Vehicular Cycling (VC) - VC and bike lanes are not mutually exclusive

yes. and if so called 'vehiclular cyclists' don't know HOW to ride in a bike lane in a vehicular manner when it is appropriate to do so, i seriously doubt the abilities of said 'vehicular cyclist'.

where does a vehicular cyclist ride this road? speed and destination position for thru travel puts the bicyclist riding vehicularily in the bike lane. if you high and mighty foresterite vcists don't understand how to ride bike lanes not in conflict with speed and destination positioning on arterial roads, i wonder about your abilities.

As usual, you show only one small section of a bike lane and declare the whole thing perfect. Move back a few hundred feet on that road and show were the right turn only lane starts. I can almost guarantee you that there is no merge area where bike traffic and other traffic mix then move into their destination lanes. Most likely, the bike lane simply becomes dashed at a small section where motorists are told to cross the bike lane and cyclists are left to assume that they'll be yielded to.

If I was riding that road and starting from the bike lane, I'd merge left into the straight lane before the right turn only lane started then depending on the speed of traffic, I may or may not move back right into the bike lane (not every motorist is smart enough to turn from the turn lane and I don't want to be next to that person going through the intersection if I can help it).

yes. and if so called 'vehiclular cyclists' don't know HOW to ride in a bike lane in a vehicular manner when it is appropriate to do so, i seriously doubt the abilities of said 'vehicular cyclist'.

where does a vehicular cyclist ride this road? speed and destination position for thru travel puts the bicyclist riding vehicularily in the bike lane. if you high and mighty foresterite vcists don't understand how to ride bike lanes not in conflict with speed and destination positioning on arterial roads, i wonder about your abilities.

Bekologist: You keep on presenting the same irrelevant argument. We all agree that a highly competent traffic cyclist can, at least at the second time through, figure out how to ride through the worst designed bike lane mess. That has never been a point at issue. The fact that you cannot understand this point demonstrates a great deal about your mental state, either weak in reasoning or obscured by ideology, or both.

As for the pictures that you show, I don't know where I would be riding because there is insufficient information about destination and traffic.

Furthermore, you fail to consider any of the difficulties that are probably involved. How the path from the curb bicycle lane through to the mid-traffic bicycle lane is marked is a very important point. What is done for left-turning cyclists is another.

In short, your posting is just another waste of time and thought.

sorry, john, it's NOT IRRELEVANT.


I don't fail to consider any of the difficulties involved. Bike specific infrastructure can be used by a whole range of skilled bicyclists while following the rules of the road, and can make high speed arterial roads more pleasant for even the most experienced vehicular cyclist.

vehicular cyclists can ride in bike lanes in a vehicular manner. vc and bike lanes are not mutually exclusive.

perhaps this is so fundamentally true, you need to criticize me personally for mentioning it. Nice one!

sorry, john, it's NOT IRRELEVANT.


I don't fail to consider any of the difficulties involved. Bike specific infrastructure can be used by a whole range of skilled bicyclists while following the rules of the road, and can make high speed arterial roads more pleasant for even the most experienced vehicular cyclist.

vehicular cyclists can ride in bike lanes in a vehicular manner. vc and bike lanes are not mutually exclusive.

perhaps this is so fundamentally true, you need to criticize me personally for mentioning it. Nice one!

This has descended to the silly stage. I think that I recognize Bekologist's purpose. That is, to quell the opposition against bike lanes by vehicular cyclists. However, Bekologist has stated his case in an illogical manner, by claiming that since vehicular cyclists can ride in bike lanes there should be no difference in opinion. That argument does not hold, for two reasons.

The first reason is that I think a large proportion of those on this list recognize that if a vehicular cyclist is operating in a city with a bike-lane system and on a road with a bike lane, that cyclist will sometimes occupy bike-lane space and sometimes will occupy space outside the bike lane. In other words, bike lanes sometimes reflect correct cycling practice and sometimes do not, and the times and locations often cannot be known by the traffic engineer while planning the bike lane. At the locations and times when vehicular cycling practice directs the cyclist outside the bike lane, the bike lane and vehicular cycling practice are mutually exclusive.

The second reason is that the theoretical basis for each of the two systems, bike lanes and vehicular cycling, are entirely different and are opposed. Vehicular cycling allows all drivers, including cyclists, the use of the full width of the roadway according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. And this is the way it really is. On the other hand, bike-lane theory says that this narrow strip at the edge of the roadway (generally) is assigned to cyclists while the rest of the roadway is assigned to motorists. This is directly contrary to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, and, because it is, and for other practical reasons also, it is false because its principle has to be frequently violated. We all know this.

The interesting question concerns the motivation for the bike-way superstition; why would anyone advocate such a contradiction to safe driving practice? The superstition that cyclists should always stay at the edge of the road was promoted by the motoring establishment, with its side-of-the-road laws, under the guise of cyclist safety. That superstition was subsequently institutionalized by the same motoring establishment in the form of bike lanes, a cyclist-inferiority form of discrimination that was accepted by the community at large (though it was opposed by vehicular cyclists) because the community accepted the superstition that only the edge of the roadway was safe for cyclists and riding in accordance with the normal traffic rules was very dangerous; and, it must also be recognized, because motorists thought it made motoring more convenient.

Nowadays, the motoring establishment doesn't have to lobby for protection against cyclists, because the anti-motorists do all of the political effort that is needed (though, of course, motorists do the paying). The anti-motoring bikeway promoters aim to significantly reduce motoring by persuading motorists to take up bicycle transportation. The anti-motoring bikeway promoters originally based their arguments on the motorists' ideas that staying at the edge of the roadway made cycling safe, and that cyclists were too incompetent to operate according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. However, they have lately avoided these arguments because these arguments have never been found correct by scientific investigation. Instead, the anti-motoring bikeway promoters have descended to the far less significant criterion of feelings of comfort by new cyclists.

This new criterion raises three new questions.

1) Does the comfort of new cyclists justify upsetting the orderly operation of road traffic? We do not produce special lanes for new motorists, and for very good reasons. In fact, we do not produce special highway features or highway facilities for the comfort of new motorists, expecting that they will rather rapidly become comfortable when operating in traffic. Anti-motoring bikeway advocates argue that there is an overriding importance to persuading motorists to switch to bicycle transportation; well, that's their opinion. So far as the rest of society is concerned, it has done little to persuade motorists to switch to bicycle transportation. That minuscule amount of effort demonstrates that most people do not believe that there is an overriding importance to persuading motorists to switch to bicycle transportation.

2) Even if the argument by the anti-motoring bikeway advocates had some validity, do bike lanes create the transportationally significant switch in American conditions from motoring to bicycle transportation that these advocates desire? So far there has been no evidence to support this claim.

3) The anti-motoring bikeway advocates have reduced their formal claims of bikeway superiority to the one of comfort for new cyclists. Well, the statement of increased comfort produced by a bike-lane stripe is easily elicited from new cyclists. However, there is no evidence of any physical reason for this increased comfort; it is purely psychological. Judging from the small amount of research in this field, this feeling is produced by beliefs associated with the cyclist-inferiority superstition. That is, the bike-lane stripe makes cycling much safer and the bike-lane stripe reduces the need for traffic-cycling skill. In short, while the modern advocates have given up what are obviously false claims, they still trade on the popular superstition that those claims are valid.

Bekologist is just one more of those presenting anti-motoring bikeway advocacy, with the additional limitation of logical powers that are not really noticeable.

vc and bike lanes are not mutually exclusive.

This is so true and you say it over and over again. Why doesn't it sink in?

john, your state of denial is astounding.

Bek, I too find myself astounded at the state of denial that I'm consider in.

Cities around the world have increased bicycling by the implementation of bike infrastructure. There IS proof, it is WIDELY, just shy of UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED (except by foresterite obstructionists) that increasing bike infrastruture increases bicycling.

Take a look at Copehagen, London, Victoria, Portland. bike infrastructure has increased bicycling in those cities. Bicyclists on Londons' arterials is up 83 percent since 2000, encouraged by the cities huge investments in bicycling infrastructure. Other cities around the world show similar results from infrastructure.

Vehicular cyclists can ride in bike lanes. bike lanes can make high speed arterials more rideable by competant riders, whose experience and comfort levels range widely, while following the rules of the road. Where there are bike lanes, bicyclists are free to leave the lanes approaching turns or when hazards ahead condition leaving the bike lanes. those exemptions are codified into the rules of the road.

bike infrastructure can be ridden by vehicular cyclists in a vehicular manner; vehicular cycling and bike infrastructure are not mutually exclusive. Bike infrastructure can be implemented that encourages and meshes with vehicular cycling.

Vehicular cycling and bike lanes are not mutually exclusive, except dogmatically. vehicular cyclists can ride in bike lanes.

Bek-

Why are you against eliminating all bike lane striping (but not the pavement width) 200' before all intersections unless there is an additive RTOL?

If you issue is with the 200' vs. a different distance - that is a more specific discussion, but I am more interested in if you support the general rule to end the stripe before all intersections, and if not, why?

Al

Al, we've discussed this before. I find your insistence in the 200 foot rule over the top. bike lanes accomodate low volume driveways and minor intersections quite well with minimal changes to the striping or none at all for residential driveways. Drivers are required to yield to traffic when entering superior roads.

I see many, many, many intersections that are accomodated quite well with minor modifications to the bike lane stripe; 200 feet before all intersections is a paranoid, over the top, obsessive obstructionist stance regarding bike infrastructure.

you need to qualify your obsessive fear of painted lines on the roads.

Al, we've discussed this before. I find your insistence in the 200 foot rule over the top. bike lanes accomodate low volume driveways and minor intersections quite well with minimal changes to the striping or none at all for residential driveways. Drivers are required to yield to traffic when entering superior roads.

I see many, many, many intersections that are accomodated quite well with minor modifications to the bike lane stripe; 200 feet before all intersections is a paranoid, over the top, obsessive obstructionist stance regarding bike infrastructure.

you need to qualify your obsessive fear of painted lines on the roads.
How is it over the top? What is he negative of removing the stripe? I can only see the positive.

(I'd like serious discussion, not calling an idea paranoid for no reasons given, while the insitence of keeping the stripe could just as well be called paranoid. Also saying accomidate doesn't convince, as having no stripe accomidates just as well if not better.)

Al

How is it over the top? What is he negative of removing the stripe? I can only see the positive.

(I'd like serious discussion, not calling an idea paranoid for no reasons given, while the insitence of keeping the stripe could just as well be called paranoid. Also saying accomidate doesn't convince, as having no stripe accomidates just as well if not better.)

Al

200 feet is quite a lot of space... some 10 car lengths.

200 feet is quite a lot of space... some 10 car lengths.
It is a very short length when merging into traffic. I sometimes start my merge 400', sometimes 100'. 200' to me was a good middle ground.

Al

its over the top, al. If you insist a bike lane stripe needs to end 200 feet before ALL intersections, you are fearmongering.

Hardly, I'm just being practical and looking for compromise between stripe everything vs. nothing.

Al

you'll need more compromise of your unrealistic point of view before you find that elusive middle ground.

according to the 'rules of the road', which f. vehicularists insist drivers follow admirably well, that cars are not allowed to right hook other vehicles. additionally, cars are required to yield to traffic before entering roadways.


different types of intersections would have different treatments regarding the bike lane stripes.
Al, at many minor intersections, a bicyclist approaches the intersection and HAS NO NEED WHATSOVER TO MERGE INTO THE LANE FURTHER LEFT.

and bonafide traffic engineers (which john forester is NOT one, btw) are working on improving bike infrastructure that takes into consideration turning traffic, intersections and driveways.

Al, at many minor intersections, a bicyclist approaches the intersection and HAS NO NEED WHATSOVER TO MERGE INTO THE LANE FURTHER LEFT.
Thats what I thought until I was close right hooked at a minor intersection by a driver that gave no clues otherwise they were going to suddenly turn.

The point is not this example, it is that all possible right turns will be turned into whether major or minor. Any one driver may turn at any point. Some minor intersections become major at different times of the day or week (think church parking lot entrance sunday morning, there are many other examples)

The ending stripe is not just about the cylclist merging left. It also is a clue (one of many of course) that intersection is ahead. It also allows the motorist to legally merge to rightmost position before turning.

Al

and al, that driver was not following the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. get over your stripe-itis. 200 feet for a church driveway? :eek: Whassup?

Getting back to my original point,

Bike specific infrastructure can be used by a whole range of skilled bicyclists while following the rules of the road, and can make high speed arterial roads more pleasant for even the most experienced vehicular cyclist.

vehicular cyclists can ride in bike lanes in a vehicular manner. vc and bike lanes are not mutually exclusive.

different types of intersections would have different treatments regarding the bike lane stripes. Al, at many minor intersections, a bicyclist approaches the intersection and HAS NO NEED WHATSOVER TO MERGE INTO THE LANE FURTHER LEFT.

Now there's a statement that shows just how little you are willing to compromise or to think outside of your tiny bike lane box. How do you know what is going on around that minor intersection that might affect the cyclist? Don't you think the cyclist at that place and time is better qualified to make the decision of when they should move left and when not than you are sitting at your desk? Why should a bike lane stripe be placed on the road setting the expectation that no matter what is going on the cyclist should stay to the right?

joe, bicyclists are allowed to leave a bike lane when necessary, and not be in violation of any rules of the road.

vehicular cycling and bike lane stripes are not mutually exclusive. riding past a minor intersection, and keeping as far right as is warranted by the bicyclist, can often occur entirely within the bike lane stripes.

you obstructionists are really doing bicycling populism a disservice in this country. get over your stripe-itis. vehicular bicyclists can ride in bike lanes.

Cities around the world have increased bicycling by the implementation of bike infrastructure. There IS proof, it is WIDELY, just shy of UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED (except by foresterite obstructionists) that increasing bike infrastruture increases bicycling.

Take a look at Copehagen, London, Victoria, Portland. bike infrastructure has increased bicycling in those cities. Bicyclists on Londons' arterials is up 83 percent since 2000, encouraged by the cities huge investments in bicycling infrastructure. Other cities around the world show similar results from infrastructure.

Vehicular cyclists can ride in bike lanes. bike lanes can make high speed arterials more rideable by competant riders, whose experience and comfort levels range widely, while following the rules of the road. Where there are bike lanes, bicyclists are free to leave the lanes approaching turns or when hazards ahead condition leaving the bike lanes. those exemptions are codified into the rules of the road.

Getting back to my original point,

The placement (or not) of BL stripes at intersections approaches are a key part (but of course not the only) to what degree one can cycle vehicularly and use BLs.
Al

Cities around the world have increased bicycling by the implementation of bike infrastructure. There IS proof, it is WIDELY, just shy of UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED (except by foresterite obstructionists) that increasing bike infrastruture increases bicycling.

Take a look at Copehagen, London, Victoria, Portland. bike infrastructure has increased bicycling in those cities. Bicyclists on Londons' arterials is up 83 percent since 2000, encouraged by the cities huge investments in bicycling infrastructure. Other cities around the world show similar results from infrastructure.

Vehicular cyclists can ride in bike lanes. bike lanes can make high speed arterials more rideable by competant riders, whose experience and comfort levels range widely, while following the rules of the road. Where there are bike lanes, bicyclists are free to leave the lanes approaching turns or when hazards ahead condition leaving the bike lanes. those exemptions are codified into the rules of the road.

bike infrastructure can be ridden by vehicular cyclists in a vehicular manner; vehicular cycling and bike infrastructure are not mutually exclusive. Bike infrastructure can be implemented that encourages and meshes with vehicular cycling.

Vehicular cycling and bike lanes are not mutually exclusive, except dogmatically. vehicular cyclists can ride in bike lanes.

Bekologist, you have your faith that bikeways are a very strong factor for increasing cycling and decreasing motoring, and you are always arguing for your faith, but using poor arguments, some of which are illogical and some of which are factually erroneous, that you keep repeating time after time. There is no point in reading your material for information, only to try to reduce the harm that you are doing to the discussion.

joe, bicyclists are allowed to leave a bike lane when necessary, and not be in violation of any rules of the road.

vehicular cycling and bike lane stripes are not mutually exclusive. riding past a minor intersection, and keeping as far right as is warranted by the bicyclist, can often occur entirely within the bike lane stripes.

you obstructionists are really doing bicycling populism a disservice in this country. get over your stripe-itis. vehicular bicyclists can ride in bike lanes.

Bek, sure I can leave the bike lane if I wish to, and not be in violation of any road rules, except one, the motorists', since motorists can be much more "territorial" when you venture over that outside BL stripe. To some, bike lanes may put more "butts on bikes", add more comfort to some cyclists in some situations, but BL's from my observations are just a form of segregation, locking me into certain road positions versus being able to be more flexible with motorists as when a BL is not present.

When officially presented in the form of bikeways, it presents the official view of reducing cyclists from the position of drivers of vehicles to beings of inferior status and capability, who do not really belong on the road with the other drivers but need to be kept in a lane of their own.

Bumping a long dead thread....

This is the part of the "anti bike lane" argument that I don't understand.* There is an conflation of "status" and "capability" when discussing cars and bicycles that seems hypersensitive to me. First of all, I hate to break it to everyone, but bicycles ARE vehicles of inferior capability. They are slower, and they provide less protection to their operators in a crash. They place certain demands on the operator (in terms of physical fitness) that cars do not. (Of course, in some ways they are superior: they are also narrower, and do not require as much space as motor vehicles.) Recognizing these facts does not make them "lower status" vehicles any more than a pedestrian on a sidewalk is lower status than a car on a freeway. Each mode of transportation is being conducted in its proper element. There seems to be a reluctance to acknowledge the fact that a bicycle is not the same as a car. The semantic wordplay that they are both "vehicles" settles nothing.... a Stealth bomber and a tricycle are also both vehicles, but we don't suggest that they be operated using the same facilities.

That is not to say that bicycles and cars cannot be operated together in some existing facilities (provided the cyclist knows what they are doing, ie is more or less VC). But learning to be VC is a big psychological jump for some people.... and a well designed bike lane says "this is OK. You can do this".

Provided that a bike lane is properly designed, and provided that riders thereof understand that riding in a bike lane does not obviate the need to interact with and be cognizant of motor vehicles sometimes (ie at intersections), I'm not sure I understand the opposition to bike lanes. I would suspect that they do a lot of good in getting people out of their cars. And even if they don't what harm do they do? If the main problem with bike lanes is that they make VCers feel inferior, maybe the bike lanes aren't the problem.

*obviously, a painted bike lane that invites a newbie to ride in door zone or stay right when heading straight through an intersection is a bad idea. You are inviting the hapless newbie to ride right into a meat grinder and that's unconscionable. I'm talking about well-designed, reasonably safe bike lanes.

Why do they feel more comfortable? The road is just as smooth outside the bike-lane stripe as inside it. So far as I can understand the situation from what I have read, two reasons are usually given for this "comfort". One is safety, the other is legitimacy. And they are both false, being products of the cyclist-inferiority superstition. That's the problem of bicycle transportation in America.

This sounds like fragile self-esteem to me, that bicyclists see that painted stripe as a badge of their inferiority. I see it as a simple reflection that my vehicle has much lesser capabilities than most of the other vehicles on the road, and that a seperate facility is often appropriate. (if traffic is slow enough that my speed difference with cars is negligable, that's a different matter).

It IS illegitimate to be the slowest car on the freeway if you are in the fast lane. It IS illegitimate to travel 35mph slower than the customary speed of traffic in the right lane. When you are that much slower than everyone else, you aren't "traffic" anymore, you're an obstacle. That seems self-evident to me.

Bek, sure I can leave the bike lane if I wish to, and not be in violation of any road rules, except one, the motorists', since motorists can be much more "territorial" when you venture over that outside BL stripe. To some, bike lanes may put more "butts on bikes", add more comfort to some cyclists in some situations, but BL's from my observations are just a form of segregation, locking me into certain road positions versus being able to be more flexible with motorists as when a BL is not present.

This is a thought provoking counter-argument. A well designed bike lane sends a comforting message to the newb cyclists... but also sends a message to the car drivers which may affect their behaviour in ways that are not safe for cyclists: "you don't need to be bothered watching for bicycles. They will stay out of your way behind that stripe. In fact, that is where they belong". Motorists very strongly trust that "what's on the other side of the stripe doesn't matter"... that lines act as force fields..... they have to believe this because they will drive within six feet of oncoming semis at closing speeds of 100mph plus. The only thing between them and death is a little yellow stripe on the road. If they are willing to close pass an oncoming semi then they are definitely willing to close-pass a cyclist riding on the left edge of a bike lane....OTOH if there's no line there to provide an "invisible force field" then the motorist might have to actually pay attention to how closely they are passing you.

This is a problem because there is not a bike lane on this earth that a cyclist will not need to leave at some point for safety, and the motorist may be resentful and surprised when this happens (neither of which are good).

The bike lane does also send an unfortunate message to newb cyclists: "just ride in the bike lane and you'll be fine... no skill or judgement required". When combined with crappy bike lanes, that's dangerous.

Sorry for the multiple posts, I'm new to the debate and thinking out loud, trying to find the middle ground.

Many shades of cyclist between "'incompetent' beginners and 'skilled' vehicular cyclists"? If you can ride according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles you are a vehicular cyclist. If you do not have that ability, you are incompetent. It's that simple. There are no "shades" between these two conditions.


This is not really true. It is quite possible for a competent VCer to simply not ENJOY sharing a road with SUVs travelling at 40-50mph. Others don't mind. A 20mph bicycle in a lane normally used by 50mph vehicles is not "traffic", it is an impediment to traffic.... some VCers are reluctant to be such an imposition, others are not (some actively enjoy it).

I'm not afraid of slow moving cars, I'm more maneuverable than they are if one of them should make a mistake (and yes, drivers make mistakes all the time, otherwise there would be no car accidents). If one of them makes a mistake at 50mph my maneuverability counts for nothing, regardless of my competence.

...It IS illegitimate to be the slowest car on the freeway if you are in the fast lane. ...

I mean this in a nice way, post the law or your wrong.

The whole fast lane/slow lane thing is like so last generation, I believe all the states have done away with those laws, its definitely not in the UVC. There is a major problem with the general publics knowledge of the laws not to mention lack of knowledge of what is safe and what is not safe for a cyclist.

This is a thought provoking counter-argument. A well designed bike lane sends a comforting message to the newb cyclists... but also sends a message to the car drivers which may affect their behaviour in ways that are not safe for cyclists: "you don't need to be bothered watching for bicycles. They will stay out of your way behind that stripe.
The bike lane does also send an unfortunate message to newb cyclists: "just ride in the bike lane and you'll be fine... no skill or judgement required". When combined with crappy bike lanes, that's dangerous.



I'm assuming you have polled a substantial number of drivers and new cyclists as to their reactions and attitudes re: bike lanes. otherwise, you're just guessing and talking out of your ass. never a good way to start.

VC and bike lanes can be mutually exclusive when there are mandatory bike lane use laws. They are not mutually exclusive when there are no laws requiring bike lane use.

ALL mandatory use laws I have seen in the united states have clauses that allow the rider to leave the bike lane for safety, turning, road conditions, etc and are therefore not mutually exclusive even then. try again.

Mandatory use laws with exceptions still put the burden of proof on the cyclist to justify why he's not in the bike lane.

naw. that's only in a court of law.

do you ride in court much? ever had to???? Have you ever gotten a ticket for this? I sure haven't. I sense fearmongering.

there's NO BURDEN OF PROOF REQUIRED to leave a bike lane.... sorry.

Burden of proof is a legal term applicable only in a court of law, Brian!

VC and bike lanes are NOT mutually exclusive. vehicular cyclists can ride vehicularily in bike lanes, sans hysteria of the chainguard crewe's laments...

Even the "as far right as practicable" laws put the burden of proof on a cyclist. And yes I have been ticketted and yes I have had a lame judge agree with the police officer.

so cyclists shouldn't ride as far right as practicable???

how do vehicles of different operating speed characteristics share high speed roads, joe?

there wasn't a bike lane in your case, joejack......


this thread is 'VC AND BIKE LANES ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.

Modern american streetscapes incorporating well provided and maintained bike lanes allow for vehicular cycling in a bike lane.

so cyclists shouldn't ride as far right as practicable???

My point is that the wording of the laws put the onus on the cyclist to justify why he isn't hugging the edge of the roadway. Any law which puts the onus on a cyclist to justify why he's not in the bike lane is just as likely to be used against cyclist in situations where it should not be (reference Portlanders getting ticketted for making left turns and me getting ticketted for not sharing a high speed 12 foot wide lane). "Practicable" does NOT mean "possible" in the context of the vehicle code.

A much improved wording of the law would grant cyclists a full lane like any other vehicle and the exceptions would be when the lane is wide enough to safely share, putting the onus on law enforcement to prove that the lane can be, without a doubt, safely shared.


how do vehicles of different operating speed characteristics share high speed roads, joe?

"different operating speed charateristics"? That's a mouthful. The answer is easy though: faster traffic to the left, slower traffic to the left assuming the road is wide enough to accomodate more than one stream of same direction traffic. Or do you have a more specific question?


there wasn't a bike lane in your case, joejack......

There was a shoulder, which turned into a right turn lane. I could have used the right turn lane to go straight as it had plenty of width for my narrow bicycle. Sort of like how I could use a bike lane to go straight through an intersection too. But states like California have laws allowing cyclists going straight to leave the bike lane when approaching places where traffic can turn right. Sounds a lot like my situation, right?

But states like California have laws allowing cyclists going straight to leave the bike lane when approaching places where traffic can turn right.
Yes, that is correct for California. Unfortunately, the laws in Oregon don't allow cyclists to leave the bike lane before the intersection, and they also require motorists to make right turns across the bike lane. The VC would prefer to leave the bike lane before the intersection, yet it is illegal for him to do so. Therefore, in this case, VC and bike lanes are mutually exclusive. Some VCers would say get rid of the bike lane - instead, I say get rid of the mandatory bike lane use law.

doesn't sound like that, joejack.

your case doesn't sound like that at all....Not really, except that vehicular cyclists can use bike lanes vehicularily in california, and leave them when neccessary due to upcoming turns, traffic conditions, debris, etc.


AN LCI stating 'don't get rid of the bike lane, get rid of mandatory use laws' ......a stunning concession to the vehicularity of bike lanes!!!!!

how does 'as far right as practicable' turn into 'hugging the edge of the roadway???

what kind of conflation is that?

WASHINGTON state laws are MUCH more encompassing of bicyclists... we 'can use a bike lane if one is provided' but there is no mandatory use requirements.... just general rules of the road positioning rules of 'as far right as practicable'


which often puts a vehicular cyclist riding vehicularily in the bike lane! Vehicular cycling and bike lanes are not mutually exclusive.

brian, 'mutually exclusive' is a term that defines two disparate elements that do not share any similarities. saying things are 'sometimes mutually exclusive' is nonsensical.

I mean this in a nice way, post the law or your wrong.

The whole fast lane/slow lane thing is like so last generation, I believe all the states have done away with those laws, its definitely not in the UVC. There is a major problem with the general publics knowledge of the laws not to mention lack of knowledge of what is safe and what is not safe for a cyclist.

Excuse me? The "fast lane/slow lane thing is last generation"? Where on earth do *you* drive? Not around here, that's for sure.

Section 147 of the Ontario HTA: (and yes, "less than the normal speed of traffic at that time" DOES include driving at the speed limit when everyone around you is doing 20kmh over).

Slow vehicles to travel on right side

147. (1) Any vehicle travelling upon a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at that time and place shall, where practicable, be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic or as close as practicable to the right hand curb or edge of the roadway. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 147 (1).


This being said, the context of my comment was to question the notion that the desire for a bike lane is some kind of pathological "cyclist inferiority complex", rather than a simple recognition that vehicles of different speeds belong on different parts of the road.. and that if they are different ENOUGH then a seperate lane might be warranted. Really, as long as the BL doesn't lead the noob into a meat grinder I don't see the problem with BLs, and I try to ride VC whenever it's safe and pleasant to do so.

actually, desire for bike lanes are sometimes a desire to better accomodate communities for cyclists of all ages and abilities.

bicycling infrastructure has no 'inferiorities' attached to their design or use.

well implemented bike lanes even darrenmc or john foreestor could ride in, vehicularily!

a desire to grow cycling modal share, to make cycling a more visible part of a community design, to encourage greater cycling participation.

darren, step away from that copy of effective cycling!


remember, a vehicular cyclist can ride vehicularily in a well provided bike lane!

how does 'as far right as practicable' turn into 'hugging the edge of the roadway???

what kind of conflation is that?

Talk to the Delaware JP Court. That's how the law was explained to me. Getting in the way of traffic is suicidal, according to the judge who heard my case. Close passes? Move further right.


which often puts a vehicular cyclist riding vehicularily in the bike lane! Vehicular cycling and bike lanes are not mutually exclusive.

One more time, in case you forgot, just because a cyclist is riding in the space demarcated by the bike lane stripe does not mean that the bike lane is doing anything for that cyclist. A cyclist who ignores the bike lane stripe and chooses a lateral position based on their speed, their destination, and other traffic's speed is in no way benefitting from the existence of a bike lane.


brian, 'mutually exclusive' is a term that defines two disparate elements that do not share any similarities. saying things are 'sometimes mutually exclusive' is nonsensical.

Doesn't appear to me that that is what Brian is trying to say. Sounds like he is referring to different contexts where bike lanes and VC may or may not be mutually exclusive. FWIW, I agree with Brian.

Do you really want to keep going around and around on a 12 month old thread, joe?????


a bicyclist can ride vehicularily on a road with a bike lane.

speed positioning of slower traffic keep right is one of the tenets of vehicular cycling; a road with a well provided bike lane can be ridden in vehicularily...........

vehicular cyclists can ride vehicularily in a bike lane. a bike lane network can be used by a vehicular cyclist. a bike lane network encourages bicycling in communities.

vc and bike lanes are not mutually exclusive.

althoug, joe, your statement " cyclist who ignores the bike lane stripe and chooses a lateral position based on their speed, their destination, and other traffic's speed is in no way benefitting from the existence of a bike lane.' is incorrect. bike lane stripes can and will benefit that rider if they are positioned in the bike lane.


keep complaining about your ticket, you can keep explaining how sometimes a vehicular cyclist will move out of a well provided bike lane, whatever.... but it doesn't change the FACT that

VC AND BIKE LANES ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.

I'm very proud of you for being so consistent in completely ignoring destination positioning when discussing bike lanes.

GOOD GRIEF!


and many bike lanes allow safe vehicular operation within them, until a cyclist needs to leave the lane for destination positioning or to avoid a hazard. standard operating practice.


a vehicular cyclist can use a bike lane vehicularily. a bike lane network can be utilized by a vehicular cyclist.

just stop, joe. I'm not 'consistently ignoring' anything, I mentioned destination positioning on the first page - YOU are ignoring the thread content to gripe and moan.