentionally imply, I corrected you assumption. No harm, no foul.

Next time, when I have a list, I'll write it more like: I guess I just see the bike lanes as ended since 1) they are dashed, 2) the mandatory bike lane law is now void, and 3) cars can legally enter the space. (is that more clear?)

I wondered why you were quoting the fact that drivers can merge 200 feet prior to the lane.

If I had been asserting what you inferred, I would have apologized for an incorrect assertion.

Next time, when I have a list, I'll write it more like: I guess I just see the bike lanes as ended since 1) they are dashed, 2) the mandatory bike lane law is now void, and 3) cars can legally enter the space. (is that more clear?)

To be absolutely clear (to someone who knows nothing/very little about the discussion) I'd have said:

"I guess I just see the bike lanes as ended since they are dashed (as opposed to solid as they are between intersections), the mandatory bike lane law is now void (you are approaching a place where a right turn is authorized), and cars can legally enter the space (you are 200 feet before an intersection)."

The parathetical statements clear up any confusion about any of the three being related to one another, at least for me.

That's fine. As soon as I realized that you inferred something that I did not intentionally imply, I corrected you assumption. No harm, no foul.

Next time, when I have a list, I'll write it more like: I guess I just see the bike lanes as ended since 1) they are dashed, 2) the mandatory bike lane law is now void, and 3) cars can legally enter the space. (is that more clear?)

I wondered why you were quoting the fact that drivers can merge 200 feet prior to the lane.

If I had been asserting what you inferred, I would have apologized for an incorrect assertion.
Yes, it's more clear, but it still seems to imply that there is some kind of connection between "bike lanes ended" ( interpreted to mean solid stripes becomes dashed) and "cars can legally enter the space."

Cars can legally enter the space up to 200 feet prior to the right turn, regardless of whether the stripe is solid or striped,

You should read up on inattentional blindness.

No matter how much you notice, there is much more that you don't, which you don't realize because you don't notice it. Are you in a relationship? If so, ask your SO how good you are at "paying attention to everything".

Now, some people are better at noticing irrelevant than others (in the famous gorilla/basketball experiment, about half did not notice the gorilla, but half did). But even the most observant among us probably miss more than they notice. There is just too much information out there. Our minds are constantly filtering the perceived-to-be-relevant from the perceived-to-be-irrelevant. It's a natural cognitive process evolution has honed for survival.

Yet you are the one who measures bike lane stripes, then says you ignore bike lane stripes, then can't recall bike lane stripes that you say don't exist anywhere that you know of when they are on your own alleged commute route. No, HH, you ain't getting off on the old inattentional blindness defense...you pwned yourself and proved once again your lack of honesty in these forums, further erroding your credibility.

FYI, I am known for catching details many others miss...probably comes from those lowly (to you) past professions of military and law enforcement. I'm the guy who says, "WTF let that gorilla loose in here?". :p

So you DON"T ignore bike lane stripes/bike lanes and they aren't "totally and completely irrelevant," let alone "irrelevant chaff." Got it (at least until your next flip-flop).
Context, Pete, context. While I'm riding, I ignore the stripe. When I'm stopped with my bike leaning up against a post on the sidewalk and I'm looking at the stripes, I'm not ignoring them.


BTW, did you only measure the length of a single dash and one gap?
Yes, and using the term "measure" loosely. Like I said, I guesstimated.


So now superior vigilance isn't about alert watchfulness but instinct? How can you be alertly watchful yet ignore threats to your safety?
I'm not playing this game. Read Hurst's book. He explains it very well.

Given that admission, what motivated you to make this up then?

""in most places I've measured the solid doesn't go to dashed until just a few car lengths from the intersection""

He inattentively measured without ever seeing the lines. :lol:

Disclaimer: I have not read this thread, I just clicked on this page and saw references to dashed striped lanes and what it means.

In AZ a dashed bike lane stripe means a motor vehicle may cross the BL stripe. It does not mean the lane has ended, nor does it mean that a motor vehicle may travel in this BL designated by a dashed line.

If a bike lane has ended the stripe should end fully.

Al

I have no idea, frankly. I can only speculate that when I do notice the stripe, I notice the stripe, but not whether it's solid or dashed. FWIW, I can also tell you that most of the time I cannot tell you what someone is wearing, or what color their car, moments after being in the presence of them or their car. I would be a horrible eye witness.

EDIT: This morning I was home for a few hours before I went to work. I saw, had breakfast with, and interacted with 2 family members (wife and daughter) and 2 friends who came by. I can't tell you what any of them was wearing. No clue, except I think my daughter had a skirt, though I don't know what color or pattern or anything like that. My daughter and wife and the female friend, on the other hand, could probably tell you exactly what everyone was wearing. That stuff it relevant/interesting to them; it is not to me.


What makes you think I made it up? Where I've measured the stripe that's what I found. Apparently I only measured in those places where I noticed the stripe seemed short.

EDIT: By the way, if I did make it up, or "lie" about this, why on Earth would I do it? Whether San Diego traffic engineers change bike lane striping from solid to dash 200, 100, 60, 30, 10 or 0 feet from the intersection has no relevance to any bike lane argument, pro or con, that I know of.

The only reason it came up was that I was countering what Zeytoun seemed to be saying - that motorists can only enter bike lanes were they are dashed. That's not true. The law allows it up to 200 feet prior to a right turn, regardless of the nature of the striping. So why would I make up anything about this?


So you can't pay attention to or recall minor details concerning your environment, yet you think you can tell others how to ride a bicycle in traffic, where paying attention to detail is a critical competency? I don't care if you commute or don't commute or what your religion is in regards to cycling. I do care about people giving advice on what is best and safest when they don't even have the core competencies themselves...and indeed don't even understand what core competencies are required.

Disclaimer: I have not read this thread, I just clicked on this page and saw references to dashed striped lanes and what it means.

In AZ a dashed bike lane stripe means a motor vehicle may cross the BL stripe. It does not mean the lane has ended, nor does it mean that a motor vehicle may travel in this BL designated by a dashed line.

If a bike lane has ended the stripe should end fully.

Al
Can you cite the law for this? The law in CA is motorists can merge into the bike lane up 200' prior to the right turn, regardless of whether the stripe is solid or dashed.

In the places where I noticed them to be short, I measured them. In the places where I didn't notice them, I didn't measure them.


So now it's sometimes you notice them and sometimes you don't? Make up your mind already...either you notice the pretty painted lines on the street or you don't. If you still claim you don't, I hope you at least learn to notice those cute solid yellow ones that might cause you to have a bad day if you cross over while dreamily riding along on autopilot.

So you can't pay attention to or recall minor details concerning your environment, yet you think you can tell others how to ride a bicycle in traffic, where paying attention to detail is a critical competency? I don't care if you commute or don't commute or what your religion is in regards to cycling. I do care about people giving advice on what is best and safest when they don't even have the core competencies themselves...and indeed don't even understand what core competencies are required.
I do pay attention and can recall RELEVANT details in my environment, like whether my sightlines are blocked by a truck to the intersection up ahead. I normally do not pay attention nor can recall IRRELEVANT details in my environment, like the make/model/color of the truck is that is blocking my sight lines, or whether a bike lane stripe is solid or dashed.

So, if you only measured one dash and a single gap, why in the world would you exaggerate and claim "in most places I've measured"?

You measured one dash and a single gap and somehow that translates into more than one dash and more than a single gap?
:rolleyes: In EACH place that I measured, I only measured one dash and one gap (not all the dashes and all the gaps). Stop playing stupid sophistic games. I'm done.

The parathetical statements clear up any confusion about any of the three being related to one another, at least for me.

Cars can legally enter the space up to 200 feet prior to the right turn, regardless of whether the stripe is solid or striped,
I question whether either of you are interested in enhancing communication, or muddying it.

What claims of superior vigilance?

Anyway, superior vigilance in traffic is about paying attention to that which is relevant and potentially relevant to one's safety, and NOT paying attention that which is the irrelevant, like the solid or dashed nature of bike lane striping.

So exactly how do you determine what is and is not relevant if you don't notice things in your environment? Osmosis? ESP? Vulcan Mind-Meld with a chipmunk?

This whole thing leads back to your wacky theories concerning what motorists notice and don't notice and your claims that unless you are in front of them, they don't notice you. These are all based on YOUR INATTENTIVENESS and assuming that everyone else is as helpless as you are, rather than on anything factual. You cling to your gorilla in a basketball game theory because it's all you got to justify your own shortcomings and apply them to the rest of the world.

Can you cite the law for this? The law in CA is motorists can merge into the bike lane up 200' prior to the right turn, regardless of whether the stripe is solid or dashed.
AZ law prohibts use of bike lane by motor vehicle except for crossing. A dashed stripe creates the presence of a bike lane. I only see dashed placed where a motor vehicle may cross the lane (such as BL to the left of RTOLs or for the last 10' before a turn, where a motor vehicle would clip the lane otherwise unless making a true 90deg turn.

The law:
http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/28/00815.htm&Title=28&DocType=ARS

"28-815. Riding on roadway and bicycle path; bicycle path usage

A. A person riding a bicycle on a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, except under any of the following situations:

1. If overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction.

2. If preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.

3. If reasonably necessary to avoid conditions, including fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals or surface hazards.

4. If the lane in which the person is operating the bicycle is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.

B. Persons riding bicycles on a roadway shall not ride more than two abreast except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles.

C. A path or lane that is designated as a bicycle path or lane by state or local authorities is for the exclusive use of bicycles even though other uses are permitted pursuant to subsection D or are otherwise permitted by state or local authorities.

D. A person shall not operate, stop, park or leave standing a vehicle in a path or lane designated as a bicycle path or lane by a state or local authority except in the case of emergency or for crossing the path or lane to gain access to a public or private road or driveway.

E. Subsection D does not prohibit the use of the path or lane by the appropriate local authority. "

So exactly how do you determine what is and is not relevant if you don't notice things in your environment? Osmosis? ESP? Vulcan Mind-Meld with a chipmunk?

This whole thing leads back to your wacky theories concerning what motorists notice and don't notice and your claims that unless you are in front of them, they don't notice you. These are all based on YOUR INATTENTIVENESS and assuming that everyone else is as helpless as you are, rather than on anything factual. You cling to your gorilla in a basketball game theory because it's all you got to justify your own shortcomings and apply them to the rest of the world.
If I were a real doctor, I think I would diagnose HH with 'Cyclist Inferiority Syndrome'....

:p

I do pay attention and can recall RELEVANT details in my environment, like whether my sightlines are blocked by a truck to the intersection up ahead. I normally do not pay attention nor can recall IRRELEVANT details in my environment, like the make/model/color of the truck is that is blocking my sight lines, or whether a bike lane stripe is solid or dashed.

Again, if you don't pay attention to everything - especially things out of the ordinary, in your environment, how do you determine what is relevant and not relevant? Crystal Ball? Talk to God? Talk to Satan? The voices? How can you decide if it is relevant if you don't notice it?

I question whether either of you are interested in enhancing communication, or muddying it.

Why would you say that? All I did was add statements inside of the sentence giving reasons for why each of the points was made in an attempt to clarify why you made each point and to show that none were directly related to another. Simply adding numbers wouldn't necessarily communicate that to someone.

Again, if you don't pay attention to everything - especially things out of the ordinary, in your environment, how do you determine what is relevant and not relevant? Crystal Ball? Talk to God? Talk to Satan? The voices? How can you decide if it is relevant if you don't notice it?

Because the pink flamingo isn't going to jump out into the road in front of me. Is that a good enough reason?

Serge, I'm "seeking clarity" as you so often do. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?

Before you stomp off in a huff, you forgot to answer this important question (now edited due to the clarity above):

So how did you know to stop at those precise points* while riding, if you were ignoring the stripe while riding your bike?

*precise points-the points at which you stopped, got onto the sidewalk, leaned your bike against a post, and did your measurements of the dashes and gaps.

Maybe because he read on the internet that bike lane stripes are to be dashed 100-200 feet before an intersection.

Again, if you don't pay attention to everything - especially things out of the ordinary, in your environment, how do you determine what is relevant and not relevant? Crystal Ball? Talk to God? Talk to Satan? The voices? How can you decide if it is relevant if you don't notice it?
Come on Chip, give him a break, we all know that it was the good book EC what told Serge that the bike lane line is irrelevant. Don't persecute him, what are you trying to do, crucify him in the name of Foresterology?

;)

:D

All I did was add statements inside of the sentence giving reasons for why each of the points was made in an attempt to clarify why you made each point and to show that none were directly related to another. Simply adding numbers wouldn't necessarily communicate that to someone.
Did you, like Helmet Head, believe that I was asserting that the beginnning of the dashed line determined where cars can enter the space?

Why would I put a comma in between each clause?

Wouldn't believing that the dashed line is what determines whether a car can enter the space, mean that I would think that cars are not legally allowed to cross the bike lane when it is solid, like at the many driveways I ride past in San Diego?

By the way, the 3 items are related. The 3 conditions are all required to be present at an intersection where a right turn is allowed.

So he just decided to stop 30-60 feet from the intersection to measure those dashes and gaps because he read that on the internet that bike lane stripes are to be dashed 100-200 feet before an intersection.

After all, he ignores the stripes when riding so he wouldn't have seen them and known where to stop riding and start measuring.

It seems to me that you cannot see the difference between regularly riding and ignoring a bike lane stripe and once or twice paying enough attention to the stripe (possibly while walking along that road or driving in a car even) to notice that it seems as though it's dashed for less than 100-200 feet. If you cannot see that difference, there's no point in continuing to discuss this with you.

Here is what the AZ Driver's Licencse Manual says:
-white lines separate lanes of traffic moving in same direction. single line may also mark right edge of pavement
--broken: separates lane of traffic in same direction. may be crossed if safe with signal
--solid: separates lanes of traffic. one shouldn't cross except for emergency
--double: crossing prohibited

So this interpretation basically means dashing is only used to indicate where lane changes are most likely to happen. Double white line is only where it is prohibited.

Al

Did you, like Helmet Head, believe that I was asserting that the beginnning of the dashed line determined where cars can enter the space?

I wasn't paying that much attention to that statement (we were discussing something somewhat unrelated - if the striped completely disappeared or not) as he did but after reading it, I could see how it might be confusing.


Why would I put a comma in between each clause?

To seperate the points, like anyone with good punctuation skills would. The seperation by a comma says nothing about the context though.


Wouldn't believing that the dashed line is what determines whether a car can enter the space, mean that I would think that cars are not legally allowed to cross the bike lane when it is solid, like at the many driveways I ride past in San Diego?

Possibly. There's a lot of confusion in general regarding how to use the space demarcated by a bike lane while operating a motor vehicle. The way you wrote it was ambiguous and HH was mislead. It's been cleared up now so it's really no big deal, right?


By the way, the 3 items are related. The 3 conditions are all required to be present at an intersection where a right turn is allowed.

Well, no they are not all required to be present. The stripe doesn't need to be dashed to allow a right turn (you just admitted that yourself) nor does it need to be dashed to allow a motor vehicle to enter the bike lane 200 feet before their turn (again, something you've stated yourself). The available right turn is what needs to be present to allow the cyclist to leave the bike lane and the motorist to enter the bike lane. The dashing of the stripe is a suggested guideline for treatment of intersections.

[edit] Before we start another debate, maybe I'm misinterpretting what you meant by "The 3 conditions are all required to be present at an intersection where a right turn is allowed." Those three conditions are:

1. they are dashed
2. the mandatory bike lane law is now void
3. cars can legally enter the space

My interpretation of "what is required to be present at an intersection where a right turn is allowed" is an allowable right turn. #2 and #3 follow from that but not necessarily #1. [edit]

[edit] Before we start another debate, maybe I'm misinterpretting what you meant by "The 3 conditions are all required to be present at an intersection where a right turn is allowed." Those three conditions are:

1. they are dashed
2. the mandatory bike lane law is now void
3. cars can legally enter the space

My interpretation of "what is required to be present at an intersection where a right turn is allowed" is an allowable right turn. #2 and #3 follow from that but not necessarily #1. [edit]
you forgot #4, legal for bikes to leave the space

I can see the difference in the scenario that you outlined above.

That scenario bears no resemblance to the numerous, often contradictory, claims made by Mr. Head.

You are using too literal of an interpretation of what HH means when he says he "ignores bike lane stripes while riding." You are also going a bit overboard assuming that just because he didn't notice the dashed length of some stripes that he is incapable of noticing the dashed length of others. Have some faith in what's being written, especially when it's so trivial. It would do a lot for your character (since what you write here is all that I know about you other than a few visits to your website).