Yes, one meter is enough to prevent dangerous passes in a narrow lane, if you are on a low speed road. On higher speed roads you need to make it clear much earlier that approaching motorists can not squeeze by so they have time to react. Moving further left will do this.

If the sight lines are designed for those higher speeds, it makes no difference. That said, higher speed roads, if they are designed properly, generally have wider lanes and/or a decent shoulder.

If the lane is too narrow to share and there is not a suitable shoulder to ride on, real life experience will teach you that taking the entire lane is the safest way in this case. Do you ever ride in these conditions?

Riding in the kerbside tyre track effectively is taking the lane. Did you not get that from what I'm saying?

If the lane is too narrow to share and there is not a suitable shoulder to ride on, real life experience will teach you that taking the entire lane is the safest way in this case. Do you ever ride in these conditions?

Yes, and I think anyone who "takes the lane" in those conditions is seriously deluded, if not an outright nutcase.

If the lane is too narrow to share and there is not a suitable shoulder to ride on, real life experience will teach you that taking the entire lane is the safest way in this case. Do you ever ride in these conditions?

If the lane is truly too narrow to share, then no matter where you are in the lane you are taking the lane. In such a situation, those who want to take the lane, I mean really take that lane, gain only marginal progress toward that goal by riding in the middle of it; and those who want to get the heck out of the way of fast moving same direction traffic gain only marginal benefit by staying to the right. But I get the impression that some folks' definition of 'too narrow to share' is different than mine.

Robert

If the lane is truly too narrow to share, then no matter where you are in the lane you are taking the lane. In such a situation, those who want to take the lane, I mean really take that lane, gain only marginal benefit by riding in the middle of it; and those who want to get the heck out of the way of fast moving same direction traffic gain only marginal benefit by staying to the right. But I get the impression that some folks' definition of 'too narrow to share' is different than mine.

Robert

My workplace is on a posted 50 mph four lane road with 9-10 foot wide lanes. Large trucks and sometimes even cars, fall off the edge of the pavement inadvertantly trying to stay in the lane. When I ride too far right (even right tire track) cars behind me often change lanes later, leaving a new car that was tailgating the original car right on my ass at high speed. If I ride left, even left of center, the cars shift over (or start to slow) sooner, leaving me a much larger buffer zone. I don't ride this for fun, or for many miles, but if I want to ride to work there really is no other option.

My workplace is on a posted 50 mph four lane road with 9-10 foot wide lanes. Large trucks and sometimes even cars, fall off the edge of the pavement inadvertently trying to stay in the lane. When I ride too far right (even right tire track) cars behind me often change lanes later, leaving a new car that was tailgating the original car right on my ass at high speed. If I ride left, even left of center, the cars shift over (or start to slow) sooner, leaving me a much larger buffer zone. I don't ride this for fun, or for many miles, but if I want to ride to work there really is no other option.
This matches my experience exactly on similar type roads. I think it is better for both cyclist and motorist to make it as clear as possible that they need to change lanes to pass. Being centerish accomplishes this better than right. The sooner drivers see you in lane in a position that doesn't leave any ambiguity if they need to change lanes, the sooner they will change lanes - alternately they are more likely to not pass, slow down then find themselves at cyclist speed making it harder for them to smoothly merge left and pass.

Now if a motorist doesn't merge and instead ends up behind me at my speed and it not acting overly aggressive and I note there is not another 'concerning' vehicle behind them I often move right to help facilitate an easier pass for them. This very much depends on the circumstances and other traffic conditions.

Al

Last I heard, being a smart-arse wasn't illegal.

:roflmao: but true.

Correct, but not if the smart arse cyclist was taking the centre line

why not?

it seems to me that roads are constructed differently and that conditions vary. there are times and places that the reasonable person would share the lane and would take a more center position while being quite civil.

anyway, empirically proving any of this is impossible at the moment.

Most of the police reports I've seen involving same-direction car-bike collisions are of the passing-too-closely variety where the cyclist was riding very close to the edge of a narrow lane and collided with the side of the overtaking vehicle that passed at unsafe distance. By comparison, these overtaking collisions are very rare on roads with wider lanes. The threshold between wide enough and narrow seems to be around 12 feet, but this of course depends on vehicle sizes and the condition of the edge of the road as well.

You should also include environmental conditions and the nature of the road (curves, hills, and so on).

I see below that you do not have rates ... but do you have counts of cyclists hit from behind by various categories?

It's hard to estimate the rate of overtaking collisions involving cyclists riding closer to the center of narrow lanes because we don't know what percentage of cyclists do this. We have a scarcity of police reports describing this type of collision where I live, and a substantial number of experienced cyclists who ride near the center of narrow lanes habitually. I do it habitually wherever the lane is narrower than 12 feet (we have lots of wide pickup trucks pulling trailers where I live) and I have never heard the sounds of emergency braking behind me. The close passes are significantly less frequent when I ride in the center of these narrow lanes than when I ride near the gutter.

Experienced road cyclists desire to be allowed to decide for themselves where in the lane they should operate. Persecution of cyclists who make assertive use of a travel lane has a chilling effect on the employment of valuable defensive cycling techniques.

If the sight lines are designed for those higher speeds, it makes no difference. That said, higher speed roads, if they are designed properly, generally have wider lanes and/or a decent shoulder.

Hmmmm ... perturbations of higher speed traffic, however, can result in a wider range of deviations. That is, consider a small driver mistake--say a one second "swerve"--at 30 mph that results in a 1' deviation from the intended travel line. That same mistake at 60 mph would result in a 2' deviation from the intended travel line.

It is difficult for me to compare the driver population of the US and Australia. They could have different skill sets, attitudes, driver education, laws, and so on. So it really could be the case that 1 meter is appropriate for the majority of roads down under while it is inappropriate here in the US.

If the lane is truly too narrow to share, then no matter where you are in the lane you are taking the lane. In such a situation, those who want to take the lane, I mean really take that lane, gain only marginal progress toward that goal by riding in the middle of it; and those who want to get the heck out of the way of fast moving same direction traffic gain only marginal benefit by staying to the right. But I get the impression that some folks' definition of 'too narrow to share' is different than mine.

Robert

If we allow for driver error, some locations may be more prone to driver mistakes than others ... no? Of course, one's location will make the cyclists more prone to a different type of driver error. One is really choosing a location based on the type of error a driver is more likely to make. So your point is that in a really narrow lane the risk tradeoff based on location is close to zero.

If the lane is truly too narrow to share, then no matter where you are in the lane you are taking the lane. In such a situation, those who want to take the lane, I mean really take that lane, gain only marginal progress toward that goal by riding in the middle of it; and those who want to get the heck out of the way of fast moving same direction traffic gain only marginal benefit by staying to the right. But I get the impression that some folks' definition of 'too narrow to share' is different than mine.

Robert
First, there is "truly too narrow to share" and "too narrow to safely share" - they do not mean the same thing, at least not to me. If a lane is "truly too narrow to share", then it simply cannot be shared. This is what happens when an 8.5' wide truck is centered in a 10' lane, leaving 7.5" on each side - that's "truly too narrow to share".

My definition with respect to safe sharing is that 14' or wider is almost always wide enough to safely share, under 12' is too narrow to share except when motor traffic is stopped or barely moving, and whether lanes in the 12'-14' width range (marginally narrow) can be safely shared depends on the circumstances (including gradient - which affects how quickly you can suddenly stop, cyclist speed, traffic speed and road surface conditions).

If there are parallel parked cars, then of course I do not include the approximatly 5' wide door zone as part of the pavement in the lane width calculation. So even 15' to the left of parked cars counts as a 10' narrow lane, and I ride in the center of it. So I ride about 10' from the parked cars because riding just outside the door zone, tires tracking at about 6' from the parked cars, leaves an inviting 8' of space to my right that drivers from behind may think they can use to pass me without encroaching in the adjacent lane, until they realize that they can't, much later than I would like - see the next paragraph. Riding a manner that invites motorist from behind to think they can safely squeeze in, when they can't, is discourteous to them.

And I think that the difference between riding centerish versus, say, riding in the right third of the pavement of a narrow or marginally narrow lane is more than marginal, especially with respect to how soon motorists from behind realize that they will have to slow down and/or encroach in the adjacent lane (be it same-direction or oncoming) because of your presence. And, I, for one, wish to have them realize that significantly sooner rather than much later.

I see below that you do not have rates ... but do you have counts of cyclists hit from behind by various categories?

Yes. Here in Cary, Cary Police reports a dozen or so car-bike collisions per year. Overtaking-type collisions amount to one or fewer per year on average. Of those, so far, none on record have been of the direct-rear-end-collision in the travel lane variety. All have been overtaking-too-closely where the side of the vehicle, such as a mirror or trailer, strikes the cyclist riding on the right edge of a narrow (less than 12' wide) lane. Cary police draw pretty detailed diagrams of the collision sites and describe the positions of the operators quite well in most cases, so I am able to determine where the cyclist was, and I have visited each site of a reported overtaking collision to measure the lane width with my tape measure.

I've also looked at data for Wake County, and while the available data is less detailed, it is similar. The overtaking collisions tend to be either at night, or overtaking-too-closely-in-a-narrow-lane where the side of the vehicle (mostly mirrors and trailers) strikes the cyclist. In some cases drivers have lost control and left the roadway to enter a wide paved shoulder to strike a cyclist. I have not seen any overtaking-collision reports involving cyclists in wide (>12')lanes.

Yes. Here in Cary, Cary Police reports a dozen or so car-bike collisions per year. Overtaking-type collisions amount to one or fewer per year on average. Of those, so far, none on record have been of the direct-rear-end-collision in the travel lane variety. All have been overtaking-too-closely where the side of the vehicle, such as a mirror or trailer, strikes the cyclist riding on the right edge of a narrow (less than 12' wide) lane. Cary police draw pretty detailed diagrams of the collision sites and describe the positions of the operators quite well in most cases, so I am able to determine where the cyclist was, and I have visited each site of a reported overtaking collision to measure the lane width with my tape measure.

I've also looked at data for Wake County, and while the available data is less detailed, it is similar. The overtaking collisions tend to be either at night, or overtaking-too-closely-in-a-narrow-lane where the side of the vehicle (mostly mirrors and trailers) strikes the cyclist. In some cases drivers have lost control and left the roadway to enter a wide paved shoulder to strike a cyclist. I have not seen any overtaking-collision reports involving cyclists in wide (>12')lanes.
That's what I call inadvertent drift and my hypothesis is that a significant contributing factor to these types of collisions, is, ironically, the painted stripe itself. From what I have read about inattentional blindness, it follows that a cyclist up ahead and clearly riding outside of the motorist's intended path, such as a cyclist riding to the right of a stripe would be, is more likely to be subconsciously written off as "irrelevant" than a cyclist up ahead who is not as clearly outside of the motorist's intended path. The stripe thus serves as a mechanism to clarify that the cyclist is outside of the motorist's path. I suspect this is because the stripe demarcates the edge of the driver's "primary zone of attention", and he simply is much less likely to pay any attention to anything to the right of that zone.

Once a cyclist is subconsciously written off as "irrelevant" to the driver, then his presence is less likely to be considered by the driver as a reason to not attend to a distraction.

Once a driver chooses to attended to a distraction, he is much more likely to drift out of his intended path, and, potentially, into the cyclist up ahead that he has subconsciously written off as "irrelevant".

This is one possible explanation for why cyclists in shoulders and bike lanes seem to be hit (which I hear and read about all too often) much more often by overtaking drivers drifting into them than are cyclists riding within narrow and wide lane (which are practically unheard of), and the only one that makes any sense to me.

As far as the cyclists who are hit in narrow lanes, I believe the primary factor (that is within their control) is their lateral position. By riding near the right they are inviting motorists to pass by trying to squeeze by on their left, despite the narrowness of the lane. The solution here is to ride further left, more centerish, which I explain in more detail here (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=5743795&postcount=19).

Yes. Here in Cary, Cary Police reports a dozen or so car-bike collisions per year. Overtaking-type collisions amount to one or fewer per year on average. Of those, so far, none on record have been of the direct-rear-end-collision in the travel lane variety. All have been overtaking-too-closely where the side of the vehicle, such as a mirror or trailer, strikes the cyclist riding on the right edge of a narrow (less than 12' wide) lane. Cary police draw pretty detailed diagrams of the collision sites and describe the positions of the operators quite well in most cases, so I am able to determine where the cyclist was, and I have visited each site of a reported overtaking collision to measure the lane width with my tape measure.

I've also looked at data for Wake County, and while the available data is less detailed, it is similar. The overtaking collisions tend to be either at night, or overtaking-too-closely-in-a-narrow-lane where the side of the vehicle (mostly mirrors and trailers) strikes the cyclist. In some cases drivers have lost control and left the roadway to enter a wide paved shoulder to strike a cyclist. I have not seen any overtaking-collision reports involving cyclists in wide (>12')lanes.

Hmmmm, sounds like the data needs to be pooled over time or over space. What are the standards for accessing vehicle accident reports? Can an ordinary citizen--in other words, me--typically go to the police department and look at accident reports?

That's what I call inadvertent drift and my hypothesis is that a significant contributing factor to these types of collisions, is, ironically, the painted stripe itself. From what I have read about inattentional blindness, it follows that a cyclist up ahead and clearly riding outside of the motorist's intended path, such as a cyclist riding to the right of a stripe would be, is more likely to be subconsciously written off as "irrelevant" than a cyclist up ahead who is not as clearly outside of the motorist's intended path. The stripe thus serves as a mechanism to clarify that the cyclist is outside of the motorist's path. I suspect this is because the stripe demarcates the edge of the driver's "primary zone of attention", and he simply is much less likely to pay any attention to anything to the right of that zone.


And watch out for the bogieman too.

First, there is "truly too narrow to share" and "too narrow to safely share"

If there are parallel parked cars, then of course I do not include the approximatly 5' wide door zone as part of the pavement in the lane width calculation. So even 15' to the left of parked cars counts as a 10' narrow lane, and I ride in the center of it. So I ride about 10' from the parked cars....


:eek: :roflmao: so, now it's EIGHT or TEN FEET from the parked cars? :roflmao: helmie, your fear knows no reasonable boundaries. you mean you can't share a 15 foot wide lane if there's a car parked to the right of THAT? :D: pardon me, I just spewed coffee on my monitor. HILARIOUS!

and besides, none of that applies here. this was a high speed, busy road, with a wide, clean shoulder/ right hand turn lane that a savvy vehicular bicyclist would be taking advantage of in Joejacks' test case.

Okay, Beck, tell me what to do.
If I ride just outside of the door zone, my tire is tracking 6' from the parked cars, and there is 8' of the lane remaining to my left.

|<----- 15' --->|
|---------------------
|--------BBdddddCCCCCC
|--------BBdddddCCCCCC
|--------BBdddddCCCCCC
|--------BBdddddCCCCCC
|--------BBdddddCCCCCC
|---------------CCCCCC
|---------------CCCCCC
|---------------------

BB = Bike (2')
ddddd = door zone (5')
CCCCCC = parked car (6')Even if a driver manages to get his 6' wide car to the very leftmost edge of the lane, he is clearing me by only 2'.


|<----- 15' --->|
|---------------------
|CCCCCC--BBdddddCCCCCC
|CC^CCC--BBdddddCCCCCC
|C/|\CC--BBdddddCCCCCC
|CC|CCC--BBdddddCCCCCC
|CC|CCC--BBdddddCCCCCC
|CC|CCC---------CCCCCC
|CCCCCC---------CCCCCC
|---------------------

BB = Bike (2')
ddddd = door zone (5')
CCCCCC = parked car (6')Many cars are more than 6' wide, particularly the big SUVs, and many drivers don't manage to drive up against the very edge, thus clearing me with less than 2'.

If I ride any further right to give them room, I'm in the door zone.

If I ride a foot or two further left, say tracking 7' or 8' from the parked cars, then they realize they need to slow down and/or change lanes to pass later than they do when I'm 10' from the parked cars. So that's why I ride as far out as 10' from the parked cars. Now, as they approach and slow down, I might temporarily move further right, to tracking about 6' from the parked cars, to make it easier for them to pass, but then I move back to my primary position further left as soon as they pass.

What do you recommend?

none of that has any relevancy to joes' case. helemt head, except you too, would have likely been ticketed.


however, your personal door zone now extends 6-8 feet from parked cars? and helemt head, don't get me wrong - sometimes I ride twenty feet from the parked cars! :roflmao: a mere 8-10 feet is sometimes not the best place to be on the road, dontchya know?

at the same time, a savvy vehicular cyclist would likely have been riding in a less obtrusive road position than in joejacks case. don't try and deny that. A vehicular cyclist takes advantage of wide shoulders. they can also stay destination positioned regardless of the stripes of paint on the road! :D

none of that has any relevancy to joes' case. helemt head, except you too, would have likely been ticketed.


however, your personal door zone now extends 6-8 feet from parked cars? and helemt head, don't get me wrong - sometimes I ride twenty feet from the parked cars! :roflmao: a mere 8-10 feet is sometimes not the best place to be on the road, dontchya know?

at the same time, a savvy vehicular cyclist would likely have been riding in a less obtrusive road position than in joejacks case. don't try and deny that. A vehicular cyclist takes advantage of wide shoulders. they can also stay destination positioned regardless of the stripes of paint on the road! :D
Thanks, no useful advice as usual.

No, the door zone does not extend 6-8 feet from parked cars. It's just that often riding just outside of the door zone is not far enough left to make it clear to drivers approaching from behind that they will not be able to squeeze into the lane in order to pass; in fact, it makes it look like they can.

BTW, a right turn only lane is not a shoulder, Beck. Riding in right turn only lanes is not "taking advantage of wide shoulders". :rolleyes:

First, there is "truly too narrow to share" and "too narrow to safely share" - they do not mean the same thing, at least not to me. If a lane is "truly too narrow to share", then it simply cannot be shared. This is what happens when an 8.5' wide truck is centered in a 10' lane, leaving 7.5" on each side - that's "truly too narrow to share".

My definition with respect to safe sharing is that 14' or wider is almost always wide enough to safely share, under 12' is too narrow to share except when motor traffic is stopped or barely moving, and whether lanes in the 12'-14' width range (marginally narrow) can be safely shared depends on the circumstances (including gradient - which affects how quickly you can suddenly stop, cyclist speed, traffic speed and road surface conditions).

If there are parallel parked cars, then of course I do not include the approximatly 5' wide door zone as part of the pavement in the lane width calculation. So even 15' to the left of parked cars counts as a 10' narrow lane, and I ride in the center of it. So I ride about 10' from the parked cars because riding just outside the door zone, tires tracking at about 6' from the parked cars, leaves an inviting 8' of space to my right that drivers from behind may think they can use to pass me without encroaching in the adjacent lane, until they realize that they can't, much later than I would like - see the next paragraph. Riding a manner that invites motorist from behind to think they can safely squeeze in, when they can't, is discourteous to them.

And I think that the difference between riding centerish versus, say, riding in the right third of the pavement of a narrow or marginally narrow lane is more than marginal, especially with respect to how soon motorists from behind realize that they will have to slow down and/or encroach in the adjacent lane (be it same-direction or oncoming) because of your presence. And, I, for one, wish to have them realize that significantly sooner rather than much later.

Narrow lane. ten or twelve feet. centerish. five feet. 'riding in the right third of the pavement of a narrow or marginally narrow lane'. Three and a half to four feet. You are talking about one foot difference or maybe two. Marginal.

(And again, why limit yourself to 'centerish' when you specify no faster same direction traffic. If there is ten feet of lane available for your use why are you only using five of it. Unhinge yourself from your 'primary riding position.' There's a whole world out there. This is an important point for people who like or need to ride pretty fast around lots of side traffic and side parking.)

Motorists aren't going to try to squeeze into an 8 foot opening. Most people think 8 feet is a lot bigger than it really is. On the street, laid out, it shrinks. Folks should take a tape measure and see for themselves. I think if I asked a group of people to go out and show me what 8 feet looks like, most would show me something in the ten-foot range. And people think six feet is four point five, etc. In actuality eight feet represents a space that is clearly and obviously way too small for a driver to fit his car into, unless he's going ultra slow, maybe with a spotter. An addled driver might try to squeeze a car into ten feet. I doubt it. The streets in the neighborhood I lived in for years had twenty-plus feet between the parked cars on either side -- that's two ten- or eleven-foot lanes side by side. And cars still couldn't pass each other on these streets without the drivers slowing down considerably and cringing at each other. Also, consider that the width of the typical modern bike path is eleven feet. Imagine a driver coming up behind you on the bike path and driving past without slowing down or leaving the bike path. I have experienced such close passes at speed, but then I have also felt obligated to chase these drivers down and commence incidents. The only people who have done that to me have done it on purpose, to be *******s. You may ask, how can you tell, but intention has been blatant and obvious each time. After decades and a few hundred thousand miles of riding I can count these experiences on a single hand, thankfully.

In related news, it turns out that the Longest Yard is actually just three feet -- same as the Shortest Yard, goshdarnit.

In my experience, even when I am going far out of my way to share a wide lane, the vast majority of drivers still leave the lane at least somewhat to pass. This is not 'lane-sharing' in the strict sense. More like road-sharing. In a truly narrow lane, the bike rider may be taking the lane by default, even if they move closer to the right for an approaching vehicle, but they will also be helping that driver to make a somewhat easier pass if they do. That's good. Cycling in traffic is also cycling with traffic and is best accomplished with a healthy dose of compromise and cooperation.

Robert

Narrow lane. ten or twelve feet. centerish. five feet. 'riding in the right third of the pavement of a narrow or marginally narrow lane'. Three and a half to four feet. You are talking about one foot difference or maybe two. Marginal.
First, we're using different definitions of centerish. To me centerish means near the center of the tire tracks, as opposed to near the center of the lane. On very narrow lanes the difference is marginal, but even in a 10' lane where the left tire track tends to be about a foot from the left edge, and the right tire track about 5' feet from there, centerish is about a foot or two left of the center of the lane. In a 12' lane centerish is another 2 feet further left.

Second, you're assuming riding in the right third means riding near the left edge of the right third, and riding centerish means not riding 2-3 feet to the left of center.

The difference between centerish and right third, even in a 10' lane, could easily be as much as 5' (7' from the right vs. 2' from the right.


(And again, why limit yourself to 'centerish' when you specify no faster same direction traffic. If there is ten feet of lane available for your use why are you only using five of it. Unhinge yourself from your 'primary riding position.' There's a whole world out there. This is an important point for people who like or need to ride pretty fast around lots of side traffic and side parking.)
We're only talking about where to ride if you have no specific reason to ride anywhere in particular; i.e., where you ride by default. Why you keep thinking there is some kind of limitation imposed by this kind of thinking is beyond me. Did you have strict authoritarian parents such that your life is all about opposing rules? I digress...


Motorists aren't going to try to squeeze into an 8 foot opening. Most people think 8 feet is a lot bigger than it really is. On the street, laid out, it shrinks. Folks should take a tape measure and see for themselves. I think if I asked a group of people to go out and show me what 8 feet looks like, most would show me something in the ten-foot range. And people think six feet is four point five, etc. In actuality eight feet represents a space that is clearly and obviously way too small for a driver to fit his car into, unless he's going ultra slow, maybe with a spotter. An addled driver might try to squeeze a car into ten feet. I doubt it. The streets in the neighborhood I lived in for years had twenty-plus feet between the parked cars on either side -- that's two ten- or eleven-foot lanes side by side.
That's a really good point. I need to go out with a measuring tape more often.

But, while drivers might not try to squeeze into 10', it's worth noting that they're much more likely to try to squeeze into a given width, and at a faster speed, if that width is demarcated by stripes. This is why drivers tend to pass cyclists faster and closer when the cyclist is riding in a bike lane or shoulder than if the cyclist is riding in the right third of a WOL "unprotected" by a stripe. Oops, I digress again.

Having said that, painting very narrow lanes is a known technique for "calming" (slowing) traffic. But, then, removing all stripes is also a slowing/calming technique.


And cars still couldn't pass each other on these streets without the drivers slowing down considerably and cringing at each other. Also, consider that the width of the typical modern bike path is eleven feet. Imagine a driver coming up behind you on the bike path and driving past without slowing down or leaving the bike path. I have experienced such close passes at speed, but then I have also felt obligated to chase these drivers down and commence incidents. The only people who have done that to me have done it on purpose, to be *******s. You may ask, how can you tell, but intention has been blatant and obvious each time. After decades and a few hundred thousand miles of riding I can count these experiences on a single hand, thankfully.

In related news, it turns out that the Longest Yard is actually just three feet -- same as the Shortest Yard, goshdarnit.

Interesting.


In my experience, even when I am going far out of my way to share a wide lane, the vast majority of drivers still leave the lane at least somewhat to pass. This is not 'lane-sharing' in the strict sense. More like road-sharing.

Yes, exactly.


In a truly narrow lane, the bike rider may be taking the lane by default, even if they move closer to the right for an approaching vehicle, but they will also be helping that driver to make a somewhat easier pass if they do. That's good. Cycling in traffic is also cycling with traffic and is best accomplished with a healthy dose of compromise and cooperation.

Robert
I still cringe at the compromise but heartily agree with the cooperation.
When I move aside in a narrow lane to make it somewhat easier for them to pass, which I do regularly, I don't see that as a compromise of anything. If I felt I was compromising my safety to any significant degree, then I wouldn't do it. That's why I won't move into a door zone in the name of cooperating with overtaking traffic, though I will move aside temporarily into a gap between parked cars specifically to let a few cars pass (but not if there is a seemingly endless line of them).

interesting. still pretends to never use the door zone, but will dodge in and out of parked cars on occasion.
none of this has any relevance to joejacks scenario.

I still cringe at the compromise but heartily agree with the cooperation.
When I move aside in a narrow lane to make it somewhat easier for them to pass, which I do regularly, I don't see that as a compromise of anything. If I felt I was compromising my safety to any significant degree, then I wouldn't do it. That's why I won't move into a door zone in the name of cooperating with overtaking traffic, though I will move aside temporarily into a gap between parked cars specifically to let a few cars pass (but not if there is a seemingly endless line of them).

Again, the position you describe as not compromised, centered between the tire tracks, is far from the least compromised position in the lane. And even the least compromised position (from which, again, you are quite far) would still leave us somewhat compromised. ¿Comprende?

So not only are you compromised, but may not realize you are. This is far worse than simply being compromised. Compromise is inevitable, but we need to recognize when and how we compromise and are compromised so we can deal with it appropriately.

It's a bit nutty when people who ride bikes in traffic proclaim they will not allow their safety to be compromised any more than necessary. If that were true, they wouldn't go out on the streets without encasing themselves in something beefy, like a Hummer or Expedition. They certainly wouldn't ride around out there for relatively frivolous purposes like recreation or training. Let's get real. It's too late -- you compromised yourself already.

Robert

and besides, none of that applies here. this was a high speed, busy road, with a wide, clean shoulder/ right hand turn lane that a savvy vehicular bicyclist would be taking advantage of in Joejacks' test case.

So Bek, how does the savvy [Portland] vehicular cyclist make a left hand turn on a multilane road?

Motorists aren't going to try to squeeze into an 8 foot opening.

If that was the case, I'd have no problems riding to the far right in the lane on this road. I'd be causing the same delay as I caused the morning I was pulled over though.

The reality of my experience riding this road though has been that motorist will try to squeeze into an 8 foot opening at full speed. On the flip side, many motorists will not and the result is the same or an increased delay as if I had been riding centerish in the lane, a position that in no way tempts motorists to try and share the lane with me.

Amidst all this pontification, argument and debate I think that most people on here have missed the real crux of the matter.

The real crux of the matter is that JoeJack was was quite plainly and simply "BEING A SMART ARSE".

He was riding down the centre of the lane with a tailback of traffic queing up behind him whistling dixie and saying to himself: "up yours car drivers".

Unfortunately the Law was in the que behind him and was obviously pi$$ed of with the smart arses behaviour so he gave him his come uppance.

JoeJack, IF YOU CAN'T PAY THE FINE, DON'T DO THE CRIME and stop behaving like a smart arse because, 1) you're giving us sensible cyclists a bad name and 2) you're taking up far too much bandwith (as well as lane width).

If you are going to be such a prick, maybe you should read the whole thread first. The road I was on has two lanes in both directions, meaning that even if I'm using a whole lane for myself, motorists have a free lane in which they can pass me at whatever speed they want. The fact that some motorists that morning failed to change lanes before reaching me and had to slow down is far from a good reason to label me a "smart arse." For the record, you've taken up a lot more bandwidth than me lately (granted, I've been vacationing in Hawaii for the past two weeks).

If you haven't realized either, this thread has nothing to do with not being able to pay a fine.

So Bek, how does the savvy [Portland] vehicular cyclist make a left hand turn on a multilane road? I don't live in Portland, dude. but all cyclists, savvy or not, on a road with a bike lane or not, making left turns on multi laned roads will execute either a merge turn, a pedestrian turn, a cut corner, an agressive multilaned move perhaps. it's up to the bicyclist reading the conditions at the time.

were you getting ready to make a left turn, joe?

haven't figured out what the 18 feet of pavement to your right could be used for on that road yet, eh, joe? here's a hint: if you can ride a road as if the bike lane stripe is not there, you should also be able to ride a road as if the rest of the stripes are not there either.

on this road, joe, why DON'T you do like a lot of other vehicular bicyclists would do, and ride a line just to the right of the edge of the rightmost thru lane, as if you were sharing a high speed road with a wide, very wide shoulder?

oh, that's right, you're new at this and read all about taking the lane in bike forums and have become a dogmatically addled newbie VC bicyclist.

I don't live in Portland, dude. but all cyclists, savvy or not, on a road with a bike lane or not, making left turns on multi laned roads will execute either a merge turn, a pedestrian turn, a cut corner, an agressive multilaned move perhaps. it's up to the bicyclist reading the conditions at the time.

were you getting ready to make a left turn, joe?

I was indirectly referring to the Portland cyclists who have been pulled over (and ticketed) for leaving a bike lane to make a left turn. Do you have any enlightening recommendations for them too?

haven't figured out what the 18 feet of pavement to your right could be used for on that road yet, eh, joe? here's a hint: if you can ride a road as if the bike lane stripe is not there, you should also be able to ride a road as if the rest of the stripes are not there either.

Approaching an intersection in a wide outside lane on a multilane road? I'd be taking the lane just like I was anyway. I do it quite often.

on this road, joe, why DON'T you do like a lot of other vehicular bicyclists would do, and ride a line just to the right of the edge of the rightmost thru lane, as if you were sharing a high speed road with a wide, very wide shoulder?

oh, that's right, you're new at this and read all about taking the lane in bike forums and have become a dogmatically addled newbie VC bicyclist.

Your newbie insult is getting old.

joe, on this road, why DON'T you do like a lot of other vehicular bicyclists would do, and ride a line just to the right of the edge of the rightmost thru lane, as if you were sharing a high speed road with a wide, very wide shoulder?


i bet even jhon forestoir would do it!

Are you even allowed to appeal? Was your case heard in a Justice of the Peace Court or an Alderman's Court? If your case was heard in a Justice of the Peace Court, you may not be eligible to appeal if your fine is less than $100 (I'm not sure if court cost assessment is considered part of the fine).

http://courts.delaware.gov/How%20To/Traffic/?JPTraffic.htm

Funny that you ask. My original fine was $25 (the minimum for this offense). After my first court case, which was held in a JOP Court, the officer requested that my fine be raised to the maximum of $115. In doing so, he actually gave me the oppurtunity to appeal which I otherwise would not have had with only a $25 fine. Appeals do need a minimum of a $100 fine in Delaware too (I'll give credit to ILTB for commenting on my comments about appealing early on and leading to my discovery of this).

If the officer says you were not cooperating, he probably interpreted your behavior as argumentative. It sounds like you had a chance to get out of receiving a ticket, but chose to argue your case with the police officer instead. If that is what you wanted to do, fine.

For me, even if I know the law inside out and sideways, it is never my objective at a traffic stop to teach a police officer about the law or make a point. There are more appropriate, more effective, and cheaper ways to do that. My objective is to 1) not get a ticket, and if that fails 2) do everything possible to help my case in court (which consists of not admitting guilt and trying to make the stop as uneventful and unmemorable as possible).

Attorney fees, even for a $45 ticket, are likely to run around $300.

Of course I could have gotten out of the ticket. All I had to do was agree with the officer at some point. He had three sets of "laws" for me to agree with:

1. Cyclists should ride on the bike path (referring to the right turn lane where he pulled me over).
2. Cyclists should ride "as far right as practicable on the shoulder" (he acted as though he was reading this from his book).
3. Cyclists should ride as far right as practicable on the roadway (ignoring the exception that if the lane is too narrow to be safely shared that this law does not apply).

If I had agreed to any of the above, he would have let me go. If I had not had almost the same discussion with another cop about a week before this incident I might have just let it go. Getting pulled over is not something I enjoy so in order to be able to continue to use this road in a manner that I feel is the best, I stood my ground. It got me a ticket so now I'm going about dealing with it.

Funny that you ask. My original fine was $25 (the minimum for this offense). After my first court case, which was held in a JOP Court, the officer requested that my fine be raised to the maximum of $115. In doing so, he actually gave me the oppurtunity to appeal which I otherwise would not have had with only a $25 fine.

Should I say congratulations on the good luck? ;)

How long before your appeal is heard?

Again, the position you describe as not compromised, centered between the tire tracks, is far from the least compromised position in the lane. And even the least compromised position (from which, again, you are quite far) would still leave us somewhat compromised. ¿Comprende?

So not only are you compromised, but may not realize you are. This is far worse than simply being compromised. Compromise is inevitable, but we need to recognize when and how we compromise and are compromised so we can deal with it appropriately.

It's a bit nutty when people who ride bikes in traffic proclaim they will not allow their safety to be compromised any more than necessary. If that were true, they wouldn't go out on the streets without encasing themselves in something beefy, like a Hummer or Expedition. They certainly wouldn't ride around out there for relatively frivolous purposes like recreation or training. Let's get real. It's too late -- you compromised yourself already.

Robert
Well, here you are using such a broad and extreme definition for "compromise" and what it takes to be "compromised" that it essentially becomes useless.

Yes, of course my safety is compromised, as compared to staying home on the couch, no matter where I ride.

But your original statement using "compromise" was this:


Cycling in traffic is also cycling with traffic and is best accomplished with a healthy dose of compromise and cooperation.

This is a different usage, where you are actually advocating more compromise (a "healthy dose") than at least some cyclists are willing to give. What you seem to be saying is:You're already compromising your safety just by being out there, but you still don't have a "healthy dose" of compromise. That's not enough. Cycling with traffic is best accomplished with even more compromise in your safety, a "healthy dose", so go ahead and ride in that door zone, hug that curb, share lanes that are too narrow to be safely shared, use right turn only lanes when you're going straight, go straight across intersections from curbside lateral positions, leave the helmet and lights at home, run those stop signs and red traffic lights, ride on the wrong side of the street.... After all, cycling in traffic is best accomplished with a healthy dose of compromise of your safety.
Obviously, I exaggerate. But it would be helpful if you would differentiate what you're actually saying from the hyperbole interpretation above.

Well, here you are using such a broad and extreme definition for "compromise" and what it takes to be "compromised" that it essentially becomes useless.

Yes, of course my safety is compromised, as compared to staying home on the couch, no matter where I ride.

But your original statement using "compromise" was this:


This is a different usage, where you are actually advocating more compromise (a "healthy dose") than at least some cyclists are willing to give. What you seem to be saying is:You're already compromising your safety just by being out there, but you still don't have a "healthy dose" of compromise. That's not enough. Cycling with traffic is best accomplished with even more compromise in your safety, a "healthy dose", so go ahead and ride in that door zone, hug that curb, share lanes that are too narrow to be safely shared, use right turn only lanes when you're going straight, go straight across intersections from curbside lateral positions, leave the helmet and lights at home, run those stop signs and red traffic lights, ride on the wrong side of the street.... After all, cycling in traffic is best accomplished with a healthy dose of compromise of your safety.
Obviously, I exaggerate. But it would be helpful if you would differentiate what you're actually saying from the hyperbole interpretation above.

The semantic abyss is calling once again.

To be clear: don't ride fast in the door zone. There may be times when using the door zone space will be helpful, but you have to ride slow and paranoid to use that space. And keep in mind that moving toward the DZ, but not into it, is perceived by drivers to be helpful and cooperative in most situations. You can move to a space 6 feet from parked cars and it still looks to the following driver like you are essentially next to the parked cars -- because 6 feet looks a lot smaller than many people realize.

People who think to themselves 'I am not going to compromise my safety' before they go out riding around in traffic should, in all seriousness, stay home, because that is the only place where such a thing would be possible. Traffic is compromise. It can function no other way. And this is compromise in any sense of the word you want to use. Traffic is also human beings, it is not some machine or algorithm into which we can plug our desired variables (eg lane position) and achieve a set of logical, predictable results.

When you're driving down the highway at 80 mph in a stream of cars and trucks, do you feel that your safety is not compromised simply because you are in a lane? I would hope that you realize that you are compromised in that situation, dependent on the faculties, abilities and awareness of others to a significant degree despite your best efforts. Just going out there is compromise in the ugliest sense, and it is true to some degree with cycling in traffic as well.

Robert

Motorists aren't going to try to squeeze into an 8 foot opening.

The level of aggressiveness changes with conditions. I agree that the median driver under "normal" conditions will wait when 8 feet of clearance presents itself. However, I think strategies that work for the median driver--in this case, on the scale of aggressiveness--will often fail for those in the tails. If you change driving conditions to make them more stressful, then the likelihood of an aggressive maneuver increases.

Most people think 8 feet is a lot bigger than it really is. On the street, laid out, it shrinks. Folks should take a tape measure and see for themselves. I think if I asked a group of people to go out and show me what 8 feet looks like, most would show me something in the ten-foot range. And people think six feet is four point five, etc. In actuality eight feet represents a space that is clearly and obviously way too small for a driver to fit his car into, unless he's going ultra slow, maybe with a spotter. An addled driver might try to squeeze a car into ten feet. I doubt it. The streets in the neighborhood I lived in for years had twenty-plus feet between the parked cars on either side -- that's two ten- or eleven-foot lanes side by side. And cars still couldn't pass each other on these streets without the drivers slowing down considerably and cringing at each other. Also, consider that the width of the typical modern bike path is eleven feet. Imagine a driver coming up behind you on the bike path and driving past without slowing down or leaving the bike path. I have experienced such close passes at speed, but then I have also felt obligated to chase these drivers down and commence incidents. The only people who have done that to me have done it on purpose, to be *******s. You may ask, how can you tell, but intention has been blatant and obvious each time. After decades and a few hundred thousand miles of riding I can count these experiences on a single hand, thankfully.

In related news, it turns out that the Longest Yard is actually just three feet -- same as the Shortest Yard, goshdarnit.


I agree with the statement above regarding a cyclist's bias towards overestimating narrow widths in this case. It does take a bit of practice and measurement to get a sense of what "X" feet looks like. Anecdotally, I think that the same idea applies to the perception of how close cars pass to cyclists. That is, on several occasions, buds have complained about the horizontal distance between them and a car that passed. When I told them that it looked like 3 feet, they were pretty surprised.

The problem with your analogy of the parked cars is that parked cars represent a bigger risk to the driver than a cyclist. Hence, they would behave differently.

When you're driving down the highway at 80 mph in a stream of cars and trucks, do you feel that your safety is not compromised simply because you are in a lane? I would hope that you realize that you are compromised in that situation, dependent on the faculties, abilities and awareness of others to a significant degree despite your best efforts. Just going out there is compromise in the ugliest sense, and it is true to some degree with cycling in traffic as well.

Robert

I think that is correct. If drivers get the sense that the cyclist in front is being unreasonable--i.e., failing to compromise--I believe that many react be becoming more aggressive making the situation more dangerous from the theoretically optimal location.

Should I say congratulations on the good luck? ;)

How long before your appeal is heard?

Well given how much I use that road, it's likely that I'll be pulled over again and would have had another chance to fight a ticket. I guess getting it out of the way on the first one will save me the $45 I would have been forced to pay (not that the appeal isn't going to cost considerably more).

So far, all that is scheduled is an initial hearing in early January 2008.

The semantic abyss is calling once again.

To be clear: don't ride fast in the door zone. There may be times when using the door zone space will be helpful, but you have to ride slow and paranoid to use that space. And keep in mind that moving toward the DZ, but not into it, is perceived by drivers to be helpful and cooperative in most situations. You can move to a space 6 feet from parked cars and it still looks to the following driver like you are essentially next to the parked cars -- because 6 feet looks a lot smaller than many people realize.

People who think to themselves 'I am not going to compromise my safety' before they go out riding around in traffic should, in all seriousness, stay home, because that is the only place where such a thing would be possible. Traffic is compromise. It can function no other way. And this is compromise in any sense of the word you want to use. Traffic is also human beings, it is not some machine or algorithm into which we can plug our desired variables (eg lane position) and achieve a set of logical, predictable results.

When you're driving down the highway at 80 mph in a stream of cars and trucks, do you feel that your safety is not compromised simply because you are in a lane? I would hope that you realize that you are compromised in that situation, dependent on the faculties, abilities and awareness of others to a significant degree despite your best efforts. Just going out there is compromise in the ugliest sense, and it is true to some degree with cycling in traffic as well.

Robert
Again, realizing the inherent compromise in traffic is one thing, and I have no quarrel with that (now that I realize your broad and extreme use of the term in that context).

What I don't get is why you seem to encourage cyclists to compromise their safety more than they already are. At least that's what it seems like you're doing when you write (paraphrasing), cycling in traffic is best accomplished with a healthy dose of compromise of your safety. The implication is that cycling in traffic is not accomplished quite as well with a less than healthy dose of compromise.

What do you consider to be cycling in traffic with a healthy dose of compromise, and how does that compare to cycling in traffic with something less than a healthy dose of compromise? And how is cycling in traffic "best accomplished" with the former rather than the latter?

If you are going to be such a prick, maybe you should read the whole thread first. The road I was on has two lanes in both directions, meaning that even if I'm using a whole lane for myself, motorists have a free lane in which they can pass me at whatever speed they want.

Prick? Now there's irony for you!
I don't suppose the outside lane was full of traffic too was it? Maybe you'r mate was cycling down the centre of that one?

IF YOU CAN'T PAY THE FINE, DON'T DO THE CRIME

Right, Now everyone be a good little cyclist and show blatant disregard for traffic control devices such as right hand turn lanes and stop lights like your supposed to and avoid getting a ticket. :rolleyes:

It is almost impossible for me to believe that a rational human being can look at a 50+ MPH arterial and think that the safest place to ride a bicycle is in the middle of the lane.

Unfortunately 6 days, that's the kind of people you get on this forum apparently and in the "Good old U.S. of A.

Remind me to keep of the roads if I ever bother to visit the good old U.S. of A.

So Bek, how does the savvy [Portland] vehicular cyclist make a left hand turn on a multilane road?


Lesson no 2 for JoeJack ( I'll make it a quick one)

Whilst riding as far to the right of the lane, take a look behind you whilst approaching the LH turn. When there is a safe space clearly indicate your intention to turn left by holding your left arm out horizontally. When it is safe move quickly over as near to the LH side of the lane as possible thus allowing the vehicles that are not turning left to carry straight on on the inside of you. Any other vehicles turning left will line up behind you. Whe you approach the junction ensure there is a safe space and proceed quickly accross and proceed AS CLOSE TO THE RIGHT HAND SIDE OF THE LANE AS POSSIBLE!!

Hey Joe (I hear a song coming on) it's not rocket science is it? Well it isn't to some of us!

If I had agreed to any of the above, he would have let me go. If I had not had almost the same discussion with another cop about a week before this incident I might have just let it go. Getting pulled over is not something I enjoy so in order to be able to continue to use this road in a manner that I feel is the best, I stood my ground.it.


Surprise, surprise Joe.............you've got history. You really do surprise me! LOL>

A serial lane abuser eh?

Well given how much I use that road, it's likely that I'll be pulled over again................ and again, and again, and again, and again, and again. There's nothing no surer !

Brief update: court case scheduled for July 2008. Nothing like taking 11 months to hear whether or not the court wants to actually back up what they've written into law.

Nothing like a right to a speedy trial! July / 2008?

Sorry to hear that JoeJack951. I know it doesn't help, but that will allow the issue to be rode into the ground via bikeforums.net.

Ride Safe!

Nothing like taking 11 months to hear whether or not the court wants to actually back up what they've written into law.

If you think that it is odd for an appeal to take that long then you really should cut and run at this point.

11 months to hear an appeal is not unusual.

p.s. You might also want to do some research and determine who actually writes the laws (hint: it's not the courts as you have claimed sunshine).

Unfortunately 6 days, that's the kind of people you get on this forum apparently and in the "Good old U.S. of A.

Remind me to keep of the roads if I ever bother to visit the good old U.S. of A.
Well, FWIW, most of my riding has been done in the U.S. and I'm not entirely sure I've ever actually seen a "vehicular cyclist" in my 25 years on the bike. Everyone I've known, from high-level pro to the greenest greenhorn, has ridden "as far right as practicable". The "taking the lane" nonsense is limited, as far as I can tell, to a handful of BF whackjobs. So I'm sure you'd be just fine on American roads.

Of course, if you're used to disciplined pacelines and intelligent decision-making in the peloton, you're out of luck here, as that sort of thing went out with the Lance boom.:rolleyes:

Brief update: court case scheduled for July 2008. Nothing like taking 11 months to hear whether or not the court wants to actually back up what they've written into law.

Good luck! Man that is a long time for a court date. Are they making the interest on your money?