Google sponsored links
I don't really know about all the fissures and divisions in the bike community; as you can see, I'm a noob. It seems to me that the position of John Forester (http://www.johnforester.com/) is pretty sound, namely, that bike lanes introduce new hazards, and slow cyclists down, without solving any problems. People here have often posted that they easily use the bike lane, or not, as conditions permit. In other words, many who use the bike lane don't feel constrained by it. But, how common is that? And, is there any emerging trend to require cyclists to use the bike lanes? If they are almost always optional, that certainly makes things better. If they are optional, the only worry would be to do with motorists who resent bikes not in the bike lane, but, that would seem to be a rarity, judging from Youtube footage of people's commutes, replete with filtering or lane-splitting.
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content
here.
Ready to buy? Check out these two online bike stores:
-
http://www.nashbar.com (you can find the latest bike nashbar coupons in
this thread)
-
http://www.performancebike.com (you can find the latest performance bike coupons in
this thread)
Cya on the forums,
- The BikeForums Team
-
http://www.bikeforums.net
I don't feel constrained by using the bike lane. It puts no new hazards into the mix than just using a narrow right lane. The car drivers are going to drive the same whether we're in a bike lane or using the right lane. Same right hooks, but from the left lane instead, and same not seeing us even though we're 8-9 feet out from the right edge of the road.
We rode in many bike lanes today. The road was filled with lots of Sunday traffic that went right by us at 45 mph, while we rode in a bike lane about 8 feet wide.
From http://www.nyc.gov/html/look/html/cyclist/cyclist_safety_text.shtml
"Must use a bike path or lane if provided"
From http://www.nyc.gov/html/look/downloads/pdf/bicycle_fatality_report.pdf
"Key New York City and New York State Traffic Laws for Motorists and Bicyclists"
"Bicyclists must use a bicycle lane or path if provided except for access, safety, and turns."
===
"Second, the vast majority of deaths occurred outside of bicycle lanes and other bicycle facilities. When a fatal bicycle crash with a motor vehicle occurred on a city street with a bicycle lane, the bicyclist was always outside of the lane itself, suggesting that dedicated bicycle paths or lanes may help reduce crashes with a motor vehicle."
Plenty of lanes end up being debris zones (and which is more dangerous, holding a steady line on a clean patch of pavement in the lane, or zig-zagging in and out of the lane to avoid debris?)--- and around here they can narrow to maybe a foot wide. I refuse to ride a foot from the curb for safety reasons. I believe you will always have a legit case to take the lane due to safety.
"Bicyclists must use a bicycle lane or path if provided except for access, safety, and turns."
Yeah, just looked that up. NY 34.1234 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcode.pl?frame=right2&code=NY&ls=claws&law=127&art=57) That is a pretty tight requirement. There is a specific narrow-lane exception, but it's basically turns and hazards only.
Mandatory bike lane laws really make no difference as far as I can see. I've ridden in both kinds of state. Either you need to be in the bike lane, or you need to be near the right-hand curb, where bike lanes generally tend to be.
Bike lane laws or not, I don't like how few exceptions there are in that law. The California version says the bike lane must follow some standards - and some of them don't. Three feet including gutter is not a bike lane. I'll also move out at high speeds, and after crashing on a descent this summer, I can totally justify that in the name of safety.
The Australian rules simply state "The rider of a bicycle riding on a length of road with a bicycle lane designed for bicycles travelling in the same direction as the rider must ride in the bicycle lane unless it is impracticable to do so." Things that I consider to make it impracticable include; debris, inadequate width, overhanging branches, parked cars, the need to make a right turn, pedestrians, left turning vehicles, etc.
It reads as a 'mandatory' bike lane use rule, but in practice all it's really mandating is that you ride the same direction as the traffic in the adjacent lane. I have no problem with that.
Bike lanes are defined as "a portion of a roadway that has been designated by stripes, signs, and bicycle pavement markings for the preferential or exclusive use of bicyclists." Note the word "roadway." Any state that requires cyclists to ride "as far right as practicable on the roadway" has de facto mandatory bike lanes, subject of course to the exceptions in that law.
The Australian rules simply state Things that I consider to make it impracticable include; debris, inadequate width, overhanging branches, parked cars, the need to make a right turn, pedestrians, left turning vehicles, etc.
It reads as a 'mandatory' bike lane use rule, but in practice all it's really mandating is that you ride the same direction as the traffic in the adjacent lane. I have no problem with that.
The problem with that is that it puts the legal, moral, practical and cultural onus on the cyclist to justify whenever he's not riding in a bike lane as being "practicable".
One of the biggest defenders of bike lanes on this forum, patc, feels there is no such constraint where he lives (in Canada). That use of the bike lane by cyclists is purely optional. He also seems to think that there is no cultural expectation for cyclists to use bike lanes. I don't know how accurate that is. I'll just say that I don't know anyone else who feels so free about it.
The problem with that is that it puts the legal, moral, practical and cultural onus on the cyclist to justify whenever he's not riding in a bike lane as being "practicable".
You know what, Serge? I've never once had to justify leaving the bike lane to anyone. Ever. In practical terms, your 'problem' doesn't exist. In practical terms, 'practicable' is broad enough that there's no need to justify leaving the bike lane, as pretty much any reason is a valid justification.
Your fearmongering about bike lanes is getting pretty boring. Do pull your head in.
The problem with that is that it puts the legal, moral, practical and cultural onus on the cyclist to justify whenever he's not riding in a bike lane as being "practicable".
You know what, Serge? I've never once had to justify leaving the bike lane to anyone. Ever. In practical terms, your 'problem' doesn't exist. In practical terms, 'practicable' is broad enough that there's no need to justify leaving the bike lane, as pretty much any reason is a valid justification.
Your fearmongering about bike lanes is getting pretty boring. Do pull your head in.
Fearmongering is the correct description. Fear of a legal, moral, practical and cultural onus is a condition known only by VC ideologues.
I think the correct cure for HH is to pull his head out of his onus.
You know what, Serge? I've never once had to justify leaving the bike lane to anyone. Ever. In practical terms, your 'problem' doesn't exist. In practical terms, 'practicable' is broad enough that there's no need to justify leaving the bike lane, as pretty much any reason is a valid justification.
Your fearmongering about bike lanes is getting pretty boring. Do pull your head in.
I don't know. I've had to justify my use of a traffic lane to a cop (and soon a judge) because the area to the right was mistaken for a bike path/lane by the police officer.
Don't forget to ask those cyclists in Portland who got tickets for making left turns from left turn lanes how they feel about mandatory bike lane laws.
[edit]I don't think the problem is so much the law itself as it is the (improper) interpretation of the law by both law enforcement and justice-enforcing motorists on the road.[edit]
I don't know. I've had to justify my use of a traffic lane to a cop (and soon a judge) because the area to the right was mistaken for a bike path/lane by the police officer.
Don't forget to ask those cyclists in Portland who got tickets for making left turns from left turn lanes how they feel about mandatory bike lane laws.
[edit]I don't think the problem is so much the law itself as it is the (improper) interpretation of the law by both law enforcement and justice-enforcing motorists on the road.[edit]
It's just my opinion, but if we take away the bike lane those same police officers will just find another section of the vehicle code to write bicycle riders a ticket under.
I don't know. I've had to justify my use of a traffic lane to a cop (and soon a judge) because the area to the right was mistaken for a bike path/lane by the police officer.
I've had to explain something similar to a police officer too, on a road that has no bikelane, or even a shoulder, and 10' lanes. He thought the law said I had to ride on the footpath (it's not even a true shared path). I didn't get a ticket.
In your case, I would probably have been riding to the left in the RTO lane. I'm eagerly waiting to hear the result of your case. Instinctively, I think you should get the ticket cancelled, but it hinges on your ability to convey that the RTO lane really was impracticable to ride in, so it could really go either way.
Don't forget to ask those cyclists in Portland who got tickets for making left turns from left turn lanes how they feel about mandatory bike lane laws.
Like you say, that has nothing to do with the law.
[edit]I don't think the problem is so much the law itself as it is the (improper) interpretation of the law by both law enforcement and justice-enforcing motorists on the road.[edit]
True. So what are you arguing for? The law functions fine. If stupid cops are the problem, removing bikelanes, or changing laws will fix nothing. Talk about a solution looking for a problem.
It's just my opinion, but if we take away the bike lane those same police officers will just find another section of the vehicle code to write bicycle riders a ticket under.
I'm not convinced they're that imaginitive.
In case mentioned in my previous post, the cop could've called me on the 'not to cause an unreasonable obstruction' clause, which is more subjective and difficult to argue empirically (not that I don't think I had a valid argument), hinging on what is or isn't 'unreasonable'. Good thing he wasn't all that familiar with the road rules.
125 Unreasonably obstructing drivers or pedestrians
(1) A driver must not unreasonably obstruct the path of another driver or
a pedestrian.
Maximum penalty—20 penalty units.
(2) For this section, a driver does not unreasonably obstruct the path of
another driver or a pedestrian only because—
(a) the driver is stopped in traffic; or
(b) the driver is driving more slowly than other vehicles (unless the
driver is driving abnormally slowly in the circumstances).
Example of a driver driving abnormally slowly—
A driver driving at a speed of 20 km/h on a length of road to which a speed
limit of 80 km/h applies when there is no reason for the driver to drive at
that speed on the length of road.
You know what, Serge? I've never once had to justify leaving the bike lane to anyone. Ever. In practical terms, your 'problem' doesn't exist. In practical terms, 'practicable' is broad enough that there's no need to justify leaving the bike lane, as pretty much any reason is a valid justification.
Your fearmongering about bike lanes is getting pretty boring. Do pull your head in.
Fearmongering? Fear of what?
Anyway, you're speaking for yourself, and I can't blame you for that.
It is true that for cyclists with a strong familiarity with what the law actually states, and have a relatively assertive personality, the problem does not exist. For them.
But the problem does exist for the vast majority of cyclists (not to mention potential cyclists) who are either not that familiar with the law, or not that assertive. Many of them think their obligation to ride in the bike lane is much stronger than it actually is, and so they end up riding in bike lanes when they shouldn't. For practical implications of this, look no further than the recent "Cyclist in Bike Lane" (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=358899) thread in this subforum for a very recent example of how this was arguably a factor in a tragic death. He was riding downhill at a high speed (30 mph is easy to achieve here), and yet in the bike lane, just a few few feet from the curb, going around a curve. At that speed, he obviously should have been way out in the traffic lane, to lengthen his sight lines if nothing else. But, it probably never occurred to him to ride anywhere else (laterally speaking). After all, he was in the bike lane, where he "belongs".
Fearmongering? Fear of what?
Don't be coy, Serge.
But the problem does exist for the vast majority of cyclists....
... and that's about the point I fade out. I'm fed up hearing what you think the 'vast majority' of cyclists do. There is absolutely no way you can speak with any degree of certainty about what the 'vast majority' do or do not do. It's all static, Serge.
Don't be coy, Serge.
... and that's about the point I fade out. I'm fed up hearing what you think the 'vast majority' of cyclists do. There is absolutely no way you can speak with any degree of certainty about what the 'vast majority' do or do not do. It's all static, Serge.
Is the death of a 15 year old boy all static for you, Allister. It happened right around the corner from where Gene works.
Do you know of many cyclists, as compared to all of the cyclists that you know, who would read about that story and realize that at least part of the problem was that he was going way too fast for being in a bike lane?
...what you think the 'vast majority' of cyclists do. There is absolutely no way you can speak with any degree of certainty about what the 'vast majority' do or do not do.
I think most people can readily observe how most other cyclist ride on the road (or not) and draw reasonably accurate concisions how the majority of cyclists ride in their area. Thoughtful and/or careful observers will understand and/or see that there are notable exceptions. I do note (not intending to imply I am particularly thoughtful or observant ;) ) that the way you ride as shown in several of your videos is unlike how the vast majority of other cyclists ride in my locality. I also noted that the other cyclists I noted in your videos were riding quite unlike your style.
Al
here's some video of me riding a bike lane in NYC. I leave the bike lane when it is blocked or doesn't serve my needs. I think I use the bike lane in fairly typical NY fashion.
Bike Lane in NYC (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcIAluwR9ws)
Bike lanes are defined as "a portion of a roadway that has been designated by stripes, signs, and bicycle pavement markings for the preferential or exclusive use of bicyclists." Note the word "roadway." Any state that requires cyclists to ride "as far right as practicable on the roadway" has de facto mandatory bike lanes, subject of course to the exceptions in that law.
Interesting observation. The above reflects Ontario law, but it never occurred to me that it was essentially the same as a mandatory use law (which the nearby province of Quebec has).
I have never, ever, heard of either the Ottawa Police or Ottawa By-law Enforcement tell anyone to "get in the bike lanes".... but then again, they ignore side-walk cyclists too (illegal here).
I also noted that the other cyclists I noted in your videos were riding quite unlike your style.
But they in no way represent the 'vast majority'. I see all kinds of riders around, spanning the entire scale of skill and experience (as much as I can tell as a casual observer). I also subscribe to a local bike mailing list, which accounts for at least as many cyclists as I might see over a week's commuting, most of whom have considerable on-road experience. There is also a very active road riding community here, especially on weekend mornings (lots of groups ride out to the Bayside where I live on Sunday mornings, but pretty much any day of the week groups head out somewhere around the city) Footpath riding/kerb hugging/amateurish types are in no way the majority.
I admit I don't see many ride as boldly as I do, but that doesn't mean they don't know what they're doing, nor that they're any less safe.
The upshot is that the level of road skill I observe is quite diverse, and the clueless newbie that Serge seems to think constitutes the 'vast majority' are actually quite a small proportion of riders. Any statements about what the 'vast majority' do are going to be innaccurate, and probably laden with prejudices of all kinds. Of course, it may be different in your area, but I suspect you're just not looking hard enough.
Is the death of a 15 year old boy all static for you, Allister.
No Serge, only your assumption laden analysis of it, and your ridiculous habit of extrapolating what the 'vast majority' does from a very small sample (in this case, one).
Do you know of many cyclists, as compared to all of the cyclists that you know, who would read about that story and realize that at least part of the problem was that he was going way too fast for being in a bike lane?
I know that anyone with a properly functioning faculty of reason would say that there was insufficient information in the posted article to draw that conclusion.
Of course, it may be different in your area, but I suspect you're just not looking hard enough.
What I see locally is about 75% of weekday solo riders on the sidewalk. Of those on the road pretty much all are riding far to the right very close to the curb/roadway edge and follow the contours of as far right as physically possible.
On weekend there are lots of group rides, some causal recreational and smaller groups of competitive/training. I've observed within those groups, mostly the more causal that about half ride to the very far right and follow physical contours of the right edge of the roadway. Almost all the RTOL as a thru lane.
Al
around these parts, where we have a fair percent of bike commuters for a large city in the US,
bicyclists weave in and out of the bike lane here without much issue. Certainly without any legal harassment, heads' argument of 'legal onus' is folly.
I beleive most bicyclists learn by watching other bicyclists,(not by taking classes!) and seeing bicyclists move out of bike lanes to avoid hazards is very, very common on roads in Seattle.
and bike lanes do bring advantages to bicycling in communities, csr. Don't believe the forestior hype.
bikelanes encourage on road bicycling, if implemented well bike lanes move bicyclists out of the door zone and into more visible road positions, and encourage speed differential transportation modes to mix with minimum of conflict along higher speed roads.
proper design of bike infrastructure has a ways to go in this country, but well implemented bike specific infrastructure does provide advantages for bicycling across communities.
I've never once had to justify leaving the bike lane to anyone. Ever.
That is interesting. Such events do happen around here. Anecdotally, this is an infrequent occurrence -- I personally interacted with a driver on the topic once during 5K miles of riding this year -- but I imagine that there are instances where there was no verbal communication yet the thought crossed the driver's mind.
Moreover, a bud recently got into a minor accident with an auto making a left turn onto a semi-arterial road (Wilson Blvd.). At the time, Eric left the bike lane for some reason that escapes me at the moment. When the police office took the accident report, she asked him why he was outside the bike lane even though it was irrelevant to the accident. He explained himself and then asked, "But I am allowed to take the lane ... right?" Paraphrasing, she was uncertain whether Eric's actions were legal. My conclusion is that there is a lot of uncertainty with respect to cyclists' rights -- in general and with respect to bike lanes -- among the public if law enforcement is somewhat unclear on the topic.
There are other anecdotal experiences reported on the local advocacy group; but the story is pretty much the same.
Overall, my take is that the amount of grief that "decent" bike lanes create -- which I believe is small -- is more than compensated by an improved acceptance of cyclists on the road, a higher concentration of cyclists on such roads, and more driver awareness of cyclists in such areas.
True. So what are you arguing for? The law functions fine. If stupid cops are the problem, removing bikelanes, or changing laws will fix nothing. Talk about a solution looking for a problem.
Is that the point? The law does not function fine if law enforcement and the public have difficulty understanding, remembering, or applying the law without being an undue burden.
I think that one would need to look at the specific law and its enforcement to figure out the best solution.
It's just my opinion, but if we take away the bike lane those same police officers will just find another section of the vehicle code to write bicycle riders a ticket under.
Only if for some reason they are targeting cyclists. And, in my opinion, most officers have better things to do than to think of new ways to screw cyclists.
Is that the point? The law does not function fine if law enforcement... have difficulty understanding, remembering, or applying the law without being an undue burden.
Please, get real. It's no harder to learn than any of the other laws they are charged with enforcing. Remembering it merely a matter of will.
Overall, my take is that the amount of grief that "decent" bike lanes create -- which I believe is small -- is more than compensated by an improved acceptance of cyclists on the road, a higher concentration of cyclists on such roads, and more driver awareness of cyclists in such areas.
That, I can agree wholeheartedly with.
I'm a noob. It seems to me that the position of John Forester (http://www.johnforester.com/) is pretty sound, namely, that bike lanes introduce new hazards, and slow cyclists down, without solving any problems
At the risk of sounding arrogant, the "Im a noob" is why you agree with Forester.
When you become more experienced, you will find out its not even worth debating
the 'experts' drivel. Bike lanes give you another option. A competent cyclist isnt
bound by any zealotism or philosophy and just does what they have to do to ride
safely and comfortably for them. If you dont want to use it, fine, but why not make
use of all choices/avenues available to you ? Disregarding 'expert' advice and doing
what works for you will cut about 60 degrees out of your learning curve. :)
Be safe !
Please, get real. It's no harder to learn than any of the other laws they are charged with enforcing. Remembering it merely a matter of will.
I agree with much of the statement, but as an empirical matter I believe the public, many cyclists, and police don't have a good grasp of cycling laws and rights. Maybe it is a badly written law. Maybe it is an uncaring public and law enforcement. Maybe people just have better things to do such that learning these laws/rights are of little benefit. Specific efforts to change that might have some effect in the future; but I think that until we actually see evidence of better comprehension -- even if it is our own anecdotal observations -- being "real" is assuming that there is little understanding of cycling laws and rights. Consequently, cyclists will be subject to people's personal understanding of the law in the short run; e.g., I can be written a ticket for being outside the bike lane until I prove in court that there are legal reasons for being outside the lane.
I agree with much of the statement, but as an empirical matter I believe the public, many cyclists, and police don't have a good grasp of cycling laws and rights.
That's true of a significant proportion of the road rules, not just the ones pertaining to cyclists.
Maybe it is a badly written law. Maybe it is an uncaring public and law enforcement. Maybe people just have better things to do such that learning these laws/rights are of little benefit.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
But, that said, having read some of the road rules in the US, I do agree that they can be poorly worded, if only because of the common legalese problem of trying to be too specific, and thus being overly verbose, and obscuring rather than clarifying what they're trying to convey.
The Australian rule got a complete overhaul in 1999, and one of the things they did was to get rid of all the legalese, and make it as readable as possible, using plain language. Makes it a lot easier for regular folks to understand what is required of them, which one would think is the purpose of any law.
People are still ignorant of them though, and I have my doubts that more than a handful of drivers have even looked at the document itself. The laws are not the problem.
Specific efforts to change that might have some effect in the future; but I think that until we actually see evidence of better comprehension -- even if it is our own anecdotal observations -- being "real" is assuming that there is little understanding of cycling laws and rights.
Oh I'm reminded of that daily. The important thing for me is that I know that I'm riding within the law. If anyone has a problem with what I do, they can go suck eggs as far as I'm concerned. Ignore the ignorant is my advice.
If it's a cop that's ignorant, state your case as best you can. If he lets you go, good. If not, it really is worth fighting a ticket if you were breaking no law, if only to prevent that particular cop from trying the same sh1t again. Education by attrition isn't ideal, but it's better than nothing.
Consequently, cyclists will be subject to people's personal understanding of the law in the short run; e.g., I can be written a ticket for being outside the bike lane until I prove in court that there are legal reasons for being outside the lane.
True, but again, if the law itself is not the cause of the problem, changing the law won't solve it. Ultimately, if we have bike lanes, we need to have rules about how they are to be used. No matter what they are or how they're worded, you're going to get people that aren't going to know them. Only change the rule if people are actually following it, and it still doesn't work.
Like I said, learning the rules is simply a matter of will. I should've added that I have little faith in the willpower of the general population, but if at least I know what the rules are, I can ride with a clear conscience, and ignore the chattering from the monkey gallery.
There is no legally required BL use in AZ, but there is this law which makes it less bad to kill or injure a cyclist who is not using a BL or path:
A person driving a motor vehicle shall exercise due care by leaving a safe distance between the motor vehicle and the bicycle of not less than three feet. If the violation results in a collision causing serious physical injury or death the violator is subject to a civil penalty of up to one thousand dollars. This penalty does not apply to a bicyclist who is injured in a vehicular traffic lane when a designated bicycle lane or path is present and passable.
Al
I agree with much of the statement, but as an empirical matter I believe the public, many cyclists, and police don't have a good grasp of cycling laws and rights.
That's true of a significant proportion of the road rules, not just the ones pertaining to cyclists.
But there is a difference, a big difference. With respect to the basic rules of the road, and how they apply to drivers, most people seem to get the gist of it, and they get it correctly. There are exceptions, of course, but by and large people know the rules. Most know drunk driving is illegal, though they might not know exactly how much is too drunk. They know they're supposed to signal their turns, but most probably don't know exactly how soon they're supposed to start signaling. They know to use their lights when it's dark, but they might not know exactly when they're required to turn on their lights. Etc.
But with respect to how bicyclists are supposed to behave, and how motorists are supposed to behave with respect to bicyclists and bicycling facilities, there seem to be fundamental gaps in knowledge.
True, but again, if the law itself is not the cause of the problem, changing the law won't solve it. Ultimately, if we have bike lanes, we need to have rules about how they are to be used. No matter what they are or how they're worded, you're going to get people that aren't going to know them. Only change the rule if people are actually following it, and it still doesn't work.
Like I said, learning the rules is simply a matter of will. I should've added that I have little faith in the willpower of the general population, but if at least I know what the rules are, I can ride with a clear conscience, and ignore the chattering from the monkey gallery.
But laws that are consistent with other laws and common sense don't need to be understood or even known about in order to be followed - for they will be followed naturally. This is why the underlying vehicular principles are so important - the laws and roadway designs that are consistent with them are consistent with each other, and are easy to follow, so they generally are.
The ones that are contrary to the fundamental principles are never going to be consistently followed by the vast majority, simply because they are contrary to the natural flow, and it's unrealistic to expect otherwise.
To illustrate with an extreme example, consider a law that said that at intersections in which one of the names of the intersecting streets started with the letter "A", green would mean stop, and red would mean go. That would be a horrible law, even if everyone learned about it. The reason it would be horrible is because it would be contrary to the expectations set at every other intersection: it's contradictory - it's asking to be violated.
Similarly, laws and road designs that demand through traffic in bike lanes to flow straight to the right of right-turning motor traffic are inherently bad, for the exact same reasons, and it has little if anything to do with people failing to learn the law.
But with respect to how bicyclists are supposed to behave, and how motorists are supposed to behave with respect to bicyclists and bicycling facilities, there seem to be fundamental gaps in knowledge.
It's not a knowledge problem, it's a consensus problem. There is nothing close to consensus among cyclists about how they are supposed to behave. Just read any post in this forum.
We don't get much enforcement of bike facility use around here. We don't get much enforcement of traffic rules of any kind, either, unless you run a red right in front of a police officer.
That's true of a significant proportion of the road rules, not just the ones pertaining to cyclists.
We will have to disagree here. In my experience, the practical rules that govern auto travel are generally well understood.
People are still ignorant of them though, and I have my doubts that more than a handful of drivers have even looked at the document itself. The laws are not the problem.
Definitely correct about a small proportion of citizens actually looking at the laws. Although I believe that law enforcement is much more likely to read the statues and there are generally focal points among the population with the interest to examine them. From there, their interpretations generally filter through the rest of the population.
While I believe that there is no conspiracy against cyclists, I do believe that there is a bias against cyclists in several subtle ways. The opaque nature of some laws--from what I have seen, there is variation across states--helps the bias continue.
More generally, I think that it is much more difficult to cajole and convince a population or a law enforcement department of a particular interpretation of a law rather than changing the law to be more explicit.
I agree that changing the law itself is unlikely to effect conditions--one can have the greatest law on Earth but have crappy interpretation and enforcement--on the ground. I believe that it can be the catalyst to a series of other subtle changes--law changes often help draw attention and would probably result in a change in law enforcement behavior--that together can make cycling more viable and enjoyable.
Similarly, laws and road designs that demand through traffic in bike lanes to flow straight to the right of right-turning motor traffic are inherently bad, for the exact same reasons, and it has little if anything to do with people failing to learn the law.
No, Serge, it is exactly in accordance with general traffic principles. Turning traffic gives way to any vehicle whose path they cross. It works exactly like a hook turn, which are a well established traffic principle, if a little underused. As long as everyone understands that, traffic turning across bikelanes can function quite safely. I go through several such intersections daily without incident.
The main reason the rule is misunderstood, or ignored completely is because they aren't called into play often enough. I've heard similar things about roundabouts when they started installing them in the States. People simply didn't understand how they were supposed to work, even though their correct use is exactly in accordance with normal traffic principles.
If the bike lane law needs to be changed, it really only needs the law as it is stated in simpler terms and to leave little or no room for ambiguity.
Generally, I think that it is much more difficult to cajole and convince a population or a law enforcement department of a particular interpretation of a law rather than changing the law to be more explicit.
I can agree with that. I was arguing against re-writing the law to change it's meaning. Rewording it to be clearer would be better, but still requires people to be interested enough to actually read it, let alone follow it.
You don't even need to go through the whole legal rigamarole to achieve that. Most places seem to have government issued driver's guides that explain the main rules in plain language. Just include the clearer wording in there. I'd guess more people read driver's guide leaflets than the rules themselves too, so it'd reach a wider audience.
No, Serge, it is exactly in accordance with general traffic principles. Turning traffic gives way to any vehicle whose path they cross. It works exactly like a hook turn, which are a well established traffic principle, if a little underused. As long as everyone understands that, traffic turning across bikelanes can function quite safely. I go through several such intersections daily without incident.
The main reason the rule is misunderstood, or ignored completely is because they aren't called into play often enough. I've heard similar things about roundabouts when they started installing them in the States. People simply didn't understand how they were supposed to work, even though their correct use is exactly in accordance with normal traffic principles.
If the bike lane law needs to be changed, it really only needs the law as it is stated in simpler terms and to leave little or no room for ambiguity.
A hook turn is a very specialized traffic maneuver that is explicitly controlled by traffic lights and involves turning across oncoming traffic (a left turn in the U.S.). In particular, the through traffic in both directions is stopped before those doing the hook turn are allowed to go.
And a hook turn is hardly consistent with general traffic principles - to the contrary, it's rather an oddball exception. If a driver is noticed by law enforcement doing a hook turn at an intersection which is not explicitly set up for them, he will be cited, and rightfully so. If you want to setup a special bike lane with separate lights and all that at some intersections, whatever. But that's very different from running an ordinary bike lane up to an ordinary intersection.
It's not a knowledge problem, it's a consensus problem. There is nothing close to consensus among cyclists about how they are supposed to behave. Just read any post in this forum.
It's both. I think among those of us sufficiently interested in the topic to participate in a forum like this, yes, the issue is a lack of consensus. But if you ask most people, including most bicyclists, how bicyclists and motorists are supposed to behave and interact, they only have a vague idea. When I talk about the law with most people, the typical reaction is "I didn't know that", rather than, "I thought it was this rather than that". They just don't know.
A hook turn is a very specialized traffic maneuver that is explicitly controlled by traffic lights and involves turning across oncoming traffic (a left turn in the U.S.). And a hook turn is hardly consistent with general traffic principles - to the contrary, it's rather an oddball exception. If a driver is noticed by law enforcement doing a hook turn at an intersection which is not explicitly set up for them, he will be cited, and rightfully so. If you want to setup a special bike lane with separate lights and all that at some intersections, whatever. But that's very different from running an ordinary bike lane up to an ordinary intersection.
You don't even know what a hook turn is, do you?
You don't even know what a hook turn is, do you?
We don't have them in the U.S., but that's my understanding of them. If I got something wrong, let me know.
We don't have them in the U.S...
It's probably moot talking about them in this discussion, then. Carry on.
It's probably moot talking about them in this discussion, then. Carry on.
Traffic laws and designs that direct turning vehicular traffic to turn across the path of moving (not stopped by a special traffic light as is the case, apparently, for Australian "hook turns") same-direction through traffic, are in fundamental violation of the basic vehicular traffic principles that govern traffic flow. This leads to behavior that is unexpected, which results in unnecessary crashes, injuries and deaths.
So-called bicycling advocates who support these types of designs -- bike lanes that are painted all the way up to the intersection or junction where right turns from the adjacent traffic lane are allowed (no dedicated right only lane) -- should be ashamed.
You don't even need to go through the whole legal rigamarole to achieve that. Most places seem to have government issued driver's guides that explain the main rules in plain language. Just include the clearer wording in there. I'd guess more people read driver's guide leaflets than the rules themselves too, so it'd reach a wider audience.
That is a good point.
-G
Traffic laws and designs that direct turning vehicular traffic to turn across the path of moving (not stopped by a special traffic light as is the case, apparently, for Australian "hook turns") same-direction through traffic, are in fundamental violation of the basic vehicular traffic principles that govern traffic flow.
:rolleyes:
Hook turns don't require special lights. The widest application of hook turns is in Melbourne where there are still trams running. They have signage and sometimes special lanes for streets that require hook turns, but not traffic lights.
It doesn't require anyone to turn across moving traffic. No one is allowed to complete the turn until the through lanes are clear, which is accomplished by waiting until the light turns red. The driver then continues through the turn with the rest of the traffic that was waiting at the red light in the crossing street.
For cyclists, this move is permitted at any signalled intersection as a choice if they feel uncomfartable merging across multiple lanes to make the right turn. No special signals required.
For turning left across a bike lane the same principle applies, only opposite. They are required to give way to any through traffic in the bike lane before completing a left turn - they are effectively making the turn from an outside lane, similar to a hook turn.
All of this is exactly in line with the fundamental principle that you give way to traffic whose path you are going to cross. No different in principle to giving way to through traffic coming towards you for a right turn at any regular intersection.
If there is any rule regarding this that is contrary to normal traffic rules, it's the one we have that says that cyclists passing cars on the left (kerbside) approaching a traffic light, are to give way to any vehicles turning left. This is a specific case that only applies to filtering past traffic stopped at a red light on roads without a bike lane, and is contrary to normal practice. If any rule needs changing to come into alignment with normal practice, it's this one.
:rolleyes:
Hook turns don't require special lights. The widest application of hook turns is in Melbourne where there are still trams running. They have signage and sometimes special lanes for streets that require hook turns, but not traffic lights.
It doesn't require anyone to turn across moving traffic. No one is allowed to complete the turn until the through lanes are clear, which is accomplished by waiting until the light turns red. The driver then continues through the turn with the rest of the traffic that was waiting at the red light in the crossing street.
For cyclists, this move is permitted at any signalled intersection as a choice if they feel uncomfartable merging across multiple lanes to make the right turn. No special signals required.
For turning left across a bike lane the same principle applies, only opposite. They are required to give way to any through traffic in the bike lane before completing a left turn - they are effectively making the turn from an outside lane, similar to a hook turn.
All of this is exactly in line with the fundamental principle that you give way to traffic whose path you are going to cross. No different in principle to giving way to through traffic coming towards you for a right turn at any regular intersection.
If there is any rule regarding this that is contrary to normal traffic rules, it's the one we have that says that cyclists passing cars on the left (kerbside) approaching a traffic light, are to give way to any vehicles turning left. This is a specific case that only applies to filtering past traffic stopped at a red light on roads without a bike lane, and is contrary to normal practice. If any rule needs changing to come into alignment with normal practice, it's this one.
Well, that's the key. The equivalent would be to not allow right turns (assuming U.S. conventions) across bike lanes except when the through cyclist traffic in the bike lane has a red light.
But my point is that they don't allow hook turns at intersections without turn signals. But right turns across bike lanes are allowed at any intersection, traffic lights or not, much less restricted to only those times when the bike lane traffic is stopped by a red light.
Section 7-10.13. Bicycle lanes: Use required.
No person shall ride or operate a bicycle upon a roadway adjacent to which or upon which bicycle lanes have been designated, except within such bicycle lane or except as otherwise permitted by the provisions of this chapter.
Section 7-10.15. Bicycle lanes: Leaving.
Once having entered a bicycle lane, no person riding or operating a bicycle shall leave such lane except at intersections; provided, that such person may leave a bicycle lane upon dismounting from a bicycle, walking the same, and being subject then to all laws applicable to pedestrians; provided further, that such person may leave the bicycle lane between intersections in order to make a U-turn, where such a turn is permissible for vehicular traffic or to turn into driveways on the right-hand or left-hand side of the bicycle lane. Upon leaving a bicycle lane, the rider or operator of such bicycle shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles, and shall not leave the bicycle lane until it is safe to do so.
Section 7-10.16. Bicycle lanes: Crossing by vehicles.
No person shall drive a vehicle upon or across a bicycle lane except to enter or exit a driveway, and except to park such vehicle or leave a parking space. No person shall drive or cross a bicycle lane, as permitted by this section, except after giving the right-of-way to all bicycles within the lane.
http://www.ci.santa-maria.ca.us/3033-MuniCodeTitle7.pdf
The municipal code in my town seems to have a very strict mandatory bike lane policy. While the state vehicle code lists many reasons it's ok to leave the bike lane (including the usual hazards, other cyclists, etc.) the city codes fail to list those exceptions. Further, they seem to say in the "leaving" section they want cyclists to get off their bike and walk it on the sidewalk if there's too much debris or a parked car blocking the way.
Section 7-10.16. is in direct conflict with the state vehicle code, which requires motor vehicles to merge into the bike lane prior to making a right turn.
They just recently changed Section 7-10.18. Violations. It used to be a misdemeanor (punishable by jail time and/or fine) to violate any of the bicycling ordinances; now it's just an infraction (punishable by fine only)
Then I found a few tidbits in the state vehicle code
21206. This chapter does not prevent local authorities, by
ordinance, from regulating the registration of bicycles and the
parking and operation of bicycles on pedestrian or bicycle
facilities, provided such regulation is not in conflict with the
provisions of this code.
21208. (a) Whenever a bicycle lane has been established on a
roadway pursuant to Section 21207, any person operating a bicycle
upon the roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic
moving in the same direction at that time shall ride within the
bicycle lane, except that the person may move out of the lane under
any of the following situations:
(1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle, vehicle, or
pedestrian within the lane or about to enter the lane if the
overtaking and passing cannot be done safely within the lane.
(2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a
private road or driveway.
(3) When reasonably necessary to leave the bicycle lane to avoid
debris or other hazardous conditions.
(4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.
(b) No person operating a bicycle shall leave a bicycle lane until
the movement can be made with reasonable safety and then only after
giving an appropriate signal in the manner provided in Chapter 6
(commencing with Section 22100) in the event that any vehicle may be
affected by the movement.
21209. (a) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in a bicycle lane
established on a roadway pursuant to Section 21207 except as follows:
(1) To park where parking is permitted.
(2) To enter or leave the roadway.
(3) To prepare for a turn within a distance of 200 feet from the
intersection.
(b) This section does not prohibit the use of a motorized bicycle
in a bicycle lane, pursuant to Section 21207.5, at a speed no greater
than is reasonable or prudent, having due regard for visibility,
traffic conditions, and the condition of the roadway surface of the
bicycle lane, and in a manner which does not endanger the safety of
bicyclists.
www.leginfo.ca.gov
Does Section 21206 and the other state vehicle code sections completely negate my city's municipal code? If not, it's kind of confusing having conflicting state and local laws. If so, why wouldn't the city law department notice this and change the municipal code accordingly (deleting sections the state has made laws on already, or just copying and pasting the state law)?
Previous -
Top -
Next
Copyright 1999 - 2007
BikeForums.Net - All rights reserved.
Common bike forum topics in clue bicycles, cycling, mountain biking,
cycling jerseys, shorts, socks, shoes and bike equiptment selection.