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

you forgot #4, legal for bikes to leave the space

I'm just quoting Zeytoun but I believe #4 (as stated by you) would be captured by #2.

Really? I thought I was in a very small minority in preferring narrow outside lanes in these conditions. Or were you agreeing with something else I said?

I was agreeing with you... I really feel that removing the abiguity of WOL where shareing lanes is a requirement, is more of a "issue" then actually taking a lane especially in the case of narrow lanes in a multiple lane situation, and where it is clearly spelled out that cyclists should take the lane.

I think a large issue with motorists is simple ambiguity... the motorists don't know the rules, don't care and don't understand when one cyclist does one thing and another does something else.

Joejack,

I was posting the CVC definition of intersection as excluding driveways/entrances to malls, etc.

When I made my original post, I was thinking of intersections as the CVC defines them, however, I can't remember if I've used that definition of intersection consistently before that, so I deleted it.

So if we define intersection as the CVC does, then all three follow. If we define it to include driveways, entrances, only 2 and 3 follow.

I was agreeing with you... I really feel that removing the abiguity of WOL where shareing lanes is a requirement, is more of a "issue" then actually taking a lane especially in the case of narrow lanes in a multiple lane situation, and where it is clearly spelled out that cyclists should take the lane.

I think a large issue with motorists is simple ambiguity... the motorists don't know the rules, don't care and don't understand when one cyclist does one thing and another does something else.

Ok, I think I understand you, although I wouldn't mind if you re-read your own first sentence and tried to make it a little clearer. If I remove the word "removing" from that sentence it makes sense but I don't want to be putting words in your mouth, or taking them out in this case.

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

Which means you noticed the pink flamingo in the first place and made that decision. You gotta notice to decide if something is relevant. :D

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?
Again, I'm not a cognitive scientist, but, as I understand it, relevancy, with respect to whether one consciously notices something or not, is determined subconsciously. But there is a feedback loop.

For example, are you fond of a certain type of car? Says it's Mustangs. On your rides, I bet you probably cannot provide an accurate count of the number of, say, Camrys you encountered, but you probably could give an accurate count of the number of Mustangs you encountered. What that means is that your subconscious is programmed, if you will, to notice Mustangs and bring them to the attention of your conscious mind, while it doesn't bother your conscious with the Camrys, so you have no idea if you saw any or not. But that doesn't mean you weren't vaguely aware of the Camrys subconsciously.

Joejack,

I was posting the CVC definition of intersection as excluding driveways/entrances to malls, etc.

When I made my original post, I was thinking of intersections as the CVC defines them, however, I can't remember if I've used that definition of intersection consistently before that, so I deleted it.

So if we define intersection as the CVC does, then all three follow. If we define it to include driveways, entrances, only 2 and 3 follow.

Ok, I've got it now.

For everyone, including me, who has not read the CVC definition of an intersection, here it is:

Intersection
365. An "intersection" is the area embraced within the prolongations of the lateral curb lines, or, if none, then the lateral boundary lines of the roadways, of two highways which join one another at approximately right angles or the area within which vehicles traveling upon different highways joining at any other angle may come in conflict.

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).
Thanks JJ, I was tempted to respond to the sophist again, but now I'm not.

I disagree. He has clarified and re-clarified and re-re-clarified, ad nauseum that he does not pay attention to bike lane stripes because they are irrelevant details in his environment, that he "totally and completely" ignores them, etc.

If I'm using too literal an interpretation Mr. Head has had ample opportunities to state so. He hasn't.

Are you sure you aren't taking the phrase "totally and completely" out of context? In terms of where he rides on the road, I'm sure he "totally and completely" ignores bike lane stripes. In terms of what his eyes see when he's looking at something which happens to be a bike lane stripe, I'm sure he sees the bike lane stripe.


It's incredibly difficult to have faith in what's being written when so much of it is contradictory.

It can be difficult to have a discussion with someone when they have a habit of quoting words out of context.


You assume that I care what you think about my "character".

Point noted.

Which means you noticed the pink flamingo in the first place and made that decision. You gotta notice to decide if something is relevant. :D

I didn't notice that pink flamingo just like I didn't notice the fountain in the middle of the flower bed because it's not going anywhere and thus is irrelevant to my safety while cycling in the road. Now, if kids were playing baseball near the road, I'd probably take notice just in case a ball was struck towards me. I might even look right at the flamingo they are using as third base and still not notice it because it's that irrelevant.

Yes, I didn't know of such lines lines anywhere because I didn't notice them, even on my own commute.
Maybe its just like your VC induced tunnel hearing and tunnel vision when it comes to hearing or seeing any driver miscues as you ride in your VC zone. You apparantly don't hear or see anything that would upset your equilibrium.

Again, I'm not a cognitive scientist, but, as I understand it, relevancy, with respect to whether one consciously notices something or not, is determined subconsciously. But there is a feedback loop.

For example, are you fond of a certain type of car? Says it's Mustangs. On your rides, I bet you probably cannot provide an accurate count of the number of, say, Camrys you encountered, but you probably could give an accurate count of the number of Mustangs you encountered. What that means is that your subconscious is programmed, if you will, to notice Mustangs and bring them to the attention of your conscious mind, while it doesn't bother your conscious with the Camrys, so you have no idea if you saw any or not. But that doesn't mean you weren't vaguely aware of the Camrys subconsciously.
Oy vey!

btw your analogy isn't very good, noticing or not noticing a particular make or model of car isn't required to negotiate traffic, but noticing traffic control devices is. Unless of course you are committing 'civil disobedience' w/r/t the bike lane stripe, in which case I would presume that you are hyperconscious of it, rather than oblivious of it.

Are you sure you aren't taking the phrase "totally and completely" out of context? In terms of where he rides on the road, I'm sure he "totally and completely" ignores bike lane stripes. In terms of what his eyes see when he's looking at something which happens to be a bike lane stripe, I'm sure he sees the bike lane stripe.
Again, it sounds to me more like he is hyperconscious of them, rather than oblivious to them. 'Totally and copletely' ignoring them has more to do with ignoring what they mean from a traffic control perspective.

btw, if Serge really rides the way he claims to ride, he is just pissing motorists off and making it worse for all the rest of the cyclists on the road.

Oy vey!

btw your analogy isn't very good, noticing or not noticing a particular make or model of car isn't required to negotiate traffic, but noticing traffic control devices is. Unless of course you are committing 'civil disobedience' w/r/t the bike lane stripe, in which case I would presume that you are hyperconscious of it, rather than oblivious of it.
I don't think of it as civil disobedience. I believe I understand the intent of the law, and ride accordingly which means deciding where to ride without giving consideration to the presence of the bike lane stripe.

John Forester and Helmet Head,

You were looking for scientific studies that supported bike lanes. I provided one from Portland, which I don't think either of you had seen before. That wasn't good enough, so I pointed out several others, plus several studies that are currently underway. But those aren't good enough either. Well, I'll let you guys stew on it for a while. But it is not what HH said above, "...Nada. Zippo. Nothing excepth the typical sematic sophistry..."

John, if you have taken those studies apart in the past, please do post some of that to support it. We have not been researching if as long as you have, and if it is what you say it is, you may change a few minds.

John

I have long had a copy of my paper The Bikeway Controversy, published in Transportation Quarterly, on my website. Look under Articles, then Facilities, the first listed.

johnforester.com/Articles/Facilities

I have prepared another article containing my two reviews of Pucher's paper Making Bicycling and Walking Safer: Lessons from Europe. However, my web host has been having trouble since last week. Sometimes my website is readable, sometimes not. Same with my incoming email correspondence. At this time I cannot add to my website (and all of my host's phone lines are engaged, meaning lots of trouble). When I can add to my website, the two reviews will be in one article, listed second on the Facilities list.

I don't think of it as civil disobedience. I believe I understand the intent of the law, and ride accordingly which means deciding where to ride without giving consideration to the presence of the bike lane stripe.
Right, exactly the same as a Critical Mass of one.

Again, it sounds to me more like he is hyperconscious of them, rather than oblivious to them. 'Totally and copletely' ignoring them has more to do with ignoring what they mean from a traffic control perspective.

btw, if Serge really rides the way he claims to ride, he is just pissing motorists off and making it worse for all the rest of the cyclists on the road.
I don't know what you're imagining or assuming, but I ride the way I claim I ride, and rarely do motorists give me reason to believe they're pissed off by it. In fact, I rarely do anything that would piss anyone off. What do you think I do that would piss someone off? Look back before merging left and see if anyone will yield for me? Some just blow by me, others choose to let me in. Do you think they feel forced to let me in, and are pissed off by it?

I don't know what you're imagining or assuming, but I ride the way I claim I ride, and rarely do motorists give me reason to believe they're pissed off by it. In fact, I rarely do anything that would piss anyone off. What do you think I do that would piss someone off? Look back before merging left and see if anyone will yield for me? Some just blow by me, others choose to let me in. Do you think they feel forced to let me in, and are pissed off by it?
You've already admitted to not hearing the honks, either. Get a clue, Lou.

Again, it sounds to me more like he is hyperconscious of them, rather than oblivious to them. 'Totally and copletely' ignoring them has more to do with ignoring what they mean from a traffic control perspective.

btw, if Serge really rides the way he claims to ride, he is just pissing motorists off and making it worse for all the rest of the cyclists on the road.

Well, yes, that is only one of the problems produced by bike-lane stripes. When riding properly means riding on the left side of the stripe, yes, motorists get upset because they believe that cyclists should be only on the right side of the stripe. That's one of the many reasons why bike-lane stripes are harmful to cyclists.

The discussion about the type of stripe when approaching intersections has not taken into account the various changes in the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. I think that it has had all three versions: terminated before the intersection, dashed approaching the intersection, and solid approaching the intersection. The solid is, if I recall correctly, the current version, or has been proposed as the next version. As a result, some stripes are done one way, some another way, and different states have different degrees of compliance with MUTCD, or have their own version. What has not been mentioned is the distance required for cyclists to make their proper moves in traffic, which is generally much longer than the distance required for a motorist to prepare for a right turn. That consideration has never been part of the bike-lane stripe supposed thought.

Pete Fagerlin most certainly IS taking my comments out of context. My comments about how bike lane stripes are "totally and completely irrelevant to me" were made in the context of deciding where to ride while I'm riding. The fact that I may notice them anyway, while waiting at a red light perhaps, and notice that the dashed part seems short, just like I may notice an irrelevant pink flamingo anyway, is noting them in a totally different context from the context of "deciding where to ride while I'm riding".

And being "totally and completely irrelevant to me" in terms of deciding where to ride is only referring to the "guidance" aspect bike lane stripes are supposed to have. It doesn't mean I would ignore the paint on a moist morning. Again, different contexts.

You've already admitted to not hearing the honks, either. Get a clue, Lou.
You must be confusing me with someone else. I've never said I don't hear honks.

You must be confusing me with someone else. I've never said I don't hear honks.

No, but you have admitted ignoring them.

Well, yes, that is only one of the problems produced by bike-lane stripes. When riding properly means riding on the left side of the stripe, yes, motorists get upset because they believe that cyclists should be only on the right side of the stripe. That's one of the many reasons why bike-lane stripes are harmful to cyclists.
I've never noticed motorists getting upset when I'm on the left side of the stripe. But I try to make my reasons to be "out there" pretty clear whenever I am out there.


The discussion about the type of stripe when approaching intersections has not taken into account the various changes in the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. I think that it has had all three versions: terminated before the intersection, dashed approaching the intersection, and solid approaching the intersection. The solid is, if I recall correctly, the current version, or has been proposed as the next version. As a result, some stripes are done one way, some another way, and different states have different degrees of compliance with MUTCD, or have their own version.
Per the CA MUTCD, the bike lane is supposed to be terminated 100 feet prior to any intersection, at 200 feet under some circumstances. Using dashed striping for that portion of it is an option that seems to be almost always taken.


What has not been mentioned is the distance required for cyclists to make their proper moves in traffic, which is generally much longer than the distance required for a motorist to prepare for a right turn. That consideration has never been part of the bike-lane stripe supposed thought.
You're right, I've never seen that mentioned, and it's an excellent point.

No, but you have admitted ignoring them.
By "ignoring" honks I think I usually if not always mean (I can't recall every context where I said this right now) not getting upset by it; not letting it bug me. I do try to always acknowledge a honk by looking, smiling, conveying "huh?", nodding, waving, signalling, etc., whatever is appropriate.

You must be confusing me with someone else. I've never said I don't hear honks.
Please don't make someone go find where you did.

By "ignoring" honks I think I usually if not always mean (I can't recall every context where I said this right now) not getting upset by it; not letting it bug me. I do try to always acknowledge a honk by looking, smiling, conveying "huh?", nodding, waving, signalling, etc., whatever is appropriate.
I'd be most interested in knowing when the honks occur.

Ok, I think I understand you, although I wouldn't mind if you re-read your own first sentence and tried to make it a little clearer. If I remove the word "removing" from that sentence it makes sense but I don't want to be putting words in your mouth, or taking them out in this case.

Yeah it does read funny... OK to clairify, what I mean is that a regular wide WOL without BL is usually used by sharing that lane... but that adds ambiguity to the situation... who has ROW, when...?

But a BL gives separate lanes, then introduces other issues.

Narrow lanes remove the other issues, and clarify the abigious issues of a shared lane. Further, you also called for signs that remove any doubt in motorists' minds about whether a cyclist should be in the street at all... and how they may use it. ("Cyclists may use full lane"). BL indicate to motorists that cyclists should be in the street, not the sidewalk... but then BL come loaded with other issues.

Using the narrow lane approach (with a sign), there are no "other issues."

The lack of a sign puts the onus back on the cyclist to defend their use of the street to ill informed motorists. (get on the sidewalk... no, I have rights to the street... sigh... )

The narrow lane puts all the traffic (bike and car alike) on the same footing. Adding the sign tells the motorist what is what. My biggest reason for BL is simply that they do indicate that cyclists should be using the road, just like motorists... and since nothing else tells motorists that cyclists have rights to the road, then something has to inform motorists that we don't belong on the sidewalk. (motorists barely read drivers' handbooks... so that doesn't work... and motorists generally don't recall ever having been told that cyclists have rights to the road.... so signs, in lieu of stripes, work for me)

Lastly the biggest advantage of using the narrow lane concept is that a cyclist would actually have more room on the road in a fast multilane situation. With a BL, a cyclist has about some 5 feet to rattle around in... and the fast motor traffic is very close to that outside elbow. Give me some 9-10 foot "narrow lane" and I have several feet to rattle around in; and if I center myself in that lane, that means that my elbow is about 2-3 feet from the edge of my lane, and likely about 5 feet from the nearest fast car.

Now the trick is getting motor traffic to buy in... to believe the sign, (cyclists may use full lane) and to give the cyclist that entire lane.

By "ignoring" honks I think I usually if not always mean (I can't recall every context where I said this right now) not getting upset by it; not letting it bug me. I do try to always acknowledge a honk by looking, smiling, conveying "huh?", nodding, waving, signalling, etc., whatever is appropriate.

Yeah but at the same time you are letting a confused motorist carry on with their beliefs that you are in the wrong place... and that doesn't do the world of cyclists any good.

Serge, you're having issues with communication again, aren't you? You had ample opportunities to clarify what you were trying to communicate, yet you ignored (pun intended) those opportunities.
No need to clarify when JoeJack already did. If he can understand the meaning, why can't you? Oh, that's right, you're a sophist playing games by intentionally taking statements out of context.


That's a pattern that I've noticed.
When you intentionally take statements out of context you can notice all sorts of meaningless patterns. Wow, I'm impressed. :rolleyes:

Yeah it does read funny... OK to clairify, what I mean is that a regular wide WOL without BL is usually used by sharing that lane... but that adds ambiguity to the situation... who has ROW, when...?

But a BL gives separate lanes, then introduces other issues.

Maybe we are thinking of ROW in two different ways. ROW means yielding to someone who's occupying space first (in a very general sense). In a wide outside lane, the cyclist who off to the side is not occupying space that the motorist needs so there is no ROW confusion. The only concern is if the cyclist decides to change his position. The WOL makes the cyclist's expected position a little more ambiguous than in a bike lane (I consider this a good thing as an ambiguous position affords more freedom for the cyclist and more concern on the part of a motorist. At intersections, a WOL will do nothing to help with the motorist dead set on getting to the intersection before the cyclist and turning in front of him, but it does help out the average motorist by making it very clear that it's ok to merge fully to the right as they normally would to make their turn. Certain motorists are easily confused (all humans are at some time depending on the topic at hand) and a solid stripe along with "bikes only" signage certainly contributes to that.

My preference for NOL with frequent intersections is simply to reduce the amount of negotiating I need to do while effectively using the space provided. Limiting the space means that I can't do anything but sit in the middle of the lane so this is easier for me. With widely spaced intersections, merges become less frequent and thus less time consuming so I'm ok with being in a position that will require a merge eventually.


Narrow lanes remove the other issues, and clarify the abigious issues of a shared lane. Further, you also called for signs that remove any doubt in motorists' minds about whether a cyclist should be in the street at all... and how they may use it. ("Cyclists may use full lane"). BL indicate to motorists that cyclists should be in the street, not the sidewalk... but then BL come loaded with other issues.

Using the narrow lane approach (with a sign), there are no "other issues."

The lack of a sign puts the onus back on the cyclist to defend their use of the street to ill informed motorists. (get on the sidewalk... no, I have rights to the street... sigh... )

The narrow lane puts all the traffic (bike and car alike) on the same footing. Adding the sign tells the motorist what is what. My biggest reason for BL is simply that they do indicate that cyclists should be using the road, just like motorists... and since nothing else tells motorists that cyclists have rights to the road, then something has to inform motorists that we don't belong on the sidewalk. (motorists barely read drivers' handbooks... so that doesn't work... and motorists generally don't recall ever having been told that cyclists have rights to the road.... so signs, in lieu of stripes, work for me)

Lastly the biggest advantage of using the narrow lane concept is that a cyclist would actually have more room on the road in a fast multilane situation. With a BL, a cyclist has about some 5 feet to rattle around in... and the fast motor traffic is very close to that outside elbow. Give me some 9-10 foot "narrow lane" and I have several feet to rattle around in; and if I center myself in that lane, that means that my elbow is about 2-3 feet from the edge of my lane, and likely about 5 feet from the nearest fast car.

Now the trick is getting motor traffic to buy in... to believe the sign, (cyclists may use full lane) and to give the cyclist that entire lane.

My trick for getting motor traffic to buy in was using the lane like I belonged in it. This means no further right than the right tire track and more often being in the left tire track. Any slight change of position I might make to the right would still leave me in a position when it's perfectly clear that a motorist cannot use the same lane. I'd love a commute with all roads like this, instead of a choice between narrow, single lane roads that occassionally widen at intersections or multilane high speed roads with frequent intersections and shoulders of varying width (that are often interupted by right turn lanes).

Yeah but at the same time you are letting a confused motorist carry on with their beliefs that you are in the wrong place... and that doesn't do the world of cyclists any good.
What do you suggest I do instead? Capitulate to the honking? Does that do any good for the cyclists?

If you're talking about having a chat, i have done that. Last time a cop took care of it for me :) .

My experience with WOLs is that (1) they encourage motorists to drive too fast and (2) motorists frequently don't care to 'share' a WOL with cyclists and consequently they pass too closely and/or too aggressively.

I'd be most interested in knowing when the honks occur.
The last time I was honked at was in March, and I wrote about it here:

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=280800

About a year ago I was honked at by a guy in a car in his mid 40s. I caught up with him at a light. He reluctantly opened his window and asked why I wasn't further right. I explained to him about the door zone, especially at 30 mph (it's a slight downhill). He seemed satisfied.

Another guy honked at me also about a year ago on the same block going the opposite direction. He changed lanes and passed. I caught up with him too, but I don't remember that conversation, but I recall he seemed to acknowledge he was out of line. I think emailed Gene about that one (it was eastbound LJ Village Drive).

Part of my commute requires a non-intuitive early left merge. See map (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=Calle+Juela+at+Torrey+Pines+Rd+to+Torrey+Pines+Rd+%26+Ardath+Lane,+92037&sll=32.850344,-117.25347&sspn=0.003835,0.00508&ie=UTF8&ll=32.850326,-117.252874&spn=0.003835,0.00508&t=h&z=18&om=1). What most (all other?) cyclists do is stay on Torrey Pines Rd eastbound until after the intersection with La Jolla Shores. I always merge out of the bike lane and into the left lane well before I get to that intersection. If you stay right at that point, the merge left later is much harder (it's late, it's a slight uphill, you're trying to get folks who are accelerating from a red light to slow down for you, etc.). Earlier it's all downhill, you're going 25-35, there are gaps, traffic is often slowing for a red light, etc. Anyway, one time a couple of years ago I did that, as usual, and some old lady honked at me. I know I corresponded with Gene about that one, either here or email. I smiled and waived back. I never got a chance to talk to her.

For the last couple of years that's about it. I might have forgotten a couple of other incidents, but those are all the most major ones. I think the last time I got honked at by a bus driver was over three years ago, but I seem to encounter at least one on every commute.

Oh, I'm not counting honks at the peloton on weekend rides. We do get those once in a while. Usually surfers razzing us.

Please don't make someone go find where you did.

Exactly, I clearly remember a discussion where HH said in VERY certain terms that he does not hear honks all the time, so maybe that is why he feels he is treated better on the road than he may really be - paraphased of course, I am not going to hunt for the exact quote. Just sufice it to say that we remember your contradictions VERY well HH, even though you choose to selectivley forget whatever does not fit your current argument. :rolleyes:

Serge, you can wave your virtual hands around and repeat "out of context" all you want but the fact remains that you continue to contradict yourself. In the process, you open yourself to valid criticisms about your actual cycling practices, as opposed you your claimed cycling practices.
Sophistic nonsense.

Exactly, I clearly remember a discussion where HH said in VERY certain terms that he does not hear honks all the time, so maybe that is why he feels he is treated better on the road than he may really be - paraphased of course, I am not going to hunt for the exact quote. Just sufice it to say that we remember your contradictions VERY well HH, even though you choose to selectivley forget whatever does not fit your current argument. :rolleyes:
That makes no sense. How could someone know he didn't hear a honk if he didn't hear it?

That makes no sense. How could someone know he didn't hear a honk if he didn't hear it?
that's easy - the same way someone can know he didn't see the bike lane stripe when he didn't see it.

That makes no sense. How could someone know he didn't hear a honk if he didn't hear it?

Well, I'm just recalling what you wrote man, but then again, a lot of what you write makes no sense :roflmao:

no sense = nonsense

Well, I'm just recalling what you wrote man, but then again, a lot of what you write makes no sense :roflmao:
If something I write doesn't make sense to you, doesn't mean it doesn't make sense.

All concepts get conveyed in writing through two interpretation processes like this:


[Concept in writer's mind] -> (translation into written word) -> [written word] -> (translation into read word) -> [concept in reader's mind]

Therefore, there are two points of possible error due to translation that can lead to misunderstanding, and stuff "not making sense".

Plus, the kind of stuff we talk about here is often not effectively conveyed through written English, but that's pretty much all we've got.

Anyway, if something that I write truly doesn't make sense to you (or anyone else), please let me know. If I miss it, please PM me.

My experience with WOLs is that (1) they encourage motorists to drive too fast and (2) motorists frequently don't care to 'share' a WOL with cyclists and consequently they pass too closely and/or too aggressively.

#2 seems to be in direct contradiction to what the UT bike lane study showed.

I'd be interested in seeing a comparison of motorists' speeds and distance when passing cyclists in a WOL or in a bike lane.

#2 seems to be in direct contradiction to what the UT bike lane study showed.

I'd be interested in seeing a comparison of motorists' speeds and distance when passing cyclists in a WOL or in a bike lane.
Do you mean TX?

Well, there was this:


All I can hear is road and wind noise... no honking (but I believe you!)
But he wasn't riding his bicycle at the time (I assume/hope) ;)

Let me guess, another one of those bike lanes where you simply never paid attention to the striping, despite having to notice it to make sure of your position on the roadway.
Sophistic nonsense again.

Yes, I never pay attention to the striping in order to determine where to ride, but I'm aware that I often happen to be in the bike lane there because the space the stripe demarcates is the appropriate place to be in the presence of high speed traffic. But I couldn't tell ya if the stripe is dashed or solid off hand.

But I couldn't tell ya if the stripe is dashed or solid off hand.
Fair enough.

About how many bike lanes did you measure by the way?
Was there any guiding factor in determining which ones you measured?

Well, there was this:


But he wasn't riding his bicycle at the time (I assume/hope) ;)
:rolleyes:

I was watching/listening Al's video clip at my desk.

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?p=3980883&highlight=All+I+can+hear+is+road+wind+noise#post3980883

But he wasn't riding his bicycle at the time (I assume/hope)

at my desk
whew!

Fair enough.

About how many bike lanes did you measure by the way?
Was there any guiding factor in determining which ones you measured?
It was a while ago, when I first learned about the 200' law. The measurements were "rough" guesstimates, but good enough to determine if it was below 100 feet or not. It was at 2 or 3 places on my commute, including at Regents and Executive (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=La+Jolla+Village+Dr+%26+Regents+Rd,+San+Diego,+CA&sll=32.841796,-117.269474&sspn=0.007671,0.01016&ie=UTF8&ll=32.874604,-117.218341&spn=0.001917,0.00254&t=h&z=19&om=1).

The only "guiding factor" was noticing (for those who need context clarified every time, despite its irrelevance to where I positioned myself while riding) that the dashed section seemed well short of 200'.

Maybe we are thinking of ROW in two different ways. ROW means yielding to someone who's occupying space first (in a very general sense). In a wide outside lane, the cyclist who off to the side is not occupying space that the motorist needs so there is no ROW confusion. The only concern is if the cyclist decides to change his position. The WOL makes the cyclist's expected position a little more ambiguous than in a bike lane (I consider this a good thing as an ambiguous position affords more freedom for the cyclist and more concern on the part of a motorist.

Provided the motorist has any concern, and is not just flat out irritated by "the cyclist." WOL work well when motorists are paying attention and when they actually care. They work very poorly when the motorist is busy on a cell phone and frankly doesn't give a hoot about some cyclist. Plus there is the issue of constantly negotiating for position... remember, we are talking fast roads here... so you spend a minute next to one motorist, then another one comes along and they play the guessing game about where they are supposed to be... and then another one comes along... You might be riding fast straight and precise in the lane and never swerve one bit, but each motorist comes along and plays a little bit with the space...



At intersections, a WOL will do nothing to help with the motorist dead set on getting to the intersection before the cyclist and turning in front of him, but it does help out the average motorist by making it very clear that it's ok to merge fully to the right as they normally would to make their turn. Certain motorists are easily confused (all humans are at some time depending on the topic at hand) and a solid stripe along with "bikes only" signage certainly contributes to that.


Exactly... So the WOL has "issues" too.




My preference for NOL with frequent intersections is simply to reduce the amount of negotiating I need to do while effectively using the space provided. Limiting the space means that I can't do anything but sit in the middle of the lane so this is easier for me. With widely spaced intersections, merges become less frequent and thus less time consuming so I'm ok with being in a position that will require a merge eventually.

My trick for getting motor traffic to buy in was using the lane like I belonged in it. This means no further right than the right tire track and more often being in the left tire track. Any slight change of position I might make to the right would still leave me in a position when it's perfectly clear that a motorist cannot use the same lane. I'd love a commute with all roads like this, instead of a choice between narrow, single lane roads that occassionally widen at intersections or multilane high speed roads with frequent intersections and shoulders of varying width (that are often interupted by right turn lanes).

Yeah I play that game too... but there are motorists that feel that my presence on "their road" should just not be... and they crowd, rev, honk, yell... etc. All doing things other than simply drive. I have even had motorists team in on me because I was using "their lane... " in a place where there was simply no other choice but the sidewalk... that is why I like the idea of the signs... it removes that last bit of ambiguity.

While it should be clear to a motorist that I am in the right place when I am centered in the lane... often enough it apparently does not get through... and frankly I am tired of putting on the "alpha dog." It just should not be a requirement to ride a bike to have to "cop an attitude."

Yeah I can put that attitude hat on and ride that way... but not everyone can... and there is no such requirement to drive a car... so pi$$ on that whole idea... one should be able to ride a bike with no more "attitude" than it takes to drive a car. Period.

What do you suggest I do instead? Capitulate to the honking? Does that do any good for the cyclists?

If you're talking about having a chat, i have done that. Last time a cop took care of it for me :) .

Yup, have that chat.

Funny in all my years of cycling a cop has never happened to be right there "right then."

Have chatted with a few cops over the years... but usually because they pulled me over. Never more than a conversation though. :D