Does John Forester still ride a bike?

[sggoodri]

I think this is very true. And in situations where one is forced to ride shoulderless streets with heavy traffic, I can see how occassionally taking the lane can be a useful thing for the cyclist -- bearing in mind that you are in the way of other road users, that you are going to anger some of them, and that common manners dictate that you stop being in the way as soon as possible.

If we let the Golden Rule be our guide, then we might compare our own inconvenience to the inconvenience experienced by others.

On roads with multiple narrow lanes in the same direction, drivers are able to pass me by changing lanes without significant delay. The time and effort it would take me to get off the roadway, stop, and enter the roadway again after a driver passes would me much longer than it takes for them to change lanes to pass. At intersections, traffic slows down anyway; I'm traveling near the optimum speed for maximum traffic throughput and am not taking the lane for very long. Only on narrow two-lane roads with significant oncoming traffic do motorists follow cyclists at slow speed for more than a few seconds; on rare occasion I've had this happen for half a minute and I've pulled off the road to let traffic disperse.

The existence of cross streets does not imply the existence of a reasonably convenient alternate same-direction route. Oftentimes barriers such as freeways, railroads or waterways with only a few crossing points mean that only one usable route exists within a couple of miles in each direction. Where there are alternate routes that add many minutes to a bicycle trip, those minutes might be compared rationally to the seconds of delay that a cyclist might cause to motorists on the more direct route. Lastly, whenever we choose to motor, we still cause delay to other road users; nobody is immune from affecting other traffic.

If a person believes that their own time is less valuable than others' because they are on a bicycle, or that their safety is less important than others' convenience, I believe John Forester would point to this as evidence of "cyclist inferiority." If, however, one chooses an alternate route because it is more enjoyable, or because the extra time really seems to oneself to be an insignificant price to pay for reduced social friction, then that's just happy cycling.

[genec]

As I wrote earlier, I don't doubt there are some people who have no other choice. If you feel the best way to deal with high speed traffic is to place yourself in front of it, then you do what you think is best for you -- but bear in mind that you have a relatively unique situation, and even in your situation, there are extremely experienced and knowledgable cyclists who would not do as you do.

I will go as far as to say that I believe "VC" has some intelligent points -- but the attitude that it is always right for all cyclists in all situations (not that I am saying this is you, genec) is demonstrably false, in addition to being fairly obnoxious.

Actually most of the local high speed arterials have bike lanes. (thus width) However, out in the back country this may not be the case. I toured across the US and found that generally on the back country roads motorists were used to giving away to slower traffic, such as farm equipment and horses... so cyclists are generally OK. It tends to be only in the cities that impatience gives way to courtesy. However exceptions abound everywhere.

[genec]

San Diego, actually. Seems to be a hotbed of "VC".

LOL, Forester lives in the county. Let's say "VC" is an "easy discussion" amoung some cyclists.

[Six jours]

Yup, typical driver. No matter that the law says you are wrong. Forester agrees with the law... typical motorists may not.
I don't know what you mean here. It may or may not be appropriate for me to note here that I am most interested in reality on the road -- staying alive, having fun, and not POing any more fellow road users than neccessary. In my experience, "VC" is often not consistent with those goals.

You stated what you think is really going to happen... so how does "cyclists fare best when act and are treated as drivers of vehicles" work for you?
As fantasy. Cyclists cannot do a very good emulation of cars because we can't usually go fast enough. We can do a fair impression of a broken-down jalopy creeping along at well under the limit, interfering with other road users. And that happens sometimes -- but people who intentionally take the jalopy out on a routine basis knowing they're going to be in the way... that's a bit different.

The fantasy part really comes into play when we talk about "being treated as drivers of vehicles", though. As much as we'd like to pretend, that doesn't and almost certainly is not going to happen. And pissing drivers off by blocking traffic with our bicycles is not going to viewed as activism, protest, or anything other than "some jerk on a bike".

If a cement truck was in front of you moving at 30 or 40 MPH slower and refusing to yield... what would you do then?
Go around and, if I'm feeling like a typical driver that day, honk, gesture, or cut back in front of him to indicate displeasure. But even the cement truck driver has an ameliorating factor: he can't ride on the shoulder, thus making it easier for other road users to get on with their lives.

[Six jours]

On roads with multiple narrow lanes in the same direction, drivers are able to pass me by changing lanes without significant delay. The time and effort it would take me to get off the roadway, stop, and enter the roadway again after a driver passes would me much longer than it takes for them to change lanes to pass. At intersections, traffic slows down anyway; I'm traveling near the optimum speed for maximum traffic throughput and am not taking the lane for very long. Only on narrow two-lane roads with significant oncoming traffic do motorists follow cyclists at slow speed for more than a few seconds; on rare occasion I've had this happen for half a minute and I've pulled off the road to let traffic disperse.

The existence of cross streets does not imply the existence of a reasonably convenient alternate same-direction route. Oftentimes barriers such as freeways, railroads or waterways with only a few crossing points mean that only one usable route exists within a couple of miles in each direction.
I can't rationally address this as I have never ridden in North Carolina. In Southern California, where so much of this conversation is taking place, the conditions you describe are quite rare, in my experience.

Where there are alternate routes that add many minutes to a bicycle trip, those minutes might be compared rationally to the seconds of delay that a cyclist might cause to motorists on the more direct route.
IOW, "It's okay to inconvenience other people for my own convenience". This is an essential tennet of "VC", IMO, and one of the reasons I find fault with it.

Lastly, whenever we choose to motor, we still cause delay to other road users; nobody is immune from affecting other traffic.
It is hardly fair to compare the delays caused by driving your own car (one more vehicle to sit behind at the stoplight, etc.) with the delays caused by riding a bicycle in traffic.

If a person believes that their own time is less valuable than others' because they are on a bicycle, or that their safety is less important than others' convenience, I believe John Forester would point to this as evidence of "cyclist inferiority." If, however, one chooses an alternate route because it is more enjoyable, or because the extra time really seems to oneself to be an insignificant price to pay for reduced social friction, then that's just happy cycling.
I doubt there are very many of us who honestly believe " that their own time is less valuable than others' because they are on a bicycle, or that their safety is less important than others' convenience". I think that's a Forester strawman. What I am saying is that riding in the middle of the road is rarely safer than riding on the shoulder and that "VC" advocates all too often try to lead us down that binary road of "This is the only safe way" despite mountains of evidence to the contrary. And what we really end up with is people who are unneccessarily inconveniencing other road users -- and creating new enemies of cycling -- while believing that they are crusaders for a brave new world of "bikes are just like cars".

And all of it, of course, takes us sharply away from my original point of poking fun at people who think the rest of us should vacate bike lanes in favor of the middle of the road.

[Six jours]

Actually most of the local high speed arterials have bike lanes. (thus width) However, out in the back country this may not be the case. I toured across the US and found that generally on the back country roads motorists were used to giving away to slower traffic, such as farm equipment and horses... so cyclists are generally OK. It tends to be only in the cities that impatience gives way to courtesy. However exceptions abound everywhere.

My general experience out in the sticks has been that the roads are empty enough that one can ride wherever one likes, moving to the side of the road when one hears or sees approaching traffic. To the degree that this dovetails with "VC" theory, I have no trouble with it. But it appears to me that many VC advocates take this several steps beyond, to the point that they are intentionally impeding traffic for their own percieved saftey. Again from the car driver's POV: "Why are you in front of me and refusing to yield, when all you have to do is move over a bit? Do you have a deathwish or something?"

[genec]

My general experience out in the sticks has been that the roads are empty enough that one can ride wherever one likes, moving to the side of the road when one hears or sees approaching traffic. To the degree that this dovetails with "VC" theory, I have no trouble with it. But it appears to me that many VC advocates take this several steps beyond, to the point that they are intentionally impeding traffic for their own percieved saftey. Again from the car driver's POV: "Why are you in front of me and refusing to yield, when all you have to do is move over a bit? Do you have a deathwish or something?"

There are areas where there is no "side of the road..." where the road is only wide enough to handle a single vehicle either way. A cyclist riding in such a location will be "in the way" no matter how far to the right they go. Such roads have no shoulders, and may abutt cliffs and shear walls. This is quite common on older country roads and mountain grades.

The motorist must drive accordingly and either wait for a safe area to pass or remain behind the cyclist.

[genec]

I can't rationally address this as I have never ridden in North Carolina. In Southern California, where so much of this conversation is taking place, the conditions you describe are quite rare, in my experience.



Outside of the dense cities, in southern California, are mountains and deserts, neither is a wealth of wide roads, and often the roads are in poor condition with limited surface area. The alternatives are freeway.

[LittleBigMan]

I suspect neither john or joejack have personally experienced the squeeze play from an articulated bus while cycling taking the full lane, doing 30mph downhill on a narrow laned, double yellow striped street.


Last time I had any problems with a mass-transit employee, I simply reported it. Got profuse apologies.

Last time I had any problems from said employee. NOTE: and I saw that employee again more than once on the road, still employed, but much subdued.

Funny, since Atlanta is supposed to be unconcerned about cyclists compared to other cities...

Sounds like bus drivers in Bek's cycling utopia still don't know how to pass cyclists, how long their buses are, and how fast cyclists can go downhill.

[Six jours]

Outside of the dense cities, in southern California, are mountains and deserts, neither is a wealth of wide roads, and often the roads are in poor condition with limited surface area. The alternatives are freeway.

I dearly love the mountains of California and spend as much time as possible in them, be it on bicycle, foot, or dangling from a rope. The bicycling I've done in the mountains has been almost uniformly rewarding, and I have vary rarely felt the need to "take the lane" in those situations. There are exceptions, of course, but they are rare, while on the other side of the coin I can think of many instances where being centered in the lane would have caused a great deal more excitement than I generally care for. SoCal mountain roads are notorious for high-speed "sport" motorists and I would very much not like to find myself in the path of an 80 MPH Ninja or Viper late-apexing an off camber turn. And expecting a logging truck to scrub off 30 MPH descending a steep and curvy NorCal mountain road in time to avoid turning me into a stain in the middle of the road is very, very optimistic, IMO.

[LittleBigMan]

Six Jours, I feel so enlightened. Thank you. What the A&S Holes need is more wisdom and common sense like you have.

There are too many folks here who believe you SHOULD wave your fanny around in front of all moron-directed two-ton hunks of metal in order to break their pilots from their stupors and get them to show some kind of response. Then and only then pull over. Why that doesn't strike them as crazy I do not know. Maybe people who feel this is the best strategy should try more tequilla.
I'm a little confused. Maybe drivers are more aggressive where you live.

I never have to "pull over." If I do, it's because I feel sorry for motorists stackin up behind me.

Pathetic, watching them in my mirror, just hovering with their signals on, unable to find an opening in the left lane to pass. It breaks my heart, so I give in.

:)

(I'd want them to do the same for me.)

[Six jours]

There are areas where there is no "side of the road..." where the road is only wide enough to handle a single vehicle either way. A cyclist riding in such a location will be "in the way" no matter how far to the right they go. Such roads have no shoulders, and may abutt cliffs and shear walls. This is quite common on older country roads and mountain grades.

The motorist must drive accordingly and either wait for a safe area to pass or remain behind the cyclist.

Agreed. And again, I point out that I have repeatedly said that while such scenarios are relatively rare, in my experience, they do exist. I merely find fault with any idea that, because "taking the lane" is appropriate in certain situations, "VC" must therefore appropriate in all situations.

[genec]

I dearly love the mountains of California and spend as much time as possible in them, be it on bicycle, foot, or dangling from a rope. The bicycling I've done in the mountains has been almost uniformly rewarding, and I have vary rarely felt the need to "take the lane" in those situations. There are exceptions, of course, but they are rare, while on the other side of the coin I can think of many instances where being centered in the lane would have caused a great deal more excitement than I generally care for. SoCal mountain roads are notorious for high-speed "sport" motorists and I would very much not like to find myself in the path of an 80 MPH Ninja or Viper late-apexing an off camber turn. And expecting a logging truck to scrub off 30 MPH descending a steep and curvy NorCal mountain road in time to avoid turning me into a stain in the middle of the road is very, very optimistic, IMO.

If there is no other room... there is no other place to be.

Tends to be quite true in Northern California along the coastal hiway 1. Shear drop to the water on the right, narrow winding road, and dirt wall to the left on the other side of the faded stripe. 50MPH speed limit between towns. Breathtaking views. The only way between some towns. How ya gonna get from A to B?

[Six jours]

Tends to be quite true in Northern California along the coastal hiway 1. Shear drop to the water on the right, narrow winding road, and dirt wall to the left on the other side of the faded stripe. 50MPH speed limit between towns. Breathtaking views. The only way between some towns. How ya gonna get from A to B?

After vacationing in Big Sur, I honestly wouldn't ride that road. I don't believe there is any way to safely ride it.

I did come across several cyclists, mostly whom were obviously out on long tours, and all of whom were riding as far to the right as practical. I gave them as much room as I could, and so did all the other motorists I saw -- including the ones in the giant Winnebagos. I did not see any of them taking up the entire lane, and would have thought them either insane or A-holes if I had. I don't think it would take long for a lane-centered cyclist to get flattened on that twisty road, and he certainly would anger just about every motorist who encountered him. The cyclist would either have to be pulling over every thirty seconds to allow traffic to get by, or would be holding up traffic for long periods of time -- at what would likely be 10-15 MPH.

So it seems to me that the options for that road are A) riding as far to the right as practical, and hoping that you don't get creamed, or riding centered, blocking traffic and creating lots of problems for everyone -- and still hoping that you don't get creamed. Or shot at, for that matter.

[joejack951]

The clip was intended to show how wonderful life is when you "take the lane" and instead showed the quite predictable close passes and angry words inspired by intentionally being in the way. I don't experience close passes very often while riding the shoulder, let alone the bike lane. And I don't remember the last time a motorist yelled at me for being in his way. So two or three close passes plus a verbal confrontation within the space of a few minutes would constitute a very bad day for me. Hardly a persuasive argument for me to start riding out in the middle of the lane.

You must live in a fantasy world if you think everyone has shoulders on all of their non-neighborhood roads or even lanes wide enough that a motorist could get past a cyclist riding close to the curb without having to cross the centerline or the lane line. You also seem to have the common attitude that motorists only need to go straight and thus will never cross the path of a cyclist off on the side of the road. Do the shoulders on any of the roads you ride ever turn into right turn only lanes? Do you ride through any heavily trafficked intersections where people are exitting and entering the roadway? How do you safely negotiate those intersections and stay out of the way the whole time?

Because it's not a simple binary equation. Your choices are not A) momentarily inconveniencing a motorist or B) dying. The helmetcam evidence is that "taking the lane" does not prevent close passes, but certainly does incite motorists.

Why does some selfish motorist's feelings getting hurted bother you so much? You are also implying that hugging the curb will keep motorists from getting pissed off or delayed at all. I can assure you that this is not the case. There are plenty of timid motorists who won't come anywhere near a cyclist and all it takes is one who also happens to be very bad at negotiating into the left lane to cause just as much delay as if the cyclist was hugging the curb.

Huh?

You previously said: "Intentionally putting yourself in the way of those nice folks, though, is going to make some of them angry, and that's not good for cyclists." So I asked how trying to stay out of the way and getting many close passes (which is exactly what has happened to me any time I move too far right on all those roads without a wide shoulder that you seem to think don't exist) is good for me or other cyclists since staying in the way (and not getting close passed) isn't good for cyclists.

I don't see how "taking the lane" offsets the risk of any of those circumstances. I'd ceratinly rather "not be seen" by a motorist while I am on the shoulder, thus experiencing a close pass, than "not be seen" by a motorist while I am in the middle of the road, thus experiencing massive trauma.

Again, you are only considering your fantasy world where all roads have wide shoulders and motorists only go straight. If a motorist turns across your path and does not see you, you are in big trouble. If you are trying to stay out of the way on a narrow road and the motorist misjudges their high speed close pass, you are in trouble again.

Funny thing about shoulders, I was approaching a traffic light this morning on my way to work. It's at a "T" intersection where I'm on the road that does not end. There is a wide shoulder to my right but as usual, I stop in the right hand lane behind a woman in her SUV. The light turns green and I see her look up from searching for something in the car and start to go. She continues looking down and proceeds to drive off into the shoulder a good 5 feet before she realizes it and swerves back into her lane. I could have easily been stopped next to her and been right there when she drifted right.

The two lane roads are almost always slower than the arterials, and almost always less crowded. There is almost always a safe opportunity to ride near the side of the road, and drivers almost always have a safe way of getting around you with no real impediment. Your argument, though, seems to be you are always forced to "take the lane", thus impeding traffic regardless of the type of road you are using. My argument is that, even assuming you are forced to "take the lane" on a major artery, you can instead use side routes where you can safely ride the shoulder. Thus you are safe, motorists are unimpeded, and we are left only with the argument that you don't like stop signs so should be able to ride anywhere you want and to hell with other road users.

:roflmao: Oh my! You really do live in a fantasy world, don't you? You should come for a visit sometime where I can show you some wonderful 8-9 foot wide lanes (assuming the edge hasn't crumbled away) with zero shoulder with enough blind curves and hill crests that unless I stop and get off the road, no one is getting around me. There's a few roads like this that I ride where I can pick up a train of about 10-15 motorists in less than a minute who have no option to get around me unless I stop (which I will do if I'm not near the point where I turn off the road).

This, to me, is the driving force behind most if not all the "VC" attitude: The "screw you, car driver!" attitude. This is obviously never going to sit too well with the car-driving majority, and is likely to upset a lot of cyclists too. I for one don't appreciate fellow cyclists creating pissed-off bike-hating motorists.

Selfish motorists will hate cyclists for being on any road. After all, we don't pay any taxes towards the roads (BS, I know), we're not licensed or insured, we're not "cars", we're little girly men dressed in tight clothes, etc. Trying to ride my bike and not upset anybody is pointless so I'm going to ride in the manner that suits me best (considering my own safety and convenience) and others can deal with it because they do the same thing. I don't see people running red lights so that they cross the major arterials without causing all of the lanes of traffic to stop (causing massive backups during rush hour). I don't see anyone else driving in the dirty shoulder going straight from the edge of the road or from right turn lanes because someone behind them wants to go a little faster. Believe me, I get behind plenty of stinking slowly accelerating trucks which I'd love to have get out of my way but they never do and they never hear anything from me about it.

[genec]

After vacationing in Big Sur, I honestly wouldn't ride that road. I don't believe there is any way to safely ride it.

I did come across several cyclists, mostly whom were obviously out on long tours, and all of whom were riding as far to the right as practical. I gave them as much room as I could, and so did all the other motorists I saw -- including the ones in the giant Winnebagos. I did not see any of them taking up the entire lane, and would have thought them either insane or A-holes if I had. I don't think it would take long for a lane-centered cyclist to get flattened on that twisty road, and he certainly would anger just about every motorist who encountered him. The cyclist would either have to be pulling over every thirty seconds to allow traffic to get by, or would be holding up traffic for long periods of time -- at what would likely be 10-15 MPH.

So it seems to me that the options for that road are A) riding as far to the right as practical, and hoping that you don't get creamed, or riding centered, blocking traffic and creating lots of problems for everyone -- and still hoping that you don't get creamed. Or shot at, for that matter.

I have toured that road... there are places,** especially when you are loaded with panniers, where there are no options. Fortunately, the traffic is light enough (as you mentioned) that there was never a situation where "holding up traffic for long periods of time" was an issue, but then "long periods of time" are in the mind of the beholder. My "just 10 minutes" to clear some curvy hill may be "just an eternity... " to some impatient motorist.


**Heck there are places on that road where only one car may pass through at a time...

[LittleBigMan]

But my prior discussions on the matter show that the above sensibilities often don't appply to the hardcore VCer. I gather at least some of these folks are ignoring the perfectly good bike lane in favor of riding around in traffic, believing they're making a political statement by being in the way -- and thinking all other cyclists are wrong for not following suit.
Now we have a new definition--or, "label," as you will:

"Hardcore VCer."

The "hardcore VCer" ignores perfectly good bike lanes in order to purposely get in the way of motorists to make a political statement.

The more I pay attention, the more I learn about this big wide world.

[Six jours]

You must live in a fantasy world if you think everyone has shoulders on all of their non-neighborhood roads or even lanes wide enough that a motorist could get past a cyclist riding close to the curb without having to cross the centerline or the lane line.
Strawman, coupled with ad-hom.


You also seem to have the common attitude that motorists only need to go straight and thus will never cross the path of a cyclist off on the side of the road. Do the shoulders on any of the roads you ride ever turn into right turn only lanes? Do you ride through any heavily trafficked intersections where people are exitting and entering the roadway? How do you safely negotiate those intersections and stay out of the way the whole time?


In the instance of the right turn lane, I look behind me, signal if neccessary, and move to the right side of the through-lane. Through intersections I simply ride through them, assuming I have the green. Neither of these circumstances dictate that I make a pest of myself to other road users.

Why does some selfish motorist's feelings getting hurted bother you so much?
Unreasonable anti-motorist bias noted.

You are also implying that hugging the curb will keep motorists from getting pissed off or delayed at all.
I've never written anything about "hugging the curb", but I am saying that riding to the right will result in far fewer motorists being angered and delayed than would riding in the middle of the lane.


I can assure you that this is not the case. There are plenty of timid motorists who won't come anywhere near a cyclist and all it takes is one who also happens to be very bad at negotiating into the left lane to cause just as much delay as if the cyclist was hugging the curb.


This is a very rare situation, in my experience, and one in which the motorist -- not the cyclist -- is at fault.


You previously said: "Intentionally putting yourself in the way of those nice folks, though, is going to make some of them angry, and that's not good for cyclists." So I asked how trying to stay out of the way and getting many close passes (which is exactly what has happened to me any time I move too far right on all those roads without a wide shoulder that you seem to think don't exist) is good for me or other cyclists since staying in the way (and not getting close passed) isn't good for cyclists.


In my experience, lane-centered riders are at least as likely to be "close-passed" as right riding cyclists. The difference is only in the number of drivers who are angered by the extremely unusual behavior of taking a whole lane to himself -- and drivers who are angry with cyclists are not good for cycling, either on the road or in the voting booth.

Again, you are only considering your fantasy world where all roads have wide shoulders and motorists only go straight.
IMO, reliance upon strawmen indicate weakness of argument.

If a motorist turns across your path and does not see you, you are in big trouble. If you are trying to stay out of the way on a narrow road and the motorist misjudges their high speed close pass, you are in trouble again.

If a motorists runs you down because you were in the middle of the lane and she was staring at her Blackberry, you are in a bit of trouble too. And motorists can "turn across your path" regardless of your position on the road.

Funny thing about shoulders, I was approaching a traffic light this morning on my way to work. It's at a "T" intersection where I'm on the road that does not end. There is a wide shoulder to my right but as usual, I stop in the right hand lane behind a woman in her SUV. The light turns green and I see her look up from searching for something in the car and start to go. She continues looking down and proceeds to drive off into the shoulder a good 5 feet before she realizes it and swerves back into her lane. I could have easily been stopped next to her and been right there when she drifted right.

Personal anecdote time? I was recently riding around on a SoCal road that is internationally famous for motorcycling. I came around a blind curve just in time for a motorcyclist to overcook his entrance coming up behind me, lock the rear and start sliding, release the rear and get tossed up into the air in a near highside, and then barely save the whole thing. If I'd been centered in the lane he'd have creamed me.

Of course, the deal with personal anecdotes is that they're almost useless, but at least now you and I have both wasted the same amount of each other's time, eh?

Oh my! You really do live in a fantasy world, don't you?
Do you really believe this is helpful, or are you just doing your part to uphold the A&S reputation?

You should come for a visit sometime where I can show you some wonderful 8-9 foot wide lanes (assuming the edge hasn't crumbled away) with zero shoulder with enough blind curves and hill crests that unless I stop and get off the road, no one is getting around me.
I'd refer you to the numerous posts where I admitted that such instances certainly do occur, but I doubt it would help.


There's a few roads like this that I ride where I can pick up a train of about 10-15 motorists in less than a minute who have no option to get around me unless I stop (which I will do if I'm not near the point where I turn off the road).


So you ride around blocking traffic, pissing off other road users, and creating new enemies for cyclists, and you think this is a good thing. I think we're just going to end up disagreeing on this one.

Selfish motorists will hate cyclists for being on any road.
In a past life I was a paramedic, and I have to tell you that this stuff sounds a lot like the irrational -- but entirely understandable -- rantings of rape and abuse victims. Or maybe I've just lived a sheltered life and drivers in Delaware really are out to get you.

Trying to ride my bike and not upset anybody is pointless so I'm going to ride in the manner that suits me best (considering my own safety and convenience) and others can deal with it because they do the same thing.
I hope you do not end up riding in the places I ride, as most of the motorists I encounter are, if not friendly, at least willing to consider my safety. Your "Screw you" attitude would have a negative impact on that relationship, I think.

[LittleBigMan]

I dearly love the mountains of California and spend as much time as possible in them, be it on bicycle, foot, or dangling from a rope. The bicycling I've done in the mountains has been almost uniformly rewarding, and I have vary rarely felt the need to "take the lane" in those situations. There are exceptions, of course, but they are rare, while on the other side of the coin I can think of many instances where being centered in the lane would have caused a great deal more excitement than I generally care for. SoCal mountain roads are notorious for high-speed "sport" motorists and I would very much not like to find myself in the path of an 80 MPH Ninja or Viper late-apexing an off camber turn. And expecting a logging truck to scrub off 30 MPH descending a steep and curvy NorCal mountain road in time to avoid turning me into a stain in the middle of the road is very, very optimistic, IMO.

I've driven, but not cycled, the Rockies between Boulder and Estes Park a few times.

I'd have to say that cycling there, for me, would mean learning a new set of skills, to say the least.

[Six jours]

I have toured that road... there are places,** especially when you are loaded with panniers, where there are no options. Fortunately, the traffic is light enough (as you mentioned) that there was never a situation where "holding up traffic for long periods of time" was an issue, but then "long periods of time" are in the mind of the beholder. My "just 10 minutes" to clear some curvy hill may be "just an eternity... " to some impatient motorist.


IIRC, you do not drive. I can assure you that ten minutes behind a cyclist going 10 MPH and refusing to yield would drive the most saintly of motorists absolutely bonkers.

[LittleBigMan]

Agreed. And again, I point out that I have repeatedly said that while such scenarios are relatively rare, in my experience, they do exist. I merely find fault with any idea that, because "taking the lane" is appropriate in certain situations, "VC" must therefore appropriate in all situations.
"VC," in my opinion (this is not a paid annnouncement) does not involve "taking the lane" in every situation.

But it's nice when you use the lane as if you are actually a road user of equal status, not based on "horsepower," and motorists treat you as if you belong there. At least, that's my experience in the eastern half of the greater Atlanta area.

But I can't speak for all the greater Atlanta area, or other areas. Nor can I speak for all cyclists.

[LittleBigMan]

IIRC, you do not drive. I can assure you that ten minutes behind a cyclist going 10 MPH and refusing to yield would drive the most saintly of motorists absolutely bonkers.

It sure as Hel would drive me insane, if I were driving.

That's why I pull over if that happens (rarely.)

My version of "VC" involves cooperation with traffic as a road user of equal, but not greater, status. So I remain conscious of overall traffic flow. Usually, in rush hour, this means waving timid motorists ahead.

After all, I'm not the only one on the road. I'm part of the whole.

[Helmet Head]

After vacationing in Big Sur, I honestly wouldn't ride that road. I don't believe there is any way to safely ride it.

I did come across several cyclists, mostly whom were obviously out on long tours, and all of whom were riding as far to the right as practical. I gave them as much room as I could, and so did all the other motorists I saw -- including the ones in the giant Winnebagos. I did not see any of them taking up the entire lane, and would have thought them either insane or A-holes if I had. I don't think it would take long for a lane-centered cyclist to get flattened on that twisty road, and he certainly would anger just about every motorist who encountered him. The cyclist would either have to be pulling over every thirty seconds to allow traffic to get by, or would be holding up traffic for long periods of time -- at what would likely be 10-15 MPH.

So it seems to me that the options for that road are A) riding as far to the right as practical, and hoping that you don't get creamed, or riding centered, blocking traffic and creating lots of problems for everyone -- and still hoping that you don't get creamed. Or shot at, for that matter.
You don't know what you're talking about. I grew up in Monterey and regularly rode down the coast on highway 1 in the 1970s between the ages of 12 and 16. I've been there recently and it has hardly changed at all in terms of factors relevant to cycling: road condition, traffic volume and speed.

A few years ago on a drive down the coast we stopped to check out a park and I encountered a CHP officer with whom I talked for a few minutes. The stretch south of Carmel was his beat, and had been for five years. During that time there had been three car-bike collisions.

A cyclist lost control on a downhill curve and hit a car parked in the dirt shoulder.
A too-far-right cyclist was clipped by the side ladder on an RV trying to pass him by squeezing by within the lane. Injuries were not serious.
A too-far-right cyclist on a 'bent was right hooked by someone turning into a campground. Again, injuries were not serious.
The CHP officer told me he considered it a very safe road to ride a bike.

About three or four years ago I did the Big Sur ride (see bigsurride.com) which starts in Carmel Valley, heads west to Hwy 1, then goes south from Carmel way past Big Sur before heading east over the mountains into Hunter Liggett on Nacimiento-Ferguson Road (just south of Kirk Creek, I believe).

About a year ago my buddy, who also grew up in Monterey, and I were visiting at the same time, and we rode down the coast from Monterey towards Big Sur and back.

Based on experience, I'm here to tell you that Coastal Highway 1 south of Carmel to Big Sur and beyond is an awesome and very safe road for bicycling! To discourage people from riding there based on safety concerns is an anathema to bicycling advocacy.

The only thing I would say is DON'T ride so near the shoulder stripe that you encourage passing fullspeed motorists to try to squeeze into the lane when they are passing you. Your lane position needs to make it clear in no uncertain terms that they must cross the center stripe into the oncoming lane in order to pass you, and, if it's unsafe to do so, they must slow to your speed and wait. The idea that doing so would cause motorists to be delayed "for long periods of time" can only come from someone who has no idea what he's talking about.

First, once they have slowed down, it might very well be safe to go ahead and move aside in order to invite them to pass by squeezing into the lane with you. What you want to avoid is inviting them to squeeze by you within the narrow 11' lane while you're going 10 up a hill and they're going 60+. There are some great descents and you should definitely be taking the lane on those stretches where you can easily reach speeds approaching and going beyond 40 mph.

If you know what you're doing, you can convey your competence to approaching motorists, and they appreciate it. They are often unsure as what to do, and appreciate knowing that you know what they need and you are taking care of their needs. This is where a mirror is very helpful.

No way to safely ride down the Big Sur coast? :rolleyes: What a crock!

[Six jours]

You don't know what you're talking about.

Cool! A genuine, dyed-in-the-wool A&S hole! Welcome to the "ignore" feature, big boy! LMAO.

[Six jours]

My version of "VC" involves cooperation with traffic as a road user of equal, but not greater, status. So I remain conscious of overall traffic flow. Usually, in rush hour, this means waving timid motorists ahead.

After all, I'm not the only one on the road. I'm part of the whole.
We at least agree on principle, if not always in practice.

[LittleBigMan]

I've driven, but not cycled, the Rockies between Boulder and Estes Park a few times.

I'd have to say that cycling there, for me, would mean learning a new set of skills, to say the least.
EDIT: Except for (Hwy. 36?) between Lyons and Boulder along the front range. Many cyclists. Awesome.

No new set of cycling skills on that route. Nice, wide shoulder, tame motorists (from what I've seen.)

[LittleBigMan]

I hope you do not end up riding in the places I ride, as most of the motorists I encounter are, if not friendly, at least willing to consider my safety. Your "Screw you" attitude would have a negative impact on that relationship, I think.
Without regard to whose post SJ is responding to (I didn't look,) this notion has been on my mind of late. I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with Six Jours's assessment of that poster's attitude, whether it be "screw you" or otherwise (it's late here, I'm sort of scanning.)

...so...

We often shape our world by our attitude, and if we're riding the same route everyday at the same time, encountering the same motorists who also ride that route at the same time everyday, we will either make friends or foes, based on our attitudes.

To the poster Six Jours is responding in the above quote, don't take it personally, I'm just grabbing thoughts as they fly by.

;)

[joejack951]

Strawman, coupled with ad-hom.

Your argument is that cyclists should ride the shoulder or bike lane and not be in the traffic lane. That's a ridiculous argument due to the fact that most roads have neither. If that is not your argument, then what is it?

In the instance of the right turn lane, I look behind me, signal if neccessary, and move to the right side of the through-lane. Through intersections I simply ride through them, assuming I have the green. Neither of these circumstances dictate that I make a pest of myself to other road users.

Ok, so what if you encounter many right turn lanes, say 14 long turn lanes, sometimes followed by merge lanes in about 3 miles on a road with heavy traffic. Where do you ride? Do you try to stay off in the shoulder and then just jump into the right side of the right lane at intersections and hope people move over for you?

Unreasonable anti-motorist bias noted.

Are you assuming that I'm calling ALL motorists selfish? If so, you are completely missing my point and haven't really tried to understand what I'm writing. There are very few motorists selfish enough to complain that they need to slow down for a bit to pass a cyclist. Why change how you ride simply to suit them, when they are in a small minority?

I've never written anything about "hugging the curb", but I am saying that riding to the right will result in far fewer motorists being angered and delayed than would riding in the middle of the lane.

This opinion is based on the lane being wide enough for a motorist to pass if I ride further right than the middle of the lane. If that is the case, then I ride right when safe to do so. If not, then I take the full lane. If that angers or delays some people, there's not much I can do about it other than not ride those roads. And I'm not about to make that change based on a few selfish people.


This is a very rare situation, in my experience, and one in which the motorist -- not the cyclist -- is at fault.

Well it could be partially the cyclist's fault if by riding off to the side they gave approaching traffic the idea that they could squeeze by in the same lane and thus they did not change lanes earlier when they had a chance. By riding in the middle, the cyclist clearly states that they do not want to share the lane which gives faster traffic a good amount of time to adjust. In my experience with riding off to the side, the timid motorist is not a rare situation.

In my experience, lane-centered riders are at least as likely to be "close-passed" as right riding cyclists. The difference is only in the number of drivers who are angered by the extremely unusual behavior of taking a whole lane to himself -- and drivers who are angry with cyclists are not good for cycling, either on the road or in the voting booth.

You're not even a lane-centered rider so how would you have any clue as to how many close passes they experience? This sounds like a made up fact if I've ever heard one.

IMO, reliance upon strawmen indicate weakness of argument.

It's a strawman argument to assert that motorists don't only go straight and thus being off in the shoulder doesn't necessarily keep you out of the way? Again, if that's not what you are saying then correct me. If I have a wide clean shoulder to use and a reason to use it (faster traffic), I'll use it. If you have been assuming all along that I would not then maybe that's part of why we seem to see things so differently.

If a motorists runs you down because you were in the middle of the lane and she was staring at her Blackberry, you are in a bit of trouble too. And motorists can "turn across your path" regardless of your position on the road.

I think everybody on the road is in trouble if so many motorists are driving around focussed on nothing but their blackberry. If I can eliminate 99% of potential right hooks, I've seriously reduced my chances of being in a collision. I've been turned in front of by motorists in the left lane but those drivers knew they were turning in front of me, as opposed to the drivers who have turned in front of me when I've been in the shoulder. The latter is a much scarier situation as the driver is making no attempt to negotiate around you unlike the former.

Personal anecdote time? I was recently riding around on a SoCal road that is internationally famous for motorcycling. I came around a blind curve just in time for a motorcyclist to overcook his entrance coming up behind me, lock the rear and start sliding, release the rear and get tossed up into the air in a near highside, and then barely save the whole thing. If I'd been centered in the lane he'd have creamed me.

Of course, the deal with personal anecdotes is that they're almost useless, but at least now you and I have both wasted the same amount of each other's time, eh?

They're kind of fun sometimes so I threw one in as I'm sure most cyclists would not have taken the position that I did. In your case, riding on a road where you know you might encounter high speed out of control traffic might call for a lot of added caution. I'd be doing everything I could to make sure that faster traffic saw me as early as possible in order to plan ahead. Depending on how blind, long and uphill the curve was, riding the outside might be the best choice assuming the lane is wide enough to share. If not, I'd rather be in the lane where I have room to react and give the driver more reason to react to me.

Do you really believe this is helpful, or are you just doing your part to uphold the A&S reputation?

You've made some ridiculous statements in your post and I just had to point them out. I'm sorry for not doing it more tactfully. Maybe the 100 degree heat index for my commute home fried my brain today.

I'd refer you to the numerous posts where I admitted that such instances certainly do occur, but I doubt it would help.

You admit they occur, but are rare, and only on roads with light traffic than can easily pass. I'm telling you that you are wrong. I've cycled in more than a few locations to prove the point to me that wide lanes/shoulders are not the norm. Enough pavement for two vehicles to pass with caution is more of what I'm used to when off the arterials.

So you ride around blocking traffic, pissing off other road users, and creating new enemies for cyclists, and you think this is a good thing. I think we're just going to end up disagreeing on this one.

Seriously guy, read what I wrote, without the assumption that I'm some sort of rabid anti-motorist. All I was saying was that the traffic levels on some of the "quiet" two lane roads around me that allow me to not use the major arterials are high enough that I can quickly cause a big backup (hence my preference for a multilane arterial when I'm commuting). You seemed to ignore when I said that I'll also pull over when these backups occur. Apparently that doesn't fit your picture of me so you just ignore it.

In a past life I was a paramedic, and I have to tell you that this stuff sounds a lot like the irrational -- but entirely understandable -- rantings of rape and abuse victims. Or maybe I've just lived a sheltered life and drivers in Delaware really are out to get you.

Again, saying that there are selfish motorists is not implying that all motorists are selfish. It's the exact opposite in my opinion. Almost all are perfectly willing to share the road with me. Why should I change my style of cycling to fit in better with the few selfish JAMs on the road?

I hope you do not end up riding in the places I ride, as most of the motorists I encounter are, if not friendly, at least willing to consider my safety. Your "Screw you" attitude would have a negative impact on that relationship, I think.

You have the complete wrong picture of me if you think my attitude is just "screw you." I cycle in a way that doesn't rely upon the goodness of strangers to take notice of me simply because I'm a cyclist. I do everything I can to make their life easier by being as predictable as possible. If that means sometimes slowing them down, then so be it. It's a whole lot easier than them having to deal with what might happen should they not notice me off to the side and our paths cross.

[genec]

Cool! A genuine, dyed-in-the-wool A&S hole! Welcome to the "ignore" feature, big boy! LMAO.

You may as well add me to your ignore list... I agree with HH.

I toured that road in 1984 from San Francisco to San Diego with my wife. Last year I rode sections of that road that I had not been on... from the Oregon border to just north of Bodega Bay. I did not ride with panniers on the trip last year... my wife met me in various towns along the way as I rode down.

What I want to know is what makes HH an "A&S hole" in this case. The fact that he promotes the fully legal use of a public road... that impatient motorists who can easily control their vehicles and sit in complete comfort and only have to exert the slightest foot pressure to slow down may feel that they own? or what?

I want you to tell me the difference between the human driver of a car and the human driver of a bike, and why one has some supposed "priority" on a public road over the other. Lets see. Both human. Both have rights to the same road. No minimum speed limit. So what's the difference?

[John Forester]

After vacationing in Big Sur, I honestly wouldn't ride that road. I don't believe there is any way to safely ride it.

I did come across several cyclists, mostly whom were obviously out on long tours, and all of whom were riding as far to the right as practical. I gave them as much room as I could, and so did all the other motorists I saw -- including the ones in the giant Winnebagos. I did not see any of them taking up the entire lane, and would have thought them either insane or A-holes if I had. I don't think it would take long for a lane-centered cyclist to get flattened on that twisty road, and he certainly would anger just about every motorist who encountered him. The cyclist would either have to be pulling over every thirty seconds to allow traffic to get by, or would be holding up traffic for long periods of time -- at what would likely be 10-15 MPH.

So it seems to me that the options for that road are A) riding as far to the right as practical, and hoping that you don't get creamed, or riding centered, blocking traffic and creating lots of problems for everyone -- and still hoping that you don't get creamed. Or shot at, for that matter.

California 1 down the coast? I first rode that in 1949, and I have ridden it several times since, and done it with family equipped with camping gear, too. No problem.

[Six jours]

Joejack, that post has gotten too unwieldy. I'll just note that you call my arguments "ridiculous", but you are the one advocating riding around in traffic. So I think I'll just call this one "done".

[Six jours]

You may as well add me to your ignore list... I agree with HH. ...What I want to know is what makes HH an "A&S hole" in this case. The fact that he promotes the fully legal use of a public road... that impatient motorists who can easily control their vehicles and sit in complete comfort and only have to exert the slightest foot pressure to slow down may feel that they own? or what?
You and I have had a pleasant and civil discussion about our differning viewpoints. That is a worthwhile thing. HH waded in with "You don't know what you're talking about" and got more obnoxious from there. That is not a worthwhile thing.

[genec]

You and I have had a pleasant and civil discussion about our differning viewpoints. That is a worthwhile thing. HH waded in with "You don't know what you're talking about" and got more obnoxious from there. That is not a worthwhile thing.

OK fair enough... his style can be abrasive at times.

But seriously, the bottom line question still remains...

I still want to know... What is the difference between the human driver of a car and the human driver of a bike, and why does one have some supposed "priority" on a public road over the other. Lets see. Both human. Both have rights to the same road. No minimum speed limit. So what's the difference? Their use of a particular vehicle is not some automatic ticket to any special treatment.

[genec]

The answer in your case is a simple one.

You fear autos much more than you fear bicycles so the autos receive more respect.

Your "supposed priority" is just a straw man that is another manifestation of those same fears.

What? Sorry Pete. I pity the fools.

I have just as much right to use the road as any other driver... I just get darn tired of having to tell other drivers that I have that right. No fear involved here. Just tired of the same old crap that I have dealt with for well over 30 years. That ain't fear, it's just frustration.

You confuse my rants of excessive speed and clearly visible driver chosen distraction as a problem of fear. Come ride with me some time if you want to see how I really handle things. I may not ride like a messenger any more, but I take my place and hold it just fine.

My discussion of "supposed priority" is in reference to SJ telling us that we have to use the side of the road and stay out of the way of cars... and that is just flat wrong.

[Six jours]

I still want to know... What is the difference between the human driver of a car and the human driver of a bike, and why does one have some supposed "priority" on a public road over the other. Lets see. Both human. Both have rights to the same road. No minimum speed limit. So what's the difference? Their use of a particular vehicle is not some automatic ticket to any special treatment.

The difference? Speed. Cars go faster than people, horses, etc, and that's a big part of why we use them. And our road system is built to accomodate that speed. Methods of transportation that are not capable of maintaining that speed should, IMO, stay out of the way. You wouldn't drive a broken-down car capable of only 15 MPH, would you? And hell, taking your "No minimum speed limit, no difference between humans" logic to its extreme, there shouldn't be a problem with pedestrians in the middle of the road, should there? But of course the reality is that pedestrians don't belong in the traffic flow, because they can't maintain adequate speed.

And if we want to get even more silly, we can add the equestrian into the mix, as the horse and rider should be able to maintain about the same speed as the cyclist on his bike. But the picture of the horseman riding in the middle of the road is a bit ridiculous, isn't it? He doesn't belong there -- and neither does the cyclist.

I'll admit that parts of the "VC" argument can be seductive. I think it would be pretty cool if we could turn back the clock to a time before whizzing around in tin cans was the norm, and I think it would be pretty cool if we emulated Holland or some such and all started riding our bikes everywhere we went. But we don't, and I don't think we will unless gasoline goes up to $30 a gallon, and I certainly don't think that we will achieve anything worthwhile by riding around in front of motorists and making everyone hate us.

[genec]

The difference? Speed. Cars go faster than people, horses, etc, and that's a big part of why we use them. And our road system is built to accomodate that speed. Methods of transportation that are not capable of maintaining that speed should, IMO, stay out of the way. You wouldn't drive a broken-down car capable of only 15 MPH, would you? And hell, taking your "No minimum speed limit, no difference between humans" logic to its extreme, there shouldn't be a problem with pedestrians in the middle of the road, should there? But of course the reality is that pedestrians don't belong in the traffic flow, because they can't maintain adequate speed.

And if we want to get even more silly, we can add the equestrian into the mix, as the horse and rider should be able to maintain about the same speed as the cyclist on his bike. But the picture of the horseman riding in the middle of the road is a bit ridiculous, isn't it? He doesn't belong there -- and neither does the cyclist.

I'll admit that parts of the "VC" argument can be seductive. I think it would be pretty cool if we could turn back the clock to a time before whizzing around in tin cans was the norm, and I think it would be pretty cool if we emulated Holland or some such and all started riding our bikes everywhere we went. But we don't, and I don't think we will unless gasoline goes up to $30 a gallon, and I certainly don't think that we will achieve anything worthwhile by riding around in front of motorists and making everyone hate us.


By your logic no driver should ever slow down a line of traffic before making a turn. No bus should ever stop in the road blocking the flow to pick up passengers, and no cement trucks would ever be allowed on any road ever. And the house I saw being moved the other day using up 2 lanes of traffic on a huge flatbed, should never be allowed.

Sorry, you are wrong on all counts. No vehicle is granted any rights based on speed over any other vehicle.

The only roads where this is not true are limited access freeways where minimum speed limits are in effect. Otherwise... there are no differences, nada, zip between me on my bike and the guy in the car behind me. Period.

If a road can be designed to accodate varying speed vehicles for the mere convenience of the various users, so be it, but there is no difference in the users rights to the road. Period.

[genec]

Fixed it for you.

I have fear of the fools... and you are a prime example... fear that the world is going to fools of your kind.

[Helmet Head]

The difference? Speed. Cars go faster than people, horses, etc, and that's a big part of why we use them. And our road system is built to accomodate that speed. Methods of transportation that are not capable of maintaining that speed should, IMO, stay out of the way. You wouldn't drive a broken-down car capable of only 15 MPH, would you? And hell, taking your "No minimum speed limit, no difference between humans" logic to its extreme, there shouldn't be a problem with pedestrians in the middle of the road, should there? But of course the reality is that pedestrians don't belong in the traffic flow, because they can't maintain adequate speed.

And if we want to get even more silly, we can add the equestrian into the mix, as the horse and rider should be able to maintain about the same speed as the cyclist on his bike. But the picture of the horseman riding in the middle of the road is a bit ridiculous, isn't it? He doesn't belong there -- and neither does the cyclist.

I'll admit that parts of the "VC" argument can be seductive. I think it would be pretty cool if we could turn back the clock to a time before whizzing around in tin cans was the norm, and I think it would be pretty cool if we emulated Holland or some such and all started riding our bikes everywhere we went. But we don't, and I don't think we will unless gasoline goes up to $30 a gallon, and I certainly don't think that we will achieve anything worthwhile by riding around in front of motorists and making everyone hate us.
This is freeway mentality and associated uninterrupted traffic flow expectations applied to non-freeway roads.

No one is suggesting unnecessary impediment of traffic flow. But even pedestrians are allowed to walk in the street, even on narrow roads where that may cause traffic to have to slow or even stop.

[Helmet Head]

Cool! A genuine, dyed-in-the-wool A&S hole! Welcome to the "ignore" feature, big boy! LMAO.
I wrote that Six Jours does not know what he's talking about in the opening sentence of my post to make it clear that he doesn't, in case someone takes his opinion seriously about Coastal Highway 1 being too dangerous to ride on. For the record, he admits he has never ridden a bicycle there, and appears to be uncomfortable riding on any road where there is no explicit space for bicycling that is separate from space used for motor vehicle travel.

[LCI_Brian]

This is where the misnomer of "find an alternate route" often comes in... if the only way to get to your business is to take high speed high volume roads... that is what you are going to do.
In my case for instance... All the roads that lead to work are 45-50+MPH mulilaned arterials... period. Which is quite typical for even light industrial areas.

The fellow with the helmetcam gave me the same line. Then he showed his videotape, which contained footage of him riding by dozens of intersections where the multilane arterial he was riding to work intersected with quiet two laners.

So how do you know that these two laners reasonably connected him to his destination?

[Six jours]

By your logic no driver should ever slow down a line of traffic before making a turn. No bus should ever stop in the road blocking the flow to pick up passengers, and no cement trucks would ever be allowed on any road ever. And the house I saw being moved the other day using up 2 lanes of traffic on a huge flatbed, should never be allowed.

The key difference here is that the instances you cite are unavoidable, and as I have repeatedly mentioned, when interfering with traffic by the cyclist is also unavoidable, then motorists just have to deal with it. The key difference between me and the VCers, however, seems to be in the definition of "unavoidable". I have managed to get away with rarely impeding motorists during my 25 years of cycling. Many of the VCers seem to believe that they need to impede motorists on a more-or-less ongoing basis. This is an obvious source of disagreement.

Sorry, you are wrong on all counts. No vehicle is granted any rights based on speed over any other vehicle.
So you have no problem with the equestrian in traffic? The unicyclist? The rollerblader? Is there any class of vehicle you think should not be allowed in the middle of the road?

The only roads where this is not true are limited access freeways where minimum speed limits are in effect. Otherwise... there are no differences, nada, zip between me on my bike and the guy in the car behind me. Period.
Except for the 30, 40, 50 MPH speed differential. And that's another essential difference here: you are very concerned over your "rights", legal and otherwise. I'm merely concerned with reality, and the reality is that a 15 MPH vehicle isn't terribly compatible with a 60 MPH vehicle.

If a road can be designed to accodate varying speed vehicles for the mere convenience of the various users, so be it, but there is no difference in the users rights to the road. Period.
I'll buy the first part in a heartbeat. I think bike lanes are absolutely nifty, and I'd be happy enough if federal law required them just about everywhere. As always, my argument is primarily with the folks who argue that I should vacate my bike lane in favor of putting myself in traffic.

[Six jours]

So how do you know that these two laners connected him to his destination?

I don't. I only know how SoCal is mostly set up, having lived and ridden here most of my life. It is rare that there are no alternate routes in Southen California.

[Helmet Head]

Wrong.

You or me on a bike, required to stay as close as practicable to the right side as possible, with some exceptions for debris, etc.

You or me in a car, no such restriction. There is a difference in the user rights based upon what you are riding in or on, despite all of your hand waving to the contrary.
Wrong.

The restrictions are practically identical and based on speed, not the type of vehicle you're in.

Regardless of whether you're on a bike or driving a motor vehicle, if you can operate at the speed of traffic at that time, there is no obligation to keep right.

Regardless of whether you're on a bike or driving a motor vehicle, if you cannot operate at the speed of traffic at that time, there is a general obligation to keep right, but only when it is safe and practical to do so.

There is hardly any practical difference in the user rights based upon what you are riding in or on, despite all of your hand waving to the contrary. In fact, in California, about the only significant difference is in the favor of a slow moving bicyclist over a driver of a slow moving motor vehicle. On a 2 lane marked highway with narrow lanes, a bicyclist is not required to keep right (per 21202), but a driver of a relatively slow moving vehicle is (per 21654). That's because slow moving bicyclists are exempted by 21202 from having to travel "as far right as practicable" when the lane is narrow, but there is no narrow lane exemption in 21654 for drivers of slow moving motor vehicles.

Another relatively minor difference is that when there is more than one lane in the given direction, and the right most lane is wide enough to be shared side-by-side by bike and vehicle, the slow moving cyclist is required to keep to the right side of the wide right lane (except for all the exceptions... debris and other obstacles, preparing for a left turn, approaching a place where right turns can be made, etc.), while the driver of the slow moving vehicle is merely required to stay in the right lane.

You might want to review the relevant traffic laws.

http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21202.htm
http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21654.htm

Same roads. Same rights. Same rules.

[LCI_Brian]

I don't. I only know how SoCal is mostly set up, having lived and ridden here most of my life. It is rare that there are no alternate routes in Southen California.
True, it's rare that there are no alternate routes in SoCal, but sometimes the detour can be a bit long compared to the direct route.

Since you are talking SoCal, was it my helmetcam video you were talking about? If so, it must have been the section of Moulton between Ridge Route and El Toro; I honestly don't recall. But there's not dozens of two lane roads intersecting this stretch, that's why I wasn't sure. There are indeed some alternates, but they involve significant enough out of direction travel.

[Helmet Head]

Nope, you're confused yet again Serge.

Keep on tilting at those windmills...
Read the laws and let me know what I'm confused about. :rolleyes:

[Six jours]

True, it's rare that there are no alternate routes in SoCal, but sometimes the detour can be a bit long compared to the direct route.

Fair enough. But then that brings us to the question of who's convenience is more important: yours, as the individual cyclist, or theirs, as the hundreds of motorists you are impeding. Is the extra ten minutes of commute worth all of the ill will that "taking the lane" on a busy arterial likely causes?

Since you are talking SoCal, was it my helmetcam video you were talking about? It must have been the section of Moulton between Ridge Route and El Toro; I honestly don't recall. But there's not dozens of two lane roads intersecting this stretch, that's why I wasn't sure. There are indeed some alternates, but they involve significant enough out of direction travel.
No, I'm sure it wasn't, as I am within five minutes of that area and would have recognized the video of it immediately. I am quite sure that it was footage of San Diego.

FWIW, I've ridden that section on numerous occasions and have never felt any need to take the lane. There is adequate room on the shoulder there, and I have never experienced a close pass. The next time I ride it I will imagine myself "taking the lane" and report back. Being as you are local, I will also tell you that I have imagined myself "taking the lane" on a road that is part of my daily commute: Northbound El Toro between Rockfield and Trabuco. I would not willingly ride this route as there is precious little shoulder, and traffic is fast/dense enough that "taking the lane" would be incredibly offensive to the average road user. And most importantly, there are alternates that are only a bit longer, but much safer and do not require that I interfere with other road users.

<edit> The bit about "never having felt the need to 'take the lane'" is quite important, IMO. From what I have seen, many "VC" advocates feel that need in situations where most cyclists are quite comfortable riding the shoulder. To again use the San Diego helmetcam footage as an example, the gentleman in question was outraged that I thought his footage showed quite ample space on the shoulder for safe and comfortable riding. He was in the right wheel track, and there was at least three feet of room between him and the gutterpan.

[Bekologist]

I STILL think john doesn't ride much anymore. and his rememberances from bicycling in the 1970's as a basis for advocacy today?

please. john's got some serious windmill tilting going on, helemt head is merely john's Sancho Panza.

[Six jours]

and his rememberances from bicycling in the 1970's as a basis for advocacy today?


I thought I was quite restrained in not poking fun at his recollections of riding PCH in the 40s. I would dearly love to have experienced that ride, but having to share the road with the occasional vacationing Hupmobile is hardly the same as the endless parade of Winnebagos cruising around NorCal these days.

[Bekologist]

Ho Ho Ho!!

john looks like he stopped pedalling a LOOOONG time ago.

[Helmet Head]

Serge, you'll have to do your own critical thinking, even though I know it is an enormous, seemingly insurmountable challenge for you.

I'm done with spoon feeding you in a vain attempt at helping you become a normal member of society.

I'll just continue to sit back and laugh at your confusion and the associated empty posturing.
I did a bunch of research and critical thinking about the laws and the implications to cycling on roadways about 4 years ago. I'm very familiar with the relevant laws and how and when they apply. I've shared and debated my conclusions here and on various other forums. I'm open to being corrected for anything that I may have misinterpreted or misunderstood, but so far my interpretations and conclusions have stood up to the test of time, and are consistent with interpretations and conclusions of all others I can find who have also studied this field (as indicated by their familiarity with the relevant laws in our discussions and debates).

In contrast, you appear to be totally ignorant of the relevant laws, though that doesn't seem to inhibit you from forming strong opinions about their ramifications.

Your inability to back up your claims that I'm confused speaks for itself.